[:)]
ORIGINAL: Feinder
I gotta say, it's mildly amusing to see how often threads in this forum turn into squabbles about the Bismark. Somebody ought to just add her into a Mod, and throw in Prinz Eugen while they're at it, and be done with it.
Let them survive the glorious WitP game engine, and resolve all these debates.
-F-
Since we've gone this far -
I may as well point out that according to the Ballard Expedition Bismarck was definitely "scuttled".[X(]
well, that's what the Wiki says anyway[:)]
[How's this for stirring the pot! [:D]]
Controversy
The second Bismarck expedition in 2001 was Anglo-American and funded by a UK TV channel. It followed-on from the same team's prior discovery of the long-lost wreckage of Hood which was located and filmed for the first time.
The Anglo-American team (David Mearns and Bill Jurens from the USA and Professor Eric Grove from the UK) conducted its own sonar survey from scratch to find the Bismarck wreck site, based solely on available information that it was resting at the foot of the only undersea volcano in that area. Then they used ROVs to film the hull externally and concluded that the ship sank due to combat damage, having received numerous artillery and torpedo hits from the British.
Ballard criticised this documentary, citing what he considered nationalistic, biased research of limited historic value due to lack of thoroughness. A new American expedition visited the site using smaller and more agile ROVs. These provided some interior shots of Bismarck for the first time, which were aired as part of a one-hour documentary film on the National Geographic Channel (NGC).
The third survey found no underwater penetrations of the ship's fully-armoured citadel and only four direct hit holes on it above the waterline, all of them on one side, as delivered by Rodney's 16 inch (406 mm) guns. Huge dents showed that the 14 inch (356 mm) shells fired by King George V bounced off the German belt armour[citation needed]. Interior ROV footage showed that the "terrible destruction" the Anglo-American expedition reported was in fact the torpedo bulges, which were designed to absorb the energy of torpedoes and plunging shells. Underneath the torn bulge sheeting, the ship's 320 mm (12.6 inch) thick main belt armour appeared to be intact.
The American expedition's final conclusions were strikingly different from the findings of the Anglo-American team. They estimated that Bismarck could still float for at least a day when the British vessels ceased fire and could have been captured by the Royal Navy. They concluded the direct cause of sinking was due to scuttling: sabotage of engine-room valves by her crew, as claimed by German survivors. A detailed look at a modern computer analysis of the hull's eventual impact on the sea bottom explains some damage as a result of hydrodynamic impact shock inside the ship, which was still apparently girded by an uninterrupted curtain of armour.
In all 2,876 shells of various calibres were fired by the British ships. Approximately 300-400 hit. Only two hits fully penetrating the main armour were located. These holes were on the starboard side, suggesting that they were 16-inch shells from Rodney. Two other penetrations above the main armour belt were found on the port side, and appeared to be by 14-inch shells. In all 714 14-inch and 16-inch shells were fired by the two battleships, of which about 80 hit Bismarck. Only four penetrated the belt but in successive hits the shells had destroyed A turret, B turret, each gun director and the bridge.
When senior Bismarck survivor the late Baron von Müllenheim-Rechberg was asked for his opinion on the controversy in a British television interview he simply replied politely, "Both sides sank the Bismarck."
And a full 3 page article from the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/03/scien ... 359ff9905e
