You opt not to discuss the issues involved because you evidently cannot. People of your ilk seldom can, but that doesn't stop them from writing or speaking. I wonder why that is? In any event, who am I to judge one such as you, and who are you to judge anyone?
..is your own, and the proximate cause of that is being told you are wrong, something you can't and never have accepted.
So the pecuniary liability, the cost that must be born for the offense, is on your shoulders and no one else.
You are the only person I know on this planet who could write or say Merry Christmas and have it be offensive to the reader/listener.
...especially as the operation was "conducted with a heart of oak." Bravo, but no one is arguing that the British were not responsible for the loss of the Bismarck. I believe the issue related to what impact the scuttling of the ship had, to which I say "some." To argue otherwise is pointless and silly. Similarly, sending the ship out on a raiding mission had "some" impact on its fate, as did the 14" hit forward, etc. But to deny the influence of any of the myriad factors that led to the ship's ultimate demise is a silly exercise, heart of oak or not! This isn't about truth or variables or relevant factors. This is about foolish pride...
I tend to agree with your position Hugh, and reject that of Mr. Elder.
The pursuit of Bismarck was in anyone's book one of the most dramatic episodes of World War II, and occurred at a time when Britain and the Commonwealth stood alone against great odds. Sinking the Bismarck raised the morale in the UK at a time when the morale required to stay in the fight and prevail was so needed.
During my military career I did a lot of property loss evaluations. The key issue in the investigative process was pecuniary liability, the BUT FOR of the loss. BUT FOR this conduct or this event, the property would not have been lost.
I would suggest then, had it not been for the torpedo launched by British aircraft that jammed Bismarck's rudder to the point where she could not maneuver, Bismarck would have reached safe haven on the French coast. So what I would have decided were I investigating the matter, is that Bismark's loss was directly attributed to striking Bismark's rudder by a torpedo launched by British naval aircraft. Other than that no loss would have occurred.
Therefore, who literally sank the Bismark is of little consequence, although I believe your views are much more consistent with known facts than this other person. The loss of Bismark and the root or proximate cause of loss was totally a Royal Navy achievement, conducted with a Heart of Oak.
The controversy arose becauseáBismarckádid not succumb toáa 90-minute bombardment by two battleships and two heavy cruisers that produced around 300-400 hits. Admiral Sir John Tovey had to abandon the engagement for lack of fuel, calling for any ship with torpedoes to finish off the blazing wreck.áBismarckásank at 1039 hours, a few minutes after being struck by torpedoes from HMSáDorsetshire. The controversy erupted becauseáat 0920 hours, just 33 minutes after the final battle began and 69 minutes beforeáBismarckásank, two heavy shells penetrated the machinery spaces. Thisáprompted the XO, Hans Oels, to orderáscuttling chargesáset and firedáľ 6 sticks of dynamite in each engine room. However, a study by US naval analystsáW. Garzke and R. O. Dulin shows the chargesáwere not fired in every case because of water inflows into the engineering spaces caused by battle damage. Indeed, by 0930 the ship was already wallowing from the amount of water on board, some of it deliberately introduced to counter-flood after battle damage three days earlier in the Denmark Strait. Bismarck was sunk due to battle damage recieved from the Royal Navy ,she was already sinking before any scuttling charges may have gone off . The fact the detached stern section cannot be proven if it left the ship during battle or after initial sinking is a shame,there is a piece of stern wreckage on the seabed from the seperation point that has a 16inch penetration hole on its edge. I am more than happy to discuss this history something I have been quietly researching for years and content to compare anything to gain knowledge ,so I politely request you refrain from "telling" me where to go,what to compare or whatever,your condascending tone is not appreciated. If you think something is pointless then perhaps you should refrain from wasting your time on it.
Unless you like comparing apples and oranges, don't even go there! The Bismarck had already taken on several thousand tons of water BEFORE the scuttling charges were blown. Moreover, the only thing keeping the ship afloat was the lower raft, the very place the charges compromised. The upper raft was riddled. The scuttling of the HSF involved undamaged and intact ships, vessels wherein progressive flooding had to take the ships down far more slowly. This feeble comparison canard between the Bismarck and HSF ships has been running around for some time, and I find it silly and pointless.
After WW1 it took months of secret ,preparations to get the interned German High Seas Fleet ready to be scuttled , and even with all that preparation to sink them as fast as possible it still took hours for some of them to go down. In 1941 we have a far more robust battleship in Bismarck fully at action stations with compartments sealed up to "stop" her sinking. The bombardment Bismarck received was bewildering to imagine, the command crew were killed fairly early on in the battle and she was effectively silenced not long after, she was already visibly down at the stern at this point. So with the command crew dead, the ship a shambles, we are to believe an organised attempt was made to scuttle a 50,000 ton battleship at action stations and she went down in under 30 minutes from that point ? It is not as easy as "opening seacocks", there are safety protocols to get around and many watertight doors to open up again on a ship that was STILL under bombardment with little command structure left. Bismarck was going down due to damage sustained from the Royal Navy , I see no other reason than that ..
I followed a link to the Bismarck book coming out in December.
In the description it says
"Battleship Bismarck has finally resolved some of the major questions such as, 'Who sank the Bismarck, the British or the Germans?'"
Why is there any doubt that the British sank the Bismarck?
To say the Germans sank the Bismarck is like saying the Americans sank the Lexington.