Lutjens dies and Lindemann takes command

[RF]

Bismarck could have done it, with time and ammunition plus good shooting, more so if PE obtained torpedo hits.

But there are too many other factors, mainly involving the other British ships, which complicate matters - my view is that it was possible, probably unlikely, but certainly worth trying.....

[Djoser]

This is a fun hypothetical thread, and it flows from the Bismarck Myth, that goes something like this: Bismarck was the greatest battleship of all time. Bismarck fought heroically, outnumbered, and it weren't for that aloof dummkopf Lutjens - blame on him!!! - Lindemann and his merry men would have sunk Prince of Wales and returned victorious, from whence to terrorize the Royal Navy and disrupt convoys, and... the Reich would have lasted, well, maybe a couple more years than it did.

That myth was the conventional wisdom for about five decades.

And whose conventional wisdom was that? Not mine. And not anyone posting in this thread--except you that is, in converse.

You are definitely the only one bringing up this mythical 'Bismarck was the greatest battleship of all time" horseshit--repeatedly I might add. And it's making the thread a lot less fun, actually.

No one has called Lutjens a dummkopf (except you). It is actually quite apparent to me that had that extraordinarily lucky rudder hit not doomed the admiral and the ship, he would have been hailed as one of the great admirals. Not saying he was, but that's what would have happened.

No one has mentioned the Reich lasting any longer, except you. Relax, there aren't any Nazis posting here. Just people making a case that Lindemann might well have gone after POW, and might have further damaged or possibly even sunk her--though I don't think any of us are asserting sinking POW would have been very easy, or done without some risk.


Getting back to the topic at hand. The Bismarck could certainly have eased the ammunition problem by using HE or Common shell to try to get the firing solution, then using the AP when hits were likely, to most effect. Prinz Eugen might have been able to pull up to the side and spot, for that matter, if the smoke screen was that much a problem from the rear. How dense was the smoke, and how long could the POW maintain a heavy covering smokescreen??

The source I have for the possibly heated argument between the admiral and the captain was the Baron's book. He was certainly a lot closer to the events than we were, though of course he wasn't on the bridge but heard about it. Who knows what went down that morning. Of all the dramatic moments in history, that's got to be right up there.

And speaking of history, and drama--surely the tale of the Bismarck fighting the Hood has as much dramatic excitement, as many sudden reversals of fortune, as much pathos...as the story of any battleship of the 20th century. Yes the Iowas had distinguished and historically important careers, as did the Warspite. But for drama, by god, this story cannot be beat. This is what people remember.

[José M. Rico]

Good post! Djoser.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Djoser:

The source I have for the possibly heated argument between the admiral and the captain was the Baron's book. He was certainly a lot closer to the events than we were, though of course he wasn't on the bridge but heard about it. Who knows what went down that morning. Of all the dramatic moments in history, that's got to be right up there.

I do agree. If the Baron was not personally present at the bridge it is very likely that his fellow officers were and they all talked about it. It must have been quite an event for them not to comment. I also have the perception that the Baron tried to tell us more than he actually wrote: he was a professional and patriotic man who, even in disagreement with Lutjens´ management of the crisis, tried to respect his memory everything he could.

And speaking of history, and drama--surely the tale of the Bismarck fighting the Hood has as much dramatic excitement, as many sudden reversals of fortune, as much pathos...as the story of any battleship of the 20th century. Yes the Iowas had distinguished and historically important careers, as did the Warspite. But for drama, by god, this story cannot be beat. This is what people remember.

The Bismarck story has everything: secret agents in Sweden, concealed passing through the belt, bold RAF pilots over Norway, partisan in Norway, German plans, strategic thinking and games from the British, a few against a lot, radar findings, cruisers in the ice, Hood and PoW in very unconventional disposition firing a German squadron that changed their line positions, Holland, Lutjens, Lindemann, Wake Walker, salvoes, explosions, controversial decisions and stories, old planes defying the elements and AA fire, brave crews, plans, measures, counter measures, PE going away, Lutjens´messages, Catalina sightings, the torpedo attack and hit, the last stand... incredible. Is much better than many Hollywood´s scripts.

[tommy303]

Getting back to the topic at hand. The Bismarck could certainly have eased the ammunition problem by using HE or Common shell to try to get the firing solution, then using the AP when hits were likely, to most effect

That is essentially what transpired on the Bismarck, though not by design. Bismarck entered the action with the guns loaded with base-fuzed HE (CPBC in British terminology or SAPC in USN terms); this had been the ammunition selected for attempting to ambush Norfolk and Suffolk the previous night. German APC and base fuzed HE were designed to range similarly, though not quite the same in practice, so while one could use the base fuzed HE to acquire the target then switch to APC, one would still have to apply corrections and possibly fire a test salvo before firing for effect once you switched to APC. In Bismarck's case, the difference in ranging between the two types was unimportant for that first salvo since the guns were cold and the first shot through the gun would not shoot to the same range as subsequent ones; instead the fire control department was more concerned with establishing line by detecting errors in deflection. Only once that was established would they concentrate on range, by which time APC would be arriving from lower quarters.

The other problem was ammunition supply transport. Once firing started, one would have two or three shells per gun in transit from shell room to handling room, one shell per gun in the handling room ring cars, one shell per gun being loaded into the hoists, and one in the waiting position in the gun house or being actively loaded into the gun. The two or three rounds per gun in transit from shell bins to handling room could be sent back to their bins and replaced with APC, but it was faster to simply fire off the three or four rounds in transit from ring car to gun loading tray than trying to strike them below or send them back to the shell room.

The source I have for the possibly heated argument between the admiral and the captain was the Baron's book. He was certainly a lot closer to the events than we were, though of course he wasn't on the bridge but heard about it.

This has always been something of a mystery to me. Luetjens' action station was on the flag bridge with his staff, while Lindemann's was in the conning tower or the open combat bridge gallery (depending on his personal preferences), thus the two most senior officers were not in proximity to one another and would have had to communicate over the telephone system. As there were no survivors from the combat bridge and none from among the officers of the Admiral's Staff, there could not have been any witnesses to the supposed heated argument except perhaps someone in the telephone exchange overhearing the conversation between the admiral and captain. It is difficult sometimes to judge exactly how emotional or emphatic two speaking parties are just by listening, since one does not see the physical reactions or body language. There were several survivors from the communications department, and the story probably started with one of them. British interrogations of survivors stated that one prisoner described Lindemann, after the battle, as suggesting Bismarck should head back to Norway and Luetjens overruling him. This may have expanded into a heated argument in the memories of POWs during their years of captivity and post war when the Baron began compiling information for his milestone book.

[yellowtail3]

That myth was the conventional wisdom for about five decades.

And whose conventional wisdom was that? Not mine.

I've never claimed it was yours, djoser; I'll not defend what I didn't post.

And not anyone posting in this thread--except you that is, in converse.

well, converse makes all the diff, doesn't it?

You are definitely the only one bringing up this mythical 'Bismarck was the greatest battleship of all time" horseshit--repeatedly I might add.

I was inspired by Karl.

And it's making the thread a lot less fun, actually.

the substance of what you refer to - mis-characterize? - is at least six weeks old. If you're bothered, and it's reducing your satisfaction, then don't cherry pick six week old posts to complain about, and save your righteous indignation. I'm sure it is persuasive to you.

No one has called Lutjens a dummkopf (except you).

Converse, again - and again, I was inspired. It's not my belief about the man - which would be clear, if you've read my posts in context, rather than for something criticize.

It is actually quite apparent to me that had that extraordinarily lucky rudder hit not doomed the admiral and the ship, he would have been hailed as one of the great admirals.

Probably so.

But for drama, by god, this story cannot be beat. This is what people remember.

It certainly is memorable, one of the all-time best sea stories - all the better, it's one that doesn't need to start with, "this is a no-shitter..."

[Djoser]

the substance of what you refer to - mis-characterize? - is at least six weeks old. If you're bothered, and it's reducing your satisfaction, then don't cherry pick six week old posts to complain about, and save your righteous indignation. I'm sure it is persuasive to you.

What bothered me was the repeated and heavy sarcasm, and the obvious contempt for the proposals put forth--to wit, that Lindemann might have gone for the POW, and might have had some success. It seems fairly obvious he would have made the attempt, and we can better determine the likely outcome without resort to sarcasm and mutual disrespect.

Unless the posts somehow lose their validity and meaning (perhaps incrementally each week ) I see no reason to refrain from addressing the issues raised by them because i didn't see them six weeks ago. Anyone who wants to dispute what I have to say is free to do so six minutes or six years from now, for I mean what I say now, and I will stand by what I say six weeks or six years from now, barring some revolutionary new evidence coming to light.


Getting back on topic once again, could not the possible dispute between Lindemann and Lutjens have been discussed in the wardroom or elsewhere amongst the ships' officers, before the sinking--and that is how the baron heard of it? Rather than him hearing of it fro survivors after the sinking? I don't know, just speculating here.

[yellowtail3]

Getting back on topic once again, could not the possible dispute between Lindemann and Lutjens have been discussed in the wardroom or elsewhere amongst the ships' officers, before the sinking--and that is how the baron heard of it? Rather than him hearing of it fro survivors after the sinking? I don't know, just speculating here.

Oh, I suspect there was gossip about it in the wardroom and in staterooms - and probably not complimentary to Lutjens. And the story probably get better, the more often it was told. Ships' company (and wardroom) usually aren't all that enthused about having a flag officer/staff onboard, esp. if the CO is popular and there is perceived tension between CO & flag.

[lwd]

...
You are definitely the only one bringing up this mythical 'Bismarck was the greatest battleship of all time" horseshit--repeatedly I might add.

Perhaps in this thread. It's been a while since I read it all but certainly others have done it on this forum and done it seriously.

No one has called Lutjens a dummkopf (except you). ....

Where did he? Certainly others have called him less complementarly things indeed this thread is based on that premise.

[Legend]

My opinion is that Lutjens was a Dummkopf. That is precisely the reason I materialized this theoretical situation.

[RF]

The source I have for the possibly heated argument between the admiral and the captain was the Baron's book. He was certainly a lot closer to the events than we were, though of course he wasn't on the bridge but heard about it.

This has always been something of a mystery to me. Luetjens' action station was on the flag bridge with his staff, while Lindemann's was in the conning tower or the open combat bridge gallery (depending on his personal preferences), thus the two most senior officers were not in proximity to one another and would have had to communicate over the telephone system. As there were no survivors from the combat bridge and none from among the officers of the Admiral's Staff, there could not have been any witnesses to the supposed heated argument except perhaps someone in the telephone exchange overhearing the conversation between the admiral and captain. It is difficult sometimes to judge exactly how emotional or emphatic two speaking parties are just by listening, since one does not see the physical reactions or body language. There were several survivors from the communications department, and the story probably started with one of them. British interrogations of survivors stated that one prisoner described Lindemann, after the battle, as suggesting Bismarck should head back to Norway and Luetjens overruling him. This may have expanded into a heated argument in the memories of POWs during their years of captivity and post war when the Baron began compiling information for his milestone book.

I have always been dubious about this story of a heated argument. The earliest reference to it in print appears to be Grenfell's book ''The Bismarck Episode'' supposedly derived from interrogation of survivors. But British assessments of the survivors for the most part didn't rate the German crewmembers all that highly, so why rely on their evidence?
Evidence for such an argument is hearsay, it wouldn't be admissable as evidence in a British court for example.
Also consider that the KM, like all contemporary navies of the time, was highly disciplined. Would such discipline allow for a heated argument, even between officers of equal rank? Here we have Admiral and Captain, a substantial variation in seniority, and not in close proximity to each other.

I think the most likely thing that happened was that Lindemann, on seeing POW breaking off, requested Lutjens by telephone for a continuation of the action. When Lutjens refused Lindemann may have made some private comment to himself about that decision, expressing dissent, but not to the Admiral's face, that may have been remembered by the ratings around him and later embellished into a supposed argument that never actually happened.
On giving Lutjens detail of the damage to Bismarck Lindemann may have recommended a return to Norway; again the decision by Lutjens to carry on into the Atlantic overuling him could be embellished to a level that it never was.
Also remember that Lutjens was not operating in isolation, he had a substantial staff with him, who presumably would have some input into Lutjens decision making. Exactly the role of the Admiral's staff during and immediately after the DS battle isn't clear as none of the staff survived.

[RF]

Oh, I suspect there was gossip about it in the wardroom and in staterooms - and probably not complimentary to Lutjens. And the story probably get better, the more often it was told. Ships' company (and wardroom) usually aren't all that enthused about having a flag officer/staff onboard, esp. if the CO is popular and there is perceived tension between CO & flag.

This might be the sort of thing that exists in the culture of some navies, where there is no tradition of authoritarian atitudes to rank, almost rather like the ''Caine Mutiny,'' but the evidence of the German sailors such as Adolf Eich displayed a high regard for both Admiral and Captain.
Also bear in mind that Bismarck's crew were at action stations almost constantly over the three days, with little contact with crew immediately beyond their station - not too much scope for gossip.

[Bgile]

Being a flagship is probably never popular with that ship's crew because it always means more spit and polish for them. Of course, that doesn't mean they dislike the Admiral.

[yellowtail3]

Oh, I suspect there was gossip about it in the wardroom and in staterooms - and probably not complimentary to Lutjens. And the story probably get better, the more often it was told. Ships' company (and wardroom) usually aren't all that enthused about having a flag officer/staff onboard, esp. if the CO is popular and there is perceived tension between CO & flag.

This might be the sort of thing that exists in the culture of some navies, where there is no tradition of authoritarian atitudes to rank, almost rather like the ''Caine Mutiny,'' but the evidence of the German sailors such as Adolf Eich displayed a high regard for both Admiral and Captain.

On The Caine Mutiny - the movie is a classic, but the book is far, far better. If you've not read it, get it & read it through - you'll thank me afterward for the recommendation.

[RF]

I have read it and it is very good indeed.