bismark-after torpedo hit

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by Herr Nilsson »

USS Ernest G. Small was towed by USS Hitchiti (ATF 103).
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by Steve Crandell »

You can sail backwards if you have a fully functional rudder. Also, a DD is much more maneuverable than a BB in general.
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by paul.mercer »

Hi Hans,
No one is saying that is impossible given the right conditions with intact rudders as in your picture, but look again at it, there is a small ship - presumably with intact props and rudder in flat calm conditions,not a 50,000 ton battleship with jammed rudders which is already partly listing from taking in water from a hit in the bow and in a raging gale.
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by wadinga »

Hello All,

Firstly, sea conditions in this photograph are what are usually nautically described as, "flat b*ll*cky calm". :cool:

Here are excerpts from THE ACTION REPORT OF 5-6-7 OCTOBER 1951 SUBMITTED BY

COMMANDER NEYMAN DESCRIBES THE DAMAGE:
ON OCTOBER 8,AT 0615, SHIELDS LEFT THE FORMATION ON ASSIGN­MENT. USS CARMICK (DMS-34) JOINED UP LATER IN THE DAY. OUR DES­TINATION WAS CHANGED TO YOKOSUKA, WE WERE STEAMING UNDER OUR OWN POWER, MAKING 10 KNOTS. ALL HANDS NOT ON WATCH ATTENDED A BRIEF BUT MOVING MEMORIAL SERVICE ON THE FANTAIL. AT 1134, THE FLAG-DRAPED BODIES OF ME/3 JOSEPH F. MUNIER AND DC/3 ALLEN F. SCHLUETER WERE BURIED AT SEA. BURIAL WAS NECESSARY SINCE WE HAD LOST ALL REFRIGERATION. IT WAS A SAD DAY.
WE HAD ENJOYED TWO DAYS OF RELATIVELY CALM SEAS, PROTECTED BY LAND ON EITHER SIDE OF THE INLANDSEA. WHEN WE CLEARED THE STRAITS INTO OPEN WATER THE SEA WAS RUNNING HIGH, KICKED UP BY AN APPROACHING TYPHOON. ON THE MORNING OF 10 OCTOBER AN UNUSUAL­LY LARGE SWELL LIFTED THE BOW SECTION, BREAKING THE KEEL.


GENERAL QUARTERS SOUNDED, WAKING ME FROM A SOUND SLEEP IN THE RCM ROOM. I WONDERED IF A RUSSIAN MIG-15 HAD SPOTTED US DEAD IN THE WATER. THE SKIPPER BACKED DOWN ALL ENGINES, THE BOW LIFTED, TURNED, AND BROKE LOOSE. MOUNT 51 AND NINETY-FIVE FEET OF THE ERNEST G.SMALL, INCLUDING OUR NUMBER 838, FLOATED AWAY. THE GUNNERS ON HITCHITI, AFTER MANY NEAR MISSES, LANDED A SHELL IN THE PAINT LOCKER. THE BOW EXPLODED AND WENT DOWN, NO LONGER A HAZARD TO NAVIGATION, TAKING WITH IT THE BODY OF A SHIPMATE WHO WAS WRIT­ING A LETTER HOME WHEN THE MINE EXPLODED.

THE SHIP LOOKED AS THOUGH THE FORWARD SECTION HAD BEEN SHEARED OFF WITH A GIANT RAZOR. WE LOST OUR ANCHOR GEAR, MESS­ING COMPARTMENT, BOATSWAINS STORE ROOM, CHIEFS LIVING QUARTERS, OFFICERS AND CREW’S FORWARD BERTHING COMPARTMENT, NUMBER ONE MOUNT, HANDLING ROOM AND MAGAZINE. FORTUNATELY, THE FORWARD BULK­HEAD WAS HOLDING. AN ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO REVERSE ENGINES AND STEAM BACKWARDS TO JAPAN, BUT THE BENT OUT HULL PLATES ACTED AS A RUDDER AND THE BEST WE COULD DO WAS STEER PERFECT CIRCLES.

HITCHITI STRUNG WIRE TOWING CABLE AROUND MOUNT 53, AND BY MID DAY WE WERE BEING TOWED, STERN FIRST, ENGINES IN REVERSE AND MAKING 12 KNOTS. WE HEADED TO KOBE ON THE INLANDSEA. TEMPORARYPORT AND STARBOARD RUNNING LIGHTS WERE SET UP ON THE FANTAIL. MERCHANT SHIPS THAT PASSED WERE NOT SURE WHAT THEY WERE SEEING.
So, initially USS Small was proceeding forwards, since the solemn despatch of their fallen comrades to their eternal rest took place on the fantail. Despite the damage forward there was no suggestion sailing backwards 300 miles would work. Only when the bow came adrift was an attempt made to sail backwards, and even with fully functioning steering gear and props this was frustrated by bent hull plates. So a very small proportion of the return of the damaged ship was undertaken in reverse, and then only under tow.

This excellent site gives the full story: http://www.ussernestgsmall.org/the-galloping-ghost/

Given the speed apparent in the photo, the straightness of the course and the presence of land in the background, I would suggest the shot was taken when USS Hitichi was towing, and the cable is simply invisible in the shot. The caption should be revised to reflect this.

Sometimes what appears to be in the photograph at first sight, is not actually true.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
hans zurbriggen
Senior Member
Posts: 421
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:15 am

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by hans zurbriggen »

Hello Mr.Nilsson , hello Mr.Wadinga,
thank you both for correcting my mistake and for providing so much valuable information: I have got misled by caption stating that Ernest G. Small was steaming backward (that is technically true, because she was under her own power with turbines running astern, despite being kept on stable course by Hitchiti). I suspect Hitchiti is hidden behind E. G. Small, with her wake actually visible at right in image, because there is no wake in front of the stern of E. G. Small.

So said, it is clearly written in the site posted by Mr.Wadinga that E. G. Small was running her engines astern for long time, confirming experts that were sure Bismarck could have done the same without problems to turbines.
A-S-H proposal applies to a ship whose bow was still structurally intact and I still feel it could possibly have worked on may 26/27, applying his detailed suggestion of usage of centre propeller ahead to nullify effect of rudder bent (or of rudders turned, as per Hessen method) + anchor dropped at bow with one cable length (to avoid stern to turn into wind and keep bow to NW direction) + possibly loop of hemp hawser from bow (only to 'lengthen' ship, not as drogue, in case waves length would have become more than 180 meters, causing jawing).
Of course, we will never know, missing the opportunity for a real scale test.

hans
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by paul.mercer »

Hi Hans,
This subject is going around in circles (just like Bismarck!)
If you go back to the start of the thread (and ignore all the arguments between certain gentleman who have left the Forum) you will see that the general consensus is that nothing could be done either by rigging up some sort of side force or trying to steer forward or back using the engines, in particular I refer to Wadinga's post on March 28th on page 8 when he quoted a statement from a German engineer who basically stated it would not have been possible. From then on the general opinion of all the extremely knowledgeable contributors to this Forum have concurred with the point that nothing could be done to save her given the conditions at the time and the fact that the RN were pulling in ships from all directions with even the slowest of them capable of more speed that Bismarck. As has been pointed out on several occasions by many contributors, once Bismarck's rudders were damaged she was a doomed ship and her crew from Lutyens and Lindermann downwards knew it.
User avatar
hans zurbriggen
Senior Member
Posts: 421
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:15 am

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by hans zurbriggen »

Hello Mr.Mercer,
as said already, we should agree to disagree about A-S-H's proposal. A-S-H was a reputed expert in seamanship, author of manuals on same topic and nobody could find a technical study disproving his one, that is still available as the only valuable one also on this very site (http://www.kbismarck.com/bismarck-seemannschaft.html). To counter his theory, a comparable expert is needed and here there are surely knowledgeable people but not a single expert in seamanship.
Regarding Bismarck fate, A-S-H is less pessimistic than you but his opinion is a naval officer's one, not a professional strategist's one and again we can debate forever.
Who is the German engineer (mentioned by you) that countered A-S-H's theory ?

hans
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by paul.mercer »

Hi Hans,
I made a mistake, he was not an engineer but a retired sea captain by the name of Capt zur See Alfred Schulze-Hinrichs, you will find his opinion in a post on page 8 of this thread made by Wadinga on March 28th this year but originally posted by Mr Rico some years ago, you actually replied to it.
I'm afraid that on this subject we will, as you say, have to agree to disagree, but I feel that you are also disagreeing with the bulk of opinions made by most, if not all the contributors on this particular subject that Bismarck could not be saved by sailing in reverse or by any other method before the RN caught up with her.
User avatar
hans zurbriggen
Senior Member
Posts: 421
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:15 am

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by hans zurbriggen »

Hello Mr.Mercer,
A-S-H = Alfred Schulze-Hinrichs, his article here (http://www.kbismarck.com/bismarck-seemannschaft.html). He claimed Bismarck could have been saved sailing astern. I think the 'critic comments' you refer to came from, the Baron (G.O. mentioned by Mr.Wadinga at pag.8).

hans
User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by Herr Nilsson »

The Hessen-method was very dependent on the particular ship. On other ships of the Braunschweig-class and the Deutschland-class it didn't work (it was "several times even called infeasible"). On SMS Wettin it worked in case of the rudder jammed to starboard, while it didn't work with port-jammed rudder.
The captain of SMS Hessen also stated:
  • It would only worked in case of "not too strong wind".
  • There was no difference in what direction the rudder was jammed "the influence of the wind is bigger in any event".
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by Bill Jurens »

The article re the Hessen method is interesting enough, according to the drawings I have available here, greatly exaggerates the convergence of the propeller shafts, showing their intersection point, in his terminology the 'pivot point', inside the ship's hull. In reality, it appears to have been two shiplengths or so ahead, and perhaps not even on the centerline.

Bill Jurens
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by paul.mercer »

Oh dear,
I can see that this subject is is going to continue despite the comments from those long time and very knowledgeable contributors to this forum all of whom I have the greatest respect all saying that after the torpedo hit in the rudders Bismarck was going nowhere but down.
Going back to the bit about 'dragging the anchor along the bottom' in earlier posts, how do those who proposed it think they are going to get it down that far when the water is almost two miles deep?
Can we not accept that given the circumstances, the sea conditions and the fact that there were several 'heavy' RN ships including three battleships, a battle cruiser, an aircraft carrier, plus destroyers and cruisers all set to attack Bismarck, that she was in an impossible position with her senior staff all resigned to the fact that there was nothing more they could do to save her and that even if tugs had reached her in time and managed to get a tow aboard the slow speed of the tow would have allowed the RN to catch up with her sooner or later?
Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by Bill Jurens »

The post-torpedo steering issue represents sort of a perennial discussion, i.e. a kind of 'cyclic' question that will probably continue to come up at intervals until nobody really cares anymore, e.g. in the year 2122. As new people enter the forum, and participate in these sorts of discussions, this question -- and similar ones -- will tend to reoccur. This is not bad, just the way things are. And, even though the facts are relatively well-established amongst those who have studied the issue(s) at length, they are still somewhat mysterious, and will remain so, to those less-experienced.

Newton's Laws still have to re re-taught to those beginning a serious study of physics, but this is not because those asking about them, or finding out about them, are stubborn, argumentative, or ill-informed; it's just that at the beginning of their studies -- unless they are true geniuses of some sort -- they still find some of the essential background somewhat mysterious and confusing. So 'tablua rasa' can be good.

So, the teacher has to give the same introductory lectures again and again -- as I did for many years in the classroom. The trick is to be able to make the material seem as new and fascinating to you as it is to the students...

Bill Jurens
User avatar
ontheslipway
Supporter
Posts: 233
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 8:19 am

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by ontheslipway »

It has been so long I thought about Bismarck that I honestly could not remember if the shaft lines were converging or diverging (while running aft; the latter but barely). I found a few old(ish) papers in our archives trying to explain why HMS Nelson ran aground in 1934*. One article I found mentioned that twin-screw container ships and single rudders with strongly diverging shaft lines steered particularly badly, especially in shallow water. A double-propeller/single rudder isn't particular favorable for low-speed maneuvering in the first place and diverging shaft lines makes matters worse is not entirely counterintuitive---although as repeated frequently---this is usually a very small effect; I thought this was rather nice to read some effect of shaft line divergence for comparable hull forms.

Beneficial low-speed maneuvering depends primarily a propeller wash running over a rudder (or not), with the net pressure over the aft hull (and skeg) as secondary effects. Triple-screw container ships (and single rudders) were found to be particularly good at low-speed maneuvering, even compared to twin-screw/twin-rudder setups, by virtue of being able to be generate net thrust with only one (wing) shaft in reverse to maintain some speed; the same, I expect, should hold for quadruple-shafted ships with even more operation flexibility, but direct comparisons between triple and quadruple setups remain quite rare. At the end of the 70s a rise in prices reduced ship speeds with many multi-shaft ships converted back to one shaft (or scrapped) with an emphasis with more efficient single-shaft layouts, so "the experiment ended".

* https://ontheslipway.com/hms-nelson-run ... lton-bank/
Post Reply