When James Cameron explored BISMARCK, one of the things he used was a joystick/wire controlled miniature “Alvin” that was able to get into the hull, the superstructure, etc.
He ran the Alvin along the BISMARCK’s torpedo armor belt, on the inner hull. No holes.
Now I can understand the British position. After what BISMARCK did to HOOD [and PRINCE OF WALES], they want credit for taking him out. And, as I said in my post, BISMARCK was a flaming wreck. His range finders were gone. His main guns were toast. He was going nowhere. Unfortunately for the British claims, nowhere included under water. While the DORSETSHIRE’s torpedo attack was serendipitous, it wasn’t fatal.
From the 2001 Blue Water Recoveries expedition.
http://www.hmshood.com/hoodtoday/2001expedition/index.htm
Missing Shell Plating/Torpedo Damage
http://www.hmshood.com/hoodtoday/2001expedition/index.htm
Damage to the Hull
Ballard's "analysis of the wreck not only showed extensive damage to the superstructure by shelling and some minor damage to the hull by torpedo hits, but also suggested that the Germans scuttled the ship to hasten its sinking.
This has never been proven by marine investigators but is confirmed by survivors...""...On discovering the wreck, it was found that the whole stern had broken away; as it was not near the main wreckage and has not yet been found, it can be assumed this did not occur on impact with the sea floor.
The missing section came away roughly where the torpedo had hit, raising questions of possible structural failure.
The stern area had also received several hits, increasing the damage caused by the torpedo.
This, coupled with the fact the ship sank "stern first" and had no structural support to hold it in place, suggests the stern became detached at the surface.
In 1942 Prinz Eugen was also torpedoed in the stern, which subsequently collapsed.
This prompted a strengthening of the stern structures on all German capital ships..."In fact, upon close inspection of the wreckage, it was confirmed that none of the torpedoes or shells penetrated the second layer of the inner hull.
Cameron put forward a theory to explain the large gashes observed by the Anglo-American expedition: he suggested that Bismarck suffered a "hydraulic outburst" when it hit the bottom. Cameron said the belt held, but inner forces caused the s
ides to bulge out and break in places.
Cameron sent small ROVs into the gashes and into the ship's interior.
Twice they came upon torpedo holes at the ends of long gashes.
But upon sending the tethered robots even deeper into the ship it was discovered that the torpedo blasts had failed to shatter its armoured inner walls.
All that was destroyed was an outer "sacrificial zone" of water and fuel tanks that German engineers had created to absorb torpedo hits and keep interior spaces flood free.
'The inner tank walls are untouched by any explosive force', 'So the armor worked.'
Cameron concluded that the torpedoes caused "no significant flooding"..."The third survey found no underwater penetrations of the ship's fully-armoured citadel.
Eight holes were found in the hull, one on the starboard side and seven on the port side, all above the waterline.
One of the holes is in the deck, on the starboard side of the bow.
The angle and shape indicates it was fired from Bismarck's port side and struck the starboard anchor chain.
The anchor chain has disappeared down this hole.
Six holes are amidships, three shell fragments pierced the upper splinter belt, and one made a hole in the main armour belt.
Further aft a huge hole is visible, parallel to the aircraft catapult, on the deck.
It is unclear whether this was a result of an internal magazine explosion due to a shell penetration of the ship's armour.
The submersibles recorded no sign of a shell penetration through the main or side armour that could have caused this; it is likely that the shell penetrated the deck armour only."Huge dents showed that many of the 14 inch (356 mm) shells fired by King George V bounced off the German belt armour.
Interior ROV footage showed that the "terrible destruction" the Anglo-American expedition reported was in fact to the torpedo bulges, which were designed to absorb the energy of torpedoes and plunging shells.
Underneath the torn bulge sheeting, the ship's 320 mm (12.6 inch) thick main belt armour appeared to be intact.
It cannot be confirmed by Ballard that the shell holes pictured in Bismarck's armour were full penetrations."Furthermore, Ballard's expedition revealed there were no signs of the implosions that occur when air-filled compartments succumb to outside water pressure.
This suggests that Bismarck's compartments were flooded when the ship sank, supporting the scuttling theory."The American expedition's final conclusions were strikingly different from the findings of the Anglo-American team; they estimated that Bismarck could still have floated for at least a day when the British vessels ceased fire and could have been captured by the Royal Navy, a position supported by the historian Ludovic Kennedy.
Ballard found the hull sound, adding:"we found a hull that appears whole and relatively undamaged by the descent and impact".
They concluded the direct cause of sinking was due to scuttling: sabotage of engine-room valves by her crew, as claimed by German survivors."