Naval History Forums

There have been a number of expeditions to the wreck of Bismarck and new evidence has been uncovered. We now have confirmation that the torpedo hit that crippled the battleship came obliquely from the starboard side of the ship and hit on or in the vicinity of the starboard rudder. The damage to the starboard rudder indicates that in all probability that the rudder was the victim of the torpedo hit. What is intriguing and difficult to reconcile is the absence of the port rudder. There is a clean hole where the rudder stock was. I would be interested for reasons for the latter

Was the crew capable of decoupling it and letting it fall through, assuming someone managed to get to it? I know at least one account said it was impossible to access due to water surging in and out of the compartment.

How did you determine that the torpedo actually hit the rudder?

Indeed, as far as I know it has been the hit on the ocean bottom which caused the huge damage on the remaining rudder (which it should be even the cause of the lacking of the port one), not the torpedo hit...

Ciao Bill, Bgile Matthias and all,

you may want to read this post and find some interesting infos :

http://p069.ezboard.com/falltheworldsba ... 2160.topic

the Bismarck survivor is still alive and quite sharp and I have 2 sure witnesses of his word to me as they both helped me on the German to English translation of his words.

Cioao Antonio

Yeap, I second that, since I was one of the translators

Cheers,
George

Ciao George and all,

thanks for the confirmation, support and nice teamwork my friend.

It was a great time,..lots of fun and beer,..and as you can see we were able all together to have some accomplishments done, .. as those statements are very precious and now preserved forever I hope.

Ciao my friend Antonio

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Ciao George and all,

thanks for the confirmation, support and nice teamwork my friend.

It was a great time,..lots of fun and beer,..and as you can see we were able all together to have some accomplishments done, .. as those statements are very precious and now preserved forever I hope.

Ciao my friend Antonio

Wait! Lots of beer? How can we take a translation that could have been based upon a alcoholic haze? LMAO

I'm just kidding.

It's an incredible piece of work, and one that I thoroughly enjoyed.

You both are to be commended for it. :)

Thank you for preserving this piece of history.

Hello all.

With regards to the OP's statement on the port rudder "There is a clean hole where the rudder stock was.". Without being rude in any way i have never seen any image or evidence of this clean hole. Perhaps someone can help out there.

If the crew were able to let the port rudder fall through, they must have had some sort of access to it. If this was the case, could the crew not have turned the port rudder to the exact opposite angle of the damaged starboard rudder independently, in some sort of attempt to stabilise the ship and give trying to steer with the shafts a slightly better chance ?

Thanks for any replies.

I don't think there is any evidence that the crew were able to do this. In fact, the rudder compartment was open to the sea and water was surging in and out, making it almost impossible to accomplish anything in there.

The rudder was most likely stripped off the ship either on impact with the sea floor or while sliding down the sea mount to the ship's current position.

I always wondered, if the remainig rudder is the starbord rudder for sure.
It's almost unbelievable.

The remaining rudder is the starboard rudder. For certain.

The 'clean hole' statement may just represent a poor choice of phrasing. The rudder stock broke off just inside the outer surface of the collar where the rudder passed through the shell plating. (exactly WHEN it broke off, remains somewhat conjectural.) So it's a 'clean hole' all right, but it's not very deep, only a few centimeters at best. It's certain that the rudder was not dropped out through the hole. Mr. Garzke and myself have viewed the videotapes together, and -- I am sure -- concur on this.

Bill Jurens

Bill. The torpedo hit on the starboard side; the starboard side rudder still remains, and the port ruder is entirely missing. Interesting.

Yes. My observations suggest that the torpedo actually struck -- or exploded very near to -- the starboard rudder. Probably, the starboard rudder was not detached because it was essentially 'end-on' to the shock wave, i.e. had a knife-edge pointed towards the explosion. It ended up getting pushed forward into the propellers. It's my feeling that the port rudder failed because it was 'side-on' to the blast and thus presented a great deal more surface area that the starboard rudder did. To me, the actual path of the torpedo prior to impact remains conjectural.

Bill Jurens.

Hello Bill,

thank you for clarification. I've brooded over the pictures for several years now and it still keeps bothering me how it is possible for the starboard rudder to extends into the port side so much. Is there any simple explanation?

Bill, as you said we don't know the actual trajectory of the torpedo, but since they were parallel rudders, shouldn't they always present the same angle?

If the ship had hit the sea bottom stern first, I would be inclined to think the rudders were smashed by the impact, thus, explaining why now only part the port rudder remains. But the ship hit the bottom bow first, right?