Still Waters Posted May 27, 2011 #1 Share Posted May 27, 2011 With her steering jammed and her speed slashed by torpedo attacks, the Bismarck and her crew of 2,200 were a sitting duck for the Royal Navy.And in two hours the German battleship was a helpless wreck of twisted metal, raging fires and dead and dying crew. But the ship’s agony was not over.After the bombardment by British battleships, she was finished off by torpedoes, slipping under the Atlantic with all but 200 of those aboard. For the Royal Navy it was a triumph – revenge for the Bismarck’s destruction of the pride of the fleet, HMS Hood, days earlier. But the son of one of the British sailors who saw Bismarck’s end 70 years ago today has come forward to claim that the battle might have ended very differently – because the German crew tried to surrender at the height of the bombardment. Read more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.United_Nations Posted May 27, 2011 #2 Share Posted May 27, 2011 No should of blown it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Ford Posted May 27, 2011 #3 Share Posted May 27, 2011 Yes, the Germans made it sound like an unsinkable fortress, once we sank it then it took a chunk out of their national pride and huge chunk out of their navy fleet. Besides, some reports say we only crippled it, I think 2 of the 3 survivors said they rigged explosives and blew the ship up from the inside to stop it being captured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted May 27, 2011 #4 Share Posted May 27, 2011 in one of the docs. one of the engineers of the bismark gave credit to both navies. ie the british had hit it enough that it was going down and they skuttled it themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted May 27, 2011 #5 Share Posted May 27, 2011 "Should" they have sunk it? They were in the middle of a battle in the middle of a war. "Should" isn't really the operative word. They had orders to sink it, and they had excellent reasons for doing so. The PR value alone was incalculable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted May 27, 2011 #6 Share Posted May 27, 2011 "Should" they have sunk it? They were in the middle of a battle in the middle of a war. "Should" isn't really the operative word. They had orders to sink it, and they had excellent reasons for doing so. The PR value alone was incalculable. besides they didnt know it was disabled. they may have thought it was, but they didnt know for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbie333 Posted May 27, 2011 #7 Share Posted May 27, 2011 That is a great question. I think the answer should be marked by another question. What would the Germans had done if the position was reversed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted May 27, 2011 #8 Share Posted May 27, 2011 That is a great question. I think the answer should be marked by another question. What would the Germans had done if the position was reversed? dont know, the only ship the germans sunk with the bizmark was sunk basically by a single shot and it blew up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor_Strangelove Posted May 28, 2011 #9 Share Posted May 28, 2011 We'll find the German battleship that's makin' such a fuss We gotta sink the Bismarck cause the world depends on us Yeah hit the decks a runnin' boys and spin those guns around When we find the Bismarck we gotta cut her down The song speaks for itself. That is a great question. I think the answer should be marked by another question. What would the Germans had done if the position was reversed? It's interesting, because there were instances of German U-boats rescuing the sailors of the ship they had just torpedoed. Not saying that means they would have spared the ship if it were the British, but just something to consider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hetrodoxly Posted May 28, 2011 #10 Share Posted May 28, 2011 I've never heard a Bismark survivor mention the ship had surrendered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted May 28, 2011 #11 Share Posted May 28, 2011 We'll find the German battleship that's makin' such a fuss We gotta sink the Bismarck cause the world depends on us Yeah hit the decks a runnin' boys and spin those guns around When we find the Bismarck we gotta cut her down The song speaks for itself. It's interesting, because there were instances of German U-boats rescuing the sailors of the ship they had just torpedoed. Not saying that means they would have spared the ship if it were the British, but just something to consider. they did, until a slight communcation snaffu in which an american unit attacked a sub rescueing crew from a ship they had just sunk. after which hitler ordered no more rescues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbie333 Posted May 28, 2011 #12 Share Posted May 28, 2011 We'll find the German battleship that's makin' such a fuss We gotta sink the Bismarck cause the world depends on us Yeah hit the decks a runnin' boys and spin those guns around When we find the Bismarck we gotta cut her down The song speaks for itself. It's interesting, because there were instances of German U-boats rescuing the sailors of the ship they had just torpedoed. Not saying that means they would have spared the ship if it were the British, but just something to consider. Hmm, that is interesting Dr. I was not aware of that bit of info, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunji Posted May 29, 2011 #13 Share Posted May 29, 2011 well all i gotta say is acting like this was some sort of atrocity is ridiculous. its war not to mention the anger and outrage at the time about the holocaust. even if they did try to surrender i don't think the people manning the other ships would have cared. trying to make a scandal out of it now is just plain stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted May 29, 2011 #14 Share Posted May 29, 2011 (edited) well all i gotta say is acting like this was some sort of atrocity is ridiculous. its war not to mention the anger and outrage at the time about the holocaust. even if they did try to surrender i don't think the people manning the other ships would have cared. trying to make a scandal out of it now is just plain stupid. we didnt know about the holocaust at the time of the war. we didnt know until we entered the first death camp. something i just learned, the last battle was a two day event. meaning the bizmark had plenty of time to strike her colors. Bismarck continued to fly its ensign. With no sign of surrender, despite the unequal struggle, the British were loath to leave the Bismarck. Their fuel and shell supplies were low - a demonstration of how difficult it was for a battleship to sink a similar unit in a balanced engagement. However, when it became obvious that their enemy could not reach port, Rodney, King George V and the destroyers were sent home. Norfolk had used its last torpedoes; therefore, Dorsetshire launched four torpedoes which may have hit the Bismarck at comparatively short range. Although the battleship's upper works were almost completely destroyed, her engines were still functioning and the hull appeared to be relatively sound; therefore, rather than risk her being captured, Captain Lindemann gave the order to scuttle and then abandon ship[citation needed]. Most of the crew went into the water, but few sailors from the lower engine spaces got out alive. Bismarck went under the waves at 10:39 hours that morning. Dorsetshire and Maori attempted to rescue survivors, but a U-boat alarm caused them to leave the scene after having rescued only 110 Bismarck sailors, abandoning the majority of Bismarck's 2,200 man crew to the mercy of the water. The next morning, U-74, dispatched to try and rescue Bismarck’s logbook (and which heard sinking noises from a distance), and the German weather ship Sachsenwald picked up five survivors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Bismarck Edited May 29, 2011 by danielost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor_Strangelove Posted May 29, 2011 #15 Share Posted May 29, 2011 well all i gotta say is acting like this was some sort of atrocity is ridiculous. its war not to mention the anger and outrage at the time about the holocaust. even if they did try to surrender i don't think the people manning the other ships would have cared. trying to make a scandal out of it now is just plain stupid. Almost no one knew about the death camps, Allies or Axis. They were aware of the prosecution of people, and a few had knowledge of the camp's existence, but the majority of the public had no clue. Contrary to what Hollywood wants you to believe, WWII wasn't solely about the Holocaust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philbo Posted May 29, 2011 #16 Share Posted May 29, 2011 No it wasn't your right...it was about a mad despot hitler trying to take over the world. You people talk like its some tragedy...The nazi's invaded many countries and openly slaughtered people.Two wrongs don't make it alright....but certainly they were not...Victims ! Yet here we are today with Germany once again trying to take over Europe...only this time without guns. Lets not forget their are still 10's of thousands of old Nazi's around without a shred of remorse for the slaughter they inflicted. You'll get no empathy for evil nazi's ....this article is almost laughable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taut Posted May 30, 2011 #17 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Well, British forces were probably not in the best of moods after all the bombing. Tough ****, it's war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted May 30, 2011 #18 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Well, British forces were probably not in the best of moods after all the bombing. Tough ****, it's war. according to the post i made, the two british battleships were expecting the bizmark to surrender before they left to get fuel and ammo. when they got back the flag was still up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d e v i c e Posted May 30, 2011 #19 Share Posted May 30, 2011 When you look at the thousands of tons of shipping and freight that the Bismark sent to the bottom - along with many, many merchant seamen ie, non-combatants - it's little wonder the Royal Navy had only one thought in mind; Destroy the Bismark and her crew. That's war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePitOfReason Posted May 30, 2011 #20 Share Posted May 30, 2011 It was a war none the less and my father was a sailor in WWII and hearing him talk about it while I was growing up I guess I should have been keeping a journal of his life for him. But know that tricks of surrender were a common practice on both sides trust me. But often learning this mistake and accepting a surrender if you played it down it could be your last mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retired sarge Posted May 31, 2011 #21 Share Posted May 31, 2011 @ Device...check your historical 'facts', referencing "thousands of tons of shipping and freight, many, many merchant seamen ie, non-combatants.." etc. I believe you are wrong in those respects! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackwhite Posted June 7, 2011 #22 Share Posted June 7, 2011 The Bismarck didn't try to surrender. This story is just make believe. And whether it tried to surrender or not we can say it was revenge for the Bismarck sinking HMS Hood. She was hit by five salvoes from the Bismarck and of the 1,418 men only three survived. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted June 7, 2011 #23 Share Posted June 7, 2011 When you look at the thousands of tons of shipping and freight that the Bismark sent to the bottom - along with many, many merchant seamen ie, non-combatants - it's little wonder the Royal Navy had only one thought in mind; Destroy the Bismark and her crew. That's war. sorry the bismark only sunk one ship, and that was a battle cruiser. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_battleship_Bismarck if she had gotten into the atlantic she could have been deadly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted June 7, 2011 #24 Share Posted June 7, 2011 The Bismarck didn't try to surrender. This story is just make believe. And whether it tried to surrender or not we can say it was revenge for the Bismarck sinking HMS Hood. She was hit by five salvoes from the Bismarck and of the 1,418 men only three survived. first i linked to a story where the british navy ran out of fuel and ammo and went home to get more, guess it was tea time. second the bismarck got lucky and hit the hoods magizine, third the hood was a battle cruiser not a battle ship. ie it had the guns of a battleship but the armour of a cruiser. fourth, i think the hoods escort hit the hood once by accident, not sure about that. i do know at least one british ship hit another one during this running battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiffSplitkins Posted June 7, 2011 #25 Share Posted June 7, 2011 well all i gotta say is acting like this was some sort of atrocity is ridiculous. its war not to mention the anger and outrage at the time about the holocaust. even if they did try to surrender i don't think the people manning the other ships would have cared. trying to make a scandal out of it now is just plain stupid. Bingo. In the time of WWII they believed "All is fair in love and War." Today we believe "All is fair in love and War, but only if it's politically correct." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now