Talk:German battleship Bismarck/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Did John Moffat fire the torpedo that crippled the Bismarck?

A couple of editors keep changing John Moffat (Royal Navy officer), apparently based on James Cameron's Expedition: Bismarck, to say that Moffat is wrongly credited with crippling the Bismarck since the torpedo that jammed the rudder hit the starboard side. It seems to me that most sources contradict this, but I think that the regular editors here would know best. I've left a message at Talk:John Moffat (Royal Navy officer) saying as much, and I'd appreciate it if the regulars here could keep an eye on the article to prevent any unsourced or badly sourced changes. The editor's there seem to have a conflict of interest as he or they are related to the pilot they say fired the torpedo. 06:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

This article in the London Times explains the issue with regard to Wikipedia's coverage of the sinking. I have added this citation to the Moffat article to reflect this development, and it now seems Sub-Lieutenant Kenneth Pattisson was responsible. This reliable source can properly verify a change. The Times pay walled article has been lifted by another newspaper with a 'reputation' hereabouts which I shall not name. But it can at least be read by those without a Times online subscription enabling access to the whole the whole article. Philip Cross (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The Times makes a pretty compelling case and I think it rather letting the side down that wiki has been refusing to listen to the experts and refusing to reply to the Times' requests.

They have a rear Admiral who used to captain an aircarft carrier and a former first sea lord, as well as the bosses of both naval air museums all saying the same thing.

The idiot yank who wrote the book admits he was wrong, ever since the wreck showed the torpedo struck on the other side.

Don't we all think that:

a) we should make this the main story (and the yank book the sub section)

b) Stop changing the edits.

c) Reply to the Times so we look like an academic journal more than some cliquey social media chamber.

I'll copy the whole Times article below: Ganpati23 (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Removed as it was a blatant copyright violation. Please don't do this again. Nick-D (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The question here is what do reliable sources say? Not much weight should be placed on the recollections of participants decades after the event, or the views of their children however well meaning. We need to go by what the expert published sources state. Nick-D (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I haven't read Times piece. I created Kenneth Pattisson who was credited in 2002 for firing the torpedo that blew a column of water on the starboard side. In 2002 Telegraph Obit credits Pattisson citing eyewitnesses. [1]. --DHeyward (talk) 06:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

It's possible to find the article in whole during a websearch. This article - if the copy is correct - is a piece of crap full of assumtions and accusations. AFAIR no reputable naval historian/author has challenged the Moffat claim after the Bismarck wreck was found and extensively filmed. It's impossible to prove Pattison's claim due to extensive damage in Bismarck's rear area (mangled props/rudder) that was very likely received/extended/changed during the hill slide at the sea bottom. Plus article reads like Nelson alone was responsible for disabling Bismarck in the final battle and they admit it was scuttled.--Denniss (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The concern is that the Moffat book was published in 2010. After Pattisson had died. Pattison was credited with the starboard torpedo. Moffat with a port side torpedo. The book by Moffat claims it was the port side torpedo against the prevailing wisdom at the time. Also, after the wreckage was found, the starboard torpedo hit appears to be the one that disabled the steering. Pattisson was awarded the DEC for it. Not sure if Moffat was awarded anything. And to be clear, "scuttling" was the cause of sinking. Disabled steering is what allowed the ship to be attacked by other warships that damaged it sufficiently that scuttling was the only option. Had it not been damaged, its speed and armements would have alloweed to outrun and outgun anything in the Royal Navy. That it could be scuttled after such a pounding is a testament to its construction rather than a strike against its attackers. Consider how fast the USS Arizona sunk for an idea. --DHeyward (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Really, I can't see the point in Denniss reinserting "on the port side, near the port rudder shaft". The absence of these words in the article will not lessen the factual content, since the subject of port/starboard is continued after this sentence. As DHeyward commented, "There is no reference to support the assertion that the torpedo struck the port side. Therefore a statement that it hit the stern is sufficient at this stage in the chapter; especially given coverage later re Pattisson". Retaining the words "on the port side, near the port rudder shaft" simply serves to contradict the further explanatory text.

In saying this I'm mindful of Denniss's referring to "extensive damage in Bismarck's rear area (mangled props/rudder) that was very likely received/extended/changed during the hill slide at the sea bottom". I'd suggest this is all the more reason to delete the "on the port side, near the port rudder shaft".

Can we agree on that before an edit war heats up?

Denniss has a good point when he says "Plus article reads like Nelson alone was responsible for disabling Bismarck in the final battle and they admit it was scuttled." Time for some reshaping to that end? I can't do it: this isn't my subject of expertise. (I only got involved because I thought there was a way of describing the Moffat/Pattinson from a neutral POV.)SCHolar44 (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

A point of fact, the material is covered by a reference.

Second, one wonders how we know where the torpedo hit, given that the stern separated at the surface and has not been located. I'd like to see the evidence of the unnamed survey mentioned in that article. Parsecboy (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

This is all speculation and revisionism and does not need to be in the article. Pringles3000 (talk) 04:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Should the paragraph have been removed? Notifying people in discussion: @Pringles3000, Parsecboy, SCHolar44, DHeyward, Philip Cross, Ganpati23, Nick-D, and Denniss: Jim1138 (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

All that can be said is that a torpedo fired from a Swordfish apparently disabled Bismarck's steering. Pringles3000 (talk) 05:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I think Pattisson has the obviously stronger claim with evidence along with eyewitness accounts. This was noted in his obituary in 2002 before Moffat's book. Moffat window of credit was very short, only in his book and 70 years after the event. Pattisson was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for that battle but I don't know if Moffat received any citations for it. The latest evidence appears to support the original belief that it was Pattisson's torpedo. These articles aren't the place to disparage Moffat's claims but the articles shouldn't advance them either. Leaving them all out is preferable to having multiple theories. There is some rather harsh criticism of Moffat that appears to be absent for Pattison. I created Kenneth Pattisson (Royal Navy officer) article. There shouldn't be any "What links here" hits for the Moffat article without also linking to Pattisson but I am rather agnostic as to how that is achieved. --DHeyward (talk) 06:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know that either of them has a stronger claim. The evidence that would have supported either claim is likely either missing, destroyed, or buried in sediment. And Moffat's "claim window" is a bit longer than that, given that the reference that credits him (Garzke & Dulin) was published in 1985, well before his book.

That said, it would be best to simply state that there are conflicting claims for credit and leave it at that. Parsecboy (talk) 12:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I fully support DHeyward's comments. It is not enough to "simply state that there are conflicting claims for credit and leave it at that" -- Pattison needs to be mentioned.

... which leads me to answer Jim1138's question, "Should the paragraph have been removed?" in the negative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCHolar44 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, obviously both should be mentioned - that was implicit in my comment. But one should not be given precedence over the other, given the fact that definitive proof is more or less impossible.

The paragraph as it was written was excessive - WP:UNDUE comes into play. If you want to fight out their claims, do it on their bios, not here. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Nuke the paragraph. I'm no expert on any part of this war, but if the Royal Navy, including a First Sea Lord a Rear-Admiral, and all the naval museums and the Times and its military correspondent, I'd listen to them. Unless you have (more than one) very top academic historian from Oxbridge explaining why they are wrong. I love wiki (obviously) but I'm a bit wary when we say we no more than the experts.

Oi, and thanks Jimm1138 for helping take this forward. Glad to know we get there in the end. Ganpati23 (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The paragraph has been gone for 2 months now, I'm not sure what you're commenting on at this point. Parsecboy (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Revisionist history? Baiting?

In the lede, we are told "Bismarck engaged and destroyed the battlecruiser HMS Hood". In the section 'Battle of the Denmark Strait', we are told (in brief but in full in the article)

By 05:52, the range had fallen ... and Hood opened fire, followed by Prince of Wales a minute later. ... Adalbert Schneider ... twice requested permission to return fire. ... Lindemann intervened ... He demanded permission to fire from Lütjens ... and at 05:55 ordered his ships to engage.

Assuming the account is accurate, it implies the Bismarck was engaged first, and only fired on the Hood a full 3 minutes later. Which is to say the lede should be worded something like "Bismarck was engaged by, and destroyed, the battlecruiser HMS Hood".

As it is now, it seems as if the Bismarck acted to destroy the Hood, when the reality is it acted in self defence, and the Hood fired first. MrZoolook (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

You are reading a bit too much into it - "engaged" does not imply opening fire first. The two ships engaged each other, and your suggested wording is passive, which should generally be avoided. Parsecboy (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

If I'm just 'reading too much into it', there shouldn't be an objection if the wording in the lede is changed in some way, to better educate anyone reading the lede only, correct?

I'm just basically considering that a casual reader (only reading the lede) may assume the Bismarck fired first, and propagate undue negativity towards it to anyone who will listen. Which is the exact opposite of what any lede and article, in any factually accurate encyclopaedia, should do. (yes, I know both sides are aggressive in wars anyway, but...) MrZoolook (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the current wording is fine; what else do battleships do at war but engage each other? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes the current wording is fine. The only way I can make sense of the OP's comment is that there is some Nazi fanboi meme out there that poor old Bis was on a peacekeeping mission or something else equally bizarre. Greglocock (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

A running fight between two squadrons of capital ships in wartime doesn't involve anything resembling "self-defense." They engage or retire as and when they see fit, with the purpose of destroying their opponents. The wording is fine as is. Acroterion (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

"The only way I can make sense of the OP's comment is that there is some Nazi fanboi meme out there"

That kind of proves my point. Anyone reading the lede is going to assume the Bismark callously hit upon the poor old Hood, because they are Nazi's, and anyone who doesn't agree with me is a Nazi sympathiser, and that the Hood was trying desperately to avoid the mean Nazi scum, but the German war mongers caught up and started their slaughter of the brave Hood!

The fact is, the Bismarck showed restraint in NOT firing, while being pommelled by two opposing ships for some minutes. Which appears to go against the typical view (as implied above) that they were merciless and bloodthirsty Nazi's. MrZoolook (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

It's wartime. Belligerent forces are required to act in their own best interest at the time of their choosing to destroy their enemies, employing their weapons in a manner that brings about the destruction of their enemies in the most efficacious way possible. Who does or doesn't open fire first in wartime is completely immaterial in the non-existent moral sense which you seem to think existed. "Restraint" in the sense that you're implying would be a court-martial offense. This isn't a polite encounter or an action involving civilians and your concept of how naval war is, was or ought to be conducted is frankly bizarre, which you're trying to project into the article. Acroterion (talk) 11:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

'Restraint'? I imagine the German captain had very good reasons for not opening fire too early but very much doubt that politeness was one of them. He only had a limited ammo supply for a start and no likelihood of rearming in the short term. Greglocock (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, its a very valid point. The Bismarck's mission was not to swan around destroying British flagships, it was supposed to evade the battleships and get out into the open ocean to attack convoys, so as to cut off the flow of war munitions to Britain from the supposedly-neutral USA. That is why they held fire as long as they did - they had specific orders to not get involved in delaying actions with British warships. They only returned fire eventually when it became clear that the British ships were going to obstruct the primary mission, and then Hood was quickly dispatched and Prince of Wales ducked and ran. The current wording of the lead does make it look like the Bismarck commanders disobeyed instructions and allowed themselves to be lured away from their primary mission by the tempting prospect of sinking a few battleships instead. The lead should be reworded slightly to say that "At the Battle of the Denmark Strait, Bismarck was engaged by a British battle squadron. Bismarck quickly destroyed the battlecruiser HMS Hood, the pride of the Royal Navy, and forced the battleship HMS Prince of Wales to retreat." That would be much more accurate. Wdford (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not all that valid - to put it simply, "engage" is not a synonym of "attack". Parsecboy (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that the German captain thought the RN wouldn't attack if he didn't fire at them? Four hundred years of tradition in the RN says if you can attack the enemy then you do, even if the odds are poor. Otherwise its court martial time. Greglocock (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually it isn't a tradition, it is a law. The Articles of War say that an officer who did not do their utmost against the enemy, either in battle or pursuit will be punished (it used to be a capital crime). The shadow of Byng is long. His execution inspired "a culture of aggressive determination which set British officers apart from their foreign contemporaries, and which in time gave them a steadily mounting psychological ascendancy. More and more in the course of the century, and for long afterwards, British officers encountered opponents who expected to be attacked, and more than half expected to be beaten, so that [the latter] went into action with an invisible disadvantage which no amount of personal courage or numerical strength could entirely make up for."Greglocock (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Greglocock: No, I'm merely stating the fact that Lütjens had orders to avoid unnecessary combat which might reduce his ability to carry out his primary objective, such as by expending ammunition or suffering damage. When Bismarck was forced to fight - i.e. when combat became "necessary" - they taught the Royal Navy a swift lesson. However Lütjens tried to obey the order as best he could, and when Prince of Wales attempted to break off the engagement, Lütjens made no attempt to pursue them.

@Parsecboy: I see no reason to avoid stating that the British ships fired first. Do you have good reason to avoid stating that the British ships fired first?

@Greglocock: You state that it's tradition/law in the RN to attack the enemy whenever possible, "even if the odds are poor". However Prince of Wales, with two German capital ships within range, turned and ran. Was the captain of PoW court-martialled for failing to "do his utmost"?

@Greglocock: You state that "more than half expected to be beaten". However the history of the 20th century shows the British military being beaten more often than not. Each time the British started a war, they promptly got hammered. Nobody was scared of them - from the South African farmers in 1899 to the Afghan farmers of 1999 in Helmand province, to the Turks to the Germans to the Italians to the Japanese to the Malaysians to the Argentinians. Although the British sometimes managed to win (often due to American assistance), their foes seldom seemed to be afraid of them. Where do you get these jingoistic quotes from - Churchill?

Wdford (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I spy a French Fry on your shoulder. Yes, there was a proposal to court martial PoW's captain but given that all but one of his bridge crew had been killed and the general state of the boat, and no doubt PR value, they decided to give him a medal instead. I don't know where that quote comes from. Here's another one " no captain can do very wrong if he places his ship alongside that of the enemy". That's the spirit.

As to your list of military actions, you seem to be forgetting we are talking about boats, not PBI. GB was a naval power, and up until the Washington treaties was the number 1. Greglocock (talk) 00:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Wdford - perhaps because it's not particularly relevant who fired first, in the lead of an encyclopedia article? If the alternative is poor writing that conveys who fired first, and better writing that doesn't, I'll take the latter. Parsecboy (talk) 01:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Wdford: you and the OP are talking about two different things. The OP is talking about some mythical concept of moral responsibility associated with firing first, you're talking about Lutjens' well-known orders to stay out of the way of the RN so he could carry out his commerce-raiding mission, declining battle if it could be avoided with other capital ships. Lutjens therefore had an incentive to avoid action until it had been forced, and the subsequent events confirmed the reasoning behind his orders. However, the OP seems to think that firing first in wartime is mean or shameful or something, which is utter nonsense. Acroterion (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@ Greglocock: I don’t understand your reference to French Fries. I was making a technical point, backed by evidence.

@ Greglocock: Interesting that a proposal to court martial a man for breaking the law ended with him being awarded a medal for breaking the law. All very Churchillian. Perhaps the medal and the court martial were both in his mind when he showed some more British Fighting Spirit a year later, parading his ship along the Malaysian coast until the Japanese used him for target practice. In combat, Spirit is no match for Sense. A similar case of Churchillian Spirit over Sense can be seen in the Naval operations in the Dardanelles Campaign - with similar results.

@ Greglocock: When a non-British ship ran into the RN and was outnumbered, they were concerned because they were outnumbered, not because they were scared of the British Fighting Spirit. However sometimes when they were outnumbered, they still engaged the RN with confidence. In addition to Bismarck sinking the Pride of the Royal Navy in 4 minutes despite being outgunned by the RN on the day, reference also the German cruiser Admiral Graf Spee, who took on 3-1 odds, drove off the RN, and only subsequently scuttled because they were deceived by misinformation. Reference also the Battle of Jutland, where the Germans were heavily outnumbered but still took on the RN, and sank more than they lost. I can’t think off-hand of any case in the 20th century when the RN beat the enemy in a one-on-one naval battle?

@ Parsecboy: Surely between the 2,000 of us, we can come up with wording that is both well-written AND accurate? How about: "At the Battle of the Denmark Strait, Bismarck and her consort were engaged by a British battle squadron. Bismarck quickly destroyed the battlecruiser HMS Hood, the pride of the Royal Navy, and forced the battleship HMS Prince of Wales to retreat."

@ Acroterion: I don’t actually see any reference to any "mythical concept of moral responsibility" in the posts above. I also don’t see any reference to "firing first in wartime is mean or shameful". Perhaps I’m being too objective?

Wdford (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum. Edits must be based upon reputable sources and the discussion, therefore, should be centred upon what the sources tell us and how we can improve the article. Articles must be written from a NPOV.Damwiki1 (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The sources tell us that the article can be improved by amending the lead to read that: "At the Battle of the Denmark Strait, Bismarck and her consort were engaged by a British battle squadron. In a few minutes Bismarck destroyed the battlecruiser HMS Hood, the pride of the Royal Navy, and the battleship HMS Prince of Wales was damaged and forced to retreat." That is more accurate than the current wording, and fully NPOV. Wdford (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The current wording and your proposed wording fails to mention the critical involvement of Prinz Eugen, who was a key participant in the battle by drawing Hood's fire, damaging Hood, and then engaging Prince of Wales. After Hood was sunk Prince of Wales was engaged by both German ships and withdrew from the combined close range fire of both German ships. Before withdrawing Prince of Wales caused serious damage to Bismarck forward and to her machinery spaces. It is misleading to suggest that Bismarck was solely responsible for the German victory and to downplay the extent of Bismarck's damage.Damwiki1 (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I've made a stab at incorporating your comment§, and slight redress to lead implying poor Bismarck was assailed on all sides at the end (when actually only heavy guns would be sufficient ) GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I've made a stab at making the lead more accurate and more NPOV. Bismarck was indeed assailed from all sides - what may have been "sufficient" and what was actually deployed are two different things. The extent of Bismarck's damage has always been in the lead. Wdford (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I still see no point in making the requested change. But if we're going to do it, lets not have passive voice. Parsecboy (talk) 10:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Can we please discuss any further edits here before making changes? Bismarck did suffer some loss of fuel via leaks, but the main problem was damage to pumping gear that left fuel inaccessible while damage to her machinery reduced her top speed. Flooding from these hits also left her with a list and reduced her freeboard forward, further reducing speed. We just need to summarize the facts in the lede as it is explained in detail in the article.

Agreed, but we need to summarize the facts ACCURATELY. See article. Wdford (talk) 07:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Bismarck and Prinz Eugen had very similar silhouettes and from a distance were almost indistinguishable from each other. The British mistook Prinz Eugen for the Bismarck and actually opened fire on Prinz Eugen first and thought they were firing at Bismarck. Because Prinz Eugen was a smaller ship than Bismarck it meant the estimated ranges were incorrect.

Hood was paired with PoW becasue while the Hood was an older ship and a Battlecruiser, and not in the Bismarck's class as an opponent, the PoW was a brand new battleship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.162.158 (talk) 09:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Sunk by gunfire

So, why does the article claim that the Royal Navy were 'unable to sink her by gunfire' when, in fact, they did sink her by gunfire? And why does the article claim that Bismarck was scuttled by her crew when, as far as we know, that would not be physically possible in the time? When the German High Seas Fleet was scuttled at Scapa Flow in 1919, the larger ships took over two hours, and in one case over five hours, to sink. HMS Rodney was firing on Bismarck until about 10.15, King George V even later. At 10.27 Bismarck's stern exploded and blew off, where Rodney had hit her at 10.11. HMS Devonshire then closed to fire torpedoes. Bismarck rolled over and sank just after 10.35. It is not possible to claim that the sinking was due to anything other than battle damage. Although Bismarck's engineering officer later said he had given orders to scuttle, the state of communications and general chaos aboard the blazing wreck would have made the order more than a little difficult to carry out. And Bismarck's sister ship Tirpitz was sunk by a 14,000lb RAF Tallboy -- are we to imagine that Bismarck's engineering team had a similarly vast demolition charge in place that could suicide the ship instantly? The officer may well have given such an order, but by then there was no time for it to take effect. Bismarck could only have been sunk by scuttling if the order were given long before Rodney and King George V even opened fire -- which is not the case. Khamba Tendal (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Because that's what the general consensus of reliable sources state. Parsecboy (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

at Scapa they couldn't use explosives otherwise this would have alerted the guards/soldiers in the harbour. Blowing holes into a ships bottom and/or side speeds-up flooding a lot.--Denniss (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

German survivors have described in detail how they performed the scuttling operation, so your assumption that the order was impossible to carry out is debunked. They also describe that in the lower decks beneath all the armor, everything was calm, not chaotic. The superstructure was mangled by hundreds of heavy shells, but below the armor they were still coping just fine.

Nowhere in the reliable sources does it say that Bismarck's stern exploded and blew off - the assumption is that it broke off below the surface as the ship sank, based purely on the fact that the stern is not attached to the wreck and is not lying nearby.

The scuttling took place before the torpedo attacks were made, and the ship was already sinking when the cruisers fired their torpedoes. The last torpedo apparently hit the Bismarck's superstructure when the ship was already largely underwater and rolling over. The ship didn't sink "instantly".

The Tallboy bombs had to deal with many layers of armor, whereas the scuttling charges were set at a number of key positions on the inner hull. Tirpitz was trying NOT to sink - they had the water-tight doors closed and the pumps running, whereas Bismarck's crew had opened all the water-tight doors and were running the pumps in reverse.

Wdford (talk) 11:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

This wiki article gives more cited details regarding Bismarck's observed situation before the scuttling charges were claimed to have been set off and before she was torpedoed after 10am. It seems that Bismarck was slowly sinking from uncontrolled progressive flooding and it is an opinion shared by many authors who have researched this topic. This article should be edited based upon the above sources, and interested editors should also review this external article as well.Damwiki1 (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

In accordance with Nazi psychology (and it's startling how many Nazi commanders committed suicide), the Bismarck carried a suicide kit. This suicide kit consisted of white-painted wooden boxes, each marked with a red V for 'Versenken' (scuttling) and containing six sticks of dynamite. The charges were to be placed next to critical valves to cause flooding. This procedure would take many hours to sink the ship. The order to scuttle was only given by the engineering officer after 10.00, when the crew began to abandon ship. The time delay was, allegedly, nine minutes. Given the difficulty in conveying orders, or getting anything done at all aboard the blazing hulk, it is not very likely that the charges were even set before 10.15. And it is not remotely possible that they could have had any serious effect at all by the time Bismarck rolled over and sank at 10.35. In the interim, after Rodney and KG5 ceased fire at 10.15 (so as not to fire on crew abandoning ship), Devonshire scored three torpedo strikes, but Bismarck was sinking anyway, and not for any reason to do with tiny wee boxes of 'six sticks of dynamite' that the Nazis had prepared so as to preserve their 'honour'.

We know what it takes to scuttle a capital ship. At Scapa Flow in 1919 it took two to five hours. With the Graf Spee in the Plate estuary in 1939, the crew had had all day to rig the ship for scuttling 'to preserve the honour of the Third Reich' and had distributed the remaining ammunition around the ship and wired it to timers. The resulting explosions, which caused the ship to 'settle' in less than an hour (she couldn't sink, because there were only 10 feet of water under the keel before she hit the mud), are on film. They were spectacular and enormous and they completely obliterated the view of the ship. That is what it takes to scuttle an armoured capital ship in under an hour, and nothing like that happened with Bismarck -- they just blew some valves. And that procedure could have had no meaningful effect before Bismarck rolled over and sank due to battle damage (there being no other possible cause) at 10.35. Bismarck was sunk by Royal Navy gunfire, and helped on her way by Royal Navy torpedos, as is obvious to the meanest of intelligences.

It's a little depressing that Wikipedia is in the grip of Nazi sympathisers bent on preserving the 'honour' of the Third Reich and deliberately misstating -- by the ever-convenient method of 'cherrypicking', and by claiming unreliable sources as reliable -- what the sources actually say. Although, of course, it isn't in the least surprising. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia in general is not " in the grip of Nazi sympathisers ". And if your intent is to include editors of this page under that claim - that would be a "Personal Attack". We use what the sources say, so while your reasoning may be right - it needs to be in a reliable source. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not making any personal attack, because, apart from anything else, I don't know who put the false claim in the article. I only know that it is there, and it shouldn't be. The article may note that the false claim -- that the Royal Navy ships 'were unable to sink her with gunfire' -- has been made, but it may not treat the claim as if it were factual when it is not even physically possible. It is not physically possible that the engineering officer's few sticks of dynamite could sink a battleship the size of Bismarck in ten minutes. The charges cannot have been laid before 10.15 and cannot have blown before 10.25. Bismarck began her final roll and dive just ten minutes later, and scuttled ships don't roll, and she had clearly been taking on a lot of water for a long time. Scuttling procedure basically consisted of breaking or blowing the seawater feed pipe -- used for coolant purposes in the engine room -- and leaving the seacock open, or preferably blowing that too to ensure that no one could turn it off again. Then the ship gradually took on enough water to cancel her buoyancy and sink her. It was not intended to have rapid effects because the crew were supposed to take to the rafts.

Rodney and KG5 ceased fire at 10.15. They did not do this because they gave up and admitted defeat because invincible Nazi superships are invincible, as the article falsely claims. They did it because the German crew were abandoning ship in numbers and you are not supposed to 'fire on survivors'. You can still use torpedos, and HMS Devonshire duly did, but you can't fire guns at escaping crew. If anything helped the doomed Bismarck on her way in that brief 20-minute interim after the battleships ceased fire, their job effectively done, it was clearly the Devonshire's three torpedo strikes and not a few sticks of dynamite blowing the odd valve in the engine room.

Bismarck was sunk by Royal Navy gunfire. It is false to claim otherwise and it is not physically possible that the scuttling procedure had any appreciable effect in the time before she rolled over and sank due to battle damage.

You know, it wasn't the first time that Admiral Lutjens had met the Rodney. It had happened before, a couple of months earlier, late on the afternoon of 16 March, 200 miles west of Newfoundland. Lutjens, on the bridge of invincible Nazi supership Gneisenau, decided to attack the lone merchantman MV Chilean Reefer, an ex-Danish 1800-tonner now under the Red Ensign, which was travelling in ballast to Halifax to pick up a load of Canadian bacon. She could make 14 knots and convoys were limited to 11 knots so she was sailing independently. When Gneisenau opened fire on her at about 2010 Zulu, 1710 local, at last light, she sent a distress call with the RRRR code for 'Raider' and her position, 46.11N 44.51W. She put up such a fight, manoeuvring hard and making smoke and firing back with her solitary 4-inch poop gun, that Lutjens and the Gneisenau's captain Otto Fein became afraid. They were afraid that she might be a Q-ship, an armed merchant cruiser with torpedo tubes. They were even more afraid that she might be scouting for a British battleship. So they stood off. They fired over 80 rounds from the main 11-inch battery and the secondary 5.9-inch armament, continuing to fire even after their only two hits set the Chilean Reefer on fire and the crew began taking to the boats -- that is, they deliberately fired on survivors. When the captain, Thomas Bell, was in the last boat, Fein hailed him to come alongside and be captured. Bell said he had to pick up more survivors first. When Bell later tried to come alongside, just as the boat was passing in front of Gneisenau's bow, Lutjens and Fein ordered full ahead and Gneisenau almost ran the boat down. The boat was swept alongside the battleship and had her tiller struck off. The Gneisenau accelerated away at her 32-knot maximum into the darkening east.

That happened because Lutjens and Fein had just seen HMS Rodney looming against the sunset, coming to answer the Chilean Reefer's call. Rodney, seeing only a dim smudge in the east beyond the burning but still floating wreck of the Reefer, flashed 'WHAT SHIP?' Fein and Lutjens ordered the signalman to flash back 'HMS EMERALD' and then picked up their skirts and ran (and probably retired to their cabins for a change of underwear). On board Rodney, Capt Dalrymple-Hamilton did not believe the signal, but he could not have caught the Gneisenau in the dark, so his priority was to stop and pick up the survivors. Three of the Reefer's crew, in one boat, had been taken on board Gneisenau (and one was kept in solitary to make him admit that the Reefer was a Q-ship when it wasn't, and all three were paraded through the streets on arrival at Brest, in defiance of the Geneva rules about subjecting prisoners to public curiosity). Six were killed. Twenty-seven were saved by Rodney, three of whom later died on board.

When Rodney departed the scene that night, the burning wreck of the Chilean Reefer was still afloat. No one ever saw her sink, despite the mighty battleship Gneisenau devoting her best efforts -- over 80 rounds -- to that very purpose for about half an hour. And she was only 1800 tons, by far the smallest ship attacked in the course of the Scharnhorst - Gneisenau sortie, Operation Berlin. So, should we pretend that the mighty Gneisenau was 'unable to sink her with gunfire'? Of course not. Ask Lloyd's. Ask anyone. She was sunk by the gunfire of the German battleship Gneisenau 200 miles off Cape Race on the evening of 16 March 1941. Even though no one saw her go down, and it must have happened a long time after the Gneisenau left the scene.

Bismarck sank on 27 May due to the gunfire of Rodney and KG5, only 20 minutes after they ceased fire so as not to fire on crew abandoning ship. If anything gave her the last nudge it was the torpedos of HMS Devonshire and not the few sticks of dynamite that the engineering officer claimed he ordered to be set. The mythology of the Invincible Nazi Supership They Could Not Sink is just mythology, of an unsavoury and anti-factual kind, and, although the article may recognise that such claims have been made, it should not recognise them as factual. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

All well and good, except your opinion is irrelevant. The preponderance of reliable sources do not agree with you. Until you can address that issue, this is just all a lot of hot air.

And frankly, anyone who can't tell the difference between Devonshire and Dorsetshire probably doesn't have as strong a grasp on the facts he thinks he does. Parsecboy (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The British battleships stopped shooting because they ran out of ammunition, not for any compassion for the crew abandoning ship. In fact they continued shooting after the evacuation had started.

The Dorsetshire's torpedo strikes happened when the Bismarck was already sinking, and the Bismarck was already under water when the last torpedo hit.

When the German Fleet was scuttled at Scapa Flow, several big ships did capsize as they sank - despite not having used explosives.

I have not seen any reliable source that gives the precise time when the scuttling charges were detonated - have you seen such a source please?

Wdford (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Both RN battleships had plenty of ammo remaining when they ceased fire, as average consumption was about one third of magazine capacity. There are reputable sources that state that Bismarck was slowly sinking before the scuttling charges were detonated and we should incorporate this information into the article. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum and we should avoid discussing anything, such as the political leanings of wikipedia editors, not related to proposed edits to the article.Damwiki1 (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

This wikipedia article gives cited information on scuttling the interred German ships at Scapa flow and it confirms that it took several hours to have effect.Damwiki1 (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The amount of ammunition is irrelevant - the problem Tovey faced was fuel.

What happened at Scapa Flow is equally irrelevant. What do the sources say about Bismarck? The general consensus is that the ship was sinking, but would have likely remained afloat for some time if the scuttling charges had not been used. Which is what the article states. Parsecboy (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The article doesn't actually state that Bismarck was sinking prior to the scuttling. I would propose that we amend the current wording: She suffered from a 20° list to port and was low in the water by the stern, to this statement: The battleship's upper works were almost completely destroyed and although her engines were still functioning, she was slowly settling by the stern from uncontrolled flooding with a 20 degree list to port. Or words to that effect as stated by cited sources in the last battle of the German battleship Bismarck article. Damwiki1 (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Much of what you propose to add is redundant to what immediately precedes the line in question (i.e., "Bismarck had been reduced to a shambles, aflame from stem to stern.") or what is currently in the article (which is to say, is "settling by the stern" significantly different than "low in the water by the stern"?) Frankly, I don't see what problem your proposed change solves.

Combined with the final paragraph of the article, I should think the situation is clear. Parsecboy (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Many ships can float indefinitely after suffering damage that causes them to be: ...low in the water by the stern...The operative part of the proposed sentence is: ...she was slowly settling by the stern from uncontrolled flooding...which suggests that scuttling hastened Bismarck's sinking rather than being the only cause.Damwiki1 (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

What kind of underwater damage should have caused this "uncontrolled flooding" ? --Denniss (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Bismarck had been hit by two 14in shells on 24 may 1941 from PoW that caused extensive flooding forward and below her armoured citadel. She was struck by 3 torpedoes prior to her last battle, and these added to the UW damage. During the final battle Bismarck was hit by many shells with an UW trajectory and undoubtedly by further hits below and forward/aft of her citadel. As this article states: There is persuasive evidence that there were some penetrations of the 320mm main side belt and the 145mm upper citadel belt by heavy shellfire from the two British battleships...Bismarck was a sinking ship, and her scuttling merely hastened an inevitable demise. Bismarck had been decisively defeated by the gunfire from her British opponents...Some shells had holed the armor belts and water was flooding compartments below. Fires had occurred in turrets Bruno, Anton, and Dora; and several 150mm, 105mm, and 37mm magazine fires had forced flooding of magazines to prevent explosions...As has been discussed, Bismarck was unusually (perhaps excessively) stable, and the British somewhat hindered their efforts to sink her by bombarding both sides of the ship. Effectively, starboard side battle drainage provided counterflooding to offset the massive damage and flooding being sustained on the port side...In some compartments, flooding pumps were reversed and charges did not have to be placed. In other spaces, flooding was already occurring and access to scuttling charges was impossible and unnecessary. So the effect of the battle damage was to degrade Bismarck's watertight integrity, which along with crew casualties and hull hits forward and aft of the armoured citadel doomed Bismarck to sinking.Damwiki1 (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

It takes time to position and set scuttling charges sufficient to reliably sink a ship and the middle of a battle, with shells arriving every few minutes, is not the time to go about doing it.

... it also presupposes that the person ordering such measures acknowledges that the battle has been lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.162.158 (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Bismarck ws already crippled by the rudder torpedo hit so they knew their fate if attacked by a surface force. Do you really believe they hadn't prepared scuttling charged prior to what they knew would be their last battle ?!? --Denniss (talk) 11:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Speed of the battleship

I find out there’s a mistake in speed of Bismarck. The actual speed of battleship was 30.1knots and they even earned once a speed of 30.8knots (according to the book written by B.F von Mullenheim-Rechberg) so it is not the 30.01knots like it is on a page now. Please fix that. WIECEq (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Gröner was working from original documents before they were destroyed during the war, and while Müllenheim-Rechberg served aboard the ship, he wrote his book quite a while later and memories of course fade and distort with time. Parsecboy (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR

Based on the oldest edit in the article history, it appears this article was started with American spellings ("armor", "meter", "kilometer"), so the article ought to be converted back per WP:RETAIN. Parsecboy (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The policy you quoted says: "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change." And in this case the topic has strong(er) national ties to those who use British English. Also the baseline is the first post-stub edit[2], not the first entry.

Interesting, looking back 17 (!) years, just how far this article has come. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but that's not exactly how the policy is actually put into effect - arguably, the change from AmEng to BrEng was the change that was made in contravention of WP:RETAIN (which goes at least as far back as 2003). And this has been done with similar articles (see for instance here, which is incidentally what prompted me to look at this article, or this one). As for national ties, those only apply to British, American, Canadian, etc. topics, not French, German, Russian, etc. topics that have some relation to a particular English-speaking country. I would also disagree with what you characterize a stub - the article was not a stub for quite a long time before 2005, and arguably the initial draft is not a stub, based on some of the criteria at WP:STUB.

It is pretty neat to see how far these articles have come from the early days of Wikipedia! Parsecboy (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

While I do know the guideline... I'd advocate for a dash of IAR. ;-) 1) this article has been in British English since at least 2004, 2) German battleship Tirpitz is also written in British English, and 3) Bismarck-class battleship is in American English. I'd be in favor of consistency + the path of least resistance, which would be to convert the class article to British English. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You and I argued very much the same point here some years ago and we were shot down - consensus can change, but I haven't seen any evidence that it has. If you'd like to make this a wider discussion, given that this is a somewhat more visible article, I would be happy to post some discussion notices. Parsecboy (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree over what characterises a stub. To me section breaks are an indicator that there is sufficient encyclopaedic content that the page requires organisation... structure giving form to a (small or large) mass of information. Anyway, I think that's where it gets pedantic and we're better off trying to avoid interpreting the vagaries of ENGVAR.

Some subjects have obvious national owners (Sydney Harbor; Pearl Harbour etc. etc.); some have strong national ties; some are shared equally; some don't have strong ties. We should only start digging around 15 year old edit summaries for the last of these. In this case, and with Musashi, there are strong national ties to one or other country. Bismarck was a preoccupation for the British; she sunk the British flagship, she was destroyed by the British. I see a US coastguard ship has sailed into the story, but really it's a German/British subject. Conversely Musashi was a preoccupation for the Americans and was sunk by US forces. A Japanese/American subject (with no inconvenient interlopers). But it's switching variations that's most likely to upset editors. I would hope that most readers won't notice or care. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The general rule of thumb of what constitutes a stub at WP:STUB is 1500 characters of prose - the original edit had more than that. You would likely be all by yourself in characterizing this as a stub.

Your "obvious national owners" is what "strong national ties" means. An article about a German subject necessarily has a strong national tie to Germany, not any other country, regardless of who the subject of the article fought. You'll notice that Musashi is written in Canadian English, while the RCN never once engaged the ship. Parsecboy (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Not sure where the 1500 characters comes from - it's not on the page you linked. I'm going with the definition in the first sentence, although I accept that's subjective. And compared to what we have today the version you've linked was pretty stubby...

On national ties: again not sure that your interpretation is the same as the consensus view (I don't know what that is by the way, but it's certainly not articulated anywhere obvious). I can see quite a bit of debate about this, including one discussion which might well be about this article's ENGVAR. However, the only thing that seems clear is that the community has opted for a balance - which seems to be why the MOS is non-specific - some flexibility but not enough to encourage nationalistic edit-warring (which is what you'd get here).

More generally, I think perception of a strong national tie will be naturally influenced by where editors live and learn. In the UK the Bismarck and its story is perceived as an important episode in our recent history to the extent that your proposal prompts a nationalistic defensiveness. The same cannot be said for Musashi - British editors won't have as much interest so the ENGVAR doesn't matter to us. We'd probably support an American editor who wanted it in AmE. (Also, not sure how one is supposed to know that something is written in Canadian English - isn't that just inconsistency made manifest?!) The other thing the community seems to be quite clear on is that we should retain long-standing variations unless there is a good reason to change it. While we might have to disagree on whether there is a strong reason to retain it in British English, there certainly isn't a strong reason to change it to American English. 22:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Stub#How_big_is_too_big?: "Others follow the Did you know? standard of 1,500 characters in the main text."

In every discussion I've seen about ENGVAR, the view I represented is the consensus one. See also WP:STRONGNAT - none of the examples listed there suggest anything like what you argue. John (talk · contribs) likely knows more about this than I do - perhaps he can shed some light.

Well, the strong reason to change it back to AmEng would be WP:RETAIN. It shouldn't have been changed in the first place, and the "but it's been like this for X number of years" argument has never flown in the past. Parsecboy (talk) 09:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

While people are obviously free to volunteer to do whatever they like, surely there's a better use of editing time though? The article is a stable FA, so the case for incurring wear and tear on someone's keyboard doesn't seem strong ;) That said, has anyone considered changing it into Australian English? (Bismark was the first of a couple of bloody big battleships built for a mob of Europeans..."). Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• I was asked to comment. If we base the argument off RETAIN it depends which version we look at; policy says the earliest non-stub version, which I think was UK English, although the earliest stub was in USian. If we look at TIES there is a weak case for leaning towards UK English, as it was the Royal Navy which the ship fought in its only real action. As the article is currently in UK English it's maybe best to just leave it there. Although I do like Nick-D's suggestion. --John (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's leave it in UK English as Bismarck only ever fought the RN and RN allied ships. If we must change it then surely Canadian English is the next logical choice as Bismarck was a really Skookum ship.Damwiki1 (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Wehrmachtbericht mentions

I removed the text "Bismarck was mentioned in the Wehrmachtbericht (the "armed forces report", a propaganda broadcast) three times during Operation Rheinübung. The first was an account of the Battle of the Denmark Strait; the second was a brief account of the ship's destruction, and the third was an exaggerated claim that Bismarck had sunk a British destroyer and shot down five aircraft." which was also mentioned in the infobox under "honours and awards". Being named in a propaganda publication's coverage of a battle in which the ship participated, or in an account of the ship's sinking, is a dubious "award" at best. –dlthewave ☎ 21:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously (the most recent discussion seems to have been in 2012; please see Talk:German battleship Bismarck/Archive 4#Edit warring over references in the Wehrmachtbericht), but I agree completely. Nick-D (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the translated text, it's clear that not every mention is an honor. "As reported yesterday, the battleship "Bismarck," after its victorious battle near Iceland, was on 26 May hit by a torpedo from an enemy aircraft and left unmanoeuvrable. True to the last radio message from chief of fleet Admiral Lütjens, the battleship was defeated by overwhelming enemy forces and sank with flag flying together with its commander Kapitän zu See Lindemann and its brave crew, on 27 May before noon." If these really are notable awards, we should be able to cite secondary sources that describe them as such. –dlthewave ☎ 23:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Being included in the Wehrmachtbericht was essentially the same as being mentioned in despatches, which was indeed an award. If you read the discussion Nick linked, you'll note that an editor there mentioned a book that discusses the subject by Murawski - that book is Der deutsche Wehrmachtbericht, 1939-1945. There are problems with the Wehrmachtbericht, particularly after the war turned against Germany and the report became less and less attached to reality, to put it mildly, but that's not relevant for this discussion. Parsecboy (talk) 12:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Is there a source that discusses Wehrmachtbericht as the same as being mentioned in despatches? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Legacy and Impact

Holy cow these old war stories spawn a lot of chatter. UK English is my two cents, and not making definitive statements about "who sank the ship" beyond that so many shells hit her, and orders to scuttle were given, etc. The fact is, she went down.

The article is missing a section on the impact of the sinking in Britain and Germany. At some point, the German capital ships stayed in port. How did this contribute? Etc.

Thanks. 184.69.174.194 (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Although it could be expanded it's covered in the "Aftermath" part of Last_battle_of_the_battleship_Bismarck#Aftermath which is linked in the article. - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 18:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Strange

It is strange that the following article is not cited here:

• Garzke, William H. Jr., Dulin, Robert O. Jr. and Webb, Thomas G. (1994) Bismarck's Final Battle, Warship International No. 2. Available as a web version at NavWeaps.com [3]

It contains a wealth of very pertinent information, particularly about the damage Bismarck suffered in its final combat. It could be employed to the advantage of this page. Urselius (talk) 07:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't really see how - this is an encyclopedia article, not a specialist source. The reader gets the sense that the ship was reduced to a charnel house, we don't need to bog down the narrative with overly specific details about individual hits. More importantly, the article is already over 70kb, which is verging on WP:TOOBIG as it is - as articles become longer, they become more difficult for readers to actually read. If anything, the article could probably be trimmed a bit. Parsecboy (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

By way of example, I recently took a buzzsaw to rewrote Richelieu-class battleship, and in the process cut it from an unreadable 117kb to a much more manageable 55kb (and in the process cut out a good bit of plagiarized material, but that's beside the point). The point of writing articles here isn't to record every known fact about a topic, but to produce a readable summary of secondary sources. In the Richelieu example, the reader doesn't really need to know (or even care about) the specific location of the searchlights or what the weight of the main battery turrets were. And if they do care to dig deeper, they can look at the specialist sources - the same as with any paper encyclopedia. Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

There is a huge amount of information in the page on how the underwater hull was not significantly damaged by shellfire, and probably this could be drastically pruned. However, there is little mention about why this was the case. To quote Garzke, Dulin and Webb: "As a practical matter, Bismarck was vulnerable to penetration by British heavy caliber shellfire throughout almost all of the final engagement. Most of the battle was fought at very close ranges and the resultant flat trajectory fire was very likely to ricochet off the surface of the water. This prevented many hits on Bismarck's underwater hull as shells falling short would probably ricochet and careen into the upper hull or superstructure instead of penetrating the surface." I would submit that detailing the effect(s) of something without adequately addressing its cause(s) is fundamentally un-encyclopaedic, if relevant sources are available. Urselius (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

That's a point worth including. Parsecboy (talk) 14:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Lindemann

All the accounts I've ever read stated that Lindemann survived to the end and went down with the ship, standing on the bow. Shouldn't this be at least mentioned as a version? This is what Ballard's own book says, so it doesn't just need to be dismissed as 'stupid Nazi propaganda'.

70.16.212.73 (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed in the past, see for instance here. Parsecboy (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Have the turrets been found?

Since the turrets were held in place only by their weight, they fell out of the ship when it capsized. After they dropped out, the ship rolled upright on its way to the bottom. Have the turrets been located or are their locations still unknown? Bizzybody (talk) 09:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

They have not been found, as far as I'm aware. They likely detached close to the surface and probably didn't slide as far down the side of the underwater mountain. Parsecboy (talk) 10:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The turrets are all lying around the wreck itself. As per the report written by Dulin, Garzke et al, called The Wreck of DKM Bismarck, A Marine Forensics Analysis, and based on the underwater analysis led by James Cameron in May 2002 - see here [4]

To quote from page 35: "The four main battery turrets landed upside down with their gun-houses buried in the sediment, and their substructures exposed in varying degrees. Minutes later the sliding hull came through the debris field, missing Turrets Caesar and Dora, which lie only meters west of the slide scar, but impacting Turrets Anton and Bruno. Turret Bruno was pushed downhill and came to rest approximately 200 meters south of Bismarck’s bow. This turret can be identified by the fact that the rear of the turret is missing, as had been reported by Seaman Josef Statz to author William Garzke. The gunnery reports of both Rodney and King George V attest to heavy damage to this turret during the course of the battle on 27 May. The other three turrets are located about 350 meters north of the wreck, two just west of the slide scar and what is probably Turret Anton just inside the scar, to the east. Anton shows clear evidence that the ship actually slid right over it, removing the turret’s substructure and jamming it into a rock outcropping, leaving behind a large piece of red bottom shell plating wrapped around the turret. Extrapolating Turret Bruno north to its original impact position yields a clear pattern. All four turrets landed in an east-west line, in the same order and spacing as they were on the ship."

Hope that helps Wdford (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Washington naval treaty

Germany was never a part of the washington naval treaty so tonnage limits did not apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2A88:9100:519B:74F0:E340:ADFC (talk) 08:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The Anglo-German Naval Treaty brought them into the Washington Treaty system. Parsecboy (talk) 09:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

German Naming Convention during the Nazi period.

German Capital ships were referred to using male pronouns during the reign of the Third Reich. -A — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.96.30.55 (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

You should ask your self where and when we find ourselves living... Parsecboy (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

If this is wikipedia's policy, I can do very little about it. But it is disrespectful to the Crews that serve on any ship to refer to their ship improperly; Regardless of what these men died for, their memories should be honored all the same. I protest this decision on such grounds, semantics should not be more important than the memory of the dead. -A — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.96.30.55 (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Following stupid Nazi propaganda has nothing to do with the memory of the dead. Parsecboy (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Just to make a point, the practice of the Germans using male pronouns for their ships was around long before "stupid Nazi propaganda" as you put it. Imperator was a German passenger ship. HE was given a male pronoun. Don't believe me? Look up the Wiki article. The Nazis were not around when Imperator was launched. Instead of dismissing people's thoughts on an article - try putting some basic research into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:F499:1D00:28B6:CEFD:3346:BCA3 (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

That's not a point worth making. I am well aware that Kaiser Bill and Hitler were both deeply insecure people. We don't need to promote either of their stupid propaganda. Parsecboy (talk) 10:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Which "Kaiser Bill"? There were two of them. That's why the one I'm assuming you're referring to is Kaiser Wilhelm the second. Also Russian ships are "he" as well. Wandavianempire (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Only one of them is ever referred to as "Kaiser Bill"...Nevertheless, one wonders what point you think you're making. Parsecboy (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

This is the English language Wikipedia, and we use the common modern English-language terminology for things. Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

It's a very peculiar mental deformity for someone to want English-speakers to write English as if it was German. But I daresay very typical of the Third Reich.86.11.99.75 (talk) 11:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

---

To follow up on this, the Imperator article doesn’t say that, and didn’t when this point was raised. It also seems that Imperator wasn’t given the male pronoun, and "basic research" hasn’t turned up evidence this request was ever made. Just saying… Xyl 54 (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Sunk, not scuttled.

The summary of Bismarcks fate is misleading. It implies that scuttling was the primary reason for her sinking, instead of acknowledging the wider picture.

All contemporary experts agree, that regardless of the crews scuttling efforts, Bismarck was:

1) already sinking 2) would sink 3) was spent as a fighting force 4) that the crew abandoned ship 5) that the Royal Navy were still attacking, with orders to "finish her off" 6) that the Royal Navy had no interest in taking her a prize VSTAMPv (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

You have beaten this to death, pal. Yes, the Bismarck would have sunk regardless of the crew's scuttling, but the fact is he was scuttled. A dead tree is gonna fall, but if you cut it down, you don't say it fell. You say you cut it down. Bobafett5204 (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

'She'

You don't cut down a tree that's already falling, what a daft analogy.

Who do I speak to out of this little clique please? VSTAMPv (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed again and again on this page with the page reflecting the consensus of these discussions. Note that while Bismarck was in very poor condition, many of the Royal Navy ships were running out of fuel and or ammo so couldn't continue to attack Bismarck indefinitely and that ships in sinking condition can stay afloat for a surprising length of time - for example the destroyer HMS Medusa (1915) abandoned in "sinking condition" in severe weather, remained afloat for 10 days before being taken under tow by a Dutch trawler, and only finally sank after running aground outside port a further 3 days later.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, this has been discussed to death for more than a decade before you showed up, VSTAMPv. I promise you, you have raised no new points. Parsecboy (talk) 12:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The scuttling procedure consisted of placing two small boxes of dynamite on the seawater feedpipe in the engine room and on its controlling seacock. It would take about 12 hours to sink the ship, if all the watertight doors were opened (which, at the time, with most of the crew either dead or abandoning ship, wasn't possible). The reason why idiots think the Bismarck could have sunk due to the scuttling procedure is that they're thinking of the Graf Spee. But it took a whole day for the crew of the Graf Spee to rig the ship for scuttling. They placed all the remaining ammunition around the hull and wired it up to detonators and timers. The resulting explosions blew the bottom out of the hull and she settled on the shallow riverbed almost at once. That's not what happened with the Bismarck. On the Bismarck, the normal procedure of blowing the engine-room seawater feedpipe was carried out, and that could not possibly have had any significant effect by the time the Bismarck rolled over and sank due to battle damage about 20 minutes later. The article can carry on claiming that 'invincible Nazi superweapons are invincible, long live the Fuhrer' till the crack of doom, but it just makes the article look bad. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

All well and good, but like VSTAMPv above, you have no sources. Talk page bloviating will get you nowhere. Parsecboy (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Have you got a source which describes the actual scuttling procedure, and shows that it could in fact sink a ship the size of the Bismarck in twenty minutes, and explains exactly how that could even be physically possible? Because, on the other side, we know that Rodney alone fired 378 16-inch and 706 6-inch shells during the engagement (Ian Ballantyne, HMS Rodney, Pen & Sword, Barnsley, 2008, ISBN 978-1-84415-406-7, p.145). Each 16-inch AP shell weighed a ton and impacted at Mach 2.5 with a force of 30,000 foot tons. What do you think the Bismarck was made of? Some special offworld alloy called impossibilium, supplied to the Fuhrer by space aliens who happened to admire him? Or what? And what do you think the scuttling procedure consisted of, and how do you think it could sink a ship that size in twenty minutes? And your use of the term 'bloviating' is abusive. Khamba Tendal (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I would direct you to my previous comment; the burden of proof is on you, friend. Numerous sources have been provided in the article (and here in previous discussions) that support the scuttling claim. And as for people being abusive, I would point out that you've label anyone who disagrees with you as "idiots". If you have nothing more to add, stop wasting both of our time. Parsecboy (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

But all these "numerous sources" are in fact repetitions of the claims of ONE Nazi officer. 'Bismarck' was far too large a ship to be sunk by scuttling charges in a matter of minutes. Nor did she sink on an even keel, as would be expected if she was sunk by progressive flooding of her machinery spaces through a blown feedpipe. She rolled over and sank, consistent with battle damage - of which there is no doubt she had received a huge amount during her final battle. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 05:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Various examinations of the wreck have shown that the Bismarck's armor was not penetrated by all these huge British foot-tons. The ship was not protected by impossibilium, it was protected by German armor-plate - which did its job quite admirably. Various examinations of the wreck have shown that the Bismarck's hull was not crushed by ocean pressure, therefore it was fully flooded before the ship reached any significant depth - ergo, the watertight doors were indeed all open. Since the purpose of scuttling was to prevent the ship being captured, a 12-hour process would be ludicrous. Experts such as Ballard and Cameron concluded, based on evidence from the actual examination of the wreck, that the ship was scuttled. Wdford (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Of course there are other potential reasons for the hull being fully flooded. Being riddled with hundreds of shell holes, for example. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

They knew what was coming, no chance to escape. They had ample time to prepare more and/or larger charges to speed-up the scuttling. Plus the contained torpedo hits could be used for additional water influx by opening the watertight doors. Didn't PoW land some hits on Bismarck's bow area causing water influx there? --Denniss (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

But there's no evidence that they did any of this, so it's just speculation aimed at promoting the myth that Bismarck's crew took the coward's way out by scuttling their ship. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The question is not whether Kapitanleutnant Gerhard Junack, engineering officer in the turbine room, ordered scuttling charges set -- he claimed to have done so -- the question is how much those charges had to do with the sinking. In 1967, in an article in Purnell's History of the Second World War, Vol.2, No.5, he claimed to have received an order by telephone from Korvettenkapitan Walter Lehmann, the ship's chief engineering officer (who did not survive), to 'prepare the ship for sinking'. He stated that this occurred at 10.15 and was the last order of any kind that he received aboard the Bismarck. He said that he ordered the engine-room machinists to place these charges -- which I believe were quite small in naval terms, six sticks of dynamite each, with a detonator and timer, contained in 'V-boxes' which were little white wooden boxes painted with a red V for Versenkung, at the appropriate points. He then tried to contact Lehmann for final instructions, but the phones had gone out. He sent a petty officer to find Lehmann, but the man never returned and Junack said he was killed on the way. Junack said he then decided to go ahead with the procedure and ordered his 'chief machinist' in the turbine room to set the charges with a 9-minute timer. He said he then went up to the aft deck, heard the charges explode -- this cannot have been much before 10.30 -- then tried to organise the men massed on the deck, gave a 'Sieg Heil', which possibly tells you something about him, and jumped into the sea. He said that Bismarck rolled over and sank almost immediately after that (which we know was at 10.40). He was picked up by Devonshire, a ship that the men had already seen approaching.

http://www.kbismarck.com/bismarck-last-hours.html

British naval intelligence, obviously, interrogated the survivors. The Admiralty produced a secret report that August. They noted, among other things, that, according to other survivors, Junack had been 'previously employed by the Gestapo'. His naval record does seem to be a bit vague between 1933 and 1941, but this could be scuttlebutt -- the interrogators observed that the ordinary seamen on the Bismarck did not like their officers very much. However, other survivors testified that, even in the water, before Devonshire rescued them, Junack was yelling at the ordinary seamen, 'Keep your mouths shut!' They appear not to have appreciated this. The Admiralty report (German Battleship Bismarck: Interrogation of Survivors, CB4051 24, August 1941) made this observation:-

'The actual cause of sinking is still a matter of dispute among survivors. There is, however, a considerable body of evidence to support the view that the inevitable end of the "Bismarck" was hastened by the explosion of specially prepared scuttling charges. Several prisoners state that they received definite orders, such as: "Abandon ship. Ship is to be sunk!" "Clear ship for scuttling; apply explosive charges." According to one prisoner, a special "scuttling party" then took charge and explosives, which had been placed in position earlier, were fired, some at the sea-water inlets and discharges, others in the turbine rooms, boiler rooms and auxiliary machinery rooms. All watertight doors and flooding valves were left open and the ship sank ten minutes after the charges were fired, capsizing to port. It was stated that all propellers still revolved.'

http://www.uboatarchive.net/Int/BismarckINT.htm

The 'one prisoner' mentioned there is obviously Junack. But evidently not all the survivors believed that the scuttling procedure, if it really happened, had anything much to do with the sinking (hence the 'matter of dispute'). And 'hastening the inevitable' does not mean that the Bismarck was sunk by scuttling. It means she was sinking anyway -- the British could see she was low in the water by then, and surveys have found torpedo holes in areas that should have been above the waterline. The scuttling procedure may have accelerated the process by a few moments, is all. Junack is also on record as saying that the stern compartments had been flooded ever since the successful Swordfish strike by Ark Royal and that during the final battle the Bismarck took penetrating hits in the engine room and the boiler room -- specifically in the boiler room at 09.15-09.30, starting a fire, and in the turbine room at 09.30 (Admiralty report, op. cit., p.23).

So, by Junack's account, Bismarck rolled over and sank a bare ten minutes after the detonation of those small charges in the machinery spaces, whose sole purpose was to rupture pipes and valves so as to allow seawater ingress. RMS Titanic remained afloat for 2 hours 40 minutes after sustaining a hull rupture which, according to the evidence of the builder's chief naval architect at the inquiry, amounted to 12 square feet or 1.1 square metres. What would be the equivalent opening caused by the rupture of those pipes and valves on board Bismarck? And how much water would a vessel displacing 40,000-50,000 tons have to ship before it lost buoyancy as its density exceeded that of the surrounding sea? And could it really ship that much in just ten minutes? The Graf Spee, of course, sank almost immediately, but the Graf Spee was blown by up her entire remaining stock of ammunition, a considerable tonnage -- a bit like the Hood but on purpose. The charges used on the Bismarck were incomparably smaller.

Scuttling was not even intended to produce an immediate result like that. The most famous case of scuttling, of course, was the scuttling of the German High Seas Fleet at Scapa Flow in 1919. The German navy considered this an honourable patriotic act which meant they were not really defeated, rather as the German army used the anti-Semitic 'stab in the back' myth to the same purpose. This is why the German navy of the Second World War was obsessed with scuttling and it is why all German warships carried those peculiar 'suicide pills', the V-boxes in the engine rooms.

At Scapa Flow, the skeleton crews had days to prepare the ships for the great event, even going to the lengths of making extra holes in all the bulkheads to speed the flooding process. And of course they opened all the watertight doors throughout the ships, which wasn't possible on the Bismarck because the ship was on fire and in chaos and a large number of the crew were dead already. Junack only said that the engine-room watertight doors were opened.

After the scuttle order was signalled at Scapa Flow, it was a full 40 minutes before even one ship showed a visible list. The last ship to sink, the battlecruiser SMS Hindenburg displacing at least 36,000 tons, didn't go down for nearly six hours. And almost a third of the 74-strong fleet -- 18 destroyers, three cruisers and one capital ship -- failed to sink at all. Some of these were saved by Royal Navy boarding parties, but most of them just... didn't sink. The scuttling didn't work. Scuttling is not some abracadabra that magically and instantly sends a ship to the bottom. And the likelihood of Junack's puny demolition charges causing the Bismarck to founder in just ten minutes, unless she was sinking anyway, is negligible. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

TL:DR; all I took away from that wall of text is you still don’t have a single source. Stop wasting your time with original research, you will achieve literally nothing with it. Parsecboy (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

He DOES have a source - Junack. Junack said he set the scuttling charges. We know what those were. They were nowhere near powerful enough to sink a ship that size in minutes. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 05:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I just cited the sources. What you mean is, 'I don't like it.' And you're also aggressively claiming to OWN the article, which, of course, you don't. Khamba Tendal (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm beginning to detect some WP:COMPETENCE issues here. Let me spell it out: you need sources that explicitly make the point you're trying to make. You are not allowed to take primary sources and interpret them. That's what we call original research. If you don't have sources that explicitly make the point you are trying to make (and since you have failed to present any, I can only interpret that to mean that you don't have any), then you don't have a leg to stand on. This has nothing to do with WP:OWN, as there are three other editors who've commented, who clearly don't agree with your "research". If you don't understand the very basic concept of needing a source to directly support a claim, you need to find something else to do with your time. Parsecboy (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)