Was the Bismark surrendering when sunk 70 years ago ? (1 Viewer)

[The Military Workshop]

27 MAY was the 70th of the sinking of the Bismark
Interesting story in The Australian newspaper today (sourced from The Times)

THE Bismarck, Germany's largest battleship, tried to surrender before it was sunk by shells exactly 70 years ago, it has been revealed.The 50,000-tonne pride of the Nazi fleet sank in the Atlantic, 1000km west of the French port of Brest, after a
two-hour bombardment by British warships.

At the time it was stated that the battleship showed no signs of surrendering despite having sustained heavy damage that had knocked out its rudders and most of its guns.
A new book, however, reveals that at least three observers from HMS Rodney saw signals of surrender, including the display of a black flag, the internationally recognised signal for parley, and signals flashed from four Morse lamps on the Bismarck's mast.

Killing the Bismarck, by Iain Ballantyne, has been published to mark the 70th anniversary of the sinking on May 27, 1941.

The most compelling testimony is that of the late Tommy Byers, a gunnery observer on board the Rodney who was haunted for the rest of his life by the deaths of 1995 of the Bismarck's 2200 crew. In an interview recorded before his death in 2004, Byers, who was watching through binoculars, described seeing a German sailor signalling the surrender in semaphore from the top of a gun turret. "I saw this and I told the gunnery officer, Lieutenant-Commander Crawford. He said, 'I don't want to know about any signal now'. She then flew a black flag, that was, 'We want to parley with you', but he (Crawford) wasn't having any of it. "Then she started blinking with her Morse lamps on the yardarm, four lamps at a time, and he (Crawford) said, 'I don't want to know. Don't report anything more like that.' "

His son Kevin Byers, 52, said: "Dad knew what he saw and was most definite about it till the day he died. The semaphore message was an old-fashioned message of surrender."

Bismarck keeled over and sank at 10.39am on May 27. The wreck was discovered in 1989.

The Times

Better to sink or capture and take back to England ?

Regards
Brett

 

[lancer]

Bismarck was probably too damaged to tow anywhere, even if allowed to surrender. Besides, the crew would have scuttled her as she was abandoned. Then there was the U-boat threat if a towing was attempted. JMO. -- Al

 

[Mitch]

I don't really know about this and would think it was not true with no disrespect to the naval personal quoted. Many of the surviving german sailors have doubted this and, the damage to the conning tower and survivor reports show that Lutjens and Lindemann were more than likely dead well before the bombardment ceased from british capital ships.

I did read reports about this a long time ago when Ballard found the wreck and again when the Hood was found but, they were dismissed at the time. If it did happen lets say, then it may have been low ranking crewmen trying to stop the bombardment which, could be possible as reading statements from crew on british ships they could clearly see tha absolute devastation the live crew were facing.

much controversy surrounds the sinking of the bismark from the british believing they sunk it to the germans saying they scuttled her.

There was no doubt looking at the naval records that the bismark had been badly battered but, her double keel was not penetrated by torpedoes which, after several deep sea dives has now been proven.

I am sceptical about the ''new'' information as with many authors its always a startling discovery which, really is a revisit to information that has already been trawled over and this seems to be another. the british guns fell silent as the bismarks guns ceased completly firing including, her 5.9 inch which could do serious damage to light ships the last to fire were the 4.1 inch AA guns which, then allowed crusiers to close in. but, by then she was finished as a ship. I have heard from a Hull university professor that towing in that state and in open sea would have been impossible and, that naval high command were not interested enough to have wanted this including admiralty documents showing even churchill wanted it at the bottom of the ocean..

A fascinating story which I think is one of the most interesting battles of WWII. what is more controversial is the sailing away and leaving german sailors in the water. To this day both german and british sailors debate whether this was a revenge for the hood as conflicting reports about the U-boats are available and, the fact that would a U-boat commander have fired on lighter ships saving german crew members??

The Hood in britains eyes the pride of the Royal navy and world renowned for her trips had to be avenged

I have the book on order and expect it soon. Great post as this is a great area to discuss
Mitch

 

[Rob]

27 MAY was the 70th of the sinking of the Bismark
Interesting story in The Australian newspaper today (sourced from The Times)

THE Bismarck, Germany's largest battleship, tried to surrender before it was sunk by shells exactly 70 years ago, it has been revealed.The 50,000-tonne pride of the Nazi fleet sank in the Atlantic, 1000km west of the French port of Brest, after a
two-hour bombardment by British warships.

At the time it was stated that the battleship showed no signs of surrendering despite having sustained heavy damage that had knocked out its rudders and most of its guns.
A new book, however, reveals that at least three observers from HMS Rodney saw signals of surrender, including the display of a black flag, the internationally recognised signal for parley, and signals flashed from four Morse lamps on the Bismarck's mast.

Killing the Bismarck, by Iain Ballantyne, has been published to mark the 70th anniversary of the sinking on May 27, 1941.

The most compelling testimony is that of the late Tommy Byers, a gunnery observer on board the Rodney who was haunted for the rest of his life by the deaths of 1995 of the Bismarck's 2200 crew. In an interview recorded before his death in 2004, Byers, who was watching through binoculars, described seeing a German sailor signalling the surrender in semaphore from the top of a gun turret. "I saw this and I told the gunnery officer, Lieutenant-Commander Crawford. He said, 'I don't want to know about any signal now'. She then flew a black flag, that was, 'We want to parley with you', but he (Crawford) wasn't having any of it. "Then she started blinking with her Morse lamps on the yardarm, four lamps at a time, and he (Crawford) said, 'I don't want to know. Don't report anything more like that.' "

His son Kevin Byers, 52, said: "Dad knew what he saw and was most definite about it till the day he died. The semaphore message was an old-fashioned message of surrender."

Bismarck keeled over and sank at 10.39am on May 27. The wreck was discovered in 1989.

The Times

Better to sink or capture and take back to England ?

Regards
Brett

Very interesting Brett, the eye witness sounds pretty positive doesn't he, the book should certainly make for an interesting read. I guess it can't be ruled out as she had taken a terrible beating before she went down, perhaps we'll never know either way but should be a good read.

Here's to the memory of the Sailors of the Royal Navy who sent her and her crew to the bottom 70 years ago yesterday, they have my deepest respect.

Rob

 

[glossman]

What if the Bismarck's cruiser escort Prinz Eugen had no broken off on 24 May 1941 ?

I wonder if the outcome would have been any different.

Raymond.

 

[Mitch]

The only real difference would have been two german ships sunk. One has to remember the british capital ships were undamaged and able to move freely which, the rudder damaged Bismark was not. they out moved her excellent gunnery.

The only different outcome to this battle was lost (for the germans) after the failure to chase and sink the damaged Prince of Wales and, after that a rapid return to norwegian waters. The bismark was to badly damaged after the initial fight in the denmark straits to conduct commerce raiding in the Atlantic.

Mitch

What if the Bismarck's cruiser escort Prinz Eugen had no broken off on 24 May 1941 ?

I wonder if the outcome would have been any different.

Raymond.

 

[binder001]

Prinz Eugen's presence probably wouldn't have affected the lucky torpedo hit that damaged Bismarck's steering. From the time she received that torpedo the Bismarck was doomed. They couldn't steer effectively, the seas and wind kept pushing their course towards their enemy. After that it didn't matter what they did.

The chase and destruction of Bismarck has always been fascinating to me (ever since I saw Sink the Bismarck circa 1950). From all accounts of the final battle the Bismarck's command arrangements were pretty factured at the end. Kapitan-sur-See Lindemann and Admiral Luetjens were killed when the conning tower received a hit, the damage and fires ruined communications between different areas of the ship. There may well have somebody forward trying to ask for mercy (imagine sitting on a wrecked warship that is still being shelled and is on fire all over). The British were anxious to get the ship sunk so they weren't likely to check fire. The Bismarck was wrecked and sinking, whether or not the Germans fired scuttling charges was a moot point. I just lets them claim that they sunk her themselves, a matter of honor to the Reichsmarine.

Poor old Bismarck was doomed from the onset of the mission. The German Navy had been configured to be a threat to the French Navy. THe German surface fleet could hurt the British, but they couldn't stop British commerce. The RN could trade battleships with h the Germans and still come out way ahead.

Gary B.

 

[lancer]

It is interesting to note that two of the British battleships engaged in the Bismarck campaign, HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales, were later sunk by Japanese aircraft, as part of Force Z, during the Singapore campaign, on December 10, 1941. Loss of life was heavy with Repulse losing 518 men and PoW 327. The British Navy was everywhere. -- Al

 

[Mitch]

its interesting to note that some 68 ships including submarines were after the Bismark thats testimony to the fear these capital ships had and what they could have achieved. The admiralty was accutely aware of the success of the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau did with significantly smaller armament. they just could not have something like the bismark in the shipping lanes.

The germans had even planned in detail a link between the bismark and U-boats where either could find a convoy and draw in the rest if this had worked what a mess it could have caused in the atlantic

Baron von mullehheim rechberg in his a survivors story raised the point that one survivor watched Lindemann and his aid standing near the conning tower as the ship began to sink but, I think this was more image than substance as the Rodney reported a huge hit from its guns on the conning tower and front turrets anton and bruno so, the liklihood they survived is slim.

2,876 shells including 400 heavy calibre in an hour and half came down on the bismark thats unbelievable!!! it must have been appalling on board. In one sense at least the crew of the Hood knew little about what happened apart from the three survivors
Mitch

 

[glossman]

It is interesting to note that two of the British battleships engaged in the Bismarck campaign, HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales, were later sunk by Japanese aircraft, as part of Force Z, during the Singapore campaign, on December 10, 1941. Loss of life was heavy with Repulse losing 518 men and PoW 327. The British Navy was everywhere. -- Al

This was a terrible loss for the Royal Navy, especially with the imminent Japanese invasion of the Malay Peninsula and Singapore.

The main reason cited for loss of these 2 capital ships was absence of effective air cover. There were no aircraft carriers in Force Z and the RAF in Singapore did not have enough planes to be diverted for naval air cover. The aircraft carrier HMS Indomitable was originally assigned to Force Z, but ran aground in the Caribbean a month before.

Raymond.