Editing German battleship Bismarck (section)

== Wreckage ==
=== Discovery by Robert Ballard ===
[[File:Bismarck illustration.png|thumb|Painting by [[Ken Marschall]] depicting the unmanned probe {{ship||Argo|ROV|2}} exploring the wreck]]
The wreck of ''Bismarck'' was discovered on 8 June 1989 by [[Robert Ballard]], the [[oceanographer]] responsible for finding {{RMS|Titanic}}.{{sfn|Garzke|Dulin|Jurens|2019|p=474}} ''Bismarck'' was found to be resting on her keel at a depth of approximately {{convert|4791|m|abbr=on}},{{sfn|Ballard|1990|p=221}} about {{convert|650|km|abbr=on}} west of Brest. The ship struck an extinct underwater volcano, which rose some {{convert|1000|m|abbr=on}} above the surrounding [[abyssal plain]], triggering a {{convert|2|km|abbr=on}} [[landslide]]. ''Bismarck'' slid down the mountain, coming to a stop about two-thirds of the way down. Ballard kept the wreck's exact location a secret to prevent other divers from taking artefacts<!--this is the correct spelling; "artefact" is the British English spelling of the word. Please do not change it.--> from the ship, a practice he considered a form of [[grave robbing]].{{sfn|Ballard|1990|pp=216, 221}}

Ballard's survey found no underwater penetrations of the ship's fully armoured [[Armored citadel|citadel]]. Eight holes were found in the hull, one on the starboard side and seven on the port side, all above the waterline. One of the holes is in the deck, on the bow's starboard side. The angle and shape indicates the shell that created the hole was fired from ''Bismarck''{{'}}s port side and struck the starboard anchor chain. The anchor chain has disappeared down this hole.{{sfn|Ballard|1990|p=194}} Six holes are [[amidships]], three shell fragments pierced the upper splinter belt, and one made a hole in the main armour belt.{{sfn|Ballard|1990|p=214}} Further aft a huge hole is visible, parallel to the aircraft catapult, on the deck. The submersibles recorded no sign of a shell penetration through the main or side armour here, and it is likely that the shell penetrated the deck armour only.{{sfn|Ballard|1990|p=191}} Naval historians William Garzke and Robert Dulin noted that the British battleships were shooting at very close range; the flat trajectory of the shells made it difficult to hit the relatively narrow target represented by the belt armour above the waterline due to the high waves, caused by gale force winds, which shielded the belt armour as shells that fell short would either strike the water and ricochet up into the superstructure or explode after striking the waves.{{sfn|Cameron|Dulin|Garzke|Jurens|2002|p=34}}

Ballard noted that he found no evidence of the internal implosions that occur when a hull that is not fully flooded sinks. The surrounding water, which has much greater pressure than the air in the hull, would crush the ship. Instead, Ballard points out that the hull is in relatively good condition; he states simply that "''Bismarck'' did not implode."{{sfn|Ballard|1990|pp=214–215}} This suggests that ''Bismarck''{{'}}s compartments were flooded when the ship sank, supporting the scuttling theory.{{sfn|Jackson|p=88}} Ballard added "we found a hull that appears whole and relatively undamaged by the descent and impact". They concluded that the direct cause of sinking was scuttling: sabotage of engine-room valves by her crew, as claimed by German survivors.{{sfn|Ballard|1990|p=215}}

The whole stern had broken away; as it was not near the main wreckage and has not yet been found, it can be assumed this did not occur on impact with the sea floor. The missing section came away roughly where the torpedo had hit, raising questions of possible structural failure.{{sfn|Ballard|1990|pp=177–178}} The stern area had also received several hits, increasing the torpedo damage. This, coupled with the fact the ship sank stern first and had no structural support to hold it in place, suggests the stern detached at the surface. While no one onboard ''Bismarck'' when it sunk could confirm or deny that, ''Prinz Eugen''{{'}}s stern collapsed after it was similarly torpedoed in the stern in 1942. This prompted the Germans to straighten the stern structures on all German capital ships.{{sfn|Ballard|1990|p=215}}

=== Subsequent expeditions ===
In June 2001, Deep Ocean Expeditions, partnered with [[Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution]], conducted another investigation of the wreck. The researchers used Russian-built [[Submersible|mini-submarines]]. William N. Lange, a Woods Hole expert, stated, "You see a large number of shell holes in the superstructure and deck, but not that many along the side, and none below the waterline."{{sfn|''New York Times'', "Visiting Bismarck"}} The expedition found no penetrations in the main armoured belt, above or below the waterline. The examiners noted several long gashes in the hull, but attributed these to impact on the sea floor.{{sfn|''New York Times'', "Visiting Bismarck"}}

An Anglo-American expedition in July 2001 was funded by a British TV channel. The team used the volcano—the only one in that area—to locate the wreck. Using [[Remotely operated underwater vehicle|ROVs]] to film the hull, the team concluded that the ship had sunk due to combat damage. Expedition leader [[David Mearns]] claimed significant gashes had been found in the hull: "My feeling is that those holes were probably lengthened by the slide, but initiated by torpedoes".{{sfn|''New York Times'', "Visiting Bismarck"}}

The 2002 documentary ''[[Expedition: Bismarck]]'', directed by [[James Cameron]] and filmed in May–June 2002 using smaller and more agile [[Mir (submersible)|Mir submersibles]], reconstructed the events leading to the sinking. These provided the first interior shots.{{sfn|''New York Times'', "Visiting Bismarck"}} Unlike the Ballard expedition, Cameron's investigation was able to examine parts of the sides of the hull. When ''Bismarck'' hit the bottom bow first, massive "hydraulic outburst" separated much of the shell plating of the hull along the line where it joined the bottom of the armour belt. The decks under the armour deck have been compressed by 3 to 4 metres.{{sfn|Cameron|Dulin|Garzke|Jurens|2002|p=42}} The most extensive damage, including the gashes Mearns observed, was thus due to impact of the hull with the ocean floor as opposed to directly due to battle damage.{{sfn|Cameron|Dulin|Garzke|Jurens|2002|p=47}}

Although around 719 large calibre shells were fired at ''Bismarck'' that morning, Cameron's survey noted only two instances where the 320&nbsp;mm main side belt armour had actually been fully penetrated in the visible parts of the hull.{{sfn|Cameron|Dulin|Garzke|Jurens|2002|p=30}} These were both on the starboard side amidships. One hole is forward of the 320&nbsp;mm displaced armour belt. In the second case the explosion dislodged a rectangular segment of the 320&nbsp;mm armour. Instead, the expedition argues long range plunging fire hitting the deck was almost completely responsible for the damage that directly contributed to the sinking of the ship.{{sfn|Cameron|Dulin|Garzke|Jurens|2002|pp=30–31}} The later close-range shelling (including by secondary armament) "devastated the superstructure and exposed parts of the hull above the waterline, and caused massive casualties", but contributed little to the sinking of the ship.{{sfn|Cameron|Dulin|Garzke|Jurens|2002|p=51}} British gunnery accuracy was "mediocre at best", partially due to the "miserable" firing conditions and the ship's list to port, with only around 10% of fired medium calibre shots hitting.{{sfn|Cameron|Dulin|Garzke|Jurens|2002|pp=32–34}}

The Cameron report stated that "The devastation caused by the shellfire combined with the effects of several torpedo hits to overwhelm and defeat the ''Bismarck'', causing the ship to begin sinking due to uncontrollable progressive flooding. The German crew sped the inevitable demise of their ship by initiating scuttling measures."{{sfn|Cameron|Dulin|Garzke|Jurens|2002|p=20}} It suggests the torpedoes may have increased the subsequent extensive damage to the ship when it hit the ocean floor.{{sfn|Cameron|Dulin|Garzke|Jurens|2002|p=33}} In some cases the torpedo blasts had failed to shatter the torpedo bulkheads.{{sfn|''New York Times'', "Visiting Bismarck"}} and some hits claimed may have been torpedoes that exploded prematurely due to the heavy seas.{{sfn|Cameron|Dulin|Garzke|Jurens|2002|p=31}} However the locations of other hits were buried in mud or were impossible to distinguish due to the extent of overall damage to the ship.{{sfn|Cameron|Dulin|Garzke|Jurens|2002|p=33}} Overall the report disputed Mearns' claim that scuttling was irrelevant to the timing of the sinking.{{sfn|Cameron|Dulin|Garzke|Jurens|2002|p=42}}

Despite their sometimes differing viewpoints, these experts generally agree that ''Bismarck'' would have eventually foundered if the Germans had not scuttled her first. Ballard estimated that ''Bismarck'' could still have floated for at least a day when the British vessels ceased fire and could have been captured by the Royal Navy, a position supported by Ludovic Kennedy (who was serving on the destroyer {{HMS|Tartar|F43|6}} at the time). Kennedy stated, "That she would have foundered eventually there can be little doubt; but the scuttling ensured that it was sooner rather than later."{{sfn|Ballard|1990|p=215}} The Cameron expedition's report asserts "Bismarck unquestionably would have sunk due to progressive flooding hours after the battle ended".{{sfn|Cameron|Dulin|Garzke|Jurens|2002|p=50}} In Mearns' subsequent book ''Hood and Bismarck'', he conceded that scuttling "may have hastened the inevitable, but only by a matter of minutes."{{sfn|''New York Times'', "Visiting Bismarck"}} Ballard later concluded that "As far as I was concerned, the British had sunk the ship regardless of who delivered the final blow."{{sfn|Ballard|2008|p=111}}