Talk:Last battle of Bismarck

Torpedo hit aft

Two comments by wreck investigator Bill Jurens bear on this argument, I think:

Yes, I have had a chance to look at the rudders in detail on at least two occasions. On one expedition it was actually possible to enter some of the spaces below the rudder compartment. The starboard rudder is very badly mangled and pushed forward and up into the bottom. It's very difficult to describe the damage -- it quite literally defies description -- but it's very clear that there is no possibility whatsoever of getting the starboard rudder to operate again. Damage to the center screw suggest that the immediate effect of the torpedo hit was to push the starboard rudder into the center propeller, which actually took some pieces out. Afterwards, the hydrodynamic drag was sufficient to push the rudder, the foundations of which were now very heavily damaged and distorted, aft again some distance. Some additional damage -- it's difficult to tell how much -- was probably done during the slide down the bottom. The port rudder is gone. A close-up examination of the break in the shaft suggests to me that it broke off almost immediately after the fatal torpedo hit -- it would have likely been almost broadside on to the expanding gas bubble and the fluctuations in pressure from the explosion coupled with hydrodynamic effects due to ship motion and propeller loads were more than the rudder stock could take.

---

You have been misled... Unfortunately, a great deal of rather imaginative interpretation of the 2001 Expedition videotapes, etc. has gone on, including clear mis-identifications of the projectile hit on Bismarck forward, the bogus torpedo hit near the catapult, and the second explosion of Hood's forward magazines. The same thing occurred when the aft torpedo hit was, via some survivor accounts, said to have been taken on the port side. This so confused me that we didn't actually even examine the starboard side, where the real torpedo hit occurred, until later in the investigation, wasting a good deal of valuable time. It's sad but true that in many cases these sorts of mis-interpretations have actually obscured the true picture rather than expanding it. Assuming the wreck interpretations are reliable is very risky business indeed.

In other words, the hit was starboard. End of. --Solicitr (talk) 06:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The torp attack was from port. Fact. There's a slim chance the torpedo managed to slip through the port and center prop area to explode near starboard rudder. One in a million hit. Fact too. --Denniss (talk) 11:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Interestingly, Jurens states that it is a "very risky business indeed" to assume that wreck interpretations are reliable, but then he goes on to rely on his own wreck interpretation over the many eye-witness accounts to the contrary. It is well documented that the rudders were jammed in a turn-angle by the torpedo - which is what really lead to the ultimate loss of the ship. Jurens however concludes that the port rudder broke off immediately following the hit, and states that the starboard rudder was crushed up against the hull. Had that all been caused by the torpedo hit, Bismarck would merely have steered by balancing the prop-shaft rpm, and would have escaped easily. In fact I recall seeing reports that the German crew tried to blow off their own rudders for exactly that reason, once repair attempts had all failed. It is far more likely that the observed damage was caused by a combination of subsequent shell hits, the twisting of the weakened hull when the ship capsized, and the slide down the underwater mountain long after sinking. There is also a chance that a subsequent torpedo from a cruiser struck in that area toward the end of the battle, although I am not aware of any specific account of such at hit. Wdford (talk) 12:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Someone had the idea to blow off the rudder, but Lütjens rejected it, owing to the risk of damage to the screws.

It's worth pointing out that John Moffat and Kenneth Pattisson are involved in the issue as well, with the former claiming to have hit the stern on the port side and the latter claiming the port. Parsecboy (talk) 12:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Here is some extra info - quotes from a paper published by Bill Jurens et al following a dive to the wreck in July 2001. It doesn't really chime with the quotes submitted by Solicitr above. You can download it here [1] – see page 9 in particular:

Bismarck was hit by as many as nine torpedoes during her voyage. The most serious of these, at least from an operational viewpoint, struck on the port side of the ship at the aft end of the steering compartment. A quick analysis suggests that the torpedo detonated near the port rudder, about 1 or 2 meters aft of the aft armored bulkhead of the steering gear room. The port rudder is visible above the sediments, pushed forward somewhat and turned approximately 15 degrees. The rudder blade appears relatively undamaged, but the rudder shaft itself has distorted the hull at the entry point. Some of the damage to the rudder may have been caused by the slide along the bottom. The propellers are in excellent shape, with visible portions apparently unaffected by the torpedo explosion and the slide along the bottom.

There is a large hole in the portside superstructure in way of the amidships catapult. Although this hole is much smaller than that usually associated with a torpedo hit, there remains a good possibility that it was caused by one of the torpedoes launched by the cruiser Dorsetshire late in the action. If this torpedo, set for a depth of 4.9 meters happened to be running near the surface when it arrived, it is quite possible that it struck the superstructure of Bismarck as the ship capsized. Alternative possibilities remain to be fully investigated.

Food for thought? Wdford (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, yes, it had just occurred to me to see what they said in that paper. Solicitr, what's the source for the Jurens quotes above? Parsecboy (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The above were made by Jurens on the NavWeaps forum in May 2016, after two additional expeditions. The 2001 report has been superseded. As he pointed out, initially they did not find the torpedo hit - to starboard - because they were chasing down the mistaken crew reports of a hit to port. (Eyewitness testimony is gawdawful evidence.) He further posted steering with engines was also doomed to failure right from the start, though -- again as mentioned before, this had nothing to do with the inclination of the propeller shafts. Bismarck could NOT have been steered by differential throttle- in fact, no large ship can at anything above dead slow. This 'steering with engines' idea represents a long standing 'urban myth', i.e. that the divergence/convergence of the propeller shafts had something to do with the ability to steer with engines. It's simply not true. There are no significant 'turning moments' to be gained from backing alternative engines -- ships can be 'swung' using that sort of technique when nearly stationary, and this largely has to do with pressure variations on either side of the 'deadwood' aft -- but at sea and underway it's proven time and time again to be entirely impractical. Further, backing one engine, or set of engines, whilst running an alternative set forward simply reduces one's net forward speed to near zero. Incidentally, the rudder (singular) was NOT stuck in a left-rudder configuration: the rudder-angle indicator on the bridge was stuck in that position, but the rudder itself was not really in any orientation at all other than "mangled." Bismarck effectively had no rudders, just a mass of scrap steel on one side which acted as a drag. As to "repair": in realistic terms, completely impracticable considering the situation at sea. The starboard rudder was such a mess that it would have taken a good deal of effort to remove it even in a drydock. The port rudder was gone. This was probably why the crew felt that one rudder had been repaired -- they didn't realize that they were turning an empty shaft. There was no need to 'ditch' the port rudder. It was already gone. (My examination of the wreck, and the 'stub' of the port rudder shaft, conducted from literally three feet away, suggests to me that the port rudder detached at the same time the torpedo explosion occurred or very shortly thereafter.) The starboard rudder was so badly damaged that repair was completely out of the question.

I dunno - if this is such a radical revision of the account of the action, why hasn't it been published? All we have is forum posts from someone claiming to be Jurens. I don't think we ought to be revising the established narrative based on something so flimsy. Parsecboy (talk) 10:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

It seems a bit strange that a veteran wreck diver first reports that the port rudder is visible on the wreck, is turned at approximately 15 degrees and that the rudder blade appears relatively undamaged, but years later he reports that the rudder is completely absent and was actually blown off a hundred miles away. Also, it IS actually possible to steer with engines alone - in fact Bismarck did exactly that. They were fatally slowed by having to compensate for the drag of the damaged rudder, but had the rudder been completely blown away as this blogger suggests, or locked in a midships position, they would have been able to steer capably. Not good enough for precision station-keeping, and probably not good enough to shoot accurately at long range, but plenty good enough to aim at France and steam at high speed toward their waiting air-umbrella. I don't think this blogger is the real Jurens, and I don't think this blog is a reliable source - especially not when it contradicts its own author as well as many eye-witness accounts. Wdford (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Right - I can buy missing the starboard side because they spent much of the time on the port side, but why then did they say they could see the port rudder in 2001? Were they lying then? Or is Jurens (if we assume it to actually be him) lying now? I'd much rather we see something that's been published by a reliable outfit, given the circumstances. And given all the insane crap I've seen over the years, the fact that Pattinson's son has been campaigning on this for years and has a habit of sockpuppetry to advance his cause (this most recent iteration is almost surely him), it wouldn't surprise me if he's pretending to be Jurens to give his argument an air of credibility. Parsecboy (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

IP user has identified himself as Rodney Pattisson here. From his writing one can see he's obsessed to get his "facts" to wiki even if all respected experts deny his claims. --Denniss (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm NOT any sort of Pattison at all, nor do I care about any of them. I am simply trying to see that Wiki gets updated to take account of new information. What had been believed for decades about the condition of the rudders has to yield in the face of firsthand examination of the wreck's stern- where the initial Ballard dive had not looked. If Jurens (surely a RS!) says that he personally has observed that the port rudder is gone and the starboard completely mangled, why all this insistence on trying to overcome his observations with the Old Consensus which was based on educated guesswork? It's rather like continuing to list Bormann's fate as "unknown," when in fact his remains have been identified by DNA testing. Solicitr (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I would direct you to my last couple of comments in this thread. In short, here's why I'm skeptical: this sort of revision to an accepted narrative is publication bait. Why hasn't Jurens (or anybody else involved in the expedition) published anything? And even if we assume the forum post is from Jurens (and there are significant reasons to doubt it), we don't use forum posts to write article.

I don't think anyone has accused you of being Pattison, just the horde of IPs (who clearly are Pattison). Parsecboy (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Erm, Bill Jurens has been a longstanding and respected member of the Navweaps discussion forums for years and years (along with Robert Lundgren and the late Nathan Oakun among other noted naval historians). Why in the world shopuld you insinutate forgery? It's not all that outlandish that new data forces a revision of old beliefs.

"Why hasn't Jurens (or anybody else involved in the expedition) published anything?" You mean, like this? https://www.amazon.com/Battleship-Bismarck-Design-Operational-History-ebook/dp/B07WWP9V8K by Dulin, Garzke and Jurens (2019). Unfortunately I haven't read it yet because the price tag isn't exactly in the beach-paperback range. But its very existence should answer your question.Solicitr (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

If you don't understand why one might be suspicious of someone claiming to be a noted individual on the internet, I don't know how to help you.

There are plenty of copies in libraries; surely someone can track one down. Parsecboy (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

You would have a point if someone popped up on Reddit claiming to be "Barack Obama." But if you think an imposter could pose as Jurens on NavWeaps and get away with it for a moment, I don't know how to help you.

Libraries- in case you had't noticed, all the libraries are closed due to Covid.Solicitr (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Please hold while I roll my eyes...

Where? Libraries are open where I live. And as you may have noticed, the book was published in 2019; presumably this could have been done before 3 months ago, like when this discussion started. Parsecboy (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Lucky you. Here like all "nonessential businesses" they are shut down until at least June 10. Solicitr (talk)

External link is dead

It would be a lovely addition if it still exists, but https://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=12723 ("Newsreel footage of Bismarck's last battle") is no more. It has ceased to be. It is an ex-link. 98.247.102.214 (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

War crime

Block evasion by User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What about the allegations that the sinking was a war crime? Bismarck was sailing back to port and its crew tried to surrender: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1391220/Should-sunk-Bismarck-Tormented-sailor-reveals-German-sailors-tried-surrender-ship-destroyed-costing-2-000-lives.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.111.224 (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC) The allegations are dubious, to say the least, and that's not a good source, see WP:DAILYMAIL1. Parsecboy (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC) The fact that Bismarck was "sailing back to port" is unmitigatedly irrelevant. She was an enemy naval vessel in time of war, full stop.Solicitr (talk) 00:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not a war crime to refuse a surrender offer, protection is only given at the point surrender is accepted and the men become prisoners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.18.6 (talk) 09:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

That's decidedly false - if you machine-gun somebody coming out of a trench with a white flag and their arms up, you're going to the Hague. But more to the point, don't necro old threads from a banned user that have no chance of being added to the article. Parsecboy (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

"Apparent" U-boat sighting?

What is an "apparent" U-boat sighting? Is there any documentation of it? Perhaps the British just claimed this in order to get payback for the Hood by leaving as many survivors as possible in the water. (Does anyone have information about similar situations, whether German submarines would refrain from attacking Allied ships clearly picking up German survivors out of the water?) Historian932 (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

There were no U-boats in the immediate area (as far as I'm aware). But false submarine reports were very common to all navies during this period - if you're a jumpy lookout, every piece of driftwood looks like a submarine. I don't know that there are specific examples of U-boats encountering British vessels picking up German survivors, but no doubt the action of 22 September 1914 was still very much fresh in the minds of RN officers. Parsecboy (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

There were U-boats in the area and at least two of them witnessed portions of Bismarck's final battles. See this except from the U-boat command's war diary: F.d.U./B.d.U.'S War Log 16 - 31 May 1941 on pages 79-80.

Bismarck should be listed as sunk in the infobox

For articles on naval battles, our general practice is that, if an already-sinking ship is hastened along on its way down by scuttling, the infobox lists the ship as "sunk", not as "scuttled" (see, for instance, the battle infoboxes for Battle of Jutland, Battle of Midway, Battle of Savo Island, and Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands, each of which involved the scuttling of at least one already-sinking ship [Lützow, the four Japanese fleet carriers, Canberra, and Hornet, respectively]). Given that Bismarck was already on her way to the bottom when she was scuttled, this article's infobox should list her under the German casualties/losses as "1 battleship sunk", not "1 battleship scuttled", both for consistency with our general practice for these sort of situations, and because "1 battleship scuttled" is highly misleading (it implies that the ship sank only because it was scuttled, when, in fact, it was already going down from British gun and torpedo fire and the scuttling merely hastened the end) whereas "1 battleship sunk" is a neutral and indisputable statement of fact (absolutely no one in their right mind would try to seriously claim that Bismarck didn't sink). Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 23:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Sinking from which gun or torpedo hit? The simply opened the watertight doors that contained the aerial torp hit and set off the scuttling charges. The jap cvs were just burning or burned-out hulks, Canberra was heavily damaged, immobilized and listing (I would count that as scuttling though), immobilized Hornet had to be abandoned due to enemy proximity but scuttling attempts failed and it was finished off by jap DDs. Bismarck was afloat with engines working, her superstructure was heavily damaged but the hull was still intact. You'll find a lot more discussion material on the ship's page. This has been discussed gazillion times. --Denniss (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

And yet the consensus for the page on the ship itself is to say that Bismarck was already sinking when it was scuttled (which is accurate), as opposed to the highly-misleading text in this page's infobox. As for which hits, that'd be the large-caliber battleship shells that punched clean through her belt armor (there're at least two places where this indisputably occurred, plus likely several others in areas of the armor belt that're obscured or simply haven't been looked at), plus the several torpedoes that struck her below the waterline, plus additional leakage from her prior torpedo hits, plus all the water being admitted by shell hits outside her citadel (since Bismarck's armor scheme had the rather serious flaw that her citadel didn't have enough reserve buoyancy to keep the whole ship afloat on its own), plus the normally-above-the-waterline hits that all the water admitted by all the abovementioned sources of damage would've caused the ship to settle enough to bring below the waterline and admit yet more water. Basically, "[Bismarck's] hull was still intact" is flat-out wrong (by the point her crew set off the scuttling charges, her watertight integrity had already been so badly breached, both inside the citadel length and outside it, that she was irrevocably going down); as for "afloat with engines working", (a), she was already close to no longer being afloat (and getting inexorably closer to that point), and, (b), whether her engines were working or not is irrelevant (engines don't keep a surface ship up; buoyancy does). Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 07:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

You are interpreting and theorizing something in that wasn't there. The uncontrolled flooding came from the already opened watertight doors that previously contained older battle damage from PoW and aerial torps. No torps hit her in the final battle before Bismarck's scuttling charges were set off, the cruiser torps late in the sinking process did at best cosmetical damage. I may be in error but I believe the belt armor of the wreck was fully visible, not hidden in the seabed. --Denniss (talk) 12:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

You are in error. Much of the armour belt is buried in mud. Sources state Bismarck was sinking prior to the scuttling charges being set off. Damwiki1 (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The images I have seen do not confirm your buried claim although the port side seem to be deeper in mud than the starboard side but the main belt is above the mud. As per the timeline give the watertight doors were opened before the scuttling charges were set off. As for the sinking claim is this upheld by reputable authors?--Denniss (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm with User: Whoop whoop pull up and User:Damwiki1 on this one. The Bismark was a dead burning hulk. To label it as having been scuttled on a silly technicality like this is just misguiding. MaxRavenclaw (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Bismarck's crew were ordered to abandon ship when it became apparent that the ship was sinking. Whenever a ship is abandoned, it's crew must necessarily open the WT doors to escape the sinking ship. Abandoning a sinking ship is not 'scuttling' overwise almost every ship that was sunk by enemy action would be listed as 'scuttled'. The order to abandon ship preceded the scuttling charges by a considerable amount of time. There are numerous sources that state that Bismarck was sinking prior to setting off the charges. The recent book 'Battleship Bismarck' (2019) by Jurens, Garzke and Dulin, gives a drawing of the state of Bismarck's wreck in figure 24-2 (p.481) and the accompanying text states: "Hull buried in mud approximately to normal waterline", and since about 1/2 of the armour belt is below the normal waterline, much of the belt armour and hull below cannot be inspected. The same volume goes into considerable detail about the order to abandon ship and subsequent sinking of Bismarck and concludes that scuttling merely hastened the inevitable sinking. Damwiki1 (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

As has already been discussed ad nauseum, the fact that portions of the main armor belt are not available for detailed inspection today, cannot be regarded as "proof" that the concealed portions thereof where shot to cheese. The ship started sinking due to the anti-sinking measures having been deliberately abandoned - as part of the deliberate scuttling process. The ship was floating fine up to then, as the sources make clear. Scuttling charges were then detonated in addition, to ensure that the ship sank fast enough to prevent being boarded. Would the ship have sunk anyway without the scuttling charges - due only to the hatches being opened and the pumps being reversed? Probably eventually. Would the ship have remained afloat indefinitely if the hatches were not opened and the pumps were not reversed - probably, because otherwise there was no need to scuttle in the first place. Would the ship have sunk anyway even if the crew continued trying to save the ship - the RN battleships had to return to port, and cruiser gunfire was useless, but the British would have continued the torpedo attacks until they finally succeeded, or until the Luftwaffe and U-boats arrived and ended the battle. It would have been a matter of timing, and we cannot say now how long it would have taken the RN to reach the tipping point before the U-boats wiped them out. Was the Bismarck a dead burning hulk - well the upper part was burning, below the armor deck it was still fine, the engines were still working but the rudder was not, so really a matter of definition - the ship was unable to fight back, but before the scuttling Bismarck was still afloat and still under power. Would the Bismarck have made it back to France? Highly unlikely. Could it have been captured, and analyzed to provide information useful against the Tirpitz - seemingly yes, otherwise why expend the time and the lives needed to scuttle and make sure she sank. Who is the best person to make this evaluation? Oels, who decided it was necessary to expend the time and the lives needed to detonate the scuttling charges as well, so as to overcome the ship's natural buoyancy and stability. So what caused the Bismarck to sink? Based on the best of sources, it was scuttled by its own crew. QED. This obviously doesn't suit British propaganda objectives, but Wikipedia is not a British propaganda outlet. Some sources have fudged the matter a bit, so as to reflect the actual truth while at the same time attempting to over-egg the British pudding as well. However the facts are clear if you read the entire work, and avoid jingoistic cherry-picking. Wdford (talk) 11:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Which sources? The source I provided. above, states very clearly that Bismarck was sinking prior to the order to abandon ship. Your contention that Bismarck would have floated indefinitely is not supported by the main sources and is anti-historical. Basically, you're advancing your own thesis on this: Bismarck was a Nazi supership invulnerable to the weapons of the decadent democracies, rather using than what the source material states. Damwiki1 (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

From Battleship Bismarck (2019): "Around 0915 on 27 May it was apparent to Commander Oels and Lieutenant Commander Jahreis that the ship was being severely damaged and she eventually was going to sink. There were no longer any reports from the forward half of the ship, and the bridge had not responded to any calls. Serious fires were being reported in the forward section of the ship. Telephone calls were placed to all stations, and only a few responded. Oels and Jahreis decided to take one party of men topside through the communications tube and another aft to spread the word below decks that the ship was to be scuttled."(p. 562)

At 0925 Bismarck took a 5- to 8-degree list to port, depending on the rolling response and a deeper draft than 10.2 meters that brought her main deck on the port side to the level of the sea.19 This allowed a surge of water on the main deck and, from where there were holes, the commencement of downflooding below. Hence, water accumulated on the Batteriedeck, creating a free-surface effect that started to erode stability." (page 413)

Footnote 19: "At 0930 a critical point had been reached in the transverse stability of Bismarck. With water coming onto her main deck, the ability to right herself began to diminish. The U.S. Navy Handbook of Damage Control states that when water starts collecting on the damage control deck, it is time to evacuate the ship.

Bismarck was sinking prior to the order to abandon ship.

At the moment that Bismarck sank, HMS Dorsetshire had 4 remaining torpedoes, and squadron of torpedo bombers was circling Bismarck awaiting word from Admiral Tovey to attack. Regardless of the scuttling order, the RN had abundant torpedoes left to finish off Bismarck in rapid order. Damwiki1 (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

At the time of Bismarck's sinking the Royal Navy had Bismarck surrounded by ships which witnessed Bismarck's final moments. They only ceased firing heavy shells and torpedoes into her after it was very apparent that she was sinking as her crew abandoned ship. All the major authors that have written about Bismarck's final battle state that she was suffering from uncontrollable flooding, and that that scuttling only hastened an inevitable end. Let's contrast the sinking of Bismarck with the scuttling of HMS Edinburgh. Edinburgh fought a lengthy battle and was finally crippled. The enemy withdrew and her crew was transferred to other RN ships and then she was scuttled, with no KM ships within sight. To suggest that Bismarck's sinking which was from overwhelming firepower with the RN almost alongside her as she sank, was due to scuttling is ludicrous beyond belief. Damwiki1 (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I see that you are going to repeat pushing the same POV that you pushed so long and hard at the talk page of German battleship Bismarck. You are even copying in cherry-picked text from that talk page discussion. Sad.

In the most recent work by Garzke, Dulin and Jurens (2019), there are various instances of outright contradiction – caused presumably by different views from different survivors. In these cases the authors do not usually take a side, but merely present both versions – sometimes in the same paragraph - leaving the readers to ponder the implications. Unfortunately this does leave the door wide open to selective cherry-picking.

There are three different aspects to this discussion – the known engineering data, the results of the Cameron undersea investigation, and the survivor testimonies.

The known engineering data includes the second chapter, "Bismarck Joins the Kriegsmarine", where the authors speak of the Bismarck's "superb capability to absorb damage", due in part to the extent of the protected volume, and the many subdivisions into separate watertight compartments – "probably as many as 1500" compartments.(page 63-64 eBook). They also describe the torpedo protection etc in detail. In the section "Analysis: Bismarck's state at the end": at (pages 679-680 eBook) G&D&J speak again of the stability, subdivisions and metacentric height, and state that: "As a result, it was necessary to cause massive off-center flooding to capsize and sink a Bismarck-class battleship". This flooding was caused by the scuttling process, as per Footnote 19 of Chapter 19 – see below.

In the detailed underwater inspection, the Cameron team found no evidence that the armour deck had been penetrated, nor that the torpedo bulkheads had been penetrated. They concluded that the ship had not been sunk by gunfire or by torpedoes. They concluded that the ship had been scuttled. There have been no subsequent inspections to bring new information to light, and you cannot "assume" that the areas not currently visible contain huge numbers of penetrations.

The various survivor testimonies show several contradictions between the recollections of Statz vs everyone else. Statz was a machinist's mate, and his battle-station was in the damage control centre supporting senior officers such as Oels – the Executive Officer. Just a couple of examples for illustration:

• In Appendix E – Survivors' Reports, the authors include a summary attributed to Commander Hans Oels, the executive officer. Since Oels died in the battle, he cannot have submitted a "survivor testimony", and this is presumably more extracts from Statz, who was present at the damage control centre. This section includes two consecutive sentences: "There were no longer any reports from the forward half of the ship, and the bridge had not responded to any calls. Serious fires were being reported in the forward section of the ship." (page 872 eBook). The authors here are disclosing that there were no reports, but also that there were reports. A bit of a serious contradiction. One needs to carefully avoid cherry-picking.

• Footnote 19 of Chapter 19: The Final Battle: Prelude (G&D 2019 page 914 ebook), states as follows: "From this point on [after 09h30] Bismarck was sinking slowly, but her very large metacentric height kept her afloat." The "sinking" point from Statz, the floating part from all other evidence. One needs to carefully avoid cherry-picking. The full paragraph from Footnote 19 also states that "When Commander Oels gave the scuttling order around 09h30, this command ensured that significant sinkage would occur, and downflooding would start below as the crew made their way topside through watertight hatches that would be left open in the Batteriedeck. This flooding ensured an increasing overturning moment to bring about capsizing to port." Clearly, it was only the order from Oels to open the hatches etc that caused flooding below decks to START. Another blatant contradiction in that same paragraph, yes?

There is mention of "extensive flooding forward and aft", but this clearly consisted of leaking from the battle-damage from Prince of Wales (on the bow), and from the aerial torpedo hit (at the stern). The ship had been listing to port ever since, but Bismarck's crew had been managing this successfully for days, including while steaming at high speed in a serious storm.

The sources agree that Oels gave the order to scuttle sometime between 09h15 and 09h30, at which point damage control and counter-flooding activities were deliberately halted and water-tight doors were opened, to allow the ship to sink. Even Statz confirmed this. G&D&J specifically mention the water-tight doors connecting the machinery spaces with the shaft alleys – at least two of which were long since flooded due to leaking seals, caused by the torpedo hit days earlier. Once those doors were open, the engine rooms etc would effectively have started slowly "flooding" through those seals, as well as with water coming down from above through the now-open hatches. Statz remained in the damage control centre for at least ten minutes after Oels gave this order, so the "progressive uncontrolled flooding" he spoke of would have been as a result of the deliberate scuttling process post 09h30 - the flooding had been controlled until then.

Notwithstanding, when the machinery spaces were abandoned half an hour later after setting the fuses, the lights were still on, the engines and generators were still running, and the survivors saw little water down below. The "progressive uncontrolled flooding" was thus clearly not a major issue until after the scuttling charges detonated.

Conclusion - the authors mention that the ship was sinking before the charges detonated – however slowly – but this was due to the deliberate opening of the water-tight doors and hatches after 09h15. Before 09h15, things were much different. Please avoid cherry-picking.

I agree that HMS Dorsetshire had 4 remaining torpedoes. However those cruiser torpedoes had been ineffectual up to then, so the possible effect of the last four torpedoes is highly speculative. The British aerial torpedoes were smaller and even less powerful, so they would have had even less effect, assuming the pilots could even hit the ship in those weather conditions. The cruiser guns had already been shown by G&D&J to be ineffective. Speculating on what would have happened if the Bismarck had not been scuttled, does not change the fact that Bismarck actually was scuttled.

The consensus has long been that the Bismarck was scuttled by its crew. How alternative realities MAY have worked out, is irrelevant speculation. Please cease your relentless POV-pushing. Wdford (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The Battle of Midway lists the Japanese carriers as sunk, despite them having been technically scuttled by their crews. How is this different? MaxRavenclaw (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

completely burned-out hulks. Technically they were scuttled after receiving catastrophic damage with fires from hell burning everywhere, powered by aviation fuel pouring down into almost every ship section. BTW Lexington CV-2 is set as scuttled in infobox. History seem to be written from the perspective of winners or at least national bias influences some articles.--Denniss (talk) 11:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't work on the Midway article, and I am not familiar with the details. However the warships Admiral Graf Spee and USS Lexington and the Italian cruiser San Giorgio are correctly listed as scuttled, as is the Bismarck, so perhaps you should correct the Midway article? I note also that the British cruisers HMS Coventry (D43) and HMS Edinburgh (16) and HMS Southampton (83) and HMS Manchester (15) are all reported on Wikipedia as having been scuttled, despite this being precipitated each time by incapacitating battle damage. Why the double standard indeed? Wdford (talk) 12:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Ships are typically listed as scuttled when they were sunk by their crews, when out of contact with the enemy and this applies to every RN, USN and RMI example of scuttling listed above. Bismarck was surrounded by RN ships which were firing into her, until her last moment. There is a double standard being used here. At Midway the USN carriers exercised undisputed surface sea and air control, and had inflicted severe, progressive. uncontrollable damage to the four IJN carriers, just as the RN had inflicted uncontrollable damage (flooding),and an inevitable sinking, to Bismarck, which prompted the order to abandon ship and scuttle. Hence the IJN carriers are listed as 'sunk', not scuttled.

Bismarck's crew abandoned ship and had to open, and leave open, watertight doors to do so. This is not scuttling - scuttling is the act of opening the hull to let water in. Opening the hatches to flooded shaft alleys would have caused the Engine (turbine) Rooms to flood almost instantaneously; this would have been an almost certain death sentence to anyone opening said hatches with over 10 metres of water pressure upon the hatches, as would be true elsewhere.Damwiki1 (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

And so your POV-pushing is now reduced to concocting a very selective and self-serving "definition" of scuttling. Scuttling is where a ship is sunk by its own side – however they manage to do it. Contrary to your personal view, in the aftermath of Midway the USN carriers did not exercise undisputed surface sea and air control (assuming that this is at all relevant here), and certainly this was not the case either after Lexington suffered "severe, progressive, uncontrollable damage" in the Battle of the Coral Sea. The British cruisers I listed above ALL suffered "severe, progressive, uncontrollable damage" in their respective engagements, which is why they were scuttled in the first place – otherwise they would have merely sailed slowly home to be repaired.

The G&D&J source clearly states that Oels ordered the damage-control countermeasures to be halted and the watertight hatches to be opened so as to allow the ship to sink, which obviously resulted in subsequent "progressive uncontrolled flooding" - "this command ensured that significant sinkage would occur, and down-flooding would start below". But you already know this. And surely nobody was expecting any crew members to evacuate the ship via the shaft alleys, were they?

You are also wrong about the pressure in the flooded shaft alleys. G&D&J plainly state in several places, including "Analysis: Bismarck's State at the End" (page 683 eBook), and in the Gerhard Junack section of the Survivor's Reports (pages 843-844 eBook) that the watertight doors to the shaft alleys were deliberately opened on Oels' orders before the fuses were set – and yet Junack etc survived. This was because the water was entering through damaged prop-shaft seals – the bottom of the ship was still intact, and the shaft alleys were not wide open to the ocean. Once again, your blatant WP:OR has been disproved by a simple reading of the sources.

Please quit this tiresome POV-pushing. Wdford (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Why didn't you respond to this sentence: "Ships are typically listed as scuttled when they were sunk by their crews, when out of contact with the enemy and this applies to every RN, USN and RMI example of scuttling listed above." The IJN was not in contact with Lexington when she was scuttled, and did not exercise undisputed air and surface control over the area. The surviving IJN ships at Midway withdrew from the immediate area of their four fatally damaged carriers, and thus the USN had undisputed control over the area (with undisputed air control after Hiryu was fatally damaged). and they used that advantage to pursue the IJN and inflict further damage. Again, anytime a crew abandons ship. they must necessarily open watertight doors and leave them open to allow the crew to escape, this is not scuttling. The shaft alleys would still be pressurized to 10M depth, so this part of the scuttling account is highly suspect. Cameron, Jurens, Garzke and Dulin all state that Bismarck was sinking from uncontrollable flooding, in their various works on this topic. In Battleship Bismarck (2019) they state clearly that the realization that Bismarck was sinking, led to the decision to abandon ship and hasten her end via scuttling. None of the RN ships listed above were sinking but had suffered a permanent loss of propulsive power, and were too far from an Allied port to be towed back. Damwiki1 (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

And still you repeat your tendentious POV.

First, the leaks in the shaft alleys were small enough that the flooding was controllable. This would be obvious if you read the sources objectively, and without desperately cherry-picking sentences to support your POV. Where the G&D&J source contradicts itself, the picture does become a bit uncertain, but the source is actually very clear on this point, which it repeats more than once.

Second, the famous " uncontrollable flooding" came from the German crew having opened the hatches to deliberately allow water to enter the citadel from above, and opening the shaft alley doors to allow water to enter from below. This was combined with deliberately ceasing efforts to control the flooding, and all of this began at around 09h15 to 09h30. This deliberate effort to help the ship to sink, is part of the scuttling process. The G&D&J source is clear on this.

Third, the G&D&J source made it clear that Oels decided to scuttle when he was informed that the last of Bismarck's guns had been destroyed, and that the ship was no longer able to fight. The source repeated this fact multiple times. Again, you are desperately cherry-picking, and ignoring all statements which contradict your POV.

Fourth, the G&D&J source made it clear that the British battleships had been ineffectual in sinking the Bismarck by gunfire, and were now withdrawing. The G&D&J source made it clear that the cruiser guns were unable to sink the ship, and that the torpedoes were unable to sink the ship.

The RN abandoned wounded men in the ocean based on the purported concern that U-boats were in the area and were able to sink the British cruisers, and you added sources which confirmed this, so clearly the RN was not actually in undisputed control of the area.

So as we determined from the long discussion recently at German battleship Bismarck, your entire POV rests solely on your personal WP:OR definition of scuttling. Since WP:OR is not permitted, you have no case, and your POV has no base. Please cease this tendentious POV-pushing. Wdford (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The U-boats were out of torpedoes, and they were so numerous that they rescued a total of 5 survivors - ironically, if they had cleared the area, then hundreds more would have survived, but the fact remains that at the moment of her sinking Bismarck was surrounded by RN ships. Prior to Tovey's battleships engaging, Bismarck had suffered several thousand tons of flooding via two 14in hits from Prince of Wales and several thousand tons of additional flooding from at least two torpedo hits, so there was lots of water in Bismarck inside her citadel and well below her armoured deck, which in turn triggered uncontrollable flooding as Bismarck began taking further hits. Damwiki1 (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Let's consider 'having opened the hatches to deliberately allow water to enter the citadel from above'. How do you open a hatch in a compartment above that is flooded? Bismarck's crew were ordered to abandon ship and they left hatches open behind them as they escaped. The earliest reference we have to the decision to abandon Bismarck is for 0915, which is before Bismarck's guns ceased fire, and this was due to the breakdown in her internal communications and chain of command. Damwiki1 (talk) 14:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Merely repetitive tendentious POV-pushing.

The water taken on from the battle which destroyed the Hood was minimal in relation to the buoyancy of the Bismarck, and this flooding had been easily controlled for about three days already, including during a long high-speed chase in poor weather. The sources are clear that the eventual "uncontrolled flooding" was started by the deliberate decision of the German commander to cease controlling the flooding, and to open all hatches so as to exacerbate this flooding.

They didn't open a hatch in a compartment above that is flooded. They opened all the sealed hatches that could be opened, and allowed uncontrolled flooding to start as the storm drove huge waves onto the deck. The sources state that Oels finally made the scuttling decision when all the guns were gone and the Bismarck could no longer fight. The Bismarck's guns were gone by 10h31, give or take a minute, so the decision was made then. The order to cease counter-flooding and open the hatches was given then, but detonating the charges took a bit more time. This is all perfectly clear from the sources, as you already know.

The sources state (in Appendix D – The Scuttling Debate; page 809 eBook), that when Tovey left the battle area in KGV, he was convinced that the Bismarck was sinking and would never reach port. However this was at around 10h20, after the down-flooding from the open hatches had been in progress for about 50 minutes, and the scuttling charges had long since been detonated as well. The final torpedo attack from the Dorsetshire took place when the scuttling had virtually sunk the Bismarck already, and the torpedoes that didn't miss, quite possibly impacted on the armour belt and did nothing. The final torpedo is said to have hit the superstructure, which by then was already under water.

Some of the deployed U-boats had expended all their torpedoes, but others were fully armed. The sources state (in Analysis – Bismarck's State at the End; page 679 eBook), that Tovey was "still frustrated at the inability to sink the Bismarck wreck. With the fuel situation in his ships a problem and worried about potential threats of an air attack from the Luftwaffe and a possible submarine attack, he finally ordered Dorsetshire to sink the wreck with torpedoes". Tovey had no idea of the location of the U-boats or how many torpedoes they had left, but the source is clear that Tovey did not feel like he had "undisputed control of the area". Not that this affects the reality that Bismarck was scuttled by its own crew. Wdford (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

No, Bismarck was sunk by Royal Navy gunfire. Consider the scuttling of the German High Seas Fleet at Scapa Flow, when they had days to prepare and even bored holes in the bulkheads to speed the flooding, and you'll note that it was 40 minutes before any of the ships even started to list visibly and six hours before the first one sank -- and some of them never sank at all. Blowing the engine-room seawater coolant pipe, the standard 'Versenkung' procedure, just doesn't sink a battleship in ten minutes. It's also a matter of record that survivors of the Bismarck told their Royal Navy interrogators that the engineering officer Gerhard Junack, who claimed to have blown scuttling charges in the engine room (not that it would have made a blind bit of difference by then), was untrustworthy, not least because he had previously been a Gestapo officer. Khamba Tendal (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

We have had this discussion with you before. You failed then, and it is not going to change now. Please stop your tendentious POV-pushing. Wdford (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

More support for the 'unsinkable nazi super ship theory', in plain disregard of the most recent published sources. Damwiki1 (talk) 04:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

We have had this discussion with you before as well. You failed then, based on the most recent published sources, and it is not going to change now. Please stop your tendentious POV-pushing as well. Wdford (talk) 10:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

It simply was not physically possible for the scuttling procedure (see the scuttling of the High Seas Fleet at Scapa Flow in 1919) to have had any measurable effect between the time it was supposedly initiated and the time that Bismarck sank. It is a complete irrelevance. And the tendentious POV-pusher is not me. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

But you are one of the POV pushers and you still have no evidence for what you claim. Denniss (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Determined to avenge the sinking of .. HMS Hood? or to neutralise a threat?

The Background section has an unsourced statement tht the Brits' reason for making Bismark such a priority was "to avenge the sinking of the "Pride of the Navy" HMS Hood in the Battle of the Denmark Strait". My impression is different: tht Bismark was a strategic threat, to Atlantic shipping; this was a first-class problem for the Brits; the threat justified maximum response; and the RN command decision was on that basis not pride / revenge.

The propoganda benefit from the sinking would also be of obvious great value, on the Home Front and elsewhere; but my understanding is tht that was a secondary consideration (at every level - RN command and national political). Any sources etc on this? - on the basis for the tactical, strategic and political decision-making? 84.9.118.19 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Churchill's 'Sink the Bismarck' signal was prompted by the sinking of HMS Hood, but it was in any case a British priority to sink the raider, preferably on its maiden cruise, to deter future German surface raiding in the Atlantic. In this the British were successful, the Bismarck's fate being a horrible lesson. The surviving raiders, Prinz Eugen, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, were penned up at Brest getting bombed by the RAF until the 'Channel Dash' in February 1942, when they ran for German home ports. Though this was considered a German success at the time, Scharnhorst was disabled long-term by hitting RAF mines during the voyage, Gneisenau was immediately written off by RAF bombing at Kiel and the Prinz was badly damaged by a British submarine. No German surface raider ever troubled the Atlantic sea lanes again. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)