Mythbuster: The Bismark

Discussion on World War 2 in general.
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 » Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:49 pm

true as i think it was Lindemann whom wanted to chase and finish off the Prince of Wales, but Lutgens stuck to his response of we are to attack commercial raiders (order)
"Badges, we don't need no stinking badges"

ebar
Corporal
Corporal
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 4:53 pm

Re: Mythbuster: The Bismark

Postby ebar » Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:44 am

Slightly off topic, here's a picture back in may of a Bismarck model that it was claimed was the model used in the old B&W film 'Sink the Bismarck'. Yours, for if memory serves, three thousand of her majesties pounds.
Attachments
Sink bismarck model small.JPG
(154.81 KiB) Downloaded 16 times

User avatar
Commando
Master Sergeant
Master Sergeant
Posts: 250
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 3:47 am
Location: Australia

Re: Mythbuster: The Bismark

Postby Commando » Fri Aug 01, 2008 5:47 am

"Sink the Bismark" was such an awesome movie!
Who Dares Wins!

corpcasselbury
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 4:15 am

Re: Mythbuster: The Bismark

Postby corpcasselbury » Sat Aug 02, 2008 5:45 am

canambridge wrote:
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.


Yeah, especially when you remember that he also failed to refuel BISMARK while in port.

User avatar
canambridge
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
Posts: 1291
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:59 am
Location: Rockledge, Florida, USA
Contact:

Re: Mythbuster: The Bismark

Postby canambridge » Sat Aug 02, 2008 4:49 pm

I especially like Lutjens breaking radio silence for his birthday salutations after the Bismarck ahd successfully given the slip to the shadowing cruisers. It seems liek he had already accepted that this was a one way cruise.

It's amazing how many military professionals don't seem to be able to differeniate between potential intentions and possible capabilites.

PMN1
Private First Class
Private First Class
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 3:51 pm

Re: Mythbuster: The Bismark

Postby PMN1 » Sun Oct 19, 2008 10:53 pm

Someone should talk to this guy...

http://www.tribune-democrat.com/editori ... 34035.html

406 triple-turret, radar-controlled guns. It could launch a 3,000-pound projectile 30 miles across the horizon, knocking out enemy vessels before they could get within firing range.

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 » Mon Oct 20, 2008 3:17 am

PMN1 wrote:Someone should talk to this guy...

http://www.tribune-democrat.com/editori ... 34035.html

406 triple-turret, radar-controlled guns. It could launch a 3,000-pound projectile 30 miles across the horizon, knocking out enemy vessels before they could get within firing range.


It seems the writer of this story is almost pro-Kreigsmarine, and paints a nice picture of the invincibility of the German Navy, and how inept and lacking the Britsh ships and shells, where. I do find his remark almost insulting or a million to one shot regarding the hit on the rudder, but if he'd done his homework, he'd have known in German naval tests this was the achilles heal, and was revealed of the German navy knowledge in the working up, tests and trials of the Bismarck. The pilot flew through a rather over rated AA system, released his ordanace (18" torpedo) and struck the ship!! Out of hundreds or thousands of torpedo plane attacks, a very low % achieved strikes...

But it was a well read article, but in the same light it almost paints a picture of poor Germany getting ganged up by the Brutal Britsh...like other that cry over Dresden, Cologne, Hamburg, but on the other foot, if Goering had the ability to do likewise, he'd have done so.
"Badges, we don't need no stinking badges"

Ricky
Quartermaster
Quartermaster
Posts: 8458
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 3:42 pm
Location: Luton, UK

Re: Mythbuster: The Bismark

Postby Ricky » Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:10 am

Oh dear lord... :?
"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 » Mon Oct 20, 2008 6:30 pm

Ricky wrote:Oh dear lord... :?


Lol...it's okay I'm Canadian and used to getting ganged up on or the short straw...you British Bullies... :mrgreen: (joking) unless hockey is involved and loved the Molson commercials until it was bought by the Coors brewery and commercials like these stoppedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lffkj9Xf8TYahhhhh the days of old.

my little pun would be, wasn't the Bismark a pastry a hotdog bun with cream filling ;)
"Badges, we don't need no stinking badges"

Tiornu
Corporal
Corporal
Posts: 116
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 12:01 am

Re: Mythbuster: The Bismark

Postby Tiornu » Mon Oct 20, 2008 11:37 pm

Someone should talk to this guy...

He was suitably geek-slapped by folks from another forum.

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 Oct 21, 2008 8:23 pm

perhaps the pastry never went on to gain the success it deserved or was intended (sic)
"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 » Tue Oct 21, 2008 8:28 pm

kidding no pun intended towards mariners both axis and ally
"Badges, we don't need no stinking badges"

ubc
Recruit
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 5:05 am

Re: Mythbuster: The Bismark

Postby ubc » Thu Jul 30, 2009 5:49 am

I have always thought that Lutjens was at best a mediocar flotilla leader,however he did lead the Twins on the highly succesful breakout at the end of 1940/41.

The mythology surrounding this warships is very much of an own goal by the Brits. The British concluded prewar that the most dangerous way in which a miniscule German navy could make life difficult for the Royal Navy was to use each capital ship as a lone surface raider attacking convoys. The imagination runs away on what such a warship could do against a early war convoy, however imperical evidence suggests that even at its best such a surface raider would be unlikely to sink much more than 6 enemy ships per convoy attacked, with maybe one convoy attack per month at sea?


These attacks rarely were able to destroy more than 1/4 of the enemy convoy attacked since it took alot more shelling to actually sink a ship than previously thought and in that time the convoy scattered and most got away. Through 1941, I think their was only one incident where a capital warship attacked a convoy inconjunction with Luftwaffe bombers plus Uboats. It did to better but i don't recall how much better.

One of the ways in which the germans planned to use these raiders was through such long range raiding missions, but WW-I taught them that survival of such surface raiders squadrons depended on avoiding combat with any enemy ships that can do serious damage to them and on the fact that the ocean is really big and even a hugh battleship is virtually impossible to find on such a sea. Further in between wars Admiral Raeder concluded that the best way to help such a raiders was singly rather than in squadrons so that if one is being chase by superior enemy fleets it could be aided by sortie raiders from home to force draw away these pursuing enemy fleets and to dilute its efforts, thus increasing the likely hood of the original raider returning home. Through 1941 this was practiced repeatly, but the growing searcb power of allied bombers and the Ultra factor made this doctrine increasingly more difficult to pull off. Avoiding detection and minimising exposure to enemy units was essential, so the moment the Bismark engadged the Hood and PoW, the gig was up and the mission should have been scrubbed, especially since the Bismarck was damaged. Bismarck skipper [Lindemann ?] called for exactly that after sinking the Hood and return to Norway after a break out, Lutjens seemed to be more concerned with Hitler than the British and conitinued the sortie. Months previous Lutjens and run away from several convoys with the Twins even though the convoys were only escorted with single old Battleships. This senceability was over run by something during the Denmark Straits battle and I suspect his comment to Hitler that they would fight to the last shell reveals this fatalistic POV.


Return to “World War 2 in General”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest