"HMS SPITFIRE-Story" - only partwise true

[Bavarian]

Dear Members of the Great War Forum,

when making considerations about the Great War - as of any war - we have to bear in mind that in wartime propaganda is just a means of warfare. The cleverer propaganda tricks are the better. A good example here is the well known "HMS SPITFIRE-Story" (to be found under Google "Jutland-Despatches" page 306 and on pages 328 to 331) which has survived until today.

Facts of the claimed port-bow to port-bow collision between the German battleship "SMS Nassau" und the British destroyer "HMS SPITFIRE":

The German High Seas Fleet did 16 knots and so did "SMS NASSAU" on the way back to port. The destroyer "HMS SPITFIRE" was capable of doing 31 knots what she in the vicinity of German warships doubtlessly did. The individual speed of both ships summed up to ca. 47 knots i.e. 87 kilometers per hour.

Bow to bow collision means that the two wedge shaped bodies raced onto each other thereby hull sliding along hull. This would have created an extremely strong underwater suction between the two ships. The impulse above water, however, would have very forcefully driven apart both superstructures. "SMS NASSAU" with 22,000 tons would have heeled over to starboard according to John Campbell by 5 – 10 degrees "HMS SPITFIRE" with only 950 tons, however, would certainly have capsized. Therefore "HMS SPITFIRE" cannot have rammed "SMS NASSAU". "SMS NASSAU" was rammed by an entirely other and bigger destroyer at an almost right angle that knocked a big hole into the port side of the German ship – according to an eye-witness "…from the waterline to the deck…". The destroyer broke asunder on impact, her rear part immediately sank. Her bow point with anchor's hawse remained stuck in "SMS NASSAU'S" side.

It is widely unkown that as a consequence of this ramming torpedoes exploded on board of the attacking destroyer next to the attacked ship causing grave damage.

Even if the "HMS SPITFIRE-Story" is not true to a large extent doubtlessly true is that a strake from "SMS NASSAU" was torn out and brought to UK on board of the front half of the ramming destroyer.

I have written an article for an English magazine or paper in which I am in an unbiased way explaining wrong statements of "SMS NASSAU'S" war-log and a tampered with document. There is of course enough evidence with my article.

Could please one of the members of this forum advise me to which magazine or paper I could best offer my article.

Kind regards to all forum members

Bavarian

[centurion]

Your account contains some contradictions. You say that it was another destroyer that rammed and then sank but you also say that the strake was brought back on the ramming destroyer.. Worth clarifying,

[sadsac]

Ernst / Bavarian, I have replied to your PM. Agree with Centurion that there is some clarifying needed to be done.

Also you have posted NASSAU / SPITFIRE on same event - perhaps a`merge' would be better.

Sadsac

[PMHart]

I believe the Fortean Times would be an excellent depositary for this fascinating bit of in depth research! They are always looking for this kind of story. I read somewhere that it was an alien battle-destroyer craft (Zog Class) that crashed into the Nassau, then mind-melded all the witnesseses to say it was the Spitfire, before transporting the armour plating aboard the Spitfire to add to the confusion! Strange days.

Live long and prosper!

Star Pete

PS Below is the more dull version:-

For a few minutes, the 4th Flotilla, succeeded in deflecting the High Seas Fleet from the very precise course of it escape route. Unfortunately, when Scheer reached the bend in the line caused by the leading ships bending away, he instantly realised what was happening and issued an immediate course correction that swung the line back on target for the Horns Reef sanctuary. Meanwhile, the Spitfire, which had already been hit by several German shells and was thus unable to fire its remaining torpedoes, turned back to go to the assistance of the burning Tipperary.

We closed the Tipperary, now a mass of burning wreckage and looking a very sad sight indeed. At a distance her bridge, wheelhouse and charthouse appeared to be one sheet of flame, giving one the impression of a burning house and so bright was the light from this part that it seemed to obliterate ones vision of the remainder of the ship and of the sea round about, except that part close to her which was all lit up, reflecting the flames. Lieutenant Athelstan Bush, HMS Spitfire, 4th Flotilla

Looming out of the dark, they saw a German ship, coming towards them across their port bow. Lieutenant-Commander Clarence Trelawny of the Spitfire, acted immediately. He ordered the helm to be put hard over at full speed, to avoid being hit amidships and cut in two. By swinging the destroyer round so that it would face the impact head on, he would at least give them some kind of a chance of survival. Having issued the orders he leant over the bridge and shouted to his men to clear the focsle, for a collision was clearly inevitable. The limited nature of their night vision meant that he and his crew were convinced they were facing a German light cruiser. In fact it was the 20,000 ton battleship Nassau that the 935 ton destroyer was preparing out of necessity to ram.

The two ships met head on, port bow to port bow, we were steaming at almost 27 knots, she steaming at not less than ten knots (perhaps 20 or more). You can imagine how the eighth inch plates of a destroyer would feel under such a blow. I can recollect a fearful crash, then being hurled across the deck, and feeling the Spitfire rolling over to starboard as no sea ever made her roll. As we bumped, the enemy opened fire with their focsle guns, though luckily they could not depress them to hit us, but the blast literally cleared everything before it. Our foremast came tumbling down, our forard searchlight found its way from its platform above the fore-bridge down to the deck, and the foremost funnel was blown back until it rested neatly between the two foremost ventilation cowls, like the hinging funnel of a penny river steamboat. Lieutenant Athelstan Bush, HMS Spitfire, 4th Flotilla

Just before the impact, two shells had crashed through the screen of the bridge killing almost everyone there. Captain Trelawny miraculously escaped with only a scalp wound, though he was blown right off the bridge onto the main deck. The coxswain and one other able seamen were later found trapped in the wreckage. To be released the unfortunate seaman subsequently had to have his leg amputated without any anaesthetic, whilst lying amongst the tangled ruins of the bridge. The Spitfire was in a dreadful state.

Fires started breaking out forward and to make matters worse all the lights were short circuited, so that anyone going up to the bridge received strong electric shocks. Moreover, all the electric bells in the ship were ringing, which made things feel rather creepy. It was extraordinary the way the fire spread, burning strongly in places where one thought there was hardly anything inflammable, such as on the fore-bridge and the decks, but flags, signal halliards and the coconut matting on he deck all caught fire, and sparks from the latter were flying about everywhere. We thought the light would be sure to draw some enemys fire upon us, but fortunately it didnt. There was a large hole in the base of the second funnel through which flames were pouring out, and every single hosepipe in the ship seemed to be cut by splinters and useless. Lieutenant Athelstan Bush, HMS Spitfire, 4th Flotilla

The enormous impact of the head on collision at a combined speed of around 40 knots, had been such that not even the mighty Nassau escaped unscathed in this brief David and Goliath encounter. Heinz Bonatz was on duty in the 5.9 port battery.

We sustained a direct hit on the forward group of lights and, soon after, rammed HMS Spitfire which had not seen us. The destroyer brushed against the 15cm gun in my casemate and ripped it and its carriage from the deck. Just a few seconds before the collision, I had been looking through the telescopic sight on the right side of the gun but was then called away to my proper battle station of the starboard side, because destroyers were reported there. Thus I stood right in the doorway of the middle casemate which lay between the two 15 cm gun casemates. With the tilt of the ship, the armour plated door struck me on the right foot and the back. We believed the British ship to be destroyed at the time, especially as a great number of pieces of wreckage, both great and small, were floating round us. Cadet Heinz Bonatz, SMS Nassau, 2nd Division, I Battle Squadron

Despite the horrendous damage she suffered the Spitfire did not sink but limped off to lick her wounds. Some 20 feet of the Nassaus armour plating had been wrenched off her port side and came to rest on the forecastle of the Spitfire. It was the ultimate souvenir of their encounter.

All propaganda lies of course!

[Bavarian]

Thank you Centurion, Sadsac and PMHart and probably some more to come

,

yes Gentlemen, clarifying is exactly my intention. Though my evidence is most convincing it is quite space consuming, probably too much for a contribution in this forum. If need be I could well put my whole article woith evidence in here but then I should have to clear the coypyrights of photographs and other documents e.g. the tampered with technical drawing of the damage of "SMS NASSAU" for internet publication.

As I have already said I would very much prefer a publication in an adequate magazine.

I do rely on your help

Kind regards

Ernst = Bavarian

[centurion]

I think the point is - if you want to get it published in a serious magazine you'll need to send the editor a summary before he/she will look at the detail. Accordingly you don't want a summary that contains contradictions.

[sadsac]

Ernst - see your Personal Message (PM). Have picture of SPITFIRE.

Suggetsions re printing of article / story.

Sadsac

[Devonport56]

Dear Forum Members,

I have an interest in the "HMS SPITFIRE-Story" since my grandfather, W.O. Philip White, was the Torpedo Gunner on Spitfire. Around New Year 1971 he confirmed to me the collision had occurred.

In addition to Lt. Athelstan Bush's account which PMHart quotes above, Spitfire's captain, Lt. Cdr. Trelawny, wrote an article On the "SPITFIRE" at Jutland that appeared in the April 1928 Strand Magazine.

Photographs (well worth a look!) from this article may be seen at http://www.navy-net.co.uk/history/58890-jutland-damage-hms-spitfire-3.html#post1058644 where there was a related discussion.

Here I quote from Trelawny's account, beginning after Spitfire fired two torpedoes at the start of the action:

"... as soon as we resumed our course, we saw Tipperary behind us, a dreadful blazing torch. She was stopped, and was being fired at under the concentration of the enemy's searchlights. So back we went to attack the ships attacking her. Unfortunately, as we turned back the torpedo davit was struck in three places. Three men were wounded, and the torpedo could not be got into the tube.

As we got near I suppose I felt maddened at seeing our leader disabled and being so fiercely attacked. I gave what must have seemed the hopeless order to fire at the enemy searchlights. All praise to them, the gun's crew (officers and men) responded to the order as coolly as if at target practice. Those lights went out.

And now to my horror, in the light of the burning Tipperary, I saw bearing down upon us a large enemy vessel, making as if to ram us; and just behind him another vessel, so that if we went on we should be cut in two, and if we turned the same way we should get caught by one or both of them. There was nothing for it but to turn towards the nearest ship and trust to luck to avoid him. We turned at high speed, but, oh! how slowly we seemed to come round. Everything was lit up by the burning Tipperary. As the enemy loomed nearer and nearer, it seemed impossible that we could get clear. Those aft noted that the enemy had three funnels with a red band on each. On the bridge we were blinded by the flashes of our fo'c'sle gun. All I recall is that she had a large crane amidships, and looked big. I saw that we were in for it, port bow to port bow. Sure enough, in a moment there was a most ghastly crash, shell-bursts and splinterings. Things fell all around me, and I imagine I lost consciousness for a short time, for the next thing I remember was seeing the water within a few feet of my face and saying to myself: "We must be sinking."

I suppose that no vessel can have sustained a more terrific shock. Our speed would have been nearly thirty knots, and that of the Nassau (as she afterwards proved to be) at least twenty, so we must have crashed past each other at a good fifty miles an hour. All the boats, davits, etc., on the port side were swept clean away, and one man was thrown or blown overboard from the fo'c'sle gun and never seen again. The bridge and each light platform were completely demolished, and the mast and foremost funnel were brought down. This damage was partly done by the blast of a large calibre gun, which was fired at us at the moment of collision. The projectile went through the starboard bridge screens without exploding. Another projectile of the same calibre, six or eight inch, passed through the bottom of the second funnel from port fore side to starboard after side, grazing the top of the boiler. It was fortunate this did not explode. We may have received this earlier, or just before colliding.

The forecastle was torn open from the stem to abreast the galley, for forty feet above water, and from the stem to the second bulkhead below water. On the fore mess deck no side plating was left, from the level of the deck to the tops of the lockers, for a length from the stem as far as the capstan engine. Some water got into the store-rooms between the second and third bulkheads, but the third bulkhead held well, and there was never any water in fore magazines or shell-rooms or on the lower mess deck.

Of those on the bridge, three were killed outright and three were severely wounded. But again, of all this I knew nothing at that time. I was lying flat on the upper deck, thirty feet from where the bridge had been, with my head over the side. I was staring at the water. Then I felt myself being picked up and found myself holding onto Chief Stoker Weavers. I discovered afterwards that he had a broken jaw. Soon I found myself by the midship gun. I was asking them angrily why they weren't firing. We were all so dazed by the shock for the moment we didn't realize what was happening. However, we very soon recovered ourselves and took stock of things.

Bush, our first lieutenant, was already steering the ship from aft ..."

--- From the Strand Magazine, April 1928, pages 335--342.

[PMHart]

Hi Devonport,

I do wish you wouldn't post factual accounts and photos as it ruins my dolly daydreams! I think both my brain cells would agree that wild assertions produced with no evidence whatsoever are far more believable than official reports, personal memoirs (British and German), photographs and a large piece of the Nassau on the deck! Do please get real! I would hope that most Great War enthusiasts realise that the aliens are amongst us and intervening on a daily basis in human battles. Look at the disappearing Norfolks for instance!*

Gullible Pete

*Too late they've vanished again - but keep watching the skies...

[Bavarian]

Dear Devonport56,

it is very interesting to hear that your grandfather was torpedo gunner on board of HMS SPITFIRE at Jutland. Under the link you mentioned I found some photographs which were new to me but also one that I knew pretty well, the photograph of the port side of HMS SPITFIRE entering the Tyne with a very big white 41 on her port side.Though of rather poor quality this photograph gives the impression that the destroyer's bow is somewhat flattened but she definitely did not ram SMS NASSAU. SMS NASSAU was rammed by a much bigger destroyer at an almost right angle - see PMHart - which knocked a hole into her side - according to an eye-witness - from the waterline to the deck. The ramming destroyer's bow point with anchor's hawse remained stuck in SMS NASSAU'S port side.

Please note! Torpedoes exploded on board of the attacking destroyer next to the attacked ship; this caused considerable damage at SMS NASSAU'S forecastle. Pieces of flesh and much blood and e.g. a kid glove with a hand in were found on SMS NASSAU'S deck - the account of eye-witness Rupert Berger is the ultimate horror. Crew of HMS PITFIRE must have been torn to pieces by the explosion of their own torpedoes.

All members of this forum may be ascertained that I would not even dream of making claims litke that without being able to present solid evidence.

Kind regards

Ernst or Bavarian

[sadsac]

ERnst, once again you have `muddy'd the waters' - you write that NASSAU / SPITFIRE did not collided / ram, but then you go on to write that `crew of SPITFIRE must have been torn apart by explosions'??? That gives that N / S did collide !!! No wonder PMHart messages Dum te Dum - he may well have written Ho Hum !!!

Sadsac

[KizmeRD]

Ernst,

Based on what you have posted here I think you may currently struggle to find any naval history magazine in the UK sufficiently interested in publishing your article (zZ ist deine Interpretation nicht schlüssig).

However, if you do have any 'solid evidence', then I think that everyone here on the forum would like to see it posted (even in summary form).

Michael

[centurion]

Ernst

Spitfire was obviously in collision with something pretty hefty

Nassau was also in collision with something

If you are claiming that they were not in collision with each other to have any credibility it is necessary to make at least an informed guess at the other two ships and also to explain how Spitfire came to have parts of the Nassau on board.

Not sure why you want me to E mail you.

[simonharley]

Forgive my assumptions, Ernst, but perhaps you might be better off getting published in a German-language journal before trying to bridge the language gap with your research? Just a thought.

Simon

[Terry Duncan]

The German High Seas Fleet did 16 knots and so did "SMS NASSAU" on the way back to port. The destroyer "HMS SPITFIRE" was capable of doing 31 knots what she in the vicinity of German warships doubtlessly did. The individual speed of both ships summed up to ca. 47 knots i.e. 87 kilometers per hour.

Campbell records that Spitfire was steaming at about 25kts at the time of the collision, making the impact at a speed of around 41kts.

Bow to bow collision means that the two wedge shaped bodies raced onto each other thereby hull sliding along hull. This would have created an extremely strong underwater suction between the two ships. The impulse above water, however, would have very forcefully driven apart both superstructures. "SMS NASSAU" with 22,000 tons would have heeled over to starboard according to John Campbell by 5 – 10 degrees "HMS SPITFIRE" with only 950 tons, however, would certainly have capsized. Therefore "HMS SPITFIRE" cannot have rammed "SMS NASSAU". "SMS NASSAU" was rammed by an entirely other and bigger destroyer at an almost right angle that knocked a big hole into the port side of the German ship – according to an eye-witness "…from the waterline to the deck…". The destroyer broke asunder on impact, her rear part immediately sank. Her bow point with anchor's hawse remained stuck in "SMS NASSAU'S" side.

Where does Campbell conclude Spitfire would have capsized? In his book on Jutland he clearly details the collision between Spitfire and Nassau. The impact was at 1 degree convergence, collisions of this type are not uncommon and the smaller ship does not always capsize.

The Wiki article on Spitfire has the photo of the ship reaching port, showing the blast damage that had taken down the bridge and funnel and the marks left by the collision;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HMSSpitfireJutlanddamage.jpg

The destroyer broke asunder on impact, her rear part immediately sank. Her bow point with anchor's hawse remained stuck in "SMS NASSAU'S" side.

A ship is not likely to break apart from an impact at such a shallow angle, nor are torpedoes likely to simply explode from such an event.

"SMS NASSAU" was rammed by an entirely other and bigger destroyer at an almost right angle that knocked a big hole into the port side of the German ship – according to an eye-witness "

What eyewitnesses recorded such an event as a right angled impact? I have never seen such account in many years of reading about Jutland.

Torpedoes exploded on board of the attacking destroyer next to the attacked ship; this caused considerable damage at SMS NASSAU'S forecastle.

The damage is likely blast damage caused by firing the guns at maximum depression and having the target so close hat hand. See damage incurred by Rodney shooting at very low elevation into the hull of Bismarck for further details of how bad this sort of thing can look afterwards. If torpedoes had exploded on a ship next to Nassau the damage would not be to Nassau's decks unless they had been mounted at a similar level. As the decks of Nassau would be at least 10ft above the torpedoes on any British desroyer, any blast damage from torpedoes exploding should have been focussed on the side of the battleship and not the deck.

SMS NASSAU was rammed by a much bigger destroyer at an almost right angle

So tell us which ship did this? Sparrowhawk was the only destroyer to suffer a double collision and lose her stern, and she is the same size as Spitfire. I can think of no suitably larger destroyer, or are you thinking of flotilla leaders like Tipperary?

[centurion]

http://en.wikipedia....tlanddamage.jpg

The destroyer broke asunder on impact, her rear part immediately sank. Her bow point with anchor's hawse remained stuck in "SMS NASSAU'S" side.

A ship is not likely to break apart from an impact at such a shallow angle, nor are torpedoes likely to simply explode from such an event.

Torpedoes exploded on board of the attacking destroyer next to the attacked ship; this caused considerable damage at SMS NASSAU'S forecastle.

The damage is likely blast damage caused by firing the guns at maximum depression and having the target so close hat hand. See damage incurred by Rodney shooting at very low elevation into the hull of Bismarck for further details of how bad this sort of thing can look afterwards. If torpedoes had exploded on a ship next to Nassau the damage would not be to Nassau's decks unless they had been mounted at a similar level. As the decks of Nassau would be at least 10ft above the torpedoes on any British desroyer, any blast damage from torpedoes exploding should have been focussed on the side of the battleship and not the deck.

Indeed when in WW2 HMS Glowworm rammed the Hipper whist she sank she did not break apart and there was no torpedo explosion

The phrase "wrong statements of "SMS NASSAU'S" war-log and a tampered with document" does sound is if someone is propounding a conspiracy theory but why would anyone want to do this?

[Bavarian]

Dear Members of the Forum,

a destroyer rammed SMS NASSAU and thereby knocked a big hole into the battleship's port side. The bow point of the destroyer with anchor's hawse remaned stuck in the German ship. Which destroyer is was is unknown. I refer to the first lines of PMHart; he names a destroyer of "ZOG-Class". I honestly admit that I have never heard of that type before.

The damage done to SMS NASSAU'S port side makes it evident that she can never have collided with HMS SPITFIRE. You all know the photograph with the big white "41" on her port side. As far as I know the Royal Navy only marked their ships like that until 1914 - plese correct me if I'm wrong. And don't forget the torpedoes that exploded on board of the destroyer.

Sorry but I havent yet got permission to use the photographs of the Bundesarchiv, Freiburg, in an internet forum.

I'd like to publish my article which consists of about 10 pages foolscap in a magazine - with documents it's somewhat more.

Would Simon Harley please be as kind as to help me by checking and correcting my article from the linguistic point of view.

I appreciate this discussion.

Regards to all of you

Ernst

[KizmeRD]

I don't think anyone is struggling with the linguistic aspects of your alternative account of the action Ernst - just the factual content.

Please provide plausable evidence of what you are alluding to - otherwise your interpretation of events remains exceedingly unconvincing.

Michael.

[PMHart]

The alien Zog Class battlecrusiers were 400,000 tons with intergalactic warp-drive, armed with Zappo ray guns and Biffo disintegraters. They also had a ram for action at sea! I suspect this is what damaged the Nassau.

Helpful Pete

P.S. the damge to the Spitfire in the 1914 photo referred to by Ernst was caused by a lower deck whist party that got disastrously out of hand....

[keithmroberts]

Helpful Pete

While I do appreciate the scientific expertise that leads to your posts here, could we please let this thread remain strictly nautical and keep the inter galactic elements out of this debate.

Thanks

Keith

[KizmeRD]

Is the damage to SMS Nassau shown in the attached picture consistent with a port to port collision, or a ninety degree side impact?

The answer seems pretty clear to me - but I'm still a bit surprised that the main damage to Nassau appears at the height it is.

Michael

[Terry Duncan]

Indeed when in WW2 HMS Glowworm rammed the Hipper whist she sank she did not break apart and there was no torpedo explosion

Quite. Furthermore the damage to Hipper after the ramming is not dissimilar to that shown to the sides of Spitfire and Nassau, with both verticle and horizontal scoring from the contact - though missing the marks inflicted by Glowworm's propeller.

http://www.warshipsww2.eu/shipsplus.php?language=&id=21083

From what I can see, the photo of the damage to Nassau shows the line left by the passage of the Spitfire's forcastle deck as a dark score line between the two rows of portholes, and is at a height of about 12ft from the waterline, which looks to be correct when the ships are compared. The following site has several pictures of the Nassau class showing their freeboard in comparison to a destroyer and showing them without the damage too;

http://www.cityofart.net/bship/sms_nassau.html

Without being able to see the actual collision it is only possible to look at the damage and then consider how it could have resulted when applying the known details. The damage at the deck level of Nassau is probably from the blast of the fore turrets guns firing forwards at maximum depression, as this would be likely to have a severe effect to the deck planking. This area is also above the armoured belts and decks forward and thus is simply light plating. This could have distorted with the collision and weakened the area where the planking joined to the side of the ship, which in turn would then have made any blast damage even worse, or even from the anchor which is carried high on the bow of the Acasta class destroyers. These thoughts are obviously only conjecture, but there is little else that can account for the damage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Shark_%281912%29

The damage is certainly extensive, but is clearly not from a high angled impact ramming as would be illustrated in a collision such as Prinz Eugen ramming Leipzig in WWII;

http://www.ww2f.com/eastern-europe-february-1943-end-war/13606-battle-baltic-sea-1944-1945-a.html

With such an impact, even from a small ship at high speed, the result is always an angled impact dent into the rammed ship almost always breaching the side of the ship and crushing the bow of the ship doing the ramming. It would never result in damage that resembled scoring lines down the hull of either ship as is shown in the post Jutland pics of Spitfire and Nassau.

There is the option of claiming Nassau rammed Black Prince, though as she was a very large armoured cruiser with four funnels it would be impossible to justify confusing her with Spitfire, not to mention the other British ships failing to notice such a large ship joining them in their maneuvers!

Which destroyer is was is unknown.

So why do you say it was not Spitfire? If it was not Nassau that Spitfire rammed, what did she ram and what demolished her bridge and funnel at Jutland?

You all know the photograph with the big white "41" on her port side. As far as I know the Royal Navy only marked their ships like that until 1914 - plese correct me if I'm wrong.

This I couldnt tell you, i have seen pictures with some ships showing numbers attributed to war years and other ships without them. However, it would appear from what I can tell that Spitfire never collided with anything else in her career, so what accounts for the damage in the photo if it was not a collision at Jutland?

And don't forget the torpedoes that exploded on board of the destroyer.

And precisely how do we know without doubt any such thing did happen? You have posted the claim here but not supported it with anything so far.

The answer seems pretty clear to me - but I'm still a bit surprised that the main damage to Nassau appears at the height it is.

The damage is certainly high up, and is somewhat unusual in looking far more like something acted as a can opener along the seam of the deck and side plating. The odd part is that whilst the damage appears at first glance to be quite severe, the side of the ship is not pushed in greatly as far as can be seen and the damage gets more severe as it progresses towards the right hand edge of the photo. This looks almost like something has dug into Nassau and dragged along doing more damage until it has ripped out or off above the 5th and 6th lower porthole positions. Such damage could be from an anchor or maybe even part of the superstructure of Spitfire as she passed side to side, but it is perfectly clear that whatever did cause this damage it was from a side to side impact where two ships passed in opposite directions at a low angle of impact. The damage is most certainly not caused by any impact at an angle higher than about ten degrees as the lower belt armour is still intact and in place, and there is absolutely no angled cut into this as shown in the pictures of Leipzig from WWII in a high angle impact ramming incident.

[centurion]

. This looks almost like something has dug into Nassau and dragged along doing more damage until it has ripped out or off above the 5th and 6th lower porthole positions.

How about Spitfires missing forward gun?

[Terry Duncan]

Perfectly possible, the mounting ring itself could cause quite a lot of damage to anything as it wouldnt rip out of Spitfire easily. Quite how it would embed itself is another matter, though in collisions odd things do happen. I really cannot see how anyone can look at the picture of Nassau and conclude the damage comes from anything but a low angle, side to side impact.

[Bavarian]

Dear Members of the Forum,

I would very much like to publish my article in an adequate magazine. This is because the information that I have given you up to now is insufficient for thecomplete understanding of the course of events.

I'll try to get consent from the Bundesarchiv, Freiburg (Federal German Archive), for the use of their material in The Great War Forum. If possible I would then put the whole article into the forum which consists with documents of evidence of about 13 pages office-paper.

All three eye-witnesses mention in their up to now unpublished accounts a big hole in SMS NASSAU'S port side. War-log and Berger confirm that the destroyer's bow point remained stuck in the battleship.

German war propaganda - not more and not less credible than the British - avoided showing that big hole outside the right rim of the photograph. The full length of the missing strake at the bare frames was about 20 ft.

Centurion: HMS SPITFIRE with a thicknes of her outer skin of a bit more than 3 millimeters an her hull almost undamaged at the crucial point can never have caused the damage shown in the photograph which reached up to 3.5 meters into the deck. The thickness of SMS NASSAU'S side plates at the forecastle was 12 millimeters according to my information.

As to the breaking apart of the destroyer. When a destroyer with an overall weight of only 950 tons ramms a battleship with 22.000 tons it is almost as if she had rammed a solid rock.

What you see as dug into SMS NASSAU and drugged along is the result of an explosion.

Terry Duncan: Campbell said that Nassau heeled over by 5 - 10 degrees. Sorry that he did not say a word to what extent the far lighter HMS SPITFIRE heeled over. That's why I made the conclusion that she would have capsized if the ramming had occurred as described. I did not say that she broke apart on impact at an acute but at an obtuse or almost right angle. The eye-witnesses accounts are quoted in my article. As to the torpedo explosions; please look again and again at the photograph giving each detail the necessary intensive consideration.

I would very much like to to tell you which destroyer rammed SMS NASSAU if only I could. War-log and eye-witnesses mention a big four funnel destroyer or a flotilla-leader.

KizmED: You are justly surprised! The damage shown in the photograph can not have been caused by a destroyer with an outer skin of a bit more than 3 millimeters sliding along SMS NASSAU'S hull. The so claimed bow to bow collision would doubtlessly have caused at least scratches if not more significant damage below the torn open edge between hull and deck. Who can see those scratches?

Terry Duncan: The point of impact is outside the rigjht rim of the photograph.

Kind regards to all of you

Ernst