RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message


witpqs -> RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck (9/9/2013 5:00:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Since Bismarck was sunk it does not really matter though, does it? [8D]

[:D]




AW1Steve -> RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck (9/9/2013 10:07:50 PM)

Sunk, scuttled , or sunkled. Does it matter? The damned thing is on the bottom and likely to remain! Either the British sank her , or the Germans screwed up so badly that they had to sink her. Which is more insulting to the Germans? I think they will settle for sunk, as should we. [:D]




Chickenboy -> RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck (9/10/2013 12:14:14 AM)

No! Absolutely not! You're all wrong! WRONG WRONG WRONG*! [:@]







*I don't really know what about, it just seemed that this thread was lacking in the venomous conviction of the previous Bismarck thread.






LoBaron -> RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck (9/10/2013 9:36:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Sunk, scuttled , or sunkled. Does it matter? The damned thing is on the bottom and likely to remain! Either the British sank her , or the Germans screwed up so badly that they had to sink her. Which is more insulting to the Germans? I think they will settle for sunk, as should we. [:D]


Steve, I suggest you treat this topic with due respect. It is of undisputable importance - and a matter of honor - to know if certain perforations were made from inside out or outside in. Obviously Chickenboy is aware of that, even if he got all the other facts wrong. You are NOT! If you are unable to comply please leave immediately.

Should you OTOH choose to participate in this debate of global importance, please keep your temper at bay. You have a long history of rude behaviour, and you overract to the slightest provocation. [:-]




LargeSlowTarget -> RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck (9/10/2013 3:26:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Sunk, scuttled , or sunkled. Does it matter? The damned thing is on the bottom and likely to remain! Either the British sank her , or the Germans screwed up so badly that they had to sink her. Which is more insulting to the Germans? I think they will settle for sunk, as should we. [:D]


Steve, I suggest you treat this topic with due respect. It is of undisputable importance - and a matter of honor - to know if certain perforations were made from inside out or outside in. Obviously Chickenboy is aware of that, even if he got all the other facts wrong. You are NOT! If you are unable to comply please leave immediately.

Should you OTOH choose to participate in this debate of global importance, please keep your temper at bay. You have a long history of rude behaviour, and you overract to the slightest provocation. [:-]


Hear, hear!

Most Germans (well, those interested in the topic - most Germans simply don't care) prefer to believe Bismarck was scuttled after a gallant fight against impossible odds, outnumbered and unmaneuverable as she was.

In any navy, it is a point of pride and honor not to allow your ship to fall into the hands of the enemy.

Of course, they scuttled her before the British could sink her with more torps or carrier air strikes.

German capital ships have a tradition of being sturdier than their British counterparts (see the battle cruisers at Jutland) and most of those Germans who care take a perverse pride in the fact the British guns were unable to penetrate the side armor and the torpedoes failed to sink the Bismarck - must be pride in German engineering and "quality made in Germany".

This battle wasn't a screw-up, it was a tragedy - as much as the sinking of the Hood. The damage to the rudder was just bad luck, otherwise Bismarck would have escaped to Brest - to be sunk (or scuttled) later, eventually. 2104 German and 1416 British sailors died in this sad affair, so some respect should be observed.




AW1Steve -> RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck (9/11/2013 1:57:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Sunk, scuttled , or sunkled. Does it matter? The damned thing is on the bottom and likely to remain! Either the British sank her , or the Germans screwed up so badly that they had to sink her. Which is more insulting to the Germans? I think they will settle for sunk, as should we. [:D]


Steve, I suggest you treat this topic with due respect. It is of undisputable importance - and a matter of honor - to know if certain perforations were made from inside out or outside in. Obviously Chickenboy is aware of that, even if he got all the other facts wrong. You are NOT! If you are unable to comply please leave immediately.

Should you OTOH choose to participate in this debate of global importance, please keep your temper at bay. You have a long history of rude behaviour, and you overract to the slightest provocation. [:-]


Pssssssssssssssssssssssttttttttttttttttttt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![sm=00000280.gif]




AW1Steve -> RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck (9/11/2013 2:04:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Sunk, scuttled , or sunkled. Does it matter? The damned thing is on the bottom and likely to remain! Either the British sank her , or the Germans screwed up so badly that they had to sink her. Which is more insulting to the Germans? I think they will settle for sunk, as should we. [:D]


Steve, I suggest you treat this topic with due respect. It is of undisputable importance - and a matter of honor - to know if certain perforations were made from inside out or outside in. Obviously Chickenboy is aware of that, even if he got all the other facts wrong. You are NOT! If you are unable to comply please leave immediately.

Should you OTOH choose to participate in this debate of global importance, please keep your temper at bay. You have a long history of rude behaviour, and you overract to the slightest provocation. [:-]


Hear, hear!

Most Germans (well, those interested in the topic - most Germans simply don't care) prefer to believe Bismarck was scuttled after a gallant fight against impossible odds, outnumbered and unmaneuverable as she was.

In any navy, it is a point of pride and honor not to allow your ship to fall into the hands of the enemy.

Of course, they scuttled her before the British could sink her with more torps or carrier air strikes.

German capital ships have a tradition of being sturdier than their British counterparts (see the battle cruisers at Jutland) and most of those Germans who care take a perverse pride in the fact the British guns were unable to penetrate the side armor and the torpedoes failed to sink the Bismarck - must be pride in German engineering and "quality made in Germany".

This battle wasn't a screw-up, it was a tragedy - as much as the sinking of the Hood. The damage to the rudder was just bad luck, otherwise Bismarck would have escaped to Brest - to be sunk (or scuttled) later, eventually. 2104 German and 1416 British sailors died in this sad affair, so some respect should be observed.



"Pride of engineering"=over engineered. [:D] All war is a tragedy . Let's not overcome with morbidity what was put out in good humor. Otherwise we might as well shut down 90% of the threads, and all put on sack cloth and ashes. There are many threads that pay respect to all sides of the great tragedy that is known as WW2. This isn't one of them.


When Bismarck (or Prince Eugene) scores on Hood , it's a "brilliant shot". When a Swordfish scores on Bismarck , "it's a lucky shot"?

It's all lucky for some , and unlucky for others. It all depends on your point of view. [:D]




Dili -> RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck (9/12/2013 11:21:27 AM)

quote:

2104 German and 1416 British sailors


2200 vs 1400

Why such a big discrepancy in crew numbers between Bismarck and Hood ?




tigercub -> RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck (9/12/2013 11:45:02 AM)

Bismarck newer more complex and a bigger ship...


Tigercub




Dili -> RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck (9/12/2013 12:28:27 PM)

In length Hood was bigger. More complex to warrant 30% more crew?




mike scholl 1 -> RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck (9/12/2013 1:56:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

2104 German and 1416 British sailors


2200 vs 1400

Why such a big discrepancy in crew numbers between Bismarck and Hood ?



Check the AAA crew numbers. Krauts were using way more people to operate their guns
than anyone else seems to have needed. Looks to me as if their ammunition handling
procedures were completely manual.




Terminus -> RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck (9/12/2013 2:26:11 PM)

Also, the Germans didn't have DP guns on their battleships. More turrets, more guys to man them.




Dili -> RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck (9/12/2013 3:49:59 PM)

Littorio also without DP's had 1800.




tigercub -> RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck (9/12/2013 3:57:36 PM)

The 5.9 were not DP but the 4.1 were! from memory


Tigercub




Terminus -> RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck (9/12/2013 4:32:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tigercub

The 5.9 were not DP but the 4.1 were! from memory


Tigercub


Not really. They were DP in the same way a Bofors gun is DP, ie you can shoot both at another ship. No central anti-ship fire control for them.




Dili -> RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck (9/12/2013 5:29:16 PM)

Secondaries:

Bismarck had

12 × 15 cm (5.9 in) (6 × 2)
16 × 10.5 cm (4.1 in) SK C/33 (8 × 2)
16 × 3.7 cm (1.5 in) SK C/30 (8 × 2)
12 × 2 cm (0.79 in) FlaK 30 (12 × 1)

Littorio(a battleship with similar secondaries configuration to Bismarck)

12 × 152 mm (6.0 in) L/55 guns
12 × 90 mm (3.5 in)/53 (AA)
20 × 37 mm (1.5 in)/54
16 × 2 20 mm (0.79 in)/65

Hood had

7 × 2 – QF 4-inch Mk XVI AA guns
3 × 8 – QF 2-pdr "pom pom" AA guns
5 × 4 – 0.5-inch Vickers machine guns
5 × 20-barrel "Unrotated Projectile" mounts

it had also apparently torpedo tubes.

There is a difference in number of airplanes carried, Bismarck 4 don't know if she carried such high number, Littorio 3 and Hood 1.




warspite1 -> RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck (9/12/2013 6:07:26 PM)

Hood did not have an aircraft - her catapult was removed in the early 30's.




mike scholl 1 -> RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck (9/12/2013 6:24:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Also, the Germans didn't have DP guns on their battleships. More turrets, more guys to man them.


True..., but check out the size of the gun crews for each weapon. Germans used many more men for comparable mountings.




Terminus -> RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck (9/12/2013 6:27:53 PM)

I was snooping around trying to find crew complements for individual mounts without luck...




Chickenboy -> RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck (9/12/2013 6:35:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I was snooping around trying to find crew complements for individual mounts without luck...


OK....try this then: "That's a mighty fine looking crew you have for that gun mount." Would that work?




warspite1 -> RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck (9/12/2013 6:43:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I was snooping around trying to find crew complements for individual mounts without luck...


OK....try this then: "That's a mighty fine looking crew you have for that gun mount." Would that work?
warspite1

No! They wouldn't understand. You need to speak German

Zat is a mighty fine looking crew zat you haff for zie gun mount.

Zat.. I mean that would work




Sieppo -> RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck (9/12/2013 8:57:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I suppose if you take the analogy to its limit then those people can always argue the Allies did not win the Second World War; after all they did not bring Hitler to account. The glory and the honour goes to Adolf as he scuttled himself [:D][;)]



[:D] [:D] [:D]




Fallschirmjager -> RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck (9/12/2013 9:41:41 PM)

The Bismarck was also over crewed as to allow prize crews to take merchant vessels.




castor troy -> RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck (9/13/2013 7:55:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

The Bismarck was also over crewed as to allow prize crews to take merchant vessels.



which comes down to something like a hundred men




Fallschirmjager -> RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck (9/14/2013 1:16:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

The Bismarck was also over crewed as to allow prize crews to take merchant vessels.



which comes down to something like a hundred men


I read it was around ~180
It explains a small bit of the discrepancy. The same book also stated that the German Navy had larger crews to combat fatigue due to their ships having extended voyages and going longer between refits and only being able to stay in neutral ports for 24 hours.
It also explained that extra crew was taken to increase redundancy and replace casualties.

There is still a large difference but that offers at least a cursory example of why there is such a difference.




denisonh -> RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck (9/14/2013 5:00:45 AM)

The Bismarck thread resurrected. A ZOMBIE thread!




AW1Steve -> RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck (9/16/2013 9:25:34 PM)

The whole question of Bismarck's larger crew can be summed up in the old question "how many Germans does it take to change a lightbulb?" [:D] I'm now going into deep hiding before Torstien and Graffin hunt me down and seriously kick my butt! [X(][:D]




Terminus -> RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck (9/16/2013 11:18:53 PM)

It takes a regiment. In company-sized, perfectly goosestepping block formations.




Orm -> RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck (9/16/2013 11:38:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

The whole question of Bismarck's larger crew can be summed up in the old question "how many Germans does it take to change a lightbulb?" [:D] I'm now going into deep hiding before Torstien and Graffin hunt me down and seriously kick my butt! [X(][:D]

None. The Italian janitor change the lightbulb. [;)]




churchillhouse -> RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck (9/13/2014 8:00:12 PM)

My Uncle David, a captain in the Royal Marines, was stationed aboard the Norfolk and was there for both the Hood and Bismarck sinkings. This is the text of a letter he wrote his mother shortly after the events:

“My dear Mother,

Just a line to let you know that I am OK after our memorable week’s chase.

You probably heard the news accounts of the two actions, both of which Norfolk took part in so I will just give you a brief resume for the present.

It was last Friday that we learnt the Bismarck and the Prince Eugene had put to sea when we were up in the Denmark Strait, between Iceland and Greenland. Then at 8 o’clock that evening we sighted them and they opened fire on us for a short time. Owing to the fact that Bismarck was a battleship we fled for our lives and then shadowed them. Suffolk was with us at the time, and it proved a most difficult task owing to the weather and visibility. It meant “nipping” in to almost point blank range, get sight of her, and then flee for our lives again out of it.

We did this for the whole of Friday/Saturday night, whilst the “Prince of Wales” and “Hood” came out. It was about 0600 on Saturday morning that we were steaming along with Bismarck just in sight on our Starboard Bow that we sighted our Battle Squadron approaching on the Port Bow. We then had absolute grandstand seats for a very short but most intense engagement that ensued. We were fired on but for a very short time only. I saw perhaps a grand sight though at the same time a very sad one, the greatest pyrotechnic display given when the “Hood” went up. Since we had to make sure of sinking the Bismarck and the odds were now even, we did not want to risk any such lucky hits on the “Prince of Wales”, so more shadowing took place. Visibility was again bad, but during the day we kept contact. It proved a most boring job, punctuated by periods of intense excitement when we had short sharp engagements.

We held her all that day but unluckily lost her that night. By the time “King George V” and “Rodney” were making to intercept. It was then that the Fleet Air Arm came in and “did its stuff” and she was located a long way from us.

We then went up to full speed and caught her up the following morning. By this time the Prince Eugene had made good her escape and Bismarck had had her speed reduced by torpedoes.

We caught up with her and engaged her for a while on our own. This was the worst time we had as her 15 inch guns were then firing at us. However, things worked out all right. I can’t go beyond this yet because the news broadcasts stopped here.

We were the only ship to have been involved in the chase from start to finish. It went on for over 3 days, a distance of 1700 miles in all. Norfolk, as you can guess, was the only ship that was in every engagement, in fact we were the first to engage her (in the Denmark Strait) and the last to fire guns at her, although “Dorsetshire”, our only real sister ship, fired torpedoes into her later.

I must add that it’s a story of a gallant foe who fought right to the very end although the odds were always against her. As the waves closed over her, her Nazi ensign was still fluttering from the Jack-staff. It was a very sad sight to see such a beautiful ship battered to pieces.

However, the full story when it can be told will be a very stirring one. Since the action, of course, Jerry has been bothering us a bit with aircraft but it’s not been at all bad as yet.

I’m writing this whilst we are still at sea, steaming for home quite fast through a most terrible storm. My cabin is simply rocking about all over the place, so I hope you will be able to decipher this terrible scrawl.

I’ve managed to obtain as a souvenir a piece of shrapnel from a 15 inch shell from the Bismarck which landed all too close to us. It was on that first Friday night, the 23rd, which brings up rather a coincidence.

I have also as a souvenir a piece of shrapnel (from a French 75mm) which actually fell on me at Boulogne last year. The date was May 23rd. I wonder where I shall be on the same date next year.

Must stop now, I really can’t cope much longer with this rolling and pitching. Thank goodness I am not one of these poor fellows who are seasick from the time we almost put to sea till we get back.

Will write again when we get in, but I want this to catch the first post.

Am looking forward to letters from you tomorrow.

Love to all,

David."




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.078125