ORIGINAL: LoBaron
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.
