No, we're not talking anything to do with this year's US Presidential Election campaigns - whose "Alienating Corporate Full-Of-Sh**ness" is, to quote the inimitable Matt Taibbi, "enough to make anyone want to smash his own hand flat with a hammer." (LMFAO!)
No, what WE'RE talking about, in this thread, is something INTERESTING: the classic debates as to what actually happened, in crucial battles/developments in naval history. Kicked off (years ago, to give credit where credit is more than due) by Don Murphy - with the contention that HMS Hood was sunk not by DKM Bismarck but by her able consort Prinz Eugen - threads on this and other Great (Naval Historical) Debates will be attached as "Responses", below, for the reader's consideration and your own contribution(s), as you may (hopefully) enjoy.
Cheers,
-Matty
Surigao Strait: Who SANK HIJMS FUSO?
Posted by Don Murphy (via Matty) on February 24, 2012, 21:32:54, in reply to "The GREAT DEBATES - 2012"
Recently I realized we had the seed of this, yet another Great Debate, unobtrusively dropped within a recent post - again, by Don Murphy:
"(I'm building a model of PT-495 - who, along with) her squadron mates are the ones that throttled the IJN battlewagons at Surigao Strait." On which Donny then further elaborated: "...The (USN) DD's and PT's were to shoo the two (IJN) battleships (Fuso and Yamashiro) into the waiting guns of the USN battle line. And...The DD's apparently did just that...
The PT's however...'numbering in the hundreds' (were) making willy-nilly attacks all in the name of 'just because' and 'because they are there'..." (and so managed to sink Fuso, with numerous torpedo attacks)."
Again, I'll let Donny edit/summarize the above, but I think you get the idea - as distinct from the "conventional wisdom" that it was the DDs' torpedoes, and only the DDs', which not only hit Fuso but broke her in two, the halves going down separately, up to many hours later.
Battle of Denmark Strait: Who Actually SANK HMS HOOD?
Posted by Don Murphy (via Matty) on February 23, 2012, 8:17:42, in reply to "The GREAT DEBATES - 2012"
Now, I'll let Donny rephrase/edit the following summary, if he prefers, but most recently he stated:
"...Final analysis?
1. Bismarck fails to hit Hood and hole's POW's bridge. KM command gives Hood's death to Bismarck out of pride. (And same for RN, except even more so. -Ed.) Pride of KM sinks pride of RN. Great copy.
2. Eugen fails to hit POW and hole's Hood's boat deck. KM command gives POW's bridge hole to Eugen.
3. POW fails to hit anything. Admiralty gives Bismarck's tank hole to POW out of embarrassment and out of fear for Leach's life. Rank and file RN is angry. Tovey is under pressure to hang Leach from Churchill who feels that POW should have rammed Bismarck and gone down fighting as well. "If the cream of the RN went down, he should have followed her." Based on this hatred, Leach is a pariah and volunteers for the British version of Ten-Go which was the sending of POW and Repulse to Singapore. All reports say that he survived the bombing and deliberately went down with POW, only to have his body float to the surface where it was found.
Finally dragging myself "upright" to surf a little for "primary sources", I encountered in just the first few minutes/websites a clear picture of the battle starting off with an intense gun duel between Hood and Prinz Eugen - with Hood opening fire first. And here, right off the bat I would point out what I would claim MUST be accepted as "Axiom-I" of ANY gun action: (So long as you can see and keep track of your opponents) You will ALWAYS fire at the one who is SHOOTING AT YOU. For which perhaps the clearest historical example came from Graf Spee, off the River Platte, redirecting fire from her heavier opponent, Exeter - who possibly still COULD have tagged her with 8" hits - onto the little 6"-gunned cruisers, Ajax and Achilles, who WERE actually HITTING her. It's just basic tactics, and defensive human self-preservation behavioral response - an axiom - to be expected.
So, back at Denmark Strait: Eugen was never in any doubt Hood was firing on her - moreover, Hood was by far the closer of the two attackers, within far easier range of reply for Eugen's 8" guns. German after-action reports of the gun-duel describe Eugen's shooting as "exquisite" - not "good", not "effective", but exquisite - which can only mean multiple hits, achieved early and often. Indeed, it seems generally-agreed that among the very earliest of Eugen's salvoes, a shell(s) from at least one (the 2nd or 3rd) struck Hood's boat deck, starting a fire - described as "large" by the Germans, thinking it involved (floatplane) avgas - which raged unchecked, producing considerable smoke. Another fire was apparently started by (at least one) hit(s) forward, at the base of Hood's bridge/conn, and as well her foretop was shot away. That sounds like a good descripton of "exquisite" shooting, (all) by Prinz Eugen.
Of course, any account ultimately crediting the sinking of Hood to Bismarck must have some way to introduce the latter into the gunfight between Eugen and Hood - but I have yet to see any credible evidence for it, and - far more compelling - it would have MADE ZERO SENSE. Because with the onslaught also of a KGV-class BB - as which POW was correctly identified on the spot, by the Germans, although thinking she was "King George" herself, and so of course knowing nothing of inoperable Vickers turrets, etc. - her threat of a forward-firing salvo of six 15"-ers (and 10, if she could maneuver to bring all guns to bear) was, by far the greater - especially TO BISMARCK - compared to the threat from Hood (also correctly identified on the scene), already being engaged by Prinz Eugen and even set on fire. Moreover, the greater range of Bismarck's 15"-ers' - and position trailing Eugen, putting them just that much (slightly) closer to the "King George" already - gave her every reason to target POW over Hood. Which is, I believe, exactly what Bismarck did - also better explaining the many hits ultimately suffered by POW - in the ballpark of 10 all told, if I understand correctly - over the course of the entire battle.
If the above is correct, then already by process of elimination Eugen must have sunk Hood. Indeed, the only detailed "evidence" crediting Bismarck for this feat are all anecdotes - recounted well after returning to port, of course - which are nevertheless so explicit (the ONLY items coming out of this entire story to be so explicit, and self-assured) as to be almost defensive in nature, and already suspect just on the face of it. Add to that they all came from RN officers, and any last shred of credibility must be challenged - as I agree with Don that Hood's loss was immediately and profoundly a national (actually, an imperial) embarrassment of major proportion, giving the British a powerful motivation to "spin", as much as they could, Hood's catastrophic and utter destruction as a "lucky strike" by the most formidable of all German combatants: Bismarck. Such is to be expected - again, the SIMPLEST interpretation - of a POLITICAL HISTORY: one primarily written by the British - as (one of) the Allied ultimate victors of the conflict overall - but even more urgently in the days immediately following the sinking, with the final outcome of the war itself still very much in doubt. Then, a few days later - with the loss of Bismarck - the Germans would be given an almost identical national/political motivation to push exactly the same, "face-saving" story: that Bismarck was lost, but not before taking down the Mighty Hood.
How embarrassing - for both sides, but particularly the British - to instead have recognized that a feisty little Prinz Eugen (in actuality) "got lucky", and managed to take down the Hood. Especially again regarding the RN, considering they also had two of their own 8"-gunned cruisers standing by, yet contibuting essentially squat to the battle. And finally also for the Germans: to have lost Bismarck for essentially no achievement whatsoever. (Except as bait, to lure Hood out under Prinz Eugen's indefatigable guns!)
As to precisely HOW Eugen pulled it off, the whole debate about her 8" shells vs Hood's armor vs plunging trajectory is, I believe, not essential: everyone agrees that, from very early on, she SET HOOD AFIRE. A fire can certainly kill a ship - and a fire that reaches a magazine can do so catastrophically, exactly as observed for Hood - without requiring any further hit(s) whatsoever. Hood's boat deck fire, in particular, engulfed ready-use ammo lockers for both 4" High-Angle gun and UP rounds - either of which, popping off and rocketting down the wrong scuttle and into a powder bag, would have signalled Game Over. This is the SIMPLEST explanation - and, all other things "being equal" (i.e., vague and unknowable, as they are) also the BEST explanation, IMHO - of why the shootout between Hood and Prinz Eugen suddenly ended in the devastating explosion of Hood.
However, as for HOOD's shooting - and the attribution of all the (three) hits on Bismarck to Hood (and not POW), I will disagree with Donny here - again, largely per my Axiom-I above, now considered from Hood's point of view: not only BEING SHELLED but already even HIT by Prinz Eugen, she had zero reason to redirect and lob irrelevant shots at Bismarck, but instead to intensify targetting to wipe out her smaller, yet dead-eyed-shooting tormenter ASAP. For which her turn to bring all 8 main guns to bear can very believably be ascribed - but which end goal she never managed to achieve, before exploding. Therefore if true then again by process of elimination, any hits on Bismarck must have come from POW. And in the scenario of Bismarck engaging POW from the very beginning, above, this is now again consistent with Axiom-I for POW: she would certainly focus her fire on the one - Bismarck - who was SHOOTING AT HER. So, I see the least amount of evidence for HOOD having hit anyone - certainly least of all Prinz Eugen, whom she desperately needed to knock off her back. Instead, (one thing and/or another in) the cumulative damage wreaked by Prinz Eugen's 8" guns ultimately blew up the huge battlecruiser.
Followed within days by the Germans' loss of Bismarck - their most powerful battleship - doomed to destruction essentially by a skinny 17" torpedo, lugged beneath a lumbering, fabric-covered biplane, to be dumped at low speed off her stern. Exquisitely.
Unbelievable - you couldn't make this sh** up!
And finally Prinz Eugen - in typical "Life of Riley"/"Winner-Take-All" fashion - lost no lives, nor even casualties or damage of any kind - made a clean and complete getaway from the entire stirred-up RN hornet's nest in the Atlantic - and even survived the remainder of the war, in perfect condition. In the end, the Allies' anchoring her at Ground Zero for the Bikini A-bomb test was no doubt also more than a little bit Political, in nature - perhaps even a subtle admission they knew she WAS the one who sank The Hood, Pride of the British Fleet.
I had long wondered why Airfix, among so many crude, even "doggy" early ship kits - including their 1/600 Bismarck, and even their Hood, to some extent - at (about) the same time, produced a truly gorgeous and detailed mold of Prinz Eugen: someone over there clearly put in substantial extra work to do justice to the depiction of "little" Prinz Eugen. Now, in a first-time ever for me, Don has perhaps offered us the reason why...
Cheers,
-Matty (P.S.: Airfix' 1/600 KGV kit is also unusually crisp, detailed and - just like their Prinz Eugen - apparently highly accurate, as well.)
I guess we'll truly never know. Von R in his book, gets a lot of coverage. Not only was he the highest ranking Bismarck survivor but he was also the gunnery officer. So not only did he have a keen appreciation for the Bismarck's greatest threat but also the location of it. So while sinking the pride of the RN would have been the "notch on the belt" to end all notches, survival - as noted - overrides.
It's also possible that Von R, together with Lindemman, surmised that Hood's 15 inchers were more of a threat than POW's 14 inchers. Not only cuz of the slight caliber difference, but also the realization that Hood would have the better crew.
Now as to Hood breaking off with Eugen to shoot Bismarck, tactically she is maneuvering in the right manner to do that. Also, she has enough directors to facilitate A and B engaging Eugen and X/Y to engage Bismarck. Now while on the surface, that just smells of madness, we have to remember that at this juncture in time (realization that Eugen is not Bismarck) Holland really has no choice.
If Briggs and Von R are to be believed, then Holland knows early on that POW is just cruising for the sake of cruising. Her guns are worthless. So he really has his back to the wall. He has no choice but to either split fire or fire all eight at one, break off and then fire all eight at the other. He has no option in that manner.
Admiral Don would have broken off, sent POW home and then come back later in the day with Electra, Norfolk, Suffolk and the other destroyers. But Holland was the British equivalent of Lutjens. He was a stickler to the regs almost to be anal. And he was also very incredulously narrow minded. Think France in 1940 - "no one would dare go AROUND the Maginot Line." Even after someone (Germany) did, they refused to bounce back. Pretty sad when you outnumber your attacker by nine million men but you can't get your mental shit (merde) together.
Holland was the same way. No self-respecting British force commander/admiral would have allowed a cruiser to lead formation. SHE HAD TO BE BISMARCK. He then incredulously postulates that the trailing ship must be a BIGGER class of battleship that's newer than Bismarck! These are the observations of Midshipman Dundas.
Considering the elan, training and esprite de corps of Hood's crew and also Hood's material condition, there is no reason why Kerr himself (the captain) or another admiral couldn't have taken on Bismarck and had a better outcome. Holland was odd in that he stuck to the flavor of Churchill's order but then falls back on "Zulu" mentality. "They won't attack us - they're savages." Last words of the Islawanda contingent.
Holland pokes Hood and POW into some 18th century battle formation, dons his dress whites and prepares for gentlemanly combat on the open ocean. The prudent course of action would have been to stand off and regroup. If he feels Churchhill's order is so great that having a green POW is acceptable, then surely losing a cruiser or two would also be acceptable. In that case, he should have sent POW/Suffolk one way and Hood/Norfolk another way.
Yeah, he'd have lost a cruiser. Or both. But he'd have put Bismarck and Eugen into a corner they couldn't have gotten out of. They would have been Holland - having to decide how to switch fire. Each ship would have been engaging a battleship and cruiser. Lutjens would have gone mad. And had Lutjens vacillation have followed the same pattern, his procrastination may have allowed the RN BB/CA combination to sink Eugen which would then have put all four RN ships now coming after him.
Again, I don't give the RN a complete free ride. In fact, I give Suffolk/Norfolk ten minutes at the most. But extra gunfire is extra gunfire and they also have torpedos. Look at the wild ass maneuvering Eugen does when her sonar guy mistakes Hood's breaking up sounds for incoming torpedoes? Had Suffolk or Norfolk launched fish, Eugen and Bismarck would have broke formation. Instant T cross for one of them.
Yup. So many things Holland could have done. So many things Holland should have done. The RN's problem that day wasn't Hood. It was command. We can't blame it ALL on Holland cuz to be fair we don't know what the cable said. Did Churchill's cable say "don't come home till Bismarck's sunk" or did it say "use your best judgement?" Hard to say. Even after all this time, the cables are still classified. Yeah yeah...a lot of it is to hide the Enigma references, but I think also there's 1400+ grieving families that would hang someone if the wrong info was in the cable.