|
9 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
The Bismarck Chase, September 4, 2003
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.
|
