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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Wreck of DKM Bismarck − A Marine Forensics Analysis through the torpedo bulkhead would have contributed to sinking the Bismarck. This is an important distinction. It is also important to note that a 356-mm shell fired at long range from Prince of Wales, falling short and striking below the main side belt, was able to damage the torpedo bulkhead enough to cause flooding beyond the side protective system. Each of the six 150-mm secondary turrets aboard Bismarck has been observed to have sustained at least one direct hit, mostly achieved by the 134- and 152-mm batteries on the battleships and the 203-mm guns on the heavy cruisers. We believe these hits were the results of the random dispersion of salvo fire, with accurate fire inhibited by the Sea State Six conditions and the heat of battle. This was certainly be the case on the starboard side, where Norfolk and Dorsetshire expended 781 203-mm shells. The British gunnery accuracy was mediocre at best. This certainly drew the attention of Admiral Tovey aboard King George V, when he noticed at 0930 that Bismarck was still afloat despite the pounding she was taking. He told CAPT Patterson, “Get closer; I do not see enough hits.” Some 2,000 medium-caliber shells were fired and only about 10% of them hit Bismarck (a large, barely moving target usually only a few miles away,) During the morning battle of 24 May, the Prince of Wales’ gunnery had been rather effective, despite the fact that the battleship’s turret crews were very inexperienced 32 . The Prince of Wales had been in service only three weeks before being dispatched to fight Bismarck. Her 356-mm shell hits were achieved during a very short engagement. Two of these hits changed history, causing Bismarck to slow down with a bow-down trim. This damage allowed Victorious to get within range to make her air attack later in the day. Later in the day, Admiral Lütjens changed his plans, turning Bismarck to head for France for battle damage repairs. Days later, Bismarck would encounter aircraft with more experienced aviators launched by Ark Royal. Prince of Wales and King George V each had ten 356-mm guns that fired shells weighing 721 kilograms. Hood had eight 381-mm guns firing shells weighing 879 kilograms. The Rodney, was armed with the largest guns in the Royal Navy, nine 406-mm guns that could fire 929kilogram shells. The heavy cruisers Norfolk and Dorsetshire were armed with 203-mm guns that fired a 116-kilogram shell. The cruiser guns were vastly inferior in power to the 406-mm guns, with their shells having a kinetic energy only about 15 per cent of that of the larger shells. The burster charges of the two shells differed similarly. The inevitable sinking process was accelerated by the detonation of scuttling charges by the Germans. (This is our conviction, albeit a mildly controversial one for those who insist that there was no scuttling of the German battleship. Certainly, Bismarck would have sunk even if not scuttled by her crew. 33 ) TORPEDO DAMAGE DURING THE FINAL BATTLE Two large sections of the lower side and bottom shell structure below the armor belt on the starboard are missing from the main hull. Unique hydraulic outburst phenomena, described later in this paper, separated this plating from the ship on impact with the sea bed. The aft end of one long hole created by hydraulic outburst, on the starboard side aft, shows evidence of probable torpedo damage. It is unclear if the torpedo may have weakened the shell structure and contributed to the outburst effect, of if the effect occurred without prior weakening, and was in 32 Prince of Wales was completed on 31 March 1941, less than two months before her engagement with Bismarck. The German battleship was completed on 24 August 1940. 33 Bismarck had prize crew personnel with associated scuttling charge equipment on board. 32
The Wreck of DKM Bismarck − A Marine Forensics Analysis fact halted from propagating by the pre-existing battle damage. There is some evidence supporting the latter scenario. As many as five torpedo hits on Bismarck were claimed during the final engagement on 27 May 1941. None of these had any consequential effect on the outcome of the engagement, although they may have contributed to the massive destruction (aggravated by hydraulic outburst) that has been observed on the sea bed: ○ Dorsetshire ─ Two hits claimed on the starboard side, at the turn of the bilge, locations unknown. One of these hits may have been in the vicinity of the middle 150-mm turret on the starboard side, as observers on Dorsetshire claimed a hit amidships. As the wreck of Bismarck plummeted down the seamount on the sea bed, hull structure weakened by battle damage − primarily torpedo hits but also gunfire damage − ripped away. This makes the confirmation and localization of torpedo damage over much of the hull structure impossible. ○ Dorsetshire ─ A hit on the port side, as Bismarck was beginning to capsize. This torpedo struck on the port side abreast of the fore bridge tower, just forward of turret 62. This torpedo ran onto or slightly above the main deck, probably detonating among the debris from the gunnery engagement. This may account for the damage to the boomof the port aircraft and boat crane. ○ Rodney ─ A claimed torpedo hit on the starboard side, in way of Turret Bruno. There was no visible evidence of this torpedo hit, but the mud line is fairly high in way of Turret Bruno. If this hit occurred around 1000 as reported, it may have struck below the bilge keel. ○ Norfolk ─ A possible hit was observed on the starboard side aft in way of the after main battery turrets. There is evidence of a possible torpedo hit on the starboard side aft in way of the after main battery turrets. A large flap of hull plating, bent outward and aft, may be physical evidence of this torpedo hit. The inner tank wall is holed in a manner consistent with a torpedo explosion, but just inboard from it the torpedo bulkhead is intact. Forward, the unaffected tank wall is vertically compressed, evidence of the ship’s powerful impact with the sea bed. It is impossible to determine with certainty if this is a torpedo hit because of the enormous influence of the hydraulic outburst that took place when the ship hit the seabed. The excretion of entrained water through damaged structure can enlarge the original damage, and can create profound damage even in previously undamaged sections. However, this aft starboard hole seems to be our most unequivocal example of torpedo damage. One of the great challenges confronting a marine forensics analyst on analyzing a ship wreck is evaluating observed damage on the sea bed − determining what occurred on the surface that caused the ship to sink as opposed to damage caused during the sinking process, including the impact with the sea bed. In the case of Bismarck, the structural damage to the ship caused by impact was significantly greater than the battle damage. Impact effects, and subsequent events, such as the slide down the slope, must be clearly understood in order to accurately subtract them from the total damage in order to confirm the battle damage. 33
Page 1 and 2: The Wreck of DKM Bismarck − A Mar
Page 31: The Wreck of DKM Bismarck − A Mar

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?