Reverse into Bay of Biscay?

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Post by RF »

Karl Heidenreich wrote:I believe all misconceptions born from the lack of information about what Lindemann and/or Lutjens thought, believe or want to do in those critical moments. We have accounts from other sources but not from these two persons, the most important ones in Bismarck.
This I think is a very important point, as none of Bismarcks' senior officers or indeed hardly anybody in constant close contact with them survived.
But we do have evidence from those that did survive, from Lutjens lengthy radio messages after turning directly for France, character winesses who knew Lutjens and Lindemann well, as well as their actions during the sortie. From that I think an accurate picture can be constructed, even though an element of conjecture has to be brought in.

We all live in liberal democracies where (I hope) we all hate war and the death, distress and damage it causes. My understanding of the conduct of naval leadership is, to use the terminology applied in ''Star Trek'' that the''Prime Directive'' for a commander is the safety of his command and crew. That is the responsibility of excercising command, of giving orders that must be obeyed without prevarication.
Inevitably the political environment in which a commander has to operate is crucial in how this is carried out, I have just commented on that in my above post.
But the question for me, and the crucial point is, how well did Lutjens and Lindemann perform in adherence to the ''Prime Directive?''
This is another reason why I proposed elsewhere in this forum the suggestion that Admiral Wilhelm Marschall might have been a more appropriate choice as Fleet Commander - he had more experience of the world, he was more flexible and less fatalistic. Maybe he would have performed better, maybe not.
There was also a poll on this website asking whether Bismarck should have been scuttled before the final action of 27 May. I voted ''No'' because I believe that a warships duty is to fight, not surrender or give up.
But if it is the case that the leaders simply give up, they abdicate responsibility and leave 2,200 men to be slaughtered in return for nothing then quite honestly the Bismarck should have scuttled as the poll proposed.
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Going Backwards or giving up?

Post by wadinga »

All,

Ships are specifically designed to go forwards with their prop thrust going into clear water or past rudders for steering effect and and their reverse manouevering is at best slow and unpredictable. It is normally only done in protected harbours. Ships do not readily answer their helm until they are moving fast enough-steerage way.

Ships have a huge cross sectional area above the water line. Wind pressure against this may swing the vessel off course and with crippled steering cannot be corrected.

With a jammed rudder it would have virtually impossible to steer Bismarck except forwards with the weather on the bow pushing against it and balancing the tendency due to the rudder. This meant towards the British and Doom.

I think the Baron was being charmingly diplomatic in not pointing out that the retired (and possibly senile) expert in seamanship wasn't there, had certainly never tried to steer a 42,000 battleship backwards with a jammed rudder in bad weather and Atlantic swells, and should keep his uninformed opinions to himself.

RF and Co. have to accept that it is impossible, just as driving your car backwards at high speed over rough ground, would be impossible, especially if one of the front wheels were jammed at an angle.

The Prime Directive of Nazi Germany was Invade, Defeat, Enslave and/or Kill/Exterminate. The Prime Directive of any military force is to hurt people and break things. Looking after your own military personnel is a secondary consideration. Military leaders have to expect casualties to achieve their objectives. Bismarck's crew were trapped and their only prospects were to sell their lives dearly or surrender without a fight. Lutjens and Lindemann couldn't know they would fail to score a single hit.

German forces were deployed to support Bismarck, but were limited in strength and achieved little except to sink HMS Mashona. Even the suspicion that support forces (U-boats) were close enough to avenge Bismarck caused Dorsetshire to break off picking up survivors. Why risk your own men's lives to save the enemy? Maybe somebody could have sent a plain language message that ops against Tovey would stop until the survivors were rescued, but would they have been believed?

All the Best
wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Going Backwards or giving up?

Post by RF »

wadinga wrote:With a jammed rudder it would have virtually impossible to steer Bismarck except forwards with the weather on the bow pushing against it and balancing the tendency due to the rudder. This meant towards the British and Doom.

RF and Co. have to accept that it is impossible, just as driving your car backwards at high speed over rough ground, would be impossible, especially if one of the front wheels were jammed at an angle.
The point that I was making that it was possible to point the ship in roughly the right direction on one order for a brief moment, then again with another order. So why not attempt a sequence of orders to keep the bow orientated on the parameters of ESE to South.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Going Backwards or giving up?

Post by RF »

wadinga wrote:The Prime Directive of Nazi Germany was Invade, Defeat, Enslave and/or Kill/Exterminate. The Prime Directive of any military force is to hurt people and break things. Looking after your own military personnel is a secondary consideration. Military leaders have to expect casualties to achieve their objectives. Bismarck's crew were trapped and their only prospects were to sell their lives dearly or surrender without a fight. Lutjens and Lindemann couldn't know they would fail to score a single hit.
All military operations have to take place against a backdrop of strategic reality and what are acceptable military risks. This debate has been held many times over the huge losses in life involved in the offensives on the Wester Front in WW1.
The objectives have to be justifiable in terms of those losses. I appreciate that this is a question more relevant to today due to the wholesale media coverage of conflict. But no military power can afford to throw away without return military resources that will be needed for future campaigns, and wilfullythrow them away, as Hitler did time and time again. Even Hitler wasn't immune to the consequences - he ended up having to blow his head off in the Fuhrerbunker because he was scared of what the Russians would do to him if they took him alive, for a war he started, and then blowing it.
Tiornu
Supporter
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am
Location: Ex Utero

Re: Going Backwards or giving up?

Post by Tiornu »

it was possible to point the ship in roughly the right direction on one order for a brief moment
Heading the right direction for a brief moment does not compensate for heading the wrong direction all the other moments.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Going Backwards or giving up?

Post by RF »

Tiornu wrote:
it was possible to point the ship in roughly the right direction on one order for a brief moment
Heading the right direction for a brief moment does not compensate for heading the wrong direction all the other moments.
Complete the quotation and cut out the wrong moments.

I'm not saying it would have worked - I think Bismarck would in any case have had insufficient speed to get clear on its own.

But I don't see anything to lose by trying.
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Post by Bgile »

RF,

Did you ignore my post about trying to free the rudder, the vibration in the rudder room caused by reversing screws, etc?

And the fact that they DID try to steer with the screws and gave up in favor of a more stable heading to provide a stable gun platform and enable further attempts to disengage the jammed rudder?

And that they knew from trials that they COULDN'T steer effectively with the screws?
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Post by RF »

Bgile wrote:Did you ignore my post about trying to free the rudder, the vibration in the rudder room caused by reversing screws, etc?

And the fact that they DID try to steer with the screws and gave up in favor of a more stable heading to provide a stable gun platform and enable further attempts to disengage the jammed rudder?

And that they knew from trials that they COULDN'T steer effectively with the screws?
NO.

These issues were also referred to by Kemp, Kennedy and Ballard in their books going back some twenty odd years. Ironically it was even fairly accurately referred to in the Sink the Bismarck movie.

I acknowledge that the speed trials did show the ship couldn't steer effectively with just the screws. With respect, it isn't a matter of steering effectively - she could steer ineffectively not in a straight line but in an erratic yaw. My point was to keep the ship pointing in roughly the same direction, on parameters of ESE through to south. It would be very difficult, but the observation by Kennedy was that initially it did work in that respect, Lindemann gave up continuing with it. Bismarck had on board not just its own engineers, but also engineering support among Lutjens staff officers. What I cannot discern is what these engineers thoughts and intentions were, apart fom Junack none of them survived.
The article by Kemp in Purnells history of The Second World War back in 1971 featured the evidence of Junack who is reported as saying: ''one has the feeling that more could have been done to save Bismarck that (last) night but it wasn't.''

We now know from Ballard that the rudder could never be freed at sea because of the effect of the detonation of the torpedo. This is also referred to elsewhere on this website, in the articles analysing the events of 26/27 May.

You don't actually need a gun platform - unless you have a target to shoot at, but it is a valid point.

My conclusion is that the only slim chance for Bismarck was to steer erratically pointing the bow in roughly the desired direction simply to get the ship closer to safety, leaving the rudder and ship stability, unless the ship is under attack. I don't think it would have been enough to save the ship, but a slim chance is better than no chance at all, particulary considering the physical state of the crew.
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Post by Bgile »

RF wrote:My conclusion is that the only slim chance for Bismarck was to steer erratically pointing the bow in roughly the desired direction simply to get the ship closer to safety, leaving the rudder and ship stability, unless the ship is under attack. I don't think it would have been enough to save the ship, but a slim chance is better than no chance at all, particulary considering the physical state of the crew.
And the ship was under attack during the night by British destroyers.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Post by RF »

And the ship was under attack during the night by British destroyers.
This is true, and she was also being followed by Sheffield.

One factor here is that if Bismarck was able to maintain the right direction at say seven or so knots, there would be an hourly divergence of say at least fifteen miles from her actual position in reality. This wouldn't affect Vian as he was operating under cover of darkness, and I am assuming Bismarck would be capable of firing even as an unsteady platform. But seeing Bismarck staggering away towards safety would have made the British attacks more desparate ie. Vian would have to get closer to Bismarck to be sure of torpedoing her. What would have happened then we don't know. But by daybreak:

1) Bismarck is at least say 170 miles closer to safety,

2) Tovey has to steam the 170 miles closer to France and Luftwaffe airfields, stretching the fuel of not just his big ships but also his escorting destroyers just at the point they are most needed to guard against U-boat attack (this is critical - if destroyers run low on fuel they have to reduce speed, which reduces their sub-hunting capabilities). Tovey and his staff would have to calculate just how far they can go without in their eyes placing his two big ships at excessive risk - remembering that at that time, apart from POW the KGV is the only true battleship capable of matching Bismarck for speed, and so must be preserved. Churchill would have ordered Tovey to attack at all costs - this puts real strain on the British command - at what point would Tovey disobey Churchill and head for home?

3) The Luftwaffe should now have an easier job of finding Bismarck, keep contact with her and provide air cover and organise air attacks on Vians destroyers and on Sheffield. Hitler could have ordered Goering to use all available air power to help Bismarck.

4) German destroyers and ocean going tugs can set sail from France, again with air escort, to meet Bismarck.

5) The further Bismarck pitches into Biscay, the wider her acceptable steering arcs become, steering becomes less critical.


I don't see that any of this wasn't possible iif an attempt to erratically ''steer'' Bismarck to safety was made. The only way to find out would have been to try it. My main point is that other navies, with different outlooks, traditions, attitudes and above all different command structures/political leadership would have done their damndest to save their best and most famous ship and not give up until she was actually sunk. A canny command would I suspect, even use Bismarck as bait to lure KGV/Rodney to close to France - and treat them as the Japs did to POW/Repulse off the coast of Malaya.

Its all about not giving up - and how can you can try to turn a potential disaster to some advantage.
Tiornu
Supporter
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am
Location: Ex Utero

Post by Tiornu »

"One factor here is that if Bismarck was able to maintain the right direction at say seven or so knots"
But since it wasn't possible, none of the rest matters.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Post by RF »

Tiornu wrote:"One factor here is that if Bismarck was able to maintain the right direction at say seven or so knots"
But since it wasn't possible, none of the rest matters.
This is the crux - I was going on the description given by Ludovic Kennedy where it was said the ship momentarily held the desired course before the angle on the collapsed, locked rudder combined with the sea conditions pointed the bow NW.
Tiornu
Supporter
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am
Location: Ex Utero

Post by Tiornu »

Yeah. You can't get very far in a moment.
User avatar
ontheslipway
Supporter
Posts: 233
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 8:19 am

Post by ontheslipway »

You might confuse the British for a minute. It worked for Kirk in movie 6...
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

foeth:
You might confuse the British for a minute. It worked for Kirk in movie 6...
Are you sure it was movie 6? That was the one in which the Klingons and the Federation make peace. :think:
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Post Reply