Talk:German battleship Bismarck

Failed Luftwaffe and Navy intervention

Should it be added in the "Sinking" section that one of the main reasons the British attack on Bismarck was successful was because the ships had been damaged just beyond the Luftwaffe's maximum range? \
Also, the fact the British thought that the plume of smoke in the distance as they were rescuing Bismarck's crew was from a U-Boat was partly because the German Navy actually had deployed U-Boats to rescue the Bismarck. But due to lack of speed couldn't make it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dario DeCasseres (talk • contribs) 00.51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Scuttling

Taken from the Bismarck article, in the "Sinking" section.

"Some near misses alongside the port side, and the fact that the ship was no longer able to fight back, caused Oels to decide at around 09:30 to scuttle Bismarck to prevent the ship being boarded by the British, and to allow the crew to abandon ship so as to reduce casualties [155] [156]"

The first reference given (page 28 of the "Marine forensics Analysis") gives no source for its assertion of Oels's "issuing the scuttle order at 9:30am", and does not contain ANY evidence to support the idea of crew concerns about "the ship being boarded by the British".

This is from "Battleship Bismarck: A survivor's story" the first edition copy Written by Baron Burkhard von Mullenheim-Rechberg, Bismarck's senior ranking survivor.

Page 211 "Our list to port had increased a bit while firing was going on" followed by "Around 9:30am gas and smoke began to drift through our station" This means that prior to 9:30am Bismarck was already flooding, not something that happens to a healthy seaworthy ship, in other words she was already starting to sink.

This next piece of evidence is taken from an interview conducted for the highly regarded weekly history journal "Purnell's history of the second world war" in the late 1960's with Gerhard Junack (Bismarck's only surviving engineering officer and the survivor who supposedly enacted the "scuttle order", which he only mentioned for the first time during the same interview in 1967). He stated that...

"Somewhere about 1015 hours, I received an order over the telephone from the Chief Engineer (Korvettenkapitän (Ing.) Walter Lehmann) to 'Prepare the ship for sinking.' That was the last order I received on the Bismarck. Soon after that, all transmission of orders collapsed." This also confirms the falsehood of the paragraph in the article.

Heading back to the account of Mullenheim-Rechberg, on Page 212 he states that (before 10:00am) "I was using all the telephone circuits and calling all over the place in an effort to find out as much as possible about the condition of the ship. I got only one answer. I reached the messenger in the damage control centre and asked "who has and where is the command of the ship? Are there new orders in effect?".... The man said he was in a great hurry. He told me that everyone had abandoned the damage control centre, adding that he was the last one in the room and had to get out... then he hung up".

This vain search for contact & information over the Bismarck's internal comms happened BEFORE 10:00am which throws some mild doubt on Junack's testimony where he says he was contacted by the chief engineer who supposedly gave him the "scuttle order" over the phone at 10:15am... Hmmmmm.

The reference numbered [156] states "Garzke, Dulin & Jurens 2019b, pp. 683, 866, 873."

I possess a 2019 copy of the afore referenced book, and it does NOT have pages 683, 866 and 879, as the book contains only 610 pages !!! So the reference supporting that paragraph is false.

As well as a physical copy of the book I also have a PDF version which enables a reader to search for specified words and phrases, and I can confirm there is NO reference ANYWHERE in the book regarding any concerns on behalf of Bismarck's crew about the potential for Bismarck to be "boarded by the British", there is also NO reference anywhere in Baron Burkhard von Mullenheim-Rechberg's book regarding that same concern about "board(ing) by the British".

If taken at face value these survivor testimonies show that there was at least a 45 minute gap between Bismarck starting to sink and the first mention of a "scuttle order" being given.

Anything else is just hurt German pride, bolstered by modern day delusional wehraboos. Germany was well known for trying to hide its national humiliations, such as when they scuttled their "grand fleet" at the end of WW1, like illogically saying "We lost.. but you didn't win", or a pathetic "You didn't beat us because we killed ourselves first" sort of idiocy.

The whole paragraph I quoted at the top of this post is complete nonsense, not worthy of a supposedly authoratative account of the Bismarck action, and is fit only for idiotic "Youtube " comments section talk. 92.16.42.113 (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

A few points of order:

• Dulin et. al. - the authors of the paper you dismiss - are noted naval historians and/or marine archeologists. What you think of their paper is meaningless. This is also the cited source for the claim about concern over boarding, not the Garzke, Dulin, & Jurens book. I'm not quite sure how you think that, given they are clearly cited.
• The version of Garzke, Dulin, & Jurens is the eBook format, which apparently has different pagination. Perhaps, rather than claim the citation to be false, you actually crack open your hardcopy version and try to find the citations. If you're curious, the relevant pages are 416 and 437.
• On listing - I'm not sure what point you think you're making. You'll note that Bismarck already had a list from the Denmarck Strait action, and the article makes clear in the same paragraph with which you take issue that Template:Xt
• On the issue of the timing of the order to scuttle, you will note in your copy of Garzke, Dulin, & Jurens (on page 527), that Statz is the source for Oels giving orders to scuttle at 9:30.

Your final statement is a quite apt description of the rest of your complaint. Parsecboy (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Before you saddle up your high horse, make sure of your OWN footing. You're mistaken when you say "I dismiss Garzke, Dulin, & Jurens" I do NO such thing, I instead dismiss the references made to a ficticious page in their well regarded book and their contribution to Cameron's survey, references which at no point makes ANY comment that supports the assertion of "boarding by the British" in the wiki article.

The pages from Garzke, Dulin, & Jurens book (pages 683, 866 & 873)referred to in the article still bear no relevance to the assertion even when checked against the PDF version.

Page 683 discusses "Admiral Tovey's decisions during the pursuit" on the 24th May

Page 863 discusses the situation as Vian's 5 destroyers commence their action against Bismarck on the evening of the 26th May.

Page 866 discusses the ongoing destroyer action through the early hours of 27th May.

NOWHERE in those references either in the physical book or the PDF is there ANY supporting corroboration to the "boarding" nonsense.

After reading both page 416 & 437 of the physical copy, I'd be happy for you to indulge me and point out EXACTLY where on those pages refers to any concerns regarding "boarding by the British"?

Why is there no reference to the 1967 interview with Kapitänleutnant Gerhard Junack where he clearly states that "Somewhere about 1015 hours, I received an order over the telephone from the Chief Engineer (Korvettenkapitän (Ing.) Walter Lehmann) to 'Prepare the ship for sinking.' That was the last order I received on the Bismarck. Soon after that, all transmission of orders collapsed."? 92.16.42.113 (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you understand that you are conflating two references? The citation to the boarding concern is not from Garzke, Dulin, and Juren's book. If you can't follow citations, then we don't have much to discuss. Parsecboy (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

There's no conflation whatsoever, I've stated that the supposed 9:30am "scuttling order" COMPLETELY ignores the fact that the man who EVERYONE agrees carried out the scuttling said he received the order at 10.15am !!!

And the "boarding" reference is merely a unsubstantiated comment made by Cameron with NO source of his "information" supplied, I though you were against unsupported hearsay? 92.16.42.113 (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

You state that: Template:Xt, and then again state Template:Xt - the book isn't where that claim is sourced. You are looking in Source A when the article clearly cites Source B.

Why don't you call me when you decide to argue in good faith? Parsecboy (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

You really do talk some nonsense. "call me when you decide to argue in good faith" I'm not sure you actualy know what that means, instead thinking it's a high handed put down.

Where would a small mistake on my behalf (I'm not too big to say I now see where your "conflation" remark was coming from) be passed of as "bad faith" exactly? But the small confusion on my behalf apart, why not discuss the valid points I've made, instead of trying to deflect over small minded pettiness?

1. Where is Cameron's source for the "boarding" nonsense, as it's not mentioned in ANY of the survivor accounts I've read over the last 60 years? As it stands it's unsubstantiated hearsay.... anathema to your finely tuned wiki sensibilities.

2. Where does Junack's first hand testimony as to receiving the "scuttle order" at "around 10:15am" fit into your preciously curated wiki narrative?

As an aside, I now remember a number of years ago, having another discussion with you about an entry I made into the wiki, regarding HMS Dorsetshire and her departure from Convoy SL-74, and the fact that on his way to intercept Bismarck, Capt BCS Martin addressed Dorsetshire's crew and informed them of his intention to interecpt Bismarck and announced that if necessary he was prepared to attempt to ram the battleship. In your apparently customary high handed manner you REPEATEDLY removed the comment, which I was told first hand by my father who was a crewmember onboard Dorsetshire at the time, as I could give no written source. Well I can now refer you to the bottom paragraph of page 774 of the PDF version of "Battleship Bismarck: A design and operational history" which confirms what you repeatedly removed from the wiki.

Would "your highness" allow such a snippet of VERIFIED information to be inserted into YOUR Bismarck wiki page, especially as you're quite happy to allow unsubstantiated nonsense into the article? 92.16.42.113 (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Friend, repeatedly mischaracterizing the sourcing of this article, even after you've been told you're doing it, isn't a "small mistake". And you were doing it either deliberately (i.e., in bad faith) or because your mind is so closed that you weren't willing to hear that you were making that mistake (i.e., not exactly good faith argumentation either).

To your substantive points:

1: I've already explained this, so I'll reproduce it here: Template:Xt

2: There isn't any first hand testimony included in the article. I'm not sure why you think we should single out Junack.

Ah, yes, very high-handed of me to demand sources that weren't forum posts. I'm terribly sorry for expecting you to do proper work. Parsecboy (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

And maybe, as someone with a position as administrator you should treat people with respect, not rudeness and should not abuse your position to push your own version of events?

Your user page states that you have a particular interest in the German Navy. Is that interest in the German navy being manifested as trying to portray it in the best possible light despite evidence to the contrary and Wikipedia's own policy on, for example's sake, scuttling?

And are you going to further abuse your position as administrator to lock down an article that YOU don't want changed and to block me because I disagree with you and have evidence to back it up? Sheppey Red (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

You see, you're now in a quandary.

Do you block me and prove me right - that you're someone who cannot deal with people disagreeing with them as your mind is set due to your agenda? And that you'll then abuse your position as administrator to push your own narrative. And that Wikipedia allows administrators to do what they like no matter how egregious their conduct and hide behind that.

Or do you not block me and allow me to pull apart your arguments regarding scuttling - especially that you are in direct disagreement with Wikipedia's own policy regarding scuttling? That a ship already sinking cannot be listed as scuttled in a Wikipedia article even if scuttling charges are detonated but must be listed as sunk.

I'm betting on blocking because you strike me as someone who can't accept being told you're wrong. Sheppey Red (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

You challenge the OP on why he dismisses Dulin.

What makes Dulin perfect and not prone to error or bias? The military history field is littered with "historians" who have agendas. The most notable agendas are Germanophilia, Francophobia and Anglophobia.

For example, Alexander Watson is supposedly a noted historian from a London university with a PhD.

Yet have you read any of his books about WWI? I challenge you to read Ring Of Steel and not tell me the man is biased. The same for Dulin - he's a human being and the history academic field suffers from a large number of historians who have made their conclusions before starting their research and only accepting research to fir that narrative.

You like the German navy. And I say you allow that to colour your posts, your moderating and your administrating of Wikipedia articles that involve any aspect of the German navy. Sheppey Red (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Focus on the content; if you continue to personalize the dispute, you will be blocked. Parsecboy (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I did focus on the content - YOU are making it personal by keep changing the article to suit your own narrative and make this page inconsistent with other pages on Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_L%C3%BCtzow

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jutland

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Savo_Island

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Santa_Cruz_Islands

You are abusing your position as admin to push YOUR narrative, regardless of this site's policy and then threatening bans when your conduct is identified and called out on it. Sheppey Red (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Midway

Still going to threaten me with a ban? Sheppey Red (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Since you have proclaimed your intention to edit-war, I've locked the page. If you can't discuss this in a collegial manner, then you will have to find something else to do. Parsecboy (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

LMAO - see, I told you you'd block the page because someone disagreed with you.

I literally provided examples of how YOUR conduct diverges from Wikipedia and you act like you have. You should not be an admin. Sheppey Red (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I know nothing will happen but I am going to report you. You have no business being an admin. Sheppey Red (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Did this comment of yours conform to the site's NPA policy:-

"Ah, yes, very high-handed of me to demand sources that weren't forum posts. I'm terribly sorry for expecting you to do proper work."

Going to block yourself are you?

And before you try and defend that post or argue that your post is different to mine that post was snide and offensive. Being an admin means having responsibilities and acting responsibly. A lesson you could do with learning. Sheppey Red (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

References

There is no synthesis here – this was taken directly from the source. (G&D&J). However I am working from the eBook, where the page numbers are very different. For clarity, the sources are as follows: · Chapter 20 – The Final Battle – 0847 to 0930 (page 645 in the eBook) · The British Perspective – 0902 to 0930 · King George V (page 671 of the eBook)

On page 671 it states: “At 0925 Bismarck took a 5- to 8-degree list to port, depending on the rolling response and a deeper draft than 10.2 meters that brought her main deck on the port side to the level of the sea. (footnote 19)”

Footnote 19, which is on page 948 of the eBook, states that: “At 0930 a critical point had been reached in the transverse stability of Bismarck. With water coming onto her main deck, the ability to right herself began to diminish. The U.S. Navy Handbook of Damage Control states that when water starts collecting on the damage control deck, it is time to evacuate the ship. Not only was water coming aboard the main deck, it was also accumulating on the Batteriedeck (the damage control deck). From this point on Bismarck was sinking slowly, but her very large metacentric height kept her afloat. When Commander Oels gave the scuttling order around 0930, this command ensured that significant sinkage would occur, and downflooding would start below as the crew made their way topside through watertight hatches that would be left open in the Batteriedeck. This flooding ensured an increasing overturning moment to bring about capsizing to port.”

I reworded it slightly for copyright reasons, as usual.

From the above: (a) Before this scuttling order was given, the list was only 5-8 degrees. (b) The down-flooding started when the scuttling order was given, not before. (c) All talk about a 30-degree list to port, only came about after the scuttling process commenced – and was presumably quite advanced. Wdford (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

For anyone following along at home, page 671 in the eBook corresponds to page 413 in the paper copy - the problem you're overlooking is that the passage on that page makes no reference to scuttling. It only states Template:Xt This is, of course, before the order to scuttle had been given.

On page 433, from the "Analysis: Bismarck's State at the End section of Chapter 21 The Final Battle: 0930-1021, the authors state: Template:Xt No reference to scuttling there either.

At a minimum, the section needs to be amended to include the fact that water was entering the ship largely due to battle damage. For reference, footnote 19 is on pages 518 and 582 in the paper copy. Parsecboy (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The scuttling was discussed clearly in the footnote 19, which I cited accordingly. To ignore those details would mean deliberately taking stuff out of context.

There is no controversy about flooding reaching the battery-deck - however that was above the armour deck. Water could only go below the armour deck after the hatches were opened by the crew - which was after 0930. Per that footnote, before this scuttling order was given, the list was only 5-8 degrees, and the serious down-flooding started after the scuttling order was given, not before. Until that point, the large metacentric height was keeping her afloat.

You cited Chapter 21 The Final Battle: 0930-1021. Per the heading, this describes issues and events AFTER 0930, ie after Oels gave the order to scuttle, and the hatches and bulkheads were opened up and the pumps reversed etc. The holes in the upper decks were severe, but the armour deck had not been penetrated.

Wdford (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Battle of the Denmark Strait

This article incorrectly presents the deck penetration by Bismarck on HMS Hood as fact (and with it a direct hit in the magazine), when there is zero evidence for this. At the range of the engagement, Bismarck would not have been able to penetrate all 3 armored decks and reach the magazine directly with her 38 cm guns... This can very easily be confirmed by comparing the (likely) engagement range with the 38 cm ballistic tables. 185.45.245.29 (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

See WP:NOR. Feel free to provide reliable, secondary sources that contradict Bercuson & Herwig. Parsecboy (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Probably there's some data sync/update required to have both ship's and the Battle's articles with the same properly sourced content. --Denniss (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)