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

I agree. I'd even say, based on history, they are less apt to be "right". However I also understand their repugnance to war as well having been to Europe. Many of these countries suffered on a scale un-imaginable to we Yanks.

I know this is off-topic but maybe its helpful to also remember entire generations were lost in these horrible wars.

I never said I agree with the Europeans. I just said I understand where they are coming from, probably more then a Lot of Yanks. And since they are our allies they do have a right to a say-so.

Anyways...back to WW-ll

 

"Bismark" scuttled !?

Yes, I know that explosive charges were set off by the "Bismark's" crew whilst she was in the process of sinking, but there can be no doubt at all that by then the main damage that put paid to her was done by the Royal Navy. The carrying out of scuttling would have been a standard procedure applied anytime it was thought that the ship might have been recovered by the enemy and surely when her crew abandoned her she attained the conditioned of possibly being captured by an enemy. Orders such as these would have been carried out without thinking, let alone questioning, by a navy crew as professional as hers. Insofar as the moral of Royal Navy warships continuing to fire into her whilst her crew were engaged in the process of abandoning her and saving their own lives, it is the bounden duty of any warship commander when ordered to sink enemy ships ; after all, what was Chiurchill's famous order ? -----"Sink the Bismarck". The fact that she had sunk the "Hood" also cannot have done much to earn her any sympathy ! The "Graf Spee" was scuttled- the "Bismark" merely had the coup de grace applied to her !
Barton

 

Re: "Bismark" scuttled !?

Well, the British did feel some sympathy for the Germans; after all, it could well be them who gets sunk next. And the crew of BISMARCK did feel for the crew of HOOD, according to the former's survivors, for the same reason (prophetically enough). As I hace stated before, I believe that the damage inflicted by the RN would have eventually sunk the German BB; she was afire from stem to stern, remember, with no way to fight the fires. And fire has long been recognized as a ship's most dangerous enemy, with the possible exception of the sea itself.

 

Re: "Bismark" scuttled !?

The Royal Navy had use Q-ships. After being hit by a sub part of the crew would abandon ship while the rest would be waiting behing hidden guns waiting for the sub to surface. They lost more Q-ships then subs were sunk but the main result was that some of the subs would give water and course infromation to the sailors in the lifeboats before and after it came they quit doing that. More sailors suffered because of that. The Royal Navy did not know part of the Bismarck's was going to make a last effort to strike back. So you shoot untill it sinks or is listing so far it can do nothing like fire torpedos or guns or even ram.

 

i belive if rn had not lost hood and all hands,she would have worked harder to pick up the swimmers.

 

Guess again. The submarine alarm meant that the British warships HAD to get underway immediately, no matter who was in the water. This was official policy,the result of the sinking of three British armored cruisers in 1914 by a U-boat. The first was torpedoed and the second stopped to rescue survivors. She was then torpedoed, and the third cruiser stopped to rescue survivors, upon which she was also torpedoed. The three went down with heavy loss of life. So from that point on, no ship in the Royal Navy was allowed to stop to rescue survivors when submarines are reported in the area. And three of HOOD's crew survived the sinking.

 

The saddest example of a ship being forced to not pick up survivors due to a submarine threat, is when the German heavy cruiser the Admiral Hipper came across the sinking liner, Wilhelm Gustloff.
Due to the threat the Hipper had to leave around 10.000 people in the water, the majority of them civilian refugees, over 9,000 died.

 

There were numerous U-boat in the area.
According to a book/diary Feindfahrten by Wolfgang Hirschfeld ( FT-station leiter on U-109):
U-74 Kentrat ( took over U-556 orders)
U-556 Wohlfarth (probably closest as it recived order from BdU to collect Bismarcks "Taggebuch flotte" but could not do that becouse of limited fuel)
U-109 Fischer raced to the scene, even it was damaged (leaking badly, problems with engines and transmission).
Those boats were transmitting radio transmissions in this affair and are reported in Hirschfeld's book.

According to the book:
On 26 may U-74 Kentrat reported: "1BB, 3DD course 170deg". U-109 turned south as it was damaged and was on collision course with that group.
On 27. may U-556 Wohlfarth reported by radio that he had Arc Royal and 1 BB without DD in his sights but was without torpedos.
U-74 Kentrat reported 3 survivors found (flak crew) and Sachsenwald (weather ship disguised as fishing trawler) reported 2 additional surviors rescued.

There was a lot of radio traffic on the airvawes and brits were listening. Probably one of additional reasons for discountinuing rescue operations.

 

I think that is just bad excuse.It was rumor b4 that RN does not rescue ppl from sinking ship (one of surywing crewman testemony) and it proves correct.Fear from U boats in 1914 and 1944 is not the same ,coz naval antisub weapons was greatly improowed and few U-boats would not attack battleships,they primary goal was merchant and suply ships.Truth is that allys was not much diferent from the germans in WWII when we look rescue ppl,r taking prisoners,eaven on killing civilians.But geramn army was demonised,and allys got oreolr on they heads,reason-Victorius nation write history.

 

"Fear from U boats in 1914 and 1944 is not the same ,coz naval antisub weapons was greatly improowed"
That's what many people thought before WWII. Boy, were they wrong.

"few U-boats would not attack battleships"
Royal Oak? Barham? Texas...?

 

Reason why U-109 commander Hans Georg Fischer raced to the scene with damaged boat (limited submergance capability - boat leaking badly, one E-engine damaged (fire) and engine couplung making strange loud noises) was that he wanted to bag a carrier or at least a BB. He did that even if entire crew knew that boat would not survive another "blessing" with WaBos.

 

I think if you look into the conduct in the Nazi occupied eastern territories that there are very clear differences between the two. Look up Mengele and some of his work. The western allies may not have exactly fought a squeaky clean war but there were very clear differences in conduct, behaviour and policy.

In any case I would ask you your reasoning for considering this a "Bad excuse". By this point in the war HMS Royal Oak had already been sunk at Scapa Flow by a U-boat, U-boats were already clearly not beyond attacking battleships and the ASW measures you mention were by no means effective at that stage.

 

Ur right,but allys got their revenge,and i spoke about taking the POW-s.Allys used POW-s as a free working power,much bore after war end,and i know that western allys wanna 2 present themself as a higly morele but they aint,they acted then in same manners they acted in Vietnam,Afganistan,Iraq,and we all know for that and nobody was punished.

 

Simonr1978 and Sinissa we are talking about naval operations here and i realy don't see what Mengele and some other bastards have to do with it.

Nobody fought clean war even on the sea. Just check term Clean sweep (no survivors left on the scene) by USN subs in the Pacific.

 

sinissa:
Pure bullshit.

In the closing days of the Second World War, both military personnel and civilians risked their lives to surrender to American or British troops. NOT the Russians.
That should tell you something right there.
The conditions in United States POW-camps were nothing like those endured by Allied prisoners in Japanese and Nazi-hands. I believe we even PAID the POWS for their labors here... allowed them to tend vegetable gardens, fed them livable rations and provided medical care to prisoners.
Here in Indiana, we maintained POWs at Camp Atterbury. I believe we provided them with good care--considering they WERE prisioners, and some even remained... and settled here in the United States after hostilities ended.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--from italianheritage.com


"Italian prisoners of war (POWs) captured on the battlefields of North Africa were transported across the Atlantic Ocean to the Camp Atterbury internment facility, 30 miles south of Indianapolis. On 30 April 1943, 767 POWs opened the camp and by late summer 3,000 Italian servicemen resided there.

Some POWs volunteered to work on farms in Johnson and adjoining counties to escape the boredom of camp and alleviate the severe shortage of local farm labor. Other POWs were skilled artisans, trained in the use of wood, stone, masonry, and painting. They disliked the camp's wooden chapel and wanted a place to worship which reflected their own heritage and felt like home. During their off-duty hours as a sign of faith, with the encouragement of their chaplain, Franciscan Father Maurice F. Imhoff, and the support of camp authorities, the prisoners began construction of "The Chapel in the Meadow," a small white brick and stucco building just large enough for the priest and servers (11 by 16 feet). Three sides were walled in, but the fourth or southern side was open to the weather. The POWs used surplus material from other projects and mixed dyes from berries, other plants, and their own blood to obtain the proper hue. They painted the eye of God on the ceiling, a cross flanked by cherubs over the altar, the Dove of Peace, and images of the Madonna, Anthony of Padua, and Francis of Assisi on the two side walls. The altar was painted to look like marble, and the floor was painted red to simulate a carpet. A second altar was constructed so that Mass could be celebrated outside in good weather.

The project finished, Chaplain Imhoff dedicated the chapel to the Blessed Virgrn Mary. On the weekend of 16-17 October 1943, Most Reverend Amleto Cicognani, Apostolic Delegate to the United States, celebrated Mass there and preached to the POWs in Italian. In their turn, the POWs held a special parade to salute the Delegate and entertained him with their own 45-piece orchestra playing selections from Mascagni's Cavalleria Rusticana.

After Mussolini was forced from power, Italy joined the Allied side in September 1943. Soon the POWs were transferred to other camps and then sent home. By 4 May 1944 all Italians had departed Atterbury to make way for German POWs who remained there until 1946."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your volley Sir.

Tim

 

Tiso:
The USS Wahoo skippered by "Mush" Morton was known to have machine-gunned Japanese troops--and Indian POWs--after sinking the Buyo Maru.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--from www.fleetsubmariine.com

"On 26 January, Wahoo attacked a small convoy, consisting of two freighters, a large transport, and a tanker. Only two ships were initally observed. Wahoo hit the first with two torpedoes and the second with a single torpedo, missing with the fourth. She then fired a three torpedo spread at the transport, which brought her to a stop.

Wahoo then turned to the second target, Fukuei Maru No. 2, which was attempting to ram. Hit with another torpedo, the ship continued to come on and Wahoo had to turn away at full speed to avoid being hit. At that point things got very confusing. The first target had sunk, the second was still moving. The transport was stopped but not yet in a sinking condition, so Wahoo put another torpedo into her amidships. Another failed to explode.

At this point, Morton's actions became somewhat controversial. He surfaced to recharge batteries, at the same time going after the surviving troops from the transport (Buyo Maru) with gunfire. Unfortunately, most of the troops in the water were actually Indian prisoners of war, along with a number of Japanese garrison troops. A total of 195 Indians were killed, along with 87 Japanese—this includes those killed in the torpedo attack and sinking—out of 1,126 men aboard. It should be noted that, contrary to some reports, O'Kane related that Morton actually ordered the boats to be sunk, but did not order the deliberate shooting of survivors.

Morton's actions were not generally condemned at the time. It was presumed that combat troops remained legitimate targets as long as they were in a position to resist, were actively doing so, and were likely to be able to resume the fight. In a sinking close to enemy held islands, leaving the boats intact would arguably have meant the troops would be able to do just that. Also, it was reported that the Japanese were shooting at Wahoo."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I daresay we also killed a number of US troops during the war when USN submarines sank Japanese merchant ships carrying American and Allied POWs.

Tim

 

I did not say that russians was betther,they was probably worst then wester allys,but i was iritetad by excuses why they leave mans in water.Just the excuses notthing more.

 

sinissa:
I understand. Perhaps I came across as a bit "irritated" by the comment about how the Allies treated their POWs as well.
No offense taken.

In the case of picking-up your own--or the enemies--survivors after a ship is sunk during wartime, it must be remembered that the welfare of the whole must outweigh the welfare of the few.
Sounds cruel and inhumane... but that's exactly what war is.

Tim

 

"but i was iritetad by excuses why they leave mans in water."
There aren't any excuses. "Excuses" implies that there was something improper in leaving men in the water, and there was nothing improper about it.

 

Agreed, Tiornu. Who among us, if he were the captain of a warship, would stop to pick someone up with enemy submarines in the area, thus jeopardizing his ship and crew? I wouldn't. It's a hard thing, but that's war.