Talk:German battleship Bismarck/Archive 1

message: Wasn't the 35,000 ton limit part of the Treaty of Versailles?  (Actually, I did some websurfing on this; the Bismarck was not in fact in violation of the 1935 Anglo-German naval agreement.)
Also, might add a link to Otto Von Bismarck, not to mention that the ship was named after him.
----
What exactly does "largest battleship of its time" mean? There have been some larger ships (Iowa, Yamato). --User:Yooden 21:20, 7 August 2001 (UTC)
thread_title:  old comment 

message: An anonymous user has deleted the word "wrongly" where it said that the British thought they had detected a U-Boat, so calling off the rescue of Bismarck survivors.  Do they have any authority for this?  I will check my source, Kennedy's "Pursuit", but if nobody responds in a reasonable time I will revert.
PatGallachertalk 16:56, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
I am not a regidtered user. I am not quite sure what the whole article said. However, the British did not wrongly assume the presence of a U-Boat and in fact there was two U-boats in the area. One, even though I can't remember its u-boat designation, was sent to retrieve Bismarcks war diary, but never made it.
The other question is, if the U-Boat would really have attacked a ship, who was trying to rescue thousands of german sailors. I really doubt that any U-Boat Captain would have done that.
Firstly the Royal Navy had plenty of reason to believe that a German U-Boat commander would be ruthless enough to attack an enemy ship even rescuing German sailors. U-boats had already attacked unarmed liners full of civilians. Secondly the U-boat might not in the open sea realise that the Royal Navy ship was attempting rescue operations and thirdly the standing orders from London were to NEVER expose capital ships to unnecessary U-boat attack.
Incidently the same thing happened in the Falklands war, when the General Belgrano was sunk by the Royal Navy and it's escorts left the area a as soon as possible leaving survivors in life boats. David J James 9th October 2006
If I recall corectly there WAS u-boat around there. I can't figure out were I read it, maybe in the background of silent-hunter 3. Anyhow, from what I remember there was at lest 1 u-boat around, but he was out of torpedoes. Has for attacking .... It's maybe a bit sucidal to make a sub attack with all the destroyers around, but a battleship is a really intresting target. I'll try to find some source.--Muniam 11:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  U-Boat 

message: In this article it says only 3 survived when Bismarck brought down Hood, and the article Cruiser says it was 4... Does anyone knows what the correct number was?
:It was definitely three. PatGallacher 14:17, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
Bradford in The Mighty Hood gives an explanation. It seems that the so-called 4th survivor was really the brother of someone who served in the Hood, and who got in trouble with the law in some way or other.
PAUL
:3 survivors. Article gets #crew wrong, by sources I've seen: it was 1419. Is there something new, or is that a mistake?  01:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The figure given in the article, 1418 (1415 killed, 3 survived), is correct. Check out the superb HMS Hood Association website , which also lists each of them indiviually  John Moore 309 22:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, y'all. I've seen 1419 a couple of times, too.  Trekphiler 23:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  number of survivors from Hood 

message: The article states that it was Captain Lindemann who gave the order to abandon ship.  Is that really true?  I thought he was killed along with Admiral Lutjens and all of the other senior officers when a shell struck and detonated on the ship's bridge.  Does anyone know for sure when the senior officers died?  Seems certain that had he been alive to give the order to abandon ship he would have survived the engagement and have been rescued.
:According to Ludovic Kennedy's book "Pursuit", the order was given by Fregattenkapitan Hans Oels, the ship's Executive Officer, from his damage control command post in Campartment XIV. The receipt of the order to scuttle, by Korvettankapitan Walter Lehmann, the chief engineering officer, was witnessed by Matrosengefreiter Herbert Blum. It appears that Oels assumed command of the ship after communication with the bridge was lost shortly after 0900. By this time the order was given, conditions aboard the ship were chaotic, and many officers, including Mullenheim-Rechberg, wre obliged to use their own initiative in attempting to save theeir men. There is no clear evidence as to when and how Lindemann died. Kennedy quotes the testimony of Matrosenstabsgefreiter Herzog, stating that a loudspeaker announcement declared that Lutjens and Lindemann had both been killed, and later that Lindemann had not been killed. Mullenheim-Rechberg quotes an astonishing report that Lindemann and his seaman messenger were seen on the forecastle of the ship as she sank, Lindemann saluting as the ship went down. Unfortunately the name of the witness or witnesses is not given, and there is no guarantee that the officer was correctly identified. John Moore 309 00:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Lindeman was still alive when the order to scuttle was given. He should have been killed with Lütjens and the bridge crew when their command post was struck by Rodney with a direct hit. ROV footage showed the terrible destruction of the area inside. --Denniss 01:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: According to the chapter of Mullenheim-Rechberg's book entitled A Last Visit to the Bridge, the meeting between Mullenheim-Rechberg and Lindemann took place before the battle. Mullenheim-Rechberg does not attribute the scuttling to Lindemann. John Moore 309 00:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about when the Captain died

message: Not to take away from Lutjens or Holland, but, who were COs Bismarck & Hood (& Pz Eugen & PoW) @time their engagement? I've seen Cpn J C Leach, RN, for PoW, KzS Ernst Lindemann, RM, for Bismarck.  Trekphiler 01:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The captain of Hood was Captain Ralph Kerr OBE. The captain of Prinz Eugen was Kapitan zur See Helmuth Brinckmann. Lindemann and Leach are correct (Captain  Leach was the father of Sir Henry Leach, First Sea Lord from 1979 to 1982). John Moore 309 22:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. (Boy, I'm really on top of my watchlist, huh?)  Trekphiler 00:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm in charge, here 

message: I've read a book about the Bismarck and now I'm wondering that is it really right to say "her, she" etc. because the captain of Bismarck wanted to use "he, his" etc because the of the ship.
Just a little formality 
And sorry my bad English
In German we say "she" so I would say "she" in English too
:I was just thinking the same. Although in English ships are refered to as female by all concerned parties the Bismarck was, I understand, an exception and was thought of as masculine. While I fully support the use of feminine terminology in other nautical articles, I'm not so sure its use is correct here. --LiamE 22:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Her or His? 

message: A contributor edited my opening sentence about the Bismarck being the "most famous" warship of WWII. I have revised this to "probably the most famous warship of WWII", as that is a matter of opinion and it is impossible to be so definitive. Others could argue that HMS Hood herself or HMS Warspite or one of the Iowa class battleships, or the Yamato are just as well known or, in the case of HMS Warspite, had a distinguished career throughout the whole of the war. Patrick
:In the US, the USS Arizona might be as famous or more famous, thanks to being the Pearl Harbor  tourist attraction. Hopefully, there is some reference source that said Bismarck is the most famous so that its not simply our opinion that its the most famous. Perhaps in 1960 thanks to the hit song, Bismarck was more famous in the US than it is today. Whatever is decided, I think the proper grammar would be to use the present tense in stating the ship's fame, everybody agree? I think its important to be clear what we are saying, that the ship is today the most famous, as opposed to having been the most famous during WWII (but not today, unless that is what was meant.) --Drogo Underburrow 22:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Degrees of Fame 

message: One thing I do not know the answer to: is the keel of the Bismarck broken? It sure dived and impacted mud and slide several miles violently, but the submersibles made video which shows it is pristine.
It an important question I think, because with a broken keel the Bismarck is a mere wreck on the seafloor. But if the keel holds than the Bismarck is still a hull, not a wreck and could theoretically and immorally be raised, fitted out and made into a combattant once again. It is made of very good steel and didn't rust much in the great depth. 195.70.32.136 08:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space Battleship Bismarck? 

message: We already have a page devoted to the battle. Its called Operation Rheinübung.  -- Drogo Underburrow 23:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To shift detail into sub pages is a very reasonable idea. we alreadt have Battle of the Denmark Strait. GraemeLeggett 08:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Bismarck Chase

message: Make only links relevant to the article. Overlinking is very distracting to the reader. Don't link words simply because they have articles. Links are like making a footnote. Ask yourself, would it be appropriate to insert the words "See also" in parenthesis after the linked word? If not, then don't link it. Ordinary words should not be linked. It is possible to link almost every word like this; don't. -- Drogo Underburrow 08:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Overlinking

message: I have removed the second pic. of Bismarck firing at POW as that would mean six images in an article that is already very large. To Wallie: can you reduce the size of the Hood and Ark Royal pics as they are disproportionally large compared to Bismarck, the main subject? It's useful to keep them in, though. For example, the updated pic. of Hood from the Hood page would do well (although, FWIW, I think the original pic. of Hood showing her length and graceful lines was far nicer!) Thanks, bigpad 07:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are welcome to change things, if you want to. I thought the second picture of Bismarck firing, and that smoke, looked impressive. However, I guess you removed it, and I am not too fussed. As for the size of the article, do you think it is too large? It will probably increase over time you know... It is great that there is so much interest in these ships after all this time. Keep up the good work! Wallie 21:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted a deletion of the Hood pic., as the article does not claim categorically that a shell or shells from Bismarck (alone) sank the Hood. The careful wording of the first paragraph is evidence of this bigpad 08:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No more images! 

message: There is a fair amount of informed comment available on the design of the Bis, basically pointing out that she was a rather old-fashioned design, with substantial peculiar design decisions (3 screws, non-dual purpose secondaries, poor armour layout). Since this article reads like hagiography I doubt that any attempt to put this in would survive, so I'll just mention it here. Greglocock 19:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They got a mission kill due to the jammed rudder due to the poor design of the stern. See Bismarck_class_battleship for an abbreviated list of the obvious design flaws. For consistency it seems to me we should not claim excellent armor in one article, and goofy (or whatever) in another on the same design. Greglocock 21:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thinking about it, /all/ design details should be in the Bismarck_class_battleship article, except where B and T differed. This article should be about the /unique/ attributes and history of B. Which is still a huge subject. Greglocock 11:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of Design

message: What type were her floatplanes?  Trekphiler 00:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gonna fly, now

message: I added in in 2 new pics. This article needed some of Bismarck during her short combat life. I think the battle with Hood and her final battle were fitting.
Dapi89 20:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Pictures 

message: I didn't think the claim about this corridor was all that controversial, I thought it was fairly well known by now.  However read the Castle Archdale article for some information on the flying boat base.  There would not be much point having a base on Lower Lough Erne unless they could fly over Eire.  Kennedy's book also mentions the flying boat flying over "Eagle Island" (I take it he means Achill Island). PatGallacher 23:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Donegal Corridor