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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Wreck of DKM Bismarck − A Marine Forensics Analysis The Bismarck’s main mast in the debris field on the sea bed. A 356-mm shell fired by the King George V approximately 1015 on the morning of May 27, 1941 brought the mast down. the gunhouse. The piece of hull plating is crumpled in a way which strongly suggests that this plate was ripped away from the ship when it struck the uphill side of the turret. The position of the turret and the rock outcrop strongly suggests that the sliding wreck of Bismarck scraped over the top of the outcrop and struck the turret. However, that outcrop prevented the hull from bulldozing the turret downhill as it clearly did with turret Bruno that is lying on the seamount to the southeast of turret Anton. The hull debris on the turret clearly indicates an impact and interaction with the sliding hull. The plating ripped from the ship may have been ripped out of the bottom plating by the turret, or may have already been damaged by the hull’s impact with the seamount and being dragged along by the ship as it slid, only peeled away when the hull impacted Turret Anton. The turret’s sub-structure was not found and it is believed that it was pushed further down slope in the avalanche to an area not explored or it was plowed under the hull and buried. Main battery turret Bruno is laying 200 meters abeam and downhill of the main hull, to port near amidships. It is inverted, lying partially buried by avalanche materials. The backwall of its gunhouse is ripped open like the petals of a flower from shell damage during the battle. Observers aboard Rodney and King George V also reported the rear wall of this turret as being blown away. An interview of Seaman Josef Statz, who was on the Upper Bridge Deck at the end of the engagement, described this damage to author William Garzke, recalling that he witnessed chunks of armor being torn away by shell hits from Rodney. Statz also mentioned that turret Bruno was tipped forward in its barbette, probably from the shell hit that penetrated its barbette and started a fire in its magazine. The geographical position of this turret fits its position as the 46
The Wreck of DKM Bismarck − A Marine Forensics Analysis second forward battery turret as it is third in line from west to east (assuming that it is directly downhill from where it originally landed). It is likely that the large pieces of debris that were lying on the decks fell directly from the site of the sinking, having come off the ship when it capsized. The displacement of the impact crater from the sinking site is probably the result of the wreck’s plunge and stall motion as it plummeted through the 4,700-meter water column. It is likely that Bismarck planed forward, bow first. The configuration of the impact crater and trough relative to the side scar and sinking site supports the theory of a bow-first impact. It is consistent with a scenario in which the ship planed north from its sinking position approximately 500 meters before striking the seamount. Since the axis of displacement from surface to bottom aligns closely with the long axis of the trough, it is fairly obvious that the wreck was planing lengthwise away from its sinking point. 39 What is clear from damage to the wreck and conspicuous lack of the lower hull in some places is that the stern did not hit first, as Dr. Robert Ballard had postulated after he discovered the wreck in June 1989. 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. It is also obvious that the ship turned almost completely broadside to the slope for part of the slide. It is likely that the hull slid a short distance stern first for the initial part of the slide, then turned broadside before beginning a more bow-first plunge downhill. Once the bow dug into the sediments then the stern swung around, again leading downhill. This scenario apparently was repeated. The evidence for this conclusion will be discussed later. Since Bismarck was observed to be oriented beam to the oncoming waves, during the northwester storm with her starboard side to the lee side at the moment of sinking, it is likely that the bow was facing to the northeast when the ship sank. This orientation is very consistent with the distribution of turrets and mainmast along a similar longitudinal axis on the seamount. Much evidence supports the conclusion that the ship plunged almost vertically for some period of time in the water column. It may have undergone some complex gyrations as it righted itself for the latter portion of its fall. Once the hull righted itself, the effects of the hull form were probably responsible for the displacement of sediment we observed at the impact point with the seamount. At the moment of sinking, the stern end was still attached 40 . As the ship capsized and the stern swung down relative to the more buoyant bow, hydrodynamic forces over the broad flat surface of the stern may have detached it. Teak decking is snapped cleanly in a straight line where the stern detached, suggesting a downward bending force (actually upward since the ship was inverted). It is also possible that the stern was detached by other hydrodynamic forces as the ship plunged. A piece of the stern was found by Dr. Ballard’s team, located with other light debris in the debris field Northwest of the wreck. This is consistent with the stern separating violently high in the water column. As the ship sank through the water column, it is very probable that the bow was facing north with a slight bow-down attitude, and was moving forward in stable “flight.” The starboard rudder is severely damaged and bent. The clearances between the tips of the centerline propeller 39 This concept is frequently paraphrased as “All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one.” 40 Seaman Statz, who was swimming 100 meters from the sinking ship before the final plunge, recalled that the stern end was still attached. Mr. Statz’ memory proved to be remarkably accurate, based on numerous details confirmed by imagery retrieved during the 1989 exploration of the Bismarck wreck. 47
Page 1 and 2: The Wreck of DKM Bismarck − A Mar
Page 45: 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?