Bismarck tried to surrender?

**Elysium** · 28th May 2011, 12:44

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/arti....html?ITO=1490

**Jantar** · 28th May 2011, 12:58

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** · 28th May 2011, 13:09

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

**GrayWolf** · 28th May 2011, 13:22

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** · 28th May 2011, 13:27

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 28th May 2011, 13:32

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** · 28th May 2011, 13:42

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 28th May 2011, 14:11

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** · 28th May 2011, 15:35

Originally Posted by Indiana_Jones

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** · 28th May 2011, 16:47

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 28th May 2011, 16:56

Originally Posted by James Deuce

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** · 28th May 2011, 17:48

Fuckem' it was War!

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?

**pzkpfw** · 28th May 2011, 17:53

Originally Posted by Maha

... 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** · 28th May 2011, 18:05

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** · 28th May 2011, 18:17

Originally Posted by 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!

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