Page 2 of 4
RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck
Posted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 2:54 pm
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: witpqs
ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: JeffK
I suppose it finds the same category as "How many IJN Carriers did the USN sink at Midway"
warspite1
JeffK by this comment are you recalling the "debate" from the World In Flames forum?
It was pointed out to me by a poster some time ago that although the Bismarck was sunk, all the honour and glory in that engagement fell to the Germans because the RN didn't actually sink the Bismarck.
He would not accept any argument to the contrary and I pointed out that under his way of thinking, Midway was a glorious victory to the IJN [8|].
He still couldn't see it though....
We were joking about those sort of exchanges, honest! [:D]
warspite1
Sadly the person I had the debate with on the WIF forum was not.....[8|]
RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck
Posted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 3:09 pm
by witpqs
ORIGINAL: warspite1
Sadly the person I had the debate with on the WIF forum was not.....[8|]
I've been party/observer to similar discussions here. The details vary, the mindlessness rarely varies.
RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck
Posted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 5:30 pm
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: witpqs
ORIGINAL: warspite1
Sadly the person I had the debate with on the WIF forum was not.....[8|]
I've been party/observer to similar discussions here. The details vary, the mindlessness rarely varies.
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][;)]
RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck
Posted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 11:46 pm
by witpqs
[:D]
RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck
Posted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 11:57 pm
by denisonh
Is somebody trying to resurrect the Bismarck thread? That thing went on forever (until the "The Thread" redefined forever...)
RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck
Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 12:00 am
by witpqs
ORIGINAL: denisonh
Is somebody trying to resurrect the Bismarck thread? That thing went on forever (until the "The Thread" redefined forever...)
No it didn't.
Yes it did.
Oh wait, is this the abuse department?
No, this is argument, abuse is down the hall! [:D]
RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck
Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 12:21 am
by denisonh
Nice reference. The Bismarck thread was the forum incarnation of the "Argument Clinic"
RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck
Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 5:05 am
by Apollo11
Hi all,
ORIGINAL: denisonh
Nice reference. The Bismarck thread was the forum incarnation of the "Argument Clinic"
And while we are at it let us not forget: [;)]
- the "Zero" vs. "Wildcat" thread
- the "Sherman" vs. "Tiger" thread
[8D]
Leo "Apollo11"
RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck
Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 5:14 am
by JeffroK
I suppose it brings up that it was fairly standard practice for a Navy to scuttle its cripples rather than allow the enemy to discover any "secrets"
If I recall correctly a number of USN & RAN ships were scuttled after Savo Island.
RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck
Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 7:17 am
by LoBaron
Since Bismarck was sunk it does not really matter though, does it? [8D]
RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck
Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 2:00 pm
by witpqs
ORIGINAL: LoBaron
Since Bismarck was sunk it does not really matter though, does it? [8D]
[:D]
RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck
Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 7:07 pm
by 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]
RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck
Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 9:14 pm
by Chickenboy
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.
RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck
Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 6:36 am
by 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. [:-]
RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck
Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 12:26 pm
by LargeSlowTarget
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.
RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck
Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 10:57 am
by AW1Steve
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. [:-]
Pssssssssssssssssssssssttttttttttttttttttt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck
Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 11:04 am
by AW1Steve
ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget
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.
"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]
RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck
Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 8:21 am
by Dili
2104 German and 1416 British sailors
2200 vs 1400
Why such a big discrepancy in crew numbers between Bismarck and Hood ?
RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck
Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 8:45 am
by tigercub
Bismarck newer more complex and a bigger ship...
Tigercub
RE: OT: Battleship Bismarck
Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 9:28 am
by Dili
In length Hood was bigger. More complex to warrant 30% more crew?