Humanities desk
< October 7	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 9 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 8[edit]

The torpedo that crippled the Bismarck, from port or starboard?[edit]

There's been a bit of an edit war at John Moffat (Royal Navy officer) about who fired the torpedo that made the ship unable to steer in the last battle of the battleship Bismarck. Moffat fired at the port side, and two other pilots from the starboard side. The Wikipedia articles all say that the torpedo that hit the stern hit from port, but a report based on footage taken during Expedition: Bismarck says that the torpedo probably came from the starboard side [1]. This contradicts what other sources have said that puts the torpedo hit on the port side. I know that in the field of history conflicting sources are common and historians are used to dealing with that. What do historians say about the torpedo attack from the Swordfish planes? Sjö (talk) 08:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Torpedo: The Complete History of the World's Most Revolutionary Naval Weapon (p. 199) by Roger Branfill-Cook says "one torpedo coming from Bismark's starboard quarter had hit her most vulnerable spot". None of the other accounts I could find specifies, or annoyingly, that section of the narrative is missing from the Google Books preview. Alansplodge (talk) 14:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bismarck's Final Battle by William H. Garzke, Jr. and Robert O. Dulin, Jr. has an illustration showing the torpedo coming from the port side. The Bismarck encounter, also by Garzke and Dulin has much of the same text, but unfortunately lacks the illustration, although it presumably matches the observations of the wreckage, but that is just a presumption. Mikenorton (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reading that second source further, I realise that the illustration is actually of a torpedo strike on the Prinz Eugen in 1942, although the text does say that "There is a remarkable similarity between the Bismarck damage and a similar torpedo hit on the stern of the Prinz Eugen", so make of that what you will. Mikenorton (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although that illustration is clearly marked "Bismark - Torpedo hit No 4". Alansplodge (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I misread the second source, where the figure is actually labelled "the fatal torpedo hit", not the other smaller figure on the same page, which shows the damage to Prinz Eugen - my bad. Mikenorton (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this from the same expedition that the OP quotes as saying the starboard side? Alansplodge (talk) 16:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No this was from the first Ballard expedition in 1989. Mikenorton (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be especially interesting to see sources from after 2002, the year of the Cameron expedition. Has it made historians reevaluate the final battle? Sjö (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a good look around, but found nothing that uses the information from the Cameron expedition. I'm not at all sure that anyone knows for certain which direction the torpedo was fired from, as it appears to have exploded almost directly beneath the stern, between the rudders, with no telltale plume of water. Mikenorton (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the bloke who actually launched the torpedo would know; but sadly, the Google Books preview of John Moffat's book, I Sank the Bismarck: Memoirs of a Second World War Navy Pilot, doesn't include that part of the narrative. Alansplodge (talk) 08:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but isn't that assuming the conclusion to the debate that prompted the OP? Of course, the correct Wikipedia approach is to give both POV, citing the sources. Matt's talk 14:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a common misconception, but treating two alternatives as equal doesn't always mean a neutral point of view. The Wikipedia approach is to present what most sources say, and mention the alternative views in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. Sjö (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I lost the plot somewhat. Alansplodge (talk) 11:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]