| Revision as of 14:39, 12 February 2013 editParsecboy (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators184,495 edits →Article name is ridiculous: re← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:56, 12 February 2013 edit undoThe Dart (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users926 edits →Article name is ridiculousNext edit → | ||
| Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
| ::::Well Damwiki, their does exist a witness, in fact several on the bridge of HMS Rodney, where the author of "Reports of Proceedings 1921-1964" was the navigator of Rodney. He was Lt. Cmdr. Galfrey, George, Ormond, Gatacre RAN and had witnessed the hit along with Captain Frederick Dalrymple-Hamilton and others. Gatacre had previously been specialist Navigation officer on HMS's Devonshire, Norfolk, Edinburgh, Renown & Nelson and then after 2 years as Navigator on Rodney he became Commander of HMAS Australia and after the war became Rear Admiral FOIC Australian fleet. He is holder of the awards C.B.E., D.S.O., D.S.C. & Bar and was well respected by admirals of the RN, USN and even a personal dinner guest of General Dwight Eisenhower so I don't think his word should be in doubt when he says that Rodney quote "became the only battleship in naval history to have torpedoed another battleship." The ISBN of his book is 0 949756 02 4 and is published by Nautical Press & Publications, Manly, NSW 2095, Australia.] (]) 18:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC) | ::::Well Damwiki, their does exist a witness, in fact several on the bridge of HMS Rodney, where the author of "Reports of Proceedings 1921-1964" was the navigator of Rodney. He was Lt. Cmdr. Galfrey, George, Ormond, Gatacre RAN and had witnessed the hit along with Captain Frederick Dalrymple-Hamilton and others. Gatacre had previously been specialist Navigation officer on HMS's Devonshire, Norfolk, Edinburgh, Renown & Nelson and then after 2 years as Navigator on Rodney he became Commander of HMAS Australia and after the war became Rear Admiral FOIC Australian fleet. He is holder of the awards C.B.E., D.S.O., D.S.C. & Bar and was well respected by admirals of the RN, USN and even a personal dinner guest of General Dwight Eisenhower so I don't think his word should be in doubt when he says that Rodney quote "became the only battleship in naval history to have torpedoed another battleship." The ISBN of his book is 0 949756 02 4 and is published by Nautical Press & Publications, Manly, NSW 2095, Australia.] (]) 18:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :The problem is that Bismarck survivors say was no hit. Unfortunately, a heavy shell hit at the waterline and a torpedo hit look very similar at a distance, so Rodney's crew may have seen a 16in or 14in shell splash at about the time that the torpedoes would have arrived - but the people who would have known best - Bismarck's crew state there was no torpedo hit. Additionally, the wreck it self doesn't how evidence of a hit, in areas other than where the Bismarck's crew says they were hit. I think the best that can be done is to state that Rodney claimed a hit, but that this is unconfirmed.] (]) 19:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC) | :The problem is that Bismarck survivors say was no hit. Unfortunately, a heavy shell hit at the waterline and a torpedo hit look very similar at a distance, so Rodney's crew may have seen a 16in or 14in shell splash at about the time that the torpedoes would have arrived - but the people who would have known best - Bismarck's crew state there was no torpedo hit. Additionally, the wreck it self doesn't how evidence of a hit, in areas other than where the Bismarck's crew says they were hit. I think the best that can be done is to state that Rodney claimed a hit, but that this is unconfirmed.] (]) 19:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::::I think with regard to the German crews opinion about wether there was or not a torpedo hit by Rodney, it is more a matter of pride than fact. Evidence their claim that they scuttled her, but several naval investigative experts including David L. Mearns, Eric Grove, Antony Preston and Andrew Lambert have strong doubts as to the veracity of those claims by the Bismarck survivors. None of those survivors were in any position to know absolutely where any of the many explosions occurred nor their source. Mullenheim-Rechburg was abandoning his wrecked gunnery control director and all other crew were doing much the same at the time. Who would you believe, someone who is fleeing frightening chaos to save himself or several people in the safe & calm bridge of the ship inflicting that punishment? Lt. Cmdr. Wellings USN was another person on Rodney's bridge who confirmed the hit by a torpedo. Ref. Ludovic Kennedy's "Pursuit- the chase & sinking of the Bismarck". Robert Ballard's claim that there was no evidence of a torpedo hit is dubious when Mearns points to the distinct possibility that it could have added to the ultimate demise of Bismarck. The fact that Ballard wouldn't reveal the location of the wreck suggests that he didn't want anyone to further investigate it |
::::I think with regard to the German crews opinion about wether there was or not a torpedo hit by Rodney, it is more a matter of pride than fact. Evidence their claim that they scuttled her, but several naval investigative experts including David L. Mearns, Eric Grove, Antony Preston and Andrew Lambert have strong doubts as to the veracity of those claims by the Bismarck survivors. None of those survivors were in any position to know absolutely where any of the many explosions occurred nor their source. Mullenheim-Rechburg was abandoning his wrecked gunnery control director and all other crew were doing much the same at the time. Who would you believe, someone who is fleeing frightening chaos to save himself or several people in the safe & calm bridge of the ship inflicting that punishment? Lt. Cmdr. Wellings USN was another person on Rodney's bridge who confirmed the hit by a torpedo. Ref. Ludovic Kennedy's "Pursuit- the chase & sinking of the Bismarck". Robert Ballard's claim that there was no evidence of a torpedo hit is dubious when Mearns points to the distinct possibility that it could have added to the ultimate demise of Bismarck. The fact that Ballard wouldn't reveal the location of the wreck suggests that he didn't want anyone to further investigate it. Mearns had more sophisticated investigative tools and more financial resources to give him a better opportunity to find out more about it's final demise. German pride has always affected their view of events when it comes to military/naval defeats. Remember HMAS Sydney vs KMS Emden and the scuttling of the High Seas fleet at Scapa. Scuttling is viewed by them as more honourable than defeat, a kind of Aryan Harakiri.] (]) 10:51, 10 February 2013] (]) 14:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :::::That's a bunch of nonsense. Junack was the officer in charge of setting the demolition charges, and he survived. Mearns et. al. (presumably you're referring to) actually state that any possible hit from Rodney (or Norfolk or Ark Royal) "did not play a major role in her sinking", (p. 9) but that nevertheless, the evidence that might show such hits has largely been destroyed by the impact with the sea floor. Which seems to confirm Ballard's claim that there was no evidence of a torpedo hit, ''given that it was destroyed by the slide down the mountain''. I'd suggest you strike your aspersions on Ballard, as they are entirely baseless and run afoul of ]. ] (]) 14:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC) | :::::That's a bunch of nonsense. Junack was the officer in charge of setting the demolition charges, and he survived. Mearns et. al. (presumably you're referring to) actually state that any possible hit from Rodney (or Norfolk or Ark Royal) "did not play a major role in her sinking", (p. 9) but that nevertheless, the evidence that might show such hits has largely been destroyed by the impact with the sea floor. Which seems to confirm Ballard's claim that there was no evidence of a torpedo hit, ''given that it was destroyed by the slide down the mountain''. I'd suggest you strike your aspersions on Ballard, as they are entirely baseless and run afoul of ]. ] (]) 14:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 14:56, 12 February 2013
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Last battle of Bismarck article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | Military history: Maritime / British / European / German / World War II / Operation Majestic Titan C‑class | ||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met.jpg)
.svg)
 Archives | ||
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Last battle of Bismarck article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
This article is different
It does not refer to the hunt for the Bismarck, but the attack on the Hood. Also, I have inserted the correct British casualties; and, an incorrect statistical figure is by no means a proper reason to dispose an article. - Vikrant P 09:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Bismarck's scuttling presented as fact?
The article seems to imply that the scuttling is a fact when it has never been confirmed with any real certainty. Yes, Ballard and Cameron have their opinions but they themselves have no real proof of the scuttling. Likewise the German survivors have a face-saving motive ("the British didn't sink us, we scuttled ourselves") to say that the Bismarck sank by her own hands. There is no definitive proof that the Bismarck was NOT sunk by Dorsetshire's torpedoes. The article is misleading on this matter. The scuttling is not a proven fact as implied in the Misplaced Pages article. Eqdoktor (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't disagree, but then I don't think it's really all that important. Rodney and KGV had pounded her into chutney already, and it just doesn't matter all that much what delivered the flaming wreck its coup de grace. Solicitr (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think the examination of the Bismark by deep-sea remotes has shown the damage consistent with on-board scuttling charges.HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Unjustified sentence
I hope this will be considered minor, but I have removed the following sentence from the article:
"The largest (and according to Nazi propaganda, most powerful) warship yet commissioned had now been rendered a near-sitting duck by a single antiquated biplane."
Firstly, Bismarck was not the largest warship yet commissioned, nor was it intended to be. Even the aging Hood was larger and heavier than Bismarck and contemporary US and Japanese battleships were similar or larger. Bismarck's advantages related more to its modern design and fire control, but even so, it was not intended to take on contemporary ships but rather to break out into the atlantic and engage in commerce raiding. Secondly, as this series of articles on wikipedia details, it was not a single Swordfish that rendered Bismarck a sitting duck - it took the combined effort of a task force. Even if you ignore the broader situation including the loss of the Hood and over one thousand lives, the attack was carried out by a squadron of Swordfish, not a single plane. As such, the sentence felt, to me, extremely trite, and did not add anything to the article. I'm also unaware of any propaganda that claimed Bismarck was the most powerful warship in the world, but if there's a source for that, by all means restore it. 203.217.150.69 (talk) 05:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Bismarck was heavier than the Hood but not as long.GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- "contemporary US and Japanese battleships were similar or larger." Only if you count Yamato, which was not yet complete when Bismarck went down. The contemporary US Battleships would be the North Carolinas (728 ft, 37,000 tons), and the still-unfinished South Dakotas (680 ft, 36,000t): both smaller although carrying a more powerful main battery.
- "it was not intended to take on contemporary ships but rather to break out into the atlantic and engage in commerce raiding." That was what Bismarck wound up doing, but not what she was intended and designed to do under Plan Z, which was to operate as part of the proposed battle line.
- "Bismarck's advantages related more to its modern design and fire control" Bismarck's fire control was not nearly as sophisticated as even the US Mk 3 + Ford 1A (later replaced by Mk 8); and she was not a "modern" design at all, but surprisingly old-fashioned- a gigantic Baden with powerful engines. What advantages she had were heavy (but ill-located) armor, and very respectable 30-knot speed Solicitr (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- The Japanese might have something to say about that: Nagato class battleship.
- I also have some problems with the sentence: a) the Swordfish was obsolete (and overdue to be replaced by the Albacore and the Albacore in turn by the long delayed Barracuda) but it was not "antiquated". In modern parlance the Swordfish was; a STOL, all weather, radar equipped, day-night strike bomber, that could take off and find a target under conditions impossible for all other contemporary carrier aircraft except similarly equipped Albacores. The Swordfish's ASV II radar was the ace up the FAA's sleeve. 2ndly, Bismarck was not a "sitting duck"! She could and did shoot back with her 38cm and 15cm guns, which is hardly the definition of a "sitting duck". A better wording would be something like: " A single aerial torpedo had crippled the mighty Bismarck, and with it her aura of invincibility." Finally, in reply to Solicitr, Bismarck's FC systems were quite comparable to contemporary USN and RN designs (see Friedman's Naval Firepower for details) and unlike the USN, in May 1941 the German navy had effective FC radars in use, with the RN just beginning to take the lead in this area, while the USN would not field a FC radar until very late in 1941, and not in any numbers until 1942. The newest USN FC computers in service aboard North Carolina were the Mk 8 Rangekeeper for 16" FC, and the Mark I Fire Control Computer for dual purpose 5" FC (The Mk 1A was post war).Damwiki1 (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- The Swordfish wasn't obsolete in 1941. OK, they would be pretty ineffective without fighter cover against a force of modern fighters (e.g. Bf109) but due to lack of range and lack of an aircraft carrier, Germany had no way of thus supporting her battleships, although the Japanese did have the fighters (e.g. Mitsubishi Zero and the aircraft carriers. What happened in the East? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.8.228 (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Article name is ridiculous
Last battle of the battleship Bismarck? Why can't it simply be called "Sinking of the battleship Bismarck"? Might as well call the others, Last battle of the battlecruiser HMS Hood, Last battle of the battleships Prince of Wales and Repulse, Last battle of the battleship Scharnhorst, Last battle of the light cruiser HMAS Sydney, Last battle of the battleship Yamato or Last moments of the RMS Titanic. 220.255.2.114 (talk) 05:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. What's the policy for renaming on Misplaced Pages. Can one just be bold, or does it require a lengthy discussion? 200.32.121.66 (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- The article name is a bit of a comprimise - see Talk:Last_battle_of_the_battleship_Bismarck/Archive_1#Rescope_and_rename? and other previous discussion on the name. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- I still feel strongly that there is too much duplication between this article and the Bismarck article. Surely a rationalization is appropriate - perhaps even a merger? Wdford (talk) 09:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Bismarck is a featured article so it has to be comprehensive, it's might be a case that this one needs beefing up.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- If the Bismarck article has to be comprehensive, then let's add to it what few details are here but are not already in Bismarck. Then this article is a complete duplication, and we don't need this article anymore at all. This article doesn't need to be beefed up, it needs to disappear completely. Please would you compare the two articles, identify the few sentences that appear here but not in Bismarck, and explain why those few sentences justify having an entire duplicated article? Wdford (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- I totally agree with wdford regarding the redundancy of this article and it's dramatic "Hollywood"ish title. I also think that a reference to the fact that "Rodney" also fired 12 torpedoes at "Bismarck", one of which hit and exploded, needs to be added. ref "Reports of Proceedings 1921-1964" by Rear Admiral G.G.O Gatacre RAN.The Dart (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Titles like this one are usually a reflection of past disputes wherein some editors wished to avoid more appropriate titles since they might possibly imply criticism of the Bismarck and/or of the German navy. A title such as "The sinking of the Bismarck" or "The destruction of the Bismarck" was probably not thought to be Wagnerian enough. I do feel strongly though, that this article should remain since it was a major naval engagement and as such deserves a separate article. Finally, claims that Rodney torpedoed Bismarck are not supported by survivor accounts, especially since the arrival of a 24in torpedo would be a rather unforgettable event, even considering the pounding that Bismarck endured from naval gunfire - see "German Capital Ships and Raiders in World War II: Volume I: From Graf Spee to Bismarck, 1939-1941" and "Battleship Bismarck: A Survivor's Story" and this article: Bismarck's Final Battle. So while Rodney claimed a hit, it isn't supported by the main body of literature written on this topic.Damwiki1 (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well Damwiki, their does exist a witness, in fact several on the bridge of HMS Rodney, where the author of "Reports of Proceedings 1921-1964" was the navigator of Rodney. He was Lt. Cmdr. Galfrey, George, Ormond, Gatacre RAN and had witnessed the hit along with Captain Frederick Dalrymple-Hamilton and others. Gatacre had previously been specialist Navigation officer on HMS's Devonshire, Norfolk, Edinburgh, Renown & Nelson and then after 2 years as Navigator on Rodney he became Commander of HMAS Australia and after the war became Rear Admiral FOIC Australian fleet. He is holder of the awards C.B.E., D.S.O., D.S.C. & Bar and was well respected by admirals of the RN, USN and even a personal dinner guest of General Dwight Eisenhower so I don't think his word should be in doubt when he says that Rodney quote "became the only battleship in naval history to have torpedoed another battleship." The ISBN of his book is 0 949756 02 4 and is published by Nautical Press & Publications, Manly, NSW 2095, Australia.The Dart (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is that Bismarck survivors say was no hit. Unfortunately, a heavy shell hit at the waterline and a torpedo hit look very similar at a distance, so Rodney's crew may have seen a 16in or 14in shell splash at about the time that the torpedoes would have arrived - but the people who would have known best - Bismarck's crew state there was no torpedo hit. Additionally, the wreck it self doesn't how evidence of a hit, in areas other than where the Bismarck's crew says they were hit. I think the best that can be done is to state that Rodney claimed a hit, but that this is unconfirmed.Damwiki1 (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think with regard to the German crews opinion about wether there was or not a torpedo hit by Rodney, it is more a matter of pride than fact. Evidence their claim that they scuttled her, but several naval investigative experts including David L. Mearns, Eric Grove, Antony Preston and Andrew Lambert have strong doubts as to the veracity of those claims by the Bismarck survivors. None of those survivors were in any position to know absolutely where any of the many explosions occurred nor their source. Mullenheim-Rechburg was abandoning his wrecked gunnery control director and all other crew were doing much the same at the time. Who would you believe, someone who is fleeing frightening chaos to save himself or several people in the safe & calm bridge of the ship inflicting that punishment? Lt. Cmdr. Wellings USN was another person on Rodney's bridge who confirmed the hit by a torpedo. Ref. Ludovic Kennedy's "Pursuit- the chase & sinking of the Bismarck". Robert Ballard's claim that there was no evidence of a torpedo hit is dubious when Mearns points to the distinct possibility that it could have added to the ultimate demise of Bismarck. The fact that Ballard wouldn't reveal the location of the wreck suggests that he didn't want anyone to further investigate it. Mearns had more sophisticated investigative tools and more financial resources to give him a better opportunity to find out more about it's final demise. German pride has always affected their view of events when it comes to military/naval defeats. Remember HMAS Sydney vs KMS Emden and the scuttling of the High Seas fleet at Scapa. Scuttling is viewed by them as more honourable than defeat, a kind of Aryan Harakiri.The Dart (talk) 10:51, 10 February 2013The Dart (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's a bunch of nonsense. Junack was the officer in charge of setting the demolition charges, and he survived. Mearns et. al. (presumably this article you're referring to) actually state that any possible hit from Rodney (or Norfolk or Ark Royal) "did not play a major role in her sinking", (p. 9) but that nevertheless, the evidence that might show such hits has largely been destroyed by the impact with the sea floor. Which seems to confirm Ballard's claim that there was no evidence of a torpedo hit, given that it was destroyed by the slide down the mountain. I'd suggest you strike your aspersions on Ballard, as they are entirely baseless and run afoul of WP:BLP. Parsecboy (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- NOThe Dart (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, the alternative is that I remove it myself and block your account. Your choice. Parsecboy (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- C-Class Operation Majestic Titan articles
- Operation Majestic Titan articles
- C-Class Operation Majestic Titan (Phase III) articles
- Operation Majestic Titan (Phase III) articles
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class maritime warfare articles
- Maritime warfare task force articles
- C-Class British military history articles
- British military history task force articles
- C-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- C-Class German military history articles
- German military history task force articles
- C-Class World War II articles
- World War II task force articles