Victorious and its involvement

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7532
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Victorious and its involvement

Post by RF » Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:06 am

jason spurr wrote: .. Her famous sister ship before her suffered a hit in the exact same spot, not by a bomb but by a shell delivered around 09.08 am.. Evidence on the wreck shows a hugh rip at the front of her Conning tower. Would have Bismarck's forward magazine ignited from this shell? I am just trying to point out the similarity between these two events and how two identical ships got hit in two identical places. Which would have virtually looked identical..
.
I'm not clear why two hits in identical places should necessarily have identical effects. Leaving aside that Tirpitz wasn't absolutely identical to Bismarck - for one thing it was some 1,400 tons heavier in weight - these hits were from different weapons, delivered at different angles. There was no evidence of a magazine ignition as far as can be ascertained on the forward magazines of Bismarck, and the angle of approach the Rodneys' shell took would be unlikely to hit the magazine. Whereas a bomb that was aimed at Tirpitz, released from above and not fired from sea level, would have a greater chance of penetrating the magazine - if it could get through the deck armour - because of its far more vertical trajectory.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7532
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Victorious and its involvement

Post by RF » Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:11 am

jason spurr wrote: Evidence on the wreck shows a hugh rip at the front of her Conning tower.
Thats not quite what Ballard and his team saw - there wasn't a single fissure which your description implies but a concentrantion of rents and shell-holes on the front of the conning tower. The opinion stated was that this was from a major hit early in the action, consistent with eye-witness reports, but the conning tower was not split open. It is likely that later hits in the vicinity would have added to the number of rents and holes.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

jason spurr

Re: Victorious and its involvement

Post by jason spurr » Sat Sep 15, 2012 6:51 pm

Sorry for the delay in replying to your posts... I know many of you don't understand why these Tirpitz photos would have anything to do with the Bismarck, but in a way i believe they do.. The two photos show two seperate hits on the Tirpitz. The first being a hit on Bruno sending off a white cloud of smoke, the second hit on the port side amidship sends off a dark cloud of smoke. Why are these two explosions different shapes and colours?? These two clouds of smoke billowing from the Tirpitz look very simular to what is coming off the Bismarck in photo 0010. Reference to the rip on the forward port side of the Conning tower, this rip with all the metal flared outwards was obviously caused by an internal explosion. Was it caused by the explosion from the shell that pieced Bruno's rim?

Can we look closely at the sea conditions in photo 0010 and how they clearly differ from the ocean conditions you see in photo 0005 as well as 0007. I truly believe that photo 0007 shows the first plane taking off Victorious on the 24Th. You can notice in photos 0005 and 0007 the deck of the carrier is wet and the ocean conditions are identical." First off for Bismarck" should this photo have a place in the history books? Maybe 0008 should have a place in the history books as well? "Slight swell north atlantic, (taken during Chase). I have found no actual photos showing the rough seas the ships encountered during the Chase! Only commissioned paintings... I believe credit should be given where credit is due and these two photos 0007,0008 should rightly take there place in history.

So back to photo 0010. I am man enough to admit that I have made a couple of mistake with this photo. The first being that it was taken from the deck of the Victorious and that the dark object in the right corner was someone's shoulder. It is clear to me now the photo was taken from a plane and the dark object is part of the cockpit..Meaning the Victorious would have definitely been out of range of the Bismarck The second mistake I made was believing that the white spot on the horizon was a flash from a gun when it was just a blotch on the photo...

I still strongly believe this photo was taken on the morning of the 27Th and one of the aircraft from the Victorious scored a hit.

Personally I think forensic evidence needs to be recovered from the wreck to prove beyond a doubt what really happened to Bismarck and what caused this hugh hole on the port side.

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1607
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Victorious and its involvement

Post by wadinga » Sun Sep 16, 2012 8:23 pm

All,

I realise everybody has been very nice over this unsubstantiated imagining of Victorious, or her aircraft, being in at the kill, together with all the eye-rolling about some kind of "official"cover-up. :wink:

According to "Send Her Victorious" Michael Apps the ship sailed south with crated Hurricanes on the 31st May from the Clyde in company with convoy WS 8X at midnight. Pretty good going if she had been close to the sinking on the morning of the 27th.

Alternatively check http://www.killifish.f9.co.uk/Malta%20W ... ations.htm

On return she reloaded the 48 Hurricane Mk I's on the 29th May & sailed on the 31st to join convoy WS 8X escorted by cruisers Neptune & Orion with the destroyer Wessex. Victorious & Neptune left the convoy (5th) & made for Gibraltar, arriving on the 9th after being met by Renown, Ark Royal & 6 destroyers.
Convoy sailed from Gibraltar on the 13th June. Operation Tracer

Here on this very website is an actual fact-based article by the excellent Mark E Horan http://www.kbismarck.com/article2.html describing the Fleet Air Arm's contribution. He writes after extensive research with the FAA museum at Yeovilton. His account includes the losses amongst Victorious' inexperienced air group during fruitless searches after the attack on Bismarck and that they were close to Cape Farewell, Greenland, nowhere near the bay of Biscay.


Large numbers of crewmen in a big warship, although brave men, taking terrible risks, serve way down in the ship and have no idea what actually went on during an operation. When they get home they may get a bit creative and "swing the lantern". I'm sure they genuinely believe what they remember to be true events. The trouble is, many modern accounts now quote these stories verbatim, even if the teller is recounting something second, third or fourth hand, with embellishments added at every stage. Oral history is dangerous stuff and must be ruthlessly cross-checked and rejected if found wanting.

Interestingly, just having read HMS Rodney (2008) by Ian Ballantyne, even though the same individuals are quoted, there is no mention of the "indications" they described that Bismarck attempted to surrender, quoted in his later "Killing the Bismarck" (2010). New information between the two books, i guess so.

All the Best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

jason spurr

Re: Victorious and its involvement

Post by jason spurr » Wed Sep 19, 2012 10:00 pm

With respect my grandfather worked on the flight deck and not in the bowels of the ship, so he was visually aware of what was going on! As for your links, they seem to differ from other records.

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1278
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Victorious and its involvement

Post by Herr Nilsson » Thu Sep 20, 2012 4:38 pm

jason spurr wrote:With respect my grandfather worked on the flight deck and not in the bowels of the ship, so he was visually aware of what was going on!
But you say:
jason spurr wrote: It is clear to me now the photo was taken from a plane and the dark object is part of the cockpit..Meaning the Victorious would have definitely been out of range of the Bismarck The second mistake I made was believing that the white spot on the horizon was a flash from a gun when it was just a blotch on the photo...
So what did he see?
jason spurr wrote: I still strongly believe this photo was taken on the morning of the 27Th and one of the aircraft from the Victorious scored a hit.
Why 27th and why not 24th?
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)

jason spurr

Re: Victorious and its involvement

Post by jason spurr » Fri Sep 21, 2012 9:42 pm

My grandfather would have saw the same as everyone else on the flight deck on morning of the 27Th. The Victorious was heading home to refuel, so the flight deck would have been quiet, steaming in open ocean with a couple of Cruisers.. Or it would have been a place of action with the threat of the Bismarck over the horizon! Why would the Victorious have been sent away to refuel with vital escort ships when the rest of her fleet stayed till the end??

I believe photo 0010 was taken on the 27Th and not on the 24Th because of the ocean conditions, you cannot deny that they are different..

Torpedo bombers of the aircraft carrier "Victorious" successfully achieved a hit on "Bismarck" during the night of (26Th/27Th) report from radio London and swedish newspapers.. Should we just dismiss these reports?

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1278
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Victorious and its involvement

Post by Herr Nilsson » Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:40 am

jason spurr wrote:My grandfather would have saw the same as everyone else on the flight deck on morning of the 27Th. The Victorious was heading home to refuel, so the flight deck would have been quiet, steaming in open ocean with a couple of Cruisers.. Or it would have been a place of action with the threat of the Bismarck over the horizon! Why would the Victorious have been sent away to refuel with vital escort ships when the rest of her fleet stayed till the end??
Behause she or her escorts were out of fuel? What about Prince of Wales and Suffolk?
jason spurr wrote: I believe photo 0010 was taken on the 27Th and not on the 24Th because of the ocean conditions, you cannot deny that they are different..
Thomas gave you the answer:
tommy303 wrote: The sea state in the photograph is in complete agreement with film footage of the action a few hours before against Hood and Prince of Wales, but is much less than the sea state seen in stills and film footage of Bismarck's final action.
jason spurr wrote: Torpedo bombers of the aircraft carrier "Victorious" successfully achieved a hit on "Bismarck" during the night of (26Th/27Th) report from radio London and swedish newspapers.. Should we just dismiss these reports?
Lee gave you the answer:
lwd wrote:
jason spurr wrote:... To reflect on some of your comments lwd, what does a report in US papers about battleship X sinking a Japanese ship have anything to do with the Bismarck.
It rather clearly illustrates that newspapers especially during wartime are not particularly reliable sources.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2985
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Victorious and escorts

Post by Dave Saxton » Sat Sep 22, 2012 4:05 pm

The Victorious and KGV parted company on the morning of the 24th when Tovey took the KGV and Repulse alone to a south western course. The carrier and four cruisers remained on a westerly course. The four cruisers were: HMS Galatea, HMS Hermione, HMS Aurora, and HMS Kenya. Hermione was detached to refuel early on the 25th. Victorious and the remaining cruisers continued to search for Bismarck throughout the 25th with air search patterns and searches to the north west of Bismarck's last known position. The carrier group operated independently of Tovey who was to the south. The remaining cruisers and the carrier operated toward the east north east with air searches toward the south east through out the night. The Galatea and Hermione were detatched to refuel and joined up with Prince of Wales which also needed fuel. Victorious and Kenya were ordered north east to cover Convoy HX-126 which was loitering south of the Iceland- Faroes gap in case Bismarck was making for a northern route. Remember there was an error in plotting Bismarck's radio D/F'ed position which initially indicated Bismarck might be making for a northern route. Thus Victorious and Kenya (and Suffolk although operating independently) were sent hundreds of miles to the north of Bismarck and other RN units taking them out of the chase.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2985
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Victorious and escorts

Post by Dave Saxton » Sun Sep 23, 2012 2:50 pm

Dave Saxton wrote: The Galatea and Hermione were detatched to refuel and joined up with Prince of Wales which also needed fuel.
I should have wrote Galatea and Aurora. Hermione had already been detached. The air searches toward the north east correlate with the air searches near Cape Farewell which Sean alludes to.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

jason spurr

Re: Victorious and its involvement

Post by jason spurr » Fri Oct 19, 2012 7:39 pm

I have seen some footage of the ocean conditions from the air strike on the 24Th and it doesn't seem to line up with those in photo 0010. As for the post that relates to not believing anything in newspapers or on radio during war time, well why is it listed on the Bismarck site under the online archives, Bismarck war diaries page 172? I am wondering why no one has commented on my previous posts asking why the stated photos are not included in the history books. A number of you seem to believe that photo 0010 was taken from the strike on the 24Th. If this is so why isn't it included in the history books? Obviously the other copies we have link too don't have any descriptions on the back. There is one other thing that is bothering me.. It concerns the photo taken from the Dorsetshire during the final battle.. Some people found my comments disgraceful that I was insinuating that the British were firing at survivors in the water. I always believed that photo was taken at the end of the battle because of how close the Bismarck was to the Dorsetshire. But apparently now it has been listed on K.Bismarck site to be taken at the start of the battle... I find this very hard to believe.. The Bismarck is only a few miles away in this photo so there is no way it was taken at the start of the Battle. To say the British found there range in the first 10 minutes or so there is no way these shells exploding in the water were aimed at the ship itself. There is not one shell landing anywhere near the Bismarck, only a tight grouping some distance behind her. Around about where all the survivors would have been. It is not hard to put 2 and 2 together men and realize that the British took there revenge to a whole new level...

User avatar
tommy303
Senior Member
Posts: 1527
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:19 pm
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: Victorious and its involvement

Post by tommy303 » Sun Oct 21, 2012 3:57 am

To say the British found there range in the first 10 minutes or so there is no way these shells exploding in the water were aimed at the ship itself. There is not one shell landing anywhere near the Bismarck, only a tight grouping some distance behind her. Around about where all the survivors would have been. It is not hard to put 2 and 2 together men and realize that the British took there revenge to a whole new level...

Let's take a quick look at the photo in question. Those are battleship shell splashes and the photo I believe is a still taken from actual film footage haphazardly shot during the action. First of all, Bismarck is still underway and while it is true that some men abandoned ship early, before the order was actually given, the vast majority only entered the water as the ship actually began to sink. In the photo one is only seeing the shells landing in relation to the ship the photographer was on. The firing ship might well have been on a completely different bearing. If for instance, the firing ship were somewhere fine off the port bow, then the shell splashes represent a salvo falling over. At any rate, Bismarck does not appear to be heavily on fire yet, so I personally doubt the picture was taken near the end. One would need to examine the actual footage or sequence of shots on the negative if it was a snapshot.

Finally, I would have to ask, why use main battery guns if you wanted to knock off men in the water. It's a very costly and inefficient way to do it. The most efficient way would simply be to steam off after the ship sank and not rescue anyone, or if one did not want to be passive about it, move in and start killing with small arms and automatic weapons. Yet the British did pick up survivors, the majority of which survived the war and lived to tell their tale as it were. In addition to the 110 picked up by the British (not counting one who died after rescue), three more were picked up by U74 and another two by the German weathership Sachsenwald. If there had been any impropriety on the part of the British, I am sure the five men rescued by their fellow countrymen would have mentioned it and Goebbels would have had a field day. Frankly to claim the British are using their main guns to massacre men in the water while there is still the ship, herself, to be sunk, is both extremely twisted and highly insulting to the men on both sides who participated in Bismarck's final battle. Do you seriously think the German survivors who were rescued by German vessels would omit such a massacre; and why, in later life would the Germans rescued by the British fail to mention something so repugnant?

Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood and Earth's foundations stay;
What God abandoned these defended;
And saved the sum of things for pay.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7532
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Victorious and its involvement

Post by RF » Sun Oct 21, 2012 5:17 pm

I agree with tommy303.

These issues seem to be repeatedly raked up by one person and I have to ask, for what purpose?
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

jason spurr

Re: Victorious and its involvement

Post by jason spurr » Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:40 am

I understand your logic Tommy, but in a previous post you worked out that the Bismarck was at a distance of 2 miles or less in photo 0010. So how could this image taken from the Dorsetshire be at the start of the battle when the Bismarck seems to be closer then it is in photo 0010? If we assume the firing ship was off the port bow, yes, these shots are falling long. But wasn't it practice after finding there bearing to fire one long and then one short so then they could find there range! So how come there is no shots falling on the other side of the Bismarck? I think it would have been too obvious to everyone if they had come in and started firing at survivors with small arms, don't you! The British fired over 2 thousand shells at the Bismarck that morning, so no one would have been any the wiser if some of them went astray.. Some of the survivors told of how the concussion of the shells landing all around them made them bleed from there noses and ears.. Maybe if more Germans were rescued that day it would have been harder for the British to tell the story how it really unfolded. Yes I know the Dorsetshire got message that there were German u-boats in the area, but in fact there were German u-boats in the area all night. War diaries from one state they watched the battle unfold from a distance and were unable to assist the Bismarck as there torpedo's had all been used up, also it stated it surfaced and saw a Victorious class carrier.. I think it just gave the British a good enough reason to leave.. If there were German u-boats in the area that were armed, why didn't they assist the Bismarck? Would a German u-boat fire at and try to sink a ship that was rescuing its fellow countrymen?

I am sorry if some of you think I am repeatedly raking up such issues, but I feel that the truth of that day has not yet been told and most likely never will. You may not believe me, but in fact I take my hat off to the British guns for putting the Bismarck out of action so quickly and efficiently, but did they have help from the air.. Its a real shame so many defenseless lives were lost on that day, it makes you realize how senseless war really is!

I would still like to hear your comments on photos 0007, 0008 and of cause 0010 and why they shouldn't rightly take there place in the history books?

One last thing, can anyone tell me who is the officer walking alongside the King in photo 0003? Why would the King allow such a close up photo to be taken when obviously a private and serious conversation was taking place??

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7532
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Victorious and its involvement

Post by RF » Tue Oct 23, 2012 8:59 am

jason spurr wrote: Some of the survivors told of how the concussion of the shells landing all around them made them bleed from there noses and ears.. Maybe if more Germans were rescued that day it would have been harder for the British to tell the story how it really unfolded.
What exactly is this insinuation supposed to mean?
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Post Reply