the sinking of the H.M.S. Prince of Wales and the H.M.S. Repulse

[franksolich]

I forgot to post a shipwreck thread yesterday; sorry, Ptarmigan.

Anyway.

The HMS Prince of Wales was the second of five King George V class battleships, built under the limitations of the Washington and London naval limitation treaties. Restricted to 35,000 tons, these vessels mounted 10 x 14" main guns. Well balanced designs, they offered a good turn of speed, good armor protection, dual-purpose secondary mounts, and decent firepower. These numerous and valuable vessels served well in the Mediterranean, Atlantic, and Pacific theaters of operations.

Completed in March of 1941, and surviving only until December 10th of that same year, the HMS Prince of Wales led an eventful if short life. While still under construction, she was damaged by German bombs, which delayed her completion by several months. She joined the fleet at Scapa Flow while still being completed, with civilian contractors still trying to get two of her three turrets operational. When the German Bismarck and the heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen sortied into the North Atlantic, her commander, Captain Leach, signalled that his ship was ready for action, and she sailed in company with the HMS Hood to intercept, civilian contractors included.

They and the ship's crew worked furiously, and after the German battleship had quickly dispatched the HMS Hood, the incomplete HMS Prince of Wales scored three critical hits on the Bismarck before breaking off the action, herself hit by five 15" and four 8" shells. She retired under the cover of smoke, with 8 of her 10 main guns out of action, 600 tons of flooding, secondary directors destroyed, and most of her bridge crew dead.

After repairs, the HMS Prince of Wales carried Winston Churchill to Newfoundland to meet with President Roosevelt in July. She then was assigned to the Mediterranean and Force H, participating in Operation Haltberg. Then it was back to the Home Fleet, and then off to the Far East as the heart of Force Z. In company with the HMS Repulse, she reached Singapore on December 2. Six days later she was sunk by Japanese land based aircraft, 8 miles from the HMS Repulse.

The two vessels were attacked about midway between Singapore and Saigon.

The HMS Prince of Wales was struck by one torpedo which opened the hull, jammed the steering, disabled most of the AA mounts, and destroyed part of the propulsion. Unable to maneuver, she was struck repeatedly by more torpedoes and bombs, floundering an hour and a half after the first strike.

The vessel is considered a war grave, and divers should not disturb or enter the wreck. The GPS coordinates are available, but will not be posted here. Several commercial firms in Vietnam and Malaya offer charter tours of the wreck, which, while visible from the air on a clear day, is often hard to find due to the deliberate circulation of false GPS coordinates.

Diving on the HMS Prince of Wales is more than a little controversial, due the vessel's status as a war grave, and because many of the survivors and relatives of those lost in the attack feel that the wreck should not be visited. However, the fact is that the vessel is regularly visited, and it is too late to put the genie back in the bottle. Several Japanese firms have expressed an interest in salvaging the wreck, but lawsuits and public opinion have stalled these plans. My personal feelings are that the wreck should be visited as a memorial, but treated with the utmost respect; take only photos, and leave only bubbles.

The HMS Prince of Wales came to rest upside almost completely down in 230 feet of water. The vessel rests almost completely upside down, with one side of the main deck a few meters off the bottom. An extremely deep dive, the HMS Prince of Wales is visited more rarely than her consort the HMS Repulse. The 40-feet of extra depth, combined with the less diver-friendly orientation of the vessel, combine to keep most divers away. The water is warm and clear, the bottom is sand, ambient light is plentiful, and visibility is excellent. Torpedo damage to the hull is easy to find, and marine life is abundant. Like the HMS Repulse, the HMS Prince of Wales 'flies' a white ensign from one screw as a tribute to the crewmen who lost their lives.

read more at http://www.bobhenneman.info/powwreck.htm
----------
This seems a pretty good web-site, which identifies the locations of many sunken ships, although the owner doesn't seem to want people messing around with them.

I wasn't aware the HMS Prince of Wales had anything to do with the scuttling of the German boat, the Bismarck, in Uruguay.

You know, I've been reading all of these maritime web-sites, and there's a linguistic peculiarity about them that mystifies me--why do people who write about ships (and NOT just this particular site, either), have such a rabid hostility to using the word "the"?

I'm always having to correct the excerpts, so as to make them more readable.

"The" is a very important word.  Very important.

[djones520]

Would you expect me to refer to you as "The Frank"?

I'm not a sailor, so I can't say for certain, but I'd imagine that they look at the ships as something more then just an inanimate object.  Or maybe it's more a naval heritage thing?

[franksolich]

Would you expect me to refer to you as "The Frank"?

I'm not a sailor, so I can't say for certain, but I'd imagine that they look at the ships as something more then just an inanimate object.  Or maybe it's more a naval heritage thing?

Well, I'm not sure; maybe a Naval person here can illuminate us.

I'm not kidding, when I say the word "the" appears to be unknown and unused on maritime web-sites.

[djones520]

I checked the links, and checked what you posted.  It does seem that he doesn't include "the" when actually referring to the ship.  Which I see as being perfectly acceptable.  When your referring to someone by their name, you don't say "So I was talking to the Jimmy today."

[franksolich]

I checked the links, and checked what you posted.  It does seem that he doesn't include "the" when actually referring to the ship.  Which I see as being perfectly acceptable.  When your referring to someone by their name, you don't say "So I was talking to the Jimmy today."

I dunno; perhaps I had too inflexible of a 5th-grade teacher, who insisted that all inanimate objects had to be identified with the word "the," or something like that.

There's no doubt many sailors, ex and current, have a great deal of affection for their ships, or one of their ships, and so in conversation, that's like people who nickname their automobiles.

But in formal writing, especially since most of the population is land-bound, not sea-borne, most of the population doesn't look at ships as if living things, only inanimate things, and so the absence of "the" seems odd, even lazy, as if the writer is sloppy.

I tell you what, sir--I'm going to contact the owner of that web-site and ask why he doesn't use the word "the," and see what he says.  If nothing else, it'll bring some new people here to read this.

[djones520]

Make sure you post his reply, if you get one.  It'll be interesting to see.

[franksolich]

Make sure you post his reply, if you get one.  It'll be interesting to see.

Yeah, I will, but actually I'm hoping I just recruited a new member.

The guy's a motorcycle enthusiast, lives near Rebel down there in Georgia, and is a professor.

[redwhit]

I checked the links, and checked what you posted.  It does seem that he doesn't include "the" when actually referring to the ship.  Which I see as being perfectly acceptable.  When your referring to someone by their name, you don't say "So I was talking to the Jimmy today."

I dunno; perhaps I had too inflexible of a 5th-grade teacher, who insisted that all inanimate objects had to be identified with the word "the," or something like that.

There's no doubt many sailors, ex and current, have a great deal of affection for their ships, or one of their ships, and so in conversation, that's like people who nickname their automobiles.

But in formal writing, especially since most of the population is land-bound, not sea-borne, most of the population doesn't look at ships as if living things, only inanimate things, and so the absence of "the" seems odd, even lazy, as if the writer is sloppy.

I tell you what, sir--I'm going to contact the owner of that web-site and ask why he doesn't use the word "the," and see what he says.  If nothing else, it'll bring some new people here to read this.

I might be able to answer this one; although not a naval person, my thesis advisor is a naval historian (and a former marine if memory serves - I know he served I just can't remember the branch right now).  You've got it right, the ship is not considered just an inanimate object by those who crew her and those who write about such things, perhaps as a nod to those sailors, maintain that affectation.  It is a bit more formal than nicknaming a car; as I'm sure you noticed, ship's names are always italicisized. 

This custom can probably be traced back to the superstition that setting to sea in an unnamed vessel is the worst of luck.  Also, in the same way that cars can tend to have "personalities" with their certain quirks that only the owner knows about and can come to cherish, the ship, being that much bigger and more complicated, has many, many more.  Seafarers tend to be a superstitious lot and old habits die hard.  Many of the traditions onboard today are from the days when men risked their lives in the complete unknown.  One could pray to God while at sea but the ship beneath one's feet was a tangible thing, a finite that the human mind can grasp.

All of this is just an extremely long-winded way of saying "It's done because that's the way it's always been."  God help me, I'm becoming more of an academic with each passing day - if only I could figure out a way to get paid by the word.

[asdf2231]

I wasn't aware the HMS Prince of Wales had anything to do with the scuttling of the German boat, the Bismarck, in Uruguay.

She didn't Frank.  The Prince of Wales and Hood engaged the Bizmark as she was heading back to port after sailing in concert with Prince Eugen into open waters for commerce raiding.  She was first engaged by HMS Suffolk and Norfolk, two heavy cruisers that exchanged long range fire with her before retiring and shadowing Bismarck while calling for reinforcements.  Bismarck's radar malfunctioned during this engagement due to the concussion of her main battery. Then she was engaged by HMS Hood and Prince of Wales. Hood was sunk and the prince was damaged and broke off the engagement.

Prince of Wales rendezvoused with Norfolk and Suffolk and shadowed her while Bismarck headed back towards port due to fuel leaks from hits sustained during the duel with Hood and the Prince.  She was struck by a torpedo from a Swordfish Bomber launched from the carrier Ark Royal that jammed her rudder. Bismarck was then subjected to a running attack by RN Destroyers making torpedo runs, and finished off the next day by a task force based on the HMS Rodney and Hms Prince of Wales.

The German vessel that was scuttled in Uraguay was the Admiral Graff Spee, which put into the neutral port of Montevideo after a runnign battle with HMS Exeter, HMS Ajax and HMNZS Achilles (of the Royal New Zealand Navy)  The Captain was tricked into thinking a much larger force of Allied vessels awaited him outside the harbor and scuttled his vessel to spare his crew. After the battle Graff's Captain Hans Wilhelm Langsdorff, laid himself down on Admiral Graf Spee's battle ensign and shot himself.

[franksolich]

Oh damn.

I got my naval history mixed up, asdf.

I KNEW it was the Graf Spee, not the Bismarck, but the second name stuck in the mind.

I knew that, but something short-circuited.

By the way, the reason I rememebered the sinking of the HMS Prince of Wales and the HMS Repulse was that as a kid, I used to collect Time and Life magazines, the first from 1923 on, and the second from 1936 on.  I had first issues, too.  (But I sold the collections a very long time ago.)

I was confused about something.

In the Time and Life accounts of the story as it happened, I'm sure the maps they printed showed them sinking somewhere between Singapore and Rangoon, Burma, not somewhere between Saigon and Singapore.

And so I always thought it was an Indian Ocean thing, not a Pacific Ocean thing.

If my memory about the maps is correct, it was probably miscommunication about where the ships were.

[Bob Henneman]

The prefix is considered part of the ship’s name. HMS is short for His/ Her Majesty’s Ship; HMAS is short for His/ Her Majesty’s Australian Ship;  USS is short for United States Ship; ARA is short for Armada de la Republic Argentina; etc. Not all nations use a prefix, Hitler’s Germany being one of them, which is why the German ships are referred to simply as 'Bismarck’ and 'Prinz Eugen.’

A ship’s name (including the prefix where applicable) is a proper noun, same as the name of a city, state, or person. As with all proper nouns, it refers to a specific, unique item, and it is always capitalized. So you so should not write “the HMS Prince of Wales” any more than you would write “the Orlando, Florida” or “the Uncle Bill”.

However, when using the ship’s name to refer to the whole class, it is no longer a unique proper noun. So you would write “The HMS King George V Class battleships” when referring to the whole class of ships, but “HMS King George V” when referring to just that specific ship.

And if you precede the name of the ship with a common noun being used as an adjective that describes the type of ship, you would use “the”. So you would write “the battleship HMS Prince of Wales” or “the cruiser Atlanta,” but never “the battleship the HMS Prince of Wales” or “the cruiser the Atlanta.”

So, in short, when using the ship’s name as a proper noun don’t use “the.”

Oh, by the way, Bismarck was not scuttled off Uruguay; it was sunk by British warships and aircraft in the Atlantic. It was the German armored ship (often referred to as a‘pocket battleship’) Graf Spee that was scuttled in Uruguay. I have some pics of us exploring that wreck also, but the underwater shots did not come out due to zero visability in the muddy water.

As for not wanting anyone to mess with the wrecks, particularly HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse, it is because the ships are war graves, filled with human remains and protected by international law. However, many folks like to grab souvenirs or worse yet plunder pieces of the ships for sale on the black market. This is the equivalent of going into Arlington National Cemetery with a shovel looking for things to dig up, take from the graves, and sell on EBAY. But unlike Arlington, there are no guards on undersea war graves, so I refuse to post the GPS coordinates to the wrecks and assist the people who want to loot them.

[franksolich]

Thank you, Mr. Henneman.

You know, even with my degree in history (the University of Nebraska), I never paid much attention to the military side, and once I started joining these boards, I learned that, ooops, I'd better make up for lost time and learn some military history.

I am more than happy to take your word about the use of the word "the;" it was just a peculiarity I observed everywhere from wikipedia to the government of Australia, and with no naval background, it seemed confusing to me, a professional civilian.

Incidentally, about two-thirds of those from Nebraska who join the military, join the U.S. Navy, and the best ones the U.S. Marines--I'm not sure why, our being here in the middle of the country, far from any large body of water--and these people talk about their ships, but as I can't hear, I don't know how they refer to them, in conversational chitchat.

That's a really interesting web-site you have, sir, and I plan to plumb it even further.

[Ptarmigan]

Bismarck did not sink near Uruguay. It sunk in the North Atlantic, 600 miles from France in 15,000 feet of water, which is deeper than the Titanic at 13,000 feet. It landed on a underwater mountain. The Bismarck wreckage is in good condition. It is not badly damaged, unlike the Titanic which lies in two pieces and the stern section is total mess.

http://www.kbismarck.com/wreck.html

[DumbAss Tanker]

I wasn't aware the HMS Prince of Wales had anything to do with the scuttling of the German boat, the Bismarck, in Uruguay.

You are thinking of the Graf Spee, scuttled off Montevideo in the River Plate estuary, which was of a type referred to in the English language press of the time as a "Pocket Battelship" although actually a rather special type of heavy cruiser; the Germans called the type a 'Panzerschiff' or 'Armored Ship,' and did not class them with battleships at all.  At the time they were designed, they were faster than all but a handful of ships that could outgun them, and powered (unusually for the time) by Diesels rather than steam, giving them a vastly greater unrefueled range than any faster ships, all of which were powered by steam turbines.

The battleship HMS Prince of Wales, still in her final phases of being fitted out, and battlecruiser HMS Hood comprised one of many task forces chasing KMS Bismarck and her escort, the heavy cruiser KMS Prinz Eugen, and the two groups engaged at Denmark Strait.  While both sides found the range readily, the German gunnery had superior result, blowing the Hood apart very early on; the 8" guns on Prinz Eugen and the 15" guns on Bismarck were close ballistic matches and both German ships were scoring penetrating hits.  Bismarck took three shells itself in the exchange but to call them 'critical' is a bit of hyperbole; both British ships concentrated their fire on Bismarck, and Prinz Eugen was unscathed in the encounter.

With the near-instantaneous loss of Hood, and Prince of Wales own bridge crew wiped out and her 4-gun A Turret knocked out (leaving only the 2-gun elevated B Turret in action), the odds drastically changed and her surviving command decided to break off and scoot, an entirely wise decision.  Had the German task force commander known the true situation, his best course would have been to abort the raiding mission and pursue Prince of Wales to inflict sinking damage en route back the way he had come.  Unfortunately for Admiral Lutjens and the doomed crew, Prince of Wales had been identified incorrectly as her sister, HMS King George V (also in the pursuit but in a different location).  The consequence of this was that the proceeded away from her, because King George V was the flagship of the Home Fleet, and Lutjens would therefore have every reason to believe that a large number of slower but very heavily-armed British battleships lay on her reverse course.

By such chances are the fate of men and ships decided.

[Georgia Bulldog]

From what I recall reading, black market salvagers have dived the HMS Repulse and taken the ship's bell. I also believe that the bell from the Prince of Wales was salvaged due to a fear of it suffering the same fate.

[Bob Henneman]

Hell, not just the bell, but chunks of the ship have been removed by divers seaking a quick buck. The most obvious plundering was when first one, and then a second of HMS Repulse's massive propellers were stolen from the wreck for their scrap metal value. Other brass and copper items have vanished over the years also.

[Georgia Bulldog]

That is quite horrible, seems to be right up there with golf clubs I believe were made from one of the Lusitania's propellers. As for Repulse and Prince of Wales, I also read somewhere that during WWII the Japanese were considering raising the wrecks. Doubt it could have been done but stranger things have happened.

I think something similar happened to one of the British battlecruisers sunk during the Battle of Jutland, not sure exactly which one it was though. It's been salvaged pretty heavily in the years since it was sunk.

[Bob Henneman]

All the Jutland wrecks have been extensively salvaged and plundered. I have pics from my dive trips to most of them on my website http://www.bobhenneman.info/DiveHome.htm

Most were very crudely salvaged, with commercial firms blasting the hulls open to access the valuable non-ferrous metal items, like turbines, condensers, propellers, and copper pipe. The German battlecruiser Lutzow and British battlecruiser Queen Mary are not too badly gutted, but the British battlecruiser Indefatigable has been blasted beyond all recognition and no longer even looks like a ship, with no bit longer than about 15 feet left intact. Pity, as she was grave to 1,017 men.

As for Repulse, the Japanese sent divers soon after her loss to salvage the ship's radar, some guns, and other equipment. There was no thought of raising the whole wreck. However, in the 1970s a Japanese commercial firm expressed interest in raising both wrecks for scrap metal, as the price for pre-atomic age, radiation-free steel was quite high at the time, and the UK was actually prepared to sell the wrecks. Public outcry led to the plan being stopped cold, and the wrecks were eventually given protection as war graves. This has not stopped the plundering though.