Talk:Last battle of Bismarck/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Last battle of Bismarck. 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

old comment

I added Unsinkable Sam as "Captured" from the Bismarck. 201.29.238.167 (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The casualties are not correct. British did suffer losses. And do we really need another Bismarck article? This should either be deleted or merged. Cheers. Kurt.

The casualties list is incomplete! Well correct it then. The spinning off of detail into other articles is a good technique. See M4 Sherman. GraemeLeggett 10:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is completely irrelevant

All of this is explained (better) in the actual Bismarck article. I suggest that we get rid of this one. --Kurt Leyman 14:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Please note, Kurt Leyman

The article is very much relevant to the history of the Bismarck. And, which article is better than which, is not to be decided by the user. -- Vikrant P

Wider issues

There's a wider discussion on the documentation of the operational history of the Bismarck, here. Folks at 137 21:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Like I said:

I do not support this article and I suggest that it will be removed or merged. All of this was explained in the actual Bismarck article untill someone decided to create this. These was no "Bismarck Chase" (by name).--Kurt Leyman 23:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The term Bismark Chase has a firm place in popular culture. A simple websearch displays several hundred hits under the phrase.--Lepeu1999 17:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Merge tag has been hanging around since September 06, Any chance of sorting it out whether it stays or goes.GraemeLeggett 16:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I say that this article will be merged, and that the tag stays until this has been done. Regards, --Kurt Leyman 19:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Do not merge. A simple google search turns up 610,000 references to Bismark Chase. Obviously it has a place in popular culture even if it was never 'officially' a military operation. If the Bismark Breakout has it's own article why not the chase? --Lepeu1999 20:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Copy / Paste

This article appears to be a copy-paste (or this has been copied and pasted) from the article German_battleship_Bismarck sections 'the chase' and 'sinking' why not delete this article and put in a re-direct to German_battleship_Bismarck?213.106.165.10 12:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)J

Rescope and rename?

Some months ago, I floated the idsa of merging Bismarck Chase with 'Operation Rheinübung, but the reaction was generally unenthusiastic. Since then, I have had a rethink, and I now propose the following:

Bismarck Chase should be renamed and rescoped as an article on the battle of 26-27 March 1941, which resulted in the sinking of the Bismarck. Since this battle, somewhat perversely, does not have a generally recognised name, I suggest Sinking of the Bismarck, 26-27 May 1941. Instead of focusing solely on the battleship action, the article should emphasise the "all-arms" aspects of the battle, beginning with the carrier airstrikes on the Sheffield (inadvertent) and Bismarck, and concluding with the Luftwaffe strikes on the withdrawing British forces that resulted in the loss of HMS Mashona.
Operation Rheinübung should come under the Military conflict involving Germany category, and be headed by the appropriate {{Infobox Military Conflict}} template. It should be scoped as:
- A description of the planning and objectives of the operation,
- A narrative of the operations conducted by the opposing sides in the course of the operation, and referencing the more detailed articles on the two battles.
- An assessment of the impact of the operation on the subsequent course of the war.
- A historical appraisal, addressing areas of ongoing debate and uncertainty.
The Operation Rheinübung category should be deleted.

As a matter of couse, I will not implement such a change without a consensus. I am placing similar posts on the Talk:Operation Rheinübung and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force pages, but I suggest that it would be best to consolidate discussion on this page.

Regards to all, John Moore 309 13:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Should it really be Bismarck Chase? what are the grounds for "chase" being a proper noun? Emoscopes ^Talk 14:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Obvious question: is there really going to be enough material for two full articles here? It may be better, in any case, to start by merging everything into the Rheinübung article and then splitting out the "Sinking of the Bismark" portion if it becomes too long. Kirill Lokshin 17:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

A big issue is that most of the general public have no knowladge of what Operation Rheinubung is but just about everyone has heard of the Bismark. At the very least you would need a redirect from Bismark, Bismark Breakout and Bismark Chase/Sinking--Lepeu1999 00:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, redirects are no problem at all; indeed, they'd pretty much have to be set up if any merging was being done. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Pursuit and sinking of the Bismarck would describe the action very well and avoids the use of the dates in the title, it was only sunk the once and avoids it looking like a disambig addition.GraemeLeggett 10:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your comments. I appreciate the concerns expressed, for example, I have myself criticised the Operation Rheinübung article for its "arcane" title. However, I've since come round to the opinion that no other title would accurately describe the scope of the article, and that, as Kirill Lokshin says, the title is not really a problem if users can be directed to it by links and redirects.

With regard to the fate of the Bismarck Chase article, my idea was to provide a more creative alternative to simply absorbing it back into Operation Rheinübung. The case for an article on The-hitherto-unnamed-naval-battle-in-which-the-Bismarck-was-sunk is a strong one. In comparison with the Battle of the Denmark Strait, the HUNBIWTBWS:

Involved a greater number of ships and personnel;
Resulted in more casualties;
Was of greater strategic significance;
Has historical significance as a pioneering example of combined carrier and battlefleet action (the only precedent at that time being Matapan).

In these respects, it also eclipses other well-known actions such as the Battle of the River Plate and the Battle of the North Cape. The present article, although it obviously need a lot of work, is at least a starting point for a HUNBIWTBWS article. The problem is to find a name. In fairness to post-war historians, HUNBIWTBWS is a very rare example of a naval battle fought in the middle of nowhere; the nearest land appears to have been Mizen Head in Ireland, over 300 nm away. My suggested title, although, as Graeme points out, not very satisfactory, is the best I could think of. Maybe we should have a competion? Regards to all, John Moore 309 13:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should take time to come up with a variety of suggestions for the article title. So how about we put them here. GraemeLeggett 13:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Last call for comments

Thanks to all who have commented. Unless anyone expresses strong dissent, I will rename this article as Last battle of the "Bismarck" in the next couple of days. Regards to all, John Moore 309 19:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Mmm the Bismarck had one true battle (Denmark street) from which it emerged sligthly damaged. After that it was mainly hunted down and sank. Does not seem like a battle to me. Also the title seems to imply that Bismarck had a long service record while the operation it was on was its first and last. A better title would be the second and last battle of Bismarck. Or as a reminder of Churchills command 'The sinking of the Bismarck'. Arnoutf 15:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The battle with no name

In my first attempt at an intro to the new article, I included a speculation as to the reason this battle has no accepted name. This was - not unreasonably, since it was unsourced - cut out by a later edit. At the moment, the article simply states that This battle has no generally recognised name, with no explanation offered as to why this should be. Does anyone out there know of a Reliable source which explains or even touches upon the battle's namelessness?

Regards to all, John Moore 309 22:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of move

I move this article from Last battle of the battleship Bismarck → The sinking of the Bismarck because that title is more appealing. Rex 19:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

... more appealing to Dutch User:Rex Germanus, the keeper of his own scale of nationalism who repeatedly and unilaterally moves Wikipedia articles claiming "WP: Use English". For example, he moved Greater Netherlands to Groot-Nederland despite the talk results. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 02:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT just radiates from my screen right now. I could make a page long post of all the stuff you unilatery did, denial of nazi crimes, constantly changing polish town names to archaic german names, etc. But I'm not going to do that, I'm going to visit my relatives tomorow with my girlfriend and need to be fitt. So I'm just going to bed now.Rex 22:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the actual move, I think it is arguable whether Bismarck fought a last battle as it was chased down through a series of 'skirmishes' rather than a single full scale battle. So We can debate whether this was a true battle. Secondly, the term last implies a distinguished history, while the Battle of Denmark Strait was actually its only battle, and this was more or less the follow up. So it could as easily be called 'Second battle of Bship Bismarck' (although I agree that is not an appealing name). Sinking of Bismarck has a good ring to me for 2 reasons. First of all, this was undeniably the end result of this operation. Second it reminds of Churchills angry command 'Sink the Bismarck' after it had destroyed the Hood in the B of Denmark S. Arnoutf 22:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

How about Last stand of the Bismark, as Adm. Tovey's quote suggests, even though this term usually is applied to terrestrial combat only? It was not really an even battle as the Bismarck could not fight properly any more after the hit in the rudder, but it fired all of its shells as Lindemann had pledged. It was neither a direct sinking by the British as Churchill had called for, as their main ships fired thousands of shells and returned home while the Bismarck was still afloat. The Germans stated that it was scuttled to prevent capture, which is backed up by American diving expeditions. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 01:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Last stand is a good title; it is short, to the point, and acknolwedges it was (at least) not an easy 'sinking' for the British. Note that remarks like 'fight properly' assume something like fairness in war, which IMHO is a contradictio in terminis. Arnoutf 01:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

My sentence above clearly explains that with "could not fight properly", the rudder damage is meant that prevented her from making the necessary manoeuvres. It has nothing to do with fairness in war or the lack thereof, it just states that the combat effectiveness was significantly reduced. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 04:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I oppose "Last stand". It makes it sound to heroic, these people were afteral nazis. We should keep it factual. It was a ship, it was chased across the ocean (so not much of a last stand where you deliberately face the enemy) and was sunk. → The sinking of the Bismarck.Rex 10:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think whether or not they were nazis is besides the point here. We need a title that is as neutral as possible. I think last stand is acceptable as it did fight way beyond hopes of victory or even escape. Arnoutf 10:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well drop "nazis" then, the point stands. "Last stand" is more emotional than "Sinking". The Bismarck was pursuited by the Royal Navy, fled (or tried to flee) and three days later she sunk. In other words, she was pursuid by an ever more increasing amount of ships, but did not engage them, and tried to runn away. No Last stand. The ship was sunk.Rex 10:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Rex for once again proving your Anti-German motivation and your lack of knowledge about the issues you meddle with. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 01:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

At Rex: True, but once finally cornered she shot all her shells at the advancing forces and went down (perhaps was scuttled) rather than surrendering. @Matthead, no need to be nasty. Arnoutf 06:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"She shot all of her shells at the advancing forces and went down", I never read anything of this do have references? As for "finally being cornered" (at sea?). The prime example of a "last stand" (which is always land-bound in my opinion) are the spartans at Thermopylae. They faced overwhelming forces and it didn't even cross their minds if they would runn. That's a last stand, this is the sinking of a ship.Rex 09:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears somehow amazing that a Dutch guy is that interested in German naval war history. Why are you so concerned about the topic? As for me, you should rather concentrate on Dutch maritim history (or Greater Netherlands) and leave the subject at hand to British or German Wikipedians. ps: stigmatyzing all 2,200 drowned German seamen as "Nazis" is polemic, cynical and ingnorant.(194.9.5.12 10:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

Ah! I was waiting for you to show up sooner or later (and just a few hours after User:Mattheads block, how odd, and you also seem to have that greater netherlands tick he has) with some ridiculous comment towards me. Let me be clear: I edit what I want to edit, whenever I want to. You don't decide anything for me. Rex 11:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"Ridiculous", tss, tss, tss, Rexy, Rexy, Rexy, especially you should refrain from personal attacks. As you might have not noticed the exact wording, I said "As for me", ie that is my opinion and, hence, you can without any saying comment on what ever you want to comment on. Furthermore, I would say you have a German/Nazi tick. However, it was neither a Dutch battle nor Dutch ships nor Dutch casualties but British and German, the latter you stigmatized all as "Nazis" which might serve as an example for your attitude towards everthing that is connected to Germany or Germans. "Jeder kehre vor seinem Tor, da hat er Dreck genug davor" (194.9.5.10 12:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

Just because it's your "personal opinion" doesn't mean it can't be ridiculous. You just proved that yourself. You somehow think that repeating that I called "them" (Bismarck + crew) nazis puts me in a bad light. You might be one of those German youngsters who believe that the only "real" nazis were Hitler and Goebels and that all the other Germans "did what they had to do" (The whole "Befehl ist Befehl-dream") well that's just crap. The sailors fought for the Third Reich and all it stood for, so I am, and everyone else is, perfectly allowed to call them nazis. You might want to "soften" history, but I don't.Not that any of this is (or should be) part of the discussion here. This is about the change of a name.Rex 12:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Fighting for the III. Reich does not necessarily mean being a Nazi: 1) as even you should know, Deutsches Reich is the name of the state and Nazi is the abbreviation for Nationalsozialist ie member or supporter of the NSDAP which was a poltical party => Deutsches Reich is not = Nazi; 2) as you should know also, people have not been asked to please fight for Deutsches Reich but had been forced to do so (although, yes, some of them but definitively NOT ALL of them were Nazis); 3) I do not want to soften history but simply resist your undifferntiated "black & white"- approach; 4) "ridiculous", "crap", "German youngster" is personal attack so please refrain from it - thx! (194.9.5.10 13:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

Somehow you think this needs to be discussed. Well it doesn't, if you want to (continue to) change history so it fitts your bubble go ahead. Just know that I (and many others) will always be here to stop you. This discussion is about a move. List your factual objections or leave.Rex 13:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me be clear: I leave when I want to leave. You don't decide anything for me. As for the rest, just let the readers judge who has the better arguments. End of tranmission! (194.9.5.10 13:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

BOTH OF YOU BEHAVE. In all above ranting there is hardly any content; only some shoeting (ridiculous, crap) and some trolling (rexy, rexy). My response on what (little) content arguments were given is:

@Rex, sorry, the all their shells is overstated. However, it kept firing to the last and about the actual sinking/scuttling shows they were not willing to surrender even though victory was no longer an option.
Both being cornered AND last stand can well be used metaphorically. In this case perhaps Bismarck was surrounded, had hardly no navigation (ie no upper command structures) or steering or power left. That is at least surrounded. Evenso it went down fighting and never allowed the UK to board the vessel. That's last stand enough for me.
@194.9.5.12. I would rather have neither a UK nor a German editor on this article because the UK won (POV) and the Germans lost (POV). Your argument in relation to that is flawed. Arnoutf 13:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Arntoutf, I do not have any problem with the fact that Germany lost but I have a problem with Rex calling all drowned German sailors nazis. Furthermore, I do not have the impression that Rex is a better editor for the page at hand than a German or British one. (194.9.5.10 13:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

I never said anything about specific editors for this page; I only said that your previous arguments that implied that battles and perhaps whole wars should be edited by editors from one of the involved countries is not a very good argument. To be honest, the Netherlands were a party as well in the war (not in this battle). Perhaps we should leave it to the Irish, the Swiss or the Swedes ;-) Arnoutf 13:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I said "it is somehow amazing" but have not said others are not allowed. Furthermore, I refered to the battle and not the whole war. Without any saying, everybody is free to edit everthing. By the way, Sweden (delivery of steal) and Switzerland (crediting German war machinery by purchasing ilegally confiscated Jewish property) were involved indirectly... (194.9.5.12 13:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

That was not a completely serious remark from my side, as the ;-) may have revealed. I think Bismarcks defeat was a turning point in the N-Atlantic naval war, hence it was larger in relation to the War as a whole than a mere sinking of some insignificant boat. That the Swiss and Swedes (and probably the Irish one way or another as well) were involved is not strange, it was not called World War for nothing, perhaps if we look very good a nation like Bolivia may have been truly not involved however one way or another I even doubt that. Anyway, I think this point has received enough attention I think. It seems we agree that editor nationality does not matter as long as objectivity, facts and a neutral pov are the standards. Arnoutf 14:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the point who was involved or not has definitively received enough attention (you are right, almost everyone was somehow involved in WWII)! As for the turning point, I would say that the interesting thing about the Bismark is rather its adventurous flight from the Royal Navy but the overall strategic surplus of its sinking. The only real threat to the Allied naval units were probably the submarines and with this regard the invention of sonar was the turning point in maritim war. (194.9.5.12 14:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

I agree, the flight is the more compelling story. It was the turning point in German effort at large scale surface naval warfare though; how important that may have been remains in question. After Bismarck the Germans concentrated on their Subwarfare (for which Sonar and the capture of the Enigma) were the true turning points. As far as I heard historians are still not all agreeing whether the shift in focus from surface to almost exclusively sub fleet or the decision to build an expensive surface fleet to begin with were sound strategical discussion of the German leaders. But I think that goes beyond the scope of this article.

To come back to naming (just an idea that came up right now), could you consider the Flight of Bismarck, or the Hunt for Bismarck?? Less heroic all around, and depicts the action more than the end result. Arnoutf 14:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh please. First it was a "last stand" now it's a "flight". What is wrong with The sinking of the Bismarck? Rex 14:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If you ask me, I would call the article simply "battleship Bismark" and merge it with the already existing article "battleship Bismark". However, if you want to keep two separate articles, give me a second to think about an appropriate name and I`ll come back to you later. (194.9.5.10 14:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

Or merge into Rheinubung, with a redirect for sinking of, if we decide the Bismarck article is already long enough. Arnoutf 15:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd still like an answer though. Arnoutf, what's wrong with The sinking of the Bismarck?Rex 15:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry, typed one, disappeared in edit conflict and I did not set it up. Ok, I think the article describes more than the relatively sort sinking/scuttling of Bismarck, but describes how it fared after the initial damage in the battle of Denm Str. The actual sinking is only the conclusion, not the whole story. But again, as I stated above my idas were just that; wild ideas Arnoutf 15:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

So, what about "chase and sinking of the (battleship) Bismark"? (194.9.5.12 15:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

Fine with me; but if consensus arrives, I can also live with sinking (or chase) alone. As sayd above, any of the merges would also be ok. Arnoutf 15:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Churchill ordered the Sinking of the Bismarck, this can be seen as the entire operation. The comment by Arnoutf on the sinking being only the conclusion, let me say this. The article on the Sinking of the RMS Titanic doesn't just say: "2:20 AM" Rex 15:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, as Arnoutf has already said, the interesting part of the whole story is not only the mere sinking of the Bismark but also its earlier chase. Churchill probably ordered to sink any German naval unit which comes into sight of the Royal Navy so this can hardly be an argument. However, if Rex insists on having sinking in the title, I would agree to call the article "chase and sinking of the Bismark". Could this be a fair compromise? (194.9.5.12 15:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

@Rex Titanic only describes the last few hours, this article a much longer span. @194.9.5.12 The number of ships, plains etc deployed to chase down and sink the Bismarck was not standard for every German ship. It was the destruction of the well-renowned UK battleship HMS Hood (once the flagship of the complete UK Atlantic Fleet) that (in Churchills eyes) needed retaliation and resulted in the deployment of no less than 3 battleships, 2 aircraft carriers, 4 cruisers, and 7 destroyers to track down a single unescorted vessel. This was not standard. Arnoutf 16:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the deployed extraordinary forces to sink the Bismark but the mere fact that Churchill ordered to sink it is not a suprise as he probably ordered to sink every German naval unit. Furthermore, I think that Rex could actually live with "chase" instead of "flight", no? (194.9.5.12 16:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

The difference between a standing order (sink everything in sight) versus the "Track down and sink this specific vessel" is kind of typical though. For the name, you should ask Rex. Arnoutf 16:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

My question was actually directed at both of you, Rex and Arnoutf, right from the beginning. So, Rex, what do you think about the proposal? (194.9.5.12 16:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

This operation took 3 days ... the chase itself is already explained in the Bismarck article. This article is clearly about the fight in which the bismarck was sunk. Hence no. Not acceptable.Rex 16:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"The article is CLEARLY ABOUT THE FIGHT in which the Bismark was sunk" - great, than I presume that the title at hand, "Last Battle/Fight of the Bismark" is the most appropriate title and we can cease the discussion at this point... (194.9.5.12 16:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)) By the way, YOU want to change the article`s name and not me, hence, it is up to you to convince us and not the other way arround.`

No I don't think so. This article is about the fight in which the bismarck was sunk indeed. To call it "the last battle of the Bismarck" is ridiculous, as it wasn't a battle, and "fight" isn't acceptable either, as it makes it sound too romantic "nazis bravely fighting till the end and against all odds" I'm there's a crowd for everything, but not on wikipedia. Just because I mention the word "fight" doesn't mean you have a point. Not at all. By your logic this article could now easily be called "7th battle of HSM Rodney".Rex 16:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Rex, but on the one hand you say the article is about the last fight and on the other hand you say we cannot call it the last fight because fight sounds to heroic? What is than an unromantic synonym for fight? Furthermore, I ask you to please refrain from calling the whole crew "nazis". Arnoutf, can`t you help? (194.9.5.10 16:50, 10 April 2007(UTC)) ps: Rex, I really tried to achieve a compromise but when you argue like that (especially alleging I want to soften history or that fight is too romantic), I am out. (194.9.5.12 16:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

@Rex (because of edit conflict later)

Let's not start about the nazis again. As you may have noticed is that user:194.9.5.12 suggested to call it "chase and sinking of Bismarck"; which acknowledges the action AND the end result. You yourself started to say the article was about the "the fight in which the bismarck was sunk"; i.e. not the unilateral sinking of but the action leading to the sinking of.... Arnoutf 16:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Let it be clear that I never said anything about a "last battle" although User:194etc does claim this. When I refered to the fight, I refered to the final actions ... those taking a few hours. The chase is explained in the Main Bismarck article. This article is clearly about the sinking, if the chase were discussed here and not there it would be fine, but it isn't. As for User:194etc. let it be clear, that you're not the one who's supposed to act like a bitten dog. You came here to make me look bad, as you always try, as can be seen from your first post here, not to find a compromise.Rex 17:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"act like a bitten dog"? (194.9.5.12 17:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

"Jeder kehre vor seinem Tor, da hat er Dreck genug davor"? Rex 17:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually thought we would try to refrain from personal attacks after 13.30? (194.9.5.12 17:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

Personal attacks? Trying to make your little german proverb look like a personal attack? Not very nice now is it?Rex 17:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Later dated insertions in the stream

No, I was actually talking about your constant personal attacks but you are probably to autistic to notice that. However, here another little German proverb you should think about when editing Wikipedia "Sich wie ein Vogel verhalten, der sein eigenes Nest bescheisst". (194.9.5.10 12:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC))

I'd be very carefull claiming I make "constant personal attacks" while calling me an austistic person. As for those indeed "little German" proverbs, am I supposed to be interested by them? If so, please make that clear, but anyway; doe maar gewoon dan doe je al gek genoeg.Rex 17:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Be normal, to be normal is crazy enough" ("sei normal, normal ist schon verrückt genug")? However, I said "autistic" because I have the impression that you have sometimes server problems to discover what other people are trying to say. Last but not least, here is another "little German" proverb for you: "Wie man in den Wald hinein ruft, so schallt es heraus".(194.9.5.12 12:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC))

Dude, say what you want to say, don't try to hide behind non-explanatory pseudo-intellectual German bourgeoisie proverbs.Rex 14:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

ok, what I tried to say is, when you try to act a bit more polite while discussing with people you can, with a very high propabilty, expect that other people will be polite too while discussing with you. In other words: the manner in which somebody gives a response is often the echo of how you said something before. (194.9.5.10 14:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)) ps: the proverb is definitively not bourgeois but an old people`s wisdom.

Well, to this I can only answer: "Verbeter de wereld en begin bij jezelf".Rex 15:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok "wie kaatst kan de bal verwachten" or "zoals de waard is vertrouwt hij zijn gasten" are applicable here too. Both of you behave and if you want to chat about proverd find another place, talk pages are not meant to be blogs. Arnoutf 15:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Continued after insertions at later date

"came here to make me look bad"? "not to find a compromise"? You did not say "The article is CLEARLY ABOUT THE FIGHT in which the Bismark was sunk"? It is not you who resists any compromise? It is not you who wants to change the article`s name but me? Where is the difference between "battle" and "fight"? (194.9.5.12 17:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

I said just that. This article is about the fight in which the Bismarck WAS SUNK, note how I didn't mention the chase. I want the best name for this article, and that's Sinking of the Bismarck. The only reasons you're willing to "compromise" with any title apart from that one is because it's not mine. Where is the difference between battle and fight? Get a dictionary.Rex 17:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not fight.

Still more action than mere sinking; and you indeed said fight, which is an almost synonym to battle. Indeed the chase seems up under the main article however (1) the main article is Operation Rheinübung, so it refers to the chase of the whole Bismarck battlegroup; started by the Hood (hardly a player in this article). And (2) Bismarck Chase redirects here.

Nevertheless there is some value in your point that currenty this articles introduction focusses on the UK fleet locating and attacking Bismarck. But we could easily rewrite that (if we agree) as the origin section reports all actions after the sinking of the Hood.

IMHO rewriting the article to render all actions after may 24th (sinking of hood) untill Bismarck sank (27th). I do not think there is a need to split the chase and the sinking into two articles. Expanding the scope of this article would also allow some cleaning up of the main German battleship Bismarck article; where I think the Rheinubung operation is now wrongly placed in the text. Arnoutf 17:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh please Arnoutf. We still say Battle of Waterloo and not Fight of Waterloo, don't we? There's a reason for that.Rex 17:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Arnoutf, but I am out. Discussing with Rex ("I want the best name for this article, and that's Sinking of the Bismarck") is like fighting against windmills. Cheers, (194.9.5.12 17:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

No it's called fighting for the best Wikipedia possible. Cheers indeed.Rex 17:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think at Rex second but last remark that there should be some reasonable debate about which is more important, the fight or the end result. If it is always the end result, we might as well start renaming battle of Hastings to Killing of Harold II or the Battle of France to the Fall of France. Curtailing discussion by using strong language is not constructive. (With the rehash of same arguments being more or less that of a windmill blade, while having the idea of directing arguments at a stone mill-base - I agree with you)

At one but last: Note the use of the word ALMOST when comparing Fight and Battle.

@Rex last rem. Figthing is good for wars and boxing; Wiki is about consensus Arnoutf 17:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to override consensus on a wider scale such as content-related policies/guidelines like Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).Rex 18:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Destroyer sunk

The Allied causalities list one destroyer. Which one was it? 70.230.68.66 20:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Good question. A large number of Luftwaffe bombers were sent out on 27th May to attack the British fleet, and one formation found and sank HMS Mashona while she was returning to harbour. I would regard these attacks as part of the battle, just as, for example, the strike by Midway-based B-17s were part of the Battle of Midway. Certainly the Mashona's loss was attributable to her being part of the force pursuing the Bismarck, even though she did not directly engage Bismarck herself. Obviously we need to add a section to the text of the article describing these attacks; I will do that myself when I can find the time. Regards, John Moore 309 11:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Bismarck's destination

In this article it is said that Bismarck was heading for Brest, but in the Battle_of_the_Denmark_Strait it says "Bismarck headed for Saint-Nazaire for repairs". Which one is true ?

--ThePro 18:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

They may both be true. Admiral Lutjens' original intention, signalled just after the Battle of the Denmark Strait at 0801 on 24 May, was to make for St Nazaire. However, according to Bismarck's reconstructed War Diary, Group West signalled at 1605 on the 26th, reporting that "due to adverse weather conditions", the Bismarck could not be received at La Pallice or St Nazaire, and ordering her to put into Brest instead (both times are by German reckoning). It is possible that Lutjens had changed his mind by then anyway, since Brest was closer and he was desperately short of fuel (I seem to recall reading this somewhere, but I may be mistaken). Lutjens had earlier been advised that preparations for her reception were being made at both ports.

Hope this answers your question. I will clarify this point in the article in due course. Regards, John Moore 309 21:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

My Opinion

I suggest that the name The sinking of the Bismarck has alot of merit. I have studied this ship and her famous campaign ever since I was in school and I have always been inpressed with her power and sheer duribility. She has to be the most fantastic and most well built and well used battleship of the war. BTW...whoever said those brave German sailors were all Nazis is an idiot.--Lord Balin 01:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Casualties

I've noticed that the casualty figures for German losses are an estimate, but are not marked so, but placed later in a footnote. It seems that this is a particular matter of principle for one user, but I'm wondering what the objection is for putting a "c." in front of the figure? For other battles, where it's only an estimate, they can be marked as such, hence Siege of Danzig (1807), Battle of Cape Matapan, Battle of Cape Spada, Battle of Cape Bon (for more contemporaneous examples). You can find plenty of examples where they are not, so I'm not trying to say this is a cast iron precedent. I'm concerned that because placed alongside the exact British figure, the casual reader might think that that that is the exact German figure. This would be the sort of reader unconcerned or unfamiliar with how footnotes work, so it might be missed.

In short, I just think it was a helpful thing to have, which seemed to be removed on a weak pretense, and I was wondering if anyone else had any thoughts on this? At worst it's unnessecery for the reader and easily skipped over, at best a helpful pointer to not go quoting it as exact in their essay. Benea 01:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Benea, and thanks for this. As the person who added the "c." symbol, I can testify that I was astonished when Kurt_Leyman removed it. Since then I have made repeated representations to Kurt on this issue, but without result. As you say, it appears to be a matter of principle for him, although I must admit that I don't understand what the principle actually is. Although I strongly disagree with Kurt's stance, I have taken the view that it is not an issue important enough to justify raising a request for comments. After all, as Kurt rightly point out, at least the footnote describes the true situation. I hope that this clarifies the situation. Regards, John Moore 309 12:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Damage to Rodney

I have added my source for the statement that Rodney was damaged by near misses and by blast from her own guns. Apologies for not having done this earlier.

For the benefit of those who don't have access to Kennedy's book, I have transcribed the relevant passges below.

"Considerable damage to Rodney was caused by firing over the fo'c'sle. The deck leaked very badly after the battle. It was necessary to remove the wooden deck as far aft as B turret in order to repair these leaks. The stresses were transmitted to the decks below, causing some damage to bulkheads, stanchions and athwartships beams" (Contemporary report of Lt-Cdr Wellings, USN, to the US Navy Department; quoted in Kennedy, Pursuit, p. 238).
"Like other parts of the ship, [the starboard torpedo room] had suffered much from the blast of their own guns, main lighting gone and water pouring in from a cracked pipe, they were were working on three dim emergency lights and a couple of torches...now there was a noise...like a thunderclap...a shell from Bismarck had landed just off the starboard bow, jammed the sluice-door of the starboard torpedo tube, rendered it useless. This was the closest Bismarck got to a direct hit. " (Kennedy, pp. 206-207).

This near-miss is recorded in the official Admiralty report (BR 1756), which times it as shortly after 0916.

I must confess that I had not realised that this was still regarded as a matter of dispute. Hopefully this will clesr it up. Comments and questions are welcome, as always. Regards to all, John Moore 309 15:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect description of ORP Piorun torpedo attack on Bismarck

According to Eugeniusz Plawski, Captain of ORP Piorun during the contact with Bismarck, Piorun did not fire any torpedoes during the contact.

Quote: "Fakt, ze nie udalo sie Piorunowi wystrzelic chociazby paru torped, ...."

Translation(mine): The fact that Piorun was unable to fire any torpedoes...

He has made this comment after he was ordered to return to Plymouth.

Source: Fala za fala... wspomnienia dowodcy ORP Piorun, Eugeniusz Plawski, Finna, 1st Edition, Gdansk 2003, ISBN: 83-917883-1-8 Page: 380 Last line.

Piorun only fired 3 salvos toward Bismarck "for the glory of Poland" ("na chwale Polski") on May 26th 2250GMT. Source: same as above, page 373. Translation mine. This was the only direct ofensive action taken by Piorun against Bismarck.

70.131.132.155 (talk) 02:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

British Strength - is it correct?

If this article is discussing just the last battle of the Bismarck, then the items in the British Strength table may be incorrect. There was just one aircraft carrier involved in this battle, Ark Royal. Victorious was involved in earlier attacks, but not in this one. There were only two battleships, Rodney and King George V. Three cruisers, Norfolk, Dorsetshire, and Sheffield. One battlecruiser, Renown with Force H. As for destroyers, there were the 5 of Vian's force, the 2 that were escorting Rodney and were sent home (including Mashona), and those that were escorting Force H. The air squadrons that were onboard Ark Royal should also probably be listed. 75.144.68.166 (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this too - hadn't the Prince of Wales turned back before the final battle? If so, there were surely only two British battleships involved? As for the aircraft, that's tricky. Presumably we should include the aircraft if they were present, rather than if they were involved - but do we include fighter aircraft, which were both unused and of no tactical relevance whatsoever? Nobody includes shipping in Battle of Britain strength, for example - because it wasn't relevant. Fighter planes don't attack battleships in their fighter role (Tirpitz aside...), torpedo and bomber aircraft, however, should certainly be included. Audigex (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Slow Swordfish and Bismark's Fire Control

That the Swordfish were able to attack Bismarck at all without suffering any losses was due to a bit of good luck on their part. These old torpedo bombers were slow aircraft, and Bismarck's antiaircraft fire control was developed for much faster planes. As a result, none of the Swordfish were downed.

I've seen at least one source claiming this is a Naval-history urban myth. The reason being that all World War 2 era torpedo aircraft would have to fly low and slow on their attack run as too high a dropping speed or dropping altitude would damage the torpedo when it hit the water. Plus, I'm thinking the Bismark was planned and built at the very tail end of the biplane era. So the designers may have viewed biplane attack as improbable, but would they have viewed it at completely inconceivable? I think not.

Is there a definitive source on the Bismark's gun predictors that says one way or the other? It looks like one of those urban myth type opinions that gets endlessly propagated, even if it is wrong, because authors don't bother checking it and assume it's right because everybody else says its right. This would make me inclined to mistrust more general books on the Bismark and WW2 naval history.

The feeling of mistrust comes from the fact that nobody ever seems to give numbers (what was the minimum aircraft speed that the Bismark could engage? What was the Swordfish speed on an attack run?) Catsmeat (talk) 09:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed that paragraph as unsourced commentary that comes over as original research. If it can be sourced to a reliable source it could go back in, but in that case we should probably present it, with due weight, as the source's opinion (ie "According to X...). As an encyclopedia it's obviously not our place to judge the truth or otherwise of such theories - all we can do is report them in a neutral and appropriate way. EyeSerene^talk 10:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Battle honour 'Bismarck' 1941?

Would it be worth noting that the battle honour "'Bismarck' 1941" (Or "Bismarck 1941" depending on how you want to render it) was awarded to British/Commonwealth ships involved in this battle, and that it is only one of three battle honours awarded for the destruction of a single ship in the entire 20th century?. The source is Cassells, Vic (2000). The Destroyers: their battles and their badges. East Roseville, NSW: Simon & Schuster. p. 233. ISBN 0731808932. OCLC 46829686., and the other two honours were awarded to HMA Ships Sydney for sinking SMS Emden (Battle of Cocos - WWOne), and heavily damaging the auciliary cruiser Kormoran (Battle between HMAS Sydney and German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran - WWTwo). -- saberwyn 23:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Swordfish - antiquated?

The article implies that the Bismarck was rendered helpless by "a single antiquated biplane". Biplane is correct, but "single" disregards the efforts of other aircraft in the attack (this sort of attack in those conditions was clearly hit-and-miss). As to "antiquated", Swordfish were introduced in the early 1930s and still in operational use at the end of the war. The last examples were supplied in August 1944. Hardly "antiquated", they were robust, manoeverable, adaptable and highly effective as convoy escorts. Just unsexy. Folks at 137 (talk) 23:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Swordfish were excellent for operating off small escort carriers, and could be flown in almost any weather. They later carried radar, torpedoes, depth charges and rockets, so were quite potent from the point of view of the attacked ship. It's mainly due to them being able to operate from the smallest carriers that they were still being used after the introduction of the Swordfish's supposed replacements, both the Albacore and the Barracuda. Swordfish were somewhat 'antiquated' by then but they filled an operational niche that nothing else was able to, so they remained useful. This same niche was supposed to be filled post-war by the Short Seamew but that aeroplane had a less happy history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.253.207 (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

NAME

Shouldn't this article be named the "Sinking of the Bismarck", instead of some long comedic one?--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 06:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussed in the past, see Talk:Last_battle_of_the_battleship_Bismarck/Archive_1#Rescope_and_rename.3F and later sections.GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Since Bismark participated in two battles (this one and the Denmark Strait) it is grammatically incorrect to describe it as "last"; "latter" or "final" would be more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.8.228 (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Just because it was "discussed in the past" should not mean case closed. I too agree that this should be renamed "Sinking of the Bismarck", or "Sinking of the battleship Bismarck", much like Sinking of the Prince of Wales and Repulse. I honestly find this title, whoever did it, to be very ridiculous. Imagine, "Last battle of the battleship Scharnhorst" or "Last battle of the battleship Yamato". Wolcott (talk) 05:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Query language

The largest and most powerful warship yet commissioned

Come on. This isn't encyclopedic; and if this sort of locution were appropriate, it would be incorrect anyway. Largest, yes; but Bismarck was no supership, clearly inferior to the Washingtons and Richelieus, and possibly the Littorios as well; nor was her protection as good as the KGVs'.--Solicitr (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is different

It does not refer to the hunt for the Bismarck, but the attack on the Hood. Also, I have inserted the correct British casualties; and, an incorrect statistical figure is by no means a proper reason to dispose an article. - Vikrant P 09:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Unjustified sentence

I hope this will be considered minor, but I have removed the following sentence from the article:

"The largest (and according to Nazi propaganda, most powerful) warship yet commissioned had now been rendered a near-sitting duck by a single antiquated biplane."

Firstly, Bismarck was not the largest warship yet commissioned, nor was it intended to be. Even the aging Hood was larger and heavier than Bismarck and contemporary US and Japanese battleships were similar or larger. Bismarck's advantages related more to its modern design and fire control, but even so, it was not intended to take on contemporary ships but rather to break out into the atlantic and engage in commerce raiding. Secondly, as this series of articles on wikipedia details, it was not a single Swordfish that rendered Bismarck a sitting duck - it took the combined effort of a task force. Even if you ignore the broader situation including the loss of the Hood and over one thousand lives, the attack was carried out by a squadron of Swordfish, not a single plane. As such, the sentence felt, to me, extremely trite, and did not add anything to the article. I'm also unaware of any propaganda that claimed Bismarck was the most powerful warship in the world, but if there's a source for that, by all means restore it. 203.217.150.69 (talk) 05:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Bismarck was heavier than the Hood but not as long.GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

"contemporary US and Japanese battleships were similar or larger." Only if you count Yamato, which was not yet complete when Bismarck went down. The contemporary US Battleships would be the North Carolinas (728 ft, 37,000 tons), and the still-unfinished South Dakotas (680 ft, 36,000t): both smaller although carrying a more powerful main battery.

"it was not intended to take on contemporary ships but rather to break out into the atlantic and engage in commerce raiding." That was what Bismarck wound up doing, but not what she was intended and designed to do under Plan Z, which was to operate as part of the proposed battle line.

"Bismarck's advantages related more to its modern design and fire control" Bismarck's fire control was not nearly as sophisticated as even the US Mk 3 + Ford 1A (later replaced by Mk 8); and she was not a "modern" design at all, but surprisingly old-fashioned- a gigantic Baden with powerful engines. What advantages she had were heavy (but ill-located) armor, and very respectable 30-knot speed Solicitr (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The Japanese might have something to say about that: Nagato class battleship.

I also have some problems with the sentence: a) the Swordfish was obsolete (and overdue to be replaced by the Albacore and the Albacore in turn by the long delayed Barracuda) but it was not "antiquated". In modern parlance the Swordfish was; a STOL, all weather, radar equipped, day-night strike bomber, that could take off and find a target under conditions impossible for all other contemporary carrier aircraft except similarly equipped Albacores. The Swordfish's ASV II radar was the ace up the FAA's sleeve. 2ndly, Bismarck was not a "sitting duck"! She could and did shoot back with her 38cm and 15cm guns, which is hardly the definition of a "sitting duck". A better wording would be something like: " A single aerial torpedo had crippled the mighty Bismarck, and with it her aura of invincibility." Finally, in reply to Solicitr, Bismarck's FC systems were quite comparable to contemporary USN and RN designs (see Friedman's Naval Firepower for details) and unlike the USN, in May 1941 the German navy had effective FC radars in use, with the RN just beginning to take the lead in this area, while the USN would not field a FC radar until very late in 1941, and not in any numbers until 1942. The newest USN FC computers in service aboard North Carolina were the Mk 8 Rangekeeper for 16" FC, and the Mark I Fire Control Computer for dual purpose 5" FC (The Mk 1A was post war).Damwiki1 (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The Swordfish wasn't obsolete in 1941. OK, they would be pretty ineffective without fighter cover against a force of modern fighters (e.g. Bf109) but due to lack of range and lack of an aircraft carrier, Germany had no way of thus supporting her battleships, although the Japanese did have the fighters (e.g. Mitsubishi Zero and the aircraft carriers. What happened in the East? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.8.228 (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Bismarck's scuttling presented as fact?

The article seems to imply that the scuttling is a fact when it has never been confirmed with any real certainty. Yes, Ballard and Cameron have their opinions but they themselves have no real proof of the scuttling. Likewise the German survivors have a face-saving motive ("the British didn't sink us, we scuttled ourselves") to say that the Bismarck sank by her own hands. There is no definitive proof that the Bismarck was NOT sunk by Dorsetshire's torpedoes. The article is misleading on this matter. The scuttling is not a proven fact as implied in the Wikipedia article. Eqdoktor (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but then I don't think it's really all that important. Rodney and KGV had pounded her into chutney already, and it just doesn't matter all that much what delivered the flaming wreck its coup de grace. Solicitr (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the examination of the Bismark by deep-sea remotes has shown the damage consistent with on-board scuttling charges.HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Article name is ridiculous

Last battle of the battleship Bismarck? Why can't it simply be called "Sinking of the battleship Bismarck"? Might as well call the others, Last battle of the battlecruiser HMS Hood, Last battle of the battleships Prince of Wales and Repulse, Last battle of the battleship Scharnhorst, Last battle of the light cruiser HMAS Sydney, Last battle of the battleship Yamato or Last moments of the RMS Titanic. 220.255.2.114 (talk) 05:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. What's the policy for renaming on Wikipedia. Can one just be bold, or does it require a lengthy discussion? 200.32.121.66 (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The article name is a bit of a comprimise - see Talk:Last_battle_of_the_battleship_Bismarck/Archive_1#Rescope_and_rename? and other previous discussion on the name. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I still feel strongly that there is too much duplication between this article and the Bismarck article. Surely a rationalization is appropriate - perhaps even a merger? Wdford (talk) 09:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Bismarck is a featured article so it has to be comprehensive, it's might be a case that this one needs beefing up.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

If the Bismarck article has to be comprehensive, then let's add to it what few details are here but are not already in Bismarck. Then this article is a complete duplication, and we don't need this article anymore at all. This article doesn't need to be beefed up, it needs to disappear completely. Please would you compare the two articles, identify the few sentences that appear here but not in Bismarck, and explain why those few sentences justify having an entire duplicated article? Wdford (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree with wdford regarding the redundancy of this article and it's dramatic "Hollywood"ish title. I also think that a reference to the fact that "Rodney" also fired 12 torpedoes at "Bismarck", one of which hit and exploded, needs to be added. ref "Reports of Proceedings 1921-1964" by Rear Admiral G.G.O Gatacre RAN.The Dart (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Titles like this one are usually a reflection of past disputes wherein some editors wished to avoid more appropriate titles since they might possibly imply criticism of the Bismarck and/or of the German navy. A title such as "The sinking of the Bismarck" or "The destruction of the Bismarck" was probably not thought to be Wagnerian enough. I do feel strongly though, that this article should remain since it was a major naval engagement and as such deserves a separate article. Finally, claims that Rodney torpedoed Bismarck are not supported by survivor accounts, especially since the arrival of a 24in torpedo would be a rather unforgettable event, even considering the pounding that Bismarck endured from naval gunfire - see "German Capital Ships and Raiders in World War II: Volume I: From Graf Spee to Bismarck, 1939-1941" and "Battleship Bismarck: A Survivor's Story" and this article: Bismarck's Final Battle. So while Rodney claimed a hit, it isn't supported by the main body of literature written on this topic.Damwiki1 (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Well Damwiki, their does exist a witness, in fact several on the bridge of HMS Rodney, where the author of "Reports of Proceedings 1921-1964" was the navigator of Rodney. He was Lt. Cmdr. Galfrey, George, Ormond, Gatacre RAN and had witnessed the hit along with Captain Frederick Dalrymple-Hamilton and others. Gatacre had previously been specialist Navigation officer on HMS's Devonshire, Norfolk, Edinburgh, Renown & Nelson and then after 2 years as Navigator on Rodney he became Commander of HMAS Australia and after the war became Rear Admiral FOIC Australian fleet. He is holder of the awards C.B.E., D.S.O., D.S.C. & Bar and was well respected by admirals of the RN, USN and even a personal dinner guest of General Dwight Eisenhower so I don't think his word should be in doubt when he says that Rodney quote "became the only battleship in naval history to have torpedoed another battleship." The ISBN of his book is 0 949756 02 4 and is published by Nautical Press & Publications, Manly, NSW 2095, Australia.The Dart (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that Bismarck survivors say was no hit. Unfortunately, a heavy shell hit at the waterline and a torpedo hit look very similar at a distance, so Rodney's crew may have seen a 16in or 14in shell splash at about the time that the torpedoes would have arrived - but the people who would have known best - Bismarck's crew state there was no torpedo hit. Additionally, the wreck it self doesn't how evidence of a hit, in areas other than where the Bismarck's crew says they were hit. I think the best that can be done is to state that Rodney claimed a hit, but that this is unconfirmed.Damwiki1 (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I think with regard to the German crews opinion about wether there was or not a torpedo hit by Rodney, it is more a matter of pride than fact. Evidence their claim that they scuttled her, but several naval investigative experts including David L. Mearns, Eric Grove, Antony Preston and Andrew Lambert have strong doubts as to the veracity of those claims by the Bismarck survivors. None of those survivors were in any position to know absolutely where any of the many explosions occurred nor their source. Mullenheim-Rechburg was abandoning his wrecked gunnery control director and all other crew were doing much the same at the time. Who would you believe, someone who is fleeing frightening chaos to save himself or several people in the safe & calm bridge of the ship inflicting that punishment? Lt. Cmdr. Wellings USN was another person on Rodney's bridge who confirmed the hit by a torpedo. Ref. Ludovic Kennedy's "Pursuit- the chase & sinking of the Bismarck". Robert Ballard's claim that there was no evidence of a torpedo hit is dubious when Mearns points to the distinct possibility that it could have added to the ultimate demise of Bismarck. Mearns had more sophisticated investigative tools and more financial resources to give him a better opportunity to find out more about it's final demise. German pride has always affected their view of events when it comes to military/naval defeats. Remember HMAS Sydney vs KMS Emden and the scuttling of the High Seas fleet at Scapa. Scuttling is viewed by them as more honourable than defeat, a kind of Aryan Harakiri.The Dart (talk) 10:51, 10 February 2013The Dart (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a bunch of nonsense. Junack was the officer in charge of setting the demolition charges, and he survived. Mearns et. al. (presumably this article you're referring to) actually state that any possible hit from Rodney (or Norfolk or Ark Royal) "did not play a major role in her sinking", (p. 9) but that nevertheless, the evidence that might show such hits has largely been destroyed by the impact with the sea floor. Which seems to confirm Ballard's claim that there was no evidence of a torpedo hit, given that it was destroyed by the slide down the mountain. I'd suggest you strike your aspersions on Ballard, as they are entirely baseless and run afoul of WP:BLP. Parsecboy (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

NOThe Dart (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, the alternative is that I remove it myself and block your account. Your choice. Parsecboy (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

What or who gives you the right to block anyone's account? Are you the only one with the right to contribute to this article? America the land of the free, unless you disagree with 3.262 LightyearsboyThe Dart (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I am an administrator, part of whose job it is to make sure our policies are followed. Parsecboy (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Can I suggest that for verification of all that I have said above regarding the RN side of the Bismarck sinking, that everybody needs to thoroughly read Iain Ballantyne's book "Killing the Bismarck", Pen & Sword Books, 2010, ISBN 978-1-84415-3 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum, where all the arguments I have summarised above are expounded in greater detail. Particular attention should be given to chapters 14 & 17, and most importantly appendix l 'Busting the Myths'. This book is the most thorough examination of the topic yet published, using a vast number of hitherto ignored sources of primary information. Not the least of which are David L. Mearns views of how successful the torpedoing & shelling were at primarily causing Bismarck to sink and his dismissal of the German survivors claims of scuttling.The Dart (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Mearns is not a primary source of anything besides what he thinks. And while he is an expert, his views are by no means unanimously accepted, and so we do not accept them uncritically either. Especially when his views (that the torpedoes were critical in sinking the ship) have been contradicted by...Mearns himself. And as for Ballantyne, I haven't read his book, nor been able to track down any reviews of it, so I can't comment on it. What I can tell you is, many of his claims (such as that Bismarck tried to surrender) are highly controversial and exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Ballantyne by himself is not good enough, especially when quite a few experts disagree with him. And please use my actual username when referring to me. Parsecboy (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Please tell me where Mearns contradicted himself. One of the final things that Ballantyne did before publishing was to confirm that David Mearns still held his original views. Quote "I haven't changed my opinion that the British gunnery, including torpedoes, dealt the telling blows that made the ship sink" pg.261 appendix 1. How can you say that you haven't read Ballantyne, and then go on to state he makes exceptional claims? What? Ballantyne first started researching this book in 1991. It is more thoroughly researched than the German biased works that this

article uses for almost all of it's historical perspective. NPOV doesn't exist in this or the main "Bismarck" article! Further to this, Capt. Donald McIntyre in his book " Fighting Admiral" (1961) the biography of Admiral James Somerville, says regarding the number of Swordfish's torpedoes that found their target vs the one hit conceded by Bismarck's survivors. Quote "Observing that they (the German survivors) denied other definitely claimed torpedo hits from destroyers during the night and taking into account the German habit of building a legend to minimize an enemy's triumph, this need not to be taken seriously. On this occasion the 'legend' was assiduously fostered that 'the Bismarck was never sunk by enemy effort, but was scuttled'."The Dart (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought Mearns was one of the co-authors of the article I linked above. Nevertheless, the article states:

Sediments covered most of the areas where other torpedoes are reported to have hit. Damage to the shell caused by the 1,200-meter post-impact slide of the main hull appears to have erased, obscured, or otherwise modified much of the damage that may have been caused by additional torpedo hits from Norfolk, Rodney and Ark Royal. Although these torpedoes certainly damaged Bismarck, they did not play a major role in her sinking.

In essence, there is no direct evidence to prove or refute either the scuttling or battle damage theory. Any attempt to say one way or the other has no real basis in the facts that are currently available.

In any case, many of the authors whose books have been used in the Bismarck article are respected naval/military historians (Holger Herwig being one of the foremost scholars on the German military today). As for Ballantyne, I have seen his book mentioned enough times elsewhere (here, for instance) to know that his claims are controversial.

And, to tack on to Wdford's comment below about "building a legend", one need to look no further than the ridiculously overrated Rommel (who, yes, was operationally very skilled, but was strategically incompetent). Parsecboy (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the British were entirely objective here either. "Building a legend to minimize an enemy's triumph" is a British specialty - witness their propaganda over the Dunkirk evacuation. They couldn't sink the Bismarck by gunfire with overwhelming numerical advantage and 400+ hits, the Bismarck had blown the Mighty Hood out of the water a few days earlier with a handful of salvos, and Churchill was having gone of his infamous rants on the subject. Rodney was never all that close, shooting along with a bunch of other ships, in heavy seas with a lot of spray, and a lot of smoke around. Mearns saw no evidence of torpedo penetrations, and claimed that the subsequent damage may have destroyed or covered up the torpedo damage that "might have existed". Not exactly conclusive, especially when other underwater researchers have seen the armour belt intact, and the actual evidence of scuttling. Unless we have convincing evidence that all the surviving Germans lied about the scuttling, there is no reason not to take their word for it - especially since they are backed up by the underwater surveys. "Definitely claimed torpedo hits" are not the same as "actual torpedo hits" - especially when fired from a small destroyer rolling in heavy seas at night. A Swordfish would have overflown the target before the torpedo arrived, and would have had a lot on their plate besides watching for the torpedo track. All in all, all the evidence backs the scuttling, the Rodney claim is interesting but not confirmed, and Ballantyne is to be taken with a pinch of salt. In his talk he made is quite clear that he was writing from the British perspective, and that the whole action was motivated by revenge as much as anything. This is fine for an author of a book, but not exactly neutral. And Ballantyne himself leaves open the question of torpedo damage vs scuttling. Interesting. Wdford (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

So then 3000 yards is "not all that close" for Rodney's bridge crew to see what was going on? I really cannot believe the non NPOV of this article and it's supporters. It seems like it's only NPOV when it agrees with your bias. If this is what Neutral Point of View means, then I give up. If you won't accept published counter argument from Internationally renown Naval experts then you are seriously delusional and I don't see the point in me being a Wikipedia Editor or for that matter even consulting it as a reliable source. I have only ever had this kind of denial of access to editing on the Australian "Vegemite" site where it's original author guards it like a Rotweiller despite many people actually wanting to contribute verifiable information. This kind of behaviour surely contravenes the rules of Wikipedia and needs to be discontinued or Jimmy Wales will here about it. Oh! by the way the earth really is flat and Santa Claus does exist, there's no such thing as Global Warming etc. etc. The Dart (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

3000 yards is a very long way for a man on a pitching bridge to differentiate a torpedo detonation from a 16-inch shell hitting the water alongside a hull at a very flat trajectory - especially in heavy weather, and through the acrid smoke of his own main battery. Try it sometime. The "opinion" of the British has been fairly represented in the article already, but has been outweighed by the combined evidence of the Germans - who were actually on the inside of those hits - and the underwater explorers. To suggest, as you do, that the opinions of the British must of necessity take precedence over the rest of the combined evidence, is clearly POV and is unsupportable. Those are the very Rules of Wikipedia that you refer to. If your concept of editing is to insert one-sided opinions as fact, then you need to catch up please. Wdford (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You have only confirmed your own biases with the above POV which is why so many people are leaving or ignoring Wikipedia. It's editors like you and Parsecboy who totally frustrate the rest of us on Wiki. You don't own this site. 3000 yards from a height of 60 ft. above the fo'c'sle with binoculars is a quite a good place to see what's going on. Yes sir I have done it. I do not suggest that the British point of view is the only one but neither is the German one. There is no consensus between Mearns & Ballard or Cameron. Read Ballantyne's book. To dismiss this man's work of 20 years is silly in the extreme. He is the REAL EDITOR of Warships International Fleet Review & magazine, not just some Wiki self appointed editor.This article is so biased towards the Germans it shouldn't exist at all if that's the way you view anyone else's contributions.The Dart (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I doubt seriously that you were in relatively equal situations - where, pray tell, were you when you were standing on the bridge of a battleship that was actively firing its main and secondary batteries, in the middle of a North Atlantic gale? As I said before, exceptional claims (especially when the archaeological evidence to support it is demonstrably absent) require exceptional sources. Ballantyne's book by itself is not that. You yourself agree that Mearns, Ballard, and Cameron do not agree. How then can you insist on inserting Mearns' views and ignore the rest? Parsecboy (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The article summarizes the known facts in a clear and neutral tone. It carefully and deliberately avoids jingoism, speculation and emotional opinions. It does not ignore the "British perspective" it merely sticks to the known facts. To sprinkle the article with unproven British propaganda claims would not improve the encyclopaedic value of the article. Fact - the German survivors had been inside the ship, and knew what they had seen, heard and done. Fact - the closest British observer was far away, pitching in heavy seas, shrouded by smoke and spray. Fact - people on both sides were liable to make mistakes, and people on both sides were liable to tell lies. Fact - the underwater surveys saw no evidence that the armour-hull had been breached. Fact - Mearns also saw zero evidence of a torpedo breach, but "assumed" that it had happened anyway. Fact - Ballantyne is honest that his book is based on the British perspective, with no attempt to be neutral, which pretty much disqualifies him as a reliable source. Fact - Ballantyne was effectively writing a collection of memoirs, valuable for its immediacy and atmosphere rather than its neutral accuracy - we on the other hand are trying to write an encyclopedia. Fact - your own POV is obvious, and detrimental. If "many people" are leaving wikipedia because they want jingoism rather than fact, then they are not our target audience, they are Ballantyne's target audience. Wdford (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

If you suggest that Ballantyne's book should be disregarded because it supports the British viewpoint, then by definition, the Garzke, Zetterling, Mullenheim et. al. books should be disregarded for presenting the German view by the same reasoning a. You can't have your cake and eat it too. What's good for the Goose is good for der Ganferich. Dump the whole load of schizen .The Dart (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Do please pay attention to where you are posting and try to get the formatting right. And your German needs some brushing up - I believe the words you are looking for are der Gänserich and scheißen. Parsecboy (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Dart, there is a difference between presenting a neutral and balanced report that points in a certain direction, vs a report that makes it plain that it is not attempting to be neutral to begin with. The facts are that the ship was scuttled - all evidence points to that conclusion, and no evidence points anywhere else. Other people have other opinions, but that is not the same thing as facts. If you want to include a mention from Ballantyne that the British ships continued shelling the Bismarck while the deck crew were trying to surrender then fine, but it would then have to be followed with a sentence that says "although this was observed from 60 feet up with binoculars at a range of only 3000 yards, this has not been officially confirmed, and the RN officially continues to deny it." If you want to include a mention from Ballantyne that the Bismarck was not scuttled but was rather sunk by a torpedo from Rodney, then it would have to be followed with a sentence that says "However there is no actual evidence of this at all, and all actual evidence points to the scuttling". I don't know if that is really going to add value? Wdford (talk) 08:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

proposal to redirect

I once again strongly propose that this article be merged into the main article German battleship Bismarck. The other article presents a far more detailed account of this very battle, but this article contains very little detail that is not already present on the other side. Wdford (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a huge amount of duplication of material cross a number of articles, namely the German battleship Bismarck, the Last battle of the battleship Bismarck the Battle of the Denmark Strait, Operation Rheinübung, Ernst Lindemann and Günther Lütjens for starters. I propose that each portion of the material be concentrated in detail in one or other article, and then the other articles all reference across to the main article in question, rather than the extensive duplications we currently have. Any objections? Wdford (talk) 07:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

This is probably a discussion that should be centralized somewhere, rather than spread out on all of the article talk pages. Perhaps moving it to WT:MILHIST with pointers from each of the article talk pages would be a good idea. Parsecboy (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Please see discussion at [1]. Wdford (talk) 11:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

US carriers at Norway

I always wonder if the three Enterprise-class carriers had been somewhere in Europe in the pursuit of the Bismarck? I have yet to find a reliable source citing that the Enterprise carriers were indeed in the Atlantic in May 1941. hmssolent^lambast _{patrol records} 01:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

No, they weren't - recall that Hornet wasn't even commissioned until October 1941. It's vandalism, and you were correct to revert it. Parsecboy (talk) 09:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Acknowledgment of Poland as a Belligerent due to the presence of ORP Piorun

I recently had my edit of inclusion of Poland as a belligerent reverted by a Denniss (talk) 08:24, 23 August 2014‎ (UTC) without any reasons to counter my own. As it is not disputed that Polish destroyer ORP Piorun was present and engaged in the hunt and sinking of the Bismarck, I think it correct that the presence of Polish forces be recognised in the article. Much in the same way it is in articles for other Battles in World War II where Polish Forces were involved, such as: Battle of Narvik, Siege of Tobruk,Battle of Monte Cassino, Operation Overlord, Operation Totalize, Battle of Arnhem) and others.

I make this case due to the fact that unlike the remnants of the Polish Air Force, which was fully incorporated into first the French Air Force and later the RAF, both the Polish Army and Navy remained as Sovereign forces fighting alongside the British retaining their own systems and regulations. While under British Operational Command (Some of the Army under French prior to their capitulation), these services fought for the Polish Government (by then -in-exile) (which had refused as a nation to surrender in 1939) and were part of Poland’s continuation of the war with Germany after the conquest of Poland. Retaining a slight difference from some “Free” forces who had broken away from their official Governments, that had surrendered to the Nazi’s, in order to continue the fight. Although many of these are still recognised as Sovereign Belligerents in articles.

Much like Royal Canadian Navy (also RAN & RNZN) sailors Polish Navy Sailors were not members of the Royal Navy but as part of their own respective Navies served on their own ships (some leased by Poland from the British to replace loses) within fleets of the Royal Navy. The Anglo-Polish Naval Agreement of November 1939 stated that the ships were sovereign Polish territory and that the Polish Navy whilst with the British was to be commanded by Polish officers, its ships manned by Polish crews, with Polish uniforms and ranks; and subject to Polish regulation. It was only to be subordinated to the operational control of the British Admiralty (Like many Commonwealth and Free Naval Units). ^[1]

Even if their independence from the Royal Navy is disputed the correct action would be to place them as belligerents bullet pointed under the United Kingdom as is done with the Foreign Servicemen within the RAF in theBattle of Britain article (and colonial forces) as it is not disputed that the ORP Piorun and her Polish crew were present.

Jan Mieszała (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

As in last October? GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Polish and RCN participation deserves mention as separate belligerents, especially the PN whose destroyer directly engaged Bismarck, albeit with a footnote that the PN was operating under RN operational control.Damwiki1 (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I added back Canada and Poland to the infobox, I see no reason why not. //Halibu tt 07:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

^ "Polish Navy (Polska Marynarka Wojenna)In Scotland". R M Ostrycharz. 11 March 2009. Retrieved 25 August 2014.]

Aircrew picture caption

The aircrew picture caption looks slightly wrong to me. The five aircrew may be on the Ark Royal but not from the Ark Royal - all five of them took part in the Bismarck chase from Victorious. I'd change it but I haven't got a decent source for it and the original picture states Ark Royal. --Bcp67 (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

[1] "Polish Navy (Polska Marynarka Wojenna)In Scotland". R M Ostrycharz. 11 March 2009. Retrieved 25 August 2014.]

[1]