Mythbuster: The Bismark

Discussion on World War 2 in general.
Ricky
Quartermaster
Quartermaster
Posts: 8456
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 3:42 pm
Location: Luton, UK

Mythbuster: The Bismark

Postby Ricky » Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:11 pm

This mythbuster is more of a discussion with several pages, rather than the traditional 1-post article.

It can be found here:
Link to the Bismark Mythbuster
"Study the past, if you would divine the future"
-Confucius

"I am pedantic, I'm just being overshadowed by Ricky so it isn't as noticable as it would else have been"
-Skua

User avatar
bf109 Emil
General
General
Posts: 1732
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:53 pm
Location: Youngstown,Alberta..CANADA
Contact:

Re: Mythbuster: The Bismark

Postby bf109 Emil » Sun Jun 01, 2008 3:45 am

The only question i have is the depth of the ocean floor ouside of france...4900 metres is over 15,000 feet, yow...also i believe Hitler had proposed it to be built with 21 inch guns, larger then any other in the world...but wikipedia says this also, i'd didn't think the depths got that deep so close to France....no wonder lobster fishing might no be good their, whose got 3 miles of line to attach to a trap...
"Badges, we don't need no stinking badges"

User avatar
bf109 Emil
General
General
Posts: 1732
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:53 pm
Location: Youngstown,Alberta..CANADA
Contact:

Re: Mythbuster: The Bismark

Postby bf109 Emil » Sun Jun 01, 2008 3:50 am

i copied the following as it seems most interesting, in terms of salvage....and maybe most old war vessels where sunk within territorial waters...what about recovering gold from ships sunk at sea...can a nation prove if coins, artifacts came from their country, would not these have to be returned if permission was first not given???
Legal and Ethical Considerations. have not the Sea-hunter from National Geographic dove on sunken U-boat, I-boats, etc...then again maybe permission was sought before hand from the respected governments, in which case, my question has been answered...

According to the international law, the wreck of the Bismarck, sunk in international waters, is property of its country of origin, and is considered a war grave. After the discovery of the wreck, the German government issued the following statement regarding future diving expeditions to the wreck site:

"Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland betrachtet sich als Eigentümer des ehemaligen reichseigenen Schlachtschiffes Bismarck. Tauchgänge in das Innere des Wracks sowie Bergungsversuche bedürfen der Zustimmung der Bundesregierung. Diese wird wie in anderen Fällen gesunkener Schiffe aus den Weltkriegen, bei denen mit Toten im Wrackgerechnet werden muß, grundsätzlich nicht erteilt. Die Bundesregierung fühlt sich den beim Untergang des Schiffes zu Tode gekommenen Seeleuten verpflichtet. Gemäß internationalen Gepflogenheiten sieht sie das Wrack der Bismarck als Seemannsgrab an, das entsprechend zu respektieren ist."

"The Federal Republic of Germany considers itself the owner of the former sovereign Battleship Bismarck. Diving excursions to the interior of the wreck as well as recovery attempts require consent of the Federal Government. This has been categorically denied in other cases of sunken ships of the World Wars, because one must expect to find remains of the dead in the wreck. The Federal Republic feels it is its duty to protect the seamen who went to their death in the sinking of the ship. Following international customs, we view the wreck of the Bismarck as a seamen's burial site that must be accorded proper respect."
"Badges, we don't need no stinking badges"

Ricky
Quartermaster
Quartermaster
Posts: 8456
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 3:42 pm
Location: Luton, UK

Re: Mythbuster: The Bismark

Postby Ricky » Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:17 pm

As far as I know, if you even dive on a war grave without permission then you are in serious legal trouble. Remove artifacts and having to return them is the least of your worries.
"Study the past, if you would divine the future"
-Confucius

"I am pedantic, I'm just being overshadowed by Ricky so it isn't as noticable as it would else have been"
-Skua

User avatar
bf109 Emil
General
General
Posts: 1732
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:53 pm
Location: Youngstown,Alberta..CANADA
Contact:

Re: Mythbuster: The Bismark

Postby bf109 Emil » Tue Jun 03, 2008 12:04 am

Ricky wrote:As far as I know, if you even dive on a war grave without permission then you are in serious legal trouble. Remove artifacts and having to return them is the least of your worries.

This is something new and interesting to me...I never knew a boat in international water was still under sovereignty of the Nation it belonged to, as i have watched them dive on U-352 , numerous Spanish man o war ships, and thought these where deemed salvageable...So to mean the Nation of Germany could ask for all items found on these dives, and if permission wasn't asked then National Geographic whom filmed these dives could be in trouble...as i recall them bringing these items to a U-boat expert to varify, along with a knife belonging to an German sailor to verify, along with battery tags as to the wreckage that was sought to have been lost in a different location...it almost seemed the German Historical/Naval authorities had no idea they where going to dive on a grave-sight before hand...
"Badges, we don't need no stinking badges"

Ricky
Quartermaster
Quartermaster
Posts: 8456
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 3:42 pm
Location: Luton, UK

Re: Mythbuster: The Bismark

Postby Ricky » Tue Jun 03, 2008 7:59 am

I might well be wrong - that was just my understanding of it.
"Study the past, if you would divine the future"
-Confucius

"I am pedantic, I'm just being overshadowed by Ricky so it isn't as noticable as it would else have been"
-Skua

User avatar
Christian Ankerstjerne
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 2506
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:42 pm
Location: Denmark
Contact:

Re: Mythbuster: The Bismark

Postby Christian Ankerstjerne » Thu Jun 05, 2008 10:47 pm

To say that maritime laws are extremely strange and illogical is an understatement, so I consider anything possible.

User avatar
bf109 Emil
General
General
Posts: 1732
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:53 pm
Location: Youngstown,Alberta..CANADA
Contact:

Re: Mythbuster: The Bismark

Postby bf109 Emil » Fri Jun 13, 2008 8:03 am

the Achilles heel twin rudders, during war games, exercises, i believe it was Lindemann, but maybe wrong, but in trials and scenerio's damage to a rudder was unrepairable or alternative solution fix couldn't be solved..in the end, what was deemed as a weak point turned into reality...must be a Murphy's law at work back in....besides one has to chuckle at this clip, and no ill will intneded, as it is meant to learn to speak english advertisementhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guELpieYlFU
"Badges, we don't need no stinking badges"

FNG
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 384
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Mythbuster: The Bismark

Postby FNG » Fri Jun 13, 2008 9:34 pm

sunk naval ships where peeps died are classed as wargraves. they see no differece between diving on the bismark as using a metal detector in arlington

I don't know what the rules are on civilian ships or ships sunk outside war

FNG
War: God's way of teaching American's geography

User avatar
bf109 Emil
General
General
Posts: 1732
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:53 pm
Location: Youngstown,Alberta..CANADA
Contact:

Re: Mythbuster: The Bismark

Postby bf109 Emil » Thu Jun 26, 2008 2:04 am

was the Hood and Prince of Wales the only 2 ships the hood fired at prior to the swordfish attacks which crippled her???
"Badges, we don't need no stinking badges"

User avatar
canambridge
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
Posts: 1289
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:59 am
Location: Montreal, Canada
Contact:

Re: Mythbuster: The Bismark

Postby canambridge » Thu Jun 26, 2008 2:14 am

bf109 Emil wrote:was the Hood and Prince of Wales the only 2 ships the hood fired at prior to the swordfish attacks which crippled her???


Their was also some fire directed at the shadowing cruisers, HMS Norflok and HMS Suffolk. Mostly intended to make them keep their distance and shake them off. It actually succeded. Prinz Eugen got off without any real damage and even contact with the Bismarck was lost for a time.

User avatar
bf109 Emil
General
General
Posts: 1732
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:53 pm
Location: Youngstown,Alberta..CANADA
Contact:

Re: Mythbuster: The Bismark

Postby bf109 Emil » Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:25 pm

had the Scharnhorst, and Gneisenau not in repair, the original plan of the Bismarck, Prinz Eugen, Scharnhorst, and Gneisenau, would have made a terrible force to deal with
"Badges, we don't need no stinking badges"

User avatar
canambridge
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
Posts: 1289
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:59 am
Location: Montreal, Canada
Contact:

Re: Mythbuster: The Bismark

Postby canambridge » Fri Jun 27, 2008 2:20 am

I have heard that the captain of the Tirpitz supposedly wanted his ship included in the sortie as well. He apparently knew the ship and crew were not really ready, but felt that the advantageous of a mass sortie outweighed the risk. PoW certainly was far from battle ready, yet gave a good account of herself.

User avatar
bf109 Emil
General
General
Posts: 1732
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:53 pm
Location: Youngstown,Alberta..CANADA
Contact:

Re: Mythbuster: The Bismark

Postby bf109 Emil » Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:25 am

The delay in starting the break-out while prinz eugen had her shaft/engines vibration fixed meant darkness was out of the question
"Badges, we don't need no stinking badges"

User avatar
canambridge
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
Posts: 1289
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:59 am
Location: Montreal, Canada
Contact:

Re: Mythbuster: The Bismark

Postby canambridge » Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:12 pm

bf109 Emil wrote:The delay in starting the break-out while prinz eugen had her shaft/engines vibration fixed meant darkness was out of the question


Lutjens wouldn't wait another day? Perhaps he was worried that the British had already spotted them and waiting any longer would simply give the British more time to get ready.

Lutjen's judgement makes you wonder how he got to be an admiral.


Return to “World War 2 in General”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest