"Hunting" for the battleship "Bismarck": a serious mistake of the British Navy

January 10 2023 36

The German battleship Bismarck became one of the most famous ships of World War II.

Eight 380-mm SKC-34 cannons, which were in service with the vessel, allowed it to fight on equal terms with any battleship, and the speed of 30,1 knots at that time was one of the best values in the world for ships of this class.

Naturally, the "German sea monster" was a cherished goal for the fleets of countries at war with Nazi Germany. At the same time, paradoxically, the "invincible" battleship was sunk during her first raid.

The royal ship managed to destroy the formidable ship. the fleet Great Britain. However, during the naval operation, the British made a serious mistake, for which they had to seriously pay.

On May 18, 1941, the heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen and the battleship Bismarck set off on a raid, during which they were to enter the Atlantic Ocean through the Danish Strait to attack the ships of the British merchant fleet.

Already on May 22, a reconnaissance aircraft of the British Air Force spotted German ships near the Norwegian Bergen. The British admirals accurately identified the Bismarck and sent the battleship Prince of Wales and the battlecruiser Hood to hunt for him.

The "meeting" of the British and German fleets took place in the early morning of May 24 in the Danish Strait.

The aforementioned fatal mistake of the British sailors was that they took the cruiser Prinz Eugen, which was the first, for the Bismarck, for which the hunt was open.

Both ships attacked the German cruiser, allowing the battleship to retaliate unhindered with all her guns. The crew of the Prince of Wales later realized their mistake, switching to a second German ship while the Hood continued to attack the enemy cruiser furiously.

After the fifth salvo of the Bismarck, a terrible explosion was heard at the Hood. The flagship of the British fleet practically split in half and sank. Of the 1417 crew members, only three were saved.

However, Bismarck was also damaged in this battle. Already on May 26, she was discovered and yet sunk by British torpedo bombers.

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

Cartalon

+3

10 January 2023 17: 11

There is a cycle of programs on the hunt for Bismarck, with F. Lisitsyn, which is much more detailed and interesting.
https://youtu.be/LsLiQ_oEwpY
1. Greg Miller
  
  +2
  
  10 January 2023 22: 53
  
  ...and two orders of magnitude (i.e. 100 times) more informative!!!
2. smart ass
  
  +1
  
  12 January 2023 10: 29
  
  Why the sinking of the Bismarck is a mistake
Comrade

+7

10 January 2023 17: 23

On May 18, 1941, the heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen and the battleship Bismarck set off on raid

After the words
on raid

everything became clear with the author.
Many in childhood had a "Book of Future Admirals", so the level of presentation there is much higher than in this "article".
1. Ulan.1812
  
  +2
  
  10 January 2023 19: 32
  
  Quote: Comrade
  On May 18, 1941, the heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen and the battleship Bismarck set off on raid
  
  After the words
  on raid
  
  everything became clear with the author.
  Many in childhood had a "Book of Future Admirals", so the level of presentation there is much higher than in this "article".
  
  I still have this book in my library .. Like the "Book of Future Commanders"
  Bought as a child. Saved. .
Pane Kohanku

+7

10 January 2023 17: 24

Already on May 26, she was discovered and yet sunk by British torpedo bombers.

Hmm ... Actually, a whole squadron drowned ... But by and large, several formations. Gross typo.
1. Comrade
  
  +7
  
  10 January 2023 18: 22
  
  Quote: Pane Kohanku
  In fact, a whole squadron was drowning ... But by and large, several formations. Gross typo
  
  Worse, it's ignorance.
  The battleship, as Ballard's underwater expeditions proved, was sunk by the Germans themselves. The video clearly shows open kingstones.
  1. Pane Kohanku
    
    +3
    
    10 January 2023 21: 30
    
    Worse, it's ignorance.
    
    I agree. Although the carrier-based biplane torpedo bombers Fairy Swordfish did play their part, damaging the rudder of the German battleship, after which he was forced to move weakly and limitedly. Why was he driven into a whole kahal ...
    I bought such a model last year, it would be necessary to glue it together!
    1. Comrade
      
      +4
      
      10 January 2023 22: 29
      
      Quote: Pane Kohanku
      I bought such a model last year, it would be necessary to glue it together!
      
      In fifteen years I have already accumulated five models. Probably, only in retirement, hands will reach them, now there is no time.
      Heavy cruiser "Prince Eugen", dreadnought "Kaiser", battleships "Mikasa", "George the Victorious" and "Tsesarevich".
      You will occasionally take out boxes, admire them, and go back to the closet, until better times, when the bustle of life fades into the background.
      1. Pane Kohanku
        
        +3
        
        10 January 2023 23: 38
        
        Heavy cruiser "Prince Eugen", dreadnought "Kaiser", battleships "Mikasa", "George the Victorious" and "Tsesarevich".
        
        Elegant! This needs to be glued on! So far, I only glue planes, 1/72. Tanks - honestly, I'm afraid ... Ask the Sea Cat and ArchiPhil, they are also addicted, they will share a photo.
        
        ArchiPhil
        
        0
        
        13 January 2023 09: 03
        
        Quote: Pane Kohanku
        Tanks - honestly, I'm afraid ...
        
        Where does this *tank fear* come from, buddy? Greetings!
Shumi2010

+5

10 January 2023 17: 26

In the "Technique of Youth" in the year 89, there was a cool article about this hunt!
1. fiberboard
  
  +4
  
  10 January 2023 17: 44
  
  Exactly, great article. I have read several times. It would be necessary to make a rubric here and transfer those articles. There was a lot of good material published there.
fa2998

+1

10 January 2023 17: 28

I don’t see any particular mistakes in the British here. Destroyed the most powerful ship of the enemy. The campaign was the first and last. WEEK.
The fact that the British lost "Hood" is a CRUISER. Yes, England has a lot of large ships, and the Germans lost their only modern battleship.
1. fiberboard
  
  +4
  
  10 January 2023 17: 46
  
  The same type, Tirpitz, was still there. And there were ,, pocket battleships ,,.
  1. Ulan.1812
    
    +3
    
    10 January 2023 19: 34
    
    Quote: fiberboard
    The same type, Tirpitz, was still there. And there were ,, pocket battleships ,,.
    
    And also Scharnhorst and Gneisenau.
    1. Pavel73
      
      +2
      
      10 January 2023 19: 53
      
      The last battle of Scharnhorst was something ... The British themselves praised the Germans.
      1. mmaxx
        
        0
        
        12 January 2023 10: 34
        
        Don't praise yourself, no one will. Otherwise, how to justify the loss of Hood? So they made the Bismarck a child prodigy, and the Germans monsters. In fact, Bismarck was killed without a chance.
2. Senior seaman
  
  +6
  
  10 January 2023 19: 26
  
  Quote: fa2998
  The fact that the British lost "Hood" is a CRUISER.
  
  Battle cruiser. Moreover, the key word is "linear".
  Quote: fa2998
  Yes, England has a lot of large ships
  
  At that moment, no.
  Quote: fa2998
  and the Germans lost their only modern battleship.
  
  "Tirpitz" where did they go?
  1. Comrade
    
    +3
    
    11 January 2023 00: 30
    
    Quote: Senior Sailor
    "Tirpitz" where did they go?
    
    Forgotten or didn't know about it.
  2. Catfish
    
    +3
    
    11 January 2023 20: 35
    
    "Tirpitz" where did they go?
    
    Driven to Altenfjord.
Sergey Valov

+3

10 January 2023 17: 55

“continued to frantically attack the enemy cruiser” - how to attack it? Did you go to the ram? Maybe remember the Russian language and write "shell"
"British and German fleets" - fleets ??? maximum squadron.
"Flagship of the British Navy". - Hood was not the flagship of the British fleet, moreover, the flagship of the British fleet in WWII did not exist in principle, Hood was the flagship of the battlecruiser squadron. And the flagship of the home fleet, which included Hood, was the battleship King George V.
solar

+8

10 January 2023 18: 03

Some clickbait. A loud headline with a completely empty text - if only the reader pressed the button. In general, the authors of VO today are not their day. One today casually liquidated the Bryansk Metropolis, the other in an article about frozen armored personnel carriers found February frosts in January, now this is almost completely outright clickbait.
Eight 380 mm SKC-34 guns, which were in service with the ship

not a schooner with a skipper at the head, and that's okay. Not the first time I've seen it lately, by the way. Maybe it makes sense for some authors to write the difference between a ship and a ship under the signature? It’s embarrassing to somehow read this on a resource with a military orientation: ((
1. Comrade
  
  0
  
  10 January 2023 22: 54
  
  Quote from solar
  In general, the authors of VO today are not their day. One today casually liquidated the Bryansk Metropolis, the other in an article about frozen armored personnel carriers found February frosts in January, now this is almost completely outright clickbait.
  
  They recruited illiterate schoolchildren according to the announcement, and here is the result. In the Union, one had to study at the institute to become a proofreader, but today this profession has been forgotten.
  Well, nothing, when people who were educated in the USSR pass away, everything will become OK. Nobody will notice anything.
mmaxx

0

11 January 2023 17: 14

I would not say that this is a serious mistake. Almost exemplary operation. Contact was lost by accident and for a short time. And in very bad weather. The cruisers drove the Bismarck as far as possible. Battleships went into battle. Aviation is generally a hero. The result showed itself. And the commander of the "Rodney" (actually in the state of the current trough) immediately went right. Yes, and the error in determining the location of the Bismarck is purely technical. Calculation of the position by bearings on the map in the wrong projection. Fixed it quickly.
And the death of Hood is a consolation prize. Until now, no one can understand how he was hit so that he drowned.
The British knew how to fight at sea. Just a sight.
In vain K. Zhukov climbs out of his own topic. It appears to be floating. Loves, but floats.
1. Catfish
  
  +1
  
  11 January 2023 20: 42
  
  . Almost exemplary operation
  
  However ... To lose a battlecruiser and one and a half thousand people - is this "almost" in your opinion?
  Yes, if Lutyens had not foolishly gone on the air, the British would not have found him at all.
  1. Comrade
    
    +1
    
    12 January 2023 02: 59
    
    Quote: Sea Cat
    Yes, if Lutyens had not foolishly gone on the air, the British would not have found him at all.
    
    Definitely!
    1. mmaxx
      
      0
      
      12 January 2023 04: 41
      
      How is it in Latin? Fortune favors the brave.
      She loves those who seek her. And those who strive to fumble, she does not like. Like those Germans. There were a lot of random factors in that operation. But we all know in whose favor everything turned out.
      The radiogram is just one of the dramatic moments blown to the bone. Why did Lutyens send her? Yes, because even then he gave up. How Langsdorf surrendered at La Plata.
  2. mmaxx
    
    0
    
    12 January 2023 04: 36
    
    For those who do not fight, this is a disaster. And the British did not blink an eye and continued. They left the battle due to malfunctions, but the persecution did not stop.
    And what is wrong? Tracked right away. Persecuted. They drove and drowned. To talk about the failures of the British, you just need to look, and on the globe, the scale of the operation.
    And the fact that Lutyens went on the air there ... well, an accident. But the sinking of the Hood is also an accident. Simply, having lost "Hood", the British piled up myths to justify themselves, which are now being recounted by hacks. As they say now - narratives.
    And the objective picture is simple as a rake. Tracked, driven, drowned. Not without loss.
    And when everything went well, the Scharnhorst was drowned once or twice.
    And it is necessary to pay attention to how the commanders of the cruisers behaved in both cases. It's just a standard.
    1. Catfish
      
      +2
      
      12 January 2023 12: 16
      
      For those who do not fight, this is a disaster. And the British did not blink an eye ...
      
      What is true is true. They didn't blink an eye after losing Prince of Wales and Repulse. Habit-s.
      1. Comrade
        
        0
        
        14 January 2023 05: 06
        
        Quote: Sea Cat
        They didn't blink an eye after losing Prince of Wales and Repulse. Habit-s
        
        Nothing, "the king has a lot."
  3. mmaxx
    
    +1
    
    12 January 2023 04: 46
    
    Additive. About the loss of Hood. Lost Hood. This is how much of the total number of battleships? It's hard to even count. And the minus "Bismarck" is minus 33٪ and the rejection of raider operations. And this means that the British have already insured themselves against a surface attack.
    They argue why the fleet of Germany, Russia, etc. And the British needed it to ensure maritime transport. Always. And that's exactly what they were aiming for. And successfully.
    1. Comrade
      
      0
      
      14 January 2023 05: 09
      
      Quote: mmaxx
      And minus "Bismarck" is minus 33٪
      
      It follows from your words that the Germans had three battleships in total. Would you mind listing them all by name?
      1. mmaxx
        
        0
        
        8 February 2023 16: 53
        
        I came across the article now, I went to see what and how, I had not seen the comment before. Earlier on the site there was a notification about the answer. Now it doesn't show up for me. I can't react right away.
        There were three battleships: Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Bismarck. It's not clear what the question is about. This is in WWI, remember.
        Someone considers the first two to be battlecruisers. "Tirpitz" appeared later. "Pickpockets" are also not battleships, for sure. The Germans considered them armadillos. And they were built to replace battleships. Now everyone is inclined that they were heavy cruisers. But not battleships.
        That is, at the time of the sinking of the Bismarck, the Germans had 2 battleships left. Kind of like a schedule.
2. Cartalon
  
  0
  
  11 January 2023 22: 13
  
  Zhukov climbs, absolutely in all topics, no restrictions.
Victor Masyuk

0

8 February 2023 09: 29

Author, you can not write - do not write! Such text does not pull on a serious article.