Bismarck Chase: New Light on a Famous Engagement [Hardcover]

Robert J. Winklareth (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: March 1999

One of the most famous naval engagements of World War II--the sinking of the British battlecruiser HMS Hood by the German battleship Bismarck--took place in the Denmark Strait in 1941 and people have been arguing about it ever since. In this book a professional defense analyst uses computer modeling to support his original and highly credible explanation of what happened.

Product Details

• Hardcover: 188 pages
• Publisher: Naval Inst Pr (March 1999)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1557501831
• ISBN-13: 978-1557501837
• Product Dimensions: 9.5 x 6.8 x 0.7 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.4 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 2.8 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (4 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #3,689,079 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

28 of 29 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars No "new light" for me & questionable photo interpretations., November 17, 1999

By 

Robert A. Pottle (Halifax, Nova Scotia) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Bismarck Chase: New Light on a Famous Engagement (Hardcover)

I ordered this book because it reportedly shed 'new light' on the tactics of the combatant vessels in the Denmark Strait action. Readers with a knowledge of WWII naval history will find some errors in the text, such as HMS Sheffield being described as a "heavy" cruiser and Yamato's overall length being reported as 840' instead of 863'. I found the author's interpretation of the photos of the Bismarck/Hood action to be unconvincing. It was claimed that these were being presented in the correct sequence "for the first time". Photos 10-2 to 10-6 appear to me to be in the wrong sequence, and were printed with a mirror image left-right transposition when compared to the same or very similar photos in other sources. The sequence indicated by examination of the distinct cloud patterns appears to be 10-6, 10-4, 10-5, with 10-2&3 taken almost simultaneously. Most of these action photos have appeared elsewhere in smaller and less grainy format and indicated the Bismarck's guns were trained to port (i.e. on the SAME side as the Prinz Eugen, from where the photos were taken) and on an AFT bearing. According to the text and charts in 'The Bismarck Case' the photos should show the guns trained abeam (if not slightly ahead of the beam) toward the Prince of Wales and AWAY from the photographer aboard the Prinz Eugen (which was supposedly on the opposite side of Bismarck from the Prince of Wales when these photos were taken). I have never read that Bismarck and Prinz Eugen pursued a straight course throughout the battle and all books in my collection show a turn to starboard, followed by one to port as 'revealed' in this book. However these turns were charted as occurring later in the action in my other source books. There is evidence for a later turn to starboard than postulated by the author when the photos are reviewed in the different right-left orientation given in other published sources. Baron Von Mullenheim-Rechberg's 'Battleship Bismarck: A Survivor's Story' and Paul Schmalenbach's 'Kriegsmarine Bismarck' in 'Warships in Profile Vol.2' contain 'The Bismarck Chase' photos 9-1, 9-3, and 10-2 to 10-6 or very similar shots and both authors (who were there!) indicated Bismarck had turned to starboard (westward) of the Prinz Eugen and away from the British ships during the period which encompasses 10-2 to 10-6. The bow of Bismarck is shown to the left of the photos in those sources instead of to the right as in 'The Bismarck Chase'. The photos in Mr. Winklareth's book are purported to have been taken after a second major course alteration, toward the British ships on a course of about 200 degrees. Although the book gives a fairly good account of the battle and the Bismarck's brief career, I did not feel any 'new light' had been shed, and did not agree with the author's conclusions.

10 of 11 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars The Bismarck Chase, September 4, 2003

By 

"bunserjr" (USA) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Bismarck Chase: New Light on a Famous Engagement (Hardcover)

New Light on a Famous Engagement, bills itself as an updated and accurate analysis of the epic Atlantic sea chase of May 1941. The primary emphasis falls upon the Battle of the Denmark Strait where HMS Hood fell to gunfire from the mighty German battleship, leaving but three survivors, and HMS Prince of Wales was forced to turn away under fire. Unfortunately, the basis for this 'comprehensive analysis,' as Mr. Winklareth calls it, consists primarily of the author's reinterpretation of photography and an insistence that Prinz Eugen always remained to starboard of Bismarck during the battle.

Disposing of this latter point first, after action Kriegsmarine reports specifically evaluated the role of Prinz Eugen during the battle and discussed the dire consequences the heavy cruiser faced as she steamed ahead of and to port of Bismarck, exposed as she was to heavy British gunfire. The action reports of Prinz Eugen and subsequent staff commentary do not support the authors' assertions in the least. Equally damaging to the author's case is the corollary that Prinz Eugen would therefore be able to photograph the portside of Bismarck during the battle.

Moving to the assertion that various pictures taken aboard Prinz Eugen have been reversed, possibly as the result of his mistaken belief noted above, the author advances this as further evidence to support his contention that Bismarck and Prinz Eugen followed parallel courses during the Battle of the Denmark Strait, with the heavy cruiser always to starboard of Bismarck. Aside from the mortal contradiction presented by the primary materials noted above, this assertion requires a great deal of imagination to accept.

In reviewing Mr. Winklareth's interpretation of these photographs there are numerous discrepancies overlooked either for sake of convenience or out of miscalculation. Additionally, the first thing confronting the reader is the poor quality of the photography reproduced within the book. With the author considering these photographs as the basis for uprooting the historical record, he should have provided the best prints possible for his readers. One may legitimately question that if these were the best prints the author could manage for his own research, it may answer quite a number of questions.

Fortunately, there are available for study fine copies of these same prints in various texts which the reader can use for comparison. And by carefully comparing the photographs it appears that the author has managed to rearrange the photography out of sequence, as opposed to actually presenting a proper sequence himself.

One may notice that photograph 10-2 (in the authors' book) shows the flash and shock wave of Bismarck firing her guns at the British. Having reversed the photograph to show Bismarck her moving from left to right in the picture, if the author is to be believed and considering that she was traveling south down the strait, then Bismarck must be firing to starboard. This is not possible at all. To be perfectly blunt, this means that the author himself has mistakenly reversed the picture and that Prinz Eugen, in order to take the picture, was indeed traveling off Bismarck's port side, something we were assured never happened.

Likewise, clearer prints of the authors' photograph 10-6 show the forward armored plates of Bismarck's main turrets and her after fire control radar aerial facing the camera. Since the author has again printed the photograph to show Bismarck traveling south from left to right, it follows that she must be firing to starboard. At the risk of sounding redundant, with the British capital ships to portside of Bismarck throughout the engagement, this interpretation cannot possibly be correct.

Finally, the nature of the weather can be gauged by reference to the background in each photograph. It is quite obvious that the same cloud formations do not appear in the photography showing Hood and Prince of Wales to the east compared with those of Bismarck to the west. If the reader accepts these observations, then all of the photographs have been reversed by the author during his research and analysis. This constitutes a stunning error of incredible magnitude because it completely undermines the premise of his book.

The remainder of the book is devoted to a repetitive and sometimes monotonous description of the development of the modern battleship, followed by a brief description of the rise of the Kriegsmarine under Hitler. Bismarck is then introduced and the reader is provided a rather pedestrian account of her sortie and loss. Of particular disappointment are the brief and lackluster accounts both of Victorious' Swordfish torpedo attack and Bismarck's subsequent manuever which allowed her to briefly escape the tightening British noose.

As perhaps further indication of the author's poor research concerning the movements of Bismarck and Prinz Eugen during the Battle of Denmark Strait, the depiction of events surrounding Bismarck's dramatic torpedoing by Swordfish from Ark Royal is equally flawed. And given the sources listed in the bibliography as available to his efforts this is a startling error for the author to commit.

The photography contained within the book is well printed with the exception of, as amazing as it sounds, the critical pictures supposedly providing the evidence for recasting events in the Denmark Strait. And quite aside from being based on demonstrably incorrect facts, various charts throughout the book are generally oversimplified and without geographical reference, thus rendering them wholly inadequate.

There are many fine books concerning Bismarck, among them Russell Grenfell's "The Bismarck Episode," Ludovic Kennedy's "Pursuit" and, of course, Baron von Mullenheim-Rechberg's "Battleship Bismarck." Robert Winklareth's "The Bismarck Chase" cannot begin to compare with these superb volumes. As a poorly researched and deeply flawed work, Mr. Winklareth's book is definitely not worthy of recommendation under any circumstances.

5 of 11 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Essential new analysis of the loss of HMS Hood, September 21, 1999

By 

John Stedman ([e-mail]) (Greece) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Bismarck Chase: New Light on a Famous Engagement (Hardcover)

There are so many books about the short and dramatic life of the battleship Bismarck, but none has really tried to answer the question of the tactics of Admiral Holland and Captain Kerr when they apparently chose to attack on a disadvantageous course. Why did they put the lightly-armoured HMS Hood in the van and at an angle of approach which increased her vulnerability to plunging fire whilst halving the effectiveness of her main armnament?

Robert Winklareth has analysed photographs of the engagement and naval records to posit a new hypothesis, suggesting that the German ships took a different course from that which has previously been assumed. This may well be the explanation for the British tactics, as they strove to gain advantage over their opponents

Of course there are many other unanswered questions about Bismarck, both in the days before Hood was sunk and in the three days following until she met her demise. Hopefully succeeding authors will now be encouraged to apply the same attitude of enquiry as Winklareth has here

This is a refreshing new book and deserves a place on the bookshelf of all open-minded naval historians. The excellent illustrations and charts allow the reader to re-check the author's thesis, as all works of this kind should. I unreservedly recommend it