[BroJoeK]

abb: "One of the pics here clearly shows a shell penetration through and through the armor belt on the starboard side. So the argument that there were no penetrations of the armor is not persuasive."

I saw no photos at your link, only renderings.
From your link:

"He cites that the ship was clearly wallowing before the scuttling actually began and most decisively, the ship rolled over and sank in conjunction with the impact of Dorsetshire's last torpedo.
He does not dismiss the reports of scuttling, but believes that this only hastened the inevitable by a matter of minutes."

Then quoting from post #30 above:

"The American expedition's final conclusions were strikingly different from the findings of the Anglo-American team; they 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, "

Obviously, I can't resolve this debate, but however you look at it, Bismarck was one tough bird, so to speak.

;-)

[abb]

For some reason, that link only goes to the index. Click on link Battleship Bismarck Wreck and then go to Hull Damage. Photos are there.

And yes, Bismarck was put together well and reflected great credit to her designers, builders, Captain and crew.

What is interesting about this debate is that almost alone in the history of naval warfare, this sinking generates huge debate.

Can anyone else think of an instance where who sank a ship and how the fatal hit occurred matters as much?

Perhaps since it was such a huge propaganda story makes it a hot topic.

[abb]

See here a very comprehensive study of Bismarck’s damage.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_Bismarck_p1.htm