RoG Bismarck, Pray for me!

I agree that more was expected of Scharnhorst and Gnesenau in March, 1941.  But, it was the most successful foray of the guerre d'course to that date.  It did offer the potential of better results given the power of both the Bismarck and Tirpitz.  Therein lies the importance of the Bismarck episode . . . the British succeeded in exploding that potential.

Bill Morrison

warshipguy wrote:

Don't forget the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau had just completed their rather successful cruise in March, 1941.  However, I love her lines! BISMARCK is a beautiful ship!

As far as the Bismarck being eye-candy to a sailor---no dispute there...

Don't forget the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau had just completed their rather successful cruise in March, 1941.  The original plan for Operation Rheinubung was for Bismarck and Tirpitz to cruise together against the convoys.  Tirpitz was not ready in time; Prinz Eugen was substituted instead.

Following the engagement between HOOD and PoW, and the BISMARCK and PE, the BISMARCK was damaged and taking water in her bows. She also lost fuel oil, meaning that she had to return to port. Admiral Lutgens decided to head for Brest, where she could link up with SCHARNHORST and GNEISENAU.  His reasoning made some sense, although, in retrospect, he should have headed back to Germany instead.  In a masterful demonstration of planning and maneuvering available resources, the British succeeded in damaging Bismarck's rudders and/or propellors, rendering her unmaneuverable.  KGV, RODNEY, and DORSETSHIRE did the rest.  We all know the story.

Now, it is important to remember, BISMARCK SANK THE HOOD!!!  The only other battleship that sank another in the Atlantic during WWII was when DUKE of YORK sank SCHARNHORST.  Both are therefore very noteworthy events.  The importance of the Bismarck episode is that it marked the turn in the surface war in the Atlantic.  No German surface warship ever again ventured out into the Atlantic Ocean. She is worthy of building for that reason alone.

However, I love her lines! BISMARCK is a beautiful ship!

Bill Morrison

quote:

...there was no way a German surface task force was going to roam the Atlantic in 1941 raiding merchant ships and not eventually be forced to fight a surface action that was almost certainly going to be superior in numbers and with air support...

 That sounds very logical from here, doesn't it?  But take a look at what the two battlecruisers and the three pocket battleships had accomplished, convoy-raiding wise, by 1941. Graf Spee was the only one at that time that had met those surface forces.

I believe you're judging people in history in the light of the outcome you know.  By the same token, it was silly for the Germans to start the war in 1939, because you know they would lose miserably by 1945.  And same thing goes for Japan - it is obvious to us now that they could not sustain a war and win it.  But if you look from 1941 or 1942 eyes, things were not nearly so certain. 

 And indeed, as discussed on another historical discussion thread on this same modeling forum, the Battle of the Atlantic was very close to being decisive with the opposite results.  At the time, things were much closer than they appear from 2009.  "IF one more Russian convoy was lost, and IF the Russians had not held out, believing the were supported by  the other allies, or IF a few more convoys from USA to Great Britain had been damaged badly..."  The outcome could have gone the other way, even though the USA had enough manufacturing capability to ultimately win things a few years later.  By the same token, IF the Bismarck had gotten into the Atlantic and encountered a large convoy or two with nothing except old destroyers and corvettes, or even an old "R" class battleship, against the backdrop of conditions in May 1941, the pendulum could have swung too far against the Allies at that time.

IF

 Enjoy your Bismarck model.

I think the two are intertwined...historical interest is usually involved in choosing subject matter...

...the interesting thing about battleships in general is that that were husbaned like no other ship after WWI...everyone was reluctant to allow them to be engaged with opposing surface fleets throughout the war--that's why those actions were so rare...Yes, there were the late-war Japanese suicide missions that involved obsolete BB's and the infamous Yamato operation, but that's another story...

It wasn't that the Bismarck was such a superior design -IMO- or neccessarily more "dangerous" than other BB's, it was that it happened to be caught with its "pants down" by an opposing surface fleet (which is was ordered to avoid at all costs) and hammered to the ocean floor...if you think about it, the sortie was rathy foolish...there was no way a German surface task force was going to roam the Atlantic in 1941 raiding merchant ships and not eventually be forced to fight a surface action that was almost certainly going to be superior in numbers and with air support...

I think that I am now confused . . . are we discussing the actual historical importance of the Bismarck, or why modelers are attracted to that ship?  They are two different issues!

On the one hand, Bismarck is simply a beautiful ship that has gained historical or mythological interests.  On the other hand, Bismarck accomplished more on her maiden voyage  that most other battleships ever did in 20+ year careers. She sank another capital ship.

Bill Morrison

searat12 wrote:

...the fear engendered which was transferred to the Tirpitz (which never deserved it!)...

It was a British propaganda coup when it was needed the most...I mean, did anyone with ANY real sense of warfare believe the Germans were going to dominate the Atlantic with one surface ship, even if it was the Bismarck!?!...until then the Germans had been handing the Brits their collective arse on a silver platter...when they finally scored a clear victory, they made the most of it by trumping up the dangers of a lone SUPER-UBER-battleship roaming in the open ocean... 

Blah, blah, blah.. The story of the Bismarck is one for the ages, and for this reason alone, the ship is of interest.  Yes, in many ways, it was a 'update' of the old 'Baden' design.  So what?  The old 'Queen Elizabeths' were still around, so why not build a ship to beat them?  Certainly, the HMS Hood, as the Flagship of the British Navy, was certainly a 'scalp' to be proud of, and with a bit more effort (one which I have never understood why it was not followed up), could have been equaled by the scalp of the most modern battleship in the British fleet (POW).  In any case, the whole saga of the distruction of the Hood, and chase of the Bismarck, and perhaps more importantly, the fear engendered which was transferred to the Tirpitz (which never deserved it!), is more than enough to make Bismarck a model industry 'standard.'

Every creditable reference that I have read credits Bismarck with the kill.  I read some supposition that it may have been Prinz Eugen but never any real evidence.  For my money, Bismarck sank the Hood, making her one of the few capital ships to ever sink another.

But, I was simply addressing Manny's comment that he couldn't understand the fascination with ships that seem to have accomplished nothing. I explained my interest.  Bismarck did achieve the distinction of sinking Hood, whether or not assisted by Prinz Eugen.  I am also interested in Prinz Eugen and relish the prospect of a model of her in 1/350 scale!  Every manufacturer has done Bismarck (RoG's kit is far better than any other), but none have attempted PE in 1/350 scale.

I would also be interested in Conte di Cavour, Giulio Casare, Littorio, Queen Elizabeth, etc., although they did not achieve Bismarck's distinction.

Bill Morrison

warshipguy wrote:

My understanding is that Prinz Eugen's gunfire hit Hood, starting a bad fire on the boat deck. It was Bismarck's fire that penetrated to the magazines, blowing up the ship.  But, I am open to hearing contrary evidence. Bill Morrison

I'm not anti-Bismarck; just feel that the ship is over-rated...Of course, the fact that Germany only built 2 modern battleships for WW2 probably has a lot to do with it as well...I mean, there isn't a lot of German subject matter, so by default the ship has to be popular...

ddp59 wrote:

enemeink, i think there was more effort to sink the tirpitz then there was to sink the bismarck. you had x subs & various types of aircraft for a couple of years trying to sink her. it was finally lancasters with 12,000 lb tallboy bombs that finally sank her.

yeah but that effort was spread out over a couple of years and not 3 days. again it's just my opinion on the matter.

My understanding is that Prinz Eugen's gunfire hit Hood, starting a bad fire on the boat deck. It was Bismarck's fire that penetrated to the magazines, blowing up the ship.  But, I am open to hearing contrary evidence.

Bill Morrison

ddp59 wrote:

enemeink, i think there was more effort to sink the tirpitz then there was to sink the bismarck. you had x subs & various types of aircraft for a couple of years trying to sink her. it was finally lancasters with 12,000 lb tallboy bombs that finally sank her.

DITTO, and as I stated before, there is strong evidence that Bismarck DID NOT sink Hood, but rather the Heavy Cruiser Prinz Eugen did...

Manny wrote,

"I have never understood the fascination with ships that had such a short and unremarkable service life--IMO, like the Bismarck...the cost of the ship compared to the damage (or lack thereoff) it inflicted was ridiculous...but, good luck !!!"

Simply stated, Bismarck and Tirpitz were very beautiful ships.  That said, how many warships can lay claim to actually sinking another ship?  Very few.  Neither Yamato or Musashi did; no other Japanese, Italian, French, or Soviet battleships did, nor did very many American or British battleships.  Yet, they have their devotees!

Bismarck sank Hood.  It took a fleet a week to track down and sink Bismarck.  It is a compelling story.

Bill Morrison  

enemeink wrote:

I think The bismarck has alot of history behind it. at the time it was an engineering marvel. it sank the flag ship fo the royal navy in 7 minutes. it's size and fire power were something that the allied forces realized needed to be destroyed as soon as possible. I don't think that there was more effort put into sinking one ship throughout the war.  i think that is what makes it remarkable. but that's just my

...the only claim to fame I'd give her was the story of her sinking that has become legend, only because the Brits propagandized it to the hilt...after all, it could be considereed Germany's first defeat, on land, in the air or on water...it was a white elephant that the Germans could never possibly use as it was intended, just like the Tirpitz...

...hmmmmm, I think more effort went into sinking the Yamato...

enemeink wrote:

I think The bismarck has alot of history behind it. at the time it was an engineering marvel. it sank the flag ship fo the royal navy in 7 minutes. it's size and fire power were something that the allied forces realized needed to be destroyed as soon as possible. I don't think that there was more effort put into sinking one ship throughout the war.  i think that is what makes it remarkable. but that's just my

agreed although it was a very lucky hit that killed hood it was still an immense piece of engineering