K.M.S. BISMARCK, bows on escorted by seagulls. |
"It is upon the Navy
under the good Providence of God
that the safety, honour and welfare
of this realm do chiefly depend"
( taken from the preamble to "Articles of War" of King Charles II (1630-1685).
H.M.S. HOOD |
K.M.S. PRINZ EUGEN |
Another intruding factor was that the Flag Officer Commanding the Squadron was in HOOD. It was unthinkable that he would leave the attack to his hierarchically subordinate companion vessel.
THE ACTION
The brief engagement on 24th May 1941 provided what were to be among the most devastating minutes of the War. The British Squadron first spotted the German ships at 05.37 and the action was broken off by PRINCE OF WALES at 06.05. Twenty-eight minutes had elapsed. But in three of those minutes, HOOD had been hit by BISMARCK'S remarkably accurate gunnery, blew up and sank with the loss of 1,418 men leaving only 3 survivors. It was a horrendous and awe-inspiring event which profoundly shocked those onlookers in the other ships, both German and British.
We know from eyewitness accounts, and from the wreck discovered in 2001, that the after magazine had exploded breaking the great ship's back and destroying her stern. The wreck also revealed that portion of the bow was missing - suggesting an explosion of the forward magazine either just before, or just after the ship sank below the surface. Precisely what caused the catastrophe is keenly debated. The probable causes are either :
a direct hit by BISMARCK's 15" Shells penetrating to the HOOD's after magazine, or
that a massive fire known to have been caused by another of BISMARCK's 15-inch shells in the midships section caused the 4-inch ammunition lockers (which were not armoured) to explode, causing damage to the 15-inch magazines resulting in the fatal explosion, or that a BISMARCK 15 inch shell fell short and travelled underwater striking the ship below its armour plating and exploding in or near the after magazine. There were also several theories suggesting that accidents within HOOD's own guns or the explosion of her own torpedoes might have been to blame. Both have been conclusively disproved. The ideas seem to have been intended to suggest that it was not the enemy that sank the HOOD- foolish disinformation. The British had opened fire at 05.52 with HOOD firing on PRINZ EUGEN which was ahead of BISMARCK. Three minutes later the Germans returned fire, both their ships concentrating on HOOD. An 8-inch shell from Prinz Eugen struck HOOD between the funnels starting a large fire amongst the ready use ammunition for the anti-aircraft guns. Just before 06.00 HOOD was hit directly by BISMARCK's fifth salvo at a range of 10.35 Miles. This resulted in the catastrophic explosion and within three minutes HOOD was gone along with all her crew save three, as we have said. The first two salvos from PRINCE OF WALES had landed more than half a mile beyond BISMARCK. Her 6th, ninth and thirteenth salvos straddled BISMARCK. Two direct hits were made - one holed her bow and caused the loss of 1,000 tons of fuel oil. The second had fallen short and struck BISMARCK below the armour belt exploding in a boiler room. Tellingly, HOOD and PRINCE OF WALES in their eagerness to engage BISMARCK and PRINZ EUGEN had approached them at an angle of about 30 Degrees off the bow. The effect of this was to limit the British guns that could be brought to bear to the forward "A" and "B" turrets of each ship., whereas the German ships were able to bring all of their guns to bear. This was a serious tactical misjudgement. Nevertheless, it still left the British with 4 x 15-inch guns and 5 x 14-inch guns in action vs. the German ships with 8 x 15-inch guns and 8 x 8-inch guns in action. This meant that each firing of the British guns hurled 23,335lbs. of shells toward the Germans, and each time the Germans fired they hurled only 16,152 lbs in return. This is a result of the disparity in shell weights : HOOD 1,920lbs each x 8 Rate of Fire 2.0 per min. per gun
PRINCE OF WALES 1,595 lbs each x 5 Rate of Fire 1.3 per min. per gun
BISMARCK 1,800 lbs each x 8 Rate of Fire 2.5 per min.per gun PRINZ EUGEN 269 lbs each x 8 Rate of Fire 4.0 per min.per gun The actual difference in weight of shells fired depends of course on the rate of fire actually achieved since the above rates of fire are design figures. We know that the BISMARCK was firing its salvos at the rate of one per minute.
K.M.S. BISMARCK bows on (note the "escort" of gulls.)
SUMMARY
The complexities of the contest are even greater than shown above, but the main outline has been given. The struggle was one of epic proportions and intensity. The crushing loss of H.M.S. HOOD was a psychological blow to British confidence. It was the falling of one's champion in battle. Contrary to the anthem, it called into question the claim that "Britannia Rules the Waves." To British pride, this was intolerable, quite apart from being tragic. The old Lion Rampant himself, Winston Churchill gave the order: "SINK THE BISMARCK" and all hell broke loose at sea as the Royal Navy threw everything it could muster into that effort. On the 26th May, as BISMARCK made for the port of Brest for repair of damage sustained, Torpedo Bombers from the Aircraft Carrier H.M.S. Victorious made hits on her stern, jamming her port rudder in a turning position.T his condemned her to steaming around in a given area. British destroyers kept watch on her position overnight. And finally on the 27th May the British Battleships KING GEORGE V and RODNEY came up into position , and with the aid of several Cruisers attacked the crippled BISMARCK and sank her with considerable loss of life , 111 survivors were rescued, but hundreds more were left in the water when U Boats were detected in the vicinity. These later saved some of those survivors after the British ships departed.
HUBRIS
The headlong dash of H.M.S. HOOD and H.M.S. PRINCE OF WALES into the attack on K.M.S. BISMARCK and K.M.S. PRINZ EUGEN brings to mind the quote attributed to Admiral Lord Nelson :
"Never mind manoeuvres go at them"
Was this necessary, or advisable? The two German ships had been spotted the previous day by the British Heavy Cruisers H.M.S. SUFFOLK and H.M.S. NORFOLK. These two sister ships were substantial combatants in their own right each displacing 13,450Tons, carrying a main armament of 8 Eight Inch guns (as did K.M.S. Prinz Eugen). They also carried two quadruple mounts of 21" Torpedo Tubes and they each had a speed of 31.5 Knots. They had not only sighted BISMARCK and PRINZ EUGEN the day before the battle, but they had followed them continually, vectoring HOOD and PRINCE of WALES onto the German Squadron. They clearly had no trouble keeping up with the great ships of either side. Their involvement in the action would have had the advantage of enabling the British to achieve the maximum advantage in achieving the best angle of attack so that ALL their guns were brought to bear. This could be done using the Cruisers' torpedo tubes to fire on the German ships causing them to alter course to avoid the torpedoes. (This was done repeatedly during the war, often by mere Destroyers with great effect.) Even their main armament - a combined 16 8- Inch guns could have been very useful as we see with PRINZ EUGEN and her 8- Inch guns scoring hits on the HOOD.
But the services of SUFFOLK and NORFOLK were NOT used. However, after HOOD had been sunk and BISMARCK damaged, they joined company with PRINCE OF WALES at last, and then were brought in to assist KING GEORGE V and RODNEY to despatch the crippled BISMARCK.
It seems that the hubris induced by the "Britannia Rules the Waves" syndrome, the Nelsonian "Never mind manoeuvres " exhortation, and the myth of "the Mighty Hood" as she had long been known, had led to the decision not to use all available forces, and not to seek the optimum angle of approach. It is easy to be the armchair Admiral after the event of course. But the facts are the facts.
In December of the same year 1941, the British Battleship PRINCE OF WALES and the Battle Cruiser REPULSE were sunk when attacked by eighty eight Japanese land-based Aircraft. The ships, with only 4 Destroyers and no air superiority cover, were despatched to reinforce Singapore. With its massive seaward pointing defense guns Singapore had been "impregnable". Until the Japanese attacked "through the back door" piercing through the"impenetrable"jungle.These two traumatic events, following so closely on the loss of HOOD , finally put "paid" to British hubris.
VULNERABILITY
For all the consideration given to Armour to protect the waterline and beneath it, to protect the main deck, the gun turrets, the barbettes on which the turrets were mounted ,adding thousands of tons of weight to the great ships, they all retained a point of vulnerability out of necessity : the stern beneath which there extended the propellers and their drive shafts and the rudders. Both propellers and rudders must, of necessity, be exposed in order to have their influence on the seas.
Fairey "Swordfish" Maximum Speed 134 MPH.
And it was at this point of vulnerability, that the ancient, obsolescent Fairey "Swordfish" bi-plane Torpedo Bombers from the carrier H.M.S. VICTORIOUS were successful in striking the BISMARCK, leading to her sinking. One of their torpedoes struck her stern and the explosion jammed BISMARCK's port rudder at an angle of 12 Degrees to Port. This caused the great ship to begin to circle and defied all efforts to regain control of her direction.
The whole story is too long to recount here, but basically, the British had lost contact with BISMARCK earlier due to her clever maneuvering and the pursuing armada of battleships, battlecruisers, cruisers and destroyers had, in any case, desperate needs for fuel. Only King George V and Rodney were able to stay the course and were joined by Suffolk and Norfolk. Finally, a Catalina Flying Boat detected Bismarck and those ships moved in for the kill.
The great drama came to a close. CONCLUSION A matter of Hubris and Vulnerability - there are lessons here - not only Naval but for all of us in our lives, not to be led astray by inflated ideas of ourselves and to know ourselves well enough to consider our weakest points both moral and spiritual. |
She was the ideal example of her Father's philosophy that love and respect go hand in hand: if you have not got love you will show no respect, if you show no respect, you have no love. Grandad hit the nail on the head, and my dear Mum had absorbed the lesson and lived it out.
Next, I got to know my Grandma Dixon who lived on the next block one street behind us. Hers was also a tough life coping with a difficult husband and who gave herself to helping many human strays in the family orbit. She was very loving in her treatment of me and in early primary school days I used to walk home via Grandma's place, where she would always be seated on the verandah - waiting for me with a One Shilling piece( with its Merino Sheep Head image on it) clutched in her hand which she gave to me for treats. I can still recall its warmth from her hand, today.
My Mum's Mother, Grandma Beckmann, was a very special lady too. She was more self - confident and outgoing within the family group than my Mum or Grandma Dixon and her love was open-hearted and generous, her hugs big and strong. She was totally devoted to her husband "Ted" Edward Beckmann and in the family circle, she would refer to him as "Daddy"( they had 9 children!). When I knew him his health was failing, and though she would firmly proclaim that "Daddy and I are going to live on into the (Biblical) Millenium", looking back, I can see her anxiety that he was slipping away. She was a wonderful example of love and affection and that, constant and reliable. She had had a tough life with never a lot of money around, and when some windfall occurred an adverse development would sweep it away. She suffered a lot for marrying a "German" especially in World War I as did the older girls, reproached for being "Germans".I recall her unconditional love of me, and those strong, generous hugs today. And, as she lay close to death in Hospital, I can recall her calling out "Mummy" - my Grandmother, at the end of her life - calling out for Her Mother!
Then we come to the full-colour Mums. My dear wife Robyn and those three beautiful children, what fun we had that day in the bracing air and rich autumn tones of Mount Wilson! What fun we have had over all the years - and how much of that is due to Robyn, loving loyal, devoted wife and Mother. I guess we have had more good times than all the predecessor Mothers and their families combined and yet we have had a ton of tough times, but Robyn has been a constant source of love and loyalty through thick and thin, and even thinner! No - one could ask for a better Wife or, the children, a better Mother.
The latest Mother in the family bloodline is our dear daughter Justine, Mother to Emily, Christopher, and Daniel. Words nearly fail me (nearly! I always have a few left!) As parents we could not be prouder of this thoroughly modern Mother. She is an exemplary model of love and devotion in effective action, handling even the strain of tiny Daniel's birth when this tiny literal handful of life seemed to us too fragile , she brought him to the fullness of healthy life with dedication and love, without skipping a beat in the care of Emily and Christopher and husband Paul. And like her paternal Grandmother, she is a stalwart strength for her parents.
So, Mothers of mine, I salute you and honour you, but most of all, I love you unfailingly.