Talk:Last battle of the battleship Bismarck

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Last battle of the battleship Bismarck article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

The casualties are not correct. British did suffer losses. And do we really need another Bismarck article? This should either be deleted or merged. Cheers. Kurt.

The casualties list is incomplete! Well correct it then. The spinning off of detail into other articles is a good technique. See M4 Sherman. GraemeLeggett 10:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] This article is completely irrelevant

All of this is explained (better) in the actual Bismarck article. I suggest that we get rid of this one. --Kurt Leyman 14:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please note, Kurt Leyman

The article is very much relevant to the history of the Bismarck. And, which article is better than which, is not to be decided by the user. -- Vikrant P

[edit] This article is different

It does not refer to the hunt for the Bismarck, but the attack on the Hood. Also, I have inserted the correct British casualties; and, an incorrect statistical figure is by no means a proper reason to dispose an article. - Vikrant P 09:20 (IST) November 7, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wider issues

There's a wider discussion on the documentation of the operational history of the Bismarck, here. Folks at 137 21:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Like I said:

I do not support this article and I suggest that it will be removed or merged. All of this was explained in the actual Bismarck article untill someone decided to create this. These was no "Bismarck Chase" (by name).--Kurt Leyman 23:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The term Bismark Chase has a firm place in popular culture. A simple websearch displays several hundred hits under the phrase.--Lepeu1999 17:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Merge tag has been hanging around since September 06, Any chance of sorting it out whether it stays or goes.GraemeLeggett 16:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I say that this article will be merged, and that the tag stays until this has been done. Regards, --Kurt Leyman 19:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not merge. A simple google search turns up 610,000 references to Bismark Chase. Obviously it has a place in popular culture even if it was never 'officially' a military operation. If the Bismark Breakout has it's own article why not the chase? --Lepeu1999 20:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copy / Paste

This article appears to be a copy-paste (or this has been copied and pasted) from the article German_battleship_Bismarck sections 'the chase' and 'sinking' why not delete this article and put in a re-direct to German_battleship_Bismarck?213.106.165.10 12:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)J

[edit] Rescope and rename?

Some months ago, I floated the idsa of merging Bismarck Chase with 'Operation Rheinübung, but the reaction was generally unenthusiastic. Since then, I have had a rethink, and I now propose the following:

  • Bismarck Chase should be renamed and rescoped as an article on the battle of 26-27 March 1941, which resulted in the sinking of the Bismarck. Since this battle, somewhat perversely, does not have a generally recognised name, I suggest Sinking of the Bismarck, 26-27 May 1941. Instead of focusing solely on the battleship action, the article should emphasise the "all-arms" aspects of the battle, beginning with the carrier airstrikes on the Sheffield (inadvertent) and Bismarck, and concluding with the Luftwaffe strikes on the withdrawing British forces that resulted in the loss of HMS Mashona.
  • Operation Rheinübung should come under the Military conflict involving Germany category, and be headed by the appropriate {{Infobox Military Conflict}} template. It should be scoped as:
    • A description of the planning and objectives of the operation,
    • A narrative of the operations conducted by the opposing sides in the course of the operation, and referencing the more detailed articles on the two battles.
    • An assessment of the impact of the operation on the subsequent course of the war.
    • A historical appraisal, addressing areas of ongoing debate and uncertainty.
  • The Operation Rheinübung category should be deleted.

As a matter of couse, I will not implement such a change without a consensus. I am placing similar posts on the Talk:Operation Rheinübung and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force pages, but I suggest that it would be best to consolidate discussion on this page.

Regards to all, John Moore 309 13:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Should it really be Bismarck Chase? what are the grounds for "chase" being a proper noun? Emoscopes Talk 14:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Obvious question: is there really going to be enough material for two full articles here? It may be better, in any case, to start by merging everything into the Rheinübung article and then splitting out the "Sinking of the Bismark" portion if it becomes too long. Kirill Lokshin 17:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
A big issue is that most of the general public have no knowladge of what Operation Rheinubung is but just about everyone has heard of the Bismark. At the very least you would need a redirect from Bismark, Bismark Breakout and Bismark Chase/Sinking--Lepeu1999 00:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, redirects are no problem at all; indeed, they'd pretty much have to be set up if any merging was being done. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Pursuit and sinking of the Bismarck would describe the action very well and avoids the use of the dates in the title, it was only sunk the once and avoids it looking like a disambig addition.GraemeLeggett 10:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your comments. I appreciate the concerns expressed, for example, I have myself criticised the Operation Rheinübung article for its "arcane" title. However, I've since come round to the opinion that no other title would accurately describe the scope of the article, and that, as Kirill Lokshin says, the title is not really a problem if users can be directed to it by links and redirects.

With regard to the fate of the Bismarck Chase article, my idea was to provide a more creative alternative to simply absorbing it back into Operation Rheinübung. The case for an article on The-hitherto-unnamed-naval-battle-in-which-the-Bismarck-was-sunk is a strong one. In comparison with the Battle of the Denmark Strait, the HUNBIWTBWS:

  • Involved a greater number of ships and personnel;
  • Resulted in more casualties;
  • Was of greater strategic significance;
  • Has historical significance as a pioneering example of combined carrier and battlefleet action (the only precedent at that time being Matapan).

In these respects, it also eclipses other well-known actions such as the Battle of the River Plate and the Battle of the North Cape. The present article, although it obviously need a lot of work, is at least a starting point for a HUNBIWTBWS article. The problem is to find a name. In fairness to post-war historians, HUNBIWTBWS is a very rare example of a naval battle fought in the middle of nowhere; the nearest land appears to have been Mizen Head in Ireland, over 300 nm away. My suggested title, although, as Graeme points out, not very satisfactory, is the best I could think of. Maybe we should have a competion? Regards to all, John Moore 309 13:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should take time to come up with a variety of suggestions for the article title. So how about we put them here. GraemeLeggett 13:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested article titles

  • Bismarck chase
Current article title. Too literary and not descriptive enough. A reasonable section title but not article title material.GraemeLeggett 13:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Operation Rheinubung
By this point the planned operation is in effect defunct.GraemeLeggett 13:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Pursuit and sinking of the Bismarck
An attempt at describing what happened.GraemeLeggett 13:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Action of 26-27 May 1941
brief and accurate but no hint in the title of what it's about.GraemeLeggett 13:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Last battle of the Bismarck
Slightly Wagnerian, but concise, and making it obvious what the article is about. John Moore 309 17:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I like the above. My biggest objection is Rheinburg doesn't resonate with the majority of our audience and while I agree that a lot can be captured with redirects, I think the title should grab the reader. --Lepeu1999 20:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
My concern here is that it wasn't really a set-piece battle, rather it was a longer action with discrete phases; this title is a bit too journalistic for my liking, it doesn't really describe what happens. I am much more in favour of User:GraemeLeggett's suggestion, which summarises in a few words exactly what happened; there was a pursuit, and the Bismarck was sunk. Emoscopes Talk 20:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last call for comments

Thanks to all who have commented. Unless anyone expresses strong dissent, I will rename this article as Last battle of the "Bismarck" in the next couple of days. Regards to all, John Moore 309 19:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Mmm the Bismarck had one true battle (Denmark street) from which it emerged sligthly damaged. After that it was mainly hunted down and sank. Does not seem like a battle to me. Also the title seems to imply that Bismarck had a long service record while the operation it was on was its first and last. A better title would be the second and last battle of Bismarck. Or as a reminder of Churchills command 'The sinking of the Bismarck'. Arnoutf 15:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The battle with no name

In my first attempt at an intro to the new article, I included a speculation as to the reason this battle has no accepted name. This was - not unreasonably, since it was unsourced - cut out by a later edit. At the moment, the article simply states that This battle has no generally recognised name, with no explanation offered as to why this should be. Does anyone out there know of a Reliable source which explains or even touches upon the battle's namelessness?

Regards to all, John Moore 309 22:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation of move

I move this article from Last battle of the battleship Bismarck → The sinking of the Bismarck because that title is more appealing. Rex 19:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

... more appealing to Dutch User:Rex Germanus, the keeper of his own scale of nationalism who repeatedly and unilaterally moves Wikipedia articles claiming "WP: Use English". For example, he moved Greater Netherlands to Groot-Nederland despite the talk results. -- Matthead discuß!     O       02:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:POINT just radiates from my screen right now. I could make a page long post of all the stuff you unilatery did, denial of nazi crimes, constantly changing polish town names to archaic german names, etc. But I'm not going to do that, I'm going to visit my relatives tomorow with my girlfriend and need to be fitt. So I'm just going to bed now.Rex 22:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


With regard to the actual move, I think it is arguable whether Bismarck fought a last battle as it was chased down through a series of 'skirmishes' rather than a single full scale battle. So We can debate whether this was a true battle. Secondly, the term last implies a distinguished history, while the Battle of Denmark Strait was actually its only battle, and this was more or less the follow up. So it could as easily be called 'Second battle of Bship Bismarck' (although I agree that is not an appealing name). Sinking of Bismarck has a good ring to me for 2 reasons. First of all, this was undeniably the end result of this operation. Second it reminds of Churchills angry command 'Sink the Bismarck' after it had destroyed the Hood in the B of Denmark S. Arnoutf 22:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
How about Last stand of the Bismark, as Adm. Tovey's quote suggests, even though this term usually is applied to terrestrial combat only? It was not really an even battle as the Bismarck could not fight properly any more after the hit in the rudder, but it fired all of its shells as Lindemann had pledged. It was neither a direct sinking by the British as Churchill had called for, as their main ships fired thousands of shells and returned home while the Bismarck was still afloat. The Germans stated that it was scuttled to prevent capture, which is backed up by American diving expeditions. -- Matthead discuß!     O       01:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I think Last stand is a good title; it is short, to the point, and acknolwedges it was (at least) not an easy 'sinking' for the British. Note that remarks like 'fight properly' assume something like fairness in war, which IMHO is a contradictio in terminis. Arnoutf 01:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
My sentence above clearly explains that with "could not fight properly", the rudder damage is meant that prevented her from making the necessary manoeuvres. It has nothing to do with fairness in war or the lack thereof, it just states that the combat effectiveness was significantly reduced. -- Matthead discuß!     O       04:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I oppose "Last stand". It makes it sound to heroic, these people were afteral nazis. We should keep it factual. It was a ship, it was chased across the ocean (so not much of a last stand where you deliberately face the enemy) and was sunk. → The sinking of the Bismarck.Rex 10:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think whether or not they were nazis is besides the point here. We need a title that is as neutral as possible. I think last stand is acceptable as it did fight way beyond hopes of victory or even escape. Arnoutf 10:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Well drop "nazis" then, the point stands. "Last stand" is more emotional than "Sinking". The Bismarck was pursuited by the Royal Navy, fled (or tried to flee) and three days later she sunk. In other words, she was pursuid by an ever more increasing amount of ships, but did not engage them, and tried to runn away. No Last stand. The ship was sunk.Rex 10:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Rex for once again proving your Anti-German motivation and your lack of knowledge about the issues you meddle with. -- Matthead discuß!     O       01:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
At Rex: True, but once finally cornered she shot all her shells at the advancing forces and went down (perhaps was scuttled) rather than surrendering. @Matthead, no need to be nasty. Arnoutf 06:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
"She shot all of her shells at the advancing forces and went down", I never read anything of this do have references? As for "finally being cornered" (at sea?). The prime example of a "last stand" (which is always land-bound in my opinion) are the spartans at Thermopylae. They faced overwhelming forces and it didn't even cross their minds if they would runn. That's a last stand, this is the sinking of a ship.Rex 09:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears somehow amazing that a Dutch guy is that interested in German naval war history. Why are you so concerned about the topic? As for me, you should rather concentrate on Dutch maritim history (or Greater Netherlands) and leave the subject at hand to British or German Wikipedians. ps: stigmatyzing all 2,200 drowned German seamen as "Nazis" is polemic, cynical and ingnorant.(194.9.5.12 10:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

Ah! I was waiting for you to show up sooner or later (and just a few hours after User:Mattheads block, how odd, and you also seem to have that greater netherlands tick he has) with some ridiculous comment towards me. Let me be clear: I edit what I want to edit, whenever I want to. You don't decide anything for me. Rex 11:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"Ridiculous", tss, tss, tss, Rexy, Rexy, Rexy, especially you should refrain from personal attacks. As you might have not noticed the exact wording, I said "As for me", ie that is my opinion and, hence, you can without any saying comment on what ever you want to comment on. Furthermore, I would say you have a German/Nazi tick. However, it was neither a Dutch battle nor Dutch ships nor Dutch casualties but British and German, the latter you stigmatized all as "Nazis" which might serve as an example for your attitude towards everthing that is connected to Germany or Germans. "Jeder kehre vor seinem Tor, da hat er Dreck genug davor" (194.9.5.10 12:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

Just because it's your "personal opinion" doesn't mean it can't be ridiculous. You just proved that yourself. You somehow think that repeating that I called "them" (Bismarck + crew) nazis puts me in a bad light. You might be one of those German youngsters who believe that the only "real" nazis were Hitler and Goebels and that all the other Germans "did what they had to do" (The whole "Befehl ist Befehl-dream") well that's just crap. The sailors fought for the Third Reich and all it stood for, so I am, and everyone else is, perfectly allowed to call them nazis. You might want to "soften" history, but I don't.Not that any of this is (or should be) part of the discussion here. This is about the change of a name.Rex 12:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Fighting for the III. Reich does not necessarily mean being a Nazi: 1) as even you should know, Deutsches Reich is the name of the state and Nazi is the abbreviation for Nationalsozialist ie member or supporter of the NSDAP which was a poltical party => Deutsches Reich is not = Nazi; 2) as you should know also, people have not been asked to please fight for Deutsches Reich but had been forced to do so (although, yes, some of them but definitively NOT ALL of them were Nazis); 3) I do not want to soften history but simply resist your undifferntiated "black & white"- approach; 4) "ridiculous", "crap", "German youngster" is personal attack so please refrain from it - thx! (194.9.5.10 13:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

Somehow you think this needs to be discussed. Well it doesn't, if you want to (continue to) change history so it fitts your bubble go ahead. Just know that I (and many others) will always be here to stop you. This discussion is about a move. List your factual objections or leave.Rex 13:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me be clear: I leave when I want to leave. You don't decide anything for me. As for the rest, just let the readers judge who has the better arguments. End of tranmission! (194.9.5.10 13:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

BOTH OF YOU BEHAVE. In all above ranting there is hardly any content; only some shoeting (ridiculous, crap) and some trolling (rexy, rexy). My response on what (little) content arguments were given is:

  • @Rex, sorry, the all their shells is overstated. However, it kept firing to the last and about the actual sinking/scuttling shows they were not willing to surrender even though victory was no longer an option.
  • Both being cornered AND last stand can well be used metaphorically. In this case perhaps Bismarck was surrounded, had hardly no navigation (ie no upper command structures) or steering or power left. That is at least surrounded. Evenso it went down fighting and never allowed the UK to board the vessel. That's last stand enough for me.
  • @194.9.5.12. I would rather have neither a UK nor a German editor on this article because the UK won (POV) and the Germans lost (POV). Your argument in relation to that is flawed. Arnoutf 13:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Arntoutf, I do not have any problem with the fact that Germany lost but I have a problem with Rex calling all drowned German sailors nazis. Furthermore, I do not have the impression that Rex is a better editor for the page at hand than a German or British one. (194.9.5.10 13:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

I never said anything about specific editors for this page; I only said that your previous arguments that implied that battles and perhaps whole wars should be edited by editors from one of the involved countries is not a very good argument. To be honest, the Netherlands were a party as well in the war (not in this battle). Perhaps we should leave it to the Irish, the Swiss or the Swedes ;-) Arnoutf 13:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I said "it is somehow amazing" but have not said others are not allowed. Furthermore, I refered to the battle and not the whole war. Without any saying, everybody is free to edit everthing. By the way, Sweden (delivery of steal) and Switzerland (crediting German war machinery by purchasing ilegally confiscated Jewish property) were involved indirectly... (194.9.5.12 13:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

That was not a completely serious remark from my side, as the ;-) may have revealed. I think Bismarcks defeat was a turning point in the N-Atlantic naval war, hence it was larger in relation to the War as a whole than a mere sinking of some insignificant boat. That the Swiss and Swedes (and probably the Irish one way or another as well) were involved is not strange, it was not called World War for nothing, perhaps if we look very good a nation like Bolivia may have been truly not involved however one way or another I even doubt that. Anyway, I think this point has received enough attention I think. It seems we agree that editor nationality does not matter as long as objectivity, facts and a neutral pov are the standards. Arnoutf 14:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the point who was involved or not has definitively received enough attention (you are right, almost everyone was somehow involved in WWII)! As for the turning point, I would say that the interesting thing about the Bismark is rather its adventurous flight from the Royal Navy but the overall strategic surplus of its sinking. The only real threat to the Allied naval units were probably the submarines and with this regard the invention of sonar was the turning point in maritim war. (194.9.5.12 14:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

I agree, the flight is the more compelling story. It was the turning point in German effort at large scale surface naval warfare though; how important that may have been remains in question. After Bismarck the Germans concentrated on their Subwarfare (for which Sonar and the capture of the Enigma) were the true turning points. As far as I heard historians are still not all agreeing whether the shift in focus from surface to almost exclusively sub fleet or the decision to build an expensive surface fleet to begin with were sound strategical discussion of the German leaders. But I think that goes beyond the scope of this article.
To come back to naming (just an idea that came up right now), could you consider the Flight of Bismarck, or the Hunt for Bismarck?? Less heroic all around, and depicts the action more than the end result. Arnoutf 14:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh please. First it was a "last stand" now it's a "flight". What is wrong with The sinking of the Bismarck? Rex 14:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If you ask me, I would call the article simply "battleship Bismark" and merge it with the already existing article "battleship Bismark". However, if you want to keep two separate articles, give me a second to think about an appropriate name and I`ll come back to you later. (194.9.5.10 14:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

Or merge into Rheinubung, with a redirect for sinking of, if we decide the Bismarck article is already long enough. Arnoutf 15:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd still like an answer though. Arnoutf, what's wrong with The sinking of the Bismarck?Rex 15:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry, typed one, disappeared in edit conflict and I did not set it up. Ok, I think the article describes more than the relatively sort sinking/scuttling of Bismarck, but describes how it fared after the initial damage in the battle of Denm Str. The actual sinking is only the conclusion, not the whole story. But again, as I stated above my idas were just that; wild ideas Arnoutf 15:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

So, what about "chase and sinking of the (battleship) Bismark"? (194.9.5.12 15:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

Fine with me; but if consensus arrives, I can also live with sinking (or chase) alone. As sayd above, any of the merges would also be ok. Arnoutf 15:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Churchill ordered the Sinking of the Bismarck, this can be seen as the entire operation. The comment by Arnoutf on the sinking being only the conclusion, let me say this. The article on the Sinking of the RMS Titanic doesn't just say: "2:20 AM" Rex 15:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, as Arnoutf has already said, the interesting part of the whole story is not only the mere sinking of the Bismark but also its earlier chase. Churchill probably ordered to sink any German naval unit which comes into sight of the Royal Navy so this can hardly be an argument. However, if Rex insists on having sinking in the title, I would agree to call the article "chase and sinking of the Bismark". Could this be a fair compromise? (194.9.5.12 15:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

@Rex Titanic only describes the last few hours, this article a much longer span. @194.9.5.12 The number of ships, plains etc deployed to chase down and sink the Bismarck was not standard for every German ship. It was the destruction of the well-renowned UK battleship HMS Hood (once the flagship of the complete UK Atlantic Fleet) that (in Churchills eyes) needed retaliation and resulted in the deployment of no less than 3 battleships, 2 aircraft carriers, 4 cruisers, and 7 destroyers to track down a single unescorted vessel. This was not standard. Arnoutf 16:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the deployed extraordinary forces to sink the Bismark but the mere fact that Churchill ordered to sink it is not a suprise as he probably ordered to sink every German naval unit. Furthermore, I think that Rex could actually live with "chase" instead of "flight", no? (194.9.5.12 16:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

The difference between a standing order (sink everything in sight) versus the "Track down and sink this specific vessel" is kind of typical though. For the name, you should ask Rex. Arnoutf 16:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

My question was actually directed at both of you, Rex and Arnoutf, right from the beginning. So, Rex, what do you think about the proposal? (194.9.5.12 16:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

This operation took 3 days ... the chase itself is already explained in the Bismarck article. This article is clearly about the fight in which the bismarck was sunk. Hence no. Not acceptable.Rex 16:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"The article is CLEARLY ABOUT THE FIGHT in which the Bismark was sunk" - great, than I presume that the title at hand, "Last Battle/Fight of the Bismark" is the most appropriate title and we can cease the discussion at this point... (194.9.5.12 16:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)) By the way, YOU want to change the article`s name and not me, hence, it is up to you to convince us and not the other way arround.`

No I don't think so. This article is about the fight in which the bismarck was sunk indeed. To call it "the last battle of the Bismarck" is ridiculous, as it wasn't a battle, and "fight" isn't acceptable either, as it makes it sound too romantic "nazis bravely fighting till the end and against all odds" I'm there's a crowd for everything, but not on wikipedia. Just because I mention the word "fight" doesn't mean you have a point. Not at all. By your logic this article could now easily be called "7th battle of HSM Rodney".Rex 16:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Rex, but on the one hand you say the article is about the last fight and on the other hand you say we cannot call it the last fight because fight sounds to heroic? What is than an unromantic synonym for fight? Furthermore, I ask you to please refrain from calling the whole crew "nazis". Arnoutf, can`t you help? (194.9.5.10 16:50, 10 April 2007(UTC)) ps: Rex, I really tried to achieve a compromise but when you argue like that (especially alleging I want to soften history or that fight is too romantic), I am out. (194.9.5.12 16:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC))


@Rex (because of edit conflict later)
Let's not start about the nazis again. As you may have noticed is that user:194.9.5.12 suggested to call it "chase and sinking of Bismarck"; which acknowledges the action AND the end result. You yourself started to say the article was about the "the fight in which the bismarck was sunk"; i.e. not the unilateral sinking of but the action leading to the sinking of.... Arnoutf 16:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Let it be clear that I never said anything about a "last battle" although User:194etc does claim this. When I refered to the fight, I refered to the final actions ... those taking a few hours. The chase is explained in the Main Bismarck article. This article is clearly about the sinking, if the chase were discussed here and not there it would be fine, but it isn't. As for User:194etc. let it be clear, that you're not the one who's supposed to act like a bitten dog. You came here to make me look bad, as you always try, as can be seen from your first post here, not to find a compromise.Rex 17:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"act like a bitten dog"? (194.9.5.12 17:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

"Jeder kehre vor seinem Tor, da hat er Dreck genug davor"? Rex 17:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I actually thought we would try to refrain from personal attacks after 13.30? (194.9.5.12 17:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC))
Personal attacks? Trying to make your little german proverb look like a personal attack? Not very nice now is it?Rex 17:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Later dated insertions in the stream

No, I was actually talking about your constant personal attacks but you are probably to autistic to notice that. However, here another little German proverb you should think about when editing Wikipedia "Sich wie ein Vogel verhalten, der sein eigenes Nest bescheisst". (194.9.5.10 12:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC))
I'd be very carefull claiming I make "constant personal attacks" while calling me an austistic person. As for those indeed "little German" proverbs, am I supposed to be interested by them? If so, please make that clear, but anyway; doe maar gewoon dan doe je al gek genoeg.Rex 17:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
"Be normal, to be normal is crazy enough" ("sei normal, normal ist schon verrückt genug")? However, I said "autistic" because I have the impression that you have sometimes server problems to discover what other people are trying to say. Last but not least, here is another "little German" proverb for you: "Wie man in den Wald hinein ruft, so schallt es heraus".(194.9.5.12 12:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC))
Dude, say what you want to say, don't try to hide behind non-explanatory pseudo-intellectual German bourgeoisie proverbs.Rex 14:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
ok, what I tried to say is, when you try to act a bit more polite while discussing with people you can, with a very high propabilty, expect that other people will be polite too while discussing with you. In other words: the manner in which somebody gives a response is often the echo of how you said something before. (194.9.5.10 14:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)) ps: the proverb is definitively not bourgeois but an old people`s wisdom.
Well, to this I can only answer: "Verbeter de wereld en begin bij jezelf".Rex 15:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok "wie kaatst kan de bal verwachten" or "zoals de waard is vertrouwt hij zijn gasten" are applicable here too. Both of you behave and if you want to chat about proverd find another place, talk pages are not meant to be blogs. Arnoutf 15:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continued after insertions at later date

"came here to make me look bad"? "not to find a compromise"? You did not say "The article is CLEARLY ABOUT THE FIGHT in which the Bismark was sunk"? It is not you who resists any compromise? It is not you who wants to change the article`s name but me? Where is the difference between "battle" and "fight"? (194.9.5.12 17:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

I said just that. This article is about the fight in which the Bismarck WAS SUNK, note how I didn't mention the chase. I want the best name for this article, and that's Sinking of the Bismarck. The only reasons you're willing to "compromise" with any title apart from that one is because it's not mine. Where is the difference between battle and fight? Get a dictionary.Rex 17:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Please do not fight.
Still more action than mere sinking; and you indeed said fight, which is an almost synonym to battle. Indeed the chase seems up under the main article however (1) the main article is Operation Rheinübung, so it refers to the chase of the whole Bismarck battlegroup; started by the Hood (hardly a player in this article). And (2) Bismarck Chase redirects here.
Nevertheless there is some value in your point that currenty this articles introduction focusses on the UK fleet locating and attacking Bismarck. But we could easily rewrite that (if we agree) as the origin section reports all actions after the sinking of the Hood.
IMHO rewriting the article to render all actions after may 24th (sinking of hood) untill Bismarck sank (27th). I do not think there is a need to split the chase and the sinking into two articles. Expanding the scope of this article would also allow some cleaning up of the main German battleship Bismarck article; where I think the Rheinubung operation is now wrongly placed in the text. Arnoutf 17:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh please Arnoutf. We still say Battle of Waterloo and not Fight of Waterloo, don't we? There's a reason for that.Rex 17:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Arnoutf, but I am out. Discussing with Rex ("I want the best name for this article, and that's Sinking of the Bismarck") is like fighting against windmills. Cheers, (194.9.5.12 17:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

No it's called fighting for the best Wikipedia possible. Cheers indeed.Rex 17:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I think at Rex second but last remark that there should be some reasonable debate about which is more important, the fight or the end result. If it is always the end result, we might as well start renaming battle of Hastings to Killing of Harold II or the Battle of France to the Fall of France. Curtailing discussion by using strong language is not constructive. (With the rehash of same arguments being more or less that of a windmill blade, while having the idea of directing arguments at a stone mill-base - I agree with you)
At one but last: Note the use of the word ALMOST when comparing Fight and Battle.
@Rex last rem. Figthing is good for wars and boxing; Wiki is about consensus Arnoutf 17:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to override consensus on a wider scale such as content-related policies/guidelines like Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).Rex 18:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Destroyer sunk

The Allied causalities list one destroyer. Which one was it? 70.230.68.66 20:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Good question. A large number of Luftwaffe bombers were sent out on 27th May to attack the British fleet, and one formation found and sank HMS Mashona while she was returning to harbour. I would regard these attacks as part of the battle, just as, for example, the strike by Midway-based B-17s were part of the Battle of Midway. Certainly the Mashona's loss was attributable to her being part of the force pursuing the Bismarck, even though she did not directly engage Bismarck herself. Obviously we need to add a section to the text of the article describing these attacks; I will do that myself when I can find the time. Regards, John Moore 309 11:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bismarck's destination

In this article it is said that Bismarck was heading for Brest, but in the Battle_of_the_Denmark_Strait it says "Bismarck headed for Saint-Nazaire for repairs". Which one is true ?

--ThePro 18:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

They may both be true. Admiral Lutjens' original intention, signalled just after the Battle of the Denmark Strait at 0801 on 24 May, was to make for St Nazaire. However, according to Bismarck's reconstructed War Diary, Group West signalled at 1605 on the 26th, reporting that "due to adverse weather conditions", the Bismarck could not be received at La Pallice or St Nazaire, and ordering her to put into Brest instead (both times are by German reckoning). It is possible that Lutjens had changed his mind by then anyway, since Brest was closer and he was desperately short of fuel (I seem to recall reading this somewhere, but I may be mistaken). Lutjens had earlier been advised that preparations for her reception were being made at both ports.
Hope this answers your question. I will clarify this point in the article in due course. Regards, John Moore 309 21:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Opinion

I suggest that the name The sinking of the Bismarck has alot of merit. I have studied this ship and her famous campaign ever since I was in school and I have always been inpressed with her power and sheer duribility. She has to be the most fantastic and most well built and well used battleship of the war. BTW...whoever said those brave German sailors were all Nazis is an idiot.--Lord Balin 01:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Casualties

I've noticed that the casualty figures for German losses are an estimate, but are not marked so, but placed later in a footnote. It seems that this is a particular matter of principle for one user, but I'm wondering what the objection is for putting a "c." in front of the figure? For other battles, where it's only an estimate, they can be marked as such, hence Siege of Danzig (1807), Battle of Cape Matapan, Battle of Cape Spada, Battle of Cape Bon (for more contemporaneous examples). You can find plenty of examples where they are not, so I'm not trying to say this is a cast iron precedent. I'm concerned that because placed alongside the exact British figure, the casual reader might think that that that is the exact German figure. This would be the sort of reader unconcerned or unfamiliar with how footnotes work, so it might be missed.

In short, I just think it was a helpful thing to have, which seemed to be removed on a weak pretense, and I was wondering if anyone else had any thoughts on this? At worst it's unnessecery for the reader and easily skipped over, at best a helpful pointer to not go quoting it as exact in their essay. Benea 01:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Benea, and thanks for this. As the person who added the "c." symbol, I can testify that I was astonished when Kurt_Leyman removed it. Since then I have made repeated representations to Kurt on this issue, but without result. As you say, it appears to be a matter of principle for him, although I must admit that I don't understand what the principle actually is. Although I strongly disagree with Kurt's stance, I have taken the view that it is not an issue important enough to justify raising a request for comments. After all, as Kurt rightly point out, at least the footnote describes the true situation. I hope that this clarifies the situation. Regards, John Moore 309 12:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Damage to Rodney

I have added my source for the statement that Rodney was damaged by near misses and by blast from her own guns. Apologies for not having done this earlier.

For the benefit of those who don't have access to Kennedy's book, I have transcribed the relevant passges below.

  • "Considerable damage to Rodney was caused by firing over the fo'c'sle. The deck leaked very badly after the battle. It was necessary to remove the wooden deck as far aft as B turret in order to repair these leaks. The stresses were transmitted to the decks below, causing some damage to bulkheads, stanchions and athwartships beams" (Contemporary report of Lt-Cdr Wellings, USN, to the US Navy Department; quoted in Kennedy, Pursuit, p. 238).
  • "Like other parts of the ship, [the starboard torpedo room] had suffered much from the blast of their own guns, main lighting gone and water pouring in from a cracked pipe, they were were working on three dim emergency lights and a couple of torches...now there was a noise...like a thunderclap...a shell from Bismarck had landed just off the starboard bow, jammed the sluice-door of the starboard torpedo tube, rendered it useless. This was the closest Bismarck got to a direct hit. " (Kennedy, pp. 206-207).

This near-miss is recorded in the official Admiralty report (BR 1756), which times it as shortly after 0916.

I must confess that I had not realised that this was still regarded as a matter of dispute. Hopefully this will clesr it up. Comments and questions are welcome, as always. Regards to all, John Moore 309 15:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)