>>And the Bismarck nothing is collasped into the mud<<
True, in and of itself, but if you take a look at the photos of the wreck, you'll see that there is substantial damage from bottom impact. The section around the region of the armour belt that's caved in was photographed by the Cameron Expedition to the wreck a few years ago, and it wasn't the result of damage sustained in combat.
>>very tip of her stern is completely severed from her but that happened at the surface after she had a torpedo hit there<<
Not quite. The stern was not blown off by the torpedo but the rudder was. Still, there was substantial structural damage to this region and the best evidence is that the forces at work in the sinking caused this structure to break away. The same construction style was used in nearly all German capital ships and caused the same problems.
>>Plus Bismarck had 320 mm (12.6") thick side hull plating which ran most of the side of bismarck minus fore and aft of the main battery`s<<
Not quite. The armour belt was that thick, but this wasn't used everywhere. If you go to http://www.kbismarck.com/proteccioni.html you'll see some good information on how it was arranged.
Interestingly enough, this armour arrangement was at least partly responsible for the ship's demise. While adaquate for World War One, it just wasn't arranged to deal with the threat of plunging fire at the longer engagement ranges of World War Two.
True, in and of itself, but if you take a look at the photos of the wreck, you'll see that there is substantial damage from bottom impact. The section around the region of the armour belt that's caved in was photographed by the Cameron Expedition to the wreck a few years ago, and it wasn't the result of damage sustained in combat.
>>very tip of her stern is completely severed from her but that happened at the surface after she had a torpedo hit there<<
Not quite. The stern was not blown off by the torpedo but the rudder was. Still, there was substantial structural damage to this region and the best evidence is that the forces at work in the sinking caused this structure to break away. The same construction style was used in nearly all German capital ships and caused the same problems.
>>Plus Bismarck had 320 mm (12.6") thick side hull plating which ran most of the side of bismarck minus fore and aft of the main battery`s<<
Not quite. The armour belt was that thick, but this wasn't used everywhere. If you go to http://www.kbismarck.com/proteccioni.html you'll see some good information on how it was arranged.
Interestingly enough, this armour arrangement was at least partly responsible for the ship's demise. While adaquate for World War One, it just wasn't arranged to deal with the threat of plunging fire at the longer engagement ranges of World War Two.