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)

The lack of self-awareness in your posts is absolutely stunning... Parsecboy (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

The article should be correct to the extent of the ship. Not all ships are “She” in every country. To change its pronoun in the name of stopping Nazi propaganda only increases the issue. It should he historically accurate. NelloFellow (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The error of this argument is that choosing to follow Nazi propaganda is, by definition, a choice. One we will not be making, under any circumstance. The fact that Wehraboos don't like it is their problem, not the rest of ours. Parsecboy (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

How is it nazi propaganda? Choosing to call a ship He is not propaganda but the pronoun of the ship. In fact, many modern aircraft carriers are referred as he. To ignore history and the genders ship because the allies mostly made their ships “she” is purposely ignoring german naval history. Calling this ship a He does not in any way peddle nazi propaganda.. If this is how you believe we shouldn’t have the ship on the wiki in the first place. NelloFellow (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

This is the English language wikipedia and uses English language conventions - which for ships is "she" or "it" (even with ships named after men).GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a outdated approach. Currently, english uses both he and she to define ships, as many carriers and ships today are referred to as he. The language (I.E. English) does not change the pronoun of the ship, only ones in its cultural creation. If what you say is the case, it completely eradicates the meaning of he, she, or names in general. NelloFellow (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

If you can find sources that refer to this ship as "he" then we can consider that. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

cameron expedition

I'm not going to break 3rr, hence not another revert, but FYI, I did read the source. The report actually states that damage from possible torpedo hits is impossible to determine. The reason the report cites for this is that the part of the ship that would be damaged by them has been either destroyed by the effects of sinking (aided by said torpedo hits and/or shell damage), or buried in the mud. Hence my edit summary that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The current two alineas seem to be somewhat misinterpreting what is actually being said. Licks-rocks (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Wford's edit does not improve things. Again, only 30 metres of the armoured deck was inspected. The way it is currently included is confusing at best and outright misleading at worst, because it still uses this claim in a way that is completely unsupported by the actual text. we are talking 30 metres on one side of a ship that is around 250 metres in lenght. You just can't use that to support the claim that barely any damage was done.--Licks-rocks (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the current version includes stuff like "thorough examination of the entire hull" which is absolutely false, as the expedition report says they only inspected part of the hull. It also obscures the overall conclusion of the report that "who sunk the Bismarck, the British or the Germans? Both". For now we should try to isolate the false claims into the "expeditions" section, suitably tagged as disputed, and try to correct them to an accurate representation of what the report actually says. Fangz (talk) 12:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that the line in question is actually more or less pulled straight from the report, which states (on page 30) that "it is significant to note that Jim Cameron's complete survey of the hull detected only two instances where the armor-piercing shells actually penetrated all the way through the 320-mm main side belt armor."

Yes, there are problems with how some of the material is presented, more context is needed, but we don't need to over-correct and throw it all out. Parsecboy (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that the sentence you are quoting does not exist in isolation. Same as with the torpedo's, every sentence surrounding it warns us that the ship is too damaged to determine how much damage was truly done to it. You can't say that the report supports the idea that the british did very little damage when the report explicitly states that the main reason they saw no (or little) damage is that the hull of the ship ship has been largely obscured by mud and what remains has been destroyed to such an extent by the sinking process that it is impossible to tell how much damage there was before it sank. "A complete survey of the hull" in this context clearly refers to the part that was actually available to be surveyed, which will be significantly smaller than the entire hull. The article is currently stating a lot of things as if they are absolutely certain that the Cameron report is much more nuanced about. EDIT: or it was, when I last saw it, but I see Fangz implemented a very good rewrite. Licks-rocks (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, no, much of the hull at the belt level and above is visible, so they would have certainly been capable of surveying it to find penetrations of the belt. The actual context that addresses this is already in the article: that the belt represents a relatively small target, which would have been difficult to hit under the conditions.

The general problem we need to address is an accurate representation of the report. But this goes both ways; one of the recent edits includes the line "British gunnery accuracy was "mediocre at best", partially due to the "miserable" firing conditions and the ship's list to port, with only around 10% of fired medium caliber shots hitting." cited to page 32; I don't see the word "miserable" anywhere on that page (though they note the sea state 6 conditions) and nowhere do they credit Bismarck's list to port as causing problems for the British gunners (how on earth that would be, I do not know). As Pbritti noted below, we need to slow down a bit and make sure we're getting this right. What we probably want to do is drill down line by line, reach a consensus on whether a particular detail should or shouldn't be mentioned, or what additional context is needed to understand it. What I don't want to have happen is yet another rehash of the sunk/scuttled crap that periodically pops up here. Parsecboy (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The "miserable conditions" and the effects of the list to port are described on page 34. (The list to port is significant because it caused parts of the armour belt to be submerged beneath the water, which accounts to the lack of hits to it during the later phase of the battle.) The important thing to understand about the report is the way in which it separated out fire (and torpedo fire) during the later part of the engagement. The purpose is to critique Mearns' assertion that the Bismarck was already rapidly sinking at the time of the scuttling by demonstrating that there wasn't a particularly great increase in the rate of damage taken by the ship during the latter part of the engagement that would lead immediately to a sinking. The report in no way claims the Bismarck was not sinking and/or critically damaged at all, instead it states the most important damage was taken early on. Fangz (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Criticism about some of the claims in this article

So, naval historiographer and Youtuber Drachinifel recently released a video about the claims made by James Cameron's expedition to the wreck. In the video, he specifically points out quotes from this article, and argues against them using the actual report from the expedition, including claims about lack of evidence of penetration of the deck armor and the british torpedoes not working.

I know that Drachinifel might not be considered a "reliable source", but the actual report from the expedition is, and because he speaks about inaccuracies in this article using the original report, shouldn't we review the information presented here? Cléééston (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Not so much the information in the video, as much as the way the actual text of the report is being cited here is the problem, IMO. Licks-rocks (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Most of the article is outdated or censored anyways. NelloFellow (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

At about 38 minutes in he talks about claims regarding the torpedos that are repeated in the lead of this article. It's fairly clear from the page he cites in the original report (p33) that the claim in this article is misleading, so I've flagged it as dubious. 2A02:C7F:2CE3:4700:BDD2:BA4C:CA61:41B (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

A good example that claims should be checked against the sources. Doesn't help that the work in question was given same title as another source. I've corrected that, and the author list order. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Parsecboy, since he is the main contributor in this article. Cléééston (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

It appears the material in question was added here in 2020 by Wdford. It certainly seems like there are problems with the added text. The best approach may be to roll the section back to what it was before and add whatever material from the Cameron paper is necessary. Parsecboy (talk) 11:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't that version still make the claims about torpedo damage that are unsupported? Or is that what you meant with your last sentence?--Licks-rocks (talk) 11:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

It appears Wdford is re-adding false claims with only "as per source" as explanation. This is unhelpful. Fangz (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

A statement that a particular section was undamaged by British shellfire could be seen as misleading reader into thinking none of it was damaged. The section on the wreck expeditions could probably due with a bit of more context setting. At the current state of the article a reader might think the wreck is just sitting on the ocean floor just as if it were in a dry dock ready for examination. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually, Fangz, I quoted the source exactly. These are the "conclusions" of experts who have actually examined the wreck. The large section of the armour deck which they examined, was undamaged. Nobody has any actual evidence that the deck was penetrated elsewhere. The torpedo hits which they could see, did not rupture the internal bulkheads. Nobody has any actual evidence that the bulkheads were ruptured elsewhere. To state in the article that "the parts of the ship that could not be directly inspected due to accumulations of sediment, might well have been riddled with torpedo hits", would be unencyclopedic. Please moderate your accusations. Wdford (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The conclusions of the experts can be found on pp50 - 51 of the report "The Wreck of DKM Bismarck − A Marine Forensics Analysis":

CONCLUSION

There are a number of useful historical insights that have resulted from the combination of decades of technical and historical research with the results of Jim Cameron’s 2002 survey of the wreck of Bismarck on the seabed: ○ Long-range gunfire (16,000 to 18,000 meters) from Prince of Wales the morning of 24 May was crucial to the early stages of the British effort to destroy the German battleship. This damage resulted in the loss of fuel and flooding (and counterflooding) which amounted to 3,000 to 4,000 tonnes, a significant loss of reserve buoyancy. Following this engagement, Admiral Lütjens to abort the mission and head to France for repairs.

○ The aerial torpedo hit in the stern late in the afternoon of 26 May wrecked the Bismarck’s steering gear, making the ship un-maneuverable. The ship gradually turned into the prevailing seas, heading directly towards the pursuing British.

○ Long-range gunfire from the battleships King George V and Rodney on the morning of 27 May early on in the final engagement destroyed much of the Bismarck’s main battery and destroyed the ship’s primary gunfire control system. The gunnery engagement lasted from 0847 to 1021.

○ Closer-range gunfire (eventually, at virtually point-blank range for battleship main battery guns) later in the engagement devastated the superstructure and exposed sections of the hull (above the waterline) and caused massive casualties, but contributed little to the eventual sinking of the ship.

○ Late in the final engagement, the Bismark was defeated, sinking as the result of uncontrollable progressive flooding, and virtually defenseless. The Executive Officer, CDR Hans Oels, ordered the scuttling of the ship − “Measure V [V = ‘Versunken’]” − and the charges were detonated shortly after 1020. By 1035, the ship had assumed a heavy port list, capsizing slowly and sinking by the stern. The bow disappeared about 1040.

TORPEDO DAMAGE ANALYSIS:

One of the significant achievements of the 2002 Cameron Expedition was the exploration of damage on the starboard side aft, which is believed to have been caused by the combination of the effects of a torpedo hit and by hydraulic outburst. While a torpedo likely damaged this area of the hull aft, it did not warp, buckle of displace the 45-mm torpedo bulkhead inboard of the tank. The sacrificial tankage served its purpose by dispersing the explosive force. No individual armored plates were displaced in either the armored bulkhead or the armor deck over the tank. While there was leakage through small cracks of failed welds from a torpedo hit on the port side aft from one of the Ark Royal aircraft on 26 May, as confirmed by evidence from Josef Statz and Gerhard Junack, the resulting flooding contributed little to the sinking of the ship. The hits claimed for ship-launched torpedoes during the final battle on 27 May came minutes before the battleship foundered, when some of the major vitals were already flooding from scuttling charges. Some German survivors, including Baron von Müllenheim-Rechberg during an interview with authors Dulin and Garzke, have stated that no torpedo holes could be observed when the ship capsized. It is very probable that these torpedo holes were probably hidden from sight.

LESSONS FOR THE MARINE FORENSIC ANALYST

○ Survivor Testimony can be helpful but is a suspect source: - The brain fills in details and ignores “impossible” sights - Small details are recalled as large. - Details can be rationalized or imagined - Testimony very close to the time of the event is most useful - Prejudice can be a factor (fear of torpedo, mine, or shell hits) - Reality (at times, this is the only source of information)

○ Ship Damage − difficult to determine the cause of damage on the wreck: - Damage that caused the ship to sink - Damage sustained as the ship plunged through the water column - Damage sustained at the time of impact with the seabed - Damage resulting from deterioration on the seabed

○ Documentation: - Very important to have the latest plans of the ship - Helpful to have recent photographs of the ship - Historical analysis is a helpful starting point for the marine forensics specialist

○ Reverse Engineering: - Very dependent on the skill of the person(s) doing the analysis - Always a degree of uncertainly in the details - Sadly, experience reminds the analyst that the “Best Available Information” frequently is later shown to be “Not Very Good”

○ Humility is a GREAT virtue for the marine forensic analyst

EPILOG

The May 2002 Cameron Expedition to the Bismarck wreck has answered some questions but raised others. Further exploration of the wreck may answer some of those questions. Unquestionably, this 2002 encounter demonstrated what can be gained from a thorough photographic examination of sunken marine wrecks, an important resource for any thorough marine forensic analysis.

I think that you have cherry picked some of the conclusions and taken them out of the context in which they are being used, by asserting something that hasn't been confirmed at all. The experts, report isn't a final report and you need to read their conclusions in conjunction with their Lessons for the Marine Forensic Analyst section because that lists the problems that they encounter in general. The wreck wasn't fully surveyed, survivor accounts can be inaccurate and we know that today, from eyewitness statements taken at crime scenes. A sailor abandoning a blazing warship that is still under enemy fire isn't going to take the time to do a survey of the number of hits and where they are. They just want to get off and swim well away to avoid being sucked under and / or hit by falling debris. It's no fun in cold water trying to swim with a life jacket on and being fully clothed. I can tell you that from experience because it was part of my naval sea survival training and all of my sea survival training was done in May just before winter arrived and even the penguins were wearing thermals. Ngatimozart (talk) 11:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

They examined 6% of the armour deck. That is not convincingly "a large section" to me. I also don't see how "quoting the source exactly" addresses the problem that was pointed out. If anything, the source was quoted too exactly, with only specific sentences being referenced and the rest going largely ignored. --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

We use only the reliable sources, we don't rely on propaganda and wishful thinking. This report has several pages of itemized shell holes, and not one mentions the armour deck being penetrated. The survivor accounts all say that the spaces below the armour deck were still intact when they scuttled the ship. If you have actual evidence of the armour deck having been penetrated, then cite it here. Wdford (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

They examined 6% of the armour deck. That is not convincingly "a large section" to me. I also don't see how "quoting the source exactly" addresses the problem that was pointed out. If anything, the source was quoted too exactly, with only specific sentences being referenced and the rest going largely ignored. --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

We use only the reliable sources, we don't rely on propaganda and wishful thinking. This report has several pages of itemized shell holes, and not one mentions the armour deck being penetrated. The survivor accounts all say that the spaces below the armour deck were still intact when they scuttled the ship. If you have actual evidence of the armour deck having been penetrated, then cite it here. Wdford (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The report literally attributes the sinking of the ship to long range plunging fire. This means fire *had* to have penetrated the armoured deck. The report said the ship *unquestionably* would have sunk without scuttling. You cannot pick out individual out of context quotes and then ignore the main conclusions of the report! The report also makes no mention of any detected scuttling damage. Are we supposed to infer from that that no scuttling actually took place? Fangz (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Who here is talking about propaganda or wishful thinking?? All we're saying is that the rest of the report does not support the conclusions you draw from the specific sentences you cite. An absence of evidence is not evidence of an absence, The report addresses this several times! Licks-rocks (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Having watched this conversation play out and the edits made during it, I think a consensus is will have to wait. The video (which I would encourage everyone to watch, as Drachinifel does a fine job summarizing some key points) came out yesterday. We will see people filtering into the article over the next couple weeks, taking executive actions without consulting the article history or this talk page. However, I do think that the video's points are essentially correct in full: this page extrapolated far too much from the Cameron expedition's report and occasionally deviated from its findings. While I agree with Wdford insofar as accusations of wrongdoing and the insertion of unverifiable information are bad, it should also be remembered that the version of this article that stood ~20 August had a few issues and some of the editors here have done a fine job of balancing the finer points. When things calm down a month from now, I think those interested in this subject can hold a more precise discussion that will be far less imflamed by passions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", is usually used to admit that there is no evidence to support the writer's POV, but that there is a fond hope that the POV might still be valid even though there is no evidence to support it. I note specifically the use of the phrase "possible torpedo hits".

I agree that using the word "miserable" is unsupported – that was not my word. "Mediocre" says it all. The list to port is also irrelevant, and this excuse can also be removed. The British gunners were not aiming specifically at the narrow armour belt, they were shooting at a huge stationary defenceless target from point blank range, and largely missing.

We need to ensure that the material in the article is properly sourced from reliable sources, and does not consist of a bunch of "maybe's" and a few "possible's", clustering around a specific POV. I also don't think that a Youtube video counts as a reliable source.

Wdford (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I am glad to learn that you agree that the Cameron report cannot be used as evidence to support any strong conclusions regarding the amount of damage the Bismarck suffered before sinking.--Licks-rocks (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

As something of an aside, most of Drach's early videos were straight up feeding Wiki articles through a text to voice program. Until I pointed it out of a couple of the videos, which I recognized as my own writing :P Parsecboy (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)