Bismarck tried to surrender?

[Elysium]

An interesting story in today's Dom about the infamous battleship. For those who don't know, the Bismarck was the pride of the German fleet that sunk the HMS Hood, the pride of the Royal Navy.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1391220/Should-sunk-Bismarck-Tormented-sailor-reveals-German-sailors-tried-surrender-ship-destroyed-costing-2-000-lives.html?ITO=1490

[Jantar]

I recall learning at High School, that some crew on the Bismark tried to surrender but....

According to Navy accounts, the Bismarck never stopped returning fire, so they were faced with little choice but to destroy it.

How could the british fleet accept any surrender while still under fire?

[Fatt Max]

Who gives a flying (or sailing) fuck, they were Ze Germanz....

[GrayWolf]

up until recently the British always maintained they sunk the Bismarck, when found by Bob Ballard, engineers agreed she was in fact scuttled as the Germans maintained.
KM Bismark's main armament was all but silenced quite early on in the final engagement. She lost her rangefinding radar within the first few salvo exchanges. She was in fact 'target practice' for Rodney and KG5 while they could still manouver to avoid salvo targetting. Lutjens did indeed send a message we will fight to the last shell. The British pounded her to a point of being a 'floating wreck'. Therin lies the issue, gunfire did NOT sink her, she was designed to withstand just such a battle. European design was centered more around the close in and 'full broadside' form of engagement, American/Japanese was centered more around 'distance firing' and the designs 'varied' accordingly.
What has also been now found with other 'visits' to the wreck, is that the armoured 'citidel' within the ship was 'intact' at the torpedo impact points, so again very unlikely the torpedo's finished her off. The damage was substantial on the 'outer hull and void spaces'. As she was in fact sinking from the scuttle charges when the torpedos hit, they hit above the armoured belt on the hull.

There is a documentary on the History channel on June 6th concerning the Hood/Bismarck saga.... should be interesting viewing.

[george formby]

up until recently the British always maintained they sunk the Bismarck, when found by Bob Ballard, engineers agreed she was in fact scuttled as the Germans maintained.
KM Bismark's main armament was all but silenced quite early on in the final engagement. She lost her rangefinding radar within the first few salvo exchanges. She was in fact 'target practice' for Rodney and KG5 while they could still manouver to avoid salvo targetting. Lutjens did indeed send a message we will fight to the last shell. The British pounded her to a point of being a 'floating wreck'. Therin lies the issue, gunfire did NOT sink her, she was designed to withstand just such a battle. European design was centered more around the close in and 'full broadside' form of engagement, American/Japanese was centered more around 'distance firing' and the designs 'varied' accordingly.
What has also been now found with other 'visits' to the wreck, is that the armoured 'citidel' within the ship was 'intact' at the torpedo impact points, so again very unlikely the torpedo's finished her off. The damage was substantial on the 'outer hull and void spaces'. As she was in fact sinking from the scuttle charges when the torpedos hit, they hit above the armoured belt on the hull.

There is a documentary on the History channel on June 6th concerning the Hood/Bismarck saga.... should be interesting viewing.

IIR in that doco they talk about threats to the British ships from air & sea & also weather. I believe one ship was left behind to pick up a few survivors while the others legged it.

[James Deuce]

There's a whole pile of bollocks in that "news" article. The two that stand out when skim reading is that Tommy Byers would need to be 88 to have witnessed the engagement, unless of course the photo is of him at 78. Either it's misleading. Number two is that one of the photos labels the Bismark a destroyer. It was a battleship. Destroyers are fleet escorts and submarine hunter killers.

I'd actually pay the article no attention at all. It's cock.

[george formby]

There's a whole pile of bollocks in that "news" article. The two that stand out when skim reading is that Tommy Byers would need to be 88 to have witnessed the engagement, unless of course the photo is of him at 78. Either it's misleading. Number two is that one of the photos labels the Bismark a destroyer. It was a battleship. Destroyers are fleet escorts and submarine hunter killers.

I'd actually pay the article no attention at all. It's cock.

Fair call, that would be a fookin HUGE destroyer.

Right, I'm going to watch the Battle of the River Plate tonight. Great cast!

[Indiana_Jones]

Robert Ballard's discovery no doubt shed new light on the matter. I see no reason to argue the fact the Huns scuttled her, they had no choice otherwise the Poms would get their hands on her as a prize.

As for her trying to surrender, who knows or cares. Germans sank the Hood. Those 1400 men on the Hood didn't have a chance to surrender.

-Indy

[James Deuce]

As for her trying to surrender, who knows or cares. Germans sank the Hood. Those 1400 men on the Hood didn't have a chance to surrender.

-Indy

What a load of rubbish. Ships get sunk in war and people die.

The Bismarck was outnumbered but the only Home Fleet capital ship able to catch the Bismarck was based around such a flawed concept it was almost negligent to put it into service. HMS Hood was a Battlecruiser, battleship guns on a platform designed for speed. It's deck armour was practically non-existent. It was foolish in the extreme for HMS Hood to go toe to toe with probably the best trained, best equipped capital ship in the world at the time. The Prinz Eugen could probably have taken the Hood. She was outgunned by the Hood but better armoured.

HMS Rodney was capable of standing to with the Bismarck, BUT despite having a listed top speed of 24 knots was in fact only capable of 16 when everything was working properly. Both HMS Nelson and HMS Rodney were seriously overloaded by the start of WWII and it only got worse as additional secondary armaments were loaded mostly for AA purposes. The Bismarck could cruise at 24 knots and hit a maximum speed of 30 knots during sea trials. If a Swordfish delivered torpedo hadn't damaged the Bismarck's steering gear the Bismarck would have simply cleared off into the Atlantic.

[jaffaonajappa]

up until recently the British always maintained they sunk the Bismarck, when found by Bob Ballard, engineers agreed she was in fact scuttled as the Germans maintained.
KM Bismark's main armament was all but silenced quite early on in the final engagement. She lost her rangefinding radar within the first few salvo exchanges. She was in fact 'target practice' for Rodney and KG5 while they could still manouver to avoid salvo targetting. Lutjens did indeed send a message we will fight to the last shell. The British pounded her to a point of being a 'floating wreck'. Therin lies the issue, gunfire did NOT sink her, she was designed to withstand just such a battle. European design was centered more around the close in and 'full broadside' form of engagement, American/Japanese was centered more around 'distance firing' and the designs 'varied' accordingly.
What has also been now found with other 'visits' to the wreck, is that the armoured 'citidel' within the ship was 'intact' at the torpedo impact points, so again very unlikely the torpedo's finished her off. The damage was substantial on the 'outer hull and void spaces'. As she was in fact sinking from the scuttle charges when the torpedos hit, they hit above the armoured belt on the hull.

There is a documentary on the History channel on June 6th concerning the Hood/Bismarck saga.... should be interesting viewing.

Correct on all counts - except perhaps the use of the term 'citadel'. WW2 BB's didnt really have a citadel as its known in modern times.

[Indiana_Jones]

What a load of rubbish. Ships get sunk in war and people die.

The Bismarck was outnumbered but the only Home Fleet capital ship able to catch the Bismarck was based around such a flawed concept it was almost negligent to put it into service. HMS Hood was a Battlecruiser, battleship guns on a platform designed for speed. It's deck armour was practically non-existent. It was foolish in the extreme for HMS Hood to go toe to toe with probably the best trained, best equipped capital ship in the world at the time. The Prinz Eugen could probably have taken the Hood. She was outgunned by the Hood but better armoured.

HMS Rodney was capable of standing to with the Bismarck, BUT despite having a listed top speed of 24 knots was in fact only capable of 16 when everything was working properly. Both HMS Nelson and HMS Rodney were seriously overloaded by the start of WWII and it only got worse as additional secondary armaments were loaded mostly for AA purposes. The Bismarck could cruise at 24 knots and hit a maximum speed of 30 knots during sea trials. If a Swordfish delivered torpedo hadn't damaged the Bismarck's steering gear the Bismarck would have simply cleared off into the Atlantic.

I agree fully. the Hood was no doubt a dated and unworthy foe when she went to her fate. But as you stated at the start, ships sink and people die. As those poor fellas on the Bismarck did too.

-Indy

[Maha]

Fuckem' it was War!:violin:
The Bismarck was the greatest battleship at one point of time in history.
Fortunately it ended up alongside all the others that it destroyed, at the bottom of the ocean.
Hilter holds the record for 'Most kills of any race during any war'...6,000,000?

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/KecIdlEAKhU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[pzkpfw]

... Hilter holds the record for 'Most kills of any race during any war'...6,000,000? ...

More Russians were killed.

(But agree with your intent. Revisionist history be darned, Germany had to be beaten.)

[Paul in NZ]

God - we love to refight the great battles dont we? Hey - I built airfix models of em both as a nipper and read all the battle stuff blow by blow. But the one thing that has stood out as I got older was that the real achievement was the shocking waste of resources. TONS of materials, years of toil, thousands of lives - for what? A few books and finance for a few madmen to send down robots to gawp at it all - Sigh!

[jaffaonajappa]

God - we love to refight the great battles dont we? Hey - I built airfix models of em both as a nipper and read all the battle stuff blow by blow. But the one thing that has stood out as I got older was that the real achievement was the shocking waste of resources. TONS of materials, years of toil, thousands of lives - for what? A few books and finance for a few madmen to send down robots to gawp at it all - Sigh!

Wasnt it something to do with stopping some power hungry Genocidal psycho from taking over more and more countries?

[Paul in NZ]

Wasnt it something to do with stopping some power hungry Genocidal psycho from taking over more and more countries?

I'm not saying it was justified and that we were on the 'right' side. Its just I'll bet some poor cunt stoking the boilers wasnt thinking about glory when he was pitched into the cold Atlantic...

[jaffaonajappa]

Its just I'll bet some poor cunt stoking the boilers wasnt thinking about

Yeah, your right - putting it like that. 100%.

One exception tho. Stokers didnt think. Period.

[Maha]

...They didn't even come second, they lost!:corn:
No point for further embarrassment going for the three-peat was there?

[James Deuce]

Wasnt it something to do with stopping some power hungry Genocidal psycho from taking over more and more countries?

That's the commonly accepted propaganda.

[Elysium]

Fuckem' it was War!:violin:
The Bismarck was the greatest battleship at one point of time in history.
Fortunately it ended up alongside all the others that it destroyed, at the bottom of the ocean.
Hilter holds the record for 'Most kills of any race during any war'...6,000,000?



Pretty sure Stalin holds that record.

[Paul in NZ]

Pretty sure Stalin holds that record.

Shit yes - he beat that killing his own guys n gals

[scumdog]

That's the commonly accepted propaganda.
Nicelt summed up:yes:

[MotoKuzzi]

My old man joined the Navy in 1943 as a seaman boy, 15 going on 16, amazing to think they were only kids involved in something so big. Trying to compare how I was at the same age or my kids now, it's unbelievable.

Most of his life was shaped by those few years in the war and at age 84 with Alzheimers it's all he can relate to or remember now.

[rebel]

Pretty sure Stalin holds that record.

Especially since all these mass graves and body remains of the 6 million haven't been found.

[Jantar]

Especially since all these mass graves and body remains of the 6 million haven't been found.

Not much left to put in a mass grave when the bodies have been burnt in a furnace. However many were also buried in mass graves, and most of those have ben found.

[GrayWolf]

Correct on all counts - except perhaps the use of the term 'citadel'. WW2 BB's didnt really have a citadel as its known in modern times.

Depends on what you view as the 'citidel'.. there were no true 'all or nothing' armoured battleships, I will completely agree with that; but the principal of the 'citidel' was developed from HMS Dreadnought onwards. Heavily armoured internal fortress, encasing the vitals and armoury/stores, engines/controls etc. The armoured barbettes, turrets and conning tower were in effect 'towers' jutting up from the citidel. In that instance the Bismarck's internal Citidel was intact. Although I also gather there is now some discussion that KMB and KMT suffered from poor welding as these were the first large ships of war to be fully welded and not rivitted. Hence the total loss of the superstructure on sinking and I understand a crew member (junior officer) has commented the conning tower looked like a swiss cheese with shell holes BUT was splitting at some of the welded joints too.

[Woodman]

That's the commonly accepted propaganda.

Elaborate please.

[jaffaonajappa]

Depends on what you view as the 'citidel'.. there were no true 'all or nothing' armoured battleships, I will completely agree with that; but the principal of the 'citidel' was developed from HMS Dreadnought onwards. Heavily armoured internal fortress, encasing the vitals and armoury/stores, engines/controls etc. The armoured barbettes, turrets and conning tower were in effect 'towers' jutting up from the citidel. In that instance the Bismarck's internal Citidel was intact. Although I also gather there is now some discussion that KMB and KMT suffered from poor welding as these were the first large ships of war to be fully welded and not rivitted. Hence the total loss of the superstructure on sinking and I understand a crew member (junior officer) has commented the conning tower looked like a swiss cheese with shell holes BUT was splitting at some of the welded joints too.

Oh crap.
Remind me to Never ever dispute warship design or terminology with you again, for my sake.

My understanding of older ships were they relied on compartmentalisation - could lose certain sections of the ship without it sinking - or having a too dramatic effect on other compartments. And that no real thought was given to the entire 'centre areas' of a ship were looked at as a Whole / ie damaging one compartment would breach the citadel implying reducing the effectiveness of all compartments?
Arghhhh. I think I better stop there lol.

[James Deuce]

Elaborate please.

You'll be bored after the fourth paragraph and won't agree with me or the 40 odd historians I'll end up quoting so lets just say that the 'Allies" weren't as allied as you'd expect and the Axis was an invention of a couple of conventions. No one cared about dead Poles, murdered Jews or millions of dead Chinese, let alone the reassimilation of millions of German people separated from their countrymen by overly punitive treaty restrictions post-WW1.

When war threatened the post-depression economic recovery someone got involved on both sides (Ford and GM built trucks and rail rolling stock for Germany, using impressed French labour and American management until 1944. Nice people those Americans. Not.) to ensure the establishment of a military industrial complex that would prevent a plunge into global depression. 2/3rds of the "major" Allies were dragged into war by treaty obligations or some idiot over reaching himself and invading a grossly resource superior "enemy".

The other third of those Allies saw the opportunity to reap major economic advantages on a global scale and the opportunity to shape the post-war world in its own favour. That's only just fallen apart thanks to over-weening greed.

The most interesting thing to bear in mind is if the US had had a Republican government throughout the Depression years and leading into WWII they would have been far more likely to back the Axis powers. The opposition Republicans even tried to stage their own Putsch, badly using a much decorated Marine Brigadier General in the process.

[IdunBrokdItAgin]

You'll be bored after the fourth paragraph and won't agree with me or the 40 odd historians I'll end up quoting so lets just say that the 'Allies" weren't as allied as you'd expect and the Axis was an invention of a couple of conventions. No one cared about dead Poles, murdered Jews or millions of dead Chinese, let alone the reassimilation of millions of German people separated from their countrymen by overly punitive treaty restrictions post-WW1.

When war threatened the post-depression economic recovery someone got involved on both sides (Ford and GM built trucks and rail rolling stock for Germany, using impressed French labour and American management until 1944. Nice people those Americans. Not.) to ensure the establishment of a military industrial complex that would prevent a plunge into global depression. 2/3rds of the "major" Allies were dragged into war by treaty obligations or some idiot over reaching himself and invading a grossly resource superior "enemy".

The other third of those Allies saw the opportunity to reap major economic advantages on a global scale and the opportunity to shape the post-war world in its own favour. That's only just fallen apart thanks to over-weening greed.

The most interesting thing to bear in mind is if the US had had a Republican government throughout the Depression years and leading into WWII they would have been far more likely to back the Axis powers. The opposition Republicans even tried to stage their own Putsch, badly using a much decorated Marine Brigadier General in the process.

Very simplified but I agree that USA didn't really seem to know which way it was going until then, hence their initial reluctance to directly involve itself in WW2.

However, I still believe that the Japanese declaration of war forced it's hand - rather than economic opportunities (if it was on the winning side).

And on the other two thirds of the Allies - very few people understand the link between the post-napoleonic treaty alliances within europe, which in turn initiated WW1 and the associated treaty of versailles - which was used as an excuse by Hitler to start WW2. But you seem to have a good understanding of it.

Also, just as a side note, there was no love lost between Japan and Germany either - Japan saw WW2 as an opportunity for expansion. Nothing more than that, which is why they allied with Germany.

[FJRider]

Even AFTER the second world war ... Good old NZ found itself in armed conflict's due to treaty's we had ... and still do ...

[IdunBrokdItAgin]

Even AFTER the second world war ... Good old NZ found itself in armed conflict's due to treaty's we had ... and still do ...

Not because of a treaty but because it is part of an empire.

Big difference.

Being a party to a military treaty means that you will be either "allied" or "neutral" in regards to the other party.

Being part of an empire means that you can rely upon the empire to commit its resources to defending itself, or its allies.

It is a two way thing - if NZ found itself being threatened by another party it could rely upon being part of the British empire, with its associated allies (NATO etc). A seriously under-rated point when people talk about independence.

[GrayWolf]

Oh crap.
Remind me to Never ever dispute warship design or terminology with you again, for my sake.

My understanding of older ships were they relied on compartmentalisation - could lose certain sections of the ship without it sinking - or having a too dramatic effect on other compartments. And that no real thought was given to the entire 'centre areas' of a ship were looked at as a Whole / ie damaging one compartment would breach the citadel implying reducing the effectiveness of all compartments?
Arghhhh. I think I better stop there lol.

Nah you are correct, the compartments were for 'flooding' sans Titanic, (it's achilles heel was the compartments did not go the full height of the ship and allowed 'spill over' as she flooded).BB compartmentalisation was complex.
Basicaly add the two together, armoured vitals, controls and weaponry to protect from shell entry, and compartments to control flooding. The 'void spaces' were specificaly designed to allow an 'air gap' to diffuse a torpedo explosion, and allowed for 'controlled flooding'. outside of the armoured belt a torpedo hole could easily be as big as 4x11 metres as seen from the Prince of Wales/Renown dives.
Dont forget a 15 inch armour piercing shell wieghed about 2300kg and impacted at about 850mtrs per second, that takes a lot of stopping.

[Katman]

No one cared about dead Poles, murdered Jews or millions of dead Chinese, let alone the reassimilation of millions of German people separated from their countrymen by overly punitive treaty restrictions post-WW1.


And it was the brutally oppressive restrictions that were imposed by a vindictive collective under the guise of The Treaty of Versailles that created a perfect climate for someone of Hilter's charisma to entrance an entire nation.

[FJRider]

Not because of a treaty but because it is part of an empire.

I was refering to the conflicts we engage(d) in with the good ole US of A ... NO empire issues there ...

[jaffaonajappa]

I was refering to the conflicts we engage(d) in with the good ole US of A ... NO empire issues there ...


Errr. Which ones exactly? Vietnam?
Or are you counting non-combat roles too?

[FJRider]

Errr. Which ones exactly? Vietnam?
Or are you counting non-combat roles too?

Anywhere the yanks go ... WE go ...

Ever wondered WHY ... ???

AND ... if weapons are taken ... it IS a combat role ...

No matter what you see on the tv ....

[jaffaonajappa]

Anywhere the yanks go ... WE go ...

Ever wondered WHY ... ???

AND ... if weapons are taken ... it IS a combat role ...

No matter what you see on the tv ....

Absolute bullshit.

[FJRider]

Absolute bullshit.

You never heard of ANZUS ... ???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANZUS

[Maha]

Anywhere the yanks go ... WE go ...

Ever wondered WHY ... ???

AND ... if weapons are taken ... it IS a combat role ...

No matter what you see on the tv ....

Yes! even the Moon....:corn:

[jaffaonajappa]

You never heard of ANZUS ... ???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANZUS

NZ's by far biggest overseas role in last 10 years has been in timor. Fuck all yanks there.

Yanks biggest conflict was Iraq. Fuck all kiwis went there.

Yes, in these 2 examples, theres a couple of one-off exceptions. But the point remains. We rarely support USA-led conflicts (unlike USA's buddy, our neighbour, Australia.), but we seem to pull our weight, plus a bit, on select UN sanctioned peace keeping ops.

Note that the yanks are trying to gear up NATO, they appear unhahppy with their ability to steer the UN as much as they wish they could.

[FJRider]

NZ's by far biggest overseas role in last 10 years has been in timor. Fuck all yanks there.

You forget about Afganistan ... ???


Yanks biggest conflict was Iraq. Fuck all kiwis went there.

Engineers, RNZAF (Orion crews), RNZN Friggate's ... A sizeable number all told ...


Yes, in these 2 examples, theres a couple of one-off exceptions. But the point remains. We rarely support USA-led conflicts (unlike USA's buddy, our neighbour, Australia.), but we seem to pull our weight, plus a bit, on select UN sanctioned peace keeping ops.

During the Anti-Nuclear "phase" ... we didn't ... and the Aussies DID ... But the USA and us are friends again ... ( look up The Wellington Declaration)


Note that the yanks are trying to gear up NATO, they appear unhahppy with their ability to steer the UN as much as they wish they could.

You mean steer NATO away from letting the Russians join ... ???

[jaffaonajappa]

Afghanistan? I know it well. So does my missus. Look up what NZ is actually over there for. And yes, it pales in comparison to what we(NZ) did in Timor, and continue to do today.

Iraq. Yep, a company of army engineers for a short duration. Then NZ assisted in the UN led embargo in the arabian gulf. Not iraq combat.

[jaffaonajappa]

You mean steer NATO away from letting the Russians join ... ???

No. I mean the USA seems to dislike the way the UN sees things, and seems to be trying to make NATO a new style UN. ie, worldwide treaty, not just north atlantic plus a couple of select specials....but one in which USA often holds the trump/veto vote.

Whereas NZ firmly supports majority of UN sanctions and direction. Fingers crossed we still get that security council seat next year!

[huff3r]

Afghanistan? I know it well. So does my missus. Look up what NZ is actually over there for. And yes, it pales in comparison to what we(NZ) did in Timor, and continue to do today.

Iraq. Yep, a company of army engineers for a short duration. Then NZ assisted in the UN led embargo in the arabian gulf. Not iraq combat.

He is right y'know. The only combat kiwi soldiers are involved with in Afghan (apart from the SAS) is when it's forced upon them, and even then very rarely. And im not relying on the media for that information, I don't need to.

[RDJ]

And it was the brutally oppressive restrictions that were imposed by a vindictive collective under the guise of The Treaty of Versailles that created a perfect climate for someone of Hilter's charisma to entrance an entire nation.

Nonsense on stilts. A perfect climate to do something in - even if we stipulate the climate was indeed "perfect' - does not mean an entire nation should be entranced into and get on with mass murder of civilians, by charisma. See also - Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Milosevoc, and all the others.

[GrayWolf]

Originally Posted by Katman View Post
And it was the brutally oppressive restrictions that were imposed by a vindictive collective under the guise of The Treaty of Versailles that created a perfect climate for someone of Hilter's charisma to entrance an entire nation.


Nonsense on stilts. A perfect climate to do something in - even if we stipulate the climate was indeed "perfect' - does not mean an entire nation should be entranced into and get on with mass murder of civilians, by charisma. See also - Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Milosevoc, and all the others.

Really you are both right, in some respects, Katman is right, the treaty was not about reparation, it was about subjugtion. Before Hitlers regieme, Germans almost needed wheel barrows to collect the worthless paper money for wages. The 'Allies' Had stripped germanies financial assetts and decimated its economy. So in that respect, if you look at it from an aspect of a 'proud' Nation, on it's knees, starving, bankrupt... and suddenly some 'person' comes along saying "I will make this better, I will make you a proud and prosperous people again". Then starts to do what they said they will, then sadly the human condition of 'sheepleness' kicks in and the masses 'believe' in this regeime. <very simplified I admit)))
As much as Germany DID commit these atrocities, one also has to remember that the 'genocide' was orgnised and mostly carried out by the select few, the SS. The averge German for all the anti jewish fervour, would not have known of the horrific reality of the 'supposed' extradition and removal of the unwanted.
Really it was a 'lynch mob' mentality, and like Stalin. Pol Pot etc, to be seen as not 'falling into line'.. The other 'sheeple' would have looked upon you with at the minimum disgust/disdain.
Although not at exactly the same level, some years ago there was a 'psychological series' on TV, where about 20 people of mixed sexes were put into an environment somewhat akin to the 'team building' challenge courses that are run. The difference was they were living in a 'camp' for a period of several days.
The 'Psychologist facillitator' placed an even number of blue and red 'vests' in the room's,,, without any instruction or guidance, they themselves split the group into 'teams' and started to compete against eachother. To such an extent that a woman who had a good friend on the other 'team' was ostracised and 'socialy punished' by 'her team' for spending time consorting with the opposition.
Sadly the sheeple/conflict/need to fit into the 'norm' is a deep seated human condition........

[98tls]

Ive some old letters given to me by mother mother written by a member of her family in Germany post WW1 in which the writer expresses disbelief that the war had actually been lost,which in hindsight all these years later i can understand.There's also mentioned in later correspondence an offer to members of the Jewish community of financial assistance to leave the country,off topic slightly but interesting fwiw.

[jaffaonajappa]

There were untold war crimes commited by both sides in WW2. some were reported and are now a part of history, many were covered up or not fully reported.

At the end of the day, at the risk of just summing it all up too conveniently and not acknowledging the costs involved (lives lost!), I think the majority of the western military (incl German and Italian troops!) in general , reverted to some Christian fundamentals as often as they could. Theres lots of well documented cases of treating POW's with respect, and assisting the enemy wounded /survive. Theres also known cases of the opposite......but time and place is often the critical decider. In the heat of battle, hearing or seeing your mate brutally killed....I can imagine lots of niceties being passed over - at least untill after the heat of battle had passed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II

Things have changed sooooo much since the 40's.
Modent militaries now quite strictly enforcing Rules Of Engagement - and dobbing in their own servicemen for any breaches. As that countries population would want from their military.

Right - its Beer Oclock! :)

[98tls]

There were untold war crimes commited by both sides in WW2. some were reported and are now a part of history, many were covered up or not fully reported.

At the end of the day, at the risk of just summing it all up too conveniently and not acknowledging the costs involved (lives lost!), I think the majority of the western military (incl German and Italian troops!) in general , reverted to some Christian fundamentals as often as they could. Theres lots of well documented cases of treating POW's with respect, and assisting the enemy wounded /survive. Theres also known cases of the opposite......but time and place is often the critical decider. In the heat of battle, hearing or seeing your mate brutally killed....I can imagine lots of niceties being passed over - at least untill after the heat of battle had passed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II

Things have changed sooooo much since the 40's.
Modent militaries now quite strictly enforcing Rules Of Engagement - and dobbing in their own servicemen for any breaches. As that countries population would want from their military.

Right - its Beer Oclock! :)

Worse still where subjected to rancid shite like "Saving private Ryan":facepalm:Still cant believe anyone bothered to watch it past 30 minutes let alone applaud the crap.

[The Stranger]

up until recently the British always maintained they sunk the Bismarck, when found by Bob Ballard, engineers agreed she was in fact scuttled as the Germans maintained.


The Germans are responsible for killing their own.
Surrender is largely moot. Next.

[jaffaonajappa]

The Germans are responsible for killing their own.
Surrender is largely moot. Next.

Scuttling and surviving are not mutually exclusive - the topic is more about Mercy and willing to calculate the risk of picking up survivors.

[The Stranger]

More Russians were killed.


At the hands of stalin (http://www.ukemonde.com/genocide/margolisholocaust.html).

[jaffaonajappa]

At the hands of stalin (http://www.ukemonde.com/genocide/margolisholocaust.html).

Hell. Thats one sobering article.
...I hadnt realised the numbers were that high :(

[IdunBrokdItAgin]

At the hands of stalin (http://www.ukemonde.com/genocide/margolisholocaust.html).

Holy crap - I hadn't realised that before - Stalin made Hitler look like an amateur.

Very true that not much gets said about the soviets in the WW2 movies.

[pete376403]

Hence this famous cartoon by New Zealander David Low...
(Hitler had Low on a list of people to be executed when Britain was invaded. Low probably wasn't to popular with Stalin, either)

[Elysium]

History is written by the victors. That's why Hitler was the devil we know and Stalin the devil we dont.

[oneofsix]

A lot of stuff in this thread.
I saw a comment on the Germans as a country falling for Hilters charisma. Given our coming election I was surprised no one commented that the Nazi party only won a 3rd of the vote but as Germany then operated under a FPP system this was enough to give them (lower house) power, gets complicated as to how they stole absolute power after that in subverting the Reichstag (upper house). That election was why the Germans went to an MMP system following WWII as I understand it.
The Hood and those frigates off Argentina suffered from the same governmetn shortsightedness. The frigates had the AA missle systems left off to save $ by saving a metre as this was deemed more important by the government of the day. The Hood had been due a refit from before WWII to replace her wooden decks with armoured decks but $ and showing her off to the Germans and the rest of the world was deemed more important by the government of the day. Makes you glad it was going to cost more to remove the guns from our LAVs than to leave them there.

[Paul in NZ]

An in the other thread about the Ukranian conscripted by the russians to fight the germans, captured by the nazis and ending up briefly as a camp guard before fighting the russians for the germans...

You need to know the history in that article to give it some context and understand why I thought it was just so bloody wrong that the USA gave him up to the wolves. Poor bastard - what a life he must have had ....

[Swoop]

...I hadnt realised the numbers were that high :(
The Russians lost around 35 million during The Great Patriotic War. Travel there sometime, monuments everywhere.

[Edbear]

"War is hell!"

[jaffaonajappa]

The Hood and those frigates off Argentina suffered from the same governmetn shortsightedness. The frigates had the AA missle systems left off to save $ by saving a metre as this was deemed more important by the government of the day.

Errr.
Which Frigates off Argentina are you referring to exactly?
And yes, lots of lessons learnt during the Falklands conflict - from metallurgy through to using ships for a role they were not purposefully designed for.

[Elysium]

"War is hell!"

..."what's it good for?"...

[Edbear]

..."what's it good for?"...

Not much if you're a civvy in the country or a combatant. I reckon those that want to start a war should be the one's to fight it. That should stop most of them cold!

[Maha]

''Whats so Civil about War anyway''....Axle Rose.

[Edbear]

''Whats so Civil about War anyway''....Axle Rose.

civ·il (svl)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or befitting a citizen or citizens: civil duties.
2. Of or relating to citizens and their interrelations with one another or with the state: civil society; the civil branches of government.
3. Of ordinary citizens or ordinary community life as distinguished from the military or the ecclesiastical: civil authorities.
4. Of or in accordance with organized society; civilized.
5. Sufficiently observing or befitting accepted social usages; not rude: a civil reply. See Synonyms at polite.
6. Being in accordance with or denoting legally recognized divisions of time: a civil year.
7. Law Relating to the rights of private individuals and legal proceedings concerning these rights as distinguished from criminal, military, or international regulations or proceedings.
Number three is interesting.

[Indiana_Jones]

"I see that you have made three spelling mistakes" - Thomas de Mahy upon reading his death sentence.

-Indy

[GrayWolf]

The Germans are responsible for killing their own.
Surrender is largely moot. Next.

Actually the reason only a little over 100 men were saved is because the British believed they saw a U boat in the area, and abandoned the recue of the German sailors in the water, believing they could be torpedoed. The battering the Bismarck took, will never really reveal the number of lives lost to the actual 'shelling' before the order to abandon ship.

[Swoop]

Errr.
Which Frigates off Argentina are you referring to exactly?
I presume he is referring to the Type 22 and Type 42 ships.
The 22's were fitted with Sea Wolf (close-in missile system) and the 42's were fitted with Sea Dart (long range defence).
The Falklands war stumbled on the small fact that both systems were kind of handy... Sea Dart was no use when the attackers were at knife-fighting range and Sea Wolf had to watch the attackers approach until within firing range.
The in-the-field solution was to use two ships working together to form a decent layered defence and this was called a "Type 64"!:rofl:

[pzkpfw]

I presume he is referring to the Type 22 and Type 42 ships.
The 22's were fitted with Sea Wolf (close-in missile system) and the 42's were fitted with Sea Dart (long range defence).
The Falklands war stumbled on the small fact that both systems were kind of handy... Sea Dart was no use when the attackers were at knife-fighting range and Sea Wolf had to watch the attackers approach until within firing range.
The in-the-field solution was to use two ships working together to form a decent layered defence and this was called a "Type 64"!:rofl:

One of the ships was lost when a pair didn't work properly together. The ship with the long range defence had just got a lock on an attacker, when the other ship got between them, and the lock was lost. Lessons learned.

[SPman]

And the Brits had their burn traumas severely increased by equipping their sailors with synthetic material uniforms - which promptly melted and stuck to the skin......


When the wealthy declare war, the poor die - Voltaire, I think!

[jaffaonajappa]

Ahhh. The Type 42's arent Frigates. The type 22's were predominantly an ASW/GP frigate - which were not designed for the AA role they were tasked with in the Falklands.
Sheffield was lost as it was too close to land for its medium/long range AA to lock on. Its buddy, a frigate that was supposed to cover the close range threats had a few malfunctions. From memory.
The poor poms learnt some lessons the hard way in that war - the first that really tested modern missile systems on a large scale.

[Swoop]

Sheffield was lost as it was too close to land for its medium/long range AA to lock on.
Sheffield (among a long list) was lost because of a fuckwit called Sandy Woodward who pretended to be an admiral.
The destroyer was sent inshore on multiple occasions to do exactly the same thing as they did on previous nights (we all know that in a war you never do the same thing twice!) when "surprise-surprise" an Exocet gets fired at her from an Argie aircraft (Étendard).


Most british losses during that war came from the absolute stupidity of the Flag Officers of the RN.
The Army were bloody glad to get ashore!


By the way, does anyone want to buy the HMS Ark Royal??
http://www.edisposals.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/Disposals-Public-Site/en_US/-/GBP/ViewProductDetail-Start;pgid=MieqQ4wkQg8000ArvQ_8K1sp0000zkQXIpQ6?Pr oductUUID=eIDAqBIQIhQAAAEupZZcNt5o&CatalogCategoryID=VaLAqBELPagAAAED8GeasfoP&JumpTo=OfferList


Also: An artist's impression of an Invincible class carrier in dock alongside the (under construction) new UK "Queen Elizabeth" class carriers they are building.
Edit: They just started cutting steel, for the second carrier, in the last few days.

[SPman]

Isn't the Invincible officially a "Through-deck Cruiser"?

[Swoop]

Isn't the Invincible officially a "Through-deck Cruiser"?
That's what they had to call it to sneak it through government approval back in the '70's.

BTW. Invincible has already been sold to Turkish scrap merchants.

[Luckylegs]

''Whats so Civil about War anyway''....Axl Rose.

Sorry, that needed to be fixed (for the good of all things rock... And spandex, teased hair and jack daniels)

[jaffaonajappa]

Sheffield (among a long list) was lost because of a fuckwit called Sandy Woodward who pretended to be an admiral.


Damn, thats pretty harsh.
I remember the first few Janes fighting Ships books I saw - this guy always had an editorial position and cool stories.
Didnt he get promoted wayyy up there after the war? Ended up being a NATO boss? Which implies, to me, that his superiors considered him to have proven his abilities.

His biography '100 days' makes an interesting read into what a tactical commander must do, balanced with what his higher commanders want. Guess that why them guys earn the big dollars...

[Swoop]

Damn, thats pretty harsh.
I remember the first few Janes fighting Ships books I saw - this guy always had an editorial position and cool stories.
No. He was a complete inbred retard who had too much of an opinion of himself (most uncommon for a fish head who should have just sat in the wardroom). His actions jepardised the lives of many and the outcome of the entire war.
Tactics? The man should have been left to play with toy boats. As a flag officer...:ar15:

[jaffaonajappa]

No. He was a complete inbred retard who had too much of an opinion of himself (most uncommon for a fish head who should have just sat in the wardroom). His actions jepardised the lives of many and the outcome of the entire war.
Tactics? The man should have been left to play with toy boats. As a flag officer...:ar15:

Hmmm. Ur Ex pommie navy? Or serving in the kiwi one?

[RDJ]

Holy crap - I hadn't realised that before - Stalin made Hitler look like an amateur. Very true that not much gets said about the soviets in the WW2 movies.

I was posted in Moscow for a few years. One of the saddest sights I have ever seen - along with World War II cemeteries in Normandy and Cambridge, and one for Indonesian / Australian / English war dead in Ambon that I visited one Anzac Day morning - was a long, dimly lit hall underground in a war museum on the outskirts of Moscow. Every few metres there was a wooden plinth with a large encyclopaedia-sized hardback small-print red-leather-bound book... containing nothing else but the Russian names of Russian war dead in what they call the "Great Patriotic War", World War II. There were 30, maybe 40 of these books of names... opened at a different page every day. (And then to know that the number of those dead was eclipsed by the number of Russians killed by their own people before and after WWII...).

(The week I left Moscow, I had the opportunity to tour the Lubyanka when it had only just been 'opened'. On the one hand, to visit as a tourist that hellhole with the blood in its walls and the screams in its ceilings? on the other hand, never having the opportunity again? Well, I went. There was the Russian version of history, including parts of the Gary-Powers-piloted US spy plane, and various 007 type spy gadgets - but there was also a photo montage of partisans and alleged saboteurs being shot and hung by the Nazis, most of them heartbreakingly young, teenagers... what humanity can do to ourselves, dammit).

Sorry, I digress.

[Swoop]

Hmmm.
For a good read on both the SHAR development and combat in the Falklands, have a read of this (http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/Sea-Harrier-Over-Falklands-Sharkey-Ward/9780304355426).

[Kickaha]

up until recently the British always maintained they sunk the Bismarck, when found by Bob Ballard, engineers agreed she was in fact scuttled as the Germans maintained.

so again very unlikely the torpedo's finished her off. The damage was substantial on the 'outer hull and void spaces'. As she was in fact sinking from the scuttle charges when the torpedos hit, they hit above the armoured belt on the hull.

There is a documentary on the History channel on June 6th concerning the Hood/Bismarck saga.... should be interesting viewing.


Robert Ballard's discovery no doubt shed new light on the matter. I see no reason to argue the fact the Huns scuttled her,

I've just been watching bit's of pt2 and they said regardless of whether the Germans intended to or were scuttling it they were only hastening the inevitable as she would have sunk from torpedo damage anyway

Unfortunately I missed most of it :weep:

[Paul in NZ]

Unfortunately I missed most of it :weep:

So did the Hood.....