Hugh hole on Bismarck's port side amidship.

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

jason spurr

Hugh hole on Bismarck's port side amidship.

Post by jason spurr »

What really caused the massive impact crater on the port side of Bismarck's Catapult..? Clearly not a shell hit.. Some speculate it was one of the Torpedo's Dorsetshire launched at the end of the battle...?
Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Hugh hole on Bismarck's port side amidship.

Post by Bill Jurens »

I have examined this hole personally and in detail. It was caused by projectile damage augmented by the detachment of the catapult as the ship capsized and/or sank towards the bottom. It cannot (and should not) be attributed to a torpedo hit, although some earlier publications suggest this was the case. More investigation, including the discovery of the catapult on the bottom, make it clear that the failure was merely structural. There are some clues which suggest that incoming projectiles may have caused some compressed air cylinders to explode.

Bill Jurens
jasonspurr
Junior Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 3:41 pm

Re: Hugh hole on Bismarck's port side amidship.

Post by jasonspurr »

I'm not entirely convinced that a shell created such a big hole. It's clear on the wreck the deck plates have been ripped open and bent inwards. If air tanks exploded the metal around this area would be bent outwards.. No I think this massive impact on the port side had to have been caused by something larger then a shell or air tanks exploding. Robert Ballard had a good look at this hole in 1989 and was some what confused about its size, compared to the numerous shell hits on the wreck...
Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Hugh hole on Bismarck's port side amidship.

Post by Bill Jurens »

My previous post was perhaps a bit unclear. "Projectile damage" does was not intended to imply damage by a single projectile. In reality, this portion of the superstructure obviously experienced multiple projectile hits. In 2001 I was able to enter this hole directly, and have examined James Cameron's (somewhat better) videotape of this area as well. The hole does not exhibit many of the characteristics of a torpedo hit; it's too small and the failures of structure around the periphery suggest relatively slow strain-rate failures, suggestive -- if anything -- of a rather low pressure differential and/or tearing. The hole was probably caused by a combination of projectile damage weakening structure, followed by transient (and rather low) interior overpressure, followed by detachment of the catapult (and a good deal of ancillary equipment) as the ship capsized and/or sank to the bottom.

Without any criticism of Dr. Ballard's work, one must remember that his survey was a preliminary one conducted with rather low-technology equipment towed on a sled some distance vertically above the wreck. This meant that interpretation of damage was restricted to what could be ascertained from vertical or near-vertical views. This cannot compare to a detailed closeup interior investigation, which I (and others) were able to do in 2001. Further, it's important not to put too much reliance on 'artist's impressions' which -- although they can look very impressive in coffee-table books -- are often highly imaginative. They're usually not intended for, nor can they effectively be used for -- serious forensic analysis.

In summary, the 'torpedo hole' hypothesis, which was tenuous at best to begin with -- has not withstood further and more detailed investigation.

Bill Jurens.
jason spurr

Re: Hugh hole on Bismarck's port side amidship.

Post by jason spurr »

I appreciate you replying to my posts Bill and I have taken onboard all that you have said. I am just curious to know why a large crater was left in such a lightly armored part of the deck? Wouldn't the shells have pieced through the deck and exploded within the bowels of the ship??
Post Reply