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?

statement

"The battleship was Germany's largest warship,[4]" - Wrong! Tirpitz was larger in weight and length! Peterachim64 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

No, the ships had identical lengths and beams; they were in fact the same size. Tirpitz displaced more (particularly later in her career) as more equipment was added, which of course has nothing to do with her size (i.e., the square footage the ship occupied). In short: heavier, yes, but not larger. Parsecboy (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Ship size is defined by tonnage, but tirpitz was longer due to slight difference in their bow rebuilds once the straight stem was change to an atlantic bow. 92.19.12.76 (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

For merchant ships, sure, but most warships don't have much cargo capacity. Displacement is only one measure of a ship's size, and as it can vary considerably, certainly has limitations when comparing apples and oranges.

As for Bismarck's bow, she was not completed with a straight stem. Both Bismarck-class ships were modified during fitting out. Perhaps you're confusing this ship with Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. Parsecboy (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The Chase section

Hello. The sentence 'Unless Bismarck could be slowed, the British would be unable to prevent her from reaching Saint-Nazaire' is in the wrong place: it occurs too early. At that stage, the British were still in contact with the ship, which had not yet performed its three-quarter clockwise turn to escape. Also, that she was heading for S-N was not devined until later. Hence, that sentence should be moved further down and possibly prefaced with something like: 'Given the relative positions of the British forces and none of their battleships being capable of overhauling Bismarck, ..." Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

You're presuming the article is written from the British perspective. The Germans of course knew where they were going. Parsecboy (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but it's where you have this text located that is the problem – not what it says. Perhaps we should see if others agree with me that the historical narrative, or the chronology if you like, is out of place and unbalanced there. A college professor would undoubtedly draw attention to it. Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you, though? Or have you just not read the article thoroughly? Scroll up to the first paragraph in the section. We've already established that Luetjens intended to detach Prinz Eugen and then sail to Saint-Nazaire for repairs. It doesn't matter that the British didn't know where Bismarck was headed, we the omniscient narrator do. Nothing is out of order. Parsecboy (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Nate, it's no odds to me whether or not the text is amended to reflect a more logical sequence of events and possibilities. Suffice to say that in my previous day job, and now as an academic editor, I would flag up that positioning inconsistency as an impediment to the award of a Grade A or a 'Good Article' if you like. Just because this article *is a GA doesn't mean it's inviolable and immune from slight improvement. Also, your reversion and comment at the first sentence of para. 2 in the Intro have restored the awkward wording that was there, when mine was neater – with no clause hanging at the end. Lindemann being mentioned there was not my doing Billsmith60 (talk) 12:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

You still have not explained how it's out of chronological order; simply asserting something does not make it so. I'm not saying that the article can't be changed; my position is that moving the line further down would degrade it. Parsecboy (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Jolly good. I'll get back here when I can Billsmith60 (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello again. Let me summarise my main points about this sentence, with specific reference to the chronology: “Unless Bismarck could be slowed, the British would be unable to prevent her from reaching Saint-Nazaire”. It is the positioning of this text, not its wording, that is the issue. The sentence that precedes it, “Although Bismarck had been damaged in the engagement and forced to reduce speed, she was still capable of reaching 27 to 28 knots (50 to 52 km/h; 31 to 32 mph), the maximum speed of Tovey's King George V.” is fine other than this query – what engagement is being referred to? The previous para. says that Bismarck was not hit in the engagement with PoW after 18.14. If the DS battle is meant, then this should be stated.

Moreover, the attack by Victorious at 10 p.m. was designed to cause damage to Bismarck so that heavier ships the Admiralty were gathering might close in more quickly *wherever she was headed, but not at that stage to slow her down on her course towards St-N because she was not yet on a course for there. Therefore, as text currently reads the chronology is incorrect. I also noted earlier that the British were still in contact with Bismarck and could direct other units to her position. Hence it is speculation to assert here that she would reach S-N unless slowed down; but if moved down as below, it becomes correct. The lead Bismarck would later gain after slipping away did mean that she would have to be slowed if she wasn’t to reach S-N.

Further, that she was heading for S-N was not divined until later. Therefore, current text displays incorrect overview – next paragraph refers.

Editor: “It doesn't matter that the British didn't know where Bismarck was headed, we the omniscient narrator do. Nothing is out of order”. I can’t agree. Yes, the omniscient editor does indeed know this, but it’s also their duty to present the facts unbalanced as they would have appeared to the two sides at the actual time – and at that part of the drama there was no indication to the British that the Germans were going to head for France.

Hence, I believe that the best place to move the “offending” text is down a bit to the following sentence: “After half an hour, he informed Wake-Walker, who ordered the three ships to disperse at daylight to search visually” a couple of paragraphs below, when Bismarck had broken away from her pursuers”. I would also recommend that the “offending” sentence could be prefaced to advantage with something like the following (although these new words are not critical): 'Given the relative positions of the British forces and none of their battleships being capable of overhauling Bismarck...”

I also wonder what is meant by the comment about “degrading” the article? I know what degradation is, but in what way would moving that sentence degrade the article? Let me assure you my suggestion is made simply to improve an already very good article by ensuring that the chronology and narrative flow in a logical and coherent manner. Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you not find it at all curious that Zetterling & Tamerlander place the text about Tovey being unable to catch the Germans before the Victorious attack? In other words, they made the same choice we have (or rather, vice versa of course).

We aren't writing a drama where only the knowledge of the participants of the time are available to us. So what the British knew the Germans were doing at that specific moment is entirely irrelevant. It's not speculation to have it where it is; the British were unable to catch Bismarck regardless of where she was headed. If Bismarck and KGV are both capable of 28 knots, there is simply no way for one to overhaul the other. The purpose of the strike from Victorious was to slow Bismarck down; this was textbook British carrier doctrine of the time. The basic theory was to prevent another Scheer from being able to flee another Jutland.

Here's why it degrades the article: you are basically requesting that we remove the fact that already on 24 May, the British were unable to catch Bismarck unless Victorious could slow her down. You are asking that we remove a critical fact of the chase. I'm baffled as to how you can not understand this. Are you suggesting that the British could have caught Bismarck under the circumstances of 24/25 May absent a successful strike from Victorious? Parsecboy (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I've made my points as fully as I intend to. We don't agree on the *positioning of that text, and hence the chronology, being inaccurate, speculative and misleading. I see the inaccuracy at 'engagement' has been corrected, although the mangled sentence at the top of para. 2 in the Intro. remains. Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Are you actually interested in having a discussion? You haven’t actually responded to any of my points (or even my direct question), you’ve merely reasserted your previous comments. Which are wrong. If you’re not actually interested in a good faith discussion, I suggest you find someone else whose time you can waste. Parsecboy (talk) 09:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

My goodness, one would not want to give you 5p short in your change. Do you always appear to get out of bed on the wrong side? I made clear that I had said as much as I was going to about the text being in the wrong place. If you, who arrogate to yourself control of this article, don't agree, then that's the way of it. I responded fully to your questions in my reply but then you introduced yet more stuff. Listen, mate, it's either a strike or it's a ball. On this occasion, it's a strike but you, the hone plate umpire, call it a ball. Hence a ball it is. I've engaged fully in a fruitless attempt to have an error corrected, and your assertion about wasting time is reciprocated. This discussion is at an end. Billsmith60 (talk) 08:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

You believe you are correct and are apparently entirely unwilling to entertain the possibility that you aren’t. I have little patience for those who act in bad faith. If you find that unpleasant, that is a problem of your own creation. Parsecboy (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Pronoun for the Bismarck

I’m pretty certain the Bismarck was one of the few ships that was specifically referred to as a “He” and not a “She” by the crew. Not really a big deal but it’s strange that its listed as a “She” in this article. 72.133.42.54 (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Is it strange that we don't peddle Nazi propaganda? Parsecboy (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what does that even mean? How is that relevant to what the Bismarck was referred to by its crew? 74.135.138.228 (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia was all about accuracy. I don't think it matters if it "promotes the fact that Nazi's thought women were weak," which by the way, nobody is going to think. Sorry for being aggressive. 74.135.138.228 (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Reading your other comments, it is apparent you are nothing but a stain to society. Someone who thinks everyone is lower than themself and is nothing but rude to everyone. Maybe try being nicer instead of shouting at everyone, and maybe somebody will listen to you for once. Have a great day, if that is even possible for you, and I once again apologize for being rude. 74.135.138.228 (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)