Main Turrets?

Anything concerning the wreck. Expeditions, submersibles, photos, etc.
User avatar
_Derfflinger_
Supporter
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:01 pm
Location: Missouri, USA

Main Turrets?

Post by _Derfflinger_ » Fri Jun 10, 2005 10:11 pm

As the Bismarck sank, her four main battery turrets fell off as she went bottom up on her dive to the sea bottom. As she sits on the sea bed now, hull right side up, all four turrets are thus missing. Have any of the four main battery turrets been located during all the searching that has gone on around her?

Thanks - VdT

User avatar
Ulrich Rudofsky
Contributor & Translator
Posts: 844
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 9:16 pm
Location: State of New York

Post by Ulrich Rudofsky » Sat Jun 11, 2005 12:53 am

Yes, a main turret was found lying upside down. See John Asmussen's site:
http://www.bismarck-class.dk/bismarck/w ... eck_3.html
Ulrich

Monitor
Member
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 12:46 am
Location: US

Post by Monitor » Tue Jun 14, 2005 10:51 pm

I think Ballard found one and later Cameron found another. The other two turrets haven't been found.

ufo
Supporter
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Rhu, Scotland

Post by ufo » Mon Jun 20, 2005 6:31 pm

Seems every expedition is granted one turret.

The David mearns Expedition claimed to have found Caesar, different from the one (I think unidentified one) found initially by Ballard.
The picture they show
http://www.hmshood.com/hoodtoday/2001ex ... index.html
looks different from the turret the Cammeron expedition found and photographed
http://www.bismarck-class.dk/bismarck/w ... eck_3.html
So that would bring the count up to three with only one missing.

Ufo

User avatar
_Derfflinger_
Supporter
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:01 pm
Location: Missouri, USA

Post by _Derfflinger_ » Tue Jun 21, 2005 2:53 am

Ufo - Thanks, interesting! Do we know which of the four turrets has yet to be discovered?

VdT

ufo
Supporter
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Rhu, Scotland

Post by ufo » Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:25 am

The one the Mearns expedition found, they claim is Ceasar. They found very characteristic splash marks on its faceplate that match the direct hit it suffered. So that one is accounted for.

The next is a guessing game. To me it looks on the pictures of the Cammeron expedition (John Assmussen’s page) as if the turret has no ears, hence no range finder of it’s own. That would make that one Anton.

I think the first one found had never been identified. That leaves either Bruno or Dora missing and the other being the one found by Ballard.

Difficult though! They do look similar. The barbette of Dora shows very distinctive marks from penetrations and near penetrations. If the rotary structure of the known turret is intact one should find damage corresponding to the hits making it Dora or missing the marks making it Bruno.
The blown out rear of Bruno could be an other possible identifier.

Bill Jurens might know. He knows the fish around the wreck by their first name :wink:

Ciao,
Ufo

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 407
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Bismarck Turrets

Post by Bill Jurens » Tue Jun 21, 2005 9:36 pm

Just a brief comment based -- at this stage anyway -- only on my offhand memory.

My recollection surrounding the videotapes and survey information taken by the James Cameron expedition is that they in fact found all four of Bismarck's turrets. They are -- again as I recall -- distributed roughly in a straight line on the bottom, with one offset apparently from being run over by the hull of the ship as it slid along the bottom. We saw only two turrets during the Channel 4 Expedition of 2001.

I really can't recall any features which could be used to positively identify the turrets seen in 2001, and I certainly don't recall any 'splash marks' on the turret faceplate(s), which were more or less entirely buried in the mud and/or covered in wreckage. My detailed memory of the Cameron videotapes is fading, and I did not take many detailed notes during my viewing of them.

Hope this helps...

Bill Jurens.

User avatar
mike kemble
Supporter
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:17 pm
Location: Sutton Coldfield England

Post by mike kemble » Mon Apr 30, 2007 5:49 pm

I think the turrets are missing due to the angle of dive of Bismarck. I understand she sank at quite a distance from where she "settled" due to the angle of her descent.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7533
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Post by RF » Tue May 01, 2007 9:58 am

My understanding was that Bismarck sank on a more or less even keel and then slid down the side of an underwater mountain....
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
mike kemble
Supporter
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:17 pm
Location: Sutton Coldfield England

Post by mike kemble » Tue May 01, 2007 5:29 pm

I was not talking about the level at which she landed but the angle of descent. She started her descent miles from where she sank beneath the waves.

Ramius
Member
Posts: 230
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 3:40 am
Location: Richmond, Virginia

Post by Ramius » Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:45 pm

The programs and Ballard state that the ship capsizad and slid as she came to her final resting place. This means when she capsized the gravity mounted 15in turrets fell out. Also for a correction of the high angle of descent, than was an illusion caused by the traveling Bismarck did when she hit the sea mount. When she hit she slid down a ways to her final resting position. Also eyewitness accounts show it was cloudy that day, so navigation was not completely acurate. Just contributing. :D

USS ALASKA
Member
Posts: 145
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:05 pm

Re: Main Turrets?

Post by USS ALASKA » Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:03 am

Gents, tried this question on another board. Some of you have seen it perhaps. Anyway – I’ll ask it here also. I was at the local used book store with my nephew – he wanted some Jules Verne. Saw a copy of Ballard’s Bismarck. Heard of it but never actually looked through a copy before. Pictures and renderings showed Bismarck upright on the bottom. Question, when Bismarck turned over on her way down, her main battery turrets fell away. Why did the 5.9 secondary turrets remain attached? Are they locked onto their races somehow?

Thanks.

User avatar
Legend
Senior Member
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:46 am
Location: Tomahawk, Wisconsin

Re: Main Turrets?

Post by Legend » Thu Jan 08, 2009 2:58 am

Good question! The only calibre of naval artillery on Bismarck that was not locked in and were gravity-mounted were... The 15in guns. The secondaries were all locked in by plates or joints to keep them (the lighter guns) from either falling out by heavy seas or from jumping out when firing. They did the designing before they built it so everything was set in stone, more or less.

:think: From what I understand, the Bismarck, after capsizing (loosing her turrets on or near the surface and having her stern and admiral's bridge blown off my hydrodynamical forces), did have an angled descent trajectory while staying relatively upright (after flipping back over after capsizing). That would explain why she was hard to find, she sank in one place, drifted underwater to another on her journey down, and finally sailed through the mud down the slope of the volcano she landed on to her final resting place. That would also explain the strewn out placement of the debris, besides the current of course. The heavier pieces (the turrets, the admiral's bridge, and the stern) would have gone almost straight down from their breaking spot (where Bismarck really sank) to the bottom (where they are now).

I agree with Bill, from what I saw from the Cameron footage were the turret tops almost completely submerged in sea floor mud. You can barely see the turrets, they appear in the rippled mud here and there. So the faces are almost completely covered. Another way I could see the turrets identified, is the number of stories they have, from what I understood some had more or less than others. Also if some more barrel was showing we could possibly determine which one was Dora(?), the one what had it's barrels split open from a hit, unless that happened to more than I saw in the paintings...
AND THE SEA SHALL GRANT EACH MAN NEW HOPE, AS SLEEP BRINGS DREAMS.

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Main Turrets?

Post by Bgile » Thu Jan 08, 2009 5:07 pm

I'd love to be able to study the gunhouses, but it doesn't look too likely that we will ever get a chance to do so.

User avatar
Legend
Senior Member
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:46 am
Location: Tomahawk, Wisconsin

Re: Main Turrets?

Post by Legend » Sat Jan 10, 2009 4:24 am

Not without disturbing the wreck (which I would vehemously dissaprove of, for it is a wargrave of thousands of poor and brave German sailors). The only real way would be to use a propulsor of some sort to blow the mud out of the way, then if the things don't collapse or fall over you could possibly see them.
AND THE SEA SHALL GRANT EACH MAN NEW HOPE, AS SLEEP BRINGS DREAMS.

Post Reply