The Battle of the Denmark Strait

[Herr Nilsson]

Das Thema Dänemarkstraße benötigt kritisches Quellenstudium, da gebe ich Dir recht Axel. Ich denke aber schon, dass gerade bei Schmalenbach und MR ein gewaltiger Unterschied besteht. Schmalenbach hat einen Gefechtsbericht zur Anlage im KTB in unmittelbarer zeitlicher Nähe zum Geschehen verfasst, während MR auf Erinnerungen angewiesen war, die möglicherweise Jahre zurückliegen. Schmalenbach halte ich im Großen und Ganzen für verhältnismäßig zuverlässig. Das heißt aber nicht, dass er notwendigerweise immer Recht hat. Gerade Schmalenbach hat im Laufe der Jahre immerhin mindestens drei verschiedene Versionen von Gefechtsskizzen verfasst.

Nur mal zur Verdeutlichung, allein von Prinz Eugen gibt es zwei völlig unterschiedliche Karte zu Gegnerkursen. Auf britischer Seite gibt sogar zwei völlig voneinander abweichende Karten für die von Prince of Wales gesteuerten eigenen Kurse. 
Schaut man sich die Karten des Endkampfes der Bismarck an, so sind dort von KGV und Rodney wirklich vollkommen unterschiedliche Karten für Bismarck gezeichnet worden....und die hatten ab einem bestimmten Zeitpunkt bestimmt die Zeit und Muße alles genauesten zu dokumentieren. Die Verlässlichkeit der Primärquellen an sich lässt also schon arg zu wünschen übrig.
Wenn nun heutzutage jemand kommt und eine wunders wie tolle, sensationell bahnbrechende Karte zeichnet und diese dann auch noch versucht mit Argumenten zu belegen, bei denen man merkt, dass er noch nicht einmal ansatzweise eine Ahnung davon hat, wovon er spricht, so kann ich ihn beim besten Willen nicht ernst nehmen.

[Sarkas]

I'd rely more on this film than on eyewitnesses' reports, partly written long after the battle.

The film clearly shows that Bismarck was starboard of Prinz Eugen, and that the direction towards the enemy was free. The film shows not the full engagement but shows Bismarck on the starboard side before and after the destruction of Hood. The film further shows that Bismarck was fireing with its primary and secondary artillery. Maybe "Überschießen" means that Prinz Eugen should cease fire not to delude Bismarck's targeting officers. Prince of Wales was quite close to Hood so it may be impossible to separate the shots at one ship from the shots at the other ship.

As far as I know German targeting procedures did not deny own ship's maneuvers, so Bismarck maybe zig-zagged during the whole battle. This is not a matter of U-boat evasion but to make the opponent's fire control harder.

From my understanding of navigation, the aft ship is better to make a turn first to avoid collision. At that speed it is probably not easy to keep a column. That would also explain why Bismarck was starboard aft of Prinz Eugen and not just behind her.

What puzzles me is that the sources I know don't tell anything about hits by Bismarck's secondary artillery. Didn't it hit anything?

[Sarkas]

Addition: In the film the relative bearing of Bismarck towards Prinz Eugen is relatively constant at about 30-45 degrees. But the film shows only sequences of the battle, so you cannot say whether and how many turns the ships made. Probably the cameraman standing on starboard side of Prinz Eugen only filmed when he could see Bismarck, so the left-turns (Bismarck then is on port side of Prinz Eugen) are missing in the film. However, it is obvious that the ships made the turns together; otherwise the relative bearing and the distance would change noticeably.

My guess is that the flagship (Bismarck) signaled and initiated the turns, and Prinz Eugen followed them.

[Wink]

Hello Thoddy,

I have a copy of the original Gefechtsskizze of the Prinz Eugen, and it shows the Prinz Eugen beginning her first turn to starboard a little after 0603 and just before 0604.  The sketch does not show the track of the Bismarck at all, and that is part of the problem.  What evidence do you have to support your statement that the turn took place with Bismarck followed by Prinz Eugen. The official Gefechtsskizze does not show that.

Then you say that according to the sketch this turn took place in about 05:55.  You lost me completely there.  Where did you get that information?

Robert

[Wink]

Hello Marc,

It is true that Schmalenbach later came out with different versions of his battle diagram, but I believe that it is significant that his very first diagram showed the Bismarck on the port side of the Prinz Eugen from 0600 until after 0609, and that it is this version that was adopted by the Baron for the latest German version of his book Schlachtschiff Bismarck.  Apparently the Baron believed that this diagram more closely resembled his own recollections of the battle.

Schmalenbach was undoubtedly criticized for his first diagram because it did not conform to the photographs that showed the Bismarck on the starboard side of the Prinz Eugen.  His later diagrams may just have been his way of silencing the criticism that he received.  I intended to get to the photographs later since that is where the controversy still remains, but I wanted to clear up the other evidence first.

Robert

[Wink]

Hello Sarkas,

I welcome your thoughts on the battle, and I agree that the photographs are an essential part of  the overall analysis of the battle, but we must be careful that we do not allow speculation to throw us off the track..  That has been the problem in the past, and we wind up getting nowhere.  I am an engineer and a professional technical analyst, and i know from experience that to solve a problem, you have to progress methodically, thoroughly investigate every piece of evidence available, and integrate all of the pieces into a coherent picture.

Robert

[Wink]

When the Prinz Eugen had returned to port after her sortie with the Bismarck under Unternehmung Rheinübung, Captain Brinkmann reported to his superior, Vice Admiral Hubert Schmundt, Befehlshaber der Kreuzer.  Brinkmann provided Schmundt the Prinz Eugen's Kriegstagebuch, the Prinz Eugn's Gefechtsskizze, and a set of the photographs taken from the Prinz Eugen during the battle.

After reviewing the documents provided by Captain Brinkmann, Schmundt issued a Position Statement, which was translated into English by Marinearchiv member Ulrich Rudofsky.  That statement included the comment: "Although the ship (Prinz Eugen) did not receive an order from the Chief of Fleet to position itself into the lee side of fire, he (Brinkmann) should have and must have done this on his own, according to the valid tactical procedures in force, by reporting his intention to the Chief of Fleet, since at this stage there was no battle and the cruiser had not been fully engaged."

That statement by Schmundt strikes me as being utterly stupid.  At the beginning of the battle, the Bismarck was some 1500 meters directly astern of the Prinz Eugen, and the photographic evidence clearly shows in a series of photographs that the Bismarck picked up speed and came up on the port side of the Prinz Eugen to protect the cruiser from enemy fire.  Bundesarchuv Bild 146-1984-055-13 shows the Bismarck about to pass the Prinz Eugen off the cruiser's port side.

As the task force commander, it was Admiral Lütjens responsibility to direct the movements of the ships under his command for the forthcoming battle.  All Captain Brinkmann could do was to watch the flagship and comply with any instructions forthcoming from the Flottenchef.  Brinkmann did, however, on his own initiative make two turns to starboard, away from the enemy, which would have been consistent with placing the Prinz Eugen on the lee side of the Bismarck if that had still been necessary.

The point here is that the evidence appears to indicate that Admiral Lütjens did in fact have the Bismarck move up on the port side of the Prinz Eugen specifically to place the cruiser on the lee side of the flagship during the battle in accordance with the valid tactical procedures in force.  If Lütjens had acted dishonorably and violated standard German naval operating procedures by not placing the Prinz Eugen on the lee  side of the Bismarck, do you believe that the new German government would have named a post-war destroyer after him?

Robert

[Sarkas]

If Lütjens had acted dishonorably and violated standard German naval operating procedures by not placing the Prinz Eugen on the lee  side of the Bismarck, do you believe that the new German government would have named a post-war destroyer after him?

Naming a Bundesmarine destroyer after Mr. Lütjens was a really bad joke and proves nothing. Lütjens' performance during this battle is as doubtful as Admiral Holland's. AFAIK Kapitän Lindemann on Bismarck took initiative - why not Kapitän Brinkmann, too?

[Herr Nilsson]

Hello Marc,

It is true that Schmalenbach later came out with different versions of his battle diagram, but I believe that it is significant that his very first diagram showed the Bismarck on the port side of the Prinz Eugen from 0600 until after 0609, and that it is this version that was adopted by the Baron for the latest German version of his book Schlachtschiff Bismarck.  Apparently the Baron believed that this diagram more closely resembled his own recollections of the battle.

Schmalenbach was undoubtedly criticized for his first diagram because it did not conform to the photographs that showed the Bismarck on the starboard side of the Prinz Eugen.  His later diagrams may just have been his way of silencing the criticism that he received.  I intended to get to the photographs later since that is where the controversy still remains, but I wanted to clear up the other evidence first.

Robert

Alles haltlose Spekulationen.

[Wink]

Hello all,

There is a series of at least six photographs taken of the Bismarck from the Prinz Eugen during the battle that show the Bismarck on the starboard side of the cruiser, and there is a corresponding segment of motion picture film taken by another photographer covering the same period of time.  I would like to again thank Marinearchiv member Marc Mindnich for providing me with a digital copy of the battle film so that I could analyze it on a frame-by-frame basis and discover a very important clue in determining what happened during the battle.

The digital copy of the battle film contains 2072 frames and covers a period of 130 seconds (2 minutes and 10 seconds), a somewhat longer time than the showing of the motion picture itself on You Tube.  For each still picture, there was a corresponding frame on the battle film, which provides the exact timing between successive still pictures, but not the clock time of each picture.

When we look at the complete segment of battle film on You Tube and look at all of the frames of the battle film in digital form, it is obvious that the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen were traveling on parallel courses and that neither ship was doing any turning during that time.  Measurements performed on the image of the Bismarck in frames of the battle film covering the entire period of the film show only slight changes in size and inclination of the Bismarck, confirming that there was no radical turning of either ship at the time.

That is important in trying to determine the timing of those starboard views of the Bismarck and the corresponding segment of motion picture film.  The starboard views of the Bismarck and the battle film cold not have been taken between 0555 and 0603 since the Bismarck was still being photographed while coming up on the port side of the cruiser during that period of time.  The starboard views and the battle film could not have been taken between 0603 and 0607 since the Prinz Eugen was making her hard turns at the time.

This leaves only the time period from 0607 to 0611 during which the filming could have taken place.  Actually, there is a very important clue in those views and the battle film that has a bearing on the issue.  The Prince of Wales had problems with two of her ten 14-inch guns, which limited the number of rounds fired in each salvo.  During the initial approach of the Prince of Wales, her rear turrets could not bear on the target, and her salvos were therefore limited to only four rounds.

After the Prince of Wales circled around the Hood, her rear turret came into play, and her salvoes then consisted of eight rounds.  But the battle film shows only two individual rounds landing in the vicinity of the Bismarck during the entire period of the battle film.  The first round landed at 26.5 seconds after the beginning of the battle film, and the second round landed 22.5 seconds later at 49 seconds into the battle film.  There were no shell splashes seen at all during the remaining 81 seconds of the battle film.

If the Prince of Wales had still been firing full salvos at the Bismarck during the battle, there would have been several clusters of four to eight 14-inch shells landing in the vicinity of the Bismarck during the 130 seconds of the battle film.  However, in reality, there were only two individual shell splashes to be seen on the battle film.  To find out why, we have to go back to British sources.

The Prince of Wales had turned away from the scene of battle at 0605, firing her 17th and 18th salvos as she turned.  After settling down from her turn, her gunners tried to continue firing at the Bismarck with her after turret, but their view was obstructed by the smoke screen that the ship deployed.  The gun crew of the after turret could acquire the target below the smoke, so on their own initiative, they fired a two-gun salvo and then two single one-gun salvos at the Bismarck.

Those last two individual gun salvos would have been fired at about 0607, which coincides with the timing of the battle film as occurring between 0607 and 0611.  By that time, the battle was, for all practical purposes, already over with the Prince of Wales retreating from the scene.  In all probability, Photo NH-69727 (no Bundesarchiv Bild number known) shows the Bismarck after firing her last salvo at the Prince of Wales.  That was the last photograph taken of the Bismarck during the battle, and motion picture filming ceased just two seconds later.

Robert

   

[Antonio Bonomi]

If Lütjens had acted dishonorably and violated standard German naval operating procedures by not placing the Prinz Eugen on the lee  side of the Bismarck, do you believe that the new German government would have named a post-war destroyer after him?

Naming a Bundesmarine destroyer after Mr. Lütjens was a really bad joke and proves nothing. Lütjens' performance during this battle is as doubtful as Admiral Holland's. AFAIK Kapitän Lindemann on Bismarck took initiative - why not Kapitän Brinkmann, too?

Naming a Bundesmarine destroyer after Adm Gunther Lutjens has been a correct recognition for his career and his shining victory at the Denmark Strait battle, entirely to be given to him and his staff on board the Bismarck, ... and I personally think that Harald Netzband had a role on his decisions too.

Can you list here for me the errors or positive orders Adm G. Lutjens gave at Denmark Strait in your opinion ?
So we can see what you rate being incorrect or right.

Similarly, can you do the same for ViceAdm Lancelot Holland ? 
same thing, what he did right or wrong in your opinion ...  I am really curious about it.

Which initiatives did Kpt zur See E. Lindemann took at Denmark Strait in your opinion ?

I will not spend much time explaining why Bismarck was not on the port side of Prinz Eugen before 06.08 after the Prinz Eugen torpedo avoiding manoeuvres and Bismarck turn away too,  because  there are photos, and a film showing Prinz Eugen port side and the enemy ships on the horizon with PoW leaving the battlefield ... and Bismarck is not in between Prinz Eugen and the enemy on that time frame, ...  and we do not see Bismarck keelwasser ... so we do not need to find any other evidence ... since it is already available.

To over kill those evidences is enough to realize that Prinz Eugen wanted to fire torpedoes to Prince of Wales on those minutes, ... and her port side A/A 105 mm guns opened fire too ... and I do not think they wanted to torpedo or fire  at their flagship, ... in fact they did not ... since Bismarck was not there.

So simple it is ....     

  Bye / Gruss  Antonio   

[Sarkas]

Naming a Bundesmarine destroyer after Adm Gunther Lutjens has been a correct recognition for his career and his shining victory at the Denmark Strait battle (...)

...and he is responsible for the meaningless death of two thousand German seamen in the final battle of Bismarck. He could have acted like Kapitän Langsdorff on Admiral Graf Spee, but he did not.

Tell me: what was "shining" on this victory in the Denmark Strait? Lütjens commanded the superior force and had a favourable initial position, so the results were predictable.

Can you list here for me the errors or positive orders Adm G. Lutjens gave at Denmark Strait in your opinion?

The point is: why did he get into this battle? He could have turned back to Norway after his formation had been shadowed by British cruisers. His orders were to avoid confrontation with enemy heavy units, but he proceeded westwards. On the other hand, after the destruction of Hood he missed to sink PoW, and sail back to Norway after that.

Similarly, can you do the same for ViceAdm Lancelot Holland?

Admiral Holland messed up his crossing-the-T, his formation ended not in front of the Germans but at their sides. And, although he started the battle from an unfavourable position, he drove his ships into battle like mad. Going straight towards the Germans cost him nearly half of his battery in the first minutes of the battle. He could have fought Bismarck from the distance where his battery was superior, but he chosed a much too short fighting distance where Hood was totally unprotected against Bismarck's 38 cm guns. And why was Hood the leading ship and not the more modern and more resistable Prince of Wales?

Holland enforced a decisive battle against a superior enemy from an unfavourable position. The joke of the story is that PoW achieved a "mission kill" with her hit into Bismarck's bow: this hit forced Lütjens to abort his original mission. Holland could have reached this result without risking his ships that much.

Which initiatives did Kpt zur See E. Lindemann took at Denmark Strait in your opinion?

Lindemann gave permission to fire, not Lütjens!?

[Herr Nilsson]

@ Sarkas

Ich stehe etwas ratlos vor Deinem Beitrag. Aber fangen wir vorne an.
Was war denn so "superior"?

[Sarkas]

Ich stehe etwas ratlos vor Deinem Beitrag. Aber fangen wir vorne an.
Was war denn so "superior"?

Bismarck hatte meiner Meinung nach mehr Kampfkraft als Hood und PoW zusammen. Bismarck war "state of the art" und hatte eine gut trainierte Crew. Hood war bereits veraltet, ihre Panzerung unzureichend und ihre artilleristische Performance eher mau... Prince of Wales war so neu, dass noch zivile Techniker an Bord waren; ihre Technik war noch extrem störanfällig und ihre Mannschaft nicht eingespielt.

[Herr Nilsson]

Sowas in der Art dachte ich mir. Ich kenne Bismarck vielleicht nicht so gut wie Du und sie war mit Sicherheit auch ein kampfstarkes Schiff, aber ich bin da ehrlich gesagt trotzdem nicht ganz so zuversichtlich.