Bismarck analysis

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 386
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Bismarck analysis

Post by Bill Jurens » Tue May 29, 2018 1:26 am

Although it is true that the condition (and position) of the wreck precludes any definitive examination of the lower hull, there remains some evidence that scuttling charges were fired and that various and sundry hatches and doors were probably left open as the crew abandoned ship. The wreck is notable insofar as it exhibits few or no large scale areas of structural collapse -- there is, for example, no separation of the bow. This in turn suggests that the hull suffered relatively little from hydrostatic collapse during the first hundred meters of its descent, which in turn suggests that flooding of the lower portions of the hull was more-or-less complete when the ship left the surface. There are other indications as well, but this will do for now...

Bill Jurens.

User avatar
José M. Rico
Administrator
Posts: 863
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:23 am
Location: Madrid, Spain
Contact:

Re: Bismarck analysis

Post by José M. Rico » Tue May 29, 2018 2:40 am

About the ship's scuttling, we have the testimony of Kapitänleutnant (Ing.) Gerhard Junack who survived the sinking:

"Somewhere about 1015 hours, I received an order over the telephone from the Chief Engineer [Korvettenkapitän (Ing.) Walter Lehmann]: 'Prepare the ship for sinking.' That was the last order I received on the Bismarck. Soon after that, all transmission of orders collapsed.

As it became quieter up above, I sent my best petty officer to the engine-room to ask for further instructions, but the man apparently perished on his way, for he never returned. I felt compelled therefore to get an answer myself. One last look round to check that all the bulkheads were unfastened, then I sent the crew to the centre deck, giving my chief turbine-engineer orders to connect the explosive charges. Eventually I left with the turbines still moving slowly in compliance with the Engineer's orders.

The lower decks were brilliantly lit up; a peaceful mood prevailed, such as that on a Sunday afternoon in port - the silence broken only by the explosion of our own demolition-charges below."

northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 264
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: Bismarck analysis

Post by northcape » Wed May 30, 2018 4:30 am

As a matter of fact, KGV was the first one to obtain a hit (ca. 5 minutes after opening). It is another myth that the first hit was the Anton/Bruno silencer by Rodney. If memory serves correctly, KGV obtained a hit at the base of the forward superstructure first.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4172
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Bismarck analysis

Post by alecsandros » Wed May 30, 2018 5:36 am

northcape wrote:As a matter of fact, KGV was the first one to obtain a hit (ca. 5 minutes after opening). It is another myth that the first hit was the Anton/Bruno silencer by Rodney. If memory serves correctly, KGV obtained a hit at the base of the forward superstructure first.
German reports mention that the first hit(s) was/were the one(s) that knocked out Anton and Bruno, at 8:58 or 9:02 (depending on the source).

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3626
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck analysis

Post by dunmunro » Thu May 31, 2018 2:19 am

José M. Rico wrote:
Tue May 29, 2018 2:40 am
About the ship's scuttling, we have the testimony of Kapitänleutnant (Ing.) Gerhard Junack who survived the sinking:
."
RN accounts state that Bismarck's list to port increased steadily throughout the action and that by 0940 "...was most pronounced...". Junack stated that a shell entered the port turbine room around 0930 and another shell entered a boiler room between 0915 and 0930, so things could not have been quite so peaceful as all that.

User avatar
José M. Rico
Administrator
Posts: 863
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:23 am
Location: Madrid, Spain
Contact:

Re: Bismarck analysis

Post by José M. Rico » Thu May 31, 2018 3:04 am

dunmunro wrote:
Thu May 31, 2018 2:19 am
Junack stated that a shell entered the port turbine room around 0930 and another shell entered a boiler room between 0915 and 0930, so things could not have been quite so peaceful as all that.
I don't recall Junack ever saying that, but in any case there is little doubt that the scuttling procedure was carried out.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3626
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck analysis

Post by dunmunro » Thu May 31, 2018 3:30 am

José M. Rico wrote:
Thu May 31, 2018 3:04 am
dunmunro wrote:
Thu May 31, 2018 2:19 am
Junack stated that a shell entered the port turbine room around 0930 and another shell entered a boiler room between 0915 and 0930, so things could not have been quite so peaceful as all that.
I don't recall Junack ever saying that, but in any case there is little doubt that the scuttling procedure was carried out.
Battle Summary 5 (1948), Amendment 1, p.23.

There was only 25 minutes between scuttling at 10:15 and sinking at 10:40. The minimum time at Scapa Flow in 1919 was ~60 minutes.

northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 264
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: Bismarck analysis

Post by northcape » Thu May 31, 2018 4:22 am

alecsandros wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 5:36 am
northcape wrote:As a matter of fact, KGV was the first one to obtain a hit (ca. 5 minutes after opening). It is another myth that the first hit was the Anton/Bruno silencer by Rodney. If memory serves correctly, KGV obtained a hit at the base of the forward superstructure first.
German reports mention that the first hit(s) was/were the one(s) that knocked out Anton and Bruno, at 8:58 or 9:02 (depending on the source).
Possibly one would need the gunnery report from KGV. In Tarrant's book (which I think uses these reports, as it describes KGV's gunnery action in detail) it is stated that KGV obtained the aforementioned hit.
I am not sure that there is a German source describing the A/B knockout as the first hit. They for sure mention that hit, and possibly some survivors had the impression it was the first hit. But I would count a gunnery observation report as more credible than scattered survivor observations.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4172
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Bismarck analysis

Post by alecsandros » Thu May 31, 2018 6:53 am

Given the storm, and ranges of the observations, no definitive answer can be given.

Also to be considered is that in the early phase of the battle, KGV was behind Rodney, and her observations were further hindered by Rodney's funnel smoke and main battery gun smoke.
Armor piercing hits are very difficult to spot (remember that during the first battle of May 24th, Prince of Wales did not spot any hits on Bismarck at all, although 3 had been obtained)

Post Reply