Who had sunk the Bismarck?

[Ducimus]

http://www.battleshipbismarck.com/bi...rk_strait.asp#


http://www.3dhistory.de/html/hauptfr...ck_dive1_3.htm


http://www.bismarck-class.dk/bismarc...k_wreck_1.html
http://www.bismarck-class.dk/bismarc...k_wreck_2.html
http://www.bismarck-class.dk/bismarc...k_wreck_3.html
http://www.bismarck-class.dk/bismarc...k_wreck_4.html
http://www.bismarck-class.dk/bismarc...k_wreck_5.html

[Abraham]

I voted for scuttled by her own crew, because she was in a hopeless tactical position and heavely damaged.

No chance she was the best battleship of WWII, arguably the best looking, but the Iowa would have made splinters of her...

I voted for British Home Fleet, because torpedoes or not, scuttling or not, at that point the ship was being abandoned, and would have sunk anyway sooner or later. Also, as someone else pointed out, even if the ship could have been towed home there is no way it could have been repaired.

[Wulfmann]

I never said she was the best battleship and I agree Iowa class was the best and would have likely beaten the bigger Yamato in a straight fight.
But, there was only one straight fight and Bismarck won that.
Bismarck is the greatest warship by the situation that was created beyond his control. Count all the books, articles, TV series and documentaries as well as a movie.
It is a matter of timing and that was the end of the big gun era. By the time Iowa hit the seas the day of the battleship was gone.

Bismarck earned that title by deeds both in victory and defeat not by analysis of comparative equipment rating.

Wulfmann

Originally Posted by Wulfmann

Bismarck earned that title by deeds both in victory and defeat not by analysis of comparative equipment rating.

Wulfmann

Well said.

Bismarck and Hood: like Achilles and Hector, the stuff of legends.

[rudewarrior]

I'm not going to claim to be an expert on this, but I thought I read (or saw somewhere in a documentary) that they found gaping holes in the ship from explosions. IIRC they said that the holes appeared to be from internal explosions, like scuttling charges, versus external explosions, like torpedo hits. I think they also said that the holes were in the right place for the scuttling charges to be doing the damage. For this reason I voted for the scuttling charges, strictly for the definition of "sinking," but as to its actual destruction: of course the British. Sure it wasn't sunk yet, but you can be damn sure it was no longer an effective weapons platform.

Six of one = 1/2 doz. of the other.

Interestingly enough, I saw another documentary about the dreadnought/battleship class. The most interesting thing that I took away from it was that some study was done at some naval academy somewhere (sorry to drag everyone down with specifics) and they found that the battleship was one of the worst military investments ever made. Why? Because of all the naval ships ever commissioned, this class of ship has had the least amount of use of all naval ships ever made. Sure they made a psychological impact, especially when it came to the grandeur of the British Royal Navy, but as far as actual military applications, especially ship v. ship, Jutland and Leyte maybe. They really didn't have too much use except to shoot those big guns in ground support ops.

[kenijaru]

who sunk the bismark? Hitler did, Göering did, Admiral Lujthens did, her own crew and the brit sailors.
Hitler: he sent the ship in a suicidal mision alone, even the most powerfull battleship (the Bismarck untill the Yamato was finished) could not resist the attacks of all brit home fleet. also, her strengh was the range of her guns, staying far away landing 380mm shells in the enemy.
Göering: the Luftwaffe could have protected the Bismarck, at least a bit, both Lujthens and Lindemann died waiting for the luftwaffe to apear and save the day.
Adml Lujthens: he ordered KsZ Lindemann not to return to port, so the ship went into the atlantic after sinking the HMS Hood and severely dmging the HMS Prince of Wales. so, they where hunted by all the home fleet.
the brit sailors: brave man, fighting for theyr country, the distroyed rudder was a lucky shot and made the Bismarck an almost static artillery base so, they caused the sinking.
her crew: they scuttled the ship.

so, the ship was doomed by the actions of both the brit navy and the Reich. you cant say "he sunk the ship" because the ship sunk as the combination of all those factors.
it depends on how you see the fact.
ps: the way i see it, the crew scuttled the ship.

[joea]

Actually the "shot on the rudder" was by British Swordfish (stringbag) pilots, still RN Fleet Air Arm but not sailors. The sailors were on POW, Vian's DDs, the cruisers who shadowed her and Rodney and KGV.

[kenijaru]

Originally Posted by joea

Actually the "shot on the rudder" was by British Swordfish (stringbag) pilots, still RN Fleet Air Arm but not sailors. The sailors were on POW, Vian's DDs, the cruisers who shadowed her and Rodney and KGV.

u get what i mean >_<

[joea]

Yes sorry.

I'm intrigued by the descriptions of "gaping holes". Scuttling charges would be placed at the bottom of the ship, or at least below the waterline. Likewise, torpedoes are obviously going to hit below the waterline. Since drawings made from the photographs show the ship sitting upright, with the silt and mud up around the waterline, it would seem to me the holes observed would have to be ABOVE the waterline.

This leads me to believe that in spite of his experience Mr. Cameron must be something less than an expert, especially where his opinions are involved. I would love to see clear evidence involving the holes and hear the judgement of trained naval experts on exactly what those holes represent.