where the "Bismarck wasn't sunk by the british" came from?

[aurelien wolff]

I'm wondering because for me the torpedo hit on the rear is suffisant enough to tell that the british sunked the ship,I'll also post this one from shiitwehraboosay: https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitWehraboosS ... _scuttled/

I also dont think the britsh would want to capture that:

[Stiltzkin]

I'm wondering because for me the torpedo hit on the rear is suffisant enough to tell that the british sunked the ship

From Zetterling, Bismarck: The Final Days of Germany’s Greatest Battleship p.312

One thing though: If you denounce everyone who disagrees with you as a "Wehraboo" (is that the correct spelling?), you are effectively distancing yourself from any serious discussion and this may only make you appear as the equivalent ("Alliedboo", I do not know what people call them). This is also evident from the people who post there, they employ the "we" form or "us" and proudly proclaim their bias (unless Navy Veterans who are still alive post on reddit), which is a sign of supremacism and nationalism. Afterall, there are still individuals who claim that Dunkirk was a victory and I would never brand anyone who believes this as partial, since he can express his version and we can evaluate and analyse whether given theory holds up against any evidence. Just an observation, from experience gained in forums and from the online community. It should be pretty clear to anyone who studied this confrontation, that the Bismarck was destroyed as a consequence of British attacks, or else nobody would have seen the necessity to blow it up.

[Michael Kenny]

The aim was to sink the Bismark. Sunk by the Germans or sunk by the RN it makes no difference as long as she was sunk. The RN achieved its aim and if there are those who find comfort in the possibility it was 'suicide' then why begrudge them their face-saving exercise?

[Tom from Cornwall]

And of course, although Zetterling notes that:

Thus the torpedoes from the Dorsetshire may well have hastened the process, but the Bismarck would nevertheless have sunk.

There is no evidence to suggest that, given the damage that Bismarck had suffered, this couldn't be re-written as:

Thus whatever the Bismarck's crew did may well have hastened the process, but the Bismarck would nevertheless have sunk.

Regards

Tom

[aurelien wolff]

I don't label everyone I disagree ith Wehraboo it's just that for me britsh sunk the bismarck by hitting the rear of the ship https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitWehraboosS ... as_a_draw/

[OpanaPointer]

"I shot myself in the head to avoid being murdered."

[Stiltzkin]

I think the point here that those people want to make is that if British vessels or aircraft would have seized further attacks, it may not have sunk, which according to the facts seems not implausible. They would have to continue to shell, bomb and torpedo it. An isolated ship however, has a low chance of survival.

[aurelien wolff]

What those who think that the bismarck wasn't sunk by the british think about the Dorsetshire torpedo hit?

[Stiltzkin]

What those who think that the bismarck wasn't sunk by the british think about the Dorsetshire torpedo hit?

Then you need to provide evidence that the Torpedo was sufficient to cause irrecoverable and destructive damage. From the diving expeditions conducted in 1989, we know that the hull was not jeopardized to such an extent that it would have dragged the battleship underwater in such a way and timeframe (compare Prinz Eugen). Without any external help however, the Bismarck was doomed anyway, unless the presence of U-boats might have potentially scared the enemy away (unlikely), even if so, then certainly not the aircraft. Apparently, the no implosion theory was postulated by Dr. Robert Ballard.
https://www.thevintagenews.com/2016/08/ ... condition/

[aurelien wolff]

founded something and yep the british sinked the bismarckthe scuttling only seem to have accelerate it.

[Stiltzkin]

founded something and yep the british sinked the bismarckthe scuttling only seem to have accelerate it.

Care to share?

[aurelien wolff]

don't know why the link wasn't in my post http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16

[Stiltzkin]

don't know why the link wasn't in my post http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16

Which post, there are 14 pages and they seem to be pointing towards the opposite.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Guys,

It really doesn't matter either way, because, however you look at it, the British caused the sinking of Bismarck. After all, she showed no sign of scuttling herself without their intervention.

If the Bismarck herself chose to save the Royal Navy some ammunition and fuel by scuttling herself, then, I would suggest, the British would have been perfectly content.

Indeed, they might have welcomed it because, on top of the Grand Scuttle of the German High Seas Fleet 1919, it would reinforce the reputation the Kriegsmarine gained in 1939 with the scuttling of Graf Spee. In other words, it would hand the British a propaganda tool that implied that the German Navy was never prepared to fight its capital ships to the absolute end.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Michael Kenny]

Hi Guys,

It really doesn't matter either way,.............

Oh it matters, it matters a quite a lot to some people. The 'never beaten in a fair fight' trope has many disciples