PQ 17: An Arctic Convoy Disaster - Jeremy Clarkson

[EdJ]

Just finished watching this excellent programme. Superb tv and very moving.

[FiF]

I'd forgotten Irving's book that he is claiming has been plagiarised had to be withdrawn from circulation after he lost his case when he was sued for libel by the commander of the escorts.

[Halb]

Vocal Minority said:

Also, I think Clarkson over-eggs the Tirpitz. Huge threat of course - but the talk of invincibility was IMHO TV puff, don't forget the RN and Air force sunk its sister ship...

It wasn't Clarkson over-egging it, he was accurate there. The fear of the super battleships was still very real for the Brits back then. The RN and RAF neutralised the Bismarck, which the caused the crew to scuttle it. Still the operation was huge, not surprising considering what the Bismarck did, and thanks to that torpedo it was successful. The Tirpitz was slightly bigger and had a few more goodies.

[Halmyre]

Halb said:

Vocal Minority said:

Also, I think Clarkson over-eggs the Tirpitz. Huge threat of course - but the talk of invincibility was IMHO TV puff, don't forget the RN and Air force sunk its sister ship...

It wasn't Clarkson over-egging it, he was accurate there. The fear of the super battleships was still very real for the Brits back then. The RN and RAF neutralised the Bismarck, which the caused the crew to scuttle it. Still the operation was huge, not surprising considering what the Bismarck did, and thanks to that torpedo it was successful. The Tirpitz was slightly bigger and had a few more goodies.

And the RN and RAF spent even more time and effort (and lives) to sink the Tirpitz than they did the Bismarck, even though it was stuck in a fjord (or two fjords) for most of the war.

[Scuffers]

Halmyre said:

And the RN and RAF spent even more time and effort (and lives) to sink the Tirpitz than they did the Bismarck, even though it was stuck in a fjord (or two fjords) for most of the war.

Very much so...

see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_battleship_Tir...

hundreds of men and planes/ships/subs were lost to sink the Tirpitz

[irocfan]

Halb said:

Vocal Minority said:

Also, I think Clarkson over-eggs the Tirpitz. Huge threat of course - but the talk of invincibility was IMHO TV puff, don't forget the RN and Air force sunk its sister ship...

It wasn't Clarkson over-egging it, he was accurate there. The fear of the super battleships was still very real for the Brits back then. The RN and RAF neutralised the Bismarck, which the caused the crew to scuttle it. Still the operation was huge, not surprising considering what the Bismarck did, and thanks to that torpedo it was successful. The Tirpitz was slightly bigger and had a few more goodies.

I thought that the Bismark was actually sunk by sustained fire from the English battleships (after getting her rudder jammed and then loosing her radar to a lucky shot).

[CooperD]

irocfan said:

I thought that the Bismark was actually sunk by sustained fire from the English battleships (after getting her rudder jammed and then loosing her radar to a lucky shot).

I thought the Bismarck was sunk as well. The Graf Spee was the warship scuttled by her crew her off Uruguay.

[ajprice]

irocfan said:

Halb said:

Vocal Minority said:

Also, I think Clarkson over-eggs the Tirpitz. Huge threat of course - but the talk of invincibility was IMHO TV puff, don't forget the RN and Air force sunk its sister ship...

It wasn't Clarkson over-egging it, he was accurate there. The fear of the super battleships was still very real for the Brits back then. The RN and RAF neutralised the Bismarck, which the caused the crew to scuttle it. Still the operation was huge, not surprising considering what the Bismarck did, and thanks to that torpedo it was successful. The Tirpitz was slightly bigger and had a few more goodies.

I thought that the Bismark was actually sunk by sustained fire from the English battleships (after getting her rudder jammed and then loosing her radar to a lucky shot).

I'm pretty sure there was a film called 'Sink the Bismarck', and not one called 'Scuttle the Bismarck'

[chris watton]

Halb said:

Vocal Minority said:

Also, I think Clarkson over-eggs the Tirpitz. Huge threat of course - but the talk of invincibility was IMHO TV puff, don't forget the RN and Air force sunk its sister ship...

It wasn't Clarkson over-egging it, he was accurate there. The fear of the super battleships was still very real for the Brits back then. The RN and RAF neutralised the Bismarck, which the caused the crew to scuttle it. Still the operation was huge, not surprising considering what the Bismarck did, and thanks to that torpedo it was successful. The Tirpitz was slightly bigger and had a few more goodies.

Tirpitz was almost exactly the same size as Bismarck - they were sister ships - the same way our Type 23 frigates look virtually identical to each other - the only differences being very cosmetic. The German heavy cruisers Scharnhorst and Gnesenau (SP!) were also sisters, and so alike that they had to move the mast to a different position for one as they could not be told apart otherwise. (Yamato and Musashi were also identical, aside from AA and secondary gun arrangements, changed after practical experience from both ships)

Tirpitz was a major threat to that area for years. It is said that it caused more damage as a 'Fleet in Being', than it did in any of its sorties. Indeed, the mere rumour of Tirpitz being at sea was enough to give the order for convoys to scatter.

(Although Bismarck and Tirpitz were quite old-fashioned even then, with the US and Japanese giants being years ahead - but to say the German battleships were the largest and deadliest ever, and we sunk them, was excellent propaganda - and very effective)

Edited by chris watton on Monday 6th January 10:28

[FourWheelDrift]

It's been proven from deep sea sub dives on the wreck that Bismark sank because the crew opened water tight doors and set charges to scuttle it. Also confirming survivors own experiences of the day. They didn't want it falling into allied hands.

[Riley Blue]

I scuttled, why the high loss of life? Of nearly 2,200 men on board the Bismark, just 115 survived. Surely the crew would have attempted to save itself? How many were killed/wounded due to British shell fire and torpedoes - over 2000?

[Zod]

The history of the Tirpitz illustrates the incompetence of the Kriegsmarine in WW2, exacerbated by Hitler's utter lack of strategic ability. He was terrified of losing it after losing the Bismarck, so effectively confined it to hiding in a fjord. It's a basic error, like not using the queen in chess for fear of losing it.

[irocfan]

FourWheelDrift said:

It's been proven from deep sea sub dives on the wreck that Bismark sank because the crew opened water tight doors and set charges to scuttle it. Also confirming survivors own experiences of the day. They didn't want it falling into allied hands.

I happily stand corrected - as an aside the below is very interesting

http://www.kbismarck.com/bismarck-last-battle.html

[FourWheelDrift]

Riley Blue said:

I scuttled, why the high loss of life? Of nearly 2,200 men on board the Bismark, just 115 survived. Surely the crew would have attempted to save itself? How many were killed/wounded due to British shell fire and torpedoes - over 2000?

For those that weren't killed on board of those that went into the sea only some were picked up by RN ships because a U-boats in the area warning caused them to break off and head home leaving many still in the water.

[Riley Blue]

FourWheelDrift said:

Riley Blue said:

If scuttled, why the high loss of life? Of nearly 2,200 men on board the Bismark, just 115 survived. Surely the crew would have attempted to save itself? How many were killed/wounded due to British shell fire and torpedoes - over 2000?

For those that weren't killed on board of those that went into the sea only some were picked up by RN ships because a U-boats in the area warning caused them to break off and head home leaving many still in the water.

Thanks. For those who (like me) didn't know a lot of the facts, there's a very detailed account of the Bismark's final hours here: http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_Bismarck_p...

[Vocal Minority]

Halmyre said:

Halb said:

Vocal Minority said:

Also, I think Clarkson over-eggs the Tirpitz. Huge threat of course - but the talk of invincibility was IMHO TV puff, don't forget the RN and Air force sunk its sister ship...

It wasn't Clarkson over-egging it, he was accurate there. The fear of the super battleships was still very real for the Brits back then. The RN and RAF neutralised the Bismarck, which the caused the crew to scuttle it. Still the operation was huge, not surprising considering what the Bismarck did, and thanks to that torpedo it was successful. The Tirpitz was slightly bigger and had a few more goodies.

And the RN and RAF spent even more time and effort (and lives) to sink the Tirpitz than they did the Bismarck, even though it was stuck in a fjord (or two fjords) for most of the war.

Fair points both.

[MarshPhantom]

PQ 17 repeated tonight on BBC2 at 9.30 if anyone didn't see it.

It was a great show.

[Halmyre]

Zod said:

The history of the Tirpitz illustrates the incompetence of the Kriegsmarine in WW2, exacerbated by Hitler's utter lack of strategic ability. He was terrified of losing it after losing the Bismarck, so effectively confined it to hiding in a fjord. It's a basic error, like not using the queen in chess for fear of losing it.

I think if they had deployed the Tirpitz she would have quickly joined her sister ship on the ocean floor. As it was, she spent most of the war scaring the bejesus out of the RN and tying up considerable quantities of military resources before she was sunk. Although, after the RAF did the deed the RN got slightly sniffy and claimed she wasn't *really* sunk as she was still visible above the surface...

[y2blade]

Just watching this now, fascinating

[Digger]

Damn. Missed the start. Hopefully it will be on Iplayer.