Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3638
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sat Oct 13, 2018 11:40 am

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nillson,

I am not the one who stated that the hit on that link photo by David Mearns is 100 % for sure from the PoW bow hit on May 24th, 1941.

You can address the point to who wrote that caption and to who likes to use that statement and photo in order to try to make some superficial evaluations for the well known reasons.

I am the one stating that, … as written on the reports and more precisely stated on the Brennecke book, … the hit came in from compartment XXI on the port side ( backbordseite ) and went out from compartment XX on the starboard side ( steuerbordseite ), … so surely it came from forward the beam and not aft the beam.

I have my personal opinions about the photos, … but it is not important now.

Bye Antonio
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

Bill Jurens
Supporter
Posts: 358
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Bill Jurens » Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:56 pm

For what it's worth, I consider Herr Nillson to be an extremely reliable, knowledgeable, and reasonable commentator.

I do not consider the captioned photograph(s) from the Hood website as very reliable sources. I examined the bow area twice, once in 2001, and once again about a year later using the James Cameron footage, which was an order of magnitude better than that obtained by the ITN expedition. A good deal of time and effort was spent 'up close and personal' examining the hull in this area forward to try to identify the damage caused by the hit in the bow, with -- at least in my opinion -- no really conclusive results. There are some interesting candidates to be sure, but none that can be identified with certainty.

Without going into detail, I will stick with my previously expressed opinion that the projectile probably entered from somewhere abaft the beam.

Although one cannot strictly rule the idea out, I consider the possibility that the projectile suffered any significant deflection whilst passing through the compartments forward to be rather small.

Bill Jurens

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3638
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sat Oct 13, 2018 6:32 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Bill Jurens,

you wrote :
Without going into detail, I will stick with my previously expressed opinion that the projectile probably entered from somewhere abaft the beam.

If it is not based on the wreck photo analysis or on the Brennecke book description :

Brennecke_book_page_154.jpg
Brennecke_book_page_154.jpg (75.25 KiB) Viewed 342 times
Brennecke_book_page_155.jpg
Brennecke_book_page_155.jpg (100.8 KiB) Viewed 342 times

I am curious now to know on what it is based your opinion ?

Bye Antonio
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

User avatar
José M. Rico
Administrator
Posts: 859
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:23 am
Location: Madrid, Spain
Contact:

Re: hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by José M. Rico » Sat Oct 13, 2018 6:39 pm

Herr Nilsson wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 11:21 am
The official statement is „exit above armor deck“, which is the upper platform deck in this area. The big hole is on the tween deck. Therefore it can‘t be from PoW.
Well, the tween and battery decks are also over the armor deck (über Panzerdeck), right?

1. Upper deck
2. Battery deck
3. Tween deck
4. Armor deck (=upper platform deck)

If I remember correctly the 14-inch hit was reported as "above the waterline but below the bow wave", and the upper platform deck in the bow is only 7.9 meters over the keel.

I my opinion the hole in the starboard side is most likely the one from Prince of Wales on 24 May. Just by looking at the size of it (about 1.5-meter diameter), we can see it is clearly an exit hole. Regarding the entry hole on the port side, I have my doubts since as Bill correctly pointed out the port bow has several entry holes, so it could be any of those really.

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1257
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Herr Nilsson » Sat Oct 13, 2018 6:54 pm

No, for the location of damages only the damage control book is relevant. And the damage control book is unambiguous.
5031137D-1564-4CDD-B7AB-E941720F8B13.jpeg
5031137D-1564-4CDD-B7AB-E941720F8B13.jpeg (19.8 KiB) Viewed 322 times
Regards

Marc

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

User avatar
José M. Rico
Administrator
Posts: 859
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:23 am
Location: Madrid, Spain
Contact:

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by José M. Rico » Sat Oct 13, 2018 9:23 pm

Marc,
I'm not familiar with the damage control report you mention (reconstructed?), but how could the men at Group West know exactly where the Bismarck was hit other than from the information provided by Lütjens' radio messages and the later testimony of survivors?
Survivor Otto Höntzsch reported the following to Group West in June 1941:
treffer01.jpg
treffer01.jpg (7.97 KiB) Viewed 306 times
"A hit went through the bow at the height of compartment 21-22. From port side through the battery deck and starboard side tweendeck."

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 668
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by paul.mercer » Sat Oct 13, 2018 9:45 pm

Gentlemen,
In the picture shown earlier of the exit hole in Bismarck's bow, the caption underneath says it is approx 6.5 feet in diameter, if PoW's shell did not explode surely the hole would only be around 14" or so, or might it have turned and come out sideways to cause so big a hole? If that is indeed the actual size, then it's not surprising she shipped in 2000 tons of water.

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 785
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Byron Angel » Sat Oct 13, 2018 10:28 pm

A quick translation of the passage excerpted from the Brenneker book follows -

Bismarck hat drei Treffer erhalten, darunter zwei schwere.
Bismarck received three hits, two heavy as per below.

Treffer 1: Eine Granate ging an Backbordseite in das Vorschiff, Abteilung XXI, und durchschlug das Schiff, ohne zu detonieren.
Hit 1: A projectile entered portside forward, compartment XXI, and punched through the ship without detonating.

Das Einschuss- und Ausschussloch lagen oberhalb der Wasserlinie, aber unterhalb der Bugwelle.
The entry and exit holes lay above the waterline, but beneath the bow wave.

Durch das bei der hohen Fahrt eindringende Wasser liefen die Abteilungen XX und XXI voll.
Due to the high speed, infiltrating water filled compartments XX and XXI.

Der Bugspillraum und Leckpumpen E-Teil sind nun ausgefallen und die Schieber der Heizolforderleitung zum Vorschiff nicht mehr zu bedienen.
The Bugspillraum and leak pumping E-Teil now failed and the valve of the fuel oil feed pipe forward no longer operated.

Dadurch werden 1000 t Heizol abgeschnitten.
Thus were 1000t of fuel oil isolated.

Durch die in das Vorschiff eingedrungenen Wassermassen, die vom uberlebenden Leckwehrgruppenfuhrer 1, Obermaschinist Schmidt, auf 4000 t beziffert werden, hat Bismarck einen Trimm nach vorn von zwei Grad bekommen.
As a result of the quantity of water accumulated in the forecastle, which the surviving leak control party leader 1, Obermaschinist Schmidt, estimated at 4000t, Bismarck had obtained a trim forward of two degrees.

Sofort nach dem Gefecht versuchte die vorderste Leckwehr gruppe, von der Back aus in das Vorschiff einzudringen, um die ausgefallenen Leckpumpen wieder in Betrieb zu nehmen.
Immediately after the engagement, the forwardmost leak control party entered into the forecastle in order to place the failed leak pumps again into operation.

Weiter wurde, allerdings ebenfalls vergeblich, versucht, die Heizolvorratbunker in die Verbrauchbunker in den Kesselraumen umzupumpen.
The attempt to transfer fuel from the forward stowage tank to the ready-use bunker in the boiler rooms failed.

Ausser der vordersten Leckwehrgruppe wurden eingesetzt die Zimmermeistergruppe, die E-Gefechtsgruppe und die Pumpenmeistergruppe.
In addition to the forwardmost leak control party, the Zimmermeistergruppe, the E-Gefechtsgruppe and the Pumpenmeistergruppe were deployed.

- - -

The passage does not state that the projectile entered compartment XXI and exited through compartment XX. It states that the projectile entered compartment XXI and that compartments XX and XXI ultimately filled with water as a result. The location of the projectile's exit from the ship is not addressed.

B

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2696
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sun Oct 14, 2018 7:33 am

Hi Byron,
thanks for the translation of the whole passage (not easy/reliable to use google translator...).

Based on it, the shell entered XXI compartment and the exit position is not specified. However, being both the compartments XXI and XX filled by water, it's evident that the shell severed the watertight bulkhead between XX and XXI.

Therefore, according to Brennecke, the exit of the shell (forgetting its interesting but "irrelevant" height above the armored deck) should be somewhere in compartment XX beneath the bow wave, if we exclude the remote possibility of the shell huge deviation, and the angle of the incoming shell should be from some 20° forward the beam of the ship.


The fracture of the bulkhead between compartments XX and XXI is explicitly mentioned in the Baron's book (at least in my Italian version). Do you have the German version of the Baron book with his account of the hit and its consequences (it's described after the battle narrative) ? In case, would you mind to post a translation of this too ?


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Sun Oct 14, 2018 7:51 am, edited 2 times in total.
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3638
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sun Oct 14, 2018 7:50 am

Hello everybody,

now the discussion is becoming interesting indeed, … :wink:

Few considerations :

1) The surviving leak control party leader 1, Obermaschinist Wilhelm Schmidt, was the witness that Jochen Brennece most likely took all the information from, and I assume it was a good and reliable witness to trust about it, ... due to his role during the event.

2) The hit entered from the compartment XXI as stated, … and I invite you all to realize that on the port side compartment XXI there is not the white bow wave, … that is painted exactly at the level of compartment XX on both sides.
This information is a crucial, … because it is an indication of the exact low and high limits of the area, .. it was above ( higher ) than the waterline ( low limit ) , … but below the bow white wave and I assume the top level of the white painture ( high limit ), … this because the white bow wave goes on top of the waterline on both sides obviously.

3) The Bugspillraum and leak pumping E-Teil now failed and the valve of the fuel oil feed pipe forward no longer operated.
They are all located in the compartment XX.


Now, there should be no more doubts about the shell entering from the compartment XXI ( as clearly stated ), ... as well as the full involvment of the compartment XX due to her received damages ( Bugspillraum, E-Teil, valve etc etc ).

As I have stated since the beginning of this debate we should take in account some possible deflection due to impact, ... but the shell path is defined according to my opinion, ... from XXI to XX and than out ... as obvious.


Knowing both the Bismarck course in that moment of 220°, and the Prince of Wales shell incoming direction of 330° from her own gunnery plot, … it is a kid game to realize the drawing of what happened in reality, … and in fact I did it many years ago already.

Here it this :
BS_bow_hit_angles.JPG
BS_bow_hit_angles.JPG (93.67 KiB) Viewed 222 times

No doubts that the shell came from forward the Bismarck beam, … from the bow toward midship as we can see.


I provide you also some evaluation figures both sides, with decks, ... details, … and the white bow waves exact locations, … so now you can try to correlate the wreck available photos :

BS_bow_hit_all_decks_both_sides.jpg
BS_bow_hit_all_decks_both_sides.jpg (127.33 KiB) Viewed 221 times

Bye Antonio
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1565
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by wadinga » Sun Oct 14, 2018 9:26 am

Hello All,

Now that Jochen Brennecke's book is being extensively quoted we should consider his map from the 2003 edition. His foreword to this 6th edition is dated 1997

Image


He too shows Bismarck making a turn away before 06:00, although not as far as 270T. Brennecke used his close connections with former Kriegsmarine personnel to get the information for his book which revised over the many years since original publication.
was the witness that Jochen Brennece most likely took all the information from, and I assume it was a good and reliable witness to trust about it,
This track chart probably represents the results of conversations with "good and reliable witnesses." Witnesses like Lagemann who saw and filmed Bismarck turning away temporarily before Hood was sunk. It shows the sharp turn towards the enemy by PoW reported by German witnesses and the final turnaway by Leach at 06:03. The exact alignment of the segment after the Hood wreck avoidance is questionable since we know the angle of the compass platform through and through, but he basic layout is clear.


All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2696
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sun Oct 14, 2018 9:54 am

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "He too shows Bismarck making a turn away before 06:00, although not as far as 270T."
...and he too is wrong using this map showing an old track for the German ships... :lol:

Mr.Wadinga is desperately trying to find a way to say that Bismarck turned away before Hood explosion but this is proven IMPOSSIBLE by the irrefutable closure rate shown in PoW salvo plot (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 945#p80806). Brennecke map cannot account for a range reduction of almost 5000 yards in 4 minutes (5:56 - 6:00), as well as the old "1990" one, that Mr.Wadinga had adopted since few days ago.... Pitiable and desperate loser.

He is invited to discuss the maps on the right thread above (answering the presented argument, if he is able...) and not to try to mix everything together as he does every time he is cornered, after having been rubbished again twice in few days. :negative:


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

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3638
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:19 am

Hello everybody,

from Garzke-Dulin book on page 224 :

Garzke_page_224.jpg
Garzke_page_224.jpg (90.64 KiB) Viewed 183 times

I will not comment here in on the old 1943 map by F.O. Busch used by Brennecke, ... as someone is going backward on the history of those maps evolution instead of going forward according to the new evidence surfaced recently, ... for the obvious reasons that the new evidence simply prove him wrong. Just a pathetic desperate attempt of a loser, ... to be managed on the proper thread.

Bye Antonio
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 785
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Byron Angel » Sun Oct 14, 2018 5:04 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 7:33 am
Hi Byron,
thanks for the translation of the whole passage (not easy/reliable to use google translator...).

Based on it, the shell entered XXI compartment and the exit position is not specified. However, being both the compartments XXI and XX filled by water, it's evident that the shell severed the watertight bulkhead between XX and XXI.

Therefore, according to Brennecke, the exit of the shell (forgetting its interesting but "irrelevant" height above the armored deck) should be somewhere in compartment XX beneath the bow wave, if we exclude the remote possibility of the shell huge deviation, and the angle of the incoming shell should be from some 20° forward the beam of the ship.


The fracture of the bulkhead between compartments XX and XXI is explicitly mentioned in the Baron's book (at least in my Italian version). Do you have the German version of the Baron book with his account of the hit and its consequences (it's described after the battle narrative) ? In case, would you mind to post a translation of this too ?


Bye, Alberto

You're welcome.

Disagree. However plausible or logical your arguments may be, they are, at the end of the day, simply assumptions The flooding of compartment XX does not unambiguously demonstrate that the projectile pierced the transverse bulkhead and passed out through compartment XX. It simply suggests that it is possible that it did so. Various other plausible explanations exist, such as the passage of the projectile passing through compartment XXI dislodging pipes or fittings that compromised the watertightness of the transverse bulkhead separating the two spaces, or that a piece of equipment in compartment XXI was hurled through the bulkhead by the passage of the shell, or that the shock of the projectile striking the hull compromised watertight seals of piping, cabling or hatches in the subject bulkhead. The projectile's path MAY have passed through both compartments, but the above Brenneke excerpt provides no proof in that direction. Some other, more explicit evidence is required to make a fully convincing case.

Another point: It is not altogether clear to me that Brenneke's mention of the "bow wave" necessarily referred to the painted false bow. It is entirely possible that he was discussing the actual bow wave (Bismarck WAS travelling at 8 knots) as a contributor to the flooding of the forecastle.

B

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by HMSVF » Sun Oct 14, 2018 7:36 pm

Byron Angel wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 5:04 pm
Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 7:33 am
Hi Byron,
thanks for the translation of the whole passage (not easy/reliable to use google translator...).

Based on it, the shell entered XXI compartment and the exit position is not specified. However, being both the compartments XXI and XX filled by water, it's evident that the shell severed the watertight bulkhead between XX and XXI.

Therefore, according to Brennecke, the exit of the shell (forgetting its interesting but "irrelevant" height above the armored deck) should be somewhere in compartment XX beneath the bow wave, if we exclude the remote possibility of the shell huge deviation, and the angle of the incoming shell should be from some 20° forward the beam of the ship.


The fracture of the bulkhead between compartments XX and XXI is explicitly mentioned in the Baron's book (at least in my Italian version). Do you have the German version of the Baron book with his account of the hit and its consequences (it's described after the battle narrative) ? In case, would you mind to post a translation of this too ?


Bye, Alberto

You're welcome.

Disagree. However plausible or logical your arguments may be, they are, at the end of the day, simply assumptions The flooding of compartment XX does not unambiguously demonstrate that the projectile pierced the transverse bulkhead and passed out through compartment XX. It simply suggests that it is possible that it did so. Various other plausible explanations exist, such as the passage of the projectile passing through compartment XXI dislodging pipes or fittings that compromised the watertightness of the transverse bulkhead separating the two spaces, or that a piece of equipment in compartment XXI was hurled through the bulkhead by the passage of the shell, or that the shock of the projectile striking the hull compromised watertight seals of piping, cabling or hatches in the subject bulkhead. The projectile's path MAY have passed through both compartments, but the above Brenneke excerpt provides no proof in that direction. Some other, more explicit evidence is required to make a fully convincing case.

Another point: It is not altogether clear to me that Brenneke's mention of the "bow wave" necessarily referred to the painted false bow. It is entirely possible that he was discussing the actual bow wave (Bismarck WAS travelling at 8 knots) as a contributor to the flooding of the forecastle.

B
Evening all!

A quick question.

Since the RN fired over 2,800 shells at Bismarck, and scored more than 400 hits (apparently) and the ship fell 4800 metres to the seabed sliding down the side of an extinct underwater volcano ,triggering a 2 km landslide, before eventually coming to a stop two-thirds down....

Wouldn't that make a difference to any forensic evidence left on the wreck? My understanding is that she lost a fair amount of hull plating on the way down (which allowed James Cameron to see the torpedo bulkhead). Wouldn't this all be a "best guess" or a "in all probability" answer as to where and how the POW shell hit? From browsing the thread, there was one survivor who knew what happened. If he was charged with damage control in that section wouldn't he be the best source?

Best wishes


HMSVF

Post Reply