# Unsinkable Bismarck - The truth? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 29, 2005, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339 "2005-06-29T10:27:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Speaker\_for\_the\_Dead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@Speaker\_for\_the\_Dead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Speaker_for_the_Dead)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339/21 "2005-06-29T21:48:37Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > By the time the Uraguay government forced her to leave quite a British force awaited, including the battleship _Barham_, and she was scuttled rather than go out and be sunk. _Graf Spee_ was far from a super ship and in fact was most valuable as a commerce raider. In a formal naval battle with battleships involved she would have really been just a heavier than heavy cruiser. I’ve heard that the British tricked the captain of the _Graf Spee_ into believing that the taskforce awaiting the ship was much larger than it actually was. Didn’t he commit suicide after the scuttling? ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339/22 "2005-06-29T22:29:33Z")
> [@Speaker for the Dead](#): > > I’ve heard that the British tricked the captain of the _Graf Spee_ into believing that the taskforce awaiting the ship was much larger than it actually was. Didn’t he commit suicide after the scuttling? Yep. Captain Hans Langdorff shot himself 2 days after the _Graf Spee_ was scuttled. Hitler was furious about the scuttling, so Langdorff couldn’t go home again. He took what he felt was the honorable way out. ---
**Author:** ![AtomAnt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/82dd89/32.png) [@AtomAnt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AtomAnt)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339/23 "2005-06-30T01:57:53Z")
Going slightly off the topic , what’s the difference between Pocket battleships and Battleships that german used against british convoys and the battleships, destroyers british used to protect the same ? Why did brtish feared these battleships more than anything at that time? Gun for Gun couldnt a british ship take on a german ship? ---
**Author:** ![Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/earl_snake-hips_tucker/32/3269_2.png) [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339/24 "2005-06-30T02:22:26Z")
The way pocket battleships were described was: Anything that could outgun it, couldn’t outrun it. And anything that could outrun it, didn’t want to. ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339/25 "2005-06-30T02:24:36Z")
> [@AtomAnt](#): > > Going slightly off the topic , what’s the difference between Pocket battleships and Battleships that german used against british convoys and the battleships, destroyers british used to protect the same ? Why did brtish feared these battleships more than anything at that time? Gun for Gun couldnt a british ship take on a german ship? A pocket battleship is, IIRC, a sort of Really Heavy Cruiser. Same displacement as a Heavy Cruiser, but with bigger guns. Designed to outgun any cruiser that tried to take it on, and outrun any battleship or battlecruiser that went after it. German battleships were, as mentioned before, better protected against battle damage due to the fact that the German navy was substantially smaller, and thus, spent more on each ship to make it more survivable than the British could afford to spend on their battleships. In the case of the Bismark, it was one of the largest (if not The largest) and most modern battleships afloat. A destroyer is an entirely different kind of ship when compared to Pocket Battleships, Heavy Cruisers, Battlecruisers and Battleships. While Battleships are ships of the line, and the various kinds of cruisers and pocket battleships are self-capable fighting ships, a Destroyer is essentially a cannon fodder warship, originally designed to protect the important warships or merchant ships from gunboats, torpedo boats, and later on, submarines. While these things could be devestatingly powerful against a smaller combatant, they had little chance of success trying to fight something like a Battleship without similarly big guns to protect them. They could be used defensively as screening ships, or offensively as commerce raiders or as a means of harassing larger warships during large battles. ---
**Author:** ![Rodd\_Hill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/3ab097/32.png) [@Rodd\_Hill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rodd_Hill)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339/26 "2005-06-30T02:27:30Z")
The greatest fear of the British _in re_ German pocket battleships and heavy cruisers was the danger they posed to the Atlantic lifeline. Firstly, to the escorted convoys of war materiel; generally these were escorted by a very small force of corvettes and destroyers, with maybe one or two cruisers. A troopship convoy (with the exclusion of the great liners) would have a bigger escort, up to and including a battleship or battlecruisers–but of course, this was a big tie-up of valuable naval power. The biggest nightmare was the scenario of the Queen Mary or Queen Elizabeth–which nearly always proceeded alone on the Atlantic run, relying on their great speed to avoid trouble with U-boats–being attacked by a German capital ship; an entire US or Canadian infantry division being lost at sea at one go didn’t bear thinking about. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339/27 "2005-06-30T03:45:26Z")
> [@Speaker for the Dead](#): > > I’ve heard that the British tricked the captain of the _Graf Spee_ into believing that the taskforce awaiting the ship was much larger than it actually was. Didn’t he commit suicide after the scuttling? Very possible. My information was recalled from news reports at the time of the battle. Those news reports would have repeated any British false information, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339/28 "2005-06-30T05:24:11Z")
> [@Raguleader](#): > > Nowadays, when you can cram anti-ship missiles onto something as small as a fighter jet and hit the enemy from hundreds of miles away from your fleet, the raw firepower of a battleship just isn’t valid to the battlefield, just as the introduction of the powered turret and steam engine made ships with hundred-gun broadsides unnecessary. Battleships would stand up to most modern antiship missiles much better than you might think. Battleships were truly the toughest things afloat. IIRC the Bismarck took something on the order of 300-400 direct hits as well as at least two torpedoes before she was sunk and, as mentioned, even then she was hanging in there and likely sped along by scuttling efforts. Sure…after all that it was smoking wreck even if floating but still gives you a sense of just how astonishingly tough they were. Anything short of a Russian Shipwreck missile would not have much effect against a battleship. Granted the battleship’s days as a ship v. ship platform were over but it still had other uses. ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339/29 "2005-06-30T05:47:06Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Battleships would stand up to most modern antiship missiles much better than you might think. Battleships were truly the toughest things afloat. IIRC the Bismarck took something on the order of 300-400 direct hits as well as at least two torpedoes before she was sunk and, as mentioned, even then she was hanging in there and likely sped along by scuttling efforts. Sure…after all that it was smoking wreck even if floating but still gives you a sense of just how astonishingly tough they were. Anything short of a Russian Shipwreck missile would not have much effect against a battleship. > > Granted the battleship’s days as a ship v. ship platform were over but it still had other uses. True, they’re very survivable, but the simple fact is, you can load up a bunch of cheaper ships with missiles and just hammer away at a battleship before she can bring her guns into play. Of course, any battleship in a modern navy has it’s OWN missiles to lob back, so the final straw becomes money. I _think_ the US Navy still has one battleship, but if we do, it’s kept in mothballs except during time of war, in which case it’s refitted with modern technology and sent out to sea. They’re just too expensive to run all the time. ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339/30 "2005-06-30T07:00:36Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Battleships would stand up to most modern antiship missiles much better than you might think. Battleships were truly the toughest things afloat. Its not as much missiles ,as it still torpedos that are the nemisis of the battlewagon. While you could probably lob a lot of harpoons at the IOWA, two mark 48 torpedos will probably kill it. Torpedo strikes at the time , were against the water line , or just below it , today , the torps will detonate right underneath the keel , lifting it up , and letting the keel snap. Declan ---
**Author:** ![Antonius\_Block](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Antonius\_Block](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antonius_Block)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339/31 "2005-06-30T07:51:45Z")
> [@Raguleader](#): > > I _think_ the US Navy still has one battleship, but if we do, it’s kept in mothballs except during time of war, in which case it’s refitted with modern technology and sent out to sea. They’re just too expensive to run all the time. I can’t speak for other classes, but there are two [Iowa-class battleships](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_class_battleship) still in the US Navy Reserve Fleet. The [USS Iowa (BB-61)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_%28BB-61%29) itself is currently part of the Mothball Fleet in Suisun Bay, north-east of San Francisco. A Terraserver aerial photo (Feb 2004) is [here](http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=4&S=9&Z=10&X=5791&Y=42137&W=3) . The [USS Wisconsin (BB-64)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wisconsin_%28BB-64%29) is berthed at Norfolk, VA, where: > [@](#): > > her weather decks are open to the public, but the ship is still owned by the Navy and is considered part of the mothball fleet. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339/32 "2005-06-30T11:24:21Z")
I believe it was the USS New Jersey which was recommissioned twice, the first time in the Vietnam War, where it was used to bombard coastal (and a short distance inland) VC positions, to good effect. For the record, there is still officially one battleship on the Navy’s roster of active ships, though that is a matter of sentiment rather than military force: the USS Arizona was never decommissioned, and is still officially on the rolls. The USS Texas is the flagship of the Texas State Navy (presumably USNR), though like the Arizona and many another battleship it is now a memorial site rather than an active seagoing vessel. ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339/33 "2005-06-30T12:29:42Z")
> [@Declan](#): > > Torpedo strikes at the time , were against the water line , or just below it , today , the torps will detonate right underneath the keel , lifting it up , and letting the keel snap. Whah? I thought that, at least after the problems with magnetic detonators had been worked out in the early years of the war, torpedos were usually set to detonate under the keel? Or was this specific to U-boats and surface ship and airplane launched torpedos ran shallower? ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339/34 "2005-06-30T12:59:10Z")
> [@engineer\_comp\_geek](#): > > the Germans claimed they scuttled it. Would so many crew have been lost if it was scuttled? Is the procedure to have most of the crew abandon ship and then scuttle? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339/35 "2005-06-30T13:02:33Z")
> [@Metacom](#): > > Whah? > > I thought that, at least after the problems with magnetic detonators had been worked out in the early years of the war, torpedos were usually set to detonate under the keel? Or was this specific to U-boats and surface ship and airplane launched torpedos ran shallower? WWII torpedoes could detonate under the keel and that was the preferred shot. Of course, subs and torps and all that back then were not as sophisticated as today so getting the under-the-keel shot was a much more dicey affair than it is today. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339/36 "2005-06-30T13:14:20Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > Would so many crew have been lost if it was scuttled? Is the procedure to have most of the crew abandon ship and then scuttle? By the time the Bismarck was at the point where a command to scuttle it was givven it had been pretty well pounded. I would think the command ot scuttle the ship would be given along with the command to abandon ship but the chaotic hell that must’ve been the Bismarck at that point who knows how it would have played out? ---
**Author:** ![audit1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ed8c4c/32.png) [@audit1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/audit1)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339/37 "2005-06-30T13:24:57Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > I believe it was the USS New Jersey which was recommissioned twice, the first time in the Vietnam War, where it was used to bombard coastal (and a short distance inland) VC positions, to good effect. > > For the record, there is still officially one battleship on the Navy’s roster of active ships, though that is a matter of sentiment rather than military force: the USS Arizona was never decommissioned, and is still officially on the rolls. The USS Texas is the flagship of the Texas State Navy (presumably USNR), though like the Arizona and many another battleship it is now a memorial site rather than an active seagoing vessel. The status of the ARIZONA: Arizona was stricken from the naval register in 1942. SHe is not a commisioned US NAVY SHIP. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339/38 "2005-06-30T13:26:21Z")
> [@Declan](#): > > While you could probably lob a lot of harpoons at the IOWA, two mark 48 torpedos will probably kill it. Probably true but then that is probably true of most anything you put two Mk-48 torps under (a carrier _might_ survive that). A BB would be part of a battlegroup just like a carrier is. Frankly, it would probably be in a carrier battlegroup. Any sub captain that sees a carrier and a battleship will prefer to shoot the carrier anyway. Of course, getting in position to launch torpedoes is not so easy and few navies could manage it these days. Not saying a BB can’t be sunk…just harder than I think most people suspect. Everyone sees something like the [USS Stark](http://navysite.de/ffg/FFG31.HTM) (link shows battle damage) that was nearly sunk by a single Exocet missile and assume that is what happens to everything hit by a missile these days. A battleship would almost certainly still be combat effective after a single Exocet hit (depends where it hits I guess) as opposed to the USS Stark coming an inch away from sinking. ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339/39 "2005-06-30T13:41:24Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > I believe it was the USS New Jersey which was recommissioned twice, the first time in the Vietnam War, where it was used to bombard coastal (and a short distance inland) VC positions, to good effect. > > For the record, there is still officially one battleship on the Navy’s roster of active ships, though that is a matter of sentiment rather than military force: the USS Arizona was never decommissioned, and is still officially on the rolls. The USS Texas is the flagship of the Texas State Navy (presumably USNR), though like the Arizona and many another battleship it is now a memorial site rather than an active seagoing vessel. As was mentioned earlier, the Arizona was stricken from the naval roster. As for the USS Texas (BB-35 I think), that’s an interesting thing. Far as I can tell, the Texas State Navy (AKA the Third Texas Navy) is more of an honorary thing than anything else. It also includes the USS Lexington (CV-16), the USS San Jacinto (Nuclear attack sub in the US Navy) and a couple of other ships. All the ships in the Texas Navy are either commisioned US Navy ships or Floating Museums. Basically we did this because Texas is apparantly allowed to have it’s own armed forces, and we have no particular need to actually _have_ our own armed forces. (Unlike Japan, Texas isn’t afflicted with giant monster attacks, just tornados.) Another interesting example of reeeealy old ships on the US Navy roster, check out the USS Constitution, one of the original US Navy heavy frigates from the early 1800’s. Oldest commisioned warship afloat. (Used to be the HMS Victory that had that distinction, but it doesn’t float anymore, I think it’s in drydock permanently.) IIRC, the Constitution is sailed out into the harbor once every 6 months or something like that so they can turn her around and sun her evenly (so as not to have the paint on one side be a lot lighter, I suppose) ---
**Author:** ![Hypno-Toad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b2d939/32.png) [@Hypno-Toad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypno-Toad)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339/40 "2005-06-30T14:55:33Z")
> [@Raguleader](#): > > Another interesting example of reeeealy old ships on the US Navy roster, check out the USS Constitution, one of the original US Navy heavy frigates from the early 1800’s. Oldest commisioned warship afloat. (Used to be the HMS Victory that had that distinction, but it doesn’t float anymore, I think it’s in drydock permanently.) IIRC, the Constitution is sailed out into the harbor once every 6 months or something like that so they can turn her around and sun her evenly (so as not to have the paint on one side be a lot lighter, I suppose) HMS Victory is definately in drydock. I’ve walked her deck. Although she is not “commissioned” per se, there is still an admiral serving aboard her. Quite an honor posting. I remember seeing a couple of reserved parking spots for the Captain and XO of the Victory near the drydock. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339.md?page=3)