Drachinifel
comments
Comments by "" (@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684) on "Bismarck and the James Cameron Expedition - What it actually says vs what you hear on the internet" video.
Bismarck's main armour belt extended 2.3 meters below and 2.4 meters above the waterline (As can be seen at 6:43). To intentionally & directly strike that long, narrow strake of armour, showing above the water's surface even from the range of sub 3000m that HMS Rodney closed to whilst making headway in a heavy stormy North Atlantic swell would be nigh on impossible. As the report clearly says "the very large number of hits on the main belt WERE MOSTLY IF NOT ALL FROM SECONDARY guns". A number of the major calibre hits that impacted that long narrow main armour belt more than likely ricochetted off the surface of the sea due to the relatively short range and flattened trajectories involved and lost a large part of their momentum as they did so, that is apart from the two penetrations which were probably the only two direct major calibre hits on the 320mm armour belt..
Gun data for Rodney's 16"/45 Mark I main guns shows their penetration ability as 14.4 inches of vertical armour at 15000 yards. She was firing a LOT closer than this for much of the engagement, so even taking into account her shells striking the main belt at a reasonable angle she would have very little problem with penetrating Bismarck's main belt of 320mm (12.6 inches).
The principle is the same as arguing a dart cannot penetrate the skin of a balloon from 2 miles away. To which the answer is "of course it can.... if it can manage to hit it".
P.S And don't even get me started about Bismarck's wiki page. I've lost count of the exchanges I've had with the page's "self appointed guardian" A.K.A Parsecboy, who polices the page using his jaded, biased agenda, and who when presented with corroborated evidence supporting facts which he doesn't like (such as admiralty reports from the UK national archives), or even correcting blatant errors or misrepresentations on the page, he as a "wiki approved editor" deletes any changes he doesn't like with impunity, and if you've really rubbed his nose in it, will also temporarily ban your IP address from editing wikipedia at all. Not that it "gets my goat"... HONESTLY !!!!
158
30
10
9
9
8
7
You seem to put a lot of stock in survivor's accounts of the final battle and sinking... I'm fully with you on that point. Lets look at some shall we?
From "Battleship Bismarck: A survivor's story" Written by Baron Burkhard von Mullenheim-Rechberg, Bismarck's senior ranking survivor.
Page 211 "Our list to port had increased a bit while firing was going on" followed by "Around 9:30am gas and smoke began to drift through our station" This means that prior to 9:30am Bismarck was already flooding, not something that happens to a healthy seaworthy ship, in other words she was already starting to sink.
Then from an interview conducted for the highly regarded weekly history journal "Purnell's history of the second world war" in the late 1960's with Gerhard Junack (who was Bismarck's only surviving engineering officer and the survivor who supposedly enacted the "scuttle order"). He stated that...
"Somewhere about 1015 hours, I received an order over the telephone from the Chief Engineer (Korvettenkapitän (Ing.) Walter Lehmann) to 'Prepare the ship for sinking.' That was the last order I received on the Bismarck. Soon after that, all transmission of orders collapsed."
Heading back to the account of Mullenheim-Rechberg, on Page 212 he states that (before 10:00am) "I was using all the telephone circuits and calling all over the place in an effort to find out as much as possible about the condition of the ship. I got only one answer. I reached the messenger in the damage control centre and asked "who has and where is the command of the ship? Are there new orders in effect?".... The man said he was in a great hurry. He told me that everyone had abandoned the damage control centre, adding that he was the last one in the room and had to get out... then he hung up".
This vain seach for contact & information over the Bismarck's internal comms happened BEFORE 10:00am which throws some mild doubt on Junack's testimony where he says he was contacted by the chief engineer who supposedly gave him the "scuttle order" over the phone at 10:15am... Hmmmmm.
If taken at face value these survivor testimonies show that there was at least a 45 minute gap between Bismarck starting to sink and the first mention of a "scuttle order" being given. Even if Bismarck's crew had done nothing, Bismarck was going to sink, and if the beaten crew want to help the RN, then all the better... But face it, Bismarck's crew weren't going to scuttle a perfectly seaworthy ship in the middle of the storm tossed North Atlantic of their own free will, it was only for the fact that the RN had already dismantled Bismarck and initiated the sinking process. In other words in every sense the sinking of Bismarck was the result of actions dictated by the Royal Navy.
Anything else is just hurt German pride, bolstered by modern day delusional wehraboos. Germany was well known for trying to hide its national humiliations, such as when they scuttled their "grand fleet" at the end of WW1, like illogically saying "We lost.. but you didn't win", or a pathetic "You didn't beat us because we killed ourselves before you killed us" sort of idiocy.
7
7
6
6
6
6
5
And yet here are you unbidden, STILL trying to suggest that the RN didn't sink Bismarck... Why are YOU so obsessed?
IF any scuttling actually took place then all that was scuttled was a 51000 ton mountain of sinking, flaming scrap metal. All guns silenced, her superstructure devastated, her main armour belt broken and penetrated in several places, her command staff physically obliterated, internally aflame from end to end, her stern and port gunwales already underwater, a thousand of her crew dead, and further hundreds of her crew already in the water behind her.... All that any scuttling did was to sink her a few minutes earlier than was already happening.
In the world of boxing the crew's scuttling efforts are what is known as "throwing in the towel", submission of a boxer AFTER he has been punched senseless by a more skillful & powerful opponent, and only a deluded child would say, "the victor didn't win because his opponent killed himself before he lost.", when the truth is the loser had his arse ripped off by the victor and handed back to him on a plate.
Imagine the ignominy of being forced to commit suicide by your opponent?
5
5
5
5
Its difficult to accept the charge that British documentaries in particular are biased !!! We are bottom of the "junior league" compared to the US "Major league champions". They inflict themselves on EVERY aspect of history even when they had little or nothing to do with it. You can see their intent with the US film industry's absolute OBSESSION with putting the yanks into every aspect of history (U-571 anyone?). Just yesterday I watched a documentary on British TV about "operation Dynamo" (The Dunkirk Evacuation) and the primary "talking head" throughout the programme was a US lieutenant colonel in full regalia, apparently the incongruity of a bemedalled senior US officer lecturing on the quintessentially European events of May/June 1940 was totally lost on the doc producers. Yes the man was probably a learned expert of WW2 military matters from West Point or wherever, but the bare faced crass US jingoism of the setup was incredbile !!! That's just one very recent example, but modern media is RIFE with such overbearing US inflection on world history.
Another example is the "battle of Britain". If you read a large amount (but thankfully not all) of US comment here on YT, the "BoB" was "won by the US", solely on the basis that the British bought supplies from the US, but strangely you never hear the counterpart cry of "Romania & the USSR conquered most of mainland Europe in 1939-41", which by using the rationale of US commenters that "we supplied you with fuel / materials" is exactly what Romania and the USSR did whilst using nazi Germany as their proxy.
I can though fully concur with your judgement regarding Thames TV's "The World at War", which is rightfully often described as "landmark TV", even so current repeats of "TWAW" are now savagely edited to make space for more advertising BS, its akin to plastering a landmark such as the Taj Mahal with "Tesla" "Amazon" and "Apple" adverts. Thankfully I have my own unedited, and uninterrupted copies of the entire series.
As you suggest, as the war generation leave our midst world history has (as it always has) been hijacked by those with their own contemporary agendas to push, with the consequence that almost nothing in the last 20 years can hold a candle to the best of pre 2000s documentaries.
Consider that what you now believe to be "British bias" is a reactionary counter balance to the increasing growth in juvenile wehraboo-ism as well as the globalist inspired "anti-Brit" sentiment now pushed in the general MSM, as a result of our rejection of their EUSSR branch of global hegemony, which seeks to "re-interpret" and undermine factual material and subvert the actualité of historical events,
All the best though Vincent.
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
"She might not have been sinking at the time"? Nonsense.
Lets look at some survivor testimonies (people who actually witnessed the events of Bismarck's sinking first hand), and not some winsome fantasy shall we?
From "Battleship Bismarck: A survivor's story" Written by Baron Burkhard von Mullenheim-Rechberg, Bismarck's senior ranking survivor.
Page 211 "Our list to port had increased a bit while firing was going on" followed by "Around 9:30am gas and smoke began to drift through our station" This means that prior to 9:30am Bismarck was already flooding, not something that happens to a healthy seaworthy ship, in other words she was already starting to sink.
Then from an interview conducted for the highly regarded weekly history journal "Purnell's history of the second world war" in the late 1960's with Gerhard Junack (who was Bismarck's only surviving engineering officer and the survivor who supposedly enacted the "scuttle order"). He stated that...
"Somewhere about 1015 hours, I received an order over the telephone from the Chief Engineer (Korvettenkapitän (Ing.) Walter Lehmann) to 'Prepare the ship for sinking.' That was the last order I received on the Bismarck. Soon after that, all transmission of orders collapsed."
Heading back to the account of Mullenheim-Rechberg, on Page 212 he states that (before 10:00am) "I was using all the telephone circuits and calling all over the place in an effort to find out as much as possible about the condition of the ship. I got only one answer. I reached the messenger in the damage control centre and asked "who has and where is the command of the ship? Are there new orders in effect?".... The man said he was in a great hurry. He told me that everyone had abandoned the damage control centre, adding that he was the last one in the room and had to get out... then he hung up".
This vain search for contact & information over the Bismarck's internal comms happened BEFORE 10:00am which throws some mild doubt on Junack's testimony where he says he was contacted by the chief engineer who supposedly gave him the "scuttle order" over the phone at 10:15am... Hmmmmm.
If taken at face value these survivor testimonies show that there was at least a 45 minute gap between Bismarck starting to sink and the first mention of a "scuttle order" being given. Even if Bismarck's crew had done nothing, Bismarck was going to sink, and if the beaten crew want to help the RN, then all the better... But face it, Bismarck's crew weren't going to scuttle a perfectly seaworthy ship in the middle of the storm tossed North Atlantic of their own free will, it was only for the fact that the RN had already dismantled Bismarck and initiated the sinking process. In other words in every sense the sinking of Bismarck was the result of actions dictated by the Royal Navy.
Anything else is just hurt German pride, bolstered by modern day delusional wehraboos. Germany was well known for trying to hide its national humiliations, such as when they scuttled their "grand fleet" at the end of WW1, like illogically saying "We lost.. but you didn't win", or a pathetic "You didn't beat us because we killed ourselves first" sort of idiocy.
4
4
4
3
3
3
Lets look at some survivor testimonies (people who actually witnessed the events of Bismarck's sinking first hand), and not some unresearched, modern day nonsense written by the "hard of thinking" shall we?
From "Battleship Bismarck: A survivor's story" Written by Baron Burkhard von Mullenheim-Rechberg, Bismarck's senior ranking survivor.
Page 211 "Our list to port had increased a bit while firing was going on" followed by "Around 9:30am gas and smoke began to drift through our station" This means that prior to 9:30am Bismarck was already flooding, not something that happens to a healthy seaworthy ship, in other words she was already starting to sink.
Then from an interview conducted for the highly regarded weekly history journal "Purnell's history of the second world war" in the late 1960's with Gerhard Junack (who was Bismarck's only surviving engineering officer and the survivor who supposedly enacted the "scuttle order"). He stated that...
"Somewhere about 1015 hours, I received an order over the telephone from the Chief Engineer (Korvettenkapitän (Ing.) Walter Lehmann) to 'Prepare the ship for sinking.' That was the last order I received on the Bismarck. Soon after that, all transmission of orders collapsed."
Heading back to the account of Mullenheim-Rechberg, on Page 212 he states that (before 10:00am) "I was using all the telephone circuits and calling all over the place in an effort to find out as much as possible about the condition of the ship. I got only one answer. I reached the messenger in the damage control centre and asked "who has and where is the command of the ship? Are there new orders in effect?".... The man said he was in a great hurry. He told me that everyone had abandoned the damage control centre, adding that he was the last one in the room and had to get out... then he hung up".
This vain search for contact & information over the Bismarck's internal comms happened BEFORE 10:00am which throws some mild doubt on Junack's testimony where he says he was contacted by the chief engineer who supposedly gave him the "scuttle order" over the phone at 10:15am... Hmmmmm.
If taken at face value these survivor testimonies show that there was at least a 45 minute gap between Bismarck starting to sink and the first mention of a "scuttle order" being given. Even if Bismarck's crew had done nothing, Bismarck was going to sink, and if the beaten crew want to help the RN, then all the better... But face it, Bismarck's crew weren't going to scuttle a perfectly seaworthy ship in the middle of the storm tossed North Atlantic of their own free will, it was only for the fact that the RN had already dismantled Bismarck and initiated the sinking process. In other words in every sense the sinking of Bismarck was the result of actions dictated by the Royal Navy.
Anything else is just hurt German pride, bolstered by modern day delusional wehraboos. Germany was well known for trying to hide its national humiliations, such as when they scuttled their "grand fleet" at the end of WW1, like illogically saying "We lost.. but you didn't win", or a pathetic "You didn't beat us because we killed ourselves first" sort of idiocy.
P.S "unmatched and unparalleled" Hahahah, comedy gold.
3
3
Thats one hot crock of BS. Luckily for the US the UK SAVED your self serving asses from being isolated and sandwiched between a nazi dominated Europe and a Japanese dominated Asia.
As for Bismarck she was spit roasted and tag teamed by two superior British battleships. IF any scuttling actually took place then all that was scuttled was a 51000 ton mountain of sinking, flaming scrap metal. All guns silenced, her superstructure devastated, her main armour belt broken and penetrated in several places, her command staff physically obliterated, internally aflame from end to end, her stern and port gunwales already underwater, a thousand of her crew dead, and further hundreds of her crew already in the water behind her.... All that any scuttling did was to sink her a few minutes earlier than was already happening.
In the world of boxing the crew's scuttling efforts are what is known as "throwing in the towel", submission of a boxer AFTER he has been punched senseless by a more skillful & powerful opponent, and only a deluded child would say, "the victor didn't win because his opponent killed himself before he lost.", when the truth is the loser had his arse ripped off by the victor and handed back to him on a plate.
Imagine the ignominy of being forced to commit suicide by your opponent?
P.S Have they stopped teaching punctuation to the rednecks nowadays?
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
"Choosing such an idiot for the position", You seem to be forgetting that 3 months eariler Lütjens had commanded "operation Berlin", where he took the Kriegsmarine's "twins" into the Atlantic, sinking / capturing 22 allied merchant ships, and successfully evading the RN's efforts to engage.
As for Dorsetshire's torpedoes, listen to what one of the world's most experienced and knowledgeable marine forensic experts, Bill Jurens, thinks about the matter. https://youtu.be/9xX8XGMMXhE?t=3887
I'm no wehraboo apologist, but the failure was FAR from solely caused by Lütjens but mainly by the Kriegsmarine top brass ordering Rhineübung to take place inspite of it being under supported against a FAR stronger enemy, at a time when the German surface fleet was already losing the technology & resources battle. Lütjens suspected that was the case, but was duty bound to follow his orders.
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Its life Jim, but not as we know it.
IF any scuttling actually took place then all that was scuttled was a 51000 ton mountain of sinking, flaming scrap metal. All guns silenced, her superstructure devastated, her main armour belt broken and penetrated in several places, her command staff physically obliterated, internally aflame from end to end, her stern and port gunwales already underwater, a thousand of her crew dead, and further hundreds of her crew already in the water behind her.... All that any scuttling did was to sink her a few minutes earlier than was already happening.
In the world of boxing the crew's scuttling efforts are what is known as "throwing in the towel", submission of a boxer AFTER he has been punched senseless by a more skillful & powerful opponent, and only a deluded child would say, "the victor didn't win because his opponent killed himself before he lost.", when the truth is the loser had his arse ripped off by the victor and handed back to him on a plate.
Imagine the ignominy of being forced to commit suicide by your opponent?
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
@hajoos.8360 Do I think Opeartion Berlin was a success? Dislocation of the convoy system, the capturing and sinking of 22 merchant ships and running the Home Fleet ragged for 2 months, for no loss to the Kriegsmarine fleet? It certainly was a success!!!
You're confusing poor german strategical resource planning with a small but successful commerce raiding operation. Of course the men and materiel of the KM surface fleet would have been better used elsewhere, but that wasn't Lütjens fault. He was given a task in difficult conditions and carried it out relatively successfully. The Strategic overview was not of his making.
All very well calling them cowards, but when all you've got is the post "weserübung" remains of a piddling little fleet, you have to nip at the much stronger enemy when he is weak and run away when he isn't. Face it, ANY KM surface ship losses were NOT going to be made good, the RN easily replaced its losses and MORE.
It's true that Britain was on the sea what Germany was on land. The British army could NEVER have landed on the continent again, never mind liberate Europe, but on the other hand she was NEVER going to be cut off by the German Navy. A premier land power against a premier sea power... the classic stand off.
As for your assertion that the "scuttle order" was given between 09:15 and 09:21, Yes, I DO have a question.
Where did you get your (incorrect) information from?
Lets look at some survivor testimonies (people who actually witnessed the events of Bismarck's sinking first hand), and not some poorly researched, modern day revisionist TV nonsense made for the "hard of thinking" shall we?
From "Battleship Bismarck: A survivor's story" Written by Baron Burkhard von Mullenheim-Rechberg, Bismarck's senior ranking survivor.
Page 211 "Our list to port had increased a bit while firing was going on" followed by "Around 9:30am gas and smoke began to drift through our station" This means that prior to 9:30am Bismarck was already flooding, not something that happens to a healthy seaworthy ship, in other words she was already starting to sink.
Then from an interview conducted for the highly regarded weekly history journal "Purnell's history of the second world war" in the late 1960's with Kpt Lt Gerhard Junack (who was Bismarck's only surviving engineering officer and the survivor who supposedly enacted the "scuttle order"). He stated that...
"Somewhere about 1015 hours, I received an order over the telephone from the Chief Engineer (Korvettenkapitän (Ing.) Walter Lehmann) to 'Prepare the ship for sinking.' That was the last order I received on the Bismarck. Soon after that, all transmission of orders collapsed."
Heading back to the account of Mullenheim-Rechberg, on Page 212 he states that (before 10:00am) "I was using all the telephone circuits and calling all over the place in an effort to find out as much as possible about the condition of the ship. I got only one answer. I reached the messenger in the damage control centre and asked "who has and where is the command of the ship? Are there new orders in effect?".... The man said he was in a great hurry. He told me that everyone had abandoned the damage control centre, adding that he was the last one in the room and had to get out... then he hung up".
If taken at face value these survivor testimonies show that there was at least a 45 minute gap between Bismarck starting to sink and the first mention of a "scuttle order" being given. Even if Bismarck's crew had done nothing, Bismarck was going to sink, and if the beaten crew want to help the RN, then all the better... But face it, Bismarck's crew weren't going to scuttle a perfectly seaworthy ship in the middle of the storm tossed North Atlantic of their own free will, it was only for the fact that the RN had already dismantled Bismarck and initiated the sinking process. In other words in every sense the sinking of Bismarck was the result of actions dictated by the Royal Navy.
Anything else is just hurt German pride, bolstered by modern day delusional wehraboos. Germany was well known for trying to hide its national humiliations, such as when they scuttled their "grand fleet" at the end of WW1, like illogically saying "We lost.. but you didn't win", or a pathetic "You didn't beat us because we killed ourselves before you killed us" sort of idiocy.
2
@hajoos.8360 Rechberg was in the after range finding station not buried in the bowels of the ship he would have had VERY clear indications of Bismarck's pitch and roll trim as part of his rangefinding apparatus, so trying to "poo poo" his account of events is wishful ignorance of cold hard facts. Part of your misinformation comes from relying on wikipedia.... the page regarding Bismarck as well as the other covering her final battle are littered with errors, as well as the omission of various facts that are supported by primary documentation which are repeatedly deleted by "wikipedia preferred editors" who have their own, biased opinions on the matter. You need to read more widely than that. First hand survivor accounts are valuable, as well as some of the better researched works produced since. To pit an unsourced wikipedia statement against that of Rechberg & Bismarck's senior surviving engineering officer is unwise.
You talk of "supporting" strategic decisions, Lütjens wasn't part of naval planning, but a commander who would have had little to no input regarding the orders he'd been given. His, as the old saying goes, was to "do or die".
All that BS about being "shot on the quarterdeck" after Denmark Strait, you seem to be oblivious to the fact that Lütjens' orders forbade his seeking engagement with enemy capital ships, and the impetuous Lindemann wanting to chase PoW eastwards was EXPRESSLY against the SKL orders that Lütjens was forced to abide by, as well as ill-advised in as far as the Germans were aware that further major units of the RN would be heading westwards from the direction of Scapa Flow. (Also not forgetting the fact that Bismarck was unable to chase PoW who was still steaming at full speed while Bismarck was forced to lower speed due to the damage to her bows causing trim problems and her loss of two boilers due to flooding, as well as ignoring the concerns of the now critical fuel situation Lütjens faced as a result of PoW's hit on her fuel tanks).
The "oh she sould have sunk PoW as well" is just fanciful, uninformed wehraboo fantasy.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Talk about COMPLETE nonsense !!!
You want evidence? I got Evidence !!! Where better to look than "the survivors" whose words you hold so dearly. Lets look at the testimonies of people who actually witnessed the events of Bismarck's sinking first hand, and not some unresearched, modern day revisionist nonsense written for those who know no better. The survivor's statements below are all with regard to Bismarck's final battle on the morning of 27th May 1941.
From "Battleship Bismarck: A survivor's story" Written by Baron Burkhard von Mullenheim-Rechberg, Bismarck's fourth gunnery officer, and her senior ranking survivor.
Page 211 "Our list to port had increased a bit while firing was going on" followed by "Around 9:30am gas and smoke began to drift through our station" This means that prior to 9:30am Bismarck was already flooding, not something that happens to a healthy seaworthy ship, in other words she was already starting to sink.
Then from an interview conducted for the highly regarded weekly history journal "Purnell's history of the second world war" in the late 1960's with Gerhard Junack (who was Bismarck's only surviving engineering officer and the survivor who SUPPOSEDLY enacted the "scuttle order"). He stated that...
"Somewhere about 1015 hours, I received an order over the telephone from the Chief Engineer (Korvettenkapitän (Ing.) Walter Lehmann) to 'Prepare the ship for sinking.' That was the last order I received on the Bismarck. Soon after that, all transmission of orders collapsed."
Heading back to the account of Mullenheim-Rechberg, on Page 212 he states that (before 10:00am) "I was using all the telephone circuits and calling all over the place in an effort to find out as much as possible about the condition of the ship. I got only one answer. I reached the messenger in the damage control centre and asked "who has and where is the command of the ship? Are there new orders in effect?".... The man said he was in a great hurry. He told me that everyone had abandoned the damage control centre, adding that he was the last one in the room and had to get out... then he hung up".
This vain search for contact & information over the Bismarck's internal comms happened BEFORE 10:00am which throws some mild doubt on Junack's testimony where he says he was contacted by the chief engineer who supposedly gave him the "scuttle order" over the phone at 10:15am... Hmmmmm.
If taken at face value these survivor testimonies show that there was at least a 45 minute gap between Bismarck starting to sink and the first mention of a "scuttle order" being given. Even if Bismarck's crew had done nothing, Bismarck was going to sink, and if the beaten crew want to help the RN, then all the better... But face it, Bismarck's crew weren't going to scuttle a perfectly seaworthy ship in the middle of the storm tossed North Atlantic of their own free will, it was only for the fact that the RN had already dismantled Bismarck and initiated the sinking process. In other words in every sense the sinking of Bismarck was the result of actions dictated by the Royal Navy.
Just remember IF any "scuttling" actually took place then all that was scuttled was a 51000 ton mountain of sinking, flaming scrap metal. All guns silenced, her superstructure devastated, her main armour belt broken and penetrated in several places, her command staff physically obliterated, internally aflame from end to end, her stern and port gunwales already underwater, a thousand of her crew dead, and further hundreds of her crew already in the water behind her.... All that any scuttling did was to sink her a few minutes earlier than was already happening.
In the world of boxing the crew's scuttling efforts are what is known as "throwing in the towel", submission of a boxer AFTER he has been punched senseless by a more skillful & powerful opponent, and only a deluded child would say, "the victor didn't win because his opponent killed himself before he lost.", when the truth is the loser had his arse ripped off by the victor and handed back to him on a plate.
Imagine the ignominy of being forced to commit suicide by your opponent?
Anything else is just hurt German pride, bolstered by modern day delusional wehraboos. Germany was well known for trying to hide its national humiliations, such as when they scuttled their "grand fleet" at the end of WW1, like illogically saying "We lost.. but you didn't win", or a pathetic "You didn't beat us because we killed ourselves first" sort of idiocy.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
@balazsvarga1823 There was never ANY thought of boarding Bismarck its why the RN had flung so much firepower and torpedoes at her. You tend not to try to hole a ship below the waterline if you intend to board her, on top of which the RN Home Fleet was critically short of fuel, barely having enough to reach port.
Before she sank Bismarck was a 51000 ton mountain of sinking, flaming scrap metal. All guns silenced, her superstructure devastated, her main armour belt broken and penetrated in several places, her command staff physically obliterated, internally aflame from end to end, her stern and port gunwales already underwater, a thousand of her crew dead, and further hundreds of her crew already in the water behind her.... All that any scuttling did was to sink her a few minutes earlier than was already happening.
In the world of boxing the crew's scuttling efforts are what is known as "throwing in the towel", submission of a boxer AFTER he has been punched senseless by a more skillful & powerful opponent, and only a deluded child would say, "the victor didn't win because his opponent killed himself before he lost.", when the truth is the loser had his arse ripped off by the victor and handed back to him on a plate.
Imagine the ignominy of being forced to commit suicide by your opponent?
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
@charlieb308 Total Rubbish. U-74 reported having British battleships & cruisers in his sight but due to the terrible sea conditions was unable to get into a position to attack them, it was then forced to sit submerged and listen to the battle taking place and surfaced after the departure of the RN surface vessels, as detailed by Kpt Lt Kentrat in his war diary. What is known with certainty is that Bismarck had for the previous 24 hours been transmitting beacon signals on known u-boat radio wavelengths and the scene of the final action was 350 miles (a relative naval stone's throw) away from the Kriegsmarine's Atlantic u-boat bases on the French coast. Was Captain BCS Martin of Dorsetshire expected to gamble the lives of his 750 man crew that it was indeed a dolphin's fin or a broaching whale? Or that if it WAS a u-boat the sub's capt would hold fire while he carried out the rescues? As an RN captain Benjamin Martin would have been SORELY aware of the actions of Otto Weddigen in U-9 during WW1 and his attack on the British Cruisers HMS Aboukir, Cressy & Hogue. I suggest you look up the details of that incident.
I may act as if it was 500m away, whereas you act as if it was miles away. The fact is that NEITHER of us know exactly where it was, and NEITHER of us are Royal Navy captains responsible for major units of the RN together with the lives of nearly 1000 sailors.
I refer you to the account of Baron Burkhard von Müllenheim-Rechberg, Bismarck's senior ranking survivor who in his book "Battleship Bismarck - a survivor's story" wrote this passage about a discussion he held with Capt Martin, commander of HMS Dorsetshire, after being rescued.
"Why," I burst out, "did you suddenly break off the rescue and leave hundreds of our men to drown?"
Martin replied that a U-boat had been sighted, or at least reported, and he obviously could not endanger his ship by staying stopped any longer.
The Bismarck's experiences on the night of 26 May and the morning of the 27th, I told him, indicated that there were no U-boats in the vicinity.
Farther away, perhaps, but certainly not within firing range of the Dorsetshire. I added that in war one often sees what one expects to see.
We argued the point back and forth until Martin said abruptly: "Just leave that to me. I'm older than you are and have been at sea longer. I'm a better judge."
What more could I say? He was the captain and was responsible for his ship.
Apparently some floating object had been mistaken for a periscope or a strip of foam on the water for the wake of a torpedo.
No matter what it was, I AM NOW CONVINCED THAT, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, CAPT MARTIN HAD TO ACT AS HE DID". (My caps)
What's your appraisal of the actions of Kriegsmarine Admiral Wilhelm Marschall who on the 8th June 1940 after his ships Scharnhorst and Gneisensau had sank the British aircraft carrier HMS Glorious and her two escorting destroyers HMS Acasta & Ardent, and despite NO other ships being in the vicinity, then made not even the SLIGHTEST effort to render assistance to over 1000 RN sailors left floating in the Norwegian sea and instead simply sailed away leaving them to their deaths?
As opposed to the RN who in hostile waters with KNOWN u-boat activity and on the edge of German airspace stopped TWO ships to render assistance. If the RN had only rescued ONE single German sailor, it would still have been INFINITELY more than the Germans bothered to rescue on 8th June 1940. As it was the RN saw to it that 111 Germans were rescued and then treated extremely well.
Or is it only German sailors left to drown who you get all "teared up" about?
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
@notsureyou I have to agree that the book, while being well researched, does seem to lack slightly in the "narrative cohesion" dept. In my mind there are two obvious sources for this, one of which would have been avoidable. It's a problem that appears often throughout the book.
The same facts are repeated, but told differently, it appears that each of the authors has made their contributions to the book, and no-one had been assigned to assimilate the joint research & construct a smooth cohesive overarching narrative from it, but such a task would require the wisdom of Solomon and the judgement of a diplomat to keep the authors contented that their research had been well represented.
Also the original source material is by its very nature is from many disparate sources. The example of HMS Rodney & Norfolk for instance highlights the principle well. Rodney from her viewpoint sees no hits, but Norfolk from a completely different angle does, and thats from two ships on the same side!!! The accounts from enemy ships as well as confirming many points also totally contradicts others and above all of this is the fact that the individual ship's chronometers were set at different time zones, and none were exactly synchronised as there was no "atomic clock" which all would have been set by, something which is taken for granted now in our internet age, meaning that attempting to build a reliable chronology of closely related events becomes incredible difficult to achieve.
So trying to judge relative performances by time alone is fraught with inaccuracies, what is left is individual events and the aftermath.
1
1
1
1
1
1
@martinschnelle3077 There is no such thing as "regular armour". Every nation had its own "recipes" for the alloy compositions and manufacturing processes of the various armours it employed, with a large degree of commonality in the various compositions, but also many variations. "Regular" naval armour does NOT exist. The oversimplification of your comment "Bismarck's armor was a little bit different from regular armor" highlights your misplaced simplistic belief that somehow "German armour is special". When it was not.
Also you appear to believe that the same armour is used all over a ship, which is NOT the case. Different armours had different performance characteristics which were suited to different applications. For example Bismarck's AA directors were protected by "Wotan Starrheit" composition armour, her decks were composed of "Wotan Weich" and her main belt of a different composition called "Krupp Cemented Neuer Art (New Type)" (or KC n/a) to name just a few examples.
When you say that "it withstood a direct torpedo hit", I assume you mean the hit amidships on the 25th May 1941 during the airstrike from HMS Victorious. While the lighter warhead of the aerial torpedo hit did not directly penetrate Bismarck's main belt armour, it DID buckle it and allow a degree of flooding amidships.
According to the metallurgical engineer Nathan Okun, a world renowned authority on naval armour metallurgy, the armour that was used for Bismarck's main belt (Krupp Cemented Neuer Art (New Type) (KC n/A)) was no better or worse than the equivalent British cemented armour, the Italian AOD (Acciaio Omogenee Duttile - homogenous ductile steel) armour, or the US STS Class "B" armour, though they were ALL slightly better performing than the Japanese VC (Vickers Cemented) armour, but even that information is HIGHLY simplified as the entire subject of armour metallurgy & performance is EXTREMELY complex. Here, have a read of a SMALL proportion of the late Mr Okun's work for yourself.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/index_nathan.php
But suffice to say Bismarck's armour was NOT a peculiar form of "super armour" as can be testified to by the fact that the THICKEST armour on Bismarck, that being the 360mm face plates of her main turrets (which was 40mm THICKER than her 320mm main armoured belt) and which was also built from the same KC n/a armour as her main belt, was such "super armour" that one of HMS Rodney's 16" shells went STRAIGHT through the face plate of Turret Bruno, continued on through the gunhouse that the 360mm plate was supposed to be protecting, then impacted on the INSIDE face of the 320mm thick REAR armour plate of the turret with sufficient force to simply knock the rear plate right off the turret and into the sea beyond (as turret Bruno was trained to port at the time this occured).
1
@martinschnelle3077 Once again your post is full of misrepresentations and nonsense.
1. The ONLY reason why Tovey stayed as long as he did inspite of being on "bingo" fuel was to ENSURE the Bismarck was sunk. Which it did.... as a result of British gunfire and torpedoes.
2. Do you actually READ my posts? As I CLEARLY said above, the torpedo that crippled HMS PoW did NOT impact on her armoured belt. It hit the unarmoured support stanchion of her outer port propeller shaft and destroyed it, (The stanchion position was 10-15 meters aft of the aft edge of PoW's small lower belt extension). The destruction of that support stanchion meant that the now unsupported propeller shaft turning at maximum revs then precessed & snaked out of control along its full length and in doing so destroyed ALL the seals and stuffing boxes along its length through to the port engine room, which resulted in nearly a third of the ship flooding because its watertight integrity had been so greivously comprimised in a way that could never have been accounted for. Also the extensive flooding put most of PoW's electrical generation plant offline which meant the floodwater could not be pumped outboard, and counterflooding procedures could not be carried out. As I said above, such a hit would have sunk ANY ship that it happened to.
3.The 15" shell that was found in PoW's double bottom was ONLY there precisely because the shell fuse was faulty. IF the fuse had operated as was intended it would have been triggered as the shell impacted the water OUTSIDE of PoW's hull and would not have penetrated her hull.
4. My mistake. KGV's 28 knots was surpassed by Bismarck's 30 knots. My bad. I'll amend my assesment of the comparison to say. The ONLY aspect of Bismarck that surpassed the KGVs was her "running away power". When she lost that advantage she was decisively defeated in short order. Also when quoting the propulsion plant output remember to qualify it with the respective power to weight ratios of the two classes.
Bismarck = 2.944 hp/ton
KGV = 2.962 hp/ton
5. "Much faster fire rate". A May 1941 report by the German Artillerieversuchskommando - AVSK (Artillery Testing Command for Ships) stated that the turret ammunition hoists on Bismarck were capable of delivering between 23 and 25 rounds per minute (for all four turrets), the equivalent of 3 rounds per minute per gun. However, this same report stated that design faults in the hoists led to two significant breakdowns during the evaluation, both of which caused long interruptions in the ammunition supply. Finally, it should be noted that Bismarck fired a total of 93 rounds during her thirteen minutes of firing at the Denmark Strait battle, which is actually less than one round per gun per minute.
6. "superior range-finders" debatable. The Stereoscopic rangefinders had already been trialled by the Royal Navy years earlier, who found that while they were capable of more quickly establishing the correct range, they were less able to maintain a consistent firing solution due to operator eye fatigue, hence why they retained their conincidence rangefinders which displayed the opposite characteristics, slower to range but once established provided a more consistent ranging solution. Bismarck's stereoscoping range finders don't seem to have been working very well on the morning of 27th May when she failed to land a single hit on ANY of the 4 RN ships opposing her.
7. While Hood was still sporting her WW1 vintage Mk 5 Dreyer Table FC computer, The Mk IX AFCT (Admiralty Fire Control Table) onboard the KGVs was no slouch as it demonstated when PoW landed the first hit of the Denmark Strait engagement, KGV put shell after shell into Bismarck during her final engagement, as well as DoY doing likewise to Scharnhorst 2½ years later. I'm not sure where you got your "superior electronic-mechanic computing" from but judging by the nonsense you spoke about Bismarck's armour I won't put too much creedence by it.
But again ALL of this has NOTHING to do with your original assertion, which was completely groundless "wehraboo" nonsense.
1
1
@martinschnelle3077 My better judgement tells me to leave you in your own little fabricated, fact free, world construct. But I feel a duty to challenge your misinformation in a public forum. (Plus I've just reread the thread, and once again it appears YT has been choosing to miss out some of your posts, which have now appeared).
Long experience has shown that people who haughtily announce themselves as "scientists" / "doctors" / "scholars" / <place your own nonsense here> to be amongst the most fact free posters of all on YT, hoping instead to intimidate their co-respondent with some fake air of "expertise" on a chosen subject in lieu of actual knowledge and understanding. That well worn tactic fazes me not ONE little bit. I'm MUCH more impressed by well written, researched and most importantly factually correct discussion, which your posts upto now have been slightly lacking in.
1. Glad you've confirmed that Tovey's frustration has absolutely no bearing on the matter of Bismarck's armour. (BTW "British performance" that morning saw 51,000 tons of flaming German wreckage sink beneath the Atlantic.)
2. I contrast your vague uninformed "smoke and mirrors" (i.e "a hit in the same area") with my own more accurate and verifiable facts. Resorting to "muddying the waters" to try to win a point is not something an analytical "scientist" would do, "mate". As an example, hit someone on the shoulder with a golf club, then hit them across the throat with the same club, and see which "hit in the same area" has the most damaging effect. (But again, what does your point here have to do with the fact that you weakly tried to pass off nonsense in your first post, were politely called out on it, and have since flailed around wildly trying in vain to score an irrelevant point in return?)
3. At least we can agree on PoW's lack of combat readiness. But regardless of her unpreparedness, the fact remains that an untested and malfunctioning ship crewed by inexperienced men STILL single handedly put the WHOLE of SKL's planning to naught. A wonderful example of good ol' British pluck & improvisation, though once again none of your flailing around on this point has ANYTHING to do with the nonsense of your first post.
4. Dear oh dear oh dear.... I've given you a trial speed of 30.12 knots that I took from the highly regarded "Battleship Bismarck - a Design and Operational History" (ISBN 9781526759757) (pages 35 AND 47), whereas you appear to be citing the trial speed of 30.81 knots attained by Tirpitz. Then again if you quickly refer to wikipedia there they state Bismarck's top speed as 30.01 knots and "Jane's fighting ships" gives the rated speed of the Bismarck class as 29 knots. I give an unbiased top end estimate of Bismarck's maximum speed and once again you then further try to inflate her abilities by citing incorrect info from a different ship as your own "evidence". You're not REALLY a "scientist" are you, "mate"?... and once again what is the relevance of this point to your original assertion?
5. "The ship had nearly one and a half the power and had better hydrodynamics because it was made for speed." I'll admit you're closer to being a "scientist" than you are to being a writer. (plus its just more unsubstantiated nonsense, and not very analytical at ALL. I thought a "scientist" like yourself would be burrowing down into specifics, and FACTS and figures, rather than ungrammatical & meaningless phrases?). Relevance to your original point?
Please point me to your "stream of arguments" on how Bismarck was superior to the KGVs? I freely accepted my error (from memory) with regards to the speed issue (which you then desperately attempt to profit from by then spouting incorrect nonsense), but beyond that you STILL haven't described how Bismarck outstripped the KGV's or even the 13 year older Nelsons (again apart from Bismarck's "running away power"). I can fire facts and figures back and forth regarding the ships with you all day, but as in the battle of Denmark Strait a fair percentage of the shots fired by you upto now have been "duds". Both the KGV AND the much older Nelsons were equally well gunned and better armoured than Bismarck inspite of being 25-30% lighter. It's called "design efficiency" and in the case of the British was necessitated by keeping within internationally agreed naval limits, something that never hindered German naval designers.
What "Lies" have I told about Bismarck? I've given you facts, along with widely regarded sources with which to verify them. Bismarck PLAINLY had many inefficient and outdated design choices, such as incremental armour that saw her quickly shredded as the multiple thinner layers of secondary armour activated the fuses of British shells that would otherwise have passed through non essential portions of the ship, and compare it to the performance of PoW's armour scheme at Denmark Strait when the fusillade of hits on PoW did virtually nothing of any real importance with most of the shots passing harmlessly through the largely unarmoured superstructure of her "all or nothing" armour scheme. Or Bismarck's needlessly duplicated secondary armaments and 4 double gunned turrets that added THOUSANDS of tons of unnecessary weight for no appreciable gain, as opposed to the dual purpose secondaries and triple and quad gunned main turret designs that were then being used by the more modern naval designs. Not to mention her triple screw design that IMMEDIATELY saw a full 33% of her engine power consigned to the dustbin when it came to steering with her engines alone. At least the damage caused by the hit on PoW's outboard propeller support could be viewed as an unforeseeable or unlikely eventuality, Bismarck's primary design discounting the facility of steering with her engines alone seems ludicrous in comparison.
Your problem is not people trying to demean Bismarck, but well informed people debunking the utter fact free nonsense gushed by enthralled nazi fanbois or "wehraboos" as they've become known in YT threads.
P.S The general air of your posts leads me to (possibly incorrectly) treat your "friend of Baron Mullenhiem-Rechberg" as just so much more far fetched guff, in comparison my father who WAS a crewmember aboard HMS Dorsetshire at the time of the Bismarck episode, and was subesquently invited to and attended multiple joint reunions with the Bismarck survivors in Hamburg during the 1960s and 70s, DID meet and have the honour to include the Baron and many of the other Bismarck survivors as friends and aquaintances.
1
@martinschnelle3077 My better judgement tells me to leave you in your own little fabricated, fact free, world construct. But I feel a duty to challenge your misinformation in a public forum. (Plus I've just reread the thread, and once again it appears YT has been choosing to miss out some of your posts, which have now appeared).
Long experience has shown that people who haughtily announce themselves as "scientists" / "doctors" / "scholars" / <place your own nonsense here> to be amongst the most fact free posters of all on YT, hoping instead to intimidate their co-respondent with some fake air of "expertise" on a chosen subject in lieu of actual knowledge and understanding. That well worn tactic fazes me not ONE little bit. I am MUCH more impressed by well written, well researched posts that contain a high degree of correct facutal information in them. Your comments are currently somewhat lacking in that department.
1. Glad you've confirmed that Tovey's frustration has absolutely no bearing on the matter of Bismarck's armour. (BTW the "British performance" saw 51,000 tons of flaming German wreckage sink beneath the Atlantic that morning.)
2. I contrast your vague uninformed guff ("a hit in the same area") with my detailed and verifiable facts. Resorting to "muddying the waters" to try to win a point is not something an analytical "scientist" would do, "mate". As an example, hit someone on the shoulder with a golf club, then hit them across the throat with the same club, and see which "hit in the same area" has the most damaging effect. (But again, what does your point here have to do with the fact that you weakly tried to pass off complete BS in your first post, were called out on it, and have since flailed around wildly trying vainly to score an irrelevant point in return?)
3. At least we can agree on PoW's lack of combat readiness. But regardless of her unpreparedness, the fact remains that an untested and malfunctioning ship crewed by inexperienced men STILL single handedly put the WHOLE of SKL's planning to naught. A wonderful example of good ol' British pluck & improvisation, though once again none of your flailing around on this point has ANYTHING to do with the nonsense of your first post.
4. Dear oh dear oh dear.... I've given you a trial speed of 30.12 knots that I took from the highly regarded "Battleship Bismarck - a Design and Operational History" (ISBN 9781526759757) (pages 35 AND 47), whereas you appear to be citing the trial speed of 30.81 knots attained by Tirpitz. Then again if you were to quickly to refer to wikipedia there they give 30.01 knots and "Jane's fighting ships" gives the rated speed of the Bismarck class as 29 knots. I give an unbiased top end estimate of Bismarck's maximum speed and once again you then further try to inflate her abilities by citing incorrect info, in this case a completely different ship as your own "evidence". You're not REALLY a "scientist" are you, "mate"?
5. "The ship had nearly one and a half the power and had better hydrodynamics because it was made for speed." I'll admit you're closer to being a "scientist" than you are to being a writer. (plus its just more unsubstantiated nonsense, and not very analytical at ALL. I thought a "scientist" like yourself would be burrowing down into specifics, and FACTS and figures, rather than meaningless phrases?).
Please point me to your "stream of arguments" on how Bismarck was superior to the KGVs? I freely accepted my error (from memory) with regards to the speed issue (which you then desperately attempt to profit from by then spouting incorrect nonsense), but beyond that you STILL haven't described how Bismarck outstripped the KGV's or even the 13 year older Nelsons (again apart from Bismarck's "running away power"). I can fire facts and figures back and forth regarding the two ships with you all day, but as in the battle of Denmark Strait a fair percentage of the shots fired by you upto now have been duds.
What "Lies" have I told about Bismarck? She had many inefficient design choices, with outdated incremental armour that saw her quickly shredded as opposed to the fusillade of hits on PoW that did virtually nothing of any real importance with most of the shots passing harmlessly through the largely unarmoured superstructure of her "all or nothing" armour scheme. Or her needlessly duplicated secondary armaments and 4 double gunned turrets that added THOUSANDS of tons of unnecessary weight for no appreciable gain, as opposed to the dual purpose secondaries and triple and quad gunned main turret designs that were then being used by the more modern naval designs. Not to mention her triple screw design that IMMEDIATELY saw a full 33% of her engine power consigned to the dustbin when it came to steering with the engines alone. At least the damage to PoW's outboard propeller support could be seen as an unlikely though unfortunate eventuality, Bismarck's primary design ignoring the facility of steering by her engines alone seems ludicrous in comparison.
Both the KGV AND the much older Nelsons were equally well gunned and better armoured inspite of being 25-30% lighter. It's called "design efficiency" and in the case of the British was necessitated by keeping within international naval limits, something that never hindered the nazis.
Your problem is not people trying to demean Bismarck, but people with more knowledge not buying a lot of the utter fact free nonsense spoken by gushing enthralled nazi fanbois or "wehraboos" as they've become known as that is posted in YT threads.
P.S As opposed to your equally far fetched guff about carousing with Baron Mullenhiem-Rechberg, my father who was a crewmember aboard HMS Dorsetshire at the time of the Bismarck episode, attended multiple joint reunions with the Bismarck survivors in Hamburg during the 1960s and 70s, and he DID meet and have the honour to include the Baron and many other of the Bismarck survivors as friends and aquaintances.
1
@martinschnelle3077 My better judgement tells me to leave you in your own little fabricated, fact free, world construct. But I feel a duty to challenge your misinformation in a public forum. (Plus I've just reread the thread, and once again it appears YT has been choosing to miss out some of your posts, which have now appeared).
Long experience has shown that people who haughtily announce themselves as "scientists" / "doctors" / "scholars" / <place your own nonsense here> to be amongst the most fact free posters of all on YT, hoping instead to intimidate their co-respondent with some fake air of "expertise" on a chosen subject in lieu of actual knowledge and understanding. That well worn tactic fazes me not ONE little bit. I'm MUCH more impressed with well written, well researched comments which contain a high degree of correct factual information. Your posts to date are somewhat lacking in those regards.
1. Glad you've confirmed that Tovey's frustration has absolutely no bearing on the matter of Bismarck's armour. (BTW the "British performance" that morning saw 51,000 tons of flaming German wreckage sink beneath the Atlantic.)
2. I contrast your vague "smoke & mirrors" (I.E "a hit in the same area") with my own more accurate and verifiable facts. Resorting to "muddying the waters" to try to win a point is not something an analytical "scientist" would do, "mate". As an example, hit someone on the shoulder with a golf club, then hit them across the throat with the same club, and see which "hit in the same area" has the most damaging effect. (But again, what does your point here have to do with the fact that you weakly tried to pass off nonsense as "fact" in your first post, were politely called out on it, and have since then flailed around wildly trying vainly to score an irrelevant point in return?)
3. At least we can agree on PoW's lack of combat readiness. But regardless of her unpreparedness, the fact remains that an untested and malfunctioning ship crewed by inexperienced men STILL single handedly put the WHOLE of SKL's planning to naught. A wonderful example of good ol' British pluck & improvisation, though once again none of your flailing around on this point has ANYTHING to do with the nonsense of your first post (as do ANY of your further "points").
4. Dear oh dear oh dear.... After my earlier faux pas I've given you a trial speed of 30.12 knots that I took from the highly regarded "Battleship Bismarck - a Design and Operational History" (ISBN 9781526759757) (pages 35 AND 47), whereas you appear to be citing the trial speed of 30.81 knots attained by Tirpitz. If you refer to wikipedia there they give 30.01 knots as Bismarck's maximum speed and "Jane's fighting ships" gives the rated speed of the Bismarck class as 29 knots. I give an unbiased top end estimate of Bismarck's maximum speed and you STILL then try to further inflate her abilities by citing incorrect info, in this case from a completely different ship, as your own "evidence". It's just another example, if any were needed, of your own bias and agenda. You're not REALLY a "scientist" are you, "mate"?
5. "The ship had nearly one and a half the power and had better hydrodynamics because it was made for speed." I'll admit you're closer to being a "scientist" than you are to being a writer. (though that's not glowing praise as it's just more of your unsubstantiated nonsense, and not very analytical at ALL. I thought a "scientist" like yourself would be burrowing down into specifics, and FACTS and figures, or citing reputable research to back up your claim, rather than ungrammatical meaningless phrases?).
Please point me to your "stream of arguments" on how Bismarck was superior to the KGVs? I freely accepted my error (from memory) with regards to the speed issue (which you then desperately attempt to profit from by then spouting incorrect nonsense), but beyond that you STILL haven't described how Bismarck outstripped the KGV's or even the 13 year older Nelsons (again apart from Bismarck's "running away power"). Both the KGV AND the much older Nelsons were equally well gunned and better armoured inspite of being 25-30% lighter. It's called "design efficiency" and in the case of the British was necessitated by keeping within internationally agreed naval limits, something that never hindered the German naval designers. I can fire facts and figures back and forth regarding the ships with you all day, but as in the battle of Denmark Strait a fair percentage of the shots fired by you upto now have been "duds".
What "Lies" have I told about Bismarck? I've provided you with FACTS and even nighly regarded sources for you to check them against. She had many plainly inefficient design choices, such as outdated incremental armour that saw her quickly shredded as the thinner layers of secondary armour initiated the fuses of incoming British shells causing FAR greater damage than if they had passed through unhindered. As opposed to the fusillade of hits on PoW that did virtually nothing of any real importance with most of the shots passing harmlessly through the largely unarmoured superstructure of her more up to date "all or nothing" armour scheme. Or Bismarck's needlessly duplicated secondary armaments and 4 double gunned turrets that added THOUSANDS of tons of unnecessary weight for no appreciable gain, as opposed to the dual purpose secondaries and triple and quad gunned main turret designs that were then being used by more modern naval designers. Not to mention her triple screw design that IMMEDIATELY saw a full 33% of her engine power consigned to the dustbin when it came to steering with the engines alone. At least the damage to PoW's outboard propeller support could be considered as an unforeseeable though unfortunate eventuality, Bismarck's primary design ignoring the facility her steering by her engines alone seems ludicrous in comparison.
Your problem is not people trying to demean Bismarck, but people with well informed people not buying the utter fact free nonsense spoken by gushing enthralled nazi fanbois or "wehraboos" as they've become known in YT threads.
P.S With the standard of your posts so far, I'm dubious about you claim of chatting with Baron Mullenhiem-Rechberg (who knows? Maybe you're NOT giving false information for once?), though my own father who was a crewmember aboard HMS Dorsetshire at the time of the Bismarck episode, and as a member of the HMS Dorsetshire association WAS invited to and attended multiple joint reunions with the Bismarck survivors in Hamburg during the 1960s and 70s, and he DID meet and have the honour to include the Baron and many other of the Bismarck survivors amongst his friends and aquaintances.
1
@martinschnelle3077 My better judgement tells me to leave you in your own little fabricated, fact free, world construct. But I feel a duty to challenge your misinformation in a public forum. (Plus I've just reread the thread, and once again it appears YT has been choosing to miss out some of your posts, which have now appeared).
Long experience has shown that people who haughtily announce themselves as "scientists" / "doctors" / "scholars" / <place your own nonsense here> to be amongst the most fact free posters of all on YT, hoping instead to intimidate their co-respondent with some fake air of "expertise" on a chosen subject in lieu of actual knowledge and understanding. That well worn tactic fazes me not ONE little bit. I'm MUCH more impressed with well written, well researched comments which contain a high degree of correct factual information. Your posts to date are somewhat lacking in those regards.
1. Glad you've confirmed that Tovey's frustration has absolutely no bearing on the matter of Bismarck's armour. (BTW the "British performance" that morning saw 51,000 tons of flaming German wreckage sink beneath the Atlantic.)
2. I contrast your vague "smoke & mirrors" (I.E "a hit in the same area") with my own more accurate and verifiable facts. Resorting to "muddying the waters" to try to win a point is not something an analytical "scientist" would do, "mate". As an example, hit someone on the shoulder with a golf club, then hit them across the throat with the same club, and see which "hit in the same area" has the most damaging effect. (But again, what does your point here have to do with the fact that you weakly tried to pass off nonsense as "fact" in your first post, were politely called out on it, and have since then flailed around wildly trying vainly to score an irrelevant point in return?)
3. At least we can agree on PoW's lack of combat readiness. But regardless of her unpreparedness, the fact remains that an untested and malfunctioning ship crewed by inexperienced men STILL single handedly put the WHOLE of SKL's planning to naught. A wonderful example of good ol' British pluck & improvisation, though once again none of your flailing around on this point has ANYTHING to do with the nonsense of your first post (as do ANY of your further "points").
4. Dear oh dear oh dear.... After my earlier faux pas I've given you a trial speed of 30.12 knots that I took from the highly regarded "Battleship Bismarck - a Design and Operational History" (ISBN 9781526759757) (pages 35 AND 47), whereas you appear to be citing the trial speed of 30.81 knots attained by Tirpitz. If you refer to wikipedia there they give 30.01 knots as Bismarck's maximum speed and "Jane's fighting ships" gives the rated speed of the Bismarck class as 29 knots. I give an unbiased top end estimate of Bismarck's maximum speed and you STILL then try to further inflate her abilities by citing incorrect info, in this case from a completely different ship, as your own "evidence". It's just another example, if any were needed, of your own bias and agenda. You're not REALLY a "scientist" are you, "mate"?
5. "The ship had nearly one and a half the power and had better hydrodynamics because it was made for speed." I'll admit you're closer to being a "scientist" than you are to being a writer. (though that's not glowing praise as it's just more of your unsubstantiated nonsense, and not very analytical at ALL. I thought a "scientist" like yourself would be burrowing down into specifics, and FACTS and figures, or citing reputable research to back up your claim, rather than ungrammatical meaningless phrases?).
Please point me to your "stream of arguments" on how Bismarck was superior to the KGVs? I freely accepted my error (from memory) with regards to the speed issue (which you then desperately attempt to profit from by then spouting incorrect nonsense), but beyond that you STILL haven't described how Bismarck outstripped the KGV's or even the 13 year older Nelsons (again apart from Bismarck's "running away power"). Both the KGV AND the much older Nelsons were equally well gunned and better armoured inspite of being 25-30% lighter. It's called "design efficiency" and in the case of the British was necessitated by keeping within internationally agreed naval limits, something that never hindered the German naval designers. I can fire facts and figures back and forth regarding the ships with you all day, but as in the battle of Denmark Strait a fair percentage of the shots fired by you upto now have been "duds".
What "Lies" have I told about Bismarck? I've provided you with FACTS and even nighly regarded sources for you to check them against. She had many plainly inefficient design choices, such as outdated incremental armour that saw her quickly shredded as the thinner layers of secondary armour initiated the fuses of incoming British shells causing FAR greater damage than if they had passed through unhindered. As opposed to the fusillade of hits on PoW that did virtually nothing of any real importance with most of the shots passing harmlessly through the largely unarmoured superstructure of her more up to date "all or nothing" armour scheme. Or Bismarck's needlessly duplicated secondary armaments and 4 double gunned turrets that added THOUSANDS of tons of unnecessary weight for no appreciable gain, as opposed to the dual purpose secondaries and triple and quad gunned main turret designs that were then being used by more modern naval designers. Not to mention her triple screw design that IMMEDIATELY saw a full 33% of her engine power consigned to the dustbin when it came to steering with the engines alone. At least the damage to PoW's outboard propeller support could be considered as an unforeseeable though unfortunate eventuality, Bismarck's primary design ignoring the facility her steering by her engines alone seems ludicrous in comparison.
Your problem is not people trying to demean Bismarck, but people with well informed people not buying the utter fact free nonsense spoken by gushing enthralled nazi fanbois or "wehraboos" as they've become known in YT threads.
P.S With the standard of your posts so far, I'm dubious about you claim of chatting with Baron Mullenhiem-Rechberg (who knows? Maybe you're NOT giving false information for once?), though my own father who was a crewmember aboard HMS Dorsetshire at the time of the Bismarck episode, and as a member of the HMS Dorsetshire association WAS invited to and attended multiple joint reunions with the Bismarck survivors in Hamburg during the 1960s and 70s, and he DID meet and have the honour to include the Baron and many other of the Bismarck survivors amongst his friends and aquaintances.
1
@martinschnelle3077 My better judgement tells me to leave you in your own little fabricated, fact free, world construct. But I feel a duty to challenge your misinformation in a public forum. (Plus I've just reread the thread, and once again it appears YT has been choosing to miss out some of your posts, which have now appeared).
Long experience has shown that people who haughtily announce themselves as "scientists" / "doctors" / "scholars" / <place your own nonsense here> to be amongst the most fact free posters of all on YT, hoping instead to intimidate their co-respondent with some fake air of "expertise" on a chosen subject in lieu of actual knowledge and understanding. That well worn tactic fazes me not ONE little bit. I'm MUCH more impressed with well written, well researched comments which contain a high degree of correct factual information. Your posts to date are somewhat lacking in those regards.
1. Glad you've confirmed that Tovey's frustration has absolutely no bearing on the matter of Bismarck's armour. (BTW the "British performance" that morning saw 51,000 tons of flaming German wreckage sink beneath the Atlantic.)
2. I contrast your vague "smoke & mirrors" (I.E "a hit in the same area") with my own more accurate and verifiable facts. Resorting to "muddying the waters" to try to win a point is not something an analytical "scientist" would do, "mate". As an example, hit someone on the shoulder with a golf club, then hit them across the throat with the same club, and see which "hit in the same area" has the most damaging effect. (But again, what does your point here have to do with the fact that you weakly tried to pass off nonsense as "fact" in your first post, were politely called out on it, and have since then flailed around wildly trying vainly to score an irrelevant point in return?)
3. At least we can agree on PoW's lack of combat readiness. But regardless of her unpreparedness, the fact remains that an untested and malfunctioning ship crewed by inexperienced men STILL single handedly put the WHOLE of SKL's planning to naught. A wonderful example of good ol' British pluck & improvisation, though once again none of your flailing around on this point has ANYTHING to do with the nonsense of your first post (as do ANY of your further "points").
4. Dear oh dear oh dear.... After my earlier faux pas I've given you a trial speed of 30.12 knots that I took from the highly regarded "Battleship Bismarck - a Design and Operational History" (ISBN 9781526759757) (pages 35 AND 47), whereas you appear to be citing the trial speed of 30.81 knots attained by Tirpitz. If you refer to wikipedia there they give 30.01 knots as Bismarck's maximum speed and "Jane's fighting ships" gives the rated speed of the Bismarck class as 29 knots. I give an unbiased top end estimate of Bismarck's maximum speed and you STILL then try to further inflate her abilities by citing incorrect info, in this case from a completely different ship, as your own "evidence". It's just another example, if any were needed, of your own bias and agenda. You're not REALLY a "scientist" are you, "mate"?
5. "The ship had nearly one and a half the power and had better hydrodynamics because it was made for speed." I'll admit you're closer to being a "scientist" than you are to being a writer. (though that's not glowing praise as it's just more of your unsubstantiated nonsense, and not very analytical at ALL. I thought a "scientist" like yourself would be burrowing down into specifics, and FACTS and figures, or citing reputable research to back up your claim, rather than ungrammatical meaningless phrases?).
Please point me to your "stream of arguments" on how Bismarck was superior to the KGVs? I freely accepted my error (from memory) with regards to the speed issue (which you then desperately attempt to profit from by then spouting incorrect nonsense), but beyond that you STILL haven't described how Bismarck outstripped the KGV's or even the 13 year older Nelsons (again apart from Bismarck's "running away power"). Both the KGV AND the much older Nelsons were equally well gunned and better armoured inspite of being 25-30% lighter. It's called "design efficiency" and in the case of the British was necessitated by keeping within internationally agreed naval limits, something that never hindered the German naval designers. I can fire facts and figures back and forth regarding the ships with you all day, but as in the battle of Denmark Strait a fair percentage of the shots fired by you upto now have been "duds".
What "Lies" have I told about Bismarck? I've provided you with FACTS and even nighly regarded sources for you to check them against. She had many plainly inefficient design choices, such as outdated incremental armour that saw her quickly shredded as the thinner layers of secondary armour initiated the fuses of incoming British shells causing FAR greater damage than if they had passed through unhindered. As opposed to the fusillade of hits on PoW that did virtually nothing of any real importance with most of the shots passing harmlessly through the largely unarmoured superstructure of her more up to date "all or nothing" armour scheme. Or Bismarck's needlessly duplicated secondary armaments and 4 double gunned turrets that added THOUSANDS of tons of unnecessary weight for no appreciable gain, as opposed to the dual purpose secondaries and triple and quad gunned main turret designs that were then being used by more modern naval designers. Not to mention her triple screw design that IMMEDIATELY saw a full 33% of her engine power consigned to the dustbin when it came to steering with the engines alone. At least the damage to PoW's outboard propeller support could be considered as an unforeseeable though unfortunate eventuality, Bismarck's primary design ignoring the facility her steering by her engines alone seems ludicrous in comparison.
Your problem is not people trying to demean Bismarck, but people with well informed people not buying the utter fact free nonsense spoken by gushing enthralled nazi fanbois or "wehraboos" as they've become known in YT threads.
P.S With the standard of your posts so far, I'm dubious about you claim of chatting with Baron Mullenhiem-Rechberg (who knows? Maybe you're NOT giving false information for once?), though my own father who was a crewmember aboard HMS Dorsetshire at the time of the Bismarck episode, and as a member of the HMS Dorsetshire association WAS invited to and attended multiple joint reunions with the Bismarck survivors in Hamburg during the 1960s and 70s, and he DID meet and have the honour to include the Baron and many other of the Bismarck survivors amongst his friends and aquaintances.
1
@martinschnelle3077 My better judgement tells me to leave you in your own little fabricated, fact free, world construct. But I feel a duty to challenge your misinformation in a public forum. (Plus I've just reread the thread, and once again it appears YT has been choosing to miss out some of your posts, which have now appeared).
Long experience has shown that people who haughtily announce themselves as "scientists" / "doctors" / "scholars" / <place your own nonsense here> to be amongst the most fact free posters of all on YT, hoping instead to intimidate their co-respondent with some fake air of "expertise" on a chosen subject in lieu of actual knowledge and understanding. That well worn tactic fazes me not ONE little bit. I'm MUCH more impressed with well written, well researched comments which contain a high degree of correct factual information. Your posts to date are somewhat lacking in those regards.
1. Glad you've confirmed that Tovey's frustration has absolutely no bearing on the matter of Bismarck's armour. (BTW the "British performance" that morning saw 51,000 tons of flaming German wreckage sink beneath the Atlantic.)
2. I contrast your vague "smoke & mirrors" (I.E "a hit in the same area") with my own more accurate and verifiable facts. Resorting to "muddying the waters" to try to win a point is not something an analytical "scientist" would do, "mate". As an example, hit someone on the shoulder with a golf club, then hit them across the throat with the same club, and see which "hit in the same area" has the most damaging effect. (But again, what does your point here have to do with the fact that you weakly tried to pass off nonsense as "fact" in your first post, were politely called out on it, and have since then flailed around wildly trying vainly to score an irrelevant point in return?)
3. At least we can agree on PoW's lack of combat readiness. But regardless of her unpreparedness, the fact remains that an untested and malfunctioning ship crewed by inexperienced men STILL single handedly put the WHOLE of SKL's planning to naught. A wonderful example of good ol' British pluck & improvisation, though once again none of your flailing around on this point has ANYTHING to do with the nonsense of your first post (as do ANY of your further "points").
4. Dear oh dear oh dear.... After my earlier faux pas I've given you a trial speed of 30.12 knots that I took from the highly regarded "Battleship Bismarck - a Design and Operational History" (ISBN 9781526759757) (pages 35 AND 47), whereas you appear to be citing the trial speed of 30.81 knots attained by Tirpitz. If you refer to wikipedia there they give 30.01 knots as Bismarck's maximum speed and "Jane's fighting ships" gives the rated speed of the Bismarck class as 29 knots. I give an unbiased top end estimate of Bismarck's maximum speed and you STILL then try to further inflate her abilities by citing incorrect info, in this case from a completely different ship, as your own "evidence". It's just another example, if any were needed, of your own bias and agenda. You're not REALLY a "scientist" are you, "mate"?
5. "The ship had nearly one and a half the power and had better hydrodynamics because it was made for speed." I'll admit you're closer to being a "scientist" than you are to being a writer. (though that's not glowing praise as it's just more of your unsubstantiated nonsense, and not very analytical at ALL. I thought a "scientist" like yourself would be burrowing down into specifics, and FACTS and figures, or citing reputable research to back up your claim, rather than ungrammatical meaningless phrases?).
Please point me to your "stream of arguments" on how Bismarck was superior to the KGVs? I freely accepted my error (from memory) with regards to the speed issue (which you then desperately attempt to profit from by then spouting incorrect nonsense), but beyond that you STILL haven't described how Bismarck outstripped the KGV's or even the 13 year older Nelsons (again apart from Bismarck's "running away power"). Both the KGV AND the much older Nelsons were equally well gunned and better armoured inspite of being 25-30% lighter. It's called "design efficiency" and in the case of the British was necessitated by keeping within internationally agreed naval limits, something that never hindered the German naval designers. I can fire facts and figures back and forth regarding the ships with you all day, but as in the battle of Denmark Strait a fair percentage of the shots fired by you upto now have been "duds".
What "Lies" have I told about Bismarck? I've provided you with FACTS and even nighly regarded sources for you to check them against. She had many plainly inefficient design choices, such as outdated incremental armour that saw her quickly shredded as the thinner layers of secondary armour initiated the fuses of incoming British shells causing FAR greater damage than if they had passed through unhindered. As opposed to the fusillade of hits on PoW that did virtually nothing of any real importance with most of the shots passing harmlessly through the largely unarmoured superstructure of her more up to date "all or nothing" armour scheme. Or Bismarck's needlessly duplicated secondary armaments and 4 double gunned turrets that added THOUSANDS of tons of unnecessary weight for no appreciable gain, as opposed to the dual purpose secondaries and triple and quad gunned main turret designs that were then being used by more modern naval designers. Not to mention her triple screw design that IMMEDIATELY saw a full 33% of her engine power consigned to the dustbin when it came to steering with the engines alone. At least the damage to PoW's outboard propeller support could be considered as an unforeseeable though unfortunate eventuality, Bismarck's primary design ignoring the facility her steering by her engines alone seems ludicrous in comparison.
Your problem is not people trying to demean Bismarck, but people with well informed people not buying the utter fact free nonsense spoken by gushing enthralled nazi fanbois or "wehraboos" as they've become known in YT threads.
P.S With the standard of your posts so far, I'm dubious about you claim of chatting with Baron Mullenhiem-Rechberg (who knows? Maybe you're NOT giving false information for once?), though my own father who was a crewmember aboard HMS Dorsetshire at the time of the Bismarck episode, and as a member of the HMS Dorsetshire association WAS invited to and attended multiple joint reunions with the Bismarck survivors in Hamburg during the 1960s and 70s, and he DID meet and have the honour to include the Baron and many other of the Bismarck survivors amongst his friends and aquaintances.
1
@martinschnelle3077 My better judgement tells me to leave you in your own little fabricated, fact free, world construct. But I feel a duty to challenge your misinformation in a public forum. (Plus I've just reread the thread, and once again it appears YT has been choosing to miss out some of your posts, which have now appeared).
Long experience has shown that people who haughtily announce themselves as "scientists" / "doctors" / "scholars" / <place your own complete BS here> to be amongst the most fact free posters of all on YT, hoping instead to intimidate their co-respondent with some fake air of "expertise" on a chosen subject in lieu of actual knowledge and understanding. That well worn tactic fazes me not ONE little bit. I'm MUCH more impressed with well written, well researched comments which contain a high degree of correct factual information. Your posts to date are somewhat lacking in those regards. (And whats this nonsense about "crappy performance"? The RN finds and tracks a fast ship that never stopped running to avoid contact in the 44,000,000 square mile North Atlantic in the era before satellites, GPS, over the horizon radars or even comprehensive air coverage, and after finding the needle in the haystick, stopped it running away and then dismantled it with 2 superior battleships who tag teamed it and raped it?") Suck it up lad, suck it up !!!!
1. Glad you've confirmed that Tovey's frustration has absolutely no bearing on the matter of Bismarck's armour. (BTW the "British performance" that morning saw 51,000 tons of flaming German wreckage sink beneath the Atlantic.)
2. I contrast your vague "smoke & mirrors" (I.E "a hit in the same area") with my own more accurate and verifiable facts. Resorting to "muddying the waters" to try to win a point is not something an analytical "scientist" would do, is it "mate"? As an example, hit someone on the shoulder with a golf club, then hit them across the throat with the same club, and see which "hit in the same area" has the most damaging effect. (But again, what does your point here have to do with the fact that you weakly tried to pass off nonsense as "fact" in your first post, were politely called out on it, and have since then flailed around wildly trying vainly to score an irrelevant point in return?)
3. At least we can agree on PoW's lack of combat readiness. But regardless of her unpreparedness, the fact remains that an untested and malfunctioning ship crewed by inexperienced men STILL single handedly put the WHOLE of SKL's planning to naught. A wonderful example of good ol' British pluck & improvisation, though once again none of your flailing around on this point has ANYTHING to do with the nonsense of your first post (as do ANY of your further "points").
4. Dear oh dear oh dear.... After my earlier faux pas I've given you a trial speed of 30.12 knots that I took from the highly regarded "Battleship Bismarck - a Design and Operational History" (ISBN 9781526759757) (pages 35 AND 47), whereas you are citing the trial speed of 30.81 knots attained by TIRPITZ. If you refer to wikipedia there they give 30.01 knots as Bismarck's maximum speed and "Jane's fighting ships" gives the rated speed of the Bismarck class as 29 knots. I give an unbiased top end estimate of Bismarck's maximum speed and you STILL then try to further inflate her abilities by citing incorrect info, in this case from a completely different ship, as your own "evidence". It's just another example, if any were needed, of your own bias and agenda. You're not REALLY a "scientist" are you, "mate"?
1
@martinschnelle3077 5. "The ship had nearly one and a half the power and had better hydrodynamics because it was made for speed." I'll admit you're closer to being a "scientist" than you are to being a writer. (though that's not glowing praise as it's just more of your unsubstantiated nonsense, and not very analytical at ALL. I thought a "scientist" like yourself would be burrowing down into specifics, and FACTS and figures, or citing reputable research to back up your claim, rather than ungrammatical meaningless phrases?).
Please point me to your "stream of arguments" on how Bismarck was superior to the KGVs? I freely accepted my error (from memory) with regards to the speed issue (which you then desperately attempt to profit from by then spouting incorrect nonsense), but beyond that you STILL haven't described how Bismarck outstripped the KGV's or even the 13 year older Nelsons (again apart from Bismarck's "running away power"). Both the KGV AND the much older Nelsons were equally well gunned and better armoured inspite of being 25-30% lighter. It's called "design efficiency" and in the case of the British was necessitated by keeping within internationally agreed naval limits, something that never hindered the German naval designers. I can fire facts and figures back and forth regarding the ships with you all day, but as in the battle of Denmark Strait a fair percentage of the shots fired by you upto now have been "duds".
What "Lies" have I told about Bismarck? I've provided you with FACTS and even highly regarded sources for you to check them against. She had many plainly inefficient design choices, such as outdated incremental armour that saw her quickly shredded as the thinner layers of secondary armour initiated the fuses of incoming British shells causing FAR greater damage than if they had passed through unhindered. As opposed to the fusillade of hits on PoW that did virtually nothing of any real importance with most of the shots passing harmlessly through the largely unarmoured superstructure of her more up to date "all or nothing" armour scheme. Or Bismarck's needlessly duplicated secondary armaments and 4 double gunned turrets that added THOUSANDS of tons of unnecessary weight for no appreciable gain, as opposed to the dual purpose secondaries and triple and quad gunned main turret designs that were then being used by more modern naval designers. Not to mention her triple screw design that IMMEDIATELY saw a full 33% of her engine power consigned to the dustbin when it came to steering with the engines alone. At least the damage to PoW's outboard propeller support could be considered as an unforeseeable though unfortunate eventuality, Bismarck's primary design ignoring the facility her steering by her engines alone seems ludicrous in comparison.
Your problem is not people trying to demean Bismarck, but well informed people not buying into the utter fact free nonsense spoken by gushing enthralled nazi fanbois (or "wehraboos" as they've become known in YT threads), as well as the occasional pretend "scientist".
P.S With the standard of your posts so far, I'm dubious about you claim of chatting with Baron Mullenhiem-Rechberg (who knows? Maybe you're NOT giving false information for once?), though my own father who was a crewmember aboard HMS Dorsetshire at the time of the Bismarck episode, and as a member of the HMS Dorsetshire association WAS invited to and attended multiple joint reunions with the Bismarck survivors in Hamburg during the 1960s and 70s, and he DID meet and have the honour to include the Baron and many other of the Bismarck survivors amongst his friends and aquaintances.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1