How did you come to be interested in Bismarck?

[lwd]

Especially when you look at things like:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTGER_WWII.htm
GErman F5 torpdeo "Dropping speed was 75 knots "
Concerning the F5b "The L2 tail permitted increased dropping speeds and heights, the maximums actually achieved were 183 knots"
Even the Italian Fiume (GErman designation LT350) "Dropping conditions were about 150 "
Or the US MK13 "The early models were handicapped by the need to drop them low and slow - 50 feet (15 m) and 110 knots "
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_WWII.htm

Furthermore planes not headed directly in could evidence even slower radial speeds.

[tommy303]

The thing is, I have never seen any real evidence that the German fire control for the heavy Flak was unable to deal with slow torpedo bombers like the Swordfish. Certainly, within a short time Tirpitz was shooting down similarly slow attacking Albacores. I am not sure where the idea came from that the Flak system was optimized for faster aircraft, but the first time I heard that was on a History Channel presentation on the Bismarck. I personally believe the actual causes of the poor shooting on Bismarck was the very short, prematurely curtailed Flak training, the absence of the two after Flak control directors, and the presence of the older heavy flak mounts which were not properly integrated with the fire control system. Regarding the first point, the poor weather, mechanical problems with the ship, and lack of close cooperation with the Luftwaffe meant that only one or two Flak shoots had been carried out before the SKL sent Bismarck on her way. The missing directors were the result of selling them to the USSR as part of the Anglo-German trade agreement; replacement ones were being manufactured, and were to have been fitted in Brest when Bismarck got there after the mission. The use of older, slower mountings for half of the heavy Flak was the result of delays from Rheinmetall-Borsig. Again, the newer mounts were to be fitted in Brest.

Quite simply put, Bismarck was not 100% battle ready when the Germans sent her out to meet her destiny.

[José M. Rico]

Guys, guys, guys, this thread is to tell us how did you come to be interested in Bismarck, remember?

[Valdi]

Guys, guys, guys, this thread is to tell us how did you come to be interested in Bismarck, remember?

And on that note.........
I became interested in the Bismarck after stumbling upon the Ludovic Kennedy book in Icelandic translation in my local library sometime in my early teens (early 70´s or so) The Hood was sunk not far away from Iceland and the whole campaign got a great deal of attention here just as the whole naval war in general. There were even people that remebered having heard the explosion when the Hood blew up.
I have been reading a lot about the ships since that time and the discoveries of Ballard and others have cast new light on a lot of things that were unclear before but as the discussions in this forum shows there seems to be a lot left to clear up.

Sigvaldi

[Kyler]

When the Bismark was discovered I was in grade school. A classmate's father some how knew Bob Ballard. So I got into his books for much of my young life. I had all of his books and the one on the Bismark was my favorite. My intial interest in the Bismark led to my love of World War 2 and Naval History.

[Legend]

I have grown up worshipping Bob Ballard... with his discoveries of The Bismarck, The Titanic, and other major nautical unvielings. Such a pity... the school systems no longer teach about WW2 in any detail... I was practically teaching the class I was in at one point about the Pacific War. This I do not understand. Why take out a particularly important period of our history? A time of previous generation's mistakes and victories. A time that brought about much of our new technologies and fields of industry. A time that developed new ways to go about war and peace. Why just go over the boring dates of it's beginning and end, and not how developments in people's personalities and decisions got the world to those points of new eras.

[Kyler]

I have grown up worshipping Bob Ballard... with his discoveries of The Bismarck, The Titanic, and other major nautical unvielings. Such a pity... the school systems no longer teach about WW2 in any detail... I was practically teaching the class I was in at one point about the Pacific War. This I do not understand. Why take out a particularly important period of our history? A time of previous generation's mistakes and victories. A time that brought about much of our new technologies and fields of industry. A time that developed new ways to go about war and peace. Why just go over the boring dates of it's beginning and end, and not how developments in people's personalities and decisions got the world to those points of new eras.

Besides states mandating a lot of what is taught in schools, what is taught in current lessons plans depends on the teachers. Like all professions there are bad, okay, and good teachers. Then you get into the fact that some teachers like teaching certain subjects and don't like teaching other subjects. Does this allow for overall good education in history; no, but thats the reality of our schools.

I would love to get my doctorate in history one day, and teach a class devoted only to War & Conflicts.

[RF]

Why take out a particularly important period of our history? A time of previous generation's mistakes and victories. A time that brought about much of our new technologies and fields of industry. A time that developed new ways to go about war and peace. Why just go over the boring dates of it's beginning and end, and not how developments in people's personalities and decisions got the world to those points of new eras.

There is a whole host of reasons for this - political, passage of time, the fact that the US (except for the attack on PH) was not invaded or bombed, and the impact of more recent conflicts such as the Vietnam war.

[Legend]

I still think it would help the future... especially with that political bullcrap. If we had tough the younger generations for the last five decades like we did in the early century (1900's) then we wouldn't have all the incompetent tards in our Government now! But that's off topic isn't it?

[rivnut]

The bismarck is iconic, of it's age, like the Spitfire or any number of vastly popular war machines from the 30's and 40's.

For me, it's always been there in the background. Certainly interesting from a historic perspective and controversial in many ways. The whole circumstances of it's untimate end, sent off into the Atlantic, not properly fueled and (as others have pointed out), not partiucularly battle ready. Also, the antagonism of the captain and his admiral provide a great bit of high theatre and vast material for speculation. As far as the design goes, and it's general appearance, it has always represented to me, that interesting mix of the very latest technology available and so much that was typical of Capital ships in the previous war. For example Barbettes in the hull and inadequate antiaircraft protection measured against the very latest in fire control. Many of the instruments in the command and control centers appear modern still. There is no doubt it was a fine looking ship.

Kevin

[alecsandros]

I stumbled upon Leonce Peillard's "Sink the Tirpitz!" in my father's library when I was 13 or 14.. Got realy fascinated by battleships since..

[yellowtail3]

How did you come to be interested in Bismarck?
Well... I think I saw the movie "Sink the Bismarck!" as a kid, and read the story somewhere around 4th-5th grade. I was interested in things nautical/military, especially warships. An early memory is the smell of the wardroom of the Waddell (it was new, when Dad was there) and Parsons. The chase and sinking of the Bismarck is a great story. I never did build a model of Bismarck, though I built a nice one of Tirpitz (and Arizona, Musashi, Prince of Wales, etc etc etc). Many of my friends were fellow navy brats and battleship fans.

Axis battleships just seemed so... interesting, in spite of their general technical inferiority

[William B Barney]

Hello, Everyone!

First thing about myself....My name is William Barney who live in Olathe, KANSAS in USA and I am new member of this website, It was interested about Bismarck again when I was visited here! : )

Reason, I started to interested the Battleship Bismarck....When I was 5 or 6 years old, When Robert Ballard who discovery the Titanic wreck in 1985 and it caught my interested on Titanic and her history,wreck and more! Next few years later Robert Ballard discovery Bismarck wreck in 1989...again I started interested whole thing about ship that are "shipwrecks" Of course Robert Ballard's books about Titanic and Bismarck.... Robert who made me interested over the shipwreck that what he discovery or visiting wreck sites!

Little off topic!!! More about me on other website that I am member of TITANIC Researched and Modeling Association (TRMA) I doing build a models and I was finished do on the Titanic's younger sister name HMHS Britannic wreck model 1/350 scales. Right now, I am working on the Bismarck wreck 1/350 scales model.... Hopeful I able need some help from this website for my wreck model of Bismarck! THANKS!

HMHS Britannic wreck model: http://titanic-model.com/dc/dcboard.php ... 2785&page=

Bismarck wreck model: http://titanic-model.com/dc/dcboard.php ... 078&page=9

Regards,
William B Barney

DEAD MEN TELL NO TALES. DEAD SHIPS, HOWEVER, DO!

[Karl Heidenreich]

Nice dioramas, indeed. All of them in 1/350? I imagine you are using the Tamiya model for Bismarck.

[lwd]

welcome aboard. If you haven't already found them there are some very detailed discussions on what was painted what color on Bismarck here. Other details as well.