Talk:Günther Lütjens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ìI question the accuracy of this article on several counts, I will go into this later. PatGallacher 10:27, 2005 July 22 (UTC)

Why did you put a factual dispute warning up if you do not provide the reasons why you did it? TruthCrusader

Sorry, tardiness on my part, I will sort this out by the end of the weekend if not earlier. PatGallacher 14:19, 2005 July 22 (UTC)

My main source is Kennedy's "Pursuit: The Sinking of the Bismarck".

(1) Basically, while as Kennedy points out there are some legitimate arguments for saying that L. would have been better advised to pursue PoW, this is being very wise a long time after the event. The sudden appearance of Hood, which German intelligence had told him was in Africa, and a KGV class battleship told him intelligence was unreliable. It may be there was some disagreement with Lindemann at this point, but this story could have grown a great deal in the telling, most senior German officers were killed a few days later. If I may add a few points of my own, L. hardly knew what was over the horizon, and if he had attempted to pursue PoW he could even have run into KGV in a short time. He did not know how badly damaged PoW was, Bismarck was significantly damaged itself and relatively low on fuel.

(2) It certainly was very foolish of L. to send the long radio message, we do not know why he did so, but the suggestion that Bismarck was picking up British radar signals is only one theory. I know of no evidence that Lindemann advised against it.

(3) Saying that L. went down with his ship implies that he drowned, maybe he did, but he could have been killed in shelling or subsequent fires.

Maybe these issues are better dealt with in the main Bismarck article. PatGallacher 14:44, 2005 July 22 (UTC)

Some questions on that:

• (1) "Bismarck was significantly damaged itself and relatively low on fuel"

What damage are you referring to? As far as I know the only damage Bismarck took during the battle were two hits into the fuel-bunkers scored by POW. Those were the main cause of the fuel-shortage. But that does not count as "significantly damaged", the Bismarcks fighting-capability was unimpaired.

• (2) "He did not know how badly damaged PoW was"

L. must have noticed that POW was retreating, that her artillery-fire was weak as 80% of her heavy guns where out of action due to technical problems. He should have been able to deduct the POW situation from that, an admiral cannot expect to get more information on his enemys situation. He clearly missed an oppurtunity he should not have missed. The only argument in his favor could be that he feared to take damage that would have hampered his primary objective of convoy-raiding (he probably didn't know that he had already received such damage). 85.176.95.8 22:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

If there are no further objections, I will be removing the neutrality tag in a short period of time. Dr. Dan 14:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out that all the German officers concluded Prince of Wales was King George V; Tirpitz didn't join Bismarck for the sortie, as she was still working up. The Germans assumed the British wouldn't deploy PoW for the same reasons.

--

The questing of sinking the bismarck doesn't have a clear answer, but according to the people who know best, the ones on the ship, she was sunk by her own crew. The research made by the man who found the wreck, Robert Ballard, supports this claim.

[edit] WW I service

Can he have served on SMS König Wilhelm (1868) as claimed here if that ship was decommissioned in 1904 as the WIKI entry on that ship states? Which is correct, which is wrong? Cosal 09:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)