Lutjens dies and Lindemann takes command

[dunmunro]

It is also intersting that, by mentioning PoW´s damage on Bismarck everybody forgets that those hits were done BEFORE Bismarck shifted her aim against the British BB. PoW was able to land her hits on Bismarck whilst she was left uncontested. As soon as the main German effort concentrated on PoW then the British hitting became zero and the German onslaught on it increased.

When PoW disengaged it was her the one being hammered whilst the Germans stopped from receiveing any hits at all. After all... PoW was the one disengaging. The German sin was not to pursuit.

PoW also had to make some radical course changes to avoid Hood, and Bismarck also made a course change around this time.

[Terje Langoy]

Though we know what Lindemann would have done we don´t know how Netzbandt would respond. Being Lütjens chief of staff he have the authority to intervene and overrule Lindemann thus he can´t be excluded from the decision process, especially not if that particular decision changes the entire role of Bismarck. It is one thing to fire back when taken under fire, it is a different matter to pursue an enemy battleship in an attempt to destroy her.

The premise was that Lindeman takes command. If you want to assume a hit on the admiral's bridge, killing both men and most of the staff, then probably that is what the topic indicated.

Yes, it would indeed appear so.

[dunmunro]

It is interesting that the book German Capital Ships and Raiders in WW2, and it's Battle Summary No. 5, has a 21 page section which is a history of the Bismarck's Atlantic sortie, based upon interviews with German Prisoners of war, and the only argument that is recorded to have occurred between Lindemann and Lutjens, was over Lindemann's request to return to port, ASAP, after the DS Battle to repair her battle damage.How odd that Lindemann who apparently wanted to avoid further damage which might leave Bismarck unable to return to port, would have also argued for a prolonged, "fight to the death" with PoW...

[tommy303]

It's too bad there were no survivors from either the combat bridge nor the admiral's bridge who could tell us exactly what transpired between Luetjens and Lindemann. It is probable, since it had to start somewhere, that Lindemann, as soon as PoW began to withdraw under smoke, may have suggested they follow and continue, but this would be somewhat before the full extent of Bismarck's damage was known. It often can take an hour or more to ascertain how much damage there was, how serious, and if any remedial steps could be taken before a clear picture could begin to emerge; at this point is is possible that Lindemann concerned for his ship and crew may have argued for a return to Germany, while Luetjens--who had a mission from the highest authority argued to carry on. In the end they seem to have compromised--head for port, but in France instead of Germany--repairs could me made as easily there as back home and when finished Bismarck would be poised on the Atlantic and not have to make the perilous breakout from the North Sea again.

[yellowtail3]

It is also intersting that, by mentioning PoW´s damage on Bismarck everybody forgets that those hits were done BEFORE Bismarck shifted her aim against the British BB. PoW was able to land her hits on Bismarck whilst she was left uncontested. As soon as the main German effort concentrated on PoW then the British hitting became zero and the German onslaught on it increased.

Well, no one wants on onslaught on them to continue. Better to get out of the tight spot, re-engage when advantageous. Elementary command decision.

When PoW disengaged it was her the one being hammered whilst the Germans stopped from receiveing any hits at all. After all... PoW was the one disengaging. The German sin was not to pursuit.

Sin? Naw... the Wannsee Conference was a sin; Lutjens' decision to continue his mission was following orders and, with info known, reasonably good judgment. Why risk getting the ship banged up further on a dubious side-pursuit, when you can follow your orders and continue your mission, instead?

[Karl Heidenreich]

Sin? Naw... the Wannsee Conference was a sin; Lutjens' decision to continue his mission was following orders and, with info known, reasonably good judgment. Why risk getting the ship banged up further on a dubious side-pursuit, when you can follow your orders and continue your mission, instead?

This discussion is not part of the thread but, being it here, let´s continue: Lutjens orders that told him to slip in secrecy into the Atlantic to intercept convoys were clearly out dated the moment the Germans were, themselves, intercepted. And after the combat, itself, started those orders were twice outdated.

I have always stated that common sense dictated the continuation of the combat against PoW in order to reduce her as much as possible, specially in the minutes after Hood´s sinking in which the Germans had the tactically favorable moral ascendency. But, in any case, PoW´s being hunted or not the mission was "kaput" as far as the Germans were concerned. Bismarck was damaged and the return to port was a necessity. The route to the North was open and offered good expectations.

[Bgile]

Sin? Naw... the Wannsee Conference was a sin; Lutjens' decision to continue his mission was following orders and, with info known, reasonably good judgment. Why risk getting the ship banged up further on a dubious side-pursuit, when you can follow your orders and continue your mission, instead?

This discussion is not part of the thread but, being it here, let´s continue: Lutjens orders that told him to slip in secrecy into the Atlantic to intercept convoys were clearly out dated the moment the Germans were, themselves, intercepted. And after the combat, itself, started those orders were twice outdated.

I have always stated that common sense dictated the continuation of the combat against PoW in order to reduce her as much as possible, specially in the minutes after Hood´s sinking in which the Germans had the tactically favorable moral ascendency. But, in any case, PoW´s being hunted or not the mission was "kaput" as far as the Germans were concerned. Bismarck was damaged and the return to port was a necessity. The route to the North was open and offered good expectations.

You have sunk the Hood and can return to Germany victorious. Now you want to risk losing Bismarck, one of two German battleships, in order to try for more glory? The British can afford the exchange and you can't.

[Karl Heidenreich]

You have sunk the Hood and can return to Germany victorious. Now you want to risk losing Bismarck, one of two German battleships, in order to try for more glory? The British can afford the exchange and you can't.

You are right in the strategical overall interpretation of this event, of course. The British could muster (and they did in fact) a huge amount of naval resources to hunt down Bismarck.

What I stated is the following:

1. If possible continue actions against PoW. Whatever your ideological likes it is PoW, not Bismarck the one that could end badly in this. Again: PoW was able to damage Bismarck when she wasn´t contested. As soon as the German BB aimed at her not a single shot hit Bismarck but, the other way around, PoW started receiving heavy punishment. Now, the main argument against this is that the damage against the Bismarck was vital in her destruction. True, but it was so in the long run and only at hindsight. The PoW was being battered and Captain Leach knew it, which is why he withdraw from combat: he simply cannot afford the risk of continue an action that was going against him.

2. Even with PoW´s further damaged or not good idea was to return ASAP for repairs, as Lindemann appear to have begged. And the safest route was North back into the DS all the way to Norway. Suffolk, Norfolk and PoW: if required they have to be contested. By now the British had already order to engage in mass and to avoid single combat with Bismarck.

At least that could have given Bismarck a more reasonable oportunity than the Bay of Biscay route.

[yellowtail3]

"... Hood´s sinking in which the Germans had the tactically favorable moral ascendency."

Moral ascendancy is not something I've ever associated with the Nazi military. Occasional competence and tactical prowess, sometimes yes; moral ascendancy, never. Except maybe the officers who tried to off Hitler.

"But, in any case, PoW´s being hunted or not the mission was "kaput" as far as the Germans were concerned. Bismarck was damaged and the return to port was a necessity. The route to the North was open and offered good expectations.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Might have shortened the crew's misery by a couple days. And they might even have been sunk by PoW and the two RN cruisers. Or they may have made it back, and we'd see the Bismarck bombed & sunk at some later date.

[alecsandros]

Moral ascendancy is not something I've ever associated with the Nazi military.

I think it's "moral" as in "morale" (high spirits), not ethics.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Might have shortened the crew's misery by a couple days. And they might even have been sunk by PoW and the two RN cruisers. Or they may have made it back, and we'd see the Bismarck bombed & sunk at some later date

BS chances of returning to Bergen were higher than those of reaching Brest.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Moral ascendancy is not something I've ever associated with the Nazi military...

Here I was not referring to any ethical or moral stance. I was refering to it in the sense of Karl von Clausewitz definition that could be put, in a simplistic way, as the favorable conditions of the winning side and the knowledge of the losing side of their own inferiority... at least for the time being.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Moral ascendancy is not something I've ever associated with the Nazi military.

To refer as "nazi" to all German Armed Forces is very unfair and simplistic. The German Army was a tool of the Prussian state that came back from the years of Frederick the Great.

There is truth in that the Luftwaffe was very nazi oriented because of Goering.

Obviously the SS was nazi to it´s bones. Even in the Waffen Panzer Corps there were Generals such as Wilhelm Bittrich that was a critic of all nazi regime policies.

The German Army would have performed the same tasks under any regime. I think that under a democracy they would have performed better.

Except maybe the officers who tried to off Hitler.

I do not regard to put a bomb and run away as very courageous. Even if Hitler was the target.

Occasional competence and tactical prowess, sometimes yes

I detect here the aim of bringing some ideological issues to the table, which I think is better not. Just want to say, as I have stated many times before, that it took more than four years to the three greatest powers (empires?) on Earth, joining more than half of all the world´s geography and population and three quarters of the World´s wealth and three fourths of all the natural resources to win over a country a little bigger than Texas, with a fraction of the population of it´s enemies and with no natural resources at all, and while winning these powers suffered casualties four times bigger than that of Germany.

Best regards,

[Karl Heidenreich]

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Might have shortened the crew's misery by a couple days. And they might even have been sunk by PoW and the two RN cruisers. Or they may have made it back, and we'd see the Bismarck bombed & sunk at some later date.

There is no evidence of any of your claims. I think that opposing stances have been discussed in this forum, at lenght, and showed some knowledge on the issues: in favor and against Bismarck returning sortie. Your statements, done in simple and striking sentences, without any proper explanation, just with authoritative and provocative expression denotes the aim of trying to pick up needless discussions and fights not in order to prove a point of find any thruth but in order just to produce that fight.
Plainly, even when the point that maybe the Northen route could have been also dangerous to Bismarck the claim that "Might have shortened the crew's misery by a couple days. And they might even have been sunk by PoW and the two RN cruisers. Or they may have made it back, and we'd see the Bismarck bombed & sunk at some later date." is at is best unaccurate, to say the least.

Nothing else will be regarded from me on this, acknowleding that answering the post, in itself, was a mistake in the first place.

[yellowtail3]

Plainly, even when the point that maybe the Northen route could have been also dangerous to Bismarck the claim that "Might have shortened the crew's misery by a couple days. And they might even have been sunk by PoW and the two RN cruisers. Or they may have made it back, and we'd see the Bismarck bombed & sunk at some later date." is at is best unaccurate, to say the least.

Wel... all those things are plausible, I think, though getting sunk by Prince of Wales was unlikely, I know

I do think that if she'd made it back to Norway (or France) Bismarck would inevitably been sunk sometime over the next couple years, probably without contributing much to the war effort, as were all the major surface units (Prinz Eugen excepted). I think major surface ships were a losing deal for the German Navy; they've have done better putting those resources into submarines and other things.

[yellowtail3]

Nothing else will be regarded from me on this, acknowleding that answering the post, in itself, was a mistake in the first place.

No, no call for that, now. In sum for the thread - which I've enjoyed - I think that if Lutjens was killed... the CO (assuming he took command of the mission) may have headed back to Norway. And he may well have tried to finish off the Prince of Wales, though I think that would have been a failed effort.