This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
In the ship criticism section (BTW the whole thing should be moved to the class article) there is this following quote(?) from Garzke & Dulin 1990: "Many communication systems, including her main damage control centre and foretop fire control director, open to destruction [1] which contributed to her relatively rapid silencing in her final engagement."
Now, apart from the grammatical problems, and that no page number is provided, this is somewhat fishy - detailed drawings of the ships internal layout produced by Browner shows no such thing, so either Garzke & Dulin are wrong in this, or the the quote attributed to them is not entirely accurate. And uhm, the foretop fire control director being open the destruction - like, on all other battleships (apart from the fact that Bismarck had 3 directors, as opposed to only two as on most other BBs like the King George V class etc.). What 'many' communicitation systems were open to destruction..? 'Relatively rapid silencing' - like, it took some 45 minutes of hammering to silence the main batteries. Is this relatively rapid - compared to what?
Could the editor pushing so hard for this reference provide a direct quote from the authors for this reference? I am tagging it for verification. Kurfürst ( talk) 07:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Nice idea. Not being one to take credit for your suggestion, perhaps you could make the changes! :p Dapi89 ( talk) 21:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
It reads
Design of the ship started in the early 1930s, following on from Germany's development of the Deutschland class cruisers and the Scharnhorst class "battlecruisers"[3]. To keep parity with the armament of the new French Richelieu-class battleships, Bismarck's displacement was increased to 41,700 tonnes.[4] Officially, however, her tonnage was 35,000 tonnes to suggest parity with ships built within the limits of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement (1935) that allowed Germany to build up to five 35,000-tonne battleships, the maximum displacement agreed by the major powers in the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922.shouldn't all that be in the class article? Fully laden, Bismarck and her sister-ship Tirpitz would each displace more than 50,000 tonnes.[4] technical detail The prototype of the proposed battleships envisaged under Plan Z, Bismarck's keel was laid down at the Blohm + Voss shipyard in Hamburg on 1 July 1936. She was launched on 14 February 1939 and commissioned on 24 August 1940 with Kapitän zur See Ernst Lindemann in command.
This formidable ship Peacockery,the largest warship then when? commissioned, was initially intended to be part of the Plan Z battle fleet. However, with the outbreak of war in 1939 and the increased demands on the German armament industry, Plan Z was no longer practical, and had to be scrapped. As a result, Bismarck was to be used as a commerce raider. For this purpose, the ship was reasonably well suited not really, she was built as a North Sea battlecruiser, as it had a broad beam for stability in the rough seas of the North Atlantic and fuel stores as large as those of battleships intended for operations in the Pacific Ocean Misleading, the following sentence explains why. On the other hand, the ship's steam propulsion system, chosen in preference to diesel engines, ate heavily into its fuel supply and limited the ship's operational range.[5] Still, with eight 15 inch main guns in four turrets, substantial welded-armour protection and designed for a top speed of not less than 29 knots (she actually achieved 30.1 knots (55.7 km/h) in trials in the calmer waters of the Baltic, a significant advantage over any comparable British battleship)all peacockery, Bismarck was capable of engaging any enemy battleship on reasonably equal terms yeah, but war and wargaming are not the same thing. Bismarck's range of weaponry could easily decimate any convoy so could an 8 inch gun, peacockery, should she break out into the spacious try and use english waters of the North Atlantic, where she could refuel from German tankers and remain undetected by British and American aircraft, submarines and ships well that didn't happen did it, what is this some sort of crystal ball nazi daydream?. Greglocock ( talk) 03:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Here's my recast of the entire section
Design of the ship started in the early 1930s, following on from Germany's development of the Deutschland class cruisers and the Scharnhorst class "battlecruisers"[3]. The prototype of the proposed battleships envisaged under Plan Z, Bismarck's keel was laid down at the Blohm + Voss shipyard in Hamburg on 1 July 1936. She was launched on 14 February 1939 and commissioned on 24 August 1940 with Kapitän zur See Ernst Lindemann in command.
When commissioned she was largest warship to date, and was intended to be part of the Plan Z battle fleet, acting as part of a fast battleship squadron for the main battle line of larger subsequent battleships. However, with the outbreak of war in 1939 and the increased demands on the German armament industry, Plan Z was no longer practical, and had to be scrapped. As a result, Bismarck was to be used as a commerce raider. She was reasonably well suited for this citation needed, although her short range, in particular, made the combination of long distances and high speeds impractical. She was capable of engaging any single enemy battleship on reasonably equal terms and would easily decimate any undefended convoy.
Greglocock ( talk) 02:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Yep. This okay. I am assuming they citations can be provided? Dapi89 ( talk) 13:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, I agree DS was not really big enough to count as open sea, I hadn't realised just how small it was. I said I doubt she reached 29 knots in NA, not the baltic. As I said 29 or 31 knots is irrelevant, in the context of 1935 naval tactics. Greglocock ( talk) 08:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
There's several problems with this little phrase. First as explained above decimate has two distinct menaings and in the sense that is most common today, demonstrably battleships do NOT decimate convoys, the convoy scatters, and the BB goes after the most valuable targets. Secondly, it is being used as a peacock phrase. Thirdly, if all BBs can decimate (old sense) an undefended convoy, then this phrase belongs either in all BB articles, or none. If it applies to Bis, then it should not be in the article as it is speculation, since Bis did not sink a single ship of any convoy whatsoever. As such, it needs a ref because it IS speculation. And to point out the bleeding obvious, if you want to sink merchies you use frigates and cruisers, not BBs, as navies have done for hundreds of years. Greglocock ( talk) 22:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
It was through one of these narrow communication shafts that Adolf Eich, Franz Halke and Heinz Jucknat escaped from their post in the aft computer room to the aft fire-control station.
That just seems like way too much detail to me. Anybody opposed to axing it? Parsecboy ( talk) 03:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The whole criticism section is an utter nonsense to have in the article on the ship itself, its merely a POV fork where the same stuff is repeated as in the class article, with some text ommitted from the latter... it should be removed and dealt with in the proper article. Kurfürst ( talk) 08:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
in the last of Germany's First World War battleships, Baden and Bayern." Then I think it's worthy of comment. -- Simon Harley ( talk | library | book reviews) 09:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) In The World's Worst Warships (2002), p. 148, Preston writes "the Bayern of 1914 was used as the basis of the new design. This fact was to prove of great significance later, as we shall see, and cannot be ignored or underestimated". The "we shall see" refers to the Royal Navy's reconstruction of Bismarck's internal layout after her sinking, "when they saw that the armoured deck was low down in the ship, as might be expected in a First World War design", p. 151.
I'm not particularly impressed by Garske and Dulin's refutation either - they only specifically comment on the gun layout comparison with Bayern then state (p. 204) that the "percentages allocated … were not the same". Of course they're not exactly the same, but working from the figures given in Friedman's Battleship Design and Development they not strikingly dissimilar. This doesn't take into account improved engineering efficiency, and other variables. -- Simon Harley ( talk | library | book reviews) 11:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Preston's works and the conclusions he makes in them borderline a joke - he is a popular author. Any look at a cross section of Bayern and Bismarck reveals that Bayern used at least 3 kinds of armor thickness on the belt, with different arrangement, wheras the thicness deck armor and that of turtle deck's the slope was about one third of that of Bismarck's, ie. being a mere 30mm against 80 to 120mm. Moreoever, Bismarck was a logical development of Scharnhorst's armor scheme, and if anybody looks on Scharnhorst's cross section finds that the Germans on that ship radically shaved down the thick upper side belt that characterized Bayern to a mere 50mm, and used thick barbettes all the way down to the main armor deck. On Bismarck, this was revised, and a 145 mm upper side belt was used, which amongst other things enabled to shave down the thickness of the barbettes below the wheater deck to a mere 220mm, but the protection offered increased due to de-capping effects; moreover the change meant that the entire upper citadel was no protected from all but the heaviest guns. That they kept the old turtle deck was only logical, as they expected (and had in practice) short range engagments in the North Sea. German battleship design, by the Tirpitzian principles, emphasized the ships survivability, reasoning that its easier to repair damaged ships that make it back to port than to build new ones. As for the TDS, its sufficient to note it worked very well in practice: it did what it was designed to do, resist torpedo hits. You can call it whatever you want, but both Bismarck and the preceeding Scharnhorst class took a large number of torpedo hits during their career, without being in the danger of sinking. The system worked, unlike 'advanced' designs like that on the KGV class for example, being good for 1000 lbs on paper, but catastrophically failing to much smaller Japanese aerial torpedoes, directly leading the loss of the ship. Kurfürst ( talk) 12:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I have read that the Hood was an old & rather antiquated ship when it encountered the Bismark. But there is no indication of that in this article. I do see that the article refers to "the old battlecruiser Renown", though it was about the same age as the Hood, being launched only 2 years earlier. Seems like we should classify them both as "old". T-bonham ( talk) 06:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I think "ageing" will do well instead of "old" for Hood, although I hope that "limited" re Renown is also ok. As for Hood's planned refit, I think that's covered well enough in the Hood article but could go into the Battle of the Denmark Strait one? bigpad ( talk) 23:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Here's some Preston quotes from Battleships 1856-1977 p101 Basically an enlarged version of the 1915 Baden, she displayed many old-fashioned features - particularly seperate high-angle and low-angle batteries and a lack of vertical sandwich protection against underwater damage. In fact her most important asset was her massive beam. p103 The Bismarck was a rework of the Great War vintage Baden design, before the threat of heavy airborne attack had become a factor in BB design. To counter long range gunfire she had a low armoured deck with internal communications running above it and lighter (12.6 in) side armour (...compared with KGV...). p105 Among the principle features which stamp the is design as elderly are the triple gun-battery, ..., and the relatively low level at which the the main armored deck was positioned. ...the USN and the RN had independently reached the conclusion that bombs were a bigger danger than long range gunfire and had sited the AD as high as possible. Nor was there any sandwich protection against torpedoes;instead the Bis relied on her massive 118ft beam to provide a deep space between the ship's side and the anti torpedo bulkhead. This gave great initial stability and resistance to underwater damage, but eventually resulted in an accelerated tendency to capsize,especially as the freeboard was quite low. ..sea speed of only 29 knots, only a fraction of a knot greater than (...SoDak or KGV...)
These quotes are provided in the spirit of fair use
Greglocock ( talk) 11:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Though this is not familiar to me I would be very suspect about its use, it is riddled with poor understandings of naval design principles. - Low armoured deck's virtues in consideration to long range gun fire: The low, turtle backed deck is principally to reject shells arriving at a low angle to the horizontal, that is to say at short to medium ranges. Considering the fuse delay typical to WW2 shells placing the deck lower did little or nothing to aid against shells falling steeply.
- The lack of a "sandwiched" TDS system, while Bismarck had a less subdivision of its underwater spaces without the torpedo than other designs it is still composed of several spaces. The implication that there is a reliance on beam alone is absurd.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.167.122 ( talk) 15:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
The "German battleship Bismarck is one of the most famous battleships of WWII...", largely due to British marketing with their film Sink the Bismarck, which was released in 1960.
In 1958, Cecil L. T. Smith, better known C.S. Forester published his book, "The Last Nine Days of the Bismarck." Two years later, Great Britain released their film Sink the Bismarck, which was distributed by 20th Century Fox in the United States in 1960. US singer Johnny Horton released his song, "Sink the Bismarck" which coincided with the release. Forester's (Smith's) book and the film are both British products.
Although the Bismarck fought a gallant fight against the British, and, as a condequence has won her place in history; her glory certainly would not be what it is today, without Forester's (Smith's) book and the film that it was based upon.
It is to Britain's honor, that "the greater the enemy; the greater the glory!" Consequently, "Bismarck...is one of the greatest battleships of WWII..."; with the help of British marketing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.60.213 ( talk) 23:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, everybody. I just wanted to let you all know that I've filed a peer review for this article at WP:MILHIST. I'd appreciate it if everyone could keep an eye on it, so we can make the necessary changes that are suggested. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 16:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Yamato (大和), named after the ancient Japanese Yamato Province, was the lead ship of the Yamato class of battleships that served with the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II. She and her sister ship, Musashi, were the largest, heaviest and most powerfully armed battleships ever constructed, displacing 72,800 tonnes at full load and armed with nine 46 cm (18.1 inch) main guns. However, neither survived the war.
Laid down in 1937 and formally commissioned in late 1941.
On this basis, isn't the Bismarck intro a bit misleading? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markus451 ( talk • contribs) 09:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Hood was flag ship of BC1 force but I'm fairly KGV was flagship of the Home Fleet C in C Adm. Sir John Tovey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.168.22.149 ( talk) 13:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Obviously a BB could devastate an undefended convoy. So could a 6" cruiser, and in a far more cost effective manner. My original objection to the earlier version of this claim is that it was being used as a peacock phrase. Bis would make a great paperweight, shall we put that in? Greglocock ( talk) 02:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I seem to have unintentionally offended people by saying the BBC - WW2 People's War was "unreliable". Actual words were "interesting but less reliable"
The BBC - WW2 People's War was a collection of eyewitness accounts, many of which provide an irreplaceable level of eyewitness detail. For the record I contributed 2 "top stories" about my father's experiences.
My concern was only that the BBC did not check the accuracy of stories and that the citation used here was a
primary source. I've no problems with it being reinstated so long as there is another source as well -as is now the case.
The BBC News website, one of my favourite sources, is entirely different. Hope that clarifies the reason for the edit.
JRPG ( talk) 16:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
As my "see also" to Unsinkable Sam has been removed ( [1]): This article and Ship's cat present the story as a fact. Is there a reliable source that it is a myth? -- KnightMove ( talk) 00:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
A ship that size would of needed multiple cats to keep the rat population down. These were not 'mascots' as such, but a crucial part of the on board logistics. The only citation I can provide would be to encourage people t tour HMS Belfast in the pool of London, but I can't see how else the German navy woul dhave kept it's vermin at bay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.83.196 ( talk) 22:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The article claims that the story of Norwegian agents sighting the Bismarck originated from a 1967 book, but the 1960 movie Sink the Bismarck! (itself based on an earlier book) relates the same story. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the story originated in 1967. Orange Suede Sofa ( talk) 05:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
"The British claim to have sank the German ship with their torpedoes, but this isn't true, given that underwater expeditions confirmed the inner hull is intact. The true cause of the sinking was that, when the Germans saw the British ever closer, with the Bismarck defenseless after almost 2 hours of unequal battle, they bore holes in the hull, to frustrate a British attempt to capture the German battleship."
Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.107.35.129 ( talk) 22:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't help notice that only the Bismarck has "one of the most famous warships" in WW2 in it's introduction. Without explaining why. Many other famous warships of WW2 are "famous" without advertising it in their introduction paragraph, but they still explain what they did to gain fame. Some examples follow:
To place the sentence "one of the most famous warships in WW2" in front of each of those seven listed warships would appear un-encyclopedic. It would appear that Bismarck is recieving undue advertising (without explaining why).
It should be noted, that Bismarck is the only WW2 warship with a hit movie made about it (in the 1960s) in addition to a hit song (sung by Johnny Horton). Is this the reason for Bismarck's fame? If so, then that should be the justification for it being "one of the most famous warships of WW2" entered in the articles first paragraph. This justification should be noted somewhere in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.96.121 ( talk) 20:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
*Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder Greglocock; the Bismarck looks like your typical clipper bowed Italian or French designed vessel. But the gothic appearing battleship Tsesarevich, the Russian flagship at the Battle of the Yellow Sea in 1904, now thats an awesome battleship! She looks like something straight out of Jules Vernes 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.22.214 ( talk) 23:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
My main issue with this debate is that regardless of the perceived fame of the vessel, merely placing "most famous" in the lead without explanation is contrary to WP:LEAD, specifically: the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. IMO, this alone is justification for either removing the statement, or improving the lead in another way to support the claim. Orange Suede Sofa ( talk) 02:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
A 5 minute search of the newspaper archives would surely have avoided this rather unnecessary debate? It is a fact that the Bismarck's sinking was reported on the front pages of newspapers around the world, including the New York Times and the Los Angleles Times. I'd say this justifies the "one of the most famous warships in WW2" comment. I have added a statement to this effect in the lead, plus citations. Achilver ( talk) 14:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
There appears to be a discrepancy in the survivor numbers.
That's 2,110 accounted for. The total crew is given as 2,200. What happened to the other 90 people? T-bonham ( talk) 05:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be more customary to name the article Bismarck (German battleship)? – CWenger ( ^ • @) 03:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
08:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)~With respect it is incorrect to assert that KMS Bismarck was the world's largest warship in 1941, that honor belongs, surely, to HMS Hood, which was just over 860ft long (the stats for Hood in her Wiki page seem to me to be accurate). Hood and Bismarck were of broadly similar tonnage, although Bismarck's full load displacement was about 3,000 tons higher, she also had a broader beam than Hood. Their main armament was similar, although Bismarck's 15" guns were longer and may have been fractionally higher calibre, as they were designed in the inferior metric system. Otherwise the article is fair, although I agree with the comments about the subjectivity of 'famous.' It would by the way be nice to see the Admiralty's plans for rebuilding Hood (on which a friend of mine served) referred to in her entry.
The Portuguese comment about drilling holes is absurd, as is the suggestion that she could have been boarded and captured, which belongs more to Pirates of the Caribbean than a serious online resource like Wkikpedia, and reflects a psychological unwillingness on the part of some in Europe to accept that the most powerful European battleship ever was sunk by the Royal Navy. The Germans pushed similar propaganda about scuttling charges during the war and after it; there is little doubt that she was finished off by 21" torpedoes from HMS Dorsetshire.
The commentary on criticisms of the ship's design is a little harsh on Preston. Most battleship designs build on their predecessors and it was inevitable that the first German battleship class after the Bayerns would be heavily influenced by them. Of course Bismarck's 15" guns were of improved design, ditto her machinery, but to describe the Bismarck class as enlarged and modernised Bayern is fair. Battleship design is a compromise between speed, habitability, protection and firepower. By basing the design on the Bayerns the Kriegsmarine tilted the compromise too much towards protection at the expense of firepower, and too much against habitability (like the battleships of the High Sea Fleet they were essentially short range vessels designed for forays into the North Sea and unlike the Scharnhorst class battlecruisers were unsuited to Atlantic raiding).
The German claim that the Bismarck was intending to raid convoys should not be accepted so uncritically. The article would be more balanced if it were to say that the convoy raiding claim is undermined by the failure to top up her tanks in Norway when she had the opportunity. Only the Prinz Eugen was going to raid convoys, which is why only her bunkers were topped up. Bismarck was ordered to Brest, France, where she was to concentrate with the Scharnhorsts (which were to be fitted with the same design main battery as the Bismarcks) and eventually the Littorios and the Richelieu, the apparent intent being to engage the US Atlantic Fleet. (the two Bismarck's, the re-gunned Scharnhorts, the three Littorios and Richelieu and Jean Bart would have been a formidable force, with fire control made easier by near-identical main batteries). When the plan was devised by Admiral Canaris he was hoping the Hess coup against Churchill would have succeeded, that Britain would have sued for peace, and Middle East oil would have been flowing to Germany, making of Russia much easier, before turning on America, in co-ordination with Japan, in 1941. It is a mistake in reading history to assume that the events which happened were anticipated.
This is too controversial for the main article, but at least the raiding comment should be qualified by uncontroverted evidence on fuelling tactics which makes a nonsense of the German claim. MS 121.209.148.120 ( talk) 08:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
07:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)I respectfully agree with the comments about the Rodneys having a heavier main battery (9 by 16"/45 versus 8 by 15"/50(?)) - they clearly did, and HMS Rodney helped sink the Bismarck (she also fired her underwater torpedo tubes by the way, and is thought to have obtained one hit, the only instance in history of one battleship torpedoing another) and the Vanguard was a finer ship in many ways, only 15"/42 main battery, as they were Mk 1 taken from the light battlecruisers HMS Glorious and HMS Courageous, ie were fairly old by 1945. But Vanguard and the Rodneys were BRITISH ships, not European (Europe starts at Calais). The Richelieus were clearly European - France is in Europe, but most commentators would say they were inferior to the Bismarck class. Their forward mounted battery, a la the Rodneys, permitted greater protection but at the risk of cross-interference in A and B turrets; 14" is generally accepted as the highest calibre to be successfully operated in a quadruple turret was 14" (the KGVs). The Littorios were fine ships, their 15"/50 calibre was the equal of the Bismarck gun, and they had 9 in three turrets, but their protection and secondary armament, and fire control arrangements, are generally reckoned to have been inferior to the German ships. The controversy over the manner of Bismarck's sinking will rage for centuries, but I adhere to the view that her stern broke off at the surface, and that the coup de grace was administered by HMS Dorsetshire. The British 21" was a pretty powerful torpedo. I do not accept that the Bismarck's PA system had power at the time of the alleged broadcast - by that time the Bismarck had been reduced to a blazing shambles by the British battle squadron. As for the Imperial System, well the Bismarck fight (same goes on an all-arms basis for WW2 excepting the Soviets) was a fight between an Imperial battle squadron and a metric battleship, and the metric ship sank. It is worthy of note that no German battleship sank a British battleship in either war, although two German armoured cruisers did sink the old Canopus at Coronel in 1914. 121.209.148.120 ( talk) 07:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
"although two German armoured cruisers did sink the old Canopus at Coronel in 1914." Actually, they sank two armoured cruisers, Good Hope and Monmouth. -- Simon Harley ( Talk | Library). 08:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
11:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Quite right, I apologise Simon, I had forgotten, Canopus was too slow to keep up with Sir Christopher Cradock's squadron and survived, to fire the opening shots in the Battle of the Falklands, therefore no British battleship to date has been sunk by German surface warships. Re survivor numbers there is a generally very accurate account online (Google Rodney) by Lt-Cmdr Geoffrey Mason RN retd of Rodney's war; he gives ship's complement as 2,221, with 116 survivors. He also gives accurate timings for the Bismarck action and confirms that Rodney fired a total of 12 torpedoes (I believe she had 21" tubes and was firing Mk VIIs), all from her starboard tubes, as the port tube outer doors had been jammed by a near miss; he gives a probable hit at 1000 hours; I respectfully agree - this hit ought to be referred to (in those terms, it was a probable hit but we cannot be certain) in the article; in any discussion about whether Bismarck was scuttled this probable torpedo strike, the third on Bismarck (the other strikes being aerial 18" torpedoes from HMS Victorious and HMS Ark Royal) is usually overlooked; she took at least six torpedoes. HMS Dorsetshire achieved two hits with 21" Mark VII torpedoes on Bismarck's starboard side at 1022, and a third, to port, at 1037, following which Bismarck sank almost immediately, at 1039. The Wikipedia entry on the Mark VII is up to the usual Wiki standards if I may say so, and gives a warhead size of 740 lbs TNT, and a speed of 35 knots. Most ships hit by three Mk VIIs - a combined explosive power of one ton of TNT - sank. I suspect Bismarck was listing to port (with scuttling charges you normally get an even settle) due to the combined effects of Rodney's straight trajectory fire (remember these were 2,000 lb plus rounds going in at about Mach 2, to give a modern comparison each of Rodney's 9 main battery guns fired shells as heavy as 6 Exocet warheads, going twice as fast), which caused major damage below decks and her torpedo hit. Mason also confirms that Bismarck's bridge personnel took losses at 0901, when a 16" shell from Rodney's 4th salvo (she also fired over 700 6" rounds, another factor frequently overlooked) hit Bruno turret with blast effects going up to the bridge; we cannot even be sure brave Captain Lindemann was alive after that - combatant, ie survivor, accounts cannot just be taken at face value; it is improbable in my view that Bismarck's bridge PA system was operational after 0902, and there seems to have been a general loss of power by the time the alleged broadcast about scuttling charges was made, due to both direct hits on engine rooms and generators and the general shock effect on electrical equipment of repeated supersonic hits by heavy AP shells (I digress, but there was a rather odd debate just after the war about whether or not you could go through the sound barrier when the Royal & US Navies and others had been hurtling shells the size of Volkswagens through the sound barrier for decades). The USS South Dakota's entire main switchboard tripped in the 3rd Battle of Savo Sound, leading to a general and extended systems failure, after receiving far fewer hits, and from lighter shells. Rodney's main battery directors were out of action before the end of the battle due to recoil shock alone, indeed she could not fire her main battery without flooding some compartments. Repeated heavy hits will open seams in the strongest hull and let water in just from the blast effect. I doubt there is a warship afloat today which would remain operational after taking a salvo of 16" rounds at 4,000 yards, unless they were AP and went straight through. By coincidence Fox TV in Australia has just shown Sink the Bismarck; it is a fine film, but overlooks the intelligence angle; almost certainly Naval Intelligence became aware that Bismarck had not topped up her tanks in Norway and was not intending to raid convoys - the conclusion that she was headed to Brest was very firm, and based in my view on more than the hunch shown by the fictional Captain Shepherd in the film, well played of course by Kenneth More. A good photo interpreter should have been able to pick up that she was light just from overheads. Intelligence would also have been aware of the Hess coup, supported by key civil servants and Lord Halifax (Hess flew to Britain not long before Bismarck sailed) - it is now clear Admiral Canaris was expecting Churchill to have been ousted in favour of Halifax by the time Bismarck sailed, indeed the sinking of Hood (she was set up by German assets in Naval Intelligence, she, KGV and Prince of Wales should have sailed as a squadron, supported by Victorious and Repulse, but the First Sea Lord, Pound, was opposed to Churchill and is thought to have supported the failed coup, it is no wonder Churchill, who had been briefed in on the interrogation of Hess at the Tower, was mightily insistent on the Bismarck being sunk) may have been intended as the trigger. Nothing like the whole story of this episode has come out so far, but I will not advertise my forthcoming book! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.148.120 ( talk) 11:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey all, I've finally gotten around to starting the rewrite for this article - it's basically going to follow the same pattern as Tirpitz (and quite literally, every other article on German battleships). As always, feel free to add material if you have a reliable source (preferably of the dead-tree variety - remember, this is going to FAC eventually and they will accept only the highest quality sources) to support it. My references are somewhat light on the expeditions, so anyone with Ballard's books, etc. might want to assist there. Also, being a Yank, I might miss some BE/AE spelling differences, so keep an eye on that.
On to something specific, I don't really see the criticism section staying in the article. I've written over 20 ship-related FAs (and have read probably as many written by other authors) and not a single one has a design criticism section. I know this ship is controversial, but I don't know that it's all that controversial in academic circles. What I'm getting at is, yes, people argue about it in forums, but we are not a forum, nor do we need to represent the disagreements between largely uninformed posters. In any case, criticisms of the ship's design belong in the class article, not this one (and they are indeed sprinkled throughout the class article). Any relevant tidbits that would help the reader's understanding of the specific fate of Bismarck (thinking of the poor rudder design and inability to steer solely via propeller rotation, here) should of course be mentioned here, but it should be integrated into the narrative, not set off in a separate section.
The link to the draft is here. Just to note, I'm in the process of moving into a new house, and my books are all packed, of course, so I won't be able to do much writing for at least a week or so. Parsecboy ( talk) 14:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey all, just a reminder if anyone wants to contribute to the draft (which is progressing along nicely). Let me know (here, on the draft talk, or my talk) if there's anything missing you think should be included (or add it yourself). I know this article has had its share of controversies over the years, so I'd like to make sure everybody's happy with it. Parsecboy ( talk) 17:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
An anonymous editor redirects me to Talk to defend removal of a claim made in a recent book. Ok, I can't remove cited work but let's state the facts, as I have done, that these claims are based on hearsay evidence that simply *cannot be verified. Did the Rodney crewmember ever write about this alleged (and startling) event or record his thoughts? The secrets about Enigma eventually came out, so why not this? Unfortunately, Wikipedia is losing credibility due to the inability to contradict and simply refuse to use information this is published, however much it can be challenged. bigpad ( talk) 21:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
11:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)With respect to Parsecboy the whole point of this discussion is to improve the article; ie he or she thinks Britain is in Europe (one may as well say Taiwan is part of China, or Cuba part of Florida) then he or she with respect has little grasp og geography and is hopelessly out of touch with modern British opinion; the article fails to refer to the probable hit by HMS Rodney and is weak in so far as it deals with the German c,aim that Bismarck was scuttled; the timings of the Dorsetshire's third torpedo hit, followed by the sinking two minutes later should be given; Wiki is not an instrument of German propaganda and on bacne that is all the scuttling claim ever was; I have given sound reasons to doubt the suggestion of a broadcast by Captain Lindemann, which I suggest could only have been given posthumously 121.209.148.120 ( talk) 11:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
In the ship criticism section (BTW the whole thing should be moved to the class article) there is this following quote(?) from Garzke & Dulin 1990: "Many communication systems, including her main damage control centre and foretop fire control director, open to destruction [1] which contributed to her relatively rapid silencing in her final engagement."
Now, apart from the grammatical problems, and that no page number is provided, this is somewhat fishy - detailed drawings of the ships internal layout produced by Browner shows no such thing, so either Garzke & Dulin are wrong in this, or the the quote attributed to them is not entirely accurate. And uhm, the foretop fire control director being open the destruction - like, on all other battleships (apart from the fact that Bismarck had 3 directors, as opposed to only two as on most other BBs like the King George V class etc.). What 'many' communicitation systems were open to destruction..? 'Relatively rapid silencing' - like, it took some 45 minutes of hammering to silence the main batteries. Is this relatively rapid - compared to what?
Could the editor pushing so hard for this reference provide a direct quote from the authors for this reference? I am tagging it for verification. Kurfürst ( talk) 07:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Nice idea. Not being one to take credit for your suggestion, perhaps you could make the changes! :p Dapi89 ( talk) 21:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
It reads
Design of the ship started in the early 1930s, following on from Germany's development of the Deutschland class cruisers and the Scharnhorst class "battlecruisers"[3]. To keep parity with the armament of the new French Richelieu-class battleships, Bismarck's displacement was increased to 41,700 tonnes.[4] Officially, however, her tonnage was 35,000 tonnes to suggest parity with ships built within the limits of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement (1935) that allowed Germany to build up to five 35,000-tonne battleships, the maximum displacement agreed by the major powers in the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922.shouldn't all that be in the class article? Fully laden, Bismarck and her sister-ship Tirpitz would each displace more than 50,000 tonnes.[4] technical detail The prototype of the proposed battleships envisaged under Plan Z, Bismarck's keel was laid down at the Blohm + Voss shipyard in Hamburg on 1 July 1936. She was launched on 14 February 1939 and commissioned on 24 August 1940 with Kapitän zur See Ernst Lindemann in command.
This formidable ship Peacockery,the largest warship then when? commissioned, was initially intended to be part of the Plan Z battle fleet. However, with the outbreak of war in 1939 and the increased demands on the German armament industry, Plan Z was no longer practical, and had to be scrapped. As a result, Bismarck was to be used as a commerce raider. For this purpose, the ship was reasonably well suited not really, she was built as a North Sea battlecruiser, as it had a broad beam for stability in the rough seas of the North Atlantic and fuel stores as large as those of battleships intended for operations in the Pacific Ocean Misleading, the following sentence explains why. On the other hand, the ship's steam propulsion system, chosen in preference to diesel engines, ate heavily into its fuel supply and limited the ship's operational range.[5] Still, with eight 15 inch main guns in four turrets, substantial welded-armour protection and designed for a top speed of not less than 29 knots (she actually achieved 30.1 knots (55.7 km/h) in trials in the calmer waters of the Baltic, a significant advantage over any comparable British battleship)all peacockery, Bismarck was capable of engaging any enemy battleship on reasonably equal terms yeah, but war and wargaming are not the same thing. Bismarck's range of weaponry could easily decimate any convoy so could an 8 inch gun, peacockery, should she break out into the spacious try and use english waters of the North Atlantic, where she could refuel from German tankers and remain undetected by British and American aircraft, submarines and ships well that didn't happen did it, what is this some sort of crystal ball nazi daydream?. Greglocock ( talk) 03:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Here's my recast of the entire section
Design of the ship started in the early 1930s, following on from Germany's development of the Deutschland class cruisers and the Scharnhorst class "battlecruisers"[3]. The prototype of the proposed battleships envisaged under Plan Z, Bismarck's keel was laid down at the Blohm + Voss shipyard in Hamburg on 1 July 1936. She was launched on 14 February 1939 and commissioned on 24 August 1940 with Kapitän zur See Ernst Lindemann in command.
When commissioned she was largest warship to date, and was intended to be part of the Plan Z battle fleet, acting as part of a fast battleship squadron for the main battle line of larger subsequent battleships. However, with the outbreak of war in 1939 and the increased demands on the German armament industry, Plan Z was no longer practical, and had to be scrapped. As a result, Bismarck was to be used as a commerce raider. She was reasonably well suited for this citation needed, although her short range, in particular, made the combination of long distances and high speeds impractical. She was capable of engaging any single enemy battleship on reasonably equal terms and would easily decimate any undefended convoy.
Greglocock ( talk) 02:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Yep. This okay. I am assuming they citations can be provided? Dapi89 ( talk) 13:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, I agree DS was not really big enough to count as open sea, I hadn't realised just how small it was. I said I doubt she reached 29 knots in NA, not the baltic. As I said 29 or 31 knots is irrelevant, in the context of 1935 naval tactics. Greglocock ( talk) 08:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
There's several problems with this little phrase. First as explained above decimate has two distinct menaings and in the sense that is most common today, demonstrably battleships do NOT decimate convoys, the convoy scatters, and the BB goes after the most valuable targets. Secondly, it is being used as a peacock phrase. Thirdly, if all BBs can decimate (old sense) an undefended convoy, then this phrase belongs either in all BB articles, or none. If it applies to Bis, then it should not be in the article as it is speculation, since Bis did not sink a single ship of any convoy whatsoever. As such, it needs a ref because it IS speculation. And to point out the bleeding obvious, if you want to sink merchies you use frigates and cruisers, not BBs, as navies have done for hundreds of years. Greglocock ( talk) 22:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
It was through one of these narrow communication shafts that Adolf Eich, Franz Halke and Heinz Jucknat escaped from their post in the aft computer room to the aft fire-control station.
That just seems like way too much detail to me. Anybody opposed to axing it? Parsecboy ( talk) 03:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The whole criticism section is an utter nonsense to have in the article on the ship itself, its merely a POV fork where the same stuff is repeated as in the class article, with some text ommitted from the latter... it should be removed and dealt with in the proper article. Kurfürst ( talk) 08:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
in the last of Germany's First World War battleships, Baden and Bayern." Then I think it's worthy of comment. -- Simon Harley ( talk | library | book reviews) 09:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) In The World's Worst Warships (2002), p. 148, Preston writes "the Bayern of 1914 was used as the basis of the new design. This fact was to prove of great significance later, as we shall see, and cannot be ignored or underestimated". The "we shall see" refers to the Royal Navy's reconstruction of Bismarck's internal layout after her sinking, "when they saw that the armoured deck was low down in the ship, as might be expected in a First World War design", p. 151.
I'm not particularly impressed by Garske and Dulin's refutation either - they only specifically comment on the gun layout comparison with Bayern then state (p. 204) that the "percentages allocated … were not the same". Of course they're not exactly the same, but working from the figures given in Friedman's Battleship Design and Development they not strikingly dissimilar. This doesn't take into account improved engineering efficiency, and other variables. -- Simon Harley ( talk | library | book reviews) 11:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Preston's works and the conclusions he makes in them borderline a joke - he is a popular author. Any look at a cross section of Bayern and Bismarck reveals that Bayern used at least 3 kinds of armor thickness on the belt, with different arrangement, wheras the thicness deck armor and that of turtle deck's the slope was about one third of that of Bismarck's, ie. being a mere 30mm against 80 to 120mm. Moreoever, Bismarck was a logical development of Scharnhorst's armor scheme, and if anybody looks on Scharnhorst's cross section finds that the Germans on that ship radically shaved down the thick upper side belt that characterized Bayern to a mere 50mm, and used thick barbettes all the way down to the main armor deck. On Bismarck, this was revised, and a 145 mm upper side belt was used, which amongst other things enabled to shave down the thickness of the barbettes below the wheater deck to a mere 220mm, but the protection offered increased due to de-capping effects; moreover the change meant that the entire upper citadel was no protected from all but the heaviest guns. That they kept the old turtle deck was only logical, as they expected (and had in practice) short range engagments in the North Sea. German battleship design, by the Tirpitzian principles, emphasized the ships survivability, reasoning that its easier to repair damaged ships that make it back to port than to build new ones. As for the TDS, its sufficient to note it worked very well in practice: it did what it was designed to do, resist torpedo hits. You can call it whatever you want, but both Bismarck and the preceeding Scharnhorst class took a large number of torpedo hits during their career, without being in the danger of sinking. The system worked, unlike 'advanced' designs like that on the KGV class for example, being good for 1000 lbs on paper, but catastrophically failing to much smaller Japanese aerial torpedoes, directly leading the loss of the ship. Kurfürst ( talk) 12:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I have read that the Hood was an old & rather antiquated ship when it encountered the Bismark. But there is no indication of that in this article. I do see that the article refers to "the old battlecruiser Renown", though it was about the same age as the Hood, being launched only 2 years earlier. Seems like we should classify them both as "old". T-bonham ( talk) 06:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I think "ageing" will do well instead of "old" for Hood, although I hope that "limited" re Renown is also ok. As for Hood's planned refit, I think that's covered well enough in the Hood article but could go into the Battle of the Denmark Strait one? bigpad ( talk) 23:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Here's some Preston quotes from Battleships 1856-1977 p101 Basically an enlarged version of the 1915 Baden, she displayed many old-fashioned features - particularly seperate high-angle and low-angle batteries and a lack of vertical sandwich protection against underwater damage. In fact her most important asset was her massive beam. p103 The Bismarck was a rework of the Great War vintage Baden design, before the threat of heavy airborne attack had become a factor in BB design. To counter long range gunfire she had a low armoured deck with internal communications running above it and lighter (12.6 in) side armour (...compared with KGV...). p105 Among the principle features which stamp the is design as elderly are the triple gun-battery, ..., and the relatively low level at which the the main armored deck was positioned. ...the USN and the RN had independently reached the conclusion that bombs were a bigger danger than long range gunfire and had sited the AD as high as possible. Nor was there any sandwich protection against torpedoes;instead the Bis relied on her massive 118ft beam to provide a deep space between the ship's side and the anti torpedo bulkhead. This gave great initial stability and resistance to underwater damage, but eventually resulted in an accelerated tendency to capsize,especially as the freeboard was quite low. ..sea speed of only 29 knots, only a fraction of a knot greater than (...SoDak or KGV...)
These quotes are provided in the spirit of fair use
Greglocock ( talk) 11:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Though this is not familiar to me I would be very suspect about its use, it is riddled with poor understandings of naval design principles. - Low armoured deck's virtues in consideration to long range gun fire: The low, turtle backed deck is principally to reject shells arriving at a low angle to the horizontal, that is to say at short to medium ranges. Considering the fuse delay typical to WW2 shells placing the deck lower did little or nothing to aid against shells falling steeply.
- The lack of a "sandwiched" TDS system, while Bismarck had a less subdivision of its underwater spaces without the torpedo than other designs it is still composed of several spaces. The implication that there is a reliance on beam alone is absurd.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.167.122 ( talk) 15:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
The "German battleship Bismarck is one of the most famous battleships of WWII...", largely due to British marketing with their film Sink the Bismarck, which was released in 1960.
In 1958, Cecil L. T. Smith, better known C.S. Forester published his book, "The Last Nine Days of the Bismarck." Two years later, Great Britain released their film Sink the Bismarck, which was distributed by 20th Century Fox in the United States in 1960. US singer Johnny Horton released his song, "Sink the Bismarck" which coincided with the release. Forester's (Smith's) book and the film are both British products.
Although the Bismarck fought a gallant fight against the British, and, as a condequence has won her place in history; her glory certainly would not be what it is today, without Forester's (Smith's) book and the film that it was based upon.
It is to Britain's honor, that "the greater the enemy; the greater the glory!" Consequently, "Bismarck...is one of the greatest battleships of WWII..."; with the help of British marketing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.60.213 ( talk) 23:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, everybody. I just wanted to let you all know that I've filed a peer review for this article at WP:MILHIST. I'd appreciate it if everyone could keep an eye on it, so we can make the necessary changes that are suggested. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 16:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Yamato (大和), named after the ancient Japanese Yamato Province, was the lead ship of the Yamato class of battleships that served with the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II. She and her sister ship, Musashi, were the largest, heaviest and most powerfully armed battleships ever constructed, displacing 72,800 tonnes at full load and armed with nine 46 cm (18.1 inch) main guns. However, neither survived the war.
Laid down in 1937 and formally commissioned in late 1941.
On this basis, isn't the Bismarck intro a bit misleading? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markus451 ( talk • contribs) 09:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Hood was flag ship of BC1 force but I'm fairly KGV was flagship of the Home Fleet C in C Adm. Sir John Tovey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.168.22.149 ( talk) 13:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Obviously a BB could devastate an undefended convoy. So could a 6" cruiser, and in a far more cost effective manner. My original objection to the earlier version of this claim is that it was being used as a peacock phrase. Bis would make a great paperweight, shall we put that in? Greglocock ( talk) 02:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I seem to have unintentionally offended people by saying the BBC - WW2 People's War was "unreliable". Actual words were "interesting but less reliable"
The BBC - WW2 People's War was a collection of eyewitness accounts, many of which provide an irreplaceable level of eyewitness detail. For the record I contributed 2 "top stories" about my father's experiences.
My concern was only that the BBC did not check the accuracy of stories and that the citation used here was a
primary source. I've no problems with it being reinstated so long as there is another source as well -as is now the case.
The BBC News website, one of my favourite sources, is entirely different. Hope that clarifies the reason for the edit.
JRPG ( talk) 16:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
As my "see also" to Unsinkable Sam has been removed ( [1]): This article and Ship's cat present the story as a fact. Is there a reliable source that it is a myth? -- KnightMove ( talk) 00:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
A ship that size would of needed multiple cats to keep the rat population down. These were not 'mascots' as such, but a crucial part of the on board logistics. The only citation I can provide would be to encourage people t tour HMS Belfast in the pool of London, but I can't see how else the German navy woul dhave kept it's vermin at bay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.83.196 ( talk) 22:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The article claims that the story of Norwegian agents sighting the Bismarck originated from a 1967 book, but the 1960 movie Sink the Bismarck! (itself based on an earlier book) relates the same story. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the story originated in 1967. Orange Suede Sofa ( talk) 05:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
"The British claim to have sank the German ship with their torpedoes, but this isn't true, given that underwater expeditions confirmed the inner hull is intact. The true cause of the sinking was that, when the Germans saw the British ever closer, with the Bismarck defenseless after almost 2 hours of unequal battle, they bore holes in the hull, to frustrate a British attempt to capture the German battleship."
Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.107.35.129 ( talk) 22:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't help notice that only the Bismarck has "one of the most famous warships" in WW2 in it's introduction. Without explaining why. Many other famous warships of WW2 are "famous" without advertising it in their introduction paragraph, but they still explain what they did to gain fame. Some examples follow:
To place the sentence "one of the most famous warships in WW2" in front of each of those seven listed warships would appear un-encyclopedic. It would appear that Bismarck is recieving undue advertising (without explaining why).
It should be noted, that Bismarck is the only WW2 warship with a hit movie made about it (in the 1960s) in addition to a hit song (sung by Johnny Horton). Is this the reason for Bismarck's fame? If so, then that should be the justification for it being "one of the most famous warships of WW2" entered in the articles first paragraph. This justification should be noted somewhere in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.96.121 ( talk) 20:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
*Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder Greglocock; the Bismarck looks like your typical clipper bowed Italian or French designed vessel. But the gothic appearing battleship Tsesarevich, the Russian flagship at the Battle of the Yellow Sea in 1904, now thats an awesome battleship! She looks like something straight out of Jules Vernes 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.22.214 ( talk) 23:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
My main issue with this debate is that regardless of the perceived fame of the vessel, merely placing "most famous" in the lead without explanation is contrary to WP:LEAD, specifically: the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. IMO, this alone is justification for either removing the statement, or improving the lead in another way to support the claim. Orange Suede Sofa ( talk) 02:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
A 5 minute search of the newspaper archives would surely have avoided this rather unnecessary debate? It is a fact that the Bismarck's sinking was reported on the front pages of newspapers around the world, including the New York Times and the Los Angleles Times. I'd say this justifies the "one of the most famous warships in WW2" comment. I have added a statement to this effect in the lead, plus citations. Achilver ( talk) 14:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
There appears to be a discrepancy in the survivor numbers.
That's 2,110 accounted for. The total crew is given as 2,200. What happened to the other 90 people? T-bonham ( talk) 05:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be more customary to name the article Bismarck (German battleship)? – CWenger ( ^ • @) 03:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
08:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)~With respect it is incorrect to assert that KMS Bismarck was the world's largest warship in 1941, that honor belongs, surely, to HMS Hood, which was just over 860ft long (the stats for Hood in her Wiki page seem to me to be accurate). Hood and Bismarck were of broadly similar tonnage, although Bismarck's full load displacement was about 3,000 tons higher, she also had a broader beam than Hood. Their main armament was similar, although Bismarck's 15" guns were longer and may have been fractionally higher calibre, as they were designed in the inferior metric system. Otherwise the article is fair, although I agree with the comments about the subjectivity of 'famous.' It would by the way be nice to see the Admiralty's plans for rebuilding Hood (on which a friend of mine served) referred to in her entry.
The Portuguese comment about drilling holes is absurd, as is the suggestion that she could have been boarded and captured, which belongs more to Pirates of the Caribbean than a serious online resource like Wkikpedia, and reflects a psychological unwillingness on the part of some in Europe to accept that the most powerful European battleship ever was sunk by the Royal Navy. The Germans pushed similar propaganda about scuttling charges during the war and after it; there is little doubt that she was finished off by 21" torpedoes from HMS Dorsetshire.
The commentary on criticisms of the ship's design is a little harsh on Preston. Most battleship designs build on their predecessors and it was inevitable that the first German battleship class after the Bayerns would be heavily influenced by them. Of course Bismarck's 15" guns were of improved design, ditto her machinery, but to describe the Bismarck class as enlarged and modernised Bayern is fair. Battleship design is a compromise between speed, habitability, protection and firepower. By basing the design on the Bayerns the Kriegsmarine tilted the compromise too much towards protection at the expense of firepower, and too much against habitability (like the battleships of the High Sea Fleet they were essentially short range vessels designed for forays into the North Sea and unlike the Scharnhorst class battlecruisers were unsuited to Atlantic raiding).
The German claim that the Bismarck was intending to raid convoys should not be accepted so uncritically. The article would be more balanced if it were to say that the convoy raiding claim is undermined by the failure to top up her tanks in Norway when she had the opportunity. Only the Prinz Eugen was going to raid convoys, which is why only her bunkers were topped up. Bismarck was ordered to Brest, France, where she was to concentrate with the Scharnhorsts (which were to be fitted with the same design main battery as the Bismarcks) and eventually the Littorios and the Richelieu, the apparent intent being to engage the US Atlantic Fleet. (the two Bismarck's, the re-gunned Scharnhorts, the three Littorios and Richelieu and Jean Bart would have been a formidable force, with fire control made easier by near-identical main batteries). When the plan was devised by Admiral Canaris he was hoping the Hess coup against Churchill would have succeeded, that Britain would have sued for peace, and Middle East oil would have been flowing to Germany, making of Russia much easier, before turning on America, in co-ordination with Japan, in 1941. It is a mistake in reading history to assume that the events which happened were anticipated.
This is too controversial for the main article, but at least the raiding comment should be qualified by uncontroverted evidence on fuelling tactics which makes a nonsense of the German claim. MS 121.209.148.120 ( talk) 08:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
07:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)I respectfully agree with the comments about the Rodneys having a heavier main battery (9 by 16"/45 versus 8 by 15"/50(?)) - they clearly did, and HMS Rodney helped sink the Bismarck (she also fired her underwater torpedo tubes by the way, and is thought to have obtained one hit, the only instance in history of one battleship torpedoing another) and the Vanguard was a finer ship in many ways, only 15"/42 main battery, as they were Mk 1 taken from the light battlecruisers HMS Glorious and HMS Courageous, ie were fairly old by 1945. But Vanguard and the Rodneys were BRITISH ships, not European (Europe starts at Calais). The Richelieus were clearly European - France is in Europe, but most commentators would say they were inferior to the Bismarck class. Their forward mounted battery, a la the Rodneys, permitted greater protection but at the risk of cross-interference in A and B turrets; 14" is generally accepted as the highest calibre to be successfully operated in a quadruple turret was 14" (the KGVs). The Littorios were fine ships, their 15"/50 calibre was the equal of the Bismarck gun, and they had 9 in three turrets, but their protection and secondary armament, and fire control arrangements, are generally reckoned to have been inferior to the German ships. The controversy over the manner of Bismarck's sinking will rage for centuries, but I adhere to the view that her stern broke off at the surface, and that the coup de grace was administered by HMS Dorsetshire. The British 21" was a pretty powerful torpedo. I do not accept that the Bismarck's PA system had power at the time of the alleged broadcast - by that time the Bismarck had been reduced to a blazing shambles by the British battle squadron. As for the Imperial System, well the Bismarck fight (same goes on an all-arms basis for WW2 excepting the Soviets) was a fight between an Imperial battle squadron and a metric battleship, and the metric ship sank. It is worthy of note that no German battleship sank a British battleship in either war, although two German armoured cruisers did sink the old Canopus at Coronel in 1914. 121.209.148.120 ( talk) 07:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
"although two German armoured cruisers did sink the old Canopus at Coronel in 1914." Actually, they sank two armoured cruisers, Good Hope and Monmouth. -- Simon Harley ( Talk | Library). 08:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
11:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Quite right, I apologise Simon, I had forgotten, Canopus was too slow to keep up with Sir Christopher Cradock's squadron and survived, to fire the opening shots in the Battle of the Falklands, therefore no British battleship to date has been sunk by German surface warships. Re survivor numbers there is a generally very accurate account online (Google Rodney) by Lt-Cmdr Geoffrey Mason RN retd of Rodney's war; he gives ship's complement as 2,221, with 116 survivors. He also gives accurate timings for the Bismarck action and confirms that Rodney fired a total of 12 torpedoes (I believe she had 21" tubes and was firing Mk VIIs), all from her starboard tubes, as the port tube outer doors had been jammed by a near miss; he gives a probable hit at 1000 hours; I respectfully agree - this hit ought to be referred to (in those terms, it was a probable hit but we cannot be certain) in the article; in any discussion about whether Bismarck was scuttled this probable torpedo strike, the third on Bismarck (the other strikes being aerial 18" torpedoes from HMS Victorious and HMS Ark Royal) is usually overlooked; she took at least six torpedoes. HMS Dorsetshire achieved two hits with 21" Mark VII torpedoes on Bismarck's starboard side at 1022, and a third, to port, at 1037, following which Bismarck sank almost immediately, at 1039. The Wikipedia entry on the Mark VII is up to the usual Wiki standards if I may say so, and gives a warhead size of 740 lbs TNT, and a speed of 35 knots. Most ships hit by three Mk VIIs - a combined explosive power of one ton of TNT - sank. I suspect Bismarck was listing to port (with scuttling charges you normally get an even settle) due to the combined effects of Rodney's straight trajectory fire (remember these were 2,000 lb plus rounds going in at about Mach 2, to give a modern comparison each of Rodney's 9 main battery guns fired shells as heavy as 6 Exocet warheads, going twice as fast), which caused major damage below decks and her torpedo hit. Mason also confirms that Bismarck's bridge personnel took losses at 0901, when a 16" shell from Rodney's 4th salvo (she also fired over 700 6" rounds, another factor frequently overlooked) hit Bruno turret with blast effects going up to the bridge; we cannot even be sure brave Captain Lindemann was alive after that - combatant, ie survivor, accounts cannot just be taken at face value; it is improbable in my view that Bismarck's bridge PA system was operational after 0902, and there seems to have been a general loss of power by the time the alleged broadcast about scuttling charges was made, due to both direct hits on engine rooms and generators and the general shock effect on electrical equipment of repeated supersonic hits by heavy AP shells (I digress, but there was a rather odd debate just after the war about whether or not you could go through the sound barrier when the Royal & US Navies and others had been hurtling shells the size of Volkswagens through the sound barrier for decades). The USS South Dakota's entire main switchboard tripped in the 3rd Battle of Savo Sound, leading to a general and extended systems failure, after receiving far fewer hits, and from lighter shells. Rodney's main battery directors were out of action before the end of the battle due to recoil shock alone, indeed she could not fire her main battery without flooding some compartments. Repeated heavy hits will open seams in the strongest hull and let water in just from the blast effect. I doubt there is a warship afloat today which would remain operational after taking a salvo of 16" rounds at 4,000 yards, unless they were AP and went straight through. By coincidence Fox TV in Australia has just shown Sink the Bismarck; it is a fine film, but overlooks the intelligence angle; almost certainly Naval Intelligence became aware that Bismarck had not topped up her tanks in Norway and was not intending to raid convoys - the conclusion that she was headed to Brest was very firm, and based in my view on more than the hunch shown by the fictional Captain Shepherd in the film, well played of course by Kenneth More. A good photo interpreter should have been able to pick up that she was light just from overheads. Intelligence would also have been aware of the Hess coup, supported by key civil servants and Lord Halifax (Hess flew to Britain not long before Bismarck sailed) - it is now clear Admiral Canaris was expecting Churchill to have been ousted in favour of Halifax by the time Bismarck sailed, indeed the sinking of Hood (she was set up by German assets in Naval Intelligence, she, KGV and Prince of Wales should have sailed as a squadron, supported by Victorious and Repulse, but the First Sea Lord, Pound, was opposed to Churchill and is thought to have supported the failed coup, it is no wonder Churchill, who had been briefed in on the interrogation of Hess at the Tower, was mightily insistent on the Bismarck being sunk) may have been intended as the trigger. Nothing like the whole story of this episode has come out so far, but I will not advertise my forthcoming book! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.148.120 ( talk) 11:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey all, I've finally gotten around to starting the rewrite for this article - it's basically going to follow the same pattern as Tirpitz (and quite literally, every other article on German battleships). As always, feel free to add material if you have a reliable source (preferably of the dead-tree variety - remember, this is going to FAC eventually and they will accept only the highest quality sources) to support it. My references are somewhat light on the expeditions, so anyone with Ballard's books, etc. might want to assist there. Also, being a Yank, I might miss some BE/AE spelling differences, so keep an eye on that.
On to something specific, I don't really see the criticism section staying in the article. I've written over 20 ship-related FAs (and have read probably as many written by other authors) and not a single one has a design criticism section. I know this ship is controversial, but I don't know that it's all that controversial in academic circles. What I'm getting at is, yes, people argue about it in forums, but we are not a forum, nor do we need to represent the disagreements between largely uninformed posters. In any case, criticisms of the ship's design belong in the class article, not this one (and they are indeed sprinkled throughout the class article). Any relevant tidbits that would help the reader's understanding of the specific fate of Bismarck (thinking of the poor rudder design and inability to steer solely via propeller rotation, here) should of course be mentioned here, but it should be integrated into the narrative, not set off in a separate section.
The link to the draft is here. Just to note, I'm in the process of moving into a new house, and my books are all packed, of course, so I won't be able to do much writing for at least a week or so. Parsecboy ( talk) 14:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey all, just a reminder if anyone wants to contribute to the draft (which is progressing along nicely). Let me know (here, on the draft talk, or my talk) if there's anything missing you think should be included (or add it yourself). I know this article has had its share of controversies over the years, so I'd like to make sure everybody's happy with it. Parsecboy ( talk) 17:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
An anonymous editor redirects me to Talk to defend removal of a claim made in a recent book. Ok, I can't remove cited work but let's state the facts, as I have done, that these claims are based on hearsay evidence that simply *cannot be verified. Did the Rodney crewmember ever write about this alleged (and startling) event or record his thoughts? The secrets about Enigma eventually came out, so why not this? Unfortunately, Wikipedia is losing credibility due to the inability to contradict and simply refuse to use information this is published, however much it can be challenged. bigpad ( talk) 21:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
11:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)With respect to Parsecboy the whole point of this discussion is to improve the article; ie he or she thinks Britain is in Europe (one may as well say Taiwan is part of China, or Cuba part of Florida) then he or she with respect has little grasp og geography and is hopelessly out of touch with modern British opinion; the article fails to refer to the probable hit by HMS Rodney and is weak in so far as it deals with the German c,aim that Bismarck was scuttled; the timings of the Dorsetshire's third torpedo hit, followed by the sinking two minutes later should be given; Wiki is not an instrument of German propaganda and on bacne that is all the scuttling claim ever was; I have given sound reasons to doubt the suggestion of a broadcast by Captain Lindemann, which I suggest could only have been given posthumously 121.209.148.120 ( talk) 11:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)