bismark-after torpedo hit

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by HMSVF » Sat Sep 28, 2019 11:37 am

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 8:54 pm
Hello everybody,
Bill Jurens wrote: "As it would be pointless to attempt to reply to Mr. Virtuani's diatribe in detail..."
totally pointless because Mr.Jurens has no way to counter what Antonio Bonomi has written in his mails or the reasons why, albeit "embracing" in toto Antonio's reconstruction (almost at single pixel level...), he has played his moderator role against him only...

Bill Jurens wrote: "...I would suggest those interested to examine the track charts in detail. "
To do so, Mr.Jurens should be kind enough to post here the pag.211 battlemap from his book, in order to allow everyone to compare it with Antonio's 2005 one (already available here download/file.php?id=3583) and with the "very similar" one from P.Toussaint (also available here download/file.php?id=3193)...
If he dares to do so, we will all have a lot of fun looking for the "similarities" and the "differences". I don't think he will... :think:

Bill Jurens wrote: "Should future content remain overly aggressive and offensive in tone, or should no commentary arrive at all, I will thereafter lock the thread."
...as usual, as soon as the discussion becomes embarrassing and very inconvenient for him, he locks threads.
I'm using very polite tones, compared to others, not calling Mr.Jurens a "troll" in public as his supporters have just called me without any due punishment and without any lock to the thread (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728&start=2250#p84790).
Locking threads to escape responsibilities will simply not work.

Finally, please, don't play the victim here ! You are not. :negative:


Bye, Alberto



Short of putting a "crazy Ivan" in to the chart just how different would any battle map be? Does it come down to the timing ? If so whose timing?

Does it actually matter? The net result will still be the same Hood sunk,POW damaged,Bismarck abandons her operation.


To be frank I don't think anybody cares about the battle map particularly anyway.

It's the jump that followed that has raised eyebrows and blood pressure with the whole cover up/cowardice/timidity thesis with basically relies on the proposers interpretation of what was said and how they said it but not always including the context.



As a last point. We are lucky to have a world renowned author and expert as a moderator in Bill Jurens. You may not like him, you may not agree with him but we are lucky to have him. I suspect that half the issue is that for may years you were able to dictate the flow and now you feel your wings have been clipped. Thats life, you had a good run and hopefully a semblance of balance can be achieved. Having been on the receiving end of you tongue its clear that you are no shrinking violet and shouldn't be claiming foul either.


The sad thing is that the actual discussion dries up when there is no playground spats.

Perhaps that is a sign that new information is lacking and all that happens is arguing over the minutiae of what happened at 04:41 and point 0.2 of a second. This seems to be the typical flow:


Did Holland have a mug of cocoa or not?

Briggs said yes, Dundas said he had tea.

Tilburn said he also had a cheese sandwich because he saw it being taken to the compass platform.

Dundas said it was egg and that Holland accidentally spilt some egg on the chart that caused him to be 10 degrees off course because the grease of the egg wiped away part of the track.

Briggs said it was a pickle and that the chart was good.

A German source, captain of U-boat 0007 says that he saw Tilburn having a fag under the shield of his 4 inch mount and couldn't possibly have seen anybody from his smoking point.

Newfoundland fishermen says that he saw U-boat 0007 and he couldn't have seen HMS Hood cos' he saw U 0007 and their position was 200 miles south. What U-0007 must have saw was the factory fishing ship SS Red Herring.

Ahh,but who do you trust? The Newfoundlers navigation skills or those of the all conquering Kreigsmarine!


Of course you can't prove Briggs,Tilburn or Dundas wrong because (A) the chart is at the bottom of the sea - if it wasn't incinerated and (B) all the survivors are dead!

And on it goes.


Best wishes



HMSVF

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1439
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by Herr Nilsson » Sat Sep 28, 2019 12:02 pm

Paul,

as said before it's implausible that the rudders were visible. If there would have been an account about still turning propellers and damaged or undamaged rudders, it would have come from Junack, because he was responsible for the turbines and he was first damage control officer until shortly before Rheinübung. He stated that the quarterdeck was already submerged by the sea and he felt the ship was going to capsize. Than he jumped into the sea. He could see the capsizing when he was swimming near Bismarck. The only thing he mentioned was that he could take a closer look at the starboard side of the hull which was apparently undamaged by torpedo hits.
Regards

Marc

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat Sep 28, 2019 9:07 pm

Hello everybody,

here we are with the "stadium fans"...
HMSVF wrote: "just how different would any battle map be?"
Please, before posting and wasting my time, read and try to understand what I have kindly explained already to Mr.Nilsson here (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8258&start=45#p84708). If you have something factual to answer, please, be my guest.
All battlemaps are very, very different, including Bill Jurens' 2002 map, only copies are identical to the original (as demonstrated by the superimposition of the two maps provided by Antonio in his mails).


HMSVF wrote: "We are lucky to have a world renowned author and expert as a moderator in Bill Jurens."
Surely you are personally very lucky to have someone protecting your side and allowing people (who, due to limited knowledge of the facts under examination, are only able to "support" their side) to continue posting here without adding value to the discussion or answering the raised points.


HMSVF wrote: "...for may years you were able to dictate the flow and now you feel your wings have been clipped. Thats life, you had a good run and hopefully a semblance of balance can be achieved..."
Here you are totally wrong, I can guarantee !

It has never been easy for us ,since we touched the sacred cow in 2013 (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5830&p=54913&hilit=idiot#p54913). We used to have tough times, with almost everybody against us because unable to look at simple facts and admit what had been done in the aftermath of the Denmark Strait battle (despite it was available in the British archives...)

Then we had even more tough times, when a moderator who was not super-partes, attacking only one side, forced Antonio to leave and when personal problems forced Alecsandros to leave as well.

However, the day I got in my hands the new publication of your "moderator", I saw that from that point in time it would have been just a downhill for me: the book confirmed everything we had always said, including the battle reconstruction of Antonio Bonomi (the 2005 one), the confirmation of the Court Martial and more that will come soon...

Now I really enjoy an extremely comfortable situation (despite the one-sided moderation is not yet over): the "deniers" are in very serious troubles now, having been rubbished by their "protector" with his new book.... So sorry for you all. :lol:





I strongly renew my request to the moderator (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8725#p84809) to post his "original" battlemap (from pag.211 of his new book) here to allow everybody to check and evaluate the similarities and the differences instead of hearing only the supporters cheerings ...

Unfortunately, I see he is logically very reluctant to do so. :think:


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 747
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by Bill Jurens » Sat Sep 28, 2019 10:11 pm

In my opinion, Mr. Virtuani's commentary has now reached the point where it is so consistently militant and personally aggressive -- directed against both the moderator (as moderator) and others -- that I have, with regret, banned him for posting for seven days, commencing immediately.

I am an advocate of free speech -- as the old saying goes "I may disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it", but even that guideline does have limits, in this case primarily revolving around the application of reasonable and respectful discourse.

Other members, have from time to time, been guilty of making comments that are offensive and inappropriate as well, but these can, by and large, be categorized as momentary lapses, which -- after a reminder has been delivered -- are not repeated on a repetitive and consistent basis.

I trust that most of the readership will understand and -- if perhaps only reluctantly -- agree with this action. Should disagreement occur, and should that be of sufficient magnitude to justify commentary, I would not be adverse to someone beginning a thread in which we can discuss -- without reference to individual personalities -- the limits within which respectful and constructive commentary might lie.

I have, in this case, chosen not to delete or edit the posts which I -- and I suspect others -- might find particularly offensive. In this particular case, the topic -- which originally revolved around the possibilities of Bismarck regaining maneuverability after damage -- has, I think, been addressed in sufficient detail. Further postings detailing the original questions are, of course, welcome.

Bill Jurens

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by HMSVF » Sat Sep 28, 2019 10:17 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Sat Sep 28, 2019 9:07 pm
Hello everybody,

here we are with the "stadium fans"...
HMSVF wrote: "just how different would any battle map be?"
Please, before posting and wasting my time, read and try to understand what I have kindly explained already to Mr.Nilsson here (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8258&start=45#p84708). If you have something factual to answer, please, be my guest.
All battlemaps are very, very different, including Bill Jurens' 2002 map, only copies are identical to the original (as demonstrated by the superimposition of the two maps provided by Antonio in his mails).


HMSVF wrote: "We are lucky to have a world renowned author and expert as a moderator in Bill Jurens."
Surely you are personally very lucky to have someone protecting your side and allowing people (who, due to limited knowledge of the facts under examination, are only able to "support" their side) to continue posting here without adding value to the discussion or answering the raised points.


HMSVF wrote: "...for may years you were able to dictate the flow and now you feel your wings have been clipped. Thats life, you had a good run and hopefully a semblance of balance can be achieved..."
Here you are totally wrong, I can guarantee !

It has never been easy for us ,since we touched the sacred cow in 2013 (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5830&p=54913&hilit=idiot#p54913). We used to have tough times, with almost everybody against us because unable to look at simple facts and admit what had been done in the aftermath of the Denmark Strait battle (despite it was available in the British archives...)

Then we had even more tough times, when a moderator who was not super-partes, attacking only one side, forced Antonio to leave and when personal problems forced Alecsandros to leave as well.

However, the day I got in my hands the new publication of your "moderator", I saw that from that point in time it would have been just a downhill for me: the book confirmed everything we had always said, including the battle reconstruction of Antonio Bonomi (the 2005 one), the confirmation of the Court Martial and more that will come soon...

Now I really enjoy an extremely comfortable situation (despite the one-sided moderation is not yet over): the "deniers" are in very serious troubles now, having been rubbished by their protector with his new book.... So sorry for you all. :lol:





I strongly renew my request to the moderator (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8725#p84809) to post his "original" battlemap (from pag.211 of his new book) here to allow everybody to check and evaluate the similarities and the differences instead of hearing only the supporters cheerings ...

Unfortunately, I see he is logically very reluctant to do so. :think:


Bye, Alberto
It would be really refreshing to see a defence of your thesis rather than attack Mr V. You have put forward a controversial theory with very subjective "evidence" (and what "evidence" seems to be from a multitude of secondary sources) and we are meant to kow tow to your beliefs without question.

here we are with the "stadium fans"..
.


Did make me chuckle. Thanks for that!
HMSVF wrote: "...for may years you were able to dictate the flow and now you feel your wings have been clipped. Thats life, you had a good run and hopefully a semblance of balance can be achieved..."
Here you are totally wrong, I can guarantee !

Seriously!?

Ive read your opinions for years! Many a time I thought "do you know what, they might have something here" then the "opposition" gave their view and some context. Thats how you debate! You don't cry foul every time things don't go you way. Its childish in the extreme. Its also such a shame as your knowledge on subject is really impressive and interesting.

However, the day I got in my hands the new publication of your "moderator", I saw that from that point in time it would have been just a downhill for me: the book confirmed everything we had always said, including the battle reconstruction of Antonio Bonomi (the 2005 one), the confirmation of the Court Martial and more that will come soon...

Now I really enjoy an extremely comfortable situation (despite the one-sided moderation is not yet over): the "deniers" are in very serious troubles now, having been rubbished by their protector with his new book.... So sorry for you all. :lol:

Your at it again! "Deniers"!? Its your theory! You have to prove it! Railroading the debate, throwing in the ad homiens doesn't reinforce your POV! Give unequivocal evidence and prove your point! 80% of your time seems to be attacking those who don't agree with you! Show us why we "deniers" are absolutely wrong! Point out precisely why you are right! When we have the temerity to question you come back with another unequivocal reason why! Thats all anybody is asking!


To be absolutely honest the battle map argument is moot. It could be the greatest battle map ever. It's what followed that has caused the problem.

If you are going to make the statements you have then you have to have rock solid evidence to prove it. The fact that 6 years on there is still argument shows that the evidence is either not there or waiting to be discovered in some dusty file. What is for certain is that its not here now.

It's interpretation.

It's certainly not "truth" as there are far too many variables left unanswered. Its a jigsaw puzzle with 2/3 of the pieces missing. It doesn't matter how much you shout down, castigate or generally insult - the onus is on you to provide the evidence to prove the well known version wrong. Because it's such a controversial view you have to be unequivocal as does your evidence. Not tittle tattle or insinuation. Not hearsay or basic interpretive bias or even unconscious bias.

Then we had even more tough times, when a moderator who was not super-partes, attacking only one side, forced Antonio to leave and when personal problems forced Alecsandros to leave as well.
And what about the the likes of Paul and Cag ? It would be great to have the likes of them back. Cant think why they left....


You may not like the moderator, you may not agree with the moderator. At least we have one. And at least we have one who is extremely knowledgable and a recognised expert and published author. God knows he has tried to keep a level of calm. Maybe if you calmed it down a bit there wouldn't be so much vitriol.

There is nothing wrong with passion, but by god man do you have to go on the attack all the time? You shouldn't need to if you are 100% convinced in your thesis and have the irrefutable evidence to prove it! The research does the work for you! We are not here simply to gaze in awe of your theory and kneel in front of the idol of A+A!

Give us the silver bullet! Show us the irrefutable evidence. When you do that I will be the first to hold my hand up and say you were absolutely right.




Best wishes (as always)



HMSVF

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by HMSVF » Sat Sep 28, 2019 10:31 pm

HMSVF wrote:
Sat Sep 28, 2019 10:17 pm
Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Sat Sep 28, 2019 9:07 pm
Hello everybody,

here we are with the "stadium fans"...
HMSVF wrote: "just how different would any battle map be?"
Please, before posting and wasting my time, read and try to understand what I have kindly explained already to Mr.Nilsson here (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8258&start=45#p84708). If you have something factual to answer, please, be my guest.
All battlemaps are very, very different, including Bill Jurens' 2002 map, only copies are identical to the original (as demonstrated by the superimposition of the two maps provided by Antonio in his mails).


HMSVF wrote: "We are lucky to have a world renowned author and expert as a moderator in Bill Jurens."
Surely you are personally very lucky to have someone protecting your side and allowing people (who, due to limited knowledge of the facts under examination, are only able to "support" their side) to continue posting here without adding value to the discussion or answering the raised points.


HMSVF wrote: "...for may years you were able to dictate the flow and now you feel your wings have been clipped. Thats life, you had a good run and hopefully a semblance of balance can be achieved..."
Here you are totally wrong, I can guarantee !

It has never been easy for us ,since we touched the sacred cow in 2013 (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5830&p=54913&hilit=idiot#p54913). We used to have tough times, with almost everybody against us because unable to look at simple facts and admit what had been done in the aftermath of the Denmark Strait battle (despite it was available in the British archives...)

Then we had even more tough times, when a moderator who was not super-partes, attacking only one side, forced Antonio to leave and when personal problems forced Alecsandros to leave as well.

However, the day I got in my hands the new publication of your "moderator", I saw that from that point in time it would have been just a downhill for me: the book confirmed everything we had always said, including the battle reconstruction of Antonio Bonomi (the 2005 one), the confirmation of the Court Martial and more that will come soon...

Now I really enjoy an extremely comfortable situation (despite the one-sided moderation is not yet over): the "deniers" are in very serious troubles now, having been rubbished by their protector with his new book.... So sorry for you all. :lol:





I strongly renew my request to the moderator (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8725#p84809) to post his "original" battlemap (from pag.211 of his new book) here to allow everybody to check and evaluate the similarities and the differences instead of hearing only the supporters cheerings ...

Unfortunately, I see he is logically very reluctant to do so. :think:


Bye, Alberto
It would be really refreshing to see a defence of your thesis rather than attack Mr V. You have put forward a controversial theory with very subjective "evidence" (and what "evidence" seems to be from a multitude of secondary sources) and we are meant to kow tow to your beliefs without question.

here we are with the "stadium fans"..
.


Did make me chuckle. Thanks for that!
HMSVF wrote: "...for may years you were able to dictate the flow and now you feel your wings have been clipped. Thats life, you had a good run and hopefully a semblance of balance can be achieved..."
Here you are totally wrong, I can guarantee !

Seriously!?

Ive read your opinions for years! Many a time I thought "do you know what, they might have something here" then the "opposition" gave their view and some context. Thats how you debate! You don't cry foul every time things don't go you way. Its childish in the extreme. Its also such a shame as your knowledge on subject is really impressive and interesting.

However, the day I got in my hands the new publication of your "moderator", I saw that from that point in time it would have been just a downhill for me: the book confirmed everything we had always said, including the battle reconstruction of Antonio Bonomi (the 2005 one), the confirmation of the Court Martial and more that will come soon...

Now I really enjoy an extremely comfortable situation (despite the one-sided moderation is not yet over): the "deniers" are in very serious troubles now, having been rubbished by their protector with his new book.... So sorry for you all. :lol:

Your at it again! "Deniers"!? Its your theory! You have to prove it! Railroading the debate, throwing in the ad homiens doesn't reinforce your POV! Give unequivocal evidence and prove your point! 80% of your time seems to be attacking those who don't agree with you! Show us why we "deniers" are absolutely wrong! Point out precisely why you are right! When we have the temerity to question you come back with another unequivocal reason why! Thats all anybody is asking!


To be absolutely honest the battle map argument is moot. It could be the greatest battle map ever. It's what followed that has caused the problem.

If you are going to make the statements you have then you have to have rock solid evidence to prove it. The fact that 6 years on there is still argument shows that the evidence is either not there or waiting to be discovered in some dusty file. What is for certain is that its not here now.

It's interpretation.

It's certainly not "truth" as there are far too many variables left unanswered. Its a jigsaw puzzle with 2/3 of the pieces missing. It doesn't matter how much you shout down, castigate or generally insult - the onus is on you to provide the evidence to prove the well known version wrong. Because it's such a controversial view you have to be unequivocal as does your evidence. Not tittle tattle or insinuation. Not hearsay or basic interpretive bias or even unconscious bias.

Then we had even more tough times, when a moderator who was not super-partes, attacking only one side, forced Antonio to leave and when personal problems forced Alecsandros to leave as well.
And what about the the likes of Paul and Cag ? It would be great to have the likes of them back. Cant think why they left....


You may not like the moderator, you may not agree with the moderator. At least we have one. And at least we have one who is extremely knowledgable and a recognised expert and published author. God knows he has tried to keep a level of calm. Maybe if you calmed it down a bit there wouldn't be so much vitriol.

There is nothing wrong with passion, but by god man do you have to go on the attack all the time? You shouldn't need to if you are 100% convinced in your thesis and have the irrefutable evidence to prove it! The research does the work for you! We are not here simply to gaze in awe of your theory and kneel in front of the idol of A+A!

Give us the silver bullet! Show us the irrefutable evidence. When you do that I will be the first to hold my hand up and say you were absolutely right.




Best wishes (as always)



HMSVF


Apologies.


X posted

northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 344
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by northcape » Sat Sep 28, 2019 10:55 pm

Bill Jurens wrote:
Sat Sep 28, 2019 10:11 pm
I trust that most of the readership will understand and -- if perhaps only reluctantly -- agree with this action. Should disagreement occur, and should that be of sufficient magnitude to justify commentary, I would not be adverse to someone beginning a thread in which we can discuss -- without reference to individual personalities -- the limits within which respectful and constructive commentary might lie.
I only disagree with the length of the ban. Should not be 7 days, but 7 years at least.

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2074
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by wadinga » Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:55 am

Fellow Contributors,

Now that we can all access this number TROLL-FREE for a bit I hope discussion will continue and not dry up.
Would it be fair to say that the Bismarck survivor had just undergone what must have been a terrifying experience of a ship being pounded to bits by shells and had just abandoned the ship into rough seas contaminated by heavy fuel oil and therefore was probably not in a position to make a reasoned opinion of the state of the rudders?
Yes.

Other crippled German vessels like Prinz Eugen and Lutzow were rescued and towed in under conditions where they were helpless to manoeuvre, and unable to create any remedy using solely their own resources, but in calm weather conditions and where local German naval superiority allowed salvage operations without interference. Seas were breaking over Bismarck's decks as she wallowed in the Atlantic troughs in the pitch dark, and upper deck working parties would likely have been washed overboard, even if another vessel, say a U-boat, were attempt to come alongside. Desperation in the face of an insurmountable problem may have caused some survivors to think "more could have been done" and to criticise senior officers including the Chief Engineer, but these men were experienced and knew what could be done with the resources at hand. They were also the ones who would have to send men to almost certain pointless death in the flooded compartments or over the side for a miniscule chance of success.

Even were a vessel capable of towing Bismarck to be magically available, the shock loadings and damage to tow wires from violent abrasion would have made it utterly impractical to commence recovery until the weather had calmed down, even if a connection could have been made in the first place. They gave up all hope because there was nothing, absolutely nothing, to be done.

All the best

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

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by HMSVF » Sun Sep 29, 2019 4:49 pm

wadinga wrote:
Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:55 am
Fellow Contributors,

Now that we can all access this number TROLL-FREE for a bit I hope discussion will continue and not dry up.
Would it be fair to say that the Bismarck survivor had just undergone what must have been a terrifying experience of a ship being pounded to bits by shells and had just abandoned the ship into rough seas contaminated by heavy fuel oil and therefore was probably not in a position to make a reasoned opinion of the state of the rudders?
Yes.

Other crippled German vessels like Prinz Eugen and Lutzow were rescued and towed in under conditions where they were helpless to manoeuvre, and unable to create any remedy using solely their own resources, but in calm weather conditions and where local German naval superiority allowed salvage operations without interference. Seas were breaking over Bismarck's decks as she wallowed in the Atlantic troughs in the pitch dark, and upper deck working parties would likely have been washed overboard, even if another vessel, say a U-boat, were attempt to come alongside. Desperation in the face of an insurmountable problem may have caused some survivors to think "more could have been done" and to criticise senior officers including the Chief Engineer, but these men were experienced and knew what could be done with the resources at hand. They were also the ones who would have to send men to almost certain pointless death in the flooded compartments or over the side for a miniscule chance of success.

Even were a vessel capable of towing Bismarck to be magically available, the shock loadings and damage to tow wires from violent abrasion would have made it utterly impractical to commence recovery until the weather had calmed down, even if a connection could have been made in the first place. They gave up all hope because there was nothing, absolutely nothing, to be done.

All the best

wadinga

I would expect that the crew would have known their ship inside out. I would expect that they would have considered all the possible solutions and realised that they were unworkable and their situation pretty much hopeless.If we could think of something they certainly would have and more.


They had no control, were hundreds of miles away from safety and air cover (even if they had been theoretically in range you are going have to shuttle aircraft to give constant coverage) with no hope of getting a ship into tow.

Add in the fact that they were most likely completely mentally and physically exhausted and would be without hope.


Even if the RN battleships did run out of fuel they wouldn't be able to sail out of danger. You're still left with an uncontrollable ship in the middle of nowhere. Send in U-Boats? Well unless they want to run on the surface how quickly can they get there? If they run on the surface they are in trouble. Bismarck was finished the moment that fortuitous torpedo hit her stern. Ironically HMS Prince Of Wales would suffer the same fate off Kuantan.



Best wishes



HMSVF

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by Byron Angel » Sun Sep 29, 2019 6:35 pm

Fresh air is a heady thing indeed .....

B

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by HMSVF » Sun Sep 29, 2019 10:53 pm

HMSVF wrote:
Sun Sep 29, 2019 4:49 pm
wadinga wrote:
Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:55 am
Fellow Contributors,

Now that we can all access this number TROLL-FREE for a bit I hope discussion will continue and not dry up.
Would it be fair to say that the Bismarck survivor had just undergone what must have been a terrifying experience of a ship being pounded to bits by shells and had just abandoned the ship into rough seas contaminated by heavy fuel oil and therefore was probably not in a position to make a reasoned opinion of the state of the rudders?
Yes.

Other crippled German vessels like Prinz Eugen and Lutzow were rescued and towed in under conditions where they were helpless to manoeuvre, and unable to create any remedy using solely their own resources, but in calm weather conditions and where local German naval superiority allowed salvage operations without interference. Seas were breaking over Bismarck's decks as she wallowed in the Atlantic troughs in the pitch dark, and upper deck working parties would likely have been washed overboard, even if another vessel, say a U-boat, were attempt to come alongside. Desperation in the face of an insurmountable problem may have caused some survivors to think "more could have been done" and to criticise senior officers including the Chief Engineer, but these men were experienced and knew what could be done with the resources at hand. They were also the ones who would have to send men to almost certain pointless death in the flooded compartments or over the side for a miniscule chance of success.

Even were a vessel capable of towing Bismarck to be magically available, the shock loadings and damage to tow wires from violent abrasion would have made it utterly impractical to commence recovery until the weather had calmed down, even if a connection could have been made in the first place. They gave up all hope because there was nothing, absolutely nothing, to be done.

All the best

wadinga

I would expect that the crew would have known their ship inside out. I would expect that they would have considered all the possible solutions and realised that they were unworkable and their situation pretty much hopeless.If we could think of something they certainly would have and more.


They had no control, were hundreds of miles away from safety and air cover (even if they had been theoretically in range you are going have to shuttle aircraft to give constant coverage) with no hope of getting a ship into tow.

Add in the fact that they were most likely completely mentally and physically exhausted and would be without hope.


Even if the RN battleships did run out of fuel they wouldn't be able to sail out of danger. You're still left with an uncontrollable ship in the middle of nowhere. Send in U-Boats? Well unless they want to run on the surface how quickly can they get there? If they run on the surface they are in trouble. Bismarck was finished the moment that fortuitous torpedo hit her stern. Ironically HMS Prince Of Wales would suffer the same fate off Kuantan.



Best wishes



HMSVF


With the benefit of hindsight and the Mk1 retroscope...


The only chance/possibility was to blow the rudders off and hope that the propellers weren’t affected (though I can’t see how the centreline shaft would escape injury).


Would it have worked? Who knows.

Would they have been worse off? Who knows.


Could it have been undertaken ?


I suspect it would be a one way trip.


Could they have escaped if it had worked?

Doubtful.

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 747
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by Bill Jurens » Sun Sep 29, 2019 11:46 pm

Interesting questions.

As I see it, insofar as the port rudder was probably already gone, no problem there.

Starboard rudder was likely so badly damaged and pushed into the ship structure that there would have been no effective way to cut it off cleanly.

Even if it had been removed, you still can't really steer, even with engines for any length of time or at any speed. The shape of the after portion of the hull renders it inherently hydrodynamically unstable.

Bill Jurens

Francis Marliere
Senior Member
Posts: 269
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by Francis Marliere » Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:50 am

Dear Bill,

nothing personnal against our Italian friend, but your decision to ban him is IMHO sound. It's was the only solution to save this forum.
I guess it's what he wanted anyway.

Best regards, and thanks for your efforts

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sun Oct 06, 2019 8:13 am

Hello everybody,

sorry for this long post (not strictly related to the topic of the thread). Back from another 7 days "absence" (I will speak about the reasons why I disagree with Mr.Jurens having been banned once again in the dedicate thread viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8347, as requested (viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8347)), I have unfortunately read some very unfair comments during my absence.

I would never attack someone when he is banned (a very remote possibility anyway, as the opponent side seems to be ban-free and allowed to insult me at any time, see here viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8725&start=15#p84827).
The reason is that, doing so, is the same as "shooting from behind", but apparently someone has no other way to discuss than to take advantage from the fact that the opponent is "forced" to silence..... Not a great behaviour + I have to outline that the moderator has done nothing to stop this vile attitude and to teach his "followers" how to behave in a more honourable way.

Nothing personal against these people, but no surprise at all that they like so much the actions of Capt. Leach (for withdrawing his ship from the fight) and Adm.Wake-Walker (for refusing to re.engage a flying enemy)....


Look here below at some "pearls of fairness" (comments done when I was not there to answer and not stopped or, at least, criticized by anybody here)....
Northcape wrote: "I only disagree with the length of the ban. Should not be 7 days, but 7 years at least. "
I'm sure it would be very convenient for you....
Wadinga wrote: "Now that we can all access this number TROLL-FREE for a bit..."
(Repeated) evident insult....
Byron Angel wrote: "Fresh air is a heady thing indeed ."
I hope you have breathed deeply: more "interesting" (headache giving) topics will come soon now....
Francis Marliere wrote: "I guess it's what he wanted anyway. "
No, it's not what I want: I have even resisted the (strong) temptation to withdraw together with Antonio Bonomi (when he lucidly realized that this side-taken moderation would not have allowed any space to the minority anymore). However, I'm very well aware that one day I will be banned forever because I'm too inconvenient for "someone".

A pity, because this forum used to be a free one for everybody (majority and minority, ignorant and knowledgeable people, RN fans and Kriegsmarine fans, cautiousness fans and courage fans, novel readers and historical researchers)...






So said, I come to someone else less aggressive than the above (or at least expressing his view instead of just applauding his side "moderator"....), even if I would have preferred him to wait until I would have been back..

Forgetting the long post about "controversial theories" (if they annoy someone, it's not my fault), the "ways of debating" (my personal limitation, possibly) and "the evidences" (we have provided fresh new and more than needed in all these years, but, when not willing to accept them at any cost, they were called "innocent errors", "typos" "secretaries misleading their bosses", "fog of war undetermination", etc... What would you need more? Please, if really interested, ask a question about a single very specific argument where in your opinion we have not provided sufficient evidences...).

HMSVF wrote: "To be absolutely honest the battle map argument is moot. "
It may be moot and irrelevant for you, who has not spent years of study to draw a battlemap, who has made it available to everyone (the "new" one from pag.211 is not yet available here, please ask yourself why...) and then who has seen his work used by someone else without the due acknowledgement (and with another signature on it, something that Mr.Toussaint download/file.php?id=3193 has not done, at least).
But it's not enough: while Antonio was still unaware he would have suffered such a treatment, the "author" of the pag.211 map came into the forum as "moderator".... starting to raise doubts about the 2005 map "determination" (?), with the intent to attack him and to reduce his obvious reaction (once the book available) to a kind of personal querelle.

The argument of the battlemap is key and it is in no way moot (as the mails sent by Antonio to the naval community and the total absence of meaningful replies on the topic demonstrates).


HMSVF wrote: "And what about the likes of Paul and Cag ? It would be great to have the likes of them back. "
I agree it would be good to have them both back, as well as Antonio and Alecsandros.
Regarding Paul however (I guess you refer to Dr.Cadogan), I can assure you that I admire him and his fairness: he would have been a really great moderator and some of us used to call him "judge" already, because he used to have the intellectual honesty to play a super-partes role. I consider myself a friend of Paul and I'm sure he did not leave due to me or to Antonio, despite we had different views on some aspects of the battle and of the following aftermath and "cover-up".
I guess (my speculation only of course) he simply left when he understood that the climate in the forum was deteriorating and that no fair discussion was possible and that his theory was being used by the "ones-who-deny-evidences-at-any-cost" in order to muddle waters and avoid to be nailled to the conclusion that Antonio's 2005 battlemap (and its subsequent reproductions) confirms: of course the next releases of Antonio's work (already published in 2017 or to be published in the next years) will contain much more precise information....



Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by HMSVF » Sun Oct 06, 2019 3:29 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 8:13 am
Hello everybody,

sorry for this long post (not strictly related to the topic of the thread). Back from another 7 days "absence" (I will speak about the reasons why I disagree with Mr.Jurens having been banned once again in the dedicate thread viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8347, as requested (viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8347)), I have unfortunately read some very unfair comments during my absence.

I would never attack someone when he is banned (a very remote possibility anyway, as the opponent side seems to be ban-free and allowed to insult me at any time, see here viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8725&start=15#p84827).
The reason is that, doing so, is the same as "shooting from behind", but apparently someone has no other way to discuss than to take advantage from the fact that the opponent is "forced" to silence..... Not a great behaviour + I have to outline that the moderator has done nothing to stop this vile attitude and to teach his "followers" how to behave in a more honourable way.

Nothing personal against these people, but no surprise at all that they like so much the actions of Capt. Leach (for withdrawing his ship from the fight) and Adm.Wake-Walker (for refusing to re.engage a flying enemy)....


Look here below at some "pearls of fairness" (comments done when I was not there to answer and not stopped or, at least, criticized by anybody here)....
Northcape wrote: "I only disagree with the length of the ban. Should not be 7 days, but 7 years at least. "
I'm sure it would be very convenient for you....
Wadinga wrote: "Now that we can all access this number TROLL-FREE for a bit..."
(Repeated) evident insult....
Byron Angel wrote: "Fresh air is a heady thing indeed ."
I hope you have breathed deeply: more "interesting" (headache giving) topics will come soon now....
Francis Marliere wrote: "I guess it's what he wanted anyway. "
No, it's not what I want: I have even resisted the (strong) temptation to withdraw together with Antonio Bonomi (when he lucidly realized that this side-taken moderation would not have allowed any space to the minority anymore). However, I'm very well aware that one day I will be banned forever because I'm too inconvenient for "someone".

A pity, because this forum used to be a free one for everybody (majority and minority, ignorant and knowledgeable people, RN fans and Kriegsmarine fans, cautiousness fans and courage fans, novel readers and historical researchers)...






So said, I come to someone else less aggressive than the above (or at least expressing his view instead of just applauding his side "moderator"....), even if I would have preferred him to wait until I would have been back..

Forgetting the long post about "controversial theories" (if they annoy someone, it's not my fault), the "ways of debating" (my personal limitation, possibly) and "the evidences" (we have provided fresh new and more than needed in all these years, but, when not willing to accept them at any cost, they were called "innocent errors", "typos" "secretaries misleading their bosses", "fog of war undetermination", etc... What would you need more? Please, if really interested, ask a question about a single very specific argument where in your opinion we have not provided sufficient evidences...).

HMSVF wrote: "To be absolutely honest the battle map argument is moot. "
It may be moot and irrelevant for you, who has not spent years of study to draw a battlemap, who has made it available to everyone (the "new" one from pag.211 is not yet available here, please ask yourself why...) and then who has seen his work used by someone else without the due acknowledgement (and with another signature on it, something that Mr.Toussaint download/file.php?id=3193 has not done, at least).
But it's not enough: while Antonio was still unaware he would have suffered such a treatment, the "author" of the pag.211 map came into the forum as "moderator".... starting to raise doubts about the 2005 map "determination" (?), with the intent to attack him and to reduce his obvious reaction (once the book available) to a kind of personal querelle.

The argument of the battlemap is key and it is in no way moot (as the mails sent by Antonio to the naval community and the total absence of meaningful replies on the topic demonstrates).


HMSVF wrote: "And what about the likes of Paul and Cag ? It would be great to have the likes of them back. "
I agree it would be good to have them both back, as well as Antonio and Alecsandros.
Regarding Paul however (I guess you refer to Dr.Cadogan), I can assure you that I admire him and his fairness: he would have been a really great moderator and some of us used to call him "judge" already, because he used to have the intellectual honesty to play a super-partes role. I consider myself a friend of Paul and I'm sure he did not leave due to me or to Antonio, despite we had different views on some aspects of the battle and of the following aftermath and "cover-up".
I guess (my speculation only of course) he simply left when he understood that the climate in the forum was deteriorating and that no fair discussion was possible and that his theory was being used by the "ones-who-deny-evidences-at-any-cost" in order to muddle waters and avoid to be nailled to the conclusion that Antonio's 2005 battlemap (and its subsequent reproductions) confirms: of course the next releases of Antonio's work (already published in 2017 or to be published in the next years) will contain much more precise information....



Bye, Alberto
The argument of the battlemap is key and it is in no way moot (as the mails sent by Antonio to the naval community and the total absence of meaningful replies on the topic demonstrates).

Mr V,


I'll rephrase it.


It's not the map that causes the controversy - it's the conclusions that have been drawn from it.

This is the source of the heat and resulting fire.


The problem is that it's subjective. You have 2 sides reading the same texts coming to completely different conclusions from the same information.
It depends on POV and interpretation of witness accounts and human inputted data. where there is a divergence or anomalous entry or account its has been set aside if it doesn't fit the thesis. If it does fit thesis then the used as evidence that other witness's were deceitful.

My honest opinion is that war and battles are never clean. My honest opinion is that its extremely difficult pre digital to have a forensic examination that is precise to the second or even 10 seconds. All of the equipment used on both sides relied on human input, all of it will have a degree of error in regards to timings and positions - this is pre atomic clock and GPS. The best that can be achieved is a best approximation.

This does not mean that I do not recognise the hard work and effort put into your work. It is obvious that many a long hour has been spent refining and re-refining and for that you get my respect.


The divergence results from the conclusions brought from it.


I bow to yourself, Mr Jurens,Wadinga etc when it comes to how big a whole a 15 inch shell makes against a 13 inch Vickers plate for example. What I do understand are the "human factors" which I know are not popular on here but need to be acknowledged. Men train long and hard to mitigate against them, but at the end of the day human error, misinterpretation of events resulting in unreliable witness testimony and pure and simple shock mean that "what should happen" doesn't mean that it does happen. I've seen people first hand, who are highly trained individuals in their field make what would appear to be the simplest errors in life and death situations in retrospect.It happens. You could I suppose also call it "information overload" where the brain simply cannot process the vast amount of stressors and performance drops off. I was reading an account of one of Admiral Sheer's officers the other day. Sheer (as to be expected) claimed that he knew exactly where he was and what he was doing during the Grand Fleet encounter. One of his flag officers gave a very different opinion - he said that Sheer hadn't the "foggiest idea" of where he was, and his 2nd torpedo attack order (the one Jellicoe turned away from) was as much in desperation as anything else. Sheer got lucky. He made it home after tweaking the lions tale and as such any of his mistakes/dithering were forgotten.

These days of course it is so much more simpler - you have a computer or bank of computers gathering the information immune from the frailty of the human mind. We can drive down to the nearest millisecond why an aircraft crashes, when a pilot made a mistake, what he was saying/thinking at the time of his decision.


In reality in regards to the Bismarck encounter, all we have are accounts written after the time (sometimes days sometimes years or decades),analogue inputs (including a piece of film) or the Mk1 eyeball.









Back to topic.


Just say they had blown off the rudders...

What would be the chances of causing significant flooding aft as a result? If you got it wrong would you break shaft glands,plummer blocks etc?

What would the chances be of a POW scenario where you have progressive flooding down shaft alleys?

I understand that a lot would depend on the size and position of the charges - but this is a ship that already had some pretty substantial damage to her stern.




Best wishes




HMSVF

Post Reply