Bismarck's port rudder

Anything concerning the wreck. Expeditions, submersibles, photos, etc.
Bill Jurens
Supporter
Posts: 314
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Bismarck's port rudder

Postby Bill Jurens » Mon May 03, 2010 2:36 pm

Thank you, Marc and George, for some very helpful and constructive comments.

The confusion in translation can be a real problem, and is one reason why I always try to get German-speaking authors, etc. to write on German ships. Reading documents only in translation can be dangerous and misleading.
I doubt if I will be able to attend the meeting in Germany. In any case, I expect that a German-speaking visitor to the meeting would do a much better job than I would regarding interviews, etc.

Bill Jurens

User avatar
30knots
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 1:02 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Bismarck's port rudder

Postby 30knots » Mon May 03, 2010 2:52 pm

Bgile wrote:
30knots wrote:Interestingly, no one has commenteted directly on my suggestion about manually turning the port rudder to the exact opposite angle of the damaged starboard rudder, in an attempt to at least giving steering with the shafts alone a better chance. My understanding is divers could indeed access the steering compartment, albeit with great difficulty.


I commented on it right after you made it. You apparently ignored my comment. It apparently wasn't possible for them to do much of anything in there, and they didn't "let the rudder fall out". It seems to have broken off at some point.


You are correct Bgile, and I apologise. That's why i used the word "directly". I certainly didn't ignore your comment though. I was just asking a question about if it was possible to manually turn the port rudder to the exact opposite angle to that of the damaged starboard rudder, and if it might have helped to steer the ship with the shafts alone, albeit at slower speed, but at least heading towards France and not NW.

To Bill. Many thanks for your very informative and polite reply.

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Bismarck's port rudder

Postby Herr Nilsson » Tue May 04, 2010 2:57 pm

Bill Jurens wrote:The confusion in translation can be a real problem, and is one reason why I always try to get German-speaking authors, etc. to write on German ships. Reading documents only in translation can be dangerous and misleading.


:D

Hello Bill,

more and more it seems to me that there are a lot of errors in English books about Bismarck. Some because of mistranslations, some because of the loss of accentuation in otherwise correct translations. It’s weird, every year there is at least one new book published and rehashing the same old story again and again, but the errors are still repeated.
However, I hope the results of the examinations of the wreck will be published one day. There are a lot of aspects I simply do not understand. I hope such a paper will answer my questions.
Regards

Marc

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Bismarck's port rudder

Postby lwd » Tue May 04, 2010 3:41 pm

Herr Nilsson wrote: ... more and more it seems to me that there are a lot of errors in English books about Bismarck....

I think you were overly specific. You could have left out the words "English" and "Bismarck" above and been just as correct. Look at the difference in the description of the battle of Midway prior to Shattered Sword and in that work. Or the description in most books of what happened to Fuso vs the one in The Battle of Surigao Strait. Those just off the top of my head. One should always read text with a critical eye.

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Bismarck's port rudder

Postby Herr Nilsson » Tue May 04, 2010 5:00 pm

lwd wrote:One should always read text with a critical eye.


Yes, of course. I personally do not believe anything about Bismarck without reading the primary source.
Yes, of course, there are always good books and bad books. However, in this context I can only speak about English books regarding Bismarck. Compared to German books they do have some errors because of translation. For example, the story of the removal of the range finder of turret Anton is another typical error, which you can find in English secondary sources.
German books aren’t better. Far from it. But at least they do not have the problems of translation of German sources, if the sources are cited correctly.
Regards

Marc

Olaf
Member
Posts: 103
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 9:17 pm
Location: Flensburg, Germany
Contact:

Re: Bismarck's port rudder

Postby Olaf » Tue May 04, 2010 8:14 pm

I wish I had more of this stuff for translating on my table - but on the other hand, I submitted a (maritime) translation to a client some weeks ago, now the thing is published and I received the usual copy, only to find out that a few of my naval terms and expressions had been deleted or replaced by some crap during the proofreading process ... :stubborn:

Then, there is always the question if a translator should correct mistakes of the source text while translating it into the target text. I do not know what is written in English books about the removal of the Anton-rangefinder but this could as well be traced back to some blatant translation errors or to a foolish editor who thinks to know better? This leads directly to the question of the "primary" source. What is it in case of Bismarck? Official documents, such as the ship's blueprints, operational orders, now in archives across the world? Books written by survivors/witnesses? Cinematic footage? Photos?

Back to topic (sort of) ~ One of my first books about Bismarck was the one about the discovery by Ballard. Since then I was sceptical about the presentation of the sinking process, how the stern broke off and how everything looks now on the stern area. Especially step 2 of the sinking (p.218 in the German edition), when the stern brakes off. How it is presented, is to my eyes physically impossible. The illustrations of the wreck - and I assume the photos as well - do show fragments of the decks beneath the aft swastica hanging (or bent?) down towards the seabed. This makes me believe that the stern broke off in the same direction. This would mean, the stern broke upwards when the ship started its journey into the deep (before it uprighted itself) - OR - the stern remained attached to the hull until the ship crashed stern first into the bottom. With the stern stuck in the mud, crushed, and the rudders and props possibly damaged as well, the ship fell down like a fallen tree - and began its slide down to its final resting positon. I think when the stern broke off at or near the surface, or maybe on the way down, it might have been more difficult for the hull to upright itself. I think it wasn't 'streamlined' enough with the missing stern. I know, this is highly speculative and everything falls apart when someone now replies that the stern was found some distance to the main wreck and that it simply can't be buried in the impact crater ... :whistle:

I am not of the fortunate ones who had the chance to dive to the wreck, but those who did, can possibly tell us something about the impact crater. Was it ever investigated? Optically? Or maybe someone put a sonar over it? (if this is technical possible - I remember they did something like this at the Titanic wreck to examine the damage from the iceberg. The damage is buried in the mud as well ...)

Happy discussing ~ Olaf!
Why the Navy? Well,.... I was young and short on money...
http://linerpara.de

BigBadVuk
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:24 am

Re: Bismarck's port rudder

Postby BigBadVuk » Wed May 05, 2010 2:18 am

I have watched recently Discovery & James Cameron expedition Bismarck on DVD and i remember that they were descending down the slope in big trench that was made by Bismarck`s hull sliding down the mountain.That is how they founded the wreck.And it was huuuge and very distinctive,you could not misunderstood his edges and relief for anything else but for slide mark ,made by massive hull.Also, it was litered with remains of equipment and pieces of structures,like admirals bridge.I also never saw anything about exact impact point.. :think:

And i would like to ask 1 more side queston:
Where was the exact positions for placing explosive charges and what compartments were directly opened "towards ocean" when kingston valves were opened.I have anathomy of the ship:Bismarck book,but there were no such data in it.
I appologise if this question was already answered somewhere...
BTW sory for my typo and bad english mistakes.. :stubborn:

Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 642
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Bismarck's port rudder

Postby Thorsten Wahl » Wed May 05, 2010 3:57 pm

At the command "Versenken" closure condition of the ship was canceled, the bilge pumps were switched to pump in reverse direction and all? possible seaside valves were openend

The capacity of the 18 bilge pumps was about 16,000 tons of water per hour.
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!

Bill Jurens
Supporter
Posts: 314
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Bismarck's port rudder

Postby Bill Jurens » Fri May 07, 2010 2:41 am

Are you sure about those pumping figures? They seem awfully high to me.

Bill Jurens

Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 642
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Bismarck's port rudder

Postby Thorsten Wahl » Fri May 07, 2010 12:10 pm

18 leak pumps (Leckpumpen)
each 15 m³/min at 12 m pumpingheight

4 bilge pumps (Lenzpumpen)
each 1m³/min

4 fire pumps
each 1m³/min

4 seawater pumps (for general purpose of seawater within ship)
-2x1m³/min
-2x1,5m³/min

3 portable pumps
each 1,5m³/min

1 portable pump
0,5m³/min

1 handcrafted pump
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Bismarck's port rudder

Postby Herr Nilsson » Fri May 07, 2010 2:31 pm

18 leak pumps (Leckpumpen)
each 15 m³/min at 12 m pumpingheight


IIRC only 17 of 18 “Leckpumpen” were able to flood. One pump (boiler room 1) could only remove water. Each pump had a nominal capacity of 900 cbm per hour. Magazine flooding trials on Tirpitz confirm it (flow rate up to 961.8 cbm). Flooding the magazines and rooms with easily inflammable substances within about 15 minutes was the main task of the “Leckpumpen”.

4 bilge pumps (Lenzpumpen)
each 1m³/min


The capacity was changed to 50 cbm per hour. Because of the check valves in the “Stutzen des Hilfslenzrohres” I don’t think “Lenzpumpen” could flood anyway.

4 fire pumps
each 1m³/mi

4 seawater pumps (for general purpose of seawater within ship)
-2x1m³/min
-2x1,5m³/min


The capacities of the fire and seawater pumps in regard of flooding were considered explicitly “insignificant” although the flow rate of the fire pumps was increased to 90 cbm per hour.


3 portable pumps
each 1,5m³/min

1 portable pump
0,5m³/min

1 handcrafted pump


I don’t think these pumps were relevant.

In the German navy the cooling water pump of the turbines were usually used as a auxiliary pump for flooding purposes. The nominal capacity of each pump was 11,000 cbm per hour. But I don’t think these pumps were used, because the in- and outtake of the condenser had a clear diameter of 1m. The easiest way to flood the turbine rooms for scuttling was to place explosive charges near the in- and/or outtakes.

Trim tanks in bow and stern and between hull and torpedo bulkhead could be easily flooded by opening Kingston valves. These valves had some kind of fold-away scoop to assure flooding within 15 minutes even at higher speeds.
Regards

Marc

Bill Jurens
Supporter
Posts: 314
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Bismarck pumping capacities, etc.

Postby Bill Jurens » Fri May 07, 2010 3:27 pm

Many thanks to Marc and Thorsten for your information on pumping etc.

This proves, once again, that there remains a great deal of information on Bismarck etc. out there that has not really made it into English-only sources.

It indeed appears, at least at first glance, that Bismarck had considerably greater pumping capacity than her British or German contemporaries. To me, an unexpected (and most interesting) discovery.

Again, many thanks for the information provided.

Bill Jurens

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Bismarck's port rudder

Postby lwd » Fri May 07, 2010 5:53 pm

Herr Nilsson wrote: ... Flooding the magazines and rooms with easily inflammable substances within about 15 minutes was the main task of the “Leckpumpen”. ....

OK was this a typo or am I just confused? Can't see why anyone would want to flood the magazines with "easily inflammable substances".

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Bismarck's port rudder

Postby Herr Nilsson » Fri May 07, 2010 6:01 pm

LOL
Yes, it's a typo. "Rooms containing easily inflammable substances" sounds better.
Regards

Marc

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Bismarck's port rudder

Postby lwd » Fri May 07, 2010 6:57 pm

Now it makes sense. Not so much a typo as the ambigutities of English and me making the wrong interpretation. thanks.


Return to “The Wreck of the Bismarck”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests