Talk:German battleship Bismarck/Archive 8

Fate
Is there any way of changing the Bismarck's fate? Stating that the ship was scuttled after damage implies that the ship was sunk through the sole effort of the scuttling charges placed on its interior, which, despite its hefty contribution to its sinking, was not the original cause (torpedo hits, shellfire etc.). It just seems unfair to not credit the British ships at least partially in its direct sinking, and not just its incapacitation (shown by the belief of it sinking regardless of the scuttling performed). I'm no expert in this field, so if I'm wrong please correct me. Remeau Bro (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Short of a time machine to go back to mid-May 1941, no ;) In any event, we write articles based on what reliable sources say - and the preponderance of sources support scuttling as at least the proximate cause the ship's sinking. The current wording is the best compromise to have emerged in the last 15+ years of discussion (if you want your brain to hurt, type "scuttling" into the archive search bar in the top and read through the resulting walls of text). At this point, I for one am not particularly interested in rocking the boat. Parsecboy (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't the fate read (atleast) sunk/scuttled just as every Japanese carrier lost at Midway does?

All 3 dive experts to the wreck acknowledged that the ship was already sinking regardless of any scuttling attempt.

It's just not accurate to state scuttled only. VSTAMPv (talk) 11:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Once again, some fanboy keeps reverting any attempt to make this article accurate and non-POV. You couldn't sink the Invincible Supership!  She committed suicide!"  Puh-leez. I notice that only the Bismarck attracts this sort of silliness.  Nobody denies that USS Lexington and USS Hornet were sunk by Japanese aircraft, although looked at granularly, the proximate cause of death was US torpedoes after the ships had been abandoned.


 * As mentioned above, every wreck investigation, as if that were needed beyond the survivors' accounts, is that Bismarck was already sinking before the order to abandon and scuttle was given. All the scuttling did was hasten her inevitable demise. As Garzke and Dulin put it, their answer to "Was the Bismarck sunk or scuttled" is always "Yes." Solicitr (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * You seem to have no idea what you are talking about. British were to sink Bismarck in one way or another that's true but they couldn't achieve this with gunfire due to various reasons. Germans basically shown them their middlefinger by setting-off scuttling charges (and opening watertight doors) before DDs or cruisers came into torp positions/range. --Denniss (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh yes. Blowing off a couple of valves in the depths of your ship, after it's been reduced to a blazing, impotent wreck by the enemy, is SUCH an impressive gesture. If it's a middle finger it's a small, mutilated one. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Deniss, but I know very much what I'm talking about and have read all the primary literature- you on the other hand need to do some reading and stop believing the Uberschiff mythology. By the time Bismarck's Second Officer Oels passed the order to abandon ship and scuttle about 1000 (the Second Officer because all contact with the bridge had been lost), the ship was listing 15-20 degrees to port and settling by the stern.  Commander von Mullenheim-Rechberg, the senior survivor, confirms this, bolstered by the testimony of Josef Statz, the only survivor from Damage Control Central. Bismarck was suffering uncontrolled flooding- which results from big holes below the waterline. "couldn't achieve this with gunfire due to various reasons" is malarkey, they very much could, and very much did. This has been known for decades, but was confirmed in this century by submersible examinations of the wreck: I suggest you read Dulin and Garzke on the subject.  Bismarck suffered multiple penetrations.  As one would expect, since no battleship ever built, not even Yamato, could withstand 16" fire delivered from 3000 meters: effectively point-blank range. Do you understand the term "immunity zone?"


 * Bismarck's crew wasn't "giving the middle finger" to anybody; they were desperately trying to save their own lives in a defenseless, flaming charnel house of twisted steel, rising saltwater and incessant shell impacts. Again, read von M-R; Bismarck's last hour was hell on water for her crew.


 * Once again, this ship, and this ship alone seems to collect worshipful fanboyz like no other. Bismarck was a very ordinary WW2 battleship, and she was pounded into flaming wreckage before she went under.  Why on earth just this ship, and not Hiei or Lexington or Hornet or Kaga, all of which were scuttled... after orderly abandon ships? Solicitr (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

If you all can’t stop edit warring over this, I’m going to have to lock the page. Parsecboy (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * We have been through this all before with Solicitr, but here we go again. I understand their confusion now that they have stated that "By the time Bismarck's Second Officer Oels passed the order to abandon ship and scuttle about 10:00 … the ship was listing 15-20 degrees to port and settling by the stern." However this is not factual. Dulin and Garzke state that the scuttling charges were detonated shortly after 1020, and "the battered ship listed heavily to port around 1035. Shortly thereafter, the ship capsized to port and sank by the stern, her bow disappearing around 1040." The heavy list and sinking by the stern etc as described by other authors, actually only happened long after the scuttling process had been enacted. 


 * The narratives provided by authors such as Tamelander and Zetterling, Bercuson and Herwig and others, do NOT give a carefully chronological story but rather a bunch of recollections from various witnesses, woven together to be coherent, but not necessarily chronological. Dulin and Garzke are the only source I know of who stated a chronology this precisely - scuttled at 10h20, listed heavily to port around 1035, sank by the stern, her bow disappearing around 1040.


 * I highly rate Dulin and Garzke as a good source on the subject, as in addition to the memories of survivors, they have provided detailed reports based on the various underwater expeditions. Dulin and Garzke rely heavily on the memories of the surviving Seaman Statz, but the Damage Control Centre was under the command of Oels, a very senior officer, who had the same info as Statz plus a huge amount of extra training and experience. If the ship was already sinking fast, Oels would not have bothered to go below and set charges, he would simply have ordered the pumps to be switched off, and the crew to abandon ship immediately. However instead he went to a lot of trouble to scuttle – and this extra work cost him his own life. In order to understand whether the ship was already sinking fast, or if those who were in command of the damage control were correct to assume that further action to scuttle was still necessary – we therefore need to consider the analyses of the underwater inspections.


 * Dulin and Garzke have provided multiple analyses over the years. The following quotes all come from the report based on the survey led by James Cameron in May 2002, as this is the most recent and detailed survey available to me. You can find it at https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/12480849/the-wreck-of-dkm-bismarck-a-marine-forensics-analysis-1-the-.


 * Pg 16: In his recollection of leaving the center engine room after placing scuttling charges, LT Gerhard Junack advised author Bill Garzke, Jochen Brennecke, and Dr. Oscar Parkes that he left the engine room around 1010 with shining lights and a slowly turning shaft.


 * Pg 28: With the bridge personnel no longer responding after 0920, CDR Hans Oels, the executive officer, took command of the ship and decided to issue an order to abandon and scuttle the ship when he left the Damage Control Central around 0930.


 * Pg 30: It is significant to note that Jim Cameron’s complete survey of the hull detected only two instances where armor-piercing shells actually penetrated all the way through the 320-mm main side belt armor. These are both on the starboard side amidships, presumably caused by 406-mm shellfire, since Rodney was firing from that side sometime during 0950-1010 at very close range. One hole forward of the 320-mm displaced armor belt is an obvious penetration. The second is rather unusual, with a rectangular hole at the end of an armor plate. The shell possibly caused a failure of the armor, freeing a rectangular segment of the 320-mm armor, rather than the classical conic-frustum cartwheel shape.


 * Pg 31: A thorough bow to stem and gunwale-to-mudline survey of the hull in high definition video and by visual inspection revealed only two hits which penetrated all the way through the main side belt armor. This is an astounding result, given the number of large caliber shells (719) fired at Bismarck from 0847 until 1014.


 * Pg 31: Torpedoes launched during the final battle were almost completely ineffective in the effort to sink the ship. There is also the likelihood that some of the claimed hits were torpedoes that exploded prematurely due to the heavy seas. The close-range shelling that took place from 0930 to 1014 was largely ineffective in damaging the vitals of the ship.


 * Pg 34: By 0945; it was becoming obvious that British shellfire was not contributing to sinking the ship. The two battleships and two heavy cruisers had fired away for the last hour without any apparent effect.


 * Pg 34: Scuttling charges were detonated shortly after 1020, and the battered ship listed heavily to port around 1035. Shortly thereafter, the ship capsized to port and sank by the stern, her bow disappearing around 1040.


 * Pg 42: An inspection of the overhead inside this long "outburst" hole revealed that the underside of the massive plating of the armor deck, including its outboard slope, was not damaged and virtually intact, despite being adjacent to such wholesale destruction of the outer portion of the ship. Only 0.5 meters from where the hull had been ripped away for more than 30 meters, the armor deck appears intact. This again supports the idea of uniform fluid pressure creating the outburst, rather than torpedo or shell explosions. This conclusion seems inescapable.


 * Pg 42-43: Previous forensic analysts concluded that a number of unlikely but possible claimed hits by the cruiser Norfolk and the battleship Rodney could now be confirmed. These analysts also concluded, as a consequence, that the scuttling claimed by the German survivors was unlikely and irrelevant, that the torpedo damage inflicted by the British torpedo hits was more than enough to have caused the ship to sink when it did. The latter conclusion is incorrect and another example of the always humbling fact confounding serious historians and forensic analysts that “… The best available information in fact may not be very good …”


 * Pg 47: Large pieces of the lower hull residing within the slide scar also disprove the conclusion of David Mearns from the 2001 ITN Expedition that torpedo hits tore these away during the battles on the surface.


 * Pg 50: Bismarck unquestionably would have sunk due to progressive flooding hours after the battle ended. By 0930, CDR Oels heard no response from the Bridge and he knew that the ship was defenseless, when turrets Caesar and Dora were no longer operational. There is enough evidence to indicate that he ordered the ship scuttled to prevent her boarding by the British and to end the agony of the prolonged battering by British shellfire that was hindering escape into the sea.


 * Pg 51: Closer-range gunfire (eventually, at virtually point-blank range for battleship main battery guns) later in the engagement devastated the superstructure and exposed sections of the hull (above the waterline) and caused massive casualties, but contributed little to the eventual sinking of the ship. 


 * Pg 51: the charges were detonated shortly after 1020. By 1035, the ship had assumed a heavy port list, capsizing slowly and sinking by the stern. The bow disappeared about 1040.


 * Pg 51: While there was leakage through small cracks of failed welds from a torpedo hit on the port side aft from one of the Ark Royal aircraft on 26 May, as confirmed by evidence from Josef Statz and Gerhard Junack, the resulting flooding contributed little to the sinking of the ship.


 * Solicitr's statements that "Bismarck suffered multiple penetrations", is thus contrary to the evidence of a detailed underwater survey. They are also wrong when they say the scuttling order was only given at 10h00 – D&G state (pg 28) that Oels took the decision around 9h30.


 * Dulin and Garzke throughout maintain their opinion that Bismarck was suffering "uncontrolled flooding" – an opinion they seemingly gleaned from Statz. However their own analysis says clearly that (pg 31) only two hits penetrated the main side belt armor – one of which was actually ahead of the main belt, and one of which caused an armor plate to be displaced rather than penetrated. They state that the close-range shelling was largely ineffective in damaging the vitals of the ship, that the two battleships and two heavy cruisers had fired away for the last hour without any apparent effect, and (pg 34, pg 51) that it was becoming obvious that British shellfire was not contributing to sinking the ship. They also state on pg 31 that the torpedoes were almost completely ineffective in the effort to sink the ship. I don't think wee can classify Dulin and Garzke et al as "fanboys".


 * Obvious Question - If the sustained gunfire was ineffective, and the torpedoes were ineffective, then how did the ship sink?
 * Obvious Answer: The ship was scuttled by the crew.
 * We do also state in the lead that various sources believe the ship would have sunk anyway - perhaps hours later, (provided the German air and U-Boat reinforcements didn't arrive to drive off the attackers, and provided the weather didn't clear up and allow for better damage control, etc etc.)


 * Dulin and Garzke state on Pg 34 that the scuttling charges were detonated shortly after 1020, and "the battered ship listed heavily to port around 1035. Shortly thereafter, the ship capsized to port and sank by the stern, her bow disappearing around 1040." The heavy list and sinking by the stern etc as described by other authors, actually only happened long after the scuttling process had been enacted. 


 * Finally, I take some small issue with their statement on Pg 34 that "Scuttling charges were detonated shortly after 1020". On Pg 16 they state that Junack left the engine room around 10h10. Bercuson and Herwig report that the scuttling charges had nine-minute fuses. Junack must have lit the fuses before leaving the engine room, and there were charges in multiple locations, so all the charges must have detonated well before 10h20, not shortly afterward. A small quibble, but it nicely illustrates that the chronology in these narratives cannot be precise to the minute.


 * Wdford (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Lead section
I think this is too much detail for the lead. Remember it functions as a summary of the entire article; if we're referencing specific times, it's a good sign we've lost sight of the intro's purpose. Personally, I don't see what's wrong with the previous version. Parsecboy (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool. I obviously put the extra detail in to clear up the misconception about when did the "already listing heavily and sinking by the stern" come about relative to the scuttling, but I can live without this detail provided the overall summary remans factual. Already sorted. Wdford (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's better. I'm wondering if we ought to make clear that the cause of sinking had been controversial since at present the lead seems to assume the reader already knows this. Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure this is really necessary, but I have no objection. How about inserting into the final para as follows: "The wreck was located in June 1989 by Robert Ballard, and has since been further surveyed by several other expeditions. There had been some controversy about the true extent of the battle damage inflicted apart from the scuttling, but the detailed underwater survey of the wreck in 2002 showed that ...." Maybe then we should move to the end of the final paragraph as follows: "Notwithstanding these findings, most experts agree that the battle damage would have caused her to sink eventually."??Wdford (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I find it a bit disturbing that all cited evidence for progressive flooding prior to the scuttling charges has been removed from this article and the article about the final battle. Here's some information:

Bismarck'' continued to fly her ensign. The battleship's upper works were almost completely destroyed and although her engines were still functioning, she was slowly settling by the stern from uncontrolled flooding with a 20-degree list to port.(ref)Carr. A survivor from Bismarck recounts the situation prior to the order to scuttle: "In the engine room we were kept informed of the progress of the battle. We could hear the noise, but we did not notice any direct hits. We did hear sporadic shrapnel clattering in the airways. In time, we noticed the ship pitching more and more to port. A direct hit in Section X ripped the water storage cells beneath us, and our compartment started to slowly flood. The two auxiliary engines were already underwater when the command ordered the port engine-control center to place and activate the scuttling charges and abandon ship."(/ref) She no longer had any functioning guns, so First Officer Hans Oels ordered the men below decks to abandon ship; he instructed the engine-room crews to open the ship's watertight doors and prepare scuttling charges.(ref)Bercuson & Herwig, pp. 292–294(/ref)(ref)Cameron, p.51: "...Late in the final engagement, theBismark was defeated, sinking as the result of uncontrollable progressive flooding, and virtually defenceless. The Executive Officer, CDR Hans Oels, ordered the scuttling of the ship − “Measure V [V = ‘Versunken’]” − and the charges were detonated shortly after 1020."(/ref) Gerhard Junack, the chief engineering officer, primed the charges and ordered the crew to abandon the ship.Gaack & Carr, pp. 80–81(/ref) Junack and his comrades heard the demolition charges detonate as they made their way up through the various levels. Most of the crew went into the water, but few sailors from the lower engine spaces got out alive.''

which was removed from the final battle article. The wreck of the Bismarck has settled deeply into the mud on the ocean bottom and so much of the wreck is inaccessible to underwater surveyors. RN observers noted Bismarck's increasing list and progressive settling into the water, well before the scuttling charges were detonated. I guess the pro-Nazi supership myth is more compelling than the mundane historical record.


 * The mundane historical record says that the sustained point-blank British gunfire was ineffective in sinking the ship, and the British torpedoes were ineffective in sinking the ship. A detailed visual survey found that, despite an impact with the seabed, a slide along the seabed and 60 years of immersion, the main armour belt showed only two penetrations (one forward of the main armoured area), the torpedo bulkheads were still intact, and the main armour deck was also intact. At the time of scuttling the engines were still working, and the situation deep inside the hull was calm and orderly despite the destruction to the superstructure. The commander of the damage control center believed that scuttling was necessary to prevent the ship being captured afloat, and the British commander also thought the ship would remain afloat so he ordered yet another torpedo attack. The "settling by the stern" and the heavy list to port only occurred about 15 minutes after the scuttling, and the ship was already capsizing due to the scuttling when the final torpedo attack took place. Against all this you cite "RN observers", whose ability to judge listing from a distance in a typhoon were seemingly miraculous, and some hypothetical "hidden evidence"? Wdford (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What Typoon? Do you understand that the rough seas and high waves that were present, will force water into any openings in the hull? The main armoured deck is deep inside the ship, and not exposed to surveyors but survivor accounts state that it was penetrated. The ship has settled deep into the mud and much of the hull cannot be observed by surveyors - see the painting by Ken Marschall and Bismark's unarmoured stern detached from the ship during her descent to the bottom and much of the outer hull plating has been removed by impact with the bottom, further reducing the ability of external survey's to assess damage by gunfire. Bismarck suffered several thousand tons of flooding due to the 14in hits at Denmark Straits, including a boiler room and two auxiliary machinery compartments and torpedo damage the next day. She also suffered flooding from the stern torpedo hit. Survivor accounts state that large calibre shell hits penetrated into the machinery spaces during the last battle, that these spaces were flooding prior to scuttling. The main armoured belt was deeply submerged during the battle but the 145mm armour belt above that was penetrated many times, and the list noted at 0930, put this part of the ship's main deck underwater allowing for progressive flooding below. This is all stated by various sources, but this data has been removed from both articles. Battleship Bismarck (2019) by G&D and Jurens details all this data into a single source, written by authors who have personally surveyed the wreck. Damwiki1 (talk) 01:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * All of what I mentioned above comes from the analysis of G&D and Jurens et al, using Cameron's video footage. Some survivors mentioned some flooding in various compartments, which is not a secret. Some mentioned water coming down in the ventilator shafts. Other survivors mentioned that the engines were still running, the pumps were still running, and the spaces below the armoured deck were calm and peaceful. It was a modern warship, with lots of redundancy in both equipment and buoyancy. An ordinary seaman in the damage control office thought the ship was sinking. An experienced senior officer, who was commander of the damage control office, thought the ship was floating quite well, and needed to be scuttled. It was a big ship, and there were many accounts of various small pieces of the action. Few people could see the big picture, other than people like Oels. Few accounts were specific in terms of precise chronology. However a detailed analysis of the Cameron video footage by experts concluded that neither the gunfire damage nor the torpedo damage was enough to sink the ship. G&D et al used small ROV's that could go into places not previously accessible, including under the armour deck, and produce hi-def video evidence. This is more reliable than a painting, yes? Wdford (talk) 10:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet it is G&D&J's Battleship Bismarck (2019) that concludes that Bismarck was sinking by the stern prior to the scuttling, and that this was evident even at 0930 (p416). There's a flooding diagram (p452) showing that prior to scuttling that 2 of the 6 boiler rooms were flooded or flooding, 2 of the 3 engine rooms (centre and Port) were flooding, and most of the stern and bow were flooded. The RN had a clear view of Bismarck. after she ceased fire at 0930, and they noted her increasing list. Battleship Bismarck (2019) incorporates all the latest evidence and all prior studies of the sinking and the wreck. It concludes that Bismarck was sinking prior to the scuttling, and provides detailed evidence for these conclusions, and I will incorporate this data in the article.Damwiki1 (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no point. Pages get taken over by cliques who relentlessly wikilawyer away any edit they don't agree with. In this case it's Wehraboos who believe that, if Bismarck was scuttled by her crew, she was in some way not utterly defeated. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 06:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Sunk/scuttled
Ballard later concluded that "As far as I was concerned, the British had sunk the ship regardless of who delivered the final blow."

Why, when every respectable authority on the subject acknowledges that Bismarck was sinking regardless of scuttling actions, does the 'fate' state scuttled.

This is an obvious attempt to rewrite history, by admin is on this page who appear to be biased. We all know that the casual observer will only skim the top, without delving in to the details, and then pass that off as fact.

She was not 'incapacitated' she was a burning, sinking, hulk. VSTAMPv (talk) 01:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There have been heaps of discussions of this previously. Nick-D (talk) 04:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

So? We should stop trying to improve it? Wikipedia has an obligation to be accurate, conversation and debate should be endless, just like life. VSTAMPv (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * If you had something novel to contribute to the discussion, it would be worth having. But you haven’t advanced anything that hasn’t already been said. As such, it’s a colossal waste of time for all involved. Why don’t you find something constructive to do, rather than grind axes here? There are plenty of low-quality articles that need development. Parsecboy (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The weird insistence that Bismarck wasn't destroyed by the Royal Navy makes this article low quality. It needs development. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

(disclaimer, I haven't read into many of the primary sources, I'm just a passerby) I kinda agree w/ Parsecboy. While it's true that most people just skim articles and won't delve into the details, I think the way it's worded currently is accurate and effective. What is the ship's fate? It's at the bottom of the ocean because of damage from scuttle charges, enemy shells, and enemy torpedoes. Which was the primary cause for the sinking? Tough to say but primary sources seem to indicate mostly scuttle charges w/ some contribution from torpedoes and superstructure damage from shells. The best takeaway, though, is that the Bismarck was thoroughly defeated by the British forces. Jasonkwe (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Indeed - that anyone can read this article and come to the conclusion that the ship wasn't destroyed by the Royal Navy is very confusing.
 * I didn't write this article to prove one side right or wrong (which is what Khamba/VSTAMPv/Fahrenheit - who are more than likely the same individual - want to do), I tried to present the material in a balanced way that represents what the available sources say. If a preponderance of the experts believe a given thing, that's what the article should follow. Parsecboy (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Fateful Torpedo Hit
Hello, Dulin and Garzke are incorrect that the deadly torpedo struck the ship on its port side: it was the starboard side, as has been discussed on the Kbismarck.com site. Unfortunately, people take D&G at face value when much of their work is sloppy. Perhaps a regular contributor to this informative article can clear this "mess" up. Regards to all, 86.148.35.159 (talk) Pat — Preceding undated comment added 17:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed numerous times in the past, most recently here; long story short, it's far from clear whether Moffat or Pattisson were responsible for the fateful hit. Parsecboy (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be a refusal by certain editors to add relevant information.
The lede, as per WP guidelines should reflect the body of the article.

Why in that case, is the 2002 expedition singled out in the lede, but the opinions of the experts in that same expedition obfuscated? Not to mention the removal of relevant quotes, and conclusions of the experts in the body of the article, under the guise of "no quotes in the lede" when not only is this not WP policy, but appears in other articles. The archives are interesting reading, but the gatekeepers persist.80.0.69.127 (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The lead does need reflect the body of the article, but it should also summarize it, not reproduce material available in the body. Placing quotes in the lead is not exactly a good way to summarize, now is it? I don't particularly think the 2002 material should be in the lead (and if you want my opinion on what it should say, one need look no further than the version I wrote as it passed FAC in 2012. But other editors wanted to include it, so I let it be.
 * This article has been a battleground for the more than decade and a half that I've been working on it; I'm not particularly interested in rehashing the same old arguments every time a drive-by editor with an axe to grind wanders in. Parsecboy (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Given that the 2002 material currently is included however, why did you state "No reason to single out Cameron in the lead" - when the preceding sentences are literally singling out his 2002 expedition? It would be clearly relevant to single out Cameron's opinions, considering we have singled out his expedition before it.80.0.69.127 (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Tell me, what was his role in the expedition? Then tell me why his name needs to be included in a short summary of this article. Parsecboy (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The 2002 documentary Expedition: Bismarck, Was literally directed by him. I would also counter point your claim that quotes are not a summary, they serve great purpose in articles such as Battle of Bladensburg in the lede, as well as Battle of Britain. Why do you think we should not include him specifically, when we are including his expedition specifically, rather than others?80.0.69.127 (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, he directed a documentary; that's it. He did not lead a search like Ballard, nor is he an expert historian or maritime archaeologist. That's why he doesn't need to be singled out in the lead.
 * As for quotes in the lead, I'd point out that this is a Featured Article and those two you cited aren't. Here's a question for you: do you think that someone who's written more than 80 FAs might, just might, know a little more about how to write high-quality articles than you? Parsecboy (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yet it is his documentary that is referenced in the lede, rather than any others, yet you do not think it relevant to point this out? Seems weighted bias, as you have already alluded to in your previous statements. Either remove the 2002 expedition from the lede, as it is given undue weight, or, give the context I have provided. I will not even address your other statement, as I abhor that kind of language and gatekeeping when it comes to WP which should be open to all.80.0.69.127 (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * In addition to the above, there is also a huge difference between FACT and OPINION. It is fact that the ship was scuttled by her crew. It is fact that the armour deck was found to still be intact, and that the side armour was barely penetrated. This is verified by actual film of the actual wreck - irrelevant which expedition obtained the film. However it is merely Mearns' opinion that the hull had been ripped by torpedoes – Mearns actually stated "My feeling is that those holes .." The facts are summarised in due detail, as per WP:UNDUE, but the opinions are summarised more concisely, as per WP:UNDUE. Not rocket science. Wdford (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * It is also fact that the 2002 report states more than is alluded to in the article. "The combination of hydraulic outburst and the tearing away of the shell plating make it difficult to determine where there was torpedo damage" - Rather than the stated "the many torpedoes launched at Bismarck were also almost completely ineffective" which we find in the lede. "This makes the confirmation and localisation of torpedo damage over much of the hull structure impossible" the report says in regards to Dorsetshire, while also saying "this aft starboard hole seems to be our most unequivocal example of torpedo damage". While also stating that "A large flap of hull plating, bent outward and aft, may be physical evidence of this torpedo hit". The report also concludes: by 0945 "Bismarck was overwhelmed and defeated by the gunfire and torpedoes of the Royal Navy, gradually sinking due to uncontrollable progressive flooding." Pg34 Yet I cannot see any of these being referenced in the article, despite selective statements being chosen from it, why is that?80.0.69.127 (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * To reiterate, this statement alone is fact that the experts "opinion" is true that she would have sank regardless of scuttling - "Bismarck was overwhelmed and defeated by the gunfire and torpedoes of the Royal Navy, gradually sinking due to uncontrollable progressive flooding."80.0.69.127 (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Actually, the 2002 report (Cameron) states clearly that the torpedo bulkheads were seen to be intact. Ergo, the ship was not sunk by torpedoes. They attributed the hull damage to the impact with the seabed, and the subsequent kilometre-long slide down the side of the underwater mountain. pg 34-35
 * The report at page 34 clearly states: "By 0945; it was becoming obvious that British shellfire was not contributing to sinking the ship. The two battleships and two heavy cruisers had fired away for the last hour without any apparent effect."
 * "Gradually sinking due to "uncontrolled flooding" is not the same as "had already sunk". The crew might yet have controlled the flooding, but then the enemy would have captured a floating ship, and towed it to England for examination. The crew therefore scuttled the ship, as per page 34.
 * Since these notable experts clearly stated (WITH EVIDENCE) that the torpedo bulkheads were still intact, and that the shelling was ineffective, and that the side and deck armour was intact, and that the ship was scuttled by the crew, it would be seriously UNDUE to fixate on a single sentence that says there was progressive flooding during the battle, and make it seem as though all the other detail is irrelevant. If the ship was actually sinking, the officers would have simply abandoned ship and saved many lives, rather than delaying an extra hour to perform the scuttling procedure.
 * The "opinions" of the experts re the likelihood of the ship sinking eventually was also included in the lede, so I really don't know what your issue is - other than perhaps a desire to cherry-pick to suit your POV? Wdford (talk) 22:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * "If the ship was actually sinking, the officers would have simply abandoned ship and saved many lives, rather than delaying an extra hour to perform the scuttling procedure." - Now what was that about opinion? "other than perhaps a desire to cherry-pick to suit your POV?" - What is with this particular article and the quickness to state such projection.
 * ""Gradually sinking due to "uncontrolled flooding" is not the same as "had already sunk"" Well thankfully, I never said this, so not sure where you've pulled it from. Is it opinion that the ship would have sank regardless of scuttling? The article states in note 3 Bismarck unquestionably would have sunk due to progressive flooding hours after the battle ended. Would you oppose this going in the lede?80.0.69.127 (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you not aware that the lead already states as much? Surely you must be, as you’ve moved the sentence in question around. Here’s some advice: step away from the grindstone, drop the axe, and go find something else to do with your time. You are clearly not here with an objective view. Parsecboy (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The lede does not state as much, the sentence in question is one of the "opinion" rather than portrayed as established fact, I wish to add the above sentence to clarify. Would you oppose that?80.0.69.127 (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Seeing as what you suggest is clearly a counter-factual scenario (in that it did not actually happen), then yes, I would oppose treating it as fact. It isn’t. It’s the best guess by relevant experts on the subject, which is exactly how the lead treats it. Parsecboy (talk) 00:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yet uncontrollable flooding is exactly what occurred. Bercuson & Herwig, pp. 292–294 & "The damage caused by these two shells was below the waterline, and the resulting flooding clearly was uncontrollable. The water seeping through the cabin flat was causing some progressive flooding. Means had to be found to control it." Battleship Bismarck: A Design and Operation History - Garzke & O Dulin.80.0.69.127 (talk) 01:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I think you are mixing up your sources. This reference seems to be referring to damage suffered by Prince of Wales? Wdford (talk) 08:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * But it is opinion rather than established fact.
 * First, they could not have determined from the hard evidence how long the ship would still have floated. There were many variables, and the experts were not unanimous in their estimates. Obviously if lots more torpedoes had been available they would have done some extra damage, but who could know for sure how many hours it would have taken, or how many torpedoes? The many actual torpedo hits had not pierced the torpedo bulkheads, so how many more hits would have been required to actually sink the ship?
 * Second, the "uncontrollable progressive flooding" was itself an opinion - based on the recollections of one survivor, who had been a low-level crewman in the damage control department. There was no way to determine from the hard evidence that the flooding was uncontrollable or progressive. Against the recollections of a low-level crewman, we have the actions of several senior officers, who did not abandon a sinking ship, but who instead took time-consuming steps to scuttle the ship. These two "versions" are not aligned.
 * Since your preferred statement is not unanimous, not supported by hard evidence, and is in fact contradicted by the actions of senior officers on the spot, it is more accurate and more neutral to state "Most experts agree that the battle damage would have caused her to sink eventually."
 * Wdford (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * It is not contradicted by the actions of senior officers. You are using the fact that they did not abandon a sinking ship as evidence, despite correspondence by Lt Junack and Josef Statz to Garzke that this was due to the occurrences from WWI, and the charges being a direct result of them. The lack of abandon ship is irrelevant to the status of sinking. "Bismarck unquestionably would have sunk due to progressive flooding hours after the battle ended. By 0930, CDR Oels heard no response from the Bridge and he knew that the ship was defenseless, when turrets Caesar and Dora were no longer operational. There is enough evidence to indicate that he ordered the ship scuttled to prevent her boarding by the British and to end the agony of the prolonged battering by British shellfire that was hindering escape into the sea."" Is neither original research or interpretation, my source, the same used throughout, states the point I am also making.80.0.69.127 (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The final page states "Late in the final engagement, the Bismark was defeated, sinking as the result of uncontrollable progressive flooding, and virtually defenseless."80.0.69.127 (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Nobody scuttles a ship that is already sinking. The "occurrences from WWI" mean that the ship was not allowed to be captured, and there is "enough evidence" that Oels ordered the ship scuttled to prevent her being boarded by the British. Oels did not believe the ship was sinking, and he acted accordingly. Junack stated that the engines were still running when he set the charges and left. Nowhere did he say that the ship was sinking already.
 * That the Bismarck by then was defenseless, is agreed fact. No guns and no rudder equals defeated - no contest there either. However "uncontrollable progressive flooding" is a vague opinion - how progressive? How rapid? How uncontrollable? If the shooting continued for long enough, or more damage was done, or the storm got even worse, then probably the ship would sink eventually. However there were a lot of intact watertight compartments, so perhaps sufficient buoyancy could be retained to stay afloat. The video evidence cannot answer these questions, so it remains an opinion, based on the recollections of a low-level survivor. Junack and Müllenheim-Rechberg did not say the ship was sinking before the scuttling was implemented. Oels was the commander on the spot, and he judged that scuttling was required. Facts are facts, and opinions are just opinions. Neutrality is non-negotiable. Wdford (talk) 08:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * See the bottom of Archive 8 for previous discussion on this topic.Damwiki1 (talk) 09:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Twin or Two-Gun
So, after cruising around the various WWII battleship pages, I noticed something odd. The main battery turrets of Bismarck and Tirpitz are described as "Twin" gun turrets. The turrets of the American battleships, such as the Iowas and the North Carolinas, are specifically labeled as "three-gun" turrets, rather than "triple" turrets, due to the fact that each gun in the turret could operate and elevate separately. The Bismarcks' turrets could also do that. So should they be labeled as "two-gun" as well? I realize that these are rather semantical details, but I'm just trying to achieve consistency. Any thoughts on this? Bobafett5204 (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree on changing it to "two-gun" turrets. Opecuted (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

statement
"The battleship was Germany's largest warship,[4]" - Wrong! Tirpitz was larger in weight and length! Peterachim64 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * No, the ships had identical lengths and beams; they were in fact the same size. Tirpitz displaced more (particularly later in her career) as more equipment was added, which of course has nothing to do with her size (i.e., the square footage the ship occupied). In short: heavier, yes, but not larger. Parsecboy (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ship size is defined by tonnage, but tirpitz was longer due to slight difference in their bow rebuilds once the straight stem was change to an atlantic bow. 92.19.12.76 (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * For merchant ships, sure, but most warships don't have much cargo capacity. Displacement is only one measure of a ship's size, and as it can vary considerably, certainly has limitations when comparing apples and oranges.
 * As for Bismarck's bow, she was not completed with a straight stem. Both Bismarck-class ships were modified during fitting out. Perhaps you're confusing this ship with Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. Parsecboy (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The Chase section
Hello. The sentence 'Unless Bismarck could be slowed, the British would be unable to prevent her from reaching Saint-Nazaire' is in the wrong place: it occurs too early. At that stage, the British were still in contact with the ship, which had not yet performed its three-quarter clockwise turn to escape. Also, that she was heading for S-N was not devined until later. Hence, that sentence should be moved further down and possibly prefaced with something like: 'Given the relative positions of the British forces and none of their battleships being capable of overhauling Bismarck, ..." Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


 * You're presuming the article is written from the British perspective. The Germans of course knew where they were going. Parsecboy (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I see where you're coming from, but it's where you have this text located that is the problem – not what it says. Perhaps we should see if others agree with me that the historical narrative, or the chronology if you like, is out of place and unbalanced there. A college professor would undoubtedly draw attention to it. Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Do you, though? Or have you just not read the article thoroughly? Scroll up to the first paragraph in the section. We've already established that Luetjens intended to detach Prinz Eugen and then sail to Saint-Nazaire for repairs. It doesn't matter that the British didn't know where Bismarck was headed, we the omniscient narrator do. Nothing is out of order. Parsecboy (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Nate, it's no odds to me whether or not the text is amended to reflect a more logical sequence of events and possibilities. Suffice to say that in my previous day job, and now as an academic editor, I would flag up that positioning inconsistency as an impediment to the award of a Grade A or a 'Good Article' if you like. Just because this article *is a GA doesn't mean it's inviolable and immune from slight improvement. Also, your reversion and comment at the first sentence of para. 2 in the Intro have restored the awkward wording that was there, when mine was neater – with no clause hanging at the end. Lindemann being mentioned there was not my doing Billsmith60 (talk) 12:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * You still have not explained how it's out of chronological order; simply asserting something does not make it so. I'm not saying that the article can't be changed; my position is that moving the line further down would degrade it. Parsecboy (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Jolly good. I'll get back here when I can Billsmith60 (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello again. Let me summarise my main points about this sentence, with specific reference to the chronology: “Unless Bismarck could be slowed, the British would be unable to prevent her from reaching Saint-Nazaire”. It is the positioning of this text, not its wording, that is the issue. The sentence that precedes it, “Although Bismarck had been damaged in the engagement and forced to reduce speed, she was still capable of reaching 27 to 28 knots (50 to 52 km/h; 31 to 32 mph), the maximum speed of Tovey's King George V.” is fine other than this query – what engagement is being referred to? The previous para. says that Bismarck was not hit in the engagement with PoW after 18.14. If the DS battle is meant, then this should be stated.

Moreover, the attack by Victorious at 10 p.m. was designed to cause damage to Bismarck so that heavier ships the Admiralty were gathering might close in more quickly *wherever she was headed, but not at that stage to slow her down on her course towards St-N because she was not yet on a course for there. Therefore, as text currently reads the chronology is incorrect. I also noted earlier that the British were still in contact with Bismarck and could direct other units to her position. Hence it is speculation to assert here that she would reach S-N unless slowed down; but if moved down as below, it becomes correct. The lead Bismarck would later gain after slipping away did mean that she would have to be slowed if she wasn’t to reach S-N.

Further, that she was heading for S-N was not divined until later. Therefore, current text displays incorrect overview – next paragraph refers.

Editor: “It doesn't matter that the British didn't know where Bismarck was headed, we the omniscient narrator do. Nothing is out of order”. I can’t agree. Yes, the omniscient editor does indeed know this, but it’s also their duty to present the facts unbalanced as they would have appeared to the two sides at the actual time – and at that part of the drama there was no indication to the British that the Germans were going to head for France.

Hence, I believe that the best place to move the “offending” text is down a bit to the following sentence: “After half an hour, he informed Wake-Walker, who ordered the three ships to disperse at daylight to search visually” a couple of paragraphs below, when Bismarck had broken away from her pursuers”. I would also recommend that the “offending” sentence could be prefaced to advantage with something like the following (although these new words are not critical): 'Given the relative positions of the British forces and none of their battleships being capable of overhauling Bismarck...”

I also wonder what is meant by the comment about “degrading” the article? I know what degradation is, but in what way would moving that sentence degrade the article? Let me assure you my suggestion is made simply to improve an already very good article by ensuring that the chronology and narrative flow in a logical and coherent manner. Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Do you not find it at all curious that Zetterling & Tamerlander place the text about Tovey being unable to catch the Germans before the Victorious attack? In other words, they made the same choice we have (or rather, vice versa of course).
 * We aren't writing a drama where only the knowledge of the participants of the time are available to us. So what the British knew the Germans were doing at that specific moment is entirely irrelevant. It's not speculation to have it where it is; the British were unable to catch Bismarck regardless of where she was headed. If Bismarck and KGV are both capable of 28 knots, there is simply no way for one to overhaul the other. The purpose of the strike from Victorious was to slow Bismarck down; this was textbook British carrier doctrine of the time. The basic theory was to prevent another Scheer from being able to flee another Jutland.
 * Here's why it degrades the article: you are basically requesting that we remove the fact that already on 24 May, the British were unable to catch Bismarck unless Victorious could slow her down. You are asking that we remove a critical fact of the chase. I'm baffled as to how you can not understand this. Are you suggesting that the British could have caught Bismarck under the circumstances of 24/25 May absent a successful strike from Victorious? Parsecboy (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I've made my points as fully as I intend to. We don't agree on the *positioning of that text, and hence the chronology, being inaccurate, speculative and misleading. I see the inaccuracy at 'engagement' has been corrected, although the mangled sentence at the top of para. 2 in the Intro. remains. Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you actually interested in having a discussion? You haven’t actually responded to any of my points (or even my direct question), you’ve merely reasserted your previous comments. Which are wrong. If you’re not actually interested in a good faith discussion, I suggest you find someone else whose time you can waste. Parsecboy (talk) 09:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * My goodness, one would not want to give you 5p short in your change. Do you always appear to get out of bed on the wrong side? I made clear that I had said as much as I was going to about the text being in the wrong place. If you, who arrogate to yourself control of this article, don't agree, then that's the way of it. I responded fully to your questions in my reply but then you introduced yet more stuff. Listen, mate, it's either a strike or it's a ball. On this occasion, it's a strike but you, the hone plate umpire, call it a ball. Hence a ball it is. I've engaged fully in a fruitless attempt to have an error corrected, and your assertion about wasting time is reciprocated. This discussion is at an end. Billsmith60 (talk) 08:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You believe you are correct and are apparently entirely unwilling to entertain the possibility that you aren’t. I have little patience for those who act in bad faith. If you find that unpleasant, that is a problem of your own creation. Parsecboy (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Pronoun for the Bismarck
I’m pretty certain the Bismarck was one of the few ships that was specifically referred to as a “He” and not a “She” by the crew. Not really a big deal but it’s strange that its listed as a “She” in this article. 72.133.42.54 (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it strange that we don't peddle Nazi propaganda? Parsecboy (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but what does that even mean? How is that relevant to what the Bismarck was referred to by its crew? 74.135.138.228 (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought Wikipedia was all about accuracy. I don't think it matters if it "promotes the fact that Nazi's thought women were weak," which by the way, nobody is going to think. Sorry for being aggressive. 74.135.138.228 (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Reading your other comments, it is apparent you are nothing but a stain to society. Someone who thinks everyone is lower than themself and is nothing but rude to everyone. Maybe try being nicer instead of shouting at everyone, and maybe somebody will listen to you for once. Have a great day, if that is even possible for you, and I once again apologize for being rude. 74.135.138.228 (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The lack of self-awareness in your posts is absolutely stunning... Parsecboy (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

The article should be correct to the extent of the ship. Not all ships are “She” in every country. To change its pronoun in the name of stopping Nazi propaganda only increases the issue. It should he historically accurate. NelloFellow (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The error of this argument is that choosing to follow Nazi propaganda is, by definition, a choice. One we will not be making, under any circumstance. The fact that Wehraboos don't like it is their problem, not the rest of ours. Parsecboy (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

How is it nazi propaganda? Choosing to call a ship He is not propaganda but the pronoun of the ship. In fact, many modern aircraft carriers are referred as he. To ignore history and the genders ship because the allies mostly made their ships “she” is purposely ignoring german naval history. Calling this ship a He does not in any way peddle nazi propaganda.. If this is how you believe we shouldn’t have the ship on the wiki in the first place. NelloFellow (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the English language wikipedia and uses English language conventions - which for ships is "she" or "it" (even with ships named after men).GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a outdated approach. Currently, english uses both he and she to define ships, as many carriers and ships today are referred to as he. The language (I.E. English) does not change the pronoun of the ship, only ones in its cultural creation. If what you say is the case, it completely eradicates the meaning of he, she, or names in general. NelloFellow (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * If you can find sources that refer to this ship as "he" then we can consider that. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Criticism about some of the claims in this article
So, naval historiographer and Youtuber Drachinifel recently released a video about the claims made by James Cameron's expedition to the wreck. In the video, he specifically points out quotes from this article, and argues against them using the actual report from the expedition, including claims about lack of evidence of penetration of the deck armor and the british torpedoes not working.

I know that Drachinifel might not be considered a "reliable source", but the actual report from the expedition is, and because he speaks about inaccuracies in this article using the original report, shouldn't we review the information presented here? Cléééston (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Not so much the information in the video, as much as the way the actual text of the report is being cited here is the problem, IMO. Licks-rocks (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Most of the article is outdated or censored anyways. NelloFellow (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * At about 38 minutes in he talks about claims regarding the torpedos that are repeated in the lead of this article. It's fairly clear from the page he cites in the original report (p33) that the claim in this article is misleading, so I've flagged it as dubious. 2A02:C7F:2CE3:4700:BDD2:BA4C:CA61:41B (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * A good example that claims should be checked against the sources. Doesn't help that the work in question was given same title as another source. I've corrected that, and the author list order. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Pinging, since he is the main contributor in this article. Cléééston (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * It appears the material in question was added here in 2020 by Wdford. It certainly seems like there are problems with the added text. The best approach may be to roll the section back to what it was before and add whatever material from the Cameron paper is necessary. Parsecboy (talk) 11:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Doesn't that version still make the claims about torpedo damage that are unsupported? Or is that what you meant with your last sentence?--Licks-rocks (talk) 11:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It appears Wdford is re-adding false claims with only "as per source" as explanation. This is unhelpful. Fangz (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * A statement that a particular section was undamaged by British shellfire could be seen as misleading reader into thinking none of it was damaged. The section on the wreck expeditions could probably due with a bit of more context setting. At the current state of the article a reader might think the wreck is just sitting on the ocean floor just as if it were in a dry dock ready for examination. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, Fangz, I quoted the source exactly. These are the "conclusions" of experts who have actually examined the wreck. The large section of the armour deck which they examined, was undamaged. Nobody has any actual evidence that the deck was penetrated elsewhere. The torpedo hits which they could see, did not rupture the internal bulkheads. Nobody has any actual evidence that the bulkheads were ruptured elsewhere. To state in the article that "the parts of the ship that could not be directly inspected due to accumulations of sediment, might well have been riddled with torpedo hits", would be unencyclopedic. Please moderate your accusations. Wdford (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The conclusions of the experts can be found on pp50 - 51 of the report "The Wreck of DKM Bismarck − A Marine Forensics Analysis":
 * CONCLUSION
 * ''There are a number of useful historical insights that have resulted from the combination of decades of technical and historical research with the results of Jim Cameron’s 2002 survey of the wreck of Bismarck on the seabed: ○ Long-range gunfire (16,000 to 18,000 meters) from Prince of Wales the morning of 24 May was crucial to the early stages of the British effort to destroy the German battleship. This damage resulted in the loss of fuel and flooding (and counterflooding) which amounted to 3,000 to 4,000 tonnes, a significant loss of reserve buoyancy. Following this engagement, Admiral Lütjens to abort the mission and head to France for repairs.
 * ○ The aerial torpedo hit in the stern late in the afternoon of 26 May wrecked the Bismarck’s steering gear, making the ship un-maneuverable. The ship gradually turned into the prevailing seas, heading directly towards the pursuing British.
 * ○ Long-range gunfire from the battleships King George V and Rodney on the morning of 27 May early on in the final engagement destroyed much of the Bismarck’s main battery and destroyed the ship’s primary gunfire control system. The gunnery engagement lasted from 0847 to 1021.
 * ○ Closer-range gunfire (eventually, at virtually point-blank range for battleship main battery guns) later in the engagement devastated the superstructure and exposed sections of the hull (above the waterline) and caused massive casualties, but contributed little to the eventual sinking of the ship.
 * ○ Late in the final engagement, the Bismark was defeated, sinking as the result of uncontrollable progressive flooding, and virtually defenseless. The Executive Officer, CDR Hans Oels, ordered the scuttling of the ship − “Measure V [V = ‘Versunken’]” − and the charges were detonated shortly after 1020. By 1035, the ship had assumed a heavy port list, capsizing slowly and sinking by the stern. The bow disappeared about 1040.
 * TORPEDO DAMAGE ANALYSIS:
 * One of the significant achievements of the 2002 Cameron Expedition was the exploration of damage on the starboard side aft, which is believed to have been caused by the combination of the effects of a torpedo hit and by hydraulic outburst. While a torpedo likely damaged this area of the hull aft, it did not warp, buckle of displace the 45-mm torpedo bulkhead inboard of the tank. The sacrificial tankage served its purpose by dispersing the explosive force. No individual armored plates were displaced in either the armored bulkhead or the armor deck over the tank. While there was leakage through small cracks of failed welds from a torpedo hit on the port side aft from one of the Ark Royal aircraft on 26 May, as confirmed by evidence from Josef Statz and Gerhard Junack, the resulting flooding contributed little to the sinking of the ship. The hits claimed for ship-launched torpedoes during the final battle on 27 May came minutes before the battleship foundered, when some of the major vitals were already flooding from scuttling charges. Some German survivors, including Baron von Müllenheim-Rechberg during an interview with authors Dulin and Garzke, have stated that no torpedo holes could be observed when the ship capsized. It is very probable that these torpedo holes were probably hidden from sight.
 * LESSONS FOR THE MARINE FORENSIC ANALYST
 * ○ Survivor Testimony can be helpful but is a suspect source: - The brain fills in details and ignores “impossible” sights - Small details are recalled as large. - Details can be rationalized or imagined - Testimony very close to the time of the event is most useful - Prejudice can be a factor (fear of torpedo, mine, or shell hits) - Reality (at times, this is the only source of information)
 * ○ Ship Damage − difficult to determine the cause of damage on the wreck: - Damage that caused the ship to sink - Damage sustained as the ship plunged through the water column - Damage sustained at the time of impact with the seabed - Damage resulting from deterioration on the seabed
 * ○ Documentation: - Very important to have the latest plans of the ship - Helpful to have recent photographs of the ship - Historical analysis is a helpful starting point for the marine forensics specialist
 * ○ Reverse Engineering: - Very dependent on the skill of the person(s) doing the analysis - Always a degree of uncertainly in the details - Sadly, experience reminds the analyst that the “Best Available Information” frequently is later shown to be “Not Very Good”
 * ○ Humility is a GREAT virtue for the marine forensic analyst 
 * EPILOG
 * The May 2002 Cameron Expedition to the Bismarck wreck has answered some questions but raised others. Further exploration of the wreck may answer some of those questions. Unquestionably, this 2002 encounter demonstrated what can be gained from a thorough photographic examination of sunken marine wrecks, an important resource for any thorough marine forensic analysis.
 * I think that you have cherry picked some of the conclusions and taken them out of the context in which they are being used, by asserting something that hasn't been confirmed at all. The experts, report isn't a final report and you need to read their conclusions in conjunction with their Lessons for the Marine Forensic Analyst section because that lists the problems that they encounter in general. The wreck wasn't fully surveyed, survivor accounts can be inaccurate and we know that today, from eyewitness statements taken at crime scenes. A sailor abandoning a blazing warship that is still under enemy fire isn't going to take the time to do a survey of the number of hits and where they are. They just want to get off and swim well away to avoid being sucked under and / or hit by falling debris. It's no fun in cold water trying to swim with a life jacket on and being fully clothed. I can tell you that from experience because it was part of my naval sea survival training and all of my sea survival training was done in May just before winter arrived and even the penguins were wearing thermals. Ngatimozart (talk) 11:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * They examined 6% of the armour deck. That is not convincingly "a large section" to me. I also don't see how "quoting the source exactly" addresses the problem that was pointed out. If anything, the source was quoted too exactly, with only specific sentences being referenced and the rest going largely ignored. --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We use only the reliable sources, we don't rely on propaganda and wishful thinking. This report has several pages of itemized shell holes, and not one mentions the armour deck being penetrated. The survivor accounts all say that the spaces below the armour deck were still intact when they scuttled the ship. If you have actual evidence of the armour deck having been penetrated, then cite it here. Wdford (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * They examined 6% of the armour deck. That is not convincingly "a large section" to me. I also don't see how "quoting the source exactly" addresses the problem that was pointed out. If anything, the source was quoted too exactly, with only specific sentences being referenced and the rest going largely ignored. --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We use only the reliable sources, we don't rely on propaganda and wishful thinking. This report has several pages of itemized shell holes, and not one mentions the armour deck being penetrated. The survivor accounts all say that the spaces below the armour deck were still intact when they scuttled the ship. If you have actual evidence of the armour deck having been penetrated, then cite it here. Wdford (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The report literally attributes the sinking of the ship to long range plunging fire. This means fire *had* to have penetrated the armoured deck. The report said the ship *unquestionably* would have sunk without scuttling. You cannot pick out individual out of context quotes and then ignore the main conclusions of the report! The report also makes no mention of any detected scuttling damage. Are we supposed to infer from that that no scuttling actually took place? Fangz (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Who here is talking about propaganda or wishful thinking?? All we're saying is that the rest of the report  does not support the conclusions you draw from the specific sentences you cite. An absence of evidence is not evidence of an absence, The report addresses this several times! Licks-rocks (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Who here is talking about propaganda or wishful thinking?? All we're saying is that the rest of the report  does not support the conclusions you draw from the specific sentences you cite. An absence of evidence is not evidence of an absence, The report addresses this several times! Licks-rocks (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Having watched this conversation play out and the edits made during it, I think a consensus is will have to wait. The video (which I would encourage everyone to watch, as Drachinifel does a fine job summarizing some key points) came out yesterday. We will see people filtering into the article over the next couple weeks, taking executive actions without consulting the article history or this talk page. However, I do think that the video's points are essentially correct in full: this page extrapolated far too much from the Cameron expedition's report and occasionally deviated from its findings. While I agree with insofar as accusations of wrongdoing and the insertion of unverifiable information are bad, it should also be remembered that the version of this article that stood ~20 August had a few issues and some of the editors here have done a fine job of balancing the finer points. When things calm down a month from now, I think those interested in this subject can hold a more precise discussion that will be far less imflamed by passions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", is usually used to admit that there is no evidence to support the writer's POV, but that there is a fond hope that the POV might still be valid even though there is no evidence to support it. I note specifically the use of the phrase "possible torpedo hits".


 * I agree that using the word "miserable" is unsupported – that was not my word. "Mediocre" says it all. The list to port is also irrelevant, and this excuse can also be removed. The British gunners were not aiming specifically at the narrow armour belt, they were shooting at a huge stationary defenceless target from point blank range, and largely missing.


 * We need to ensure that the material in the article is properly sourced from reliable sources, and does not consist of a bunch of "maybe's" and a few "possible's", clustering around a specific POV. I also don't think that a Youtube video counts as a reliable source.
 * Wdford (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am glad to learn that you agree that the Cameron report cannot be used as evidence to support any strong conclusions regarding the amount of damage the Bismarck suffered before sinking.--Licks-rocks (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As something of an aside, most of Drach's early videos were straight up feeding Wiki articles through a text to voice program. Until I pointed it out of a couple of the videos, which I recognized as my own writing :P Parsecboy (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Some useful points here from the extract posted by Ngatimozart:
 * The "long range plunging fire" from Prince of Wales caused the Bismarck to abandon the original mission. This certainly "directly contributed to the sinking of the ship", but this blow did not sink the Bismarck.


 * The real killer blow was the damage to the rudder from an aerial torpedo hit, which made Bismarck un-manoeuvrable. This certainly "directly contributed to the sinking of the ship", but this blow did not sink the Bismarck.
 * Long-range gunfire from the battleships King George V and Rodney early on in the final engagement destroyed the Bismarck’s ability to fight back. This certainly "directly contributed to the sinking of the ship", but this blow did not sink the Bismarck.
 * Closer-range gunfire later in the engagement did more damage, but contributed little to the eventual sinking of the ship.
 * The surviving commander eventually decided to scuttle the Bismarck, to avoid her being captured. Since you cannot capture a sunk ship, this clearly indicates his hands-on view of the situation.
 * A torpedo hit on the starboard side aft, did not penetrate the torpedo bulkhead, and the minor resulting flooding contributed little to the sinking of the ship. The final torpedo hits came minutes before the battleship foundered, due to the earlier scuttling - and there is hard evidence to prove this.

If you are going to dismiss some eye-witness testimony, then you have to treat all such evidence equally. The "uncontrolled progressive flooding" story comes entirely from a single traumatised eye witness, who was a low-level crew member who did not have the full picture which was available to the surviving officers. To rank his testimony over all the others who said different things, is classic cherry-picking.

I certainly DO NOT AGREE that "the Cameron report cannot be used as evidence to support any strong conclusions regarding the amount of damage the Bismarck suffered before sinking". Experts like Cameron were very clear that the hard evidence proves the ship was scuttled, and they found zero battle damage that would account for the sinking to be caused by anything other than scuttling. Their analysis of long range plunging fire was that it did serious damage, but no mention of penetrating the armour deck, far less sinking the ship. The visible evidence of a definitive torpedo hit shows clearly that the anti-torpedo measures did work as designed. You could always "assume" that "other" massive battle damage is concealed by the sediment or the blowout damage, but there is no evidence of that. All the hard evidence that remains, shows YES to scuttling and NO to sunk by battle damage. My only criticism of the Cameron report is that they chose to accept the eye-witness testimony of one low-level crewman who says he deduced that there was uncontrolled progressive flooding, over the actions and testimony of the officers which indicated that the ship was still well afloat. However that is their prerogative.

Wikipedia needs to report the facts, not the suppositions of editors who "believe" that the reality "could maybe have been" otherwise. Wdford (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * See Archive 8 for excepts from the Battleship Bismarck (2019) by Garzke, Dulin and Jurens. There are abundant sources that state that Bismarck was sinking prior to the scuttling charges being detonated. RN observers noted that Bismarck's list was steadily increasing and that she was getting deeper in the water as the action progressed. Survivor accounts state that Bismarck's machinery spaces were flooding prior to the scuttling charges being detonated. Bismarck has settled too far into the seafloor mud for there to be definitive data regarding hull integrity by inspection by external submersibles. Damwiki1 (talk) 09:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not disputing that scuttling charges were deployed or even contributed to the sinking of the ship, but, wford, now that I am aware that your reasoning is motivated by your insistence that the ship was sunk by scuttling charges, rather than battle damage, I am going to have to call you out on what you are doing, or at least defending here, which is cherry-picking your sources to support your POV. Because of that, I'm going to stress one thing: This discussion is not about what sunk the ship, it's purely about what the Cameron report did and did not state.  Since the article was incorrect about that, we corrected it, and with that, I strongly suggest we let the topic rest. I am not going to participate beyond this point, because we're moving beyond the scope of the issue I came here for. --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I fully agree that we need to correctly reflect the source. We agreed that, to avoid cherry-picking, all points should be placed in context. We therefore need to explain that the "plunging fire" in the report punctured some fuel tanks (Prince of Wales) and changed the mission, and in the final engagement destroyed the armament, but that "it was obvious" that shellfire was not contributing toward sinking the ship, and that no evidence exists that gunfire caused fatal damage and sank the ship. We therefore need to explain that the detail of the report mentioned many instances of flooding, all of them minor, and that the issue of "uncontrolled progressive flooding" came from a single source - a traumatized low-level crewman. We need to explain that the report agreed that the ship would only have sunk many hours later, and that the officers were correct to suppose that the ship might be captured in the meanwhile. We need to explain that the early torpedoes did minor damage, and that the final torpedoes happened when the ship was already almost underwater due to scuttling. Taking selected paragraphs out of context is cherry-picking. Wdford (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * There are no reliable sources that state that Bismarck was sinking prior to the scuttling charges being detonated, other than the decades-old recollections of the elderly Statz, who had been a low-level seaman without the full picture available to Oels, and who was wounded in the battle. RN observers were far away, and could barely see the heavily rolling ship through the gale-force seas and spray. The Cameron report never mentions a list anywhere near 10 degrees, until the ship finally capsized. Survivor accounts state that a few minor machinery spaces were flooding prior to the scuttling, but that the lights were on, all was calm, and the engines were still running. Other survivors stated they never saw water below the armour deck. Clearly some spaces were flooded but the bulk of them were still dry - as noted by the report. Oels would not have been able to light scuttling charges if the ship was already flooded, and would not have needed to do so. I agree that the sediment prevents an inch by inch examination, but the available evidence shows no evidence that the ship sank due to torpedo hits - quite the contrary. The Mearns speculation was disproved. This was explained to you at length in Archive 8, and no new evidence has since come to light. Wdford (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * G&D&J's Battleship Bismarck: A Design and Operational History (2019) that concludes that Bismarck was sinking by the stern prior to the scuttling, and that this was evident even at 0930 (p416). There's a flooding diagram (p452) showing that prior to scuttling that 2 of the 6 boiler rooms were flooded or flooding, 2 of the 3 engine rooms (centre and Port) were flooding, and most of the stern and bow were flooded. The RN had a clear view of Bismarck. after she ceased fire at 0930, and they noted her increasing list. Battleship Bismarck: A Design and Operational History(2019) incorporates all the latest evidence and all prior studies of the sinking and the wreck. It concludes that Bismarck was sinking prior to the scuttling, and provides detailed evidence for these conclusions. Damwiki1 (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Can we please not rehash this stupid debate? No serious expert has suggested that Bismarck wouldn't have sunk absent the scuttling, nor do any assert that the scuttling played no role in the timing of the sinking. This is a waste of time and distraction from the actual problem, which is how Cameron's expedition is presented.
 * IMO, there is too much detail on his relative to Woods Hole and Mearns' expeditions, and we can sidestep the presentation problem entirely by simply eliminating the additional material. We do not need to reproduce the report here, it is freely available for those who want more details. Remember that we are we're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia, not a specialist source. Parsecboy (talk) 12:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "We therefore need to explain that the detail of the report mentioned many instances of flooding, all of them minor"......
 * From "Battleship Bismarck: A survivor's story" Written by Baron Burkhard von Mullenheim-Rechberg.
 * Page 211 "Our list to port had increased a bit while firing was going on" followed by "Around 9:30am gas and smoke began to drift through our station" This means that prior to 9:30am Bismarck's list was already visibly increasing, not something that happens to a healthy seaworthy ship, in other words she was already starting to sink.
 * Then from an interview conducted for the highly regarded weekly history journal "Purnell's history of the second world war" in the late 1960's with Kpt Lt Gerhard Junack (who was Bismarck's only surviving engineering officer and the survivor who supposedly enacted the "scuttle order"). He stated that...
 * "Somewhere about 1015 hours, I received an order over the telephone from the Chief Engineer (Korvettenkapitän (Ing.) Walter Lehmann) to 'Prepare the ship for sinking.' That was the last order I received on the Bismarck. Soon after that, all transmission of orders collapsed."
 * Heading back to the account of Mullenheim-Rechberg, on Page 212 he states that (before 10:00am) "I was using all the telephone circuits and calling all over the place in an effort to find out as much as possible about the condition of the ship. I got only one answer. I reached the messenger in the damage control centre and asked "who has and where is the command of the ship? Are there new orders in effect?".... The man said he was in a great hurry. He told me that everyone had abandoned the damage control centre, adding that he was the last one in the room and had to get out... then he hung up".
 * This vain seach for contact & information over the Bismarck's internal comms happened BEFORE 10:00am which would cast some mild doubt on Junack's testimony where he says he was contacted by the chief engineer who supposedly gave him the "scuttle order" over the phone at 10:15am.
 * If taken at face value these survivor testimonies show that there was at least a 45 minute gap between Bismarck list visibly increasing (I.E starting to sink) and the first mention of a "scuttle order" being given. Even if Bismarck's crew had done nothing, Bismarck was going to sink. Or are we meant to simply discount ALL survivor testimonies? 92.15.182.141 (talk) 23:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

RN tests of 14in AP shells against Tirpitz Armour
Online documents showing the results of RN 14in AP shells against recovered segments of Tirpitz' belt armour along with some USN test results: Here are some interesting archives of British 14" gun test on Tirpitz armor.... We can see that RN testing showed that Tirpitz 320mm belt armour could be penetrated by RN 14in AP shells striking at ~1370 fps at 30 degrees obliquity (30degs from normal or right angle). The document also showed that the same shell could penetrate RN 299mm armour at ~1457 fps at 30 degrees obliquity. The striking velocity of 14in AP at 25000 yards would be 1459 fps and at 20,000 yards would be about 1563 fps, both when fired with a muzzle velocity of 2400 fps. Of course the striking velocity would continue to increase as the range decreased. Damwiki1 (talk) 08:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's a lot of value in bringing this up, since unless we have a source making the connection, even bringing the tests up in the footnote here would be synthetic. Parsecboy (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I had mentioned these tests in an earlier discussion, and having remembered where I saw them, I thought I would allow other editors to view them. I don't really propose to use the data for editing the article, but rather I view them as a way of assessing sources, especially when they make some wild claims regarding Bismarck's armour and/or KGV's 14in guns.  Damwiki1 (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)