How Did The Bismarck Manage To Sink HMS Hood So Quickly? | Full Documentary
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ต.ค. 2024
- On 24th May 1941 at 05:52 the pride of the British fleet , HMS Hood, engaged the mighty German ship Bismarck in battle. At 06:00 the Hood was hit and it sunk in less than 3 minutes. Only 3 of her 1418 crew survived - the single biggest loss of life in a single engagement in the history of the Royal Navy but why this 860 feet long ship sank so quickly has been a mystery for over 70 years. Now, the team that discovered the giant wreck eleven years ago is on its way back to finally find the answer.
For even more unbelievable documentaries, subscribe to our channel:
/ @factual7483
Welcome to the Factual Channel, the best place to watch amazing documentaries! Here you will find both full episode documentaries and documentary series.
Hood was incredible unlucky. As I have worked out - inspired by an excellent video of Drachinifel - at the point blank range Bismarck's shells were following quite a flat track of about 11º-13º from horizontal (German Testing Data). There was therefor no plunging shells to penetrate the decks or the turrets. The 13" main armour on her sides would have stopped the shells on this flat trajectory , but these shells would penetrate the 5" secondary armour above it. Inside Hood however was an tertiary 3" armoured deck below (above the magazines) on which those penetrating shells would bounce of and explode; still damaging but not fatal. This armoured deck however was of a turtle-back design, meaning that the sides were sloped down about 60º. With Hood on an even keel an 11º penetrating shot clipping the upper edge of the main armour belt would still hit the horizontal deck and bounce of. The hood however was NOT on an even keel. She turned hard to port making her list towards Bismarck. She just had to list about 3º for a shell clipping the upper edge of the 13"main armour and penetrating the 5" armour above it to hit the bend down sides of the 3"armoured deck at about 76º, enough to penetrate into the powder magazine. If she listed more - which is likely - that 76º angle would become almost perpendicular making penetration easier.
Other theories don't work in my opinion
Listing in a turn would make the theory of penetrating the 3" upper deck armour unlikely as the deck armour was tested and could withstand 15" shells at angles below 20º; Hood would have been listing more than 7º to make that a possibility and that is quite a severe list. Even if she did and the shells penetrated the upper deck, the lower armoured turle-back deck would have stopped the shell that by then had lost most of its penetrating power. With the maximum elevation of Bismarck's turrets of 30º, Bismarck had no where near enough elevation to create plunging fire at the distance Hood was (17,000 yards).
The second theory of a "short" hitting the water and proceed to penetrate beneath the main armour belt becomes IMO also unlikely when taking the turn into consideration. When at full speed in a straight line Hood would create a big bow wave with quite a deep trough near the aft magazines almost fully exposing the main armour belt at the deepest point. A 15" shell hitting that deepest point close to Hood might possibly penetrate beneath the armour belt and explode inside the magazine. But Hood wasn't going in a straight line, she was turning. As a result the trough would have flattened out putting the main armour deeper in the water, and the list in the turn would have put the main belt even deeper into the water making a "short" penetration IMO nearly impossible.
Amazing how HOOD was so famous. My grandparents living in Burma literally half a world away from England, from both my mom and dad's side, who were just small children when WW2 broke out knew of the HOOD.
It became famous cus of the real Star the King of the oacen the Bismark
@@Monster3Games "the king of the ocean Bismarck?" I think you mean HMS Rodney.... "The king is dead... long live the king !!!".
I think it became so famous because of the way it was used as a flag bearer for the British Royal Navy during the inter war years and how it was use to carry the king and queen on a few occasions . The world tour probably helped to cement her reputation and legend.
It did say that the hood went on a world tour so that could explain
Some people read and listen to news, and soak it in ?
I was impressed on the rudder footage locked towards port. Holland did start the turn to fight side to side, but he ran out of time, and luck. Peace to all those souls, british and germans alike.
Пусть горят они в аду, в русском аду.
Short version: Bismarck's shell penetrated Hood's armor, which it was easily capable of at the shorter ranges they were shooting from, and the shell entered a powder room and detonated. There's really no other explanation. Bismarck's shells were capable of penetrating roughly 17" of British armor at those ranges (18k yards, less than 9 miles). Hood didn't have near that much armor.
It wasn't plunging fire that went through the thinner deck armor...that only happens from long range, and this battle was not remotely long range. It was short to medium range. Less than 9 miles.
I never have understood the need to make excuses for Hood or find another reason than the most obvious: Her armor was simply overmatched and the shell performed as designed. The shell could easily have broken up or hit a structural beam or machinery and been deflected inside the ship and not hit the magazine...but it didn't.
Battleships are BIG. If you've never been on one, you simply can't grasp the scale. Shells, even the big ones, are tiny compared to a Battleship. Most of the time, it doesn't matter if your shells CAN penetrate your opponent's armor, it matters WHERE is penetrates. The magazines aren't but so big, and they're deep in the ship, so you can punch holes in the armor all day long and possibly never hit one. To do so, is simply pure luck.
USS Washington outmatched IJN Kirishima in every way at Guadalcanal. Over 20 hits with 16" shells, penetrated everywhere including her armor belt...but no magazine explosion. Same range as Hood vs Biz. Kirishima was defeated and sank from Washington's shell hits...but none of them exploded in a powder magazine, because those hits are HARD to get.
IMO, it's really that simple. It was just a very lucky hit in just the right spot. Bismarck almost got 2 of them, because they found an unexploded 15" shell deep in Prince of Wales that would likely have detonated her, too. If that shell hits Hood instead of the one that did, the battle most likely goes to the Brits.
Nice one
Far more succinct to say it got a critical hit.
@@dariusgreysun Well yeah, but that much is obvious. Folks usually want a few details, lol
A youtuber named Drachenfelt has made a plausible explanation.
If the fuse on that unexploded 15" shell recovered from HMS Prince of Wales had been functioning correctly it would never have got there in the first place. It would have detonated in the water. Even pretending for a moment that it had some super-long-acting fuse and did detonate inside POW, it still wouldn't have destroyed her as it hit the TDS abreast the starboard diesel room.
The captain of the Bismark knew when he sank Hms Hood he was doomed,he told naval command the British will not stop till we are sunk!
True! the German seamen weren't happy about having Lütjens on board. It was like a bad omen for them.
Yes the victorious euphoria was very short lived. The final night aboard Bismark was full of foreboding. Everyone aboard knew they might be killed the following day. There is good evidence that when it was obvious Bismark was finished , they tried to surrender. But how would anyone feel about accepting a surrender when you knew that this enemy had just killed 1400 odd of your fellow sailors ??.
@@scabbycatcat4202 Individuals onboard Bismarck may well have tried to surrender, but naval warfare doesn't work like that.... ("Can we stop the firing while these 7 men board a lifeboat and sail away, before we recommence firing"). Surrender at sea is signalled by lowering your battle ensign, Bismarck refused to do that, it was still at the head of the mainmast as she sank.
@@scabbycatcat4202 even though Hood fired upon Bismarck first. That's like me trying to do something bad to you, failing miserably, then when you defend yourself my family hunts you down. People are twisted...
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 ..everyone above deck was already dead. There wasn't anyone to lower the flag.
" They have solved a major mystery ! " No, they haven't. The deck armour of HMS Hood was sufficient to stop plunging fire from any ship. There was amour plating on three different decks totalling 7", with blast spaces in between. There was no mystery about a magazine explosion. That was a given, considering the fact that Hood was blown in half. But another theory has more credence. Every ship sailing at speed ceates a bow wave. Like all waves, it creates a trough behind it that leaves a large section of hull exposed. Photographs of Hood in peacetime sailing show that this trough actually exposed the hull to below the belt armour. A shell hitting at that point could have easily penetrated the 4" magazine and set it alight. The resulting explosion would have blown through to the main gun magazine located just behind and above. Eye witness reports told of a pillar of fire escaping up through the torpedo flat vents, before the main explosion. A fire in the 4" magazine would have sent a flame up through that exact spot, as described. So the most probable cause was a hit below the belt amour, not through the deck armour. How could that happen if the ship was turning? Yes, the rudder was " hard over " but a ship of that size wont turn on a sixpence. It takes time and Hood didn't have enough time to escape the final salvo from Bismark. Hood had not turned, even though the order to turn had been given. Therefore the bow wave gave Bismark the chance it needed to score a fatal hit. Just rotten luck for everyone on HMS Hood.
Nerd, shut up
Apparently not
Feasible explanation..
The obvious problem with that theory is the the trough is nowhere near X turret or the 4" aft magazines. The other problem is that Bismarck was firing at around 11 degrees for the final salvos. Plunging fire is 20 or more degrees, So any reference to plunging fire is moot, as there was none.
Go see the drachnifel video
The video stated that the shell takes 50 seconds to reach its opponent. They also said the Hood can complete its turn to broadside in 30 seconds. (All approximate I’m sure) So I would think that AFTER the Bismarck fired the kill shot, the captain of the Hood ordered the turn. If the Hood had kept its previous course, the deadly shell from the Bismarck would have missed. The captain of the Hood turned his ship right under the falling Bismarck shell. Still good shooting by the Bismarck, but incredible luck was also involved.
So, no doors left open that time? only that nasty german habit shooting at the ships of the worlds best navy!
RIP to all the brave sailors, British and German,
Yes, what a hellish way of leaving this world.
Any ship has a massive detonation if its magazine is hit....Jutland, it happened many times. USS Arizona suffered a similar fate..I believe the Japanese used bombs modified from Amor pricing shells. When navies are shooting at each other from great distances...luck plays a tremendous part..
Any ship has a massive detonation if its magazine is hit by rubbish magazine operators.
Annother documentary on the Hood
My uncle was a stoker on the Hood, and he did not survive. My mother told me that her brother was so proud to be chosen to serve on the Hood.
The ship you show at 0:09 is actually HMS Iron Duke, built 1913. She was serving as a depot and training ship by the beginning of WW2.
Its definitely not Hood. Hood had a cruiser bow and 2 superfiring turrets forward. Iron Duke had by that stage lost her superfiring turret forward (as shown in this footage) but still has a ram bow, as was common in pre-WW1 dreadnoughts.
The ship at 0:17 looks like one of the Renown class, probably HMS Repulse but I'm not certain. Same 15 inch guns as Hood, but only 6. Repulse was lost alongside Prince of Wales with Force Z in the Indian Ocean at the end of 1941.
Correction. HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse was lost in South China Sea off the East Coast of Peninsula Malaysia, sunk by Japanese planes.
@@davidtwliew616 ta.
You would think the British would learn not to call ships unsinkable.
That Capt. Dalby is one cool customer - would've liked to have heard more from him . . .
Great, fantastic and immortal Bismarck!!! Respect forever!!!
the Immortal Bismarck was sunk on its first operational mission, that lasted eight days.
The Hood was a truly beautiful BATTLE cruiser
sorry - it think the hood is ugly...
Seriously, ten minutes into the video and already interrupted by eight commercials... 😖😖😖😖
It’s a commercial company, they make their money from ads. You can pay YT to get commercial free videos but you are probably cheap like me.
@@av8rshane491 They run to many ads regardless thats why i use adblocker
Skip to end of the video before you watch ,then hit replay and the ads shouldn’t play
For a contrasting view of this tragic event; I suggest watching the following video from Drachinifel: th-cam.com/video/CLPeC7LRqIY/w-d-xo.html
Thats absolutely the best assessment of what happened to Hood I've seen 👍
@@garrymartin6474 Drach is very knowledgeable about ships from the age of sail up through WWII. His channel is a pure joy to go through & I have certainly spent many hours watching everything that he does; from the 5 minute guide on ships, drydock, rum ration, to fun Friday. He is an absolute fountain of knowledge for anyone with a love of naval history. I highly reccommend subscribing to his channel & supporting his work, if you have the financial means.
We have a 13 ft model of the Hood, and a model of the Bismark at a new model ship gallery in Marystown, NL Canada we are putting together. They were donated along with a lot of other ships last year. worth about half million just for these.
Make sure you display the Hood on the 1st floor and the Bismarck on the second
Are they being assembled to the scale of both ship's?
@@budwhite9591 wrong mate, Bismarck in the basement.
@@budwhite9591 Bismark is one of my favorite ships
The best warships ever made were the Iowa class and the New York class and if you want to argue about it go get the other great warships up off the bottom of the ocean floor and let's argue the fact
Seems odd no one ever seems to comment on the German's outstanding gunnery. This goes back to Jutland, for Pete's sake! And the math of flight time vs. turning time means that Hood steered directly into her fatal blow, and that they should have begun that turn at the instant they saw Bismark's salvo. Perhaps indeed the order was indeed given then, and it took that long, or the lucky shot was in fact off the intended course a bit [I am no naval sailor]; but whatever, surely the most unlucky command-decision-execution timing ever. Damn...
Maybe because the german gunnery wasnt excellent? Bisnarck actually had a lower hit rate during the Battle of the Denmark Strait than Prince of Wales...And at Jutland only First Scouting group was rather good.The High Seas Fleets Battleship actually not even scoring a single hit during the main engagement
It was not plunging fire penetrating the top deck of the Hood. Trajectory and range calculations clearly indicate the Bismark's main guns were striking the Hood at only around a15 - 20 angle. Most likely the hull was penetrated just at the waterline very near the magazine. The bow wake of the Hood created waves that undulated along the side of the Hood. This noticable undulation exposed the lower hull when the shell struck.
I would have thought the distance would have been too far to land a round coming down onto to deck too. I have read that the effective range of the Bismarck was 19-22 miles. At the distance the Hood was from Bismarck, it would seem too great to lob a round into an arc long enough to hit the Hood on a downward trajectory. I'm just basically guessing though.
Drachinifel has done a video on this, the so called Golden BB
@@jamesstreet228 If you're firing into the wind, an object fired at 60 degrees will come down surprisingly close to 90 - you can also increase your elevation to bring the landing point back to you if you're "too close". I'm halfway guessing - talking ballistics without knowing if naval guns were used that way. (Seen done with land artillery that doesn't have the option to adjust the propellant charge to change it's range)
And she was at a sharp turn to port, when the shell hit. Wave+list exposed a weak spot right below the armour for a few seconds... and Bismarcks shell found it.
HMS Hood Remembered: May the 1,415 officers and men who lost their lives aboard The Mighty Hood R.I.P. May the three men who survived but who have now passed also R.I.P. 🌼
Great documentary, thank you for sharing. The simple answer in How Did The Bismarck Manage To Sink HMS Hood So Quickly? HMS Hood was an outdated warship built in 1918, unlike the Bismarck, built at the outbreak of the WWII. At the time, there was nothing in the world comparable to German technology.
"At the time, there was nothing in the world comparable to German technology" .... apart from an RN battleship 13 years older than Bismarck that sported better armour and heavier firepower in a package that kept within the treaty limitations that Bismarck's designers ignored, and which ripped Bismarck apart in double quick time.
REST IN PEACE OFFICERS & CREW OF THE PRIDE OF THE ROYAL NAVY HMS HOOD
If Bismarck's angle of fire was only 11 degrees, the Hood's deck would only be exposed if she were in a hard-to-starboard turn. If she were in a hard-to-port turn, much of her port side would have been above the waterline. To the extant that port-side hull areas were exposed, the greater the likelihood of the Bismarck getting in a lucky shot below the Hood's armor belt.
Yeah, luck
Ur rit u could see in video hoods ruddr stuck in hard port she was indeed turning hard port for side way confrentation
Pride of a nation, a beast made of steel
Bismarck in motion, King of the Ocean
He was made to rule the waves across the seven seas
To lead the war machine
To rule the waves and lead the Kriegsmarine
The terror of the seas
The Bismarck and the Kriegsmarine
Lasted a full week. Yeah! King of the submersibles.
Yeah King of the Sea: Naval Aviation.
Please continue to write the lyrics of that song in every fucking video, it only gets cooler after the 6000th time...
Over thirty years ago I was at a gun show in Lansing, Michigan. There was an older gentleman there selling a book about his experience in the battle from the German side. He claimed to have been on the Prinz Eugen and talked with a German accent.
In his book he claimed that it was an 8” AP shell from his cruiser that blew up the Hood, not the Bismarck. I have never heard that before or since. Wish I had bought his book.
Since PE was firing high explosive shells rather than armour piecing ones not very likely. PE did cause a fire on the boat deck of Hood but at the time of Hoods sinking PE had switched fire to the POW.
@@ericadams3428 Well, one of the most interesting observations, and one people would never have made if not for PE videotaping the battle... is that Hood's SMALL magazine cooked off BEFORE the big one and it's the smaller magazine that set off the large one. Now the question of HOW that happened... is quite a valid one, but it does re-open the question of if it was in fact the Bismarck who sank Hood. We're not actually sure the issue was having a lucky hit bypass armor at all. A random fire being ignited that set off the magazine for secondary ammo is at least a possibility.
@@ericadams3428 You claim a cruiser was firing HE shells at a battle cruiser? are you nuts? Oh and btw you know this how?
Yes, ive read that as well. Its said a shell from prinz eugen hit either some ammunition on deck, or a shell entered the torpedo area and set them off. I doubt we will ever truly know the cause, based upon the state of the hood wreck.
@@HarborLockRoad yeah, that was a catastrophic explosion, literally turned part of the ship into confetti.
As the saying goes "all the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put HMS Hood together again."
I've heard different stories about this. Firstly, Hood was out accompanying Prince of Wales which was on trials as a newly launched battleship. Hood was not specifically sent from Scapa Flow to intercept, but was sent on the hunt afterwards. As Hood was NOT A HEAVY BATTLESHIP but only a heavy cruiser Admiral was told not to engage Bismarck until British heavy battleships arrived - *but he engaged anyway.* Prince of Wales new gun design jammed after the first salvo, could not properly engage but did hit Bismarck's oil supply. Hood was scheduled for refit (installation of a heavy armored deck because Admiralty knew she was under armored) once finished trials with Prince of Wales. Someone took one hell of a risk sending Hood into battle against Bismarck. Rodney, the heavy battleship that silence Bismarck's guns, was much more of a match. Hood was a good-looking lightweight, built for speed. It's always a temptation to sensationalize a story like this, but the truth is that from the outset, lucky shot or not, Hood would likely have lost this contest.
Hood was at Scapa Flow when Bismarck's sortie was detected. She was sent, with Prince of Wales, to block one of two exit points into the wider Atlantic, whilst two other capital ships, King George V & Repulse, went to the other, the Iceland-Faroes Gap. Hood was as well armoured as a Queen Elizabeth class battleship, and Holland was well aware of the weaker aspects of her design, which is why he, correctly, sought to reduce the range quickly. Hood had a heavier weight of broadside than Bismarck, and in a short range encounter her thinner deck armour would not be exposed.
Holland was never ordered not to engage. The reason his squadron was there was to prevent Bismarck & Prinz Eugen embarking on their commerce-raiding mission. Certainly, Rodney was better equipped to deal with Bismarck, as she subsequently demonstrated, but she lacked the speed to bring her to battle.
Hood wasn’t a queen Elizabeth class battleship
@@Marco66607 Who said she was?
@@dovetonsturdee7033 I miss read it sorry
It was a battlecruiser
Baraham was a battleship. Hood was about to sail to the USA for armour to be added so it might fight Bismarck on an equal footing. Too late for that, biggest, Battle Cruiser.
Very interesting and moving. Thank you.
The Japanese Battleship YAMATO was launched August 08, 1940, which was the biggest Battleship ever built.
The HMS Hood was the biggest WWI era battleship of its day..
why did they keep showing footage of renown and repulse? Like we wouldn't notice!
The Hood had a long and Flaunting that display globally career . Worth every penny the British spent on her . The Bismarck had a short expensive life , thank God . And the Tirpitz was right behind . Thank God again .
Brilliant documentary, only spoiled by the tons of adverts.
That's nice music and effects in the background. I now forgive Microsoft for making my job so difficult during the 90's and subsequent years. lol At least one of the Microsoft cats that got wealthy from MS Windows (The clownsuit for DOS) let us in on this video by loaning his awesome ship.
Thanks.
To get rid of the commercials fast forward to the end and then hit refresh. Enjoy
Q: how did the Bismarck penetrate the heavily armored lower decks where ammo is stored???
A: the shell seems to have penetrated the armor and detonated the ammunition.
Wow thanks.
I enjoyed this chronicle, but must lodge a complaint for the inordinate amount of ad's and overlay posts used. Extremely distracting!
Join the PC übermensch, install an adblocker and its pure unalloyed viewing pleasure... apart from when the content creators themselves mention their sponsors.
If you hit the magazines with a shell then it shall obviously form an atomic like explosion.
the shape of cloud is actually based on the heat of the blast. :D
@@marhawkman303 detail nazi
44:20 "no battlecruiser would ever be built again"
USSR sais "hold my beer"
Churchill ordered, "Sink the Bismarck, Sink the Bismarck at all costs." Churchill wanted revenge and a few days later he got it when the Bismarck was sunk!
I wish my dad was still around to see this footage.i was in my late 20s before i found out out i had an uncle i never knew existed as my dad never really spoke about was a part of the crew on the hood.
Do you know your uncle's name? It's not a trick question John.
I would assume the shells from the Bismarck are to blame..
As weird as it sounds... there is the possibility it was actually Prinz Eugen. Or maybe a bizarre catastrophic accident. Either way apparently the secondary magazine set off the main.
In simple terms, one big shell hit vital place on the hood, split in two. Extra sad that nearly all the crew died and wreckage just disintegrated on the way down to the bottom.
Narrator. Hood sank in three minutes
Me. Hit the magazine?
44 mins later...
Maybe
Me. Hit the magazine
The Bismarck got in a lucky shot that hit the Hood's powder magazines. The consequent explosion blew the Hood in half.
It always bothers me when they speak about an enemy ship sinking one of ours they say it was a lucky shot or something to minimize what the bizmark did. Bottom line is the Bizmark and the Hood squared off in battle that fateful day in July and the Bizmark came away the victor it has nothing to do with luck it has nothing to do with design flaws it has everything to do with they were at war they knew what was at stake and the Hood was sunk. Say what you want about it but they were both lobbing shells at one another and the Hood took direct hits. Those hits came from a trained crew on a powerful weapon of war. These men on both sides were honorable men who were at war with one another and their job was to aim their guns from thousands of yards away and hit their opposition. The Bizmark did just that. So don’t be dishonorable by saying it was a lucky shot. Those men on the Bizmark did exactly what they were trained to do. They were doing the same thing the men on the hood were trying to do. The Bizmark just did a better job. There is no shame in that. But it is shameful to say they were just lucky. If it was just luck then why not send one or two ships after the Bizmark ? Why send half the fleet? The reason is because they now knew what that ship and skillful crew were capable of so they wanted to be sure it was taken out. Then to say 2000 men died when the Bizmark was sunk. Conveniently more men than was lost on the hood as to say you killed this many but we killed more. Just boastful bragging.They conveniently left out saying that it took multiple ships and AirPower to do what the Bizmark did by itself.
A full salvo of of main gun fire from a battleship is analogous to a scatter of lead shot from a shotgun. During the battle of Denmark Strait, the Bismarck aimed at Hood from 8-9 nautical miles away. At that range the 38 cm SK C/34 (Bismarck's main armament) had a CEP (circular error probability - effectively the radius of a circle within which 50% of its shots would fall) of 100m. That means that if 8 of Bismarck's 15in guns fired at a single point 8-9 nm away, 4 of her shells would be expected to land (with completely random distribution) within an ellipse (think of it as a stretched circle, due to the angle of fall of the shells) measuring approximately 200m (660ft) wide, (or to put it another way 76% of HMS Hood's 860ft length), by more than two thousand feet long. The other 4 shots would land even further away from the aiming point. That being the case, how can an individual shell be aimed specifically at a tiny part of HMS Hood's structure, namely the 4in HA magazine, that its believed triggered off Hood's detonation? I'll give you a hint, there's a little clue in my paragraph above....where it says "completely random distribution".
A simplified analogy is that if you prop a dartboard up 50 yards away and can consistently knock it over with a shotgun at that range then that is pretty good shooting, just as Bismarck / PE achieved during the Denmark Strait encounter.
Now you can "knock the dartboard over" all day long with the shotgun and STILL NOT hit the bullseye (magazine) with an individual pellet. As opposed to being a skillful shot by knocking over the dartboard, whether you hit the bullseye with an individual pellet is complete luck.
RIP the beautiful mighty HMS Hood, captain and crew. -- It's very interesting that fate ended them with one lucky shell strike to the 15 inch magazine. It's still shocking even after 74 years, now.
i go to visit the Historic Dockyard, in Portsmouth quite often, a few years ago i was in the Royal Navy museum, i was looking at a bell, around the bottom of the bell was a Latin inscription, i could only understand one word, i kept looking at it, and yep i wasnt dreaming, i must admit i started to get emotional, the word was HOOD, i was shocked, for a couple of reasons, firstly, because this was from that famous ship, and secondly because it had been recovered from the scene of the battle, was that the right thing to do? i am not sure, i go to see it every time i visit the dockyard, and i get emotional every time.
@@daneelolivaw602 ~ I think the Hood was dealt a bad hand, the only comfort is knowing it's destruction was so catastrophic and sinking so fast it was all over within a few a minutes, they didn't suffer long and many died instantly.
@@daneelolivaw602 It was very much the right thing to do, and it was done with the deepest of respect... The company that surveyed the wreck of HMS Hood in 2008 approached both the UK govt and the HMS Hood association (who represent the families of those lost onboard) and asked for their thoughts before the wreck was ever touched and both accepted that the recovery of the bell was an hononurable act, to both provide a focus for the grieving of the deceased sailor's families, and to maintain and memorialise Hood in the public consciousness. The Bell was the only item recovered and a memorial plaque was left at the wreck site in the tragic men's honour. As opposed to the dreadful looting of other wrecksites by disgraceful jackals.
The only sour note of the story for me is that the disgraceful UK govt unbelievably wasn't prepared to finance or carry out the recovery operation, and incredibly it was the Danish navy and Paul Allen the co-founder of Microsoft that paid for and accomplished the recovery. The thanks of all decent minded people interested in the history should go out to both those parties, and the shameful avoidance of their duty by the UK govt to the lost crew of HMS Hood should hang like a flag of damnation over their political heads.
I've yet to make the journey to the museum, but I will be paying my respects in person sometime soon.
This video documents the recovery of the bell. th-cam.com/video/jMohVNaeP6s/w-d-xo.html
Its not lucky if your housing your ammunition on a wooden unarmored deck and inside the citadel.
The germans and the brits knew this since the battle of jutland whereas the weakness of british dreadnought was shown, same with hood even if she is a battlecruiser that thin armor wont protect anything from a well aimed 305,380,406,457,460mm shells
I swear im not a wehraboo
@@ae3464 Thankfully I have this ready to "copy and paste" such is the number of times I have to reel it out..... here goes.
A full salvo of of main gun fire from a battleship is analogous to a scatter of lead shot from a shotgun. During the battle of Denmark Strait, the Bismarck aimed at Hood from 8-9 nautical miles away. At that range the 38 cm SK C/34 (Bismarck's main armament) had a CEP (circular error probability - effectively the radius of a circle within which 50% of its shots would be expected to fall) of 100 meters. That means that if 8 of Bismarck's 15in guns fired at a single point 8-9 nm away, 4 of her shells would be expected to land (with completely random distribution) within an ellipse (think of it as a stretched circle, due to the angle of fall of the shells) measuring approximately 200 meters (660ft) wide, (or to put it another way 76% of HMS Hood's 860ft length), by more than two thousand feet long. The other 4 shots would land even FURTHER away from the aiming point. That being the case, how can an individual shell be aimed specifically at a tiny part of HMS Hood's structure, namely the 4in HA magazine, that its believed triggered off Hood's detonation? I'll give you a hint, there's a little clue in my paragraph above....where it says "completely random distribution".
A simplified analogy is that if you prop a dartboard up 50 yards away and can consistently knock it over with a shotgun at that range then that is pretty good shooting, just as Bismarck / PE achieved during the Denmark Strait encounter.
Now you can "knock the dartboard over" all day long with the shotgun and STILL NOT hit the bullseye (magazine) with an individual pellet. As opposed to being a skillful shot by knocking over the dartboard, whether you hit the bullseye with an individual pellet is complete luck.
Ez bismarck sunk the hood by hitting her ammo storage then it blew up
I didnt get anything you said but yes
Fascinating footage from June 1939 and not only of HMS Hood, as the other ship seen briefly just after the first shots of Hood, can surely only be the equally famous WW1 superdreadnought and Grand Fleet flagship at Jutland, HMS Iron Duke. By the 1930s (iirc) serving as a gunnery training ship.
If you look carefully at "Iron Duke's" Y barbette you will see it is fitted with a Mk1 twin 5.25 mount which was being evaluated prior to their installation on the KGVs.
I heard that Prinz Eugen actually hit Hood before Bismarck did and almost at the same location Hood was on fire when Bismarck hit her
PE got the fire started that Tovey said sunk Hood. However, it is simplest to say Bismarck sunk Hood, even considering possible gunnery crew error. The simplest explanation is of course Bismarck excellence and Hood not upgraded, the reason being her deployment as a frightener in the last years of peace, a political deployment, a victim of the complex challenge which academics call appeasement. USA isolationism sank Hood, PE began the fire, and the conclusion nevertheless is, Bismarck sank Hood.
@@robertewing3114 pardon me Sir ; did PE's shells have enough punch, at the engagement range, through the six inch magasines armour?
@@abderrahmanrifai6416 I only understand PE began a substantial fire early in the engagement, and a few minutes later as Hood turned, Bismarck landed a shell where the fire was. A few moments later Hood exploded where that damage area was, and many people say Bismarcks shell must have penetrated to a magazine. Possibly the raising of temperature, rather than any direct entry to a magazine, began the series of explosions, one of which was thought to be the torpedoe warheads. The two shells may therefore be responsible, rather than simply one, meaning temperature rise and therefore further fire was responsible. And Hood may perhaps have avoided the PE hit by approach angle more like Tovey, the C-in-C in KGV, thought most prudent. Therefore penetration of armour is possibly no part of the equation.
@@robertewing3114 for those interested I would check out Drachinifel's channel on naval history. He recently released a video discussing recent analysis on the Hood sinking.
@@robertewing3114 Because the british don't wear their big boy pants and expect the world to deal with their responsibilities when they own the largest empire in human history to this day... I think you need to grow up. The US should have entered the war on germanies side just because of the british and asked the french to join or else when against everyone and just started taking names.
The british have made this reality clear every single moment since then end of WW2 and long before it.
If only we would learn from our mistakes. Or purge the damned loyalist doing the british bidding for the past 250 years.
It's a shame the film makers can't distinguish b/t Hood and Renown/Repulse.
Bismarck ❤️❤️❤️❤️
Love to see bismarck fan from 🇱🇰
This is a piece of naval wartime incidents that will go down in military history, in a way, like pearl harbour.
Those German range finders will get you every time.
Apart from on the morning of 27th May 1941.
Gee how the mega rich do research,well the guys on camera call it and I love the emergency action shot’s and the scary music with the serious facial expressions. Really gripping stuff
What a shame they did not get the bell with them home to the UK.
Omg is there an insane number of adds on this 😳
Is it possible that the incoming Bismark shell hit a Hood shell coming up the shell elevator and this combined to flash down into the magazine?
Enh best guess is that something set off the secondary magazine next to the main magazine, which eventually ignited the main, then the main blew the ship to hell.
Which yeah... seems to have been a flash fire.
...AND IT'S "POSSIBLE" THAT THE HOOD WAS DESTROYED BY A LASER BLAST FROM AN INVISIBLE UFO-(?)
THERE ARE INFINITE POSSIBLITIES FOR SPECULATION-(!)
There is still something to be said though for Bismarck the fact that it took so much of the British Navy hardware just to take one ship down I don’t think anything could’ve survived getting hit that much but if It didn’t take that hit and leave the oil slick they may not of sank it at least at that point
The Bismarck sinking could be concidered a massacre if you will. Over 2000 shots fired upon and around 400 direct hits.
The Prince Of Wales has never really been given the credit she deserves for inflicting enough damage on the Bismark for her to cancel her original mission. Even in the film " sink the Bismark " Which was a A British production , could not even get the facts straight when Lindemann reports to Luytchens, " we have received ONE hit !!
A polish destroyer harassed the Bismark all night before the British fleet showed up. Fatigue had to he a big factor as the Germans had been at battle stations all night.
@@theodoresmith5272
That Polish Destroyer was not alone, it was ONE of six or seven Destroyers that kept the crew of Bismarck busy all night. It was not alone.
@@scabbycatcat4202
you are right, if the shell that went right through the bows of Bismarck at about the water line had exploded, it might have been battle over, there and then.
Trying to pick up that bell was like one of those drop and grab claw games you see on the boardwalk and probably about the same odds of success unfortunately.
How did the Hood sink so fast? Simple, She was hit in her main powder magazine which in turn exploded and ripped her in half.
Look how much faster Titanic sank after she snapped in half.
By hitting it with a 14" shell. Simple.
Nah the Bismarck had 15 inch guns.
@@grimreaperscreed5938 Nah, it didn't, it ALMOST had 15 inch guns, almost but not quite. Bismark and Tirpitz both had 38 cm guns (almost 15 inch).
@@ArtVanAuggie What is that a measure of? Diameter of the gun barrels?
@@catsnchords Yes.
Yeah simple hitting it with a big enough shell in the right place
The fleet commander Admiral Gunther Lutyens allowed his ego to get the better of his professional sense. He should have gone to port fixed those minor damages and moved back into battle.
In companrison Admiral Isoroku Yamato had no ego He heard and recognzied the impact of other opinions. BUt he always made the final call and there was no mistake.
He destroyed Pearl Harbour until there was nothing left. Now whether Franklin Roosevelt let the fleet to be parked there deliberately was more Americans hunting for self consolation.
By all counts the Bismarck was a superior ship. Bur then my belief is Admiral Isoroku Yamamato was as greater Fleet Commander.
As soon as Bismarck had been hit by Prince of Wales, Lutjens abandoned his mission and headed for St. Nazaire for repairs. Bismarck, by the way, was not a superior ship when compared with the Nelsons or the King George Vs, as many aspects of her design were outdated.
The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was carried out by Admiral Nagumo, who previously had opposed it. He was a cautious commander, who failed to carry out a third strike against the fuel stores & repair facilities, which arguably were the more important targets.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 Bismarck WAS SUPERIOR to the King George V class battleships , as the same type of torpedo strike that disabled Bismarck not only disabled Prince of Wales, but knocked out all her gunnery and doomed her to sink without any more additional hits . Bismarck took an additional eight more torpedoes AND 400 plus battleship caliber rounds ( from 18,000 yards to 4, 000 yards (point blank - even closer than US Washington got to her victim ), not to mention the cruiser and destroyer shellfire! Not bad for what you called OUTDATED.! The only ship that was outdated was Hood , and she was outdated from the battle of Jutland , on.
@@tommatt2ski By 'superior' I assume, when comparing her to a KGV, you are referring to Bismarck's lighter weigh of broadside, thinner armour of the obsolete incremental, rather than AoN pattern, outdated main armament of four twin turrets, out of date low angle secondary armament, and internal communications fitted above, rather than below, her main armoured deck. All this on a displacement 15,000 tons greater that that of the Washington Treaty KGVs.
Bismarck on 27 May was, after around twenty minutes of action, reduced from a warship to a practice target. The only damage any British warship received was from its own blast effect.
Indeed, Hood was outdated, but she was over 20 years old. Bismarck, at two years old, but also featuring a number of outmoded design weaknesses, was also outdated, with far less justification.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 Yamamoto's primary goal was not to destroy the battleships. He wanted to take down the aircraft carriers. Nevertheless, they weren't at Pearl.
@@tommatt2ski True. It isn't even clear who actually sank Bismarck if the British with the obscene bombardment or the crew when it was clear to them that the ship was lost.
A magazine blew up. Simple. Let the Hood and her brave sailors RIP
Spoiler Alert...the Hood had wooden decks that made her very vulnerable...
"wooden decks" dear oh dear....
War is Ugly!, 1000 boys sailed 1000 miles from home
Witnesses said there was a "torch" of flame straight up before the explosion.
Maybe the propellant charges were hit first which burned like a torch and that detonated the 15" shells.
The column of flame that erupted in front of the mainmast was most likely from the deflagration of Hood's 4in magazines, which if you study plans of her internal layout would have vented first into her engine rooms (hopefully providing a mercifully instantaneous end to the tragic sailors stationed there) before the expanding blast then vented along the path of least resistance up the engine room ventilation trunking which vented just in front of her mainmast, before the initial blast of the 4in magazine broke through to the main magazines shortly after causing the final breaking up of Hood.
The reality is that when you start firing shells of that size over that distance if they hit it’s going to make a mess..Bismarck sunk the hood the Bismarck was sunk…one a piece ..a twenty year ship for a new ship…I hate to say it with the great loss of life but I’d say an even trade …
It was far from an even trade.... Britain lost one of its 15 big gun capital ships, The Kriegsmarine lost its ONLY operational big gun capital ship (I still struggle to refer to Scharnhorst / Gneisenau as battleships armed as they were with 11in guns). Britain had several more modern battleships coming online in the following 2 years, the Germans had 1, that being the Tirpitz, which spent almost its entire existence hiding from the RN to act as a "fleet in being".
The HMS Hook had a rate of fire of 2 rounds per minute with her 15 inch guns.
The KMS Bismarck, when completed, his rate of fire, on paper was 2.25 rounds per minute. However, during sea trials the 15 inch gun crews managed 3 rounds per minute.
The Command Crew may have followed their SOP concerning the possible belief that they timed their turn to port based on their own 15 inch guns rate of fire and had turned with a salvo of 15 inch AP rounds already inbound to the thin armor of the HMS Hood.
The Zeiss Optics in general use by the Kriegs Marine were probably the finest in the world at that time, along with the Bismarcks shells.
I'd question your "Bismarck's shells were the finest in the world", NONE of the three that hit HMS PoW even detonated? Maybe you could argue that the shells were world-beaters but the fuses were garbage? or more likely that PoW's "all or nothing" armour scheme did its job to perfection.
If you care to do the maths Bismarks rate of fire in the Denmark Strait was actually less than ONE ROUND per minute. Also the Zeiss optics being " the finest in the world " is a complete red herring. The truth is , if you understand anything about Naval gunnery of the time , you simply did not need a precise range of target - just a good estimate. You would then " shower " the estimate with as many shells as possible , all at slightly different ranges in the hope that 1 would hit.
Does the word “Probably” ring a bell?
The Bismarck’s rate of fire during the battle indicates the highly disciplined and methodical methods used by the Gun Crews on the improved 15” rifles and shells plus Zeiss Optics of the latest design.
@@henryblanton6992 yeah that's what they're saying none of that mattered the Bismarck sucked
The Bismarck sucked? Then why did the British Admiralty shit a solid gold brick every time his name came up?
The Bismarck’s survivors said they scuttled their ship, I believe them. He was hit with 400+ rounds, the scuttling valves were opened, then he was hit with 4 Torpedos which may have busted some pipe fittings loose. One on one the British had nothing to compare with the Bismarck except her Aircraft Carriers.
This comment section may be better than the video. Thanks viewers for sharing insights!!
She was originally designed as a Battlecruiser with thin armour as previous designs. But after the Battle of Jutland she was actually built with armour comparable to the Queen Elizabeth class Battleship. the most modern British Battleships of WWI. She was due for a re-build in the 1930s, but due to commitments this never happened. With computer simulations of Bismarck's shell trajectory, the deck penetration should not have happened. More likely was a hit to the ships side which passed under the armour belt? But we will never know for sure.
Goddamn, the hood was only built a few years after titanic and is way more advanced. What happened to this rate of technical change? Were the civilian vessels always so quaint by comparison?
Drachnifel made good and definitive video.
The question I want answered is How did the "supposedly Best ship in the Royal Navy" fire thirteen salvo's and not hit anything ? I know in the first part of the battle Hood mistakenly fired at Prinz Eugen but they got nowhere close to that either.
Could it be a case of far too much spit and polish and nowhere near enough shooting practice
"they got nowhere close to that either" apart from straddling PE 3 times according to the authoratatively researched "Bismarck - A design and operational history", by William Garzke, William Durens & Robert Dulin.
Even manage to straddle the"lucky prince" with her second salvoe
Some of those early shots are not even of the Hood. One of them was the eldery Iron Duke and another was of HMS Warspite.
I mean, those are also famous ships... but for other reasons.
A British, troop ship, is now known to have taken some twice the number as the crew of the Hood.
The RMS Lancastria. Sunk in June 1940 outside the French port of St Nazaire with as many as 7000 British troops lost.
The only other possibility is that the crew accidentally ignited the powder room themselves preparing for battle. It's not just the design of the ship but all the procedures that go with operating it. See the gun turret accident on the Iowa.
The fire ball was fuelled entirely by the explosive power packed in a concentrated space.
Why on earth didn't they design the ROV with gripper arms that are seen on so many ROVs to lift/grab lighter things either to move or retrieve them ?
it does. The gripper arm is actually holding a stick with a hook attached.... cause the arm is not long enough.
CHECK OUT the history of English warships dating back to the Battle of Jutland in WW1. Several of their ships EXPLODED when hit, indicating their CORDITE had ignited and destroyed the vessels. The problem was the CORDITE, which was also used in small arms ammo. It was phased out after WW2 - too late for the sailors on Hood !
29:10. Nearly half the British empire navy to get one ship! How fascinating!
68 ships were diverted to respond to her sortie from a then Royal Navy of approximately 330 ships? So approximately 20% of the RN, of which only about 16 (5%) actually ever laid eyes on Bismarck, with just 2 battleships and cruisers (1.3%) dismantling her before the Germans threw in the towel.
68 ships for one ship plus airplanes! Outgunned and outnumbered.
@@reginaldmcnab3265 Your response Reg is not a full and clear one, let me help.
68 ships plus airplanes for one ship ..... in a 41,000,000 square mile North Atlantic ocean in the days before satellites, over the horizon radar and comprehensive air coverage to assist with just the location and tracking of the enemy fast battleship..... to be more precise.
If I was a crazed lone gunman on a motorbike hiding out in the Appalachian mountains for instance looking to kill passing innocent tourists at random, how many police personnel do you think would be mobilised to conduct the manhunt? 1 man on a bicycle? A squad car with 2 cops and a shotgun maybe? Or hundreds of police from multiple states complete with helicopters, rivercraft and all the latest tech? Now would all of those hundreds of police and millions of dollars worth of equipment be required to "shut me down" once cornered? Would I indeed be some mythical gargantuan superman behemoth that required hundreds of police to stop just little old me?
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 really hmm lets see the ships that fought in the last battle against Bismarck 1 aircraft carrier 2 battleships 2 heavy cruisers 1 light cruiser
7 destroyers i count 13 ships not 4. It took all those ships about 100 minutes of fighting to put her down over one and a half hours of shooting at the Bismarck. the two British battleships had fired some 700 large-caliber shells at Bismarck. All told, King George V, Rodney, Dorsetshire and Norfolk collectively fired some 2,800 shells, scoring around 400 hits.
@@wulfthofengaming457 Count again wehraboo..... Look at ANY plan map of the last battle, the only RN ships involved were HMS KGV, Rodney, Dorsetshire & Norfolk. Admiral Tovey specifically ordered other ships away from the vicinity of the battle, and even forbade Ark Royal's swordfish from attacking Bismarck on the morning of 27th May. Not one other ship fired at Bismarck on that final morning.
Considering it took everything the UK Navy could throw at the Bismarck I would say it was one potent ship period... Had Prince Oinker not run away into the night it would also be with the Hood
Welcome to the "clueless wehraboo club". Your full membership pack, including swastika flag and skin tight rubber stormtroopers uniform, is in the post.
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 I was thinking more like Wienerschnitzles and buckets of Barvarian Beer.....
@@thekingsilverado3266 Well Taken. 👍
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684...YOU CERTAINLY TOLD THAT BUM WHERE TO GET OFF-(!)
Plunging fire and lucky hits!
I don't get it...They went there to investigate what sank the ship but not looking for any survivors?? They could have saved lives but no.. We're just intrested in studying the wreck -.-
Holy shit that’s a huge boat,that’s awseme. I wish I could get a boat.
@Myoko Heavy CruiserFan Nah bismarck and hood were better
It's a ship. Not a boat.
@Myoko Heavy CruiserFan would be a interesting fight
@Myoko Heavy CruiserFan That is very true. Yamato had 18.1 inch guns.
This video lasted 42 minutes longer than the hood. Just say the Hood got it's butt kicked.
Bob Farley
As i write this, i notice you made your comment 8 days ago, that is the same time that the Nazi ship was at sea, on its first operational mission, before being ripped to shreds.
Hood was poorly armoured. She didn’t stand a chance.
It was her deck that was poorly armored.
@@tonyoertle5591 it wasn't poorly armour It was built for the wrong era.
@@GaryJones69420 Which still means it was poorly armored for the fight it was in.
All brits are still in denial that a superior ship clapped it one salvo. As you can tell by the comments...
@@godofhate4167 - yes indeed, Bismarck was a superior ship. But since the keel of the Hood was laid in 1916, and the Bismarck's laid down in 1936, it is hardly surprising that the Bismarck was a better ship, being more modern and thus able to enjoy the results of twenty years of progress in ship design. Nevertheless, the Bismarck was destroyed on its maiden voyage, so its superiority did not last long.
So, with the rudder in position to turns towards the Bismarck the Hood actually sailed precisely into the trajectory of the shell. It seems the strategy of having a smaller profile by heading straight towards your enemy didn't work so well. But, if the Hood was 20 yards further to starboard or port then things would have been different, so still a extremely lucky shot.
Turning into enemy fire to present a smaller target was and still the correct strategy. Hood was just extremely unlucky.
The opposite.
Hood was turning AWAY from the Germans who attempted the manouver known as crossing the T. Holland's intention was to expose stern guns to bear on the Bismarck which was a correct thing to do in the circumstances.
Well she should never of showing her Broadside to a ship like the Bismark...lucky shot or not.
@Brian Roome Sound more like design differences. And stupid usage. Or purposeful scuttling via enemy for a new boat.
@@gadgetinspector7875 That is in fact exactly what she should have done. battleships are designed to expose the broadside to the enemy (its why they're hull armour is so thick), whilst crossing the T (ideally) bringing as much firepower to bare as possible. Although Hood was a battlecruiser she still had comprable hull plating to most other battleships of the time after an earlier refit. She was perfectly capable of dealing with Bismarck if the lucky hit hadn't happened which was either under her hull armour via a submerged round or through her thinner deck armour. In short she was un-lucky. Especially given how hard it was to hit the target back then let alone 1 shot something.
And the answer is.... The Krauts blasted them.
The "Octopus" is quite a "Kon-Tiki" raft/hovel ...
The Hood found the Bismarck,
and on that fatal day,
the Bismarck started firing 15 miles away,
“We’ve gotta sink the Bismarck,”
was the battle-sound,
but when the smoke had cleared away,
the Mighty Hood went down.
For six long days and weary nights,
they tried to find her trail,
Churchill told the people, “put every ship a’sail,
for somewhere on that ocean,
we know she’s gotta be,
we’ve gotta sink the Bismarck
to the bottom of the sea!”
We’ll find that German Battleship that’s makin’ such a fuss!
we’ve got to sink the Bismarck ‘cause the world depends on us!
Gratitude and respect to all the seamen and officers of the RN from across the pond.
The "Mighty" Hood was obviously not so mighty.
Bismarck was a far better, far more dangerous ship.
Head to head, the "Mighty" Hood loses 9 times out of 10 to the great German battleship.
The 10th try would be a pure luck victory. Bismarck was the best of its class at the time, and by a wide margin.
may they rot in hell...
They heard the Explosion in Reykjavik Iceland .
I think that this is one of Paul Allen's mega yachts that he commences to groups looking for naval or shipping vessels that have sunk.
Unfortunately Mr Allen died 4 years ago. They say that the "good die young", seems to be right.... we've been left with that cnut Bill Gates.
My guess is Bismarck (or possibly Prinz Eugen) sank Hood by shooting at it.
you see you can waste a salvo to get the range and when you get it you can pummel the target to pieces
Cordite is not a high explosive but a propellant. The supersonic, high explosive, was within shell casings. The American, Midvale steel, that revolutionised gun barrels and armour piercing bombs and shells was delivered later and allowed Grand Slam, and the British, Disney bomb, to be so more effective against U Boat pens and underground facilities.
Although a proportion of Grand Slam and tallboy bombs were british made using our own Chrome-molybdenum alloys.
As much as I love Hood, I know she was out matched it's a shame USS Iowa was not around She would have taken out Bismarck with no issue thanks to her at the time advanced radar.
In what way was she outmatched do you think?
..."and if my AUNT had BALLS- she'd be my UNCLE"!!!
There was a king lion🦁 ruled the jungle then an young fearsome tiger🐯 desided to take the mighty lion and it did defeated the lion in one on one Battle but wounded severely now the hyenas🐺 can able to defeat the tiger.
You're mistaken. The "young fearsome tiger" did not decide to attack the "King Lion", but instead spent all its life running away from other predators, hoping instead to kill weak little antelopes. The "King lion" caught and attacked the "Tiger" but was killed by an incredibly luck swipe of the Tiger's paw.
The "tiger" then spent its last days running scared looking for safety but was torn to pieces by younger and even more fearsome lions.
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 you cannot defend and take all the pride of the beast tiger by saying that it won by luck, the tiger never wanted to fight with other small predators and waste its energy, clearly he was born to take out the big guy he did the job and he was not hiding its called AMBUSH.
@@thamizhanaj7753 Do you know anything about "Exercise Rhine"? The "tiger's" whole purpose was to completely avoid the "lions" and instead solely concentrate on murdering the weak defenceless animals. But the "lions" prevented him from doing that. (My word can't believe I've stuck with this stupid analogy as long as I have)
Salute to brilliant German gunnery
Basically: old ship with meh armour, ~16" gun, licky uit on the ships magazine
can you at least give credit to Reel Truth Documentary?