The Wreck of DKM Bismarck − A Marine Forensics Analysis 1 The ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Wreck of DKM Bismarck − A Marine Forensics Analysis ricocheted, striking the ship or passing harmlessly over. Accuracy does not seem to have been all that impressive, given the close range for most of the engagement. This sketch depicts the battered DKM Bismarck shortly before the ship capsized and sank, about 1040 on the morning of 27 May 1941. (Courtesy Steve Smith) 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 thgan the classical conic-frustum cartwheel shape. In addition, there are two holes through the upper side belt (145-mm) between the main belt armor and the gunwale. One of these is a previouslydiscussed hole on the port side adjacent to turret Caesar (a 356-mm round from King George V). After 1000, when the survivors were leaving the machinery spaces, the generator rooms were still functioning. The passageways were mostly clear. Enlisted survivors Walter Weintz, Karl August Schuldt, and Heinz Steeg did not remember seeing water until they got above the armor deck. Mr. Statz, whose position was in Damage Control Central below the armor deck, recalled encountering water when he attempted to enter a space aft of DC Central in Compartment XIV around 0930. Gunnery of mediocre accuracy, coupled with Bismarck’s armor scheme designed for close-in engagements in the North Sea, resulted in a relatively drawn-out gunnery engagement, much the opposite of the brief engagement and destruction of Hood three days earlier. ROYAL NAVY GUNNERY EFFECTIVENESS The battered, defenseless Bismarck must have seemed amazingly resilient to the British as they poured shell after shell into her. It is a tribute to her designers that the ship survived as long as it did. Tragically, ironically, the resultant protracted sinking process meant a hellish ordeal for many of the crew of the stricken battleship, with many suffering agonizing deaths. Eventually, some 700 to 800 men escaped into the cold, cruel North Atlantic. Slightly more than 30
The Wreck of DKM Bismarck − A Marine Forensics Analysis a hundred of these sailors were rescued, almost all by Royal Navy ships 31 . The British broke off rescue operations when a submarine contact was suspected. 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. On the 320-mm main side belt and on the 145-mm upper belt above the level of the Batteriedeck level, there are a very large number of "splash" and gouge marks with spray patterns of smaller splinter impacts. Most if not all of these are hits from secondary guns, and none penetrated the armor. This vindicated the purpose of the upper belt, which was designed to prevent penetration by anything other than shells fired by battleship main battery guns, typically from 283-mm to 406-mm caliber. Long-range plunging fire was almost completely responsible for the damage inflicted by the British gunfire in the final battle that directly contributed to the sinking of Bismarck. 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. One of the two instances of known full penetration of the 320-mm main side belt armor. This is amidships on the starboard side. It is important to distinguish between damage to the superstructure and the two deck levels above the armor deck, which was severe, but would not have contributed significantly to the sinking process. Damage inflicted below the armor deck and below the side armor and 31 The heavy cruiser Dorsetshire rescued 85 (one of these died of his injuries on 28 May), the destroyer Maori saved 25, the German submarine U-74 rescued 3, and another 2 were rescued by the German weather trawler Sachsenwald. No survivors had been stationed in the forward superstructure. 31
Page 1 and 2: The Wreck of DKM Bismarck − A Mar
Page 29: The Wreck of DKM Bismarck − A Mar

The Wreck of DKM Bismarck − A Marine Forensics Analysis 1 The ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?