'German crew scuttled Bismarck'

scotsman ^ | 2/14/03

[knak]

THE Bismarck, the German battleship which sank with the loss of more than 2,000 sailors, was scuttled by her own crew, according to a news docu-mentary to be screened this weekend.

The Second World War flagship, the pride of Hitler’s naval fleet, sank so quickly that it must have been deliberately aimed at the ocean floor by desperate commanders, according to the programme, made by the Titanic film director, James Cameron.

Semi-crippled after an aircraft-launched torpedo knocked out her rudder, the Bismarck was hounded across the Atlantic by a chasing British naval pack.

Then, on 27 May, 1941, in what many believe was turning point in the war, the helpless and cornered battleship sank to the bottom, almost five kilometers below, as it was torn apart by an unprecedented bombardment by the Royal Navy.

Sixty-one years after the sinking, Oscar-winning Cameron assembled a team of marine experts and survivors at the site where the ship was last seen disappearing beneath the waves.

The wreck is now a ghostly grave for the 2,100 German seamen who died either from drowning or from the British bombardment. Only 116 survived.

[John H K]

Some "experts" believe an IOWA could have bested the Mushashi or Yamato because of nearly equal guns and far superior fire control.

They're right. Generally the more of a clue people have the more obvious that an Iowa was superior to a Yamato. EFFECTIVELY similar range, Iowa had higher rate of fire, Yamato had some really serious design flaws. Neophytes tend to be focused more on raw stats like caliber and tonnage.

Only way a Yamato wins is with a wave-motion gun installed.

[stevem]

This is one of those arguments that piques emotions, but is really quite meaningless. The sinking of the Bismarck started with a lucky break akin to winning the lottery. It took incredible courage and trust to luck for the British to begin the attack with the Swordfish biplanes. If they were sailing into the wind, the Bismarck may have outrun those obsolete planes.

Then, the torpdoes they shot would likely have failed if one hadn't hit the rudder. From that point the Bismarck was through. Whether she was scuttled or sunk by attack really matters not at all. Either way she wound up exactly in the spot she was meant to rest.

It's the same kind of argument as whether Davy Crocket died in the attack on the Alamo or was later executed by Santa Ana. What difference does it make? These arguments neither add nor detract from the wrenching story of what the men went through.

I always thought of Naval battles as something that can barely be imagined. So many of these throughout history have been true and absolute fights to the death. Since the advent of the ironclads you seldom even get close enough to put out the white flag, so no prize at all for second place.

I, too, have heard and read that the British had to leave the scene due to reports of U-boats in the area.

[okie01]

"You're not confusing the Bismark with the Graff Spee which was scuttled."

Thanks, but no. I'm familiar with both.

The Graf Spee was known to be scuttled off Montevideo. The Bismarck was generally thought to be scuttled. At least, so I understood.

[The Toad]

This is old news. I watched it on Discovery a while ago. A good program to watch though when it comes around again.

[Gnarly]

OOPS! The Des Moines had NINE 8X55!!

[BluH2o]

Highly unlikely, as far more of the crew would have survived with the flotilla of British warships there.

With water temperature about 48 degrees and German U-boats lurking in North Atlantic waters, not to mention British resolve to destroy the Bismark after it sank the Hood ... the Royal Navy wanted revenge.

[Axenolith]

Thats news? I read that the Germans had popped the drain plugs on it 20 some odd years ago after their pounding by the Brits...

[Axenolith]

Here's an excellent analysis site of them, broken down by their classes when compared to each other...

http://64.124.221.191/baddest.htm

[LiberalBuster]

>>If I am not mistaken, the general understanding has
>>always been that the Germans set scuttling charges --
>>insuring that the Bismarck would sink.

But that was after a US torpedo hit its rudder, which essentially made it a sitting duck. The Germans may well have done things to expedite its demise, but the end result was the same. The ship was going around in circles and it was just a matter of time before it would take sufficient blows to sink.

[Gnarly]

Yep, "luck" was with the Brits when one of those undersized 18" torpedoes from cloth & string torpedo planes hit the Bismarck rudder.

Then again, luck was with the Bismarck when they managed to find an armour flaw on the HOOD before suffering more damage themselves. Likely as not, the affair could have been more interesting if the Bismarck had encountered a "Queen Elizabeth" class BATTLESHIP, rather than a lightly armoured BATTLECRUISER.

[Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy]

The Bismarck's major conquest, as you recall, was the HOOD. The HOOD was NOT a battleship, but a WWI anachronism known as a BATTLE-CRUISER...which type failed miserabley at JUTLAND, because ...although armed like a BB, had much lighter armor protection...making them very vulnerable to BB sized projectiles.

Yes, but you forget that during that same encounter, the Bismark also spanked the HMS Prince of Wales, a modern, heavily armored battleship. The Bismark only broke off the engagement (without finishing off the Prince of Wales) because of the necessity of getting back to safe waters before it was caught by the rest of the Royal Navy; one-on-one, German battleships acquited themselves very well, but due to the fact that they were severely outnumbered by the British, they could not risk major engagments because (as the Swordfish torpedo proved) even a minor hit could doom them.

BTW, if I were to compare hit ratios, I would say that German fire control was superior to that of the British, who were certainly no slouches; the American Iowa class battleships were more modern than the Bismark, but their fire control was not necessarily superior; the Germans had fire control computers, advanced optical sights, and radar, too. I don't really see any American superiority in technology and training; and the slight advantage in size and firepower for the Iowas would not necessarily have been decisive; as per usual, it would have probably come down to who had the superior commander and crew, and the better luck.

As to the question of scuttling: it would have been very suprising had the Germans not scuttled the Bismark. They had plenty of time, once they lost control of their rudder, to realize that they were doomed, allowing them to set the charges. Once honor had been appeased by going down fighting with guns blazing, it would have been a court martial offense for the German captain not to make sure that the scuttling charges were set off. The Germans could not risk the humiliation of having one of their capital ships captured; not to mention the intelligence risk of exposing their most advanced naval weapon to enemy inspection.

[Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy]

Queen Elizabeth battleships were ancient, and slow, and about half the size of the Bismark. The Bismark could easily outrun the Queen Elizabeths if the encounter was unfavorable, and AFAIK the more modern guns of the Bismark had better range and elevation, so you would have a situation where the Bismark would have simply run rings around the Queen Elizabeth, firing from long range, where the downward falling shells would have landed on the weaker deck armor of the Queen Elizabeth class ship. It would have been no contest - the Queen Elizabeth class ship might have lasted longer than the Hood, but the outcome would have been pretty much the same.

[Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy]

Umm, that was a British torpedo, not a US torpedo. You might have forgotten, but we were not at war with Germany at the time.

It is true that Bismark was doomed either way, but the British wanted bragging rights to the claim that they "finished off" the Bismark, and the Bismark crew wanted the satisfaction that they did their duty by scuttling her rather than let her be sunk or be captured. Objectively, it does not matter either way; emotionally, it does matter. I think the evidence supports the scuttling outcome in this instance.

[Gnarly]

No. I hadn't forgotten about the HMS Prince of Wales, but as you may recall the Prince of Wales was not combat ready and still had fitting crew aboard. During the engagement some of the POW turrets and guns malfunctioned. Besides, the POW was an interwar compromise and was undergunned by WWII standards.

Yep, In that particular engagement the Bismarck's fire control was better. Iowa and Bismarck were roughly contemporaries...both being in (late 30s) violation of the Washington 35,000 limit. Most believe that the IOWAs were superior in just about every category: gun power, armor, speed and fire control. Other factors being equal, (of course there is always the ??? factor) an IOWA would have taken out the Bismarck (or the Yamato).

MOst accounts that I have read/seen about the last battle of the Bismarck was she was pretty much demolished above the armor belt....not surprising considering the power brought to bear after she lost the rudder.

[Gnarly]

Yep, you are right about the QEs being "ancient", slower and smaller than the Bismarck. They were also better armored than the Hood and had equivalent firepower. I'm not contesting the long term prognosis, just that a QE BB SHOULD have lasted longer than the armor defective Hood and just might have inflicted some serious damage.

By the way, some sources list protection against long range fire a weakness for the Bismarck. Armor designed for North Atlantic were short range flat trajectory fire was anticipated.

[Polybius]

Some "experts" believe an IOWA could have bested the Mushashi or Yamato because of nearly equal guns and far superior fire control.

"The Montanas also would have been the only American ships to come close to equalling the massive Japanese Yamato. However, World War II's urgent requirements for more aircraft carriers......"

Let me play Billy Mitchell here. ;-)

It's all irrelevant. The most cost effective way to send a battleship to Davy Jone's locker was with airpower. The Prince of Wales, the Bismarck and even the mighty Yamato were all sent to their doom by airpower.

The Bismarck was mortally wounded when a lowly Fairey Swordfish, an aviation relic, disabled it's rudder.

Swordfish from HMS Ark Royal making it's torpedo on the Bismarck

[Shooter 2.5]

There was a German U-Boat in the area and it did witness the sinking. I don't recall the name but it was ironic that the sub was out of torpedoes and wasn't a threat.

I remember a British sailor jumped into the water to save a German sailor and he was courtmartialed for leaving the ship without leave.

[Oztrich Boy]

Actually the Bismark was designed for a North Sea battle at less than 12000 yds, which is probably why it survived so long during the final pounding. At longer ranges the deck armour was vunerable.

A longer range duel with a QE might have been interesting and the result not necessarily clear cut. The QE design was old, but then the Brits were working on the basis of battle ranges in the 14-28000 yd range, and the QE deck armour had been upgraded to at least as good as the Bismark's.
And at longer ranges the QE guns, firing a heavier, slower velocity shell, could have been better deck penetrators than the lightweight higher velocity Bismark shells.

[Gnarly]

Some "experts" believe an IOWA could have bested the Mushashi or Yamato because of nearly equal guns and far superior fire control.
"The Montanas also would have been the only American ships to come close to equalling the massive Japanese Yamato. However, World War II's urgent requirements for more aircraft carriers......"

Let me play Billy Mitchell here. ;-)

Okay! ;-)

The Prince of Wales, Bismarck and Yamoto (not to mention the Mushashi) all had several things in common: thier AAA was inadequate by US standards...and they all had NO air cover against unopposed air attack.

What the IOWAS lacked in sheer size (57,000 Tons against 70,000 for the Yamato, Mushashi) they made up for with superior fire control, equally effective gun power, superior speed and maneuverablity. The Montanas had the same guns..although 1 more turret of three, slightly more armor and inferior speed. In 1943...albeit largely due to effectiveness of carrier based aircraft...there was no need for larger BBs.

On the other hand, the BBs proved very useful for bombardment and protecting the carriers. In the North Atlantic...BBs had a far more useful ship-to-ship role.

[Gnarly]

"A longer range duel with a QE might have been interesting and the result not necessarily clear cut. The QE design was old, but then the Brits were working on the basis of battle ranges in the 14-28000 yd range, and the QE deck armour had been upgraded to at least as good as the Bismark's.
And at longer ranges the QE guns, firing a heavier, slower velocity shell, could have been better deck penetrators than the lightweight higher velocity Bismark shells"

My thoughts precisement! Recalling Jutland...the British Battlecruisers were a disaster.(I believe that either 3 or 4 blew up under fire) while the QE flotilla took ...and dished out a lot of punishment without serious damage.