Bismarck: Scuttled or Sunk?

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

Tiornu
Supporter
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am
Location: Ex Utero

Re: Bismarck: Scuttled or Sunk?

Post by Tiornu »

The main problem with the "scuttled or sunk" question is the word "or."
User avatar
mike kemble
Supporter
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:17 pm
Location: Sutton Coldfield England

Re: Bismarck: Scuttled or Sunk?

Post by mike kemble »

agreed - but without concrete evidence we would have to say 'sunk'. The only positive thing is that the ship went down!!
User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Bismarck: Scuttled or Sunk?

Post by Herr Nilsson »

paul.mercer wrote:... and already
beginning to sink, it would have taken some very brave men to go back down to what must have been a hellhole to set off the charges, particularly when all they can see are their shipmates going up to the deck in an attempt to escape.
I'm not sure. Recollecting the flooding diagram I have my doubts BS was beginning to sink. IIRC no one had to go back down. The charges were placed before leaving.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Bismarck: Scuttled or Sunk?

Post by RF »

From the evidence of the engineer officer who survived, scuttling charges were detonated in the engine rooms under his jurisdiction, on the orders of the Chief Engineer. The fact remains that Bismarck was already slowly sinking anyway; the charges accelerated the process.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Bismarck: Scuttled or Sunk?

Post by RF »

Herr Nilsson wrote: I'm not sure. Recollecting the flooding diagram I have my doubts BS was beginning to sink.
This does seem to contradict the general view that the sinking process had started with water slowly immersing from the stern compartments, and left to itself the ship would have foundered.
''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: Bismarck: Scuttled or Sunk?

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Yes and no. IMHO the floodings reported by Statz were not sufficient to sink Bismarck as long as Bismarck was in battle closure condition. There should have been enough pumping capacity to make BS stay afloat. After the order to prepare the ship for scuttling, all valves (except the sea valves), doors etc. were opened and the scuttling charges were placed. With the "abandon ship" order the sea valves were opened and the time fuzes started and the crew tried to left the ship. That was the time the battle closure condition was broken and the ship started to sink. I think the scuttling charges were not crucial, but the open doors and hatches.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Bismarck: Scuttled or Sunk?

Post by lwd »

But once the order was given to abandon ship the pumps wouldn't be working much longer would they? With all the holes topside I would also expect more water to enter once control was lost and wave action reached more holes. Even without the scuttling there were torpedoes on the way as well that wouldn't have helped at all.
User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Bismarck: Scuttled or Sunk?

Post by Herr Nilsson »

How I interpret Statz’s illustration of flooding, Bismarck was damaged and had lost 2 turbine rooms, a additional boiler room and the magazines of Anton, Bruno and Dora. A few other rooms were flooded too. As I said before there was not enough damage to sink her. It’s also likely, that the flooding of the magazines was just temporarily. They could be pumped out in any case.
With the scuttling order it is likely that the pumps of the so called “Flutgruppen” were pumping water into the ship anyway. And yes, once the control was given up, wave action reached more holes and more water entered the ship, but without the scuttling order and breaking the battle closure condition, I have my doubts Bismarck would sink.
You are right that there were still enough torpedos around to sink her. I think Oels was pretty sure that this would happen. That’s why he gave the scuttling order. From the German point of view there was no other option after losing the whole main artillery. The Germans could possibly deal with the damages, but not with the danger of being torpedoed several times again.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Bismarck: Scuttled or Sunk?

Post by RF »

Do we actually know that the magazines for Anton and Bruno turrets were flooded?
''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: Bismarck: Scuttled or Sunk?

Post by Herr Nilsson »

According to Statz they were flooded.
Attachments
middle platform deck
middle platform deck
Statz0018.jpg (19.47 KiB) Viewed 2595 times
upper platform deck
upper platform deck
Statz0003.jpg (23.18 KiB) Viewed 2595 times
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Bismarck: Scuttled or Sunk?

Post by RF »

How was he made aware of it though?
''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: Bismarck: Scuttled or Sunk?

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Statz was on duty in the damage control center during the final battle. AFAIK he was responsible for the "Lenz und Fluttafelstöpselbrett" where you can see the status of all rooms.
Attachments
"Lenz und Fluttafelstöpselbrett" cutout
"Lenz und Fluttafelstöpselbrett" cutout
FSB.jpg (40.99 KiB) Viewed 2591 times
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Bismarck: Scuttled or Sunk?

Post by paul.mercer »

Gentlemen,
Thanks for your replies.
The other thing that puzzles me is the breaking off of the stern, if this happened on the surface then it would no doubt have contributed to the inrush of water - but did it break off on the surface or when Bismarck hit the bottom and started to slide? I have heard that the weakness in the stern design was also found in Prince Eugen and I think Lutzow - is this also true?
User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Bismarck: Scuttled or Sunk?

Post by Herr Nilsson »

No, the break off of the stern did not contribute to the inrush of water. The stern broke off at the watertight armored transversal bulkhead. There were damages at the ship's bottom on the other side of the bulkhead near the rudder. So this part was already flooded. The break off made no difference.
The weakness of the stern had different reasons, I think. The stern was probably already damaged by the torpedo hit. One hit of Rodney is reported to blast away large chunks of the stern. The stern was in someway "attached" to the rest of the hull. It was made of very thin steel. In contrast the rest of the hull on the other side of the transversal bulkhead was very strong and stiff.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Tiornu
Supporter
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am
Location: Ex Utero

Re: Bismarck: Scuttled or Sunk?

Post by Tiornu »

The weakness of Bismarck's stern is related to the weakness in cruiser sterns in one respect. The point of weakness is at an armored bulkhead. In Bismarck, it was the bulkhead abaft the steering compartment. In the cruisers, it was the bulkhead closing off the citadel--a more serious matter. I believe Bill Jurens has commented on the poor welding plan for Bismarck's bulkhead.
Post Reply