issit thrue that RN let 2k sailors die when bismark sank

British wartime built destroyers had wartime max crew of around 200-250 men. Prewar destroyers had less.

This is debatable matter. However, at the morning 27th of May 1941 when KGV and Nelson showed up, Bismarck was doomed. She wasn't going to stay afloat for long, I'm sure RN would have even rammed her if needed.

She had ample time to surrender. Her officers choose not to do that.

 

i recall that Hitler made it clear that the bismarck may never fall in enemy hands. guess it would be like: "if you surrender, we'll shoot your family, got it?"

 

Tales of the Thousand and One Nights

Regards,
Che.

 

When you consider that after the dreadnought revolution for battleships anything under five miles was 'whites of their eyes' range surrender basically isn't a runner. Unless your in the habit of keeping a white flag the size of a football pitch on board it's going to be impossible to tell the other side your surrendering.

The Russian ships that surrendered to the Japanese in 1905 had a hell of a time trying to convince people that they had given up.

 

hmm, lets calculate, WW2 in Europe lasted about 5 and a half years so 5,5 X 365 = 2007,5
so it's more tales of the two thousand and seven and a half nights
and that half night is because hitler had trouble sleeping

 

Notmi said

Not much of a debate. Recent information shown that only 4 round (16 inch) has pierced Bismark's armoured belt. No other hole has been found, that could have been caused by a naval gun. Also, torpedoes that suposedly sunk her have been found to have struck Bismark's antitorpedoes shield, and caused no damage to the internal hull (no hole). Also, bear in mind that KGV and Nelson were closing in on Bismark, thus the range they first open fire was longer then the range at which they actually hit her. and as the range decresed, also the piercing power of the guns. So, I guess she was going to stay afloat a long time. However, she was doomed once its ruder was jamed.

Is this supposed to be some kind of appologies?

 

hmm, but the beautiful HMS Prince of Wales, don´t know why but I really like this ship especially with the camouflage scheme of december 1941, unfortunately penetrated Bismarcks hull.

Regards,
Che.

 

The bismark was doomed as all their guns were out of action and had little chance of coming back on line for more than the odd shell here and there.

Whilst the hull was secure it was never going to fight again and as such defeated. It's just symantics to say that the RN never sank the Bismark.

I do believe it was eventually scuttled and not torped as the RN claimed. From what I have read it was caught by bad luck but even if it survived its voyage it would have been doomed like the tirpitz to hide for the rest of it's life.

FNG

 

James Cameron's expedition to the wreck showed that the DORSETSHIRE's torpedoes did not sink the German BB. However, I believe that she would have sunk eventually, since she was afire and there was no way to put the fires out and the RN wasn't going anywhere until she did go down.

 

No. AFAIK they never struck their ensign. Therefore there isnt anything RN should be shame of.

 

From Mearns expedition:
"David concluded that the torpedoes were a significant contributing factor in Bismarck's sinking: He believes that Bismarck was sunk by flooding resulting from shell hits, damage sustained in the Swordfish torpedo attacks (survivor accounts noted the ingress of water aft), flooding/counter-flooding due to the German's own damage control to put out internal fires, and of course, the final torpedoes. He cites that the ship was clearly wallowing before the scuttling actually began and most decisively, the ship rolled over and sank in conjunction with the impact of Dorsetshire's last torpedo. He does not dismiss the reports of scuttling, but believes that this only hastened the inevitable by a matter of minutes."

 

Don't have much faith in the James Cameron's exporation. The bit I saw on the TV started by say "Bismarck was the Death Star of her day!" At which point I decided to watch something else!

 

Well, still he had Bill Jurens with him in that expedition. It cant be all twisted then.

 

I have read somewhere that there were 2 investigations of the Bismark - one by Brits, who had a good look at the outside & said "look at all them holes, we must have sunk her", and one by the Americans who used a smaller probe which got inside some of the damaged portions, and concluded that most of the damage was superfluous, and the ship would have carried on floating had it not been scuttled.

Any facts on the validity of this 'read it somewhere' ?

 

This is debatable matter. However, at the morning 27th of May 1941 when KGV and Nelson showed up, Bismarck was doomed. She wasn't going to stay afloat for long, I'm sure RN would have even rammed her if needed.


[/quote]

If the story is true then Churchill did order her to be rammed by one of the battleships - the admirals were not amused.

 

She was facing death by fuel starvation no matter what the RN did.

 

as I said, it's all a moot point.

The ship was permanently and totally defeated, it's sinking was irrelevent.

FNG

 

The argument has always struck me as a bit like debating the difference between a goal and an owngoal. The core result is the same. Only the fine detail is different.

 

As I skedadalled across Europe in the 70's and 80's, "Yank for traveling", I often found it hard to believe these same people, Germans,Brits,French...ect had fought a war of such brutality a generation before. Frankly I encountered populations that never wanted to see a war again, distrusted politicians who seemed pro-war, and just generally hated the whole concept. It was hard to imagine such people fighting a huge naval war and letting so many of the enemy drown in freezing water after an engagement for fear of submarines. But yes it did happen, even with navies who were of a far more honorable tradition then the land armies.

I visited many of the war sights. Talked to many of the war generation, saw many elders still horribly scarred by war. I saw and felt a continant still scarred by two world wars on a scale we Yanks will never know. Frankly I came to appreciate the Euro-abhorrance to any new military advantures. Even tho I believe Bush's war on terror is necessary I also understand the Euro pessimism and distrust torwards military adventures, and the stoking of nationalistic flames.

Europe, including Russia, has suffered on a scale un-imaginable to us Yanks. You really have to go there to undertsand. Nationalism and war has brought them suffering on an un-imaginable scale.

So yeah its hard to believe now that such honorable institutions like the RN and GN would allow vanquished enemy sailors to die slowly in the terrible north Atlantic, without making an effort to rescue them. But it did happen, and so did far worse.

We Yanks have to undertsand that suffering, those lost generations of European kids. And allow European input as a moral compass for our actions. Frankly If I was a European I'd be extremely suspicious of war drums as well.

 

They were so suspicious of war drums, as you put it, after WW1 that the French and British allowed Hitler to rise to power in Germany and begin his campaign of conquest until he became so grave a threat that he had to be destroyed at a horrific cost. Sometimes war is necessary, because not everyone in the world is nice and reasonable; this includes quite a few heads of state, I'm afraid. Refusing to take military action is not always the brave or right thing to do, unfortunately, and can cause more problems than the fighting would have. And I do not believe that we in America need to allow European input as a moral compass for our actions; they are no more likely to be right on an issue than we are, IMHO.