Scharnhorst vs Alaska

[dunmunro]

There are always two sides to a story.
The Germans held their fire until 05:55, when both German ships fired on Hood. Lütjens did not immediately give the order to begin firing. Bismarck's first gunnery officer, Korvettenkapitän Adalbert Schneider, asked "Frage Feuererlaubnis?" (Permission to open fire?) several times without receiving a response, until the captain of Bismarck, Kapitän zur See Ernst Lindemann, impatiently responded: "Ich lasse mir doch nicht mein Schiff unter dem Arsch wegschießen. Feuererlaubnis!" (I'm not letting my ship get shot out from under my arse. Open fire!) –
Grützner, Jens (2010) (in German). Kapitän zur See Ernst Lindemann: Der Bismarck-Kommandant – Eine Biographie. VDM Heinz Nickel, page 180, as cited in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of ... ark_Strait

However, whether the Germans returned fire half a minute afterwards, or three minutes afterwards, is missing the point I was trying to make. Which was that, historically the range for the 'effective' commencement of an engagement between ships was 24,000m after which the ships would close on each other.
In my opinion, it would be unlikely that an engagement between the Alaska and Scharnhorst would be carried out at a range exceeding 24,000m. They would invariably close on each other.

The open fire range would depend on the tactical circumstances and local visibility, but a range of ~24km would be likely.

The KM did not hold it's fire until ~0555. PE likely did, but we have multiple eyewitness accounts stating when Bismarck opened fire, and those accounts were recorded at the time the events happened and were made independently on each of the 3 RN ships; They are not and cannot be incorrect.

Even PE's own war diary states that Bismarck opened fire before PE:

The enemy opened fire even while closing in. Bismarck was the first to answer [their] fire and shorty thereafter Prinz Eugen,

(page 36 of the PE war diary)

Your quote above was hearsay and was recorded many years after the events and is not supported by the historical record.

[Michael L]

As a Junior Member to this Forum I defer to your clearly more detailed knowledge of the 3 RN ships and PE’s war diaries. In future I will try and be more accurate with my details. I am sorry if I offended you dunmunro.
Funny, I thought this was a discussion about a hypothetical naval scenario between the Alaska and Scharnhorst. And here I find myself inadvertently drawn into a discussion about ‘minutes’.

[Michael L]

Having done some further research and reading on the subject I came across the following Paper:- 'The Sinking of HMS Hood. An examination of the timing of her fatal hit.', published May 2014 by Dr. Paul Cadogan - a Senior Member of this Forum. In it, Dr Cadogan wrote the following:

"It is generally accepted in official British documentation that it was the fifth salvo from Bismarck which resulted in Hood’s destruction (2). It was originally concluded that Hood opened fire first, Bismarck immediately replied after which Prince of Wales fired her first salvo. This was later
corrected when it was shown that the Germans did not open fire until 0555 (6) after several British salvos had been fired (it is notable that Hood survivor Ordinary Signalman Ted Briggs correctly articulated this in his testimony to the Second Board of Inquiry into Hood’s loss (2)."
(2) ADM 116/4351 – Loss of H.M.S. Hood in action with German battleship Bismarck: Boards of Inquiry.
(6) Kriegstagebuch Des Kreuzers Prinz Eugen [Prinz Eugen's War Diary], May 1941.

2. EVIDENCE OF ORDINGARY SIGNALMAN ALBERT EDWARDS BRIGGS, PJX.157404 late of H.M.S. HOOD. [Conducted August 1941.]
The HOOD opened fire with the forward turrets 17 miles range, and the BISMARCK and the PRINCE EUGEN we about 30° on the starboard bow and when the HOOD opened fore the PRINCE EUGEN definitely turned away and the BISMARCK was thought to turn away. This I gathered from conversation between the Admiral and the Captain. We altered course 40° to starboard bringing the BISMARCK right ahead, 40° together and we closed in to 12 miles range. We hit the BISMARCK with our second salvo right amidships and the BISMARCK did not open fire until we had fired about 4 or 5 salvos and she hit us, according to the Squadron Gunnery Officer "on the starboard side of the boat deck aft, causing a fire in the 4" ready use lockers". [Underlining added.]

6. Prinz Eugen's War Diary, May 1941. [Written May/June 1941.]
Transcript: 0555 - Wird das Feuer von "Prinz Eugen" und "Bismarck" erwiedert.
Translation: 0555 - Was the Fire from "Prinz Eugen" and "Bismarck" replied. Or grammatically; "Prinz Eugen and "Bismarck" returned fire.

With respect, I feel that the evidence as presented by Dr Cadogan is based on contemporary historical record sources and not hearsay recorded many years after the event.

Respectfully submitted for consideration as part of the wider discussion. http://www.hmshood.org.uk/history/denma ... source.htm
Kind regards, Michael L.

[dunmunro]

Having done some further research and reading on the subject I came across the following Paper:- 'The Sinking of HMS Hood. An examination of the timing of her fatal hit.', published May 2014 by Dr. Paul Cadogan - a Senior Member of this Forum. In it, Dr Cadogan wrote the following:

"It is generally accepted in official British documentation that it was the fifth salvo from Bismarck which resulted in Hood’s destruction (2). It was originally concluded that Hood opened fire first, Bismarck immediately replied after which Prince of Wales fired her first salvo. This was later
corrected when it was shown that the Germans did not open fire until 0555 (6) after several British salvos had been fired (it is notable that Hood survivor Ordinary Signalman Ted Briggs correctly articulated this in his testimony to the Second Board of Inquiry into Hood’s loss (2)."
(2) ADM 116/4351 – Loss of H.M.S. Hood in action with German battleship Bismarck: Boards of Inquiry.
(6) Kriegstagebuch Des Kreuzers Prinz Eugen [Prinz Eugen's War Diary], May 1941.

2. EVIDENCE OF ORDINGARY SIGNALMAN ALBERT EDWARDS BRIGGS, PJX.157404 late of H.M.S. HOOD. [Conducted August 1941.]
The HOOD opened fire with the forward turrets 17 miles range, and the BISMARCK and the PRINCE EUGEN we about 30° on the starboard bow and when the HOOD opened fore the PRINCE EUGEN definitely turned away and the BISMARCK was thought to turn away. This I gathered from conversation between the Admiral and the Captain. We altered course 40° to starboard bringing the BISMARCK right ahead, 40° together and we closed in to 12 miles range. We hit the BISMARCK with our second salvo right amidships and the BISMARCK did not open fire until we had fired about 4 or 5 salvos and she hit us, according to the Squadron Gunnery Officer "on the starboard side of the boat deck aft, causing a fire in the 4" ready use lockers". [Underlining added.]

6. Prinz Eugen's War Diary, May 1941. [Written May/June 1941.]
Transcript: 0555 - Wird das Feuer von "Prinz Eugen" und "Bismarck" erwiedert.
Translation: 0555 - Was the Fire from "Prinz Eugen" and "Bismarck" replied. Or grammatically; "Prinz Eugen and "Bismarck" returned fire.

With respect, I feel that the evidence as presented by Dr Cadogan is based on contemporary historical record sources and not hearsay recorded many years after the event.

Respectfully submitted for consideration as part of the wider discussion. http://www.hmshood.org.uk/history/denma ... source.htm
Kind regards, Michael L.

The problem with Briggs testimony is that Hood misidentified PE as Bismarck and never engaged Bismarck during the action! Again, there is independent eyewitness testimony from 3 RN ships that all agree that Bismarck opened fire within one minute of Hood opening fire. PE's war diary states that Bismarck opened fire before PE. The single statement by PE's 2nd FC officer Schmalenbach is incorrect in his assertion (page 44) that Hood had fired 4 or 5 salvos by the time that Bismarck (and PE since he implies simultaneous open fire by the KM) opened fire. Yet somehow this clearly incorrect statement had been given more weight than all the evidence, recorded during the action aboard the 3 RN ships, and the contradictory statement in PE's war diary. If you read Schmalenbach's entry in the war diary it is apparent that it was written from memory some time after the action.

This was Captain Leach's testimony:

1. Are you Captain J.C. Leach, M.V.O., Royal Navy, of H.M.S. "Prince of Wales"?

Yes
2. Will you tell us what you saw from the time the action started until the "Hood" was sunk?

Before the action started I was in station on "Hood's" starboard quarter at a distance of about four cables. We had had a concentration signal and waited to open fire in our proper time sector after "Hood" had opened fire. The "Hood" opened fire first and in between the time she opened fire and the time it was due for me to open fire the German ships opened fire...

Leach's account has to be given more weight than Brigg's who was not an eye witness to the engagement. Briggs was overhearing conversations that were probably misleading because Hood was engaging PE, not Bismarck. Briggs has the range wrong as well (17nm = 34000 yds which is beyond Hood's maximum 15in gun range). Whereas PoW had clearly identified Bismarck and engaged her from the start and Leach's captain's sight would have been aimed directly at Bismarck.

Rowell PoW's navigator:

LIEUTENANT COMMANDER GEORGE WILLIAM ROWELL, ROYAL NAVY, "H.M.S. PRINCE OF WALES." Called and cautioned.

29. Are you Lieutenant Commander George William Rowell, Royal Navy, of "H.M.S. "PRINCE OF WALES."

Yes.
30. Where were you and what was your duty?

I was on the compass platform as navigating officer.
31. Will you tell us what you saw of the "Hood" from the time she opened fire until the time she blew up?

The "Hood" opened fire with her foremost turrets with the enemy about 40 deg. on the starboard bow and "Prince of Wales" opened fire with her foremost turrets about half a minute later. Shortly after "Prince of Wales" first salvo "Bismarck" opened fire with all four turrets...

This is from Brooke (Alarm Starboard) who was observing Bismarck directly through high powered binoculars in PoW's after DCT:

There was a boom from not far off. The Hood had opened fire. Seconds later ‘Shoot!’ said Guns. Ting-ting went the fire gong and I shut my eyes. BAROOM! The Prince of Wales’ first salvo was away from ‘A’ and ‘B’ turrets. The slight concussion and the brown smoke that drifted aft (the wind dispersed it fairly quickly) brought welcome relief from inaction. My fingers moved up and down the three knobs. Suddenly a rippling yellow flash played in front of the Bismarck, followed by a dark cloud that, nearly blotting her out, hung for an appreciable time. She had fired. At whom? The range was 25,600 yards (nearly 13 miles) and it would take almost a minute to find out.

Brooke, Geoffrey. Alarm Starboard! .

at 0552 Lutjens radio signalled to the KM: "Am in a fight with two heavy units". (Bismarck War Diary page 134)

[Michael L]

Captain J.C. Leach, Royal Navy, of HMS Prince of Wales.
"The "Hood" opened fire first and in between the time she opened fire and the time it was due for me to open fire the German ships opened fire ...".
Lieutenant Commander G.W. Rowell, Royal Navy, of HMS Prince of Wales.
"The "Hood" opened fire with her foremost turrets with the enemy about 40 deg. on the starboard bow and "Prince of Wales" opened fire with her foremost turrets about half a minute later. Shortly after "Prince of Wales" first salvo "Bismarck" opened fire with all four turrets."
Sub-Lieutenant G.A.G. Brooke, Royal Navy, of HMS Prince of Wales.
"The Hood had opened fire. Seconds later ‘Shoot!’ said Guns. ... ... The Prince of Wales’ first salvo was away from ‘A’ and ‘B’ turrets. ... ... Suddenly a rippling yellow flash played in front of the Bismarck, ... . She had fired."
According to Captain Leach the Bismarck first returned fire before the Prince of Wales.
According to Lieutenant Commander Rowell and Sub-Lieutenant Brooke the Bismarck first returned fire after the Prince of Wales.
So which account is correct? They both can't be right. Someone must be in error.
As we know, a German shell struck the Prince of Wales' compass platform, killing the majority of the personnel there, wounding the navigating officer, but Captain Leach was physically unhurt. I respectfully submit that he may have been 'shaken'.

Needless to say, in the heat of battle time passes differently for the individuals involved. Recalling the 'correct' sequence of events can sometimes be difficult. As I stated, I found Dr. Paul Cadogan Paper, 'The Sinking of HMS Hood. An examination of the timing of her fatal hit.', published May 2014, to be an interesting - and compelling - analysis of the event.
http://www.hmshood.org.uk/history/denma ... adogan.pdf

As for pointing out that, "at 0552 Lutjens radio signalled to the KM: "Am in a fight with two heavy units". (Bismarck War Diary page 134)". It is my understanding that the Bismarck's War Diary went down with the ship. It was not taken off by a U-Boat or flown off by its Arado Ar 196 floatplane. The Kriegsmarine Seekrigsleitung (German Navy Office of Naval Operations) 'reconstructed' a Bismarck War Diary in July 1941. While this is a useful secondary source, surely the Prinz Eugen's War Diary - which survived - is the preferred primary source. Besides, although Lutjens radioed that they were 'in a fight with two heavy units', as pointed out this messages was sent at 0552, before any ship, British or German had commenced firing.
I note that this has been the subject of another forum discussion in February 2017, titled, "Jasper, Schmalenbach and 6 salvos...". Which is itself an interesting read to see the back and forth of this 'debate' - a topic that I now see has been the subject of disagreement amongst members.

If I have offended anyone - opened an old wound - I am sincerely sorry. But isn't it this sort of open and honest discussion that this website aims to promote?
One cannot dismiss the fact that errors are made. We are after all, only human.
I feel that this discussion should be transferred to another 'forum', as it has clearly taken us off the 'Scharnhorst vs Alaska' topic.
Perhaps we can agree, to disagree.
Kind regards, Michael L.
P.S. With respect to 'errors', I find it most intriguing that HMS Neptune was granted the RN Battle Honour ‘BISMARCK’. From what I have read and researched, HMS Neptune had no involvement in the search, pursuit or sinking of the Bismarck whatsoever.

[hans zurbriggen]

Hello Mr.Dunmunro,
this is an old discussion that should not have been re-opened here (nothing to do with thread topic). You are right that British observations are (with T. Briggs exception) all in favor of Bismarck returning fire few seconds after British ships (05:53), but they are sometimes generic and in contradiction among them. On the other side, all German evidences/accounts are sharply opposite and in agreement, including:
1) PE KTB from Captain Brinkmann ("05:53 Hood and KGV open fire.... 05:55 PE and BS return fire")
2) 2nd PE G.O. (P. Schmalenbach) gunnery report ("...Hood had fired 4 or 5 salvos by the time BS and we returned her fire...")
3) 3rd BS G.O. (Baron B. Von Mullenheim, in his book) confirmed BS delay ("...seconds became minutes..."), mentioned several salvos during interval and accounted for reactions of 1st G.O.and Captain.
4) J. Brennecke in his book confirms 2 minutes delay, supported by Admirals (Hoffmann, Krancke, Marshall) experts of German tactics and firing procedures.
5) Admiral G. Lütjens message to Grope West on May 25, describing a battle fought between 208 hm and 180 hm: BS open fire at 05:53 impossible, because distance was much more.

German version is accepted by almost all historians who have studied and written about battle, also due to battle development (e.g. distances, timings, expended shells) that would never match a too early BS open fire. Therefore, matter is (at best) open and we should agree to disagree.
Please, to all of us, let's try to stick to original thread topic without mixing with others, as per Mr. Michael L. wise suggestions.

hans

[Michael L]

It is known that the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau (11 inch) ultimately shied away from a lengthy engagement with HMS Renown (15 inch) in April 1940. They also declined to engage with HMS Rodney (16 inch) in January 1941, though in theory they could, with their superior speed have outranged her. However, hypothetically, if the Alaska (12 inch) were encountered during an Atlantic sortie, say protecting a convoy, in my opinion I think that the Scharnhorst (11 inch), or rather the commander of the Scharnhorst, might have been tempted to interpret his orders of 'not engaging enemy capital ships' by considering the Alaska to be a large cruiser. A bit like how the Captain Langsdorff and Graf Spee initially though he were facing a cruiser and two destroyers.
As the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau invariably sortied as a pair (in the early years of the war), an encounter with the Alaska and Guam, defending a convoy, would make for an interesting expansion of this hypothetical naval scenario.
While I still acknowledge that the American 12 inch gun on paper would cause more damage than the German 11 inch gun, I still stick with my opinion that the ultimately the Alaska class' armour protection and design would be more vulnerable to the German 11 inch guns, than the Scharnhorst class' armour protection and design would be to the American 12 inch guns.
Note, I have deliberately avoided complicated the discussion by introducing variables like wind direction, angle of approach, smoke, sea spray, rising or setting sun, or fatigue. Also, while radar could be an important factor, it is a vulnerable piece of equipment and would not take much to knock it out. German gunnery optics were shown to be quite effective in being able to quickly and accurately find the range of an enemy ship.
Luck can go either way in a battle. But on a level playing 'ocean', my money would be on the Scharnhorst.
Kind regards, Michael L.

[hans zurbriggen]

Hello Mr. Michael L ,
my money would be on twins against Alaska and Guam too. I would even consider Gneisenau machines more reliable than Scharnhorst (at least historically) and their armor scheme as far superior. Due to 11" light shell, slight advantage to Alaskas at extreme ranges, but hits at such ranges are IMHO 'lucky hits' only.
At shorter ranges, Scharnhorsts would have had all advantages.

However, strategically, German ships were usually ordered not to engage any enemy warships (not only battleships) except if own risks were limited and only to attack a convoy: I don't think any German Admiral, after correctly identifying Alaskas, would have considered them as posing only 'limited' risks to his ships and therefore he would have tried to avoid encounter anyway, even with convoy in sight.

hans

[dunmunro]

Captain J.C. Leach, Royal Navy, of HMS Prince of Wales.
"The "Hood" opened fire first and in between the time she opened fire and the time it was due for me to open fire the German ships opened fire ...".
Lieutenant Commander G.W. Rowell, Royal Navy, of HMS Prince of Wales.
"The "Hood" opened fire with her foremost turrets with the enemy about 40 deg. on the starboard bow and "Prince of Wales" opened fire with her foremost turrets about half a minute later. Shortly after "Prince of Wales" first salvo "Bismarck" opened fire with all four turrets."
Sub-Lieutenant G.A.G. Brooke, Royal Navy, of HMS Prince of Wales.
"The Hood had opened fire. Seconds later ‘Shoot!’ said Guns. ... ... The Prince of Wales’ first salvo was away from ‘A’ and ‘B’ turrets. ... ... Suddenly a rippling yellow flash played in front of the Bismarck, ... . She had fired."
According to Captain Leach the Bismarck first returned fire before the Prince of Wales.
According to Lieutenant Commander Rowell and Sub-Lieutenant Brooke the Bismarck first returned fire after the Prince of Wales.
So which account is correct? They both can't be right. Someone must be in error.
As we know, a German shell struck the Prince of Wales' compass platform, killing the majority of the personnel there, wounding the navigating officer, but Captain Leach was physically unhurt. I respectfully submit that he may have been 'shaken'.

Needless to say, in the heat of battle time passes differently for the individuals involved. Recalling the 'correct' sequence of events can sometimes be difficult. As I stated, I found Dr. Paul Cadogan Paper, 'The Sinking of HMS Hood. An examination of the timing of her fatal hit.', published May 2014, to be an interesting - and compelling - analysis of the event.
http://www.hmshood.org.uk/history/denma ... adogan.pdf

As for pointing out that, "at 0552 Lutjens radio signalled to the KM: "Am in a fight with two heavy units". (Bismarck War Diary page 134)". It is my understanding that the Bismarck's War Diary went down with the ship. It was not taken off by a U-Boat or flown off by its Arado Ar 196 floatplane. The Kriegsmarine Seekrigsleitung (German Navy Office of Naval Operations) 'reconstructed' a Bismarck War Diary in July 1941. While this is a useful secondary source, surely the Prinz Eugen's War Diary - which survived - is the preferred primary source. Besides, although Lutjens radioed that they were 'in a fight with two heavy units', as pointed out this messages was sent at 0552, before any ship, British or German had commenced firing.
I note that this has been the subject of another forum discussion in February 2017, titled, "Jasper, Schmalenbach and 6 salvos...". Which is itself an interesting read to see the back and forth of this 'debate' - a topic that I now see has been the subject of disagreement amongst members.

If I have offended anyone - opened an old wound - I am sincerely sorry. But isn't it this sort of open and honest discussion that this website aims to promote?
One cannot dismiss the fact that errors are made. We are after all, only human.
I feel that this discussion should be transferred to another 'forum', as it has clearly taken us off the 'Scharnhorst vs Alaska' topic.
Perhaps we can agree, to disagree.
Kind regards, Michael L.
P.S. With respect to 'errors', I find it most intriguing that HMS Neptune was granted the RN Battle Honour ‘BISMARCK’. From what I have read and researched, HMS Neptune had no involvement in the search, pursuit or sinking of the Bismarck whatsoever.

Suffolk, and the various accounts from PoW state that Bismarck opened fire within ~30 seconds of Hood opening fire. The fact that the accounts from PoW vary by a few seconds isn't an issue. if the KM squadron had withheld fire for ~2-3 minutes it would have been carefully noted and yet it isn't noted at all. Hood opened fire at 0552:30 according to PoW's gunnery report. A 30sec error in timing from various observers is to be expected, but not 2-3 minutes!

The issue here is that a major error was made on board PE by Schmalenbach and that error was then incorporated into other accounts of the battle. Authors who have published articles sometime feel compelled to defend their article, but it's clear from the accounts that Bismarck opened fire within 30sec of Hood opening fire.

HMS Neptune in May 1941:

May On completion of post refit sea trials took passage to Scapa Flow.

3rd Joined 2nd Cruiser Squadron, Home Fleet and commenced work-up..

Deployed with ships of Squadron to escort. HM Battleship KING GEORGE V and HM

23rd Aircraft Carrier VICTORIOUS during search for German Battleship BISMARCK.

Took part in search operation after loss of HM Battlecruiser HOOD.

25th Detached with HMS VICTORIOUS and HM Cruiser NORFOLK.

Covered passage of military convoy WS8X against possible attack by BISMARCK.

https://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chron ... eptune.htm

5) The King George V (Captain Wilfred R. Patterson, C.V.O.; flying the flag of the Commander-in-Chief, Home Fleet), Galatea (Captain Edward W.B. Sim; flying the flag of Rear-Admiral Alban T.B. Curteis, C.B., Rear-Admiral Commanding, Second Cruiser Squadron), Aurora (Captain William G. Agnew), Kenya (Captain Michael M. Denny C.B.), Neptune (Captain Rory C. O'Conor) and the remaining three Home Fleet destroyers - Active (Lieutenant Commander Michael W. Tomkinson), Punjabi (Commander Stuart A. Buss, M.V.O.) and Nestor (Commander Conrad B. Alers-Hankey, D.S.C.) - were brought to short notice at Scapa. The Inglefield (Captain Percy Todd, DSO; Captain (D), Third Destroyer Flotilla) and Intrepid (Commander Roderick C. Gordon, DSO) arrived on 22nd May and joined this force, as did Hermione (Captain Geoffrey N. Oliver) on completing the repair of her fourth turret.
http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 9tovey.htm

When Renown engaged Scharnhorst and Gneisenau the 3 minutes delay by the KM in opening fire was carefully noted and recorded by Renown.

What I am trying to do here is show you how secondary accounts can be seriously in error when they incorporate incorrect information. These errors then enter the mainstream of information about a battle and are then widely disseminated; but they are still errors!

[dunmunro]

Hello Mr.Dunmunro,
this is an old discussion that should not have been re-opened here (nothing to do with thread topic). You are right that British observations are (with T. Briggs exception) all in favor of Bismarck returning fire few seconds after British ships (05:53), but they are sometimes generic and in contradiction among them. On the other side, all German evidences/accounts are sharply opposite and in agreement, including:
1) PE KTB from Captain Brinkmann ("05:53 Hood and KGV open fire.... 05:55 PE and BS return fire")
2) 2nd PE G.O. (P. Schmalenbach) gunnery report ("...Hood had fired 4 or 5 salvos by the time BS and we returned her fire...")
3) 3rd BS G.O. (Baron B. Von Mullenheim, in his book) confirmed BS delay ("...seconds became minutes..."), mentioned several salvos during interval and accounted for reactions of 1st G.O.and Captain.
4) J. Brennecke in his book confirms 2 minutes delay, supported by Admirals (Hoffmann, Krancke, Marshall) experts of German tactics and firing procedures.
5) Admiral G. Lütjens message to Grope West on May 25, describing a battle fought between 208 hm and 180 hm: BS open fire at 05:53 impossible, because distance was much more.

German version is accepted by almost all historians who have studied and written about battle, also due to battle development (e.g. distances, timings, expended shells) that would never match a too early BS open fire. Therefore, matter is (at best) open and we should agree to disagree.
Please, to all of us, let's try to stick to original thread topic without mixing with others, as per Mr. Michael L. wise suggestions.

hans

The German evidence in not all on one side. Brinkman states that Bismarck was the first to fire and Brinkman doesn't give timings in the war diary. The statement in the war diary from Schmalenbach makes a statement that is clearly wrong, and from that single statement we get a cascade of errors. " 5:53 Hood and KGV open fire.... 05:55 PE and BS return fire" conflicts with other statements in the PE war diary and also states that it took PE two minutes to fire two salvos, which again is wrong as PE was firing over two salvos per minute according to Jasper.

I know that some historians have built elaborate accounts all around this supposed delay in opening fire by Bismarck, but any account that incorporates such a delay is wrong, because it didn't happen.

The Baron's account was published decades after the event and it incorporates flawed accounts because the Baron lost all his recorded data when Bismarck was sunk. He then incorporates the flawed data from the PE war diary into his account and adds the impossible statement: "I will not let my ship be shot out from under my ass" that he couldn't have overheard.

[Steve Crandell]

The Baron could have heard that statement later in the wardroom from someone else. He may even say that in his book. Admittedly hearsay, but this isn't a court of law.

[dunmunro]

The Baron could have heard that statement later in the wardroom from someone else. He may even say that in his book. Admittedly hearsay, but this isn't a court of law.

The problem is that we have a Bismarck survivor recounting hearsay in a book and using timings gained from other sources, and this is then entered into the historical record as fact. The Baron:

On the telephone I heard Albrecht shout, “The Hood—it’s the Hood!” It was an unforgettable moment. There she was, the famous warship, once the largest in the world, that had been the “terror” of so many of our war games. Two minutes had gone by since the British opened fire. Lindemann could restrain himself no longer and he was heard to mutter to himself, “I will not let my ship be shot out from under my ass.” Then, at last, he came on the intercom and gave the word, “Permission to fire!”

Mullenheim-Rechberg, Burkard Baron Von. Battleship Bismarck (Bluejacket Books) (p. 204).

Again, we have multiple witnesses on the RN side, carefully watching Bismarck through optical instruments and independently recording Bismarck opening fire within ~30secs of Hood's first salvo. They simply cannot be wrong.

This question of timing is crucial to our understanding of the battle, and incidentally, of Lutjens himself.

[hans zurbriggen]

Hello Mr. Dunmunro,
your statements are based on British observations only (from remote ships, and even not in agreement among them). However any German open fire at 05:52 or 05:53 (as you seem to claim) would be against all official German reports written by German officers (who ordered this open fire, like Brinkmann), against German G.O.'s (who were there and who personally listened at Schneider's repeated requests to open fire, like the Baron or who counted salvos like P. Schmalenbach) and against distance officially reported by Lütjens to Group West (208 hm) at open fire time (vs 202 hm reported by P. Jasper on PE at minute 05:55, therefore 2 to 3 minutes after British open fire).

However, as already kindly asked, with all due respect, let's discuss hypothetical scenario between Alaska and Scharnhorst proposed here if you please. We can agree to disagree and still keep our opinion.
Thanks in advance

hans

[dunmunro]

Hello Mr. Dunmunro,
your statements are based on British observations only (from remote ships, and even not in agreement among them). However any German open fire at 05:52 or 05:53 (as you seem to claim) would be against all official German reports written by German officers (who ordered this open fire, like Brinkmann), against German G.O.'s (who were there and who personally listened at Schneider's repeated requests to open fire, like the Baron or who counted salvos like P. Schmalenbach) and against distance officially reported by Lütjens to Group West (208 hm) at open fire time (vs 202 hm reported by P. Jasper on PE at minute 05:55, therefore 2 to 3 minutes after British open fire).

However, as already kindly asked, with all due respect, let's discuss hypothetical scenario between Alaska and Scharnhorst proposed here if you please. We can agree to disagree and still keep our opinion.
Thanks in advance

hans

I agree that this is a diversion from the topic at hand, and I didn't intend to do more than note the errors in timing.

PE's war diary was heavily criticized by the KM, but since they had no access to wartime RN observations of the battle, they had no choice but to go with what they had.

The problem is that PE's war diary doesn't contain any direct observations and open fire times for Bismarck and it's self contradictory as it records Bismarck as opening fire before PE, rather than simultaneously as implied by the war diary in other places.

OTOH, we have multiple observers on the RN carefully watching Bismarck's open fire time (and some of them testifying under oath shortly after the battle) and recording it be be within a few seconds of PoW's open fire time. It is simply impossible for these multiple observers to all be mistaken.

The error in opening fire times by Bismarck resulting from the PE war diary has been disastrous to our understanding of the battle.

[hans zurbriggen]

Hello Mr. Dunmunro,
I see my kind request to stop diverting the thread is not listened at. I have pointed out that 05:52 or even 05:53, as BS open fire time, is inconsistent with distance data officially reported from both German ships, but you prefer to trust more some generic observations (e.g. 'shortly after') than precise statements (e.g. '05:53 Hood and KGV open fire.... 05:55 PE and BS return fire') and detailed, long accounts of witnesses (e.g. the Baron).
I stay with my opinion, and I kindly suggest you to 'agree to disagree' with me, without any need to raise your voice, underlining your statements.
Thanks in advance.

hans