2,000 tons of seawater in Bismarck's forecastle!

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.

Moderator: Bill Jurens

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: 2,000 tons of seawater in Bismarck's forecastle!

Post by dunmunro »

I don't think the interrogation report and KM war diary entry are mutually exclusive. A detonation of the shell would be expected due to the armour plating on the port side, and a shell burst would add extra momentum to the forward part of the shell and allow it to continue through the starboard side.
User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: 2,000 tons of seawater in Bismarck's forecastle!

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Oh, I think they're very different:
"...exploded on the starboard side, within the ship, at the level of the middle platform deck, making a hole in the ship's side 1 1/2 metres in diameter under water..."

"...exit starboard above the armoured deck." This means at least above the upper platform deck, which was armoured, or above the level of the main armoured deck.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: 2,000 tons of seawater in Bismarck's forecastle!

Post by dunmunro »

Herr Nilsson wrote:Oh, I think they're very different:
"...exploded on the starboard side, within the ship, at the level of the middle platform deck, making a hole in the ship's side 1 1/2 metres in diameter under water..."

"...exit starboard above the armoured deck." This means at least above the upper platform deck, which was armoured, or above the level of the main armoured deck.
The problem is that the observed damage and flooding of Bismarck forward, seems to me to be inconsistent with the shell not exploding.
User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: 2,000 tons of seawater in Bismarck's forecastle!

Post by Herr Nilsson »

:think: What is the observed damage and flooding? There are so many versions that I don't know to which one you're referring.
On the other hand, don't you think that a good battleship commander should know the damage more than 3 hours after the end of a battle?
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
User avatar
RNfanDan
Supporter
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:06 pm
Location: USA

Re: 2,000 tons of seawater in Bismarck's forecastle!

Post by RNfanDan »

In regarding the semaphore signal between ships: It's not what was known, it's what was given to Brinkmann. It's both a message of concern and what he wanted Brinkmann to know. He put a spin on it that veils the rest. Unreliable for any serious forensic examination.
Image
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: 2,000 tons of seawater in Bismarck's forecastle!

Post by dunmunro »

Herr Nilsson wrote::think: What is the observed damage and flooding? There are so many versions that I don't know to which one you're referring.
On the other hand, don't you think that a good battleship commander should know the damage more than 3 hours after the end of a battle?
The observed damage is the photos of Bismarck with her bow very low in the water after the DS battles. The signals were very brief and not meant to do more than convey the bare minimum of information.
User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: 2,000 tons of seawater in Bismarck's forecastle!

Post by Herr Nilsson »

dunmunro wrote: The observed damage is the photos of Bismarck with her bow very low in the water after the DS battles. The signals were very brief and not meant to do more than convey the bare minimum of information.
What if Bismarck is just pitching? There's also a picture with her bow out of the water. :?
http://www.kbismarck.com/photo052.html
And yes, it's a minimum of information and therefore it should only contains pure facts. So why Lindemann says "above armoured deck" and not "middle plattform deck". For what reason he should do that, if this is a wrong information?

RNfanDan wrote:In regarding the semaphore signal between ships: It's not what was known, it's what was given to Brinkmann. It's both a message of concern and what he wanted Brinkmann to know. He put a spin on it that veils the rest. Unreliable for any serious forensic examination.


:shock: Where did you find this information? What's your source?
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: 2,000 tons of seawater in Bismarck's forecastle!

Post by dunmunro »

Herr Nilsson wrote:
dunmunro wrote: The observed damage is the photos of Bismarck with her bow very low in the water after the DS battles. The signals were very brief and not meant to do more than convey the bare minimum of information.
What if Bismarck is just pitching? There's also a picture with her bow out of the water. :?
http://www.kbismarck.com/photo052.html
And yes, it's a minimum of information and therefore it should only contains pure facts. So why Lindemann says "above armoured deck" and not "middle plattform deck". For what reason he should do that, if this is a wrong information?

RNfanDan wrote:In regarding the semaphore signal between ships: It's not what was known, it's what was given to Brinkmann. It's both a message of concern and what he wanted Brinkmann to know. He put a spin on it that veils the rest. Unreliable for any serious forensic examination.


:shock: Where did you find this information? What's your source?
this is an extract from Bismarck's war diary:

Status: During the battle that transpired on 24 May 1941, from 0555 until 0601, between the
battle group of ``Bismarck'' and ``Prinz Eugen'' and the English units ``Hood'' and ``King George''
(as became apparent later, it was ``Prince of Wales''), ``Hood'' was sunk by ``Bismarck'' and ``King
George'' was forced to turn away. ``Bismarck'' sustained two serious hits, namely one in
compartments [sections] XIII­XIV and the second hit in compartments [sections] XX­XXI. The
first hit caused the loss of Generator Plant No. 4, and additionally, the portside Boiler Room No.
2 was taking on water, but that [flooding] could be contained. The second hit which entered from
the port side and exited on the starboard side above the armored deck, caused a reduction in
speed to 28 kn. Additionally, ``Bismarck'' had a prominent trailing oil slick caused by the damage
to the forward oil tanks.
According to the testimony from survivors rescued by German units (testimony is attached as
attachments 2­7), the repairs of the damage from the hits were dealt with by the damage control
unit by rigging a hose line to pump the oil from forward to the ship's aft bunkers. This supposed
to alleviated the burying of the bow.
Furthermore, attempts were made to establish a
[watertight] seal of the outside hull using futhering sails.
Since 23 May, as of 1922 hours, hostile surveillance vessels, consisting of one battleship and
one heavy cruiser, continued their contact. (see War Diary of the Cruiser ``Prinz Eugen'').
Our own formation steers 180º. Speed 27 kn. Cruising formation is in single file in the wake of
``Prinz Eugen'' who is in the lead.
Position on 24 May 1941, after 1200 hours fix: 60º 38' North, 38º 16' West.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: 2,000 tons of seawater in Bismarck's forecastle!

Post by RF »

Can I ask how this copy of the war diary managed to survive, as I was under the impression that the diary for this time period was lost with the ship.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: 2,000 tons of seawater in Bismarck's forecastle!

Post by Herr Nilsson »

@dunmunro
dunmunro wrote:
this is an extract from Bismarck's war diary:
........

OK, I understand, but this is part of the reconstructed KTB. It is a possible interpretation of the debriefing reports, which are also mutually contradictory.

However, I still have the feeling we're talking at cross-purposes. I'm talking about the path of the shell and you're talking about a possible detonation of the shell.
By the way there is the witness account of Manthey who says: "An ordnance mate who belonged to my gun [crew] told me that the hull plating had been ripped open; others insisted that the projectile transited without detonating." :?

Once again we have the unfortunate situation that one's word is against another's. But in my opinion a first hand official statement is more reliable than the second hand memories of someone. The visible entry and exit holes in the forcastle perfectly matches to the Lindemann semaphore signal and not to the debriefing version.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Vic Dale
Senior Member
Posts: 903
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:53 pm

Re: 2,000 tons of seawater in Bismarck's forecastle!

Post by Vic Dale »

Bismarck's KTB was recosntructed. SKL had PG's War Diary and will have been able to see this signal there.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: 2,000 tons of seawater in Bismarck's forecastle!

Post by dunmunro »

Vic Dale wrote:Bismarck's KTB was recosntructed. SKL had PG's War Diary and will have been able to see this signal there.
and they had access to Bismarck survivors, as referenced in the reconstructed war diary.
User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: 2,000 tons of seawater in Bismarck's forecastle!

Post by Herr Nilsson »

It's an old thread, but this hit is still a mystery to me. Is there any reasonable cause to store fuel oil in compartements XX-XXII on May 24th at all?
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Olaf
Member
Posts: 103
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 9:17 pm
Location: Flensburg, Germany
Contact:

Re: 2,000 tons of seawater in Bismarck's forecastle!

Post by Olaf »

Well, it surely wasn't new to them that all the capital ships were pretty wet forward. It would have been the most logic to get rid of that weight forward as soon as possible - just consume it, which then could enable you going faster - maybe by a knot - during the critical break-through. With this in mind, the reason why Lütjens did not refuel in Norway appears under a new light. It could have been that they had eaten up the forward fuel during the transit Gotenhafen > Bergen. This in turn means that I doubt that there was any fuel left in the forward bunkers on May 24th (btw. is it a fact, that there actually were fuel bunkers located in the foreship?). Do not refuel the ship in Nroway to squeeze that extra knot out of her, speed up during the break-through and go for the nearest tanker, fill up and start sinking merchants. I think that was the plan.

Since the entrance and exit hole are above the waterline, with apparently not a single fuel bunker ruptured, it is doubtful that the oil trace was because of this damage. Secondly, I doubt the 2,000 tons of seawater. It sounds unbelievably high ...

Happy guessing ~ Olaf!
Why the Navy? Well,.... I was young and short on money...
http://linerpara.de
User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: 2,000 tons of seawater in Bismarck's forecastle!

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Hi Olaf,

there were reserve fuel bunkers in compartement XX-XXII.
It was standard procedure to consume this fuel first. I agree that the trim would have been very negative regarding speed. That's why I'm asking. I see absolutely no reason to store fuel in that compartements, if it's avoidable. It makes no sense.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Post Reply