The Loss of HMS Hood - But why did it blow up??
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 ก.ค. 2024
- Today we look at the destruction of HMS Hood, with a particular focus on how, why and where the ship exploded.
With special thanks to Bill Jurens, who was vital in offering comments and corrections on the script!
Sources:
Bill Jurens - “The Loss of HMS Hood - A Re-examination”, Warship International, No. 2, 1987 - Illustrations of Hood from the same publication
Hood Photos - Bass Moog
Hood Model - Matt Emes matthewwemes.myportfolio.com/
www.amazon.co.uk/Battleship-Bismarck-Design-Operational-History/dp/1591145694
www.usni.org/press/books/battleship-bismarck-1
Free naval photos and more - www.drachinifel.co.uk
Want to support the channel? - / drachinifel
Want a shirt/mug/hoodie - shop.spreadshirt.com/drachini...
Want a poster? - www.etsy.com/uk/shop/Drachinifel
Want to talk about ships? / discord
Want to get some books? www.amazon.co.uk/shop/drachinifelDrydock
Episodes in podcast format - / user-21912004
Music - / ncmepicmusic
![[ไฮไลต์] ฟุตบอลชาย อุซเบกิสถาน vs สเปน รอบแบ่งกลุ่ม | โอลิมปิก 2024](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2ps5WKV1Mq0/mqdefault.jpg)
Pinned post for Q&A :)
Guide or info on the USS Des Moines pls
Do you think the name hood is cursed?
How would the crew of A turret have fired off the famous last salvo, i would have thought the whole gun crew would have been thrown to side of the turret or been slid down to the side of the turret?
It seems like every other major naval power took gradual steps in designing battleships after the Naval treaties; i.e. GB built the KGV class and Nelson class before moving onto the Lion class, and the US built the NC, SD, and Iowa classes. With Japan, who withdrew from the treaties in the 1930s, why was there such a massive jump? Why did they not design any new treaty compliant battleships after the 8-8 plan was scrapped and just went straight for the A-140/150s?
If Hood had been disabled or sunk more slowly would the Royal Navy have gone after Bismarck with as much ferocity as they did historically?
It says so much about Drach, that after 80 years of "What happened?", my first thought was "I'm glad we will finally be able to put this one to bed"..
Well said. No substitute for thorough research.
That ^ :-)
yep, i thought that an extremely well presented description of events, he also took time to cover the other theories. Very nice work.
It's almost identical to the one I've followed for a while, the one I saw last year had the shell hit slightly further forword on the ship traveling trough the machinery space and detonating just short of the relatively thin bulkhead protecting the secondary ammo, ultimately leading to the same end chain of events
@@gettinglost316 that's what happened. it went through the 7 inch belt
Drach knows more about naval history than I know about my own life
I agree.
I find if I cut back on the meth, and the booze I tend to to not have the big gaps in memory. You could try it?
🥴😂
He is pretty excellent isnt he :)
@@robertmoulton2656 I would recommend meth on a moderate dose, something like pervitin.
@@robertmoulton2656 Instead of cutting back on meth. Why not stop doing meth and just smoke weed and do acid and shrooms every now and then?
I have been interested in the loss of the Hood for the entirety of my adult life. I am now 70. This is far and away the best exposition of the possibilities and likelihoods. This is the first time in my life I have been impelled to post a commendation of any kind.
If you are not familliar with Drachinifel outside of this video, I highly recommend watching more of his content. Much of it is fantastic documentary material.
I was always interested in the Bismarck and wonder the same
Agreed.
The bismark was scuttled. All the bits could do was take out the turet and made it unable to keep fighting so to save the crew and all, the order was given. Think of it like war thunder wher player quits game.
m.th-cam.com/video/v7lC1wN4sIU/w-d-xo.html
here you can watch this
@@johns3544Even if it was scuttled, for which there is zero evidence beyond a few German sailors stories, does that somehow make it less sunk? Nope!
I'm baffled that you're willing to make such well researched, thorough and high quality content for practically free, these lectures could very well be part of the most prestigious universities
imo Drach would make a better teacher than most professors
@@joeblow9657 name one that is more engaging than Drach :3
@@narmale Never mind, all professors
It's why he's such an absolute giga Chad
Especially cause he gives credit for sources
Welcome to Drach U.
Your baffled days are behind you.
Have a great Drach Day.
My uncle was a stoker on the Hood when it went down.
My mother, his sister, told me he was so proud to be a member of the crew.
Your Uncle is. A Man that HEROES are made Of. His sacrifice makes Freedom possible. Many thanks from grateful People.
My great grandfather was one of the lucky ones to disembark at Scapa Flow, but his Brother in Law, also a stoker, had just joined...
What’s a stroker?
@@CodeUK93 Stoker meant they worked in the Engine Room.
@@CodeUK93 they fed coal into the fires that heated the boiler and power the ship or “stoking” the flame
When I was serving in the U.S. Reserves after my active duty tour, I worked with a very good Senior Chief who was a nuclear engineer. In civilian life, he worked for a company that had a contract to design the ammunition hoists for the U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt. A major consideration of the design was to prevent the bypassing of the safeties so blast doors could be open simultaneously. Million were spent "sailor proofing" the lift system. He told me that on the first acceptance sea trials, it took the crew forty minutes to defeat the interlocks and open all of the blast doors at the same time. So much for that theory...
That's the thing about idiotproofing things. If no current idiot can break it they will just issue a better idiot.
Funny story about that. One of my friends is an officer with the USMC. His unit was tapped to field test a new... Widget by The People Doing R&D. The researcher in questions handed him a few of this widget and basically said, "we've designed this to be grunt proof. I'm heading out of country tomorrow, send me an after action report if any of your guys manage to break this."
Three hours later my friend was standing in front of this R&D guy with a hundred pieces of widget. When asked how the hell his Marines had managed to break it, he responded, "They put it in a freezer and then shoved it between the road wheels and track of an Abrams."
"Why the hell did they do that?!"
"I thought you said it was grunt proof?"
Its always hilarious to read these stories
thanks for another one
The thing is you say defeated the system, did they intentionally defeat it? If there were doing everything they could to bypassing it then the system was reasonably good as having that many steps to achieve a unsafe condition should not happen in a real world situation. If it took 40 minutes accidentally then the system was junk as a series of events to achieve this were not alerted to.
@@NavyVet4955 It took that time the first time. Because the transport time is long, crews were notorious for bypassing the safeties to get weapons on deck for faster turnaround of strikes. The system was supposed to prevent it, but it is still wiring, and any system can be negated. I don't know if it alarmed, I wasn't there, but the whole point was that the doors are opened when the ship is most vulnerable, during active operations. Ask the British what can happen...
Most people: "No way anyone could get that kind of lucky shot."
Bismarck Rudder: "Am I a joke to you? "
Military design principle number 1: "If it can happen, it will, plan for that".
Also the extentions "If it can be shot, someone will", and "Its bulletproof, just don't tell the men, they'll want to test it".
American Dive Bombers in June ´42 would like to talk to you
Pp
Pp
People win in casino all the time. But the final winner is always the casino owner.
Its interesting to note that, although Prince of Wales retreated behind a smoke screen after the Hood was sunk, she got 2 crucial hits on the Bismark, 1 straight though her bow causing a large amount of flooding and a reduction in Bismark's speed, and another one in one of Bismarks fuel tanks causing a loss of critical fuel and also causing a trail to be formed behind Bismark that made her easier to spot by ally planes. RIP crew and officers of POW, you did your part.
you feel better believing it(:-)
Prince of Wales effecteively Mission-killed bismarck, terminating her first voyage. she achieved her goal. @@michaelpielorz9283
Besides the torpedo that hit the rudder, Bismark looked mostly undamaged when it sank, most likely by its own crew to avoid the humiliation of being taken by the British? It had hardly any functioning guns left by then.
The second hit also penetrated a boiler room, reducing her speed further.
@@finncarlbomholtsrensen1188 nothing to do with the destroyers told to finish her off with torpedoes then? Lmao.
My old man was on HMS Suffolk. I lost him as a kid and amongst many regrets is the sad fact that I never got the chance to have an meaningful, adult conversation about the hunt for Bismarck (or even the British navy in general). But my love for warships has never wavered. Thanks, Drach!
My father was also on the Suffolk during the hunt for Bismarck, he was a midshipman stationed in one of her turrets. He died in 2011, all the best to you.
My father also served on the Suffolk, he use to talk about this from time to time.
Bless you all for your ancestor’s courage.
God bless, and fair winds.
I know the feeling: my grandfather wasn't RN, but USN. he was on a Troopship named the USS Karnes. he was at Okinawa the day Yamato came out. Always really quiet about his service too. I wish I'd known him better (and I really didn't have an excuse).
Sorry, didn't really mean to hijack your comment like that.
Something my father told me was, when he was first aboard the ship he was taken round the ship with a petty officer. They went into a room that had a lot of cannon balls, my father asked "What are those for surely we don't fire those?" the reply was "When we get into action you'll soon find out." Well later they did get into action during the Bismarck hunt and the turret my father was in was actually hit by a shell that passed behind him. The velocity from the shell burnt the seat of his pants out, one of the chaps next to him was not so lucky as he was decapitated. Later the use of the cannon balls became clear, as they were put into the canvas bags at the dead sailor's feet for burial at sea.
Most people: hood sunk because of its thin deck armour
Drach: and thats were you're wrong kiddo
A lot more people are disputing that claim, the battleships and battlecruisers page on Facebook is very good although theres a lot of navel history snobs unhappy if you ask a question
navel history? history of navels?
@@MCAroon09 With a lot of Naval Gazing
@@pads-zr9ln try Quora, there's a user who calls Drach a nationalist Hack who isn't worth citing.
@eric adams you sound like a barman when two regulars start a fist fight
One of my relatives who survived WWII said, "What is probable and possible stops counting when combat starts" and "The enemy has luck too".
He phrased it a bit more colorfully.
It's what "the enemy gets a vote" means
Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face
41:48 I’ve always loved that despite its inevitable death the ship gave one last FU before going under
That's just british aggression. All Americans have that aggression as well.
I've heard, and it's very likely, that the shot that rang out from the forward turrets might have been another powder detonation, and not a shot by the crew. The wreck has the bow detached from the mid ship section of the wreck, and is heavily damaged with a fairly large debris field and the crushed/twisted state the remains of the bow are in.
And that is a bad thing? 🤔
Spectacular failures almost always result from multiple unanticipated events occurring simultaneously. While I always find Drach’s work interesting, this one is of doctorial quality.
In aviation we use the term “the Swiss cheese model”
Reminds me of an decent article I found on the twin towers. Here too a combination of factors led to total collapse. The design wasn't flawed, no one designs buildings accounting for planes ramming in. And I don't believe the explosives or Satan theory.
@@destroyerinazuma96 Yeah though keep in mind people wanted an easy explanation which is why some ridiculous conspiracy theories would start cropping up. They can be based from some legitimate questions but often times they seem to almost always spin out of control.
@@destroyerinazuma96 And the 3rd building which suffered non the first two's impacts?
@@transooka do you mean a building close to the World Trade Center or the distant one that was also on the terrorists' hit list?
Man, the Hood family was really unlucky. One descendent of Horatio Hood dies when his Battlecruiser detonates at Jutland, and the same thing happens again to the ship of his namesake
They're still around
How about Graf Spee. The admiral was killed at the Battle of the Falkland Islands while his namesake ship sank in the River Plate. Not far from the Falklands.
Interestingly one of the German ships sunk at the Battle of the Falkland Islands was called Scharnhorst.
@@bigblue6917 The wreck of Spee's flagship Scharnhorst was found off the Falklands on 5 December 2019, almost 105 years to the day after her sinking. Wilhelm Graf von Spee, head of the Graf von Spee family, called the location of the wreck "bittersweet", remarking that the family took comfort "from the knowledge that the final resting place of so many has been found, and can now be preserved, whilst also being reminded of the huge waste of life. As a family, we lost a father and his two sons on one day. Like the thousands of other families who suffered an unimaginable loss during the First World War, we remember them and must ensure that their sacrifice was not in vain."
It was Samuel Hood's descendent Horace Hood who died at Jutland.
Yeah, but then their descendant successfully defended Earth from the Covenant so they made a good comeback
This is probably the most professional and detailed synopsis of the downfall of the HMS Hood I've even seen, Thank you for making TH-cam great.
This is the most thorough and plausible description of the demise of HMS Hood that I have ever seen. It makes absolutely perfect sense. I had always read that it was plunging fire through the deck armor that sunk Hood. I am enjoying your videos so very much. You are an excellent naval historian as well as story-teller. Thank you for what you are doing with this channel! I look forward to every video.
A most interesting video. RIP the 1,415 brave men of HMS Hood who went down with the ship.
Thank you sir, amongst all the glib comments, we should remember the appalling loss of life when Hood was lost, poor buggers, not a nice way to go, and indeed the brave sailors lost on Bismarck as well.
RIP as well the 13 killed in HMS PRINCE OF WALES. Tough ship she was - she took a nasty shellacking and then came back to face DKM BISMARCK again.
Y’all talking about the losses on the Hood and Prince of Wales. But who tf is gonna talk about 2,200 killed in the Bismarck’s sinking, or the 1,932 men killed in the sinking of the Scharnhorst, where only 36 men survived.
I ain’t no wheraboo, but if your gonna mourn one you gotta mourn all those who are lost in war. Friend or foe.
@@austindemuynck9460 I've no idea as to what a wherabo is, or indeed the intent of such colloquial language, I'm tempted to think that you've mispelt mourn intentionally as some sort of attempt at trolling? However : "indeed the brave sailors lost on Bismark..."
@@tonygibson6806 no sorry just my English isn’t at the moment. It wasn’t ment as a troll my guy
Outstanding use of data points and photographic evidence.
From memory, there were only 3 survivors. I remember a lovely old bloke who used to be a marine technician in Port Adelaide, I think his name was Alf. He used to get a letter from the Queen every year, as he was one of the lucky ones. Very sad RIP mate !
I can only imagine the survivor's guilt those 3 men had to have endured. Ive seen a few old interview clips with these men. They all seemed devastated, even decades later. Though as the saying goes....it's better to be alive. I hope they found peace with their shipmates in a better place.
Did you have a stroke mid comment?
A fourth person escaped with his life as he was pulled off the Hood as she left harbour and had to take a promotion exam. John Pertwee, who would later become the third doctor who. As a result of the sinking, he was posted to land duties until assigned to Coastal Command where he served on an mtb with Patrick Troughton.
@@billwebster4760 0
I remember reading some old speculations that it was an explosion in the 4” magazine, which corresponded to the location of the observed fire, broke the ships back. But those speculations struggled with how a 15” shell could have ignited the magazine and instead explored various other implausible possibilities. This theory offers a much simpler explanation.
Well, as Conan Doyle's famous detective once said: If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be true. Following that axiom, unless new evidence comes to light, this is the most likely explanation. Excellent deductions, mate.
thanks for the quote
Conan Doyle’s famous detective, apart from being bad-mannered and supercilious, indulged in quite a few logical fallacies. Good fiction for the time, maybe, but no more than that
@@riazhassan6570,
The statement is true if you consider that one is very rarely aware of everything that is possible or impossible. In that sense it could be considered a sort of trivial truth.
@@fluffly3606 Maybe. Holmes is the fictional archetype of the detective who sees what others don’t, Poirot, Father Brown, Miss Marple, Wolfe, etc. To bring out their extraordinary powers, a well- meaning but rather dull foil is provided in the shape of a Watson/Hastings type character. Good fun, clever-clever stuff, arrogant dismissals of other people’s theories, surprising discoveries, the ‘truth’ reassuringly triumphant, evil people getting their come-uppance- literary entertainment, yes, but hardly a blueprint for reality. Aristotle’s arguments about the possible and the probable might be relevant, however, what seems right for the positive might or might not be true for the negative, i.e., the impossible and the improbable. Doyle’s stories are satisfying from a literary perspective, but some generalized observations, delivered with splendid finality by a conceited character, need to be looked at closely
German Navy:
Delivering trick-shots since Jutland
and NOT winning any war...
@@pablofigueroa6318 Quick out of the gate, but fade in the stretch.
British Navy at Jutland developed a talent for allowing its ships to explode. If the only way to operate effectively means wedging blast doors open then it’s down to management for not putting in place systems that actually work.
@@davidelliott5843 That was only Beatty's stupidity not the entire the Royal Navy
@@KatyushaLauncher He Should have had the honor of the Byng treatment.
So it wasn't the "poor deck armor" of Hood after all, been mislead for so long 😄 Hats of for the impressive analysis skills and knowledge!
If I got a dollar for every time I posted an argument to those saying "deck armor penetrated" I would be rich.....
The angle of fall by itself rules it out
@@notsureyou if i recall correctly "haven't watched the video* the hood was IN the 9 mile radius so a shell couldn't have penetrated the deck armor at that distance
@@ivangenov6782 Correct, at that range (generally accepted to be 16-17km) the angle of fall of the shells was just 11.5-12.8 deg
@@ivangenov6782 if you fire perfectly that absolutely could hit a deck
@@gaberobison680 The thing is: Naval guns are not mortars, so the deck armor won't need to account very high entry angle. Certainly it won't hit as high as the drawn picture which dipiected entry angle like 60 degree.
I have always been confused by this. This is a really good explanation of what most likely happened. I was always shocked why only three members of the crew survived I can only guess it was such a sudden spreading explosion then the suction of the ship sinking took the lives of many brave souls. RIP and respect to all those who died.
More than half the crew (all in the aft end) would have been gone in seconds. Those in the forward turrets and forward half of the hull wouldn't have had time to evacuate with all doors secured for combat operations. As for the forward bridge, odds are they likely wouldn't have known what the hell was going on.
What is so confusing? The ship exploded and was torn in half and sank in less than a minute. There are really survivors of sudden sinkings. 97% of the crew are in the hull or in compartments in the superstructure. Almost all of these have no natural light source or direct escape route. The first thing that happens with a catastrophic damage event is that the entire power grid is severed and the whole ship goes black inside. Then you have to locate your flashlights and try to find your way around the darkness. But with the catastrophic destruction the ship immediately starts to sink rapidly. Those near the damage site who weren't killed by the blast and flash are quickly drowned as the water rushes into the blackened hull. The hull immediately slants steeply and/or rolls and capsizes. Your have seconds before you are trying to walk on a steep roof. While following a maze, in the dark, while climbing up ladders (which aren't even ladders but steep stairs, making it even harder if it is now tipping towards you or sideways). This is assuming you didn't wait for the order releasing you from your post, which will never come due to the loss of the network grid and power. It is extremely difficult to escape from a sinking ships hull once it exceeds a few degrees off level, and the Hood was quickly going bow and stem towards the sky. Almost no one still alive had any chance of escaping the hull, the deeper in you were posted the harder it was. Not much better in the superstructure or turrets, unless you happened to be right by a door (all the doors and hatches to the outside and between compartments were shut and dogged when you went to quarters so you have to stop and open every one of those too, don't forget), and you basically sprinted for the exit the moment you felt a bad explosion assuming the ship was doomed and your life was more important than potentially being charged with deserting your post of our turned out that it wasn't as bad as you feared it was and the ship didn't sink. Or if you were posted on deck as an AA gunner or lookout. But then you would have to jump pretty quick before the bow raised too high for you to jump, and you would have to swim pretty fast to escape the massive suction of the fast sinking ship. Almost every ship that blew up had no survivors, and it has happened many times. Any ship that sinks rapidly.
Given Hood went up in seconds after the 4' mag triggered the 15' one, it's hardly surprising.
@@justforever96 Good description. Harrowing. What a horrible death for these fine men. RIP
Well done Drachs, its a superb analysis; been reflecting on this off and on for years, and this is the best explanation I've seen. Three additional nuanced thoughts. First, the weather on the day, from the footage of Bismark firing, was about Sea State 4 or so, by eye. With Hood steaming at 28 knots, the depth of the exposed area under the main mast will change slightly as she runs through the swells and troughts, with the possibility again of further exposure of the hull area below the main belt, thus potentially further increasing the probability of penetration. Second, if her turn to port is underway, then at 28 knots she will start to list to starboard, by 5 to 7 degrees, I'd guess, which will change the impact geometry slightly, and in two ways: the exposure of the hull below the waterline will be reduced, thus reducing the probability of below belt penetration; but this will be balanced again slightly the change in horizontal geometry, as the angle of penetration becomes closer to perpendicular. Third, and very subtly, if the Hood's rudder has just been put over, but she has not started to turn, then else will come into play. Battleships and battlecruisers were designed with metacentric height such that they were not too 'stiff', and were thus good gun platforms. For any warship, but especially a warship that is so designed, when the rudder is put over, the first thing that happens is counter-intuitive, namely the vessel will list in the direction that the rudder is put over. The reason is to do with the physics, in that the rudder is below the vessels centre of gravity and, at the moment of the rudder being put over, a vertical lever force is applied below the centre of gravity, causing the vessel to list in the direction of the turn. Once the rudder bites, and the vessel's turn commences, then classical hydrodymanic forces come into play, and the vessel will then list in the opposite direction of the turn. In Hood's case, if the moment of impact coincided with the application of the rudder, but before it had begun to bite, then she would have been listing slightly to port, which would have further exposed the hull below the armour belt, and made for a slightly higher probability of penetration as you propose. All of which tends to increase the probability that your explanation is the right one.
Only that trough near the mast only existed when hood was turning on the inside of the turn
@@buzzardbeurling As was said, the ship hadn`t yet begun to turn as it is a few times heavier than your car meaning lots of inertia to overcome.
@@Notmyname1593 actually it's possible she was as much as half way through her turn
@@Notmyname1593 it's academic. There was no trough there on the stbd side
So the idea of turning away when a shell is incoming isn't what we call a good idea. That's when u just want to turn towards the shell, as strange as it looks. And with précise timing, if u please.
I’ve been reading naval history for the better part of 20 years and finally I have found an explanation I can fully agree with, thank you Drach.
I've been reading info and watching docos on the Hood for 40 years, and Yes this explanation is very plausible!
Drach, this is the first video of yours I ever watched. I was a hard core ‘her missed upgrade to her deck armor was her downfall’ camp guy. I remember watching this and just dressing down how wrong you were. Then, I thought about it over and over, watched the video again and you won me over. Now I’m an addict to your videos. I even got to meet you, which was really cool! So thank you for your dedication to history and your thoroughness in level of knowledge. Thank you for helping me increase my own knowledge. I can’t wait for your second video on this you hinted at when we met. Keep up the great work!
FWLIW: While we may never know exactly what happened I think this is by far the most credible reconstruction of events.
Thank you for your hard work and excellent presentation.
So, to interpret in a weird way, hood was killed by:
- too much speed
- not enough water
- too many Germans
Also too much water after she split in half.
To be fair, "too many Germans" is a common problem, before the 1950's.
You missed;
Some damned fine gunnery from The Bismark. This is a recurring theme in RN vs German capital ships. At Jutland, German gunnery was spectacularly effective, the British was, erm, not so. In fact, although the gunnery really wasn't all that bad, the shells were so bad that only a small %age detonated.
Yet, for all their practice drills, rarely did the RN produce a really remarkable display of gunnery with the possible exception of Matapan.
*Screams in Jackie Fisher*
BUT SPEED IS ARMOR
@@davidcolin6519 you are correct, but please also consider that at Jutland the ship design made a huge difference. Just look at how high the British ships sat in the water and then compare it to the Derflinger for example. Considering that they were mostly fighting broadside to broadside this gave the German gunners way more surface area to hit.
Should've added an anti-detonation flag
Pls nerf deto rng
I think she may have had those flags that gave her shells more chance of fire
That 10% chance of magazine explosion could have proved her undoing
If only it was that easy
Hood player: Bismarck is Haxxxxx!
*Rage quits*
Fun and engaging mechanism.
THE most well presented and well researched and thought out description of Hoods final seconds that I have ever encountered. Well Done Sir!
One piece of evidence that you don't discuss here, but is mentioned in your Operation Rheinuburg video, is Ted Briggs' account of the impact. He mentions a slow, 10 degree list to starboard (as well as loss of steering... but I don't have any knowledge of how that might fit in). This is consistent with a hull breach at or below the waterline, as you describe, and almost entirely rules out the plunging fire hypothesis or anything associated with the fire on the boat deck.
Drach mentioned that as the front part of the hull twisting to starboard after the explosion.
@@charlestoast4051 Ah, you're right.. I'd mixed my timeline up..I thought that was before the explosion, but it's after.
Also hms hood lower hull be low the waterline was an off black colour not red as mentioned in the doucumentry
An excellent analysis from all angles. Whilst it may have been a “lucky” hit from Bismarck it simply proves that having a shot may actually work sometimes - regardless of the odds. In a similar way - the later torpedo hit on the rudder by the Swordfish attack - which led to the demise of Bismarck herself - is equally a “lucky” shot. For good or bad it shows that taking your best shot sometimes works to advantage. In the end it was a one for one swap of battleships and many good souls perished . RIP to all.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take"
- The Bismarck, possibly
Quite right. Even a large ship at the distances involved was a small, moving target, so a hit at exactly the right spot can only be called ‘lucky.’ At this stage in the war, gunnery was more miss than hit. Likewise, some luck working in the torpedo attacks-many wasted, some duds, one lucky hit in a vulnerable area.
Notice the Prince of Wales. Hit 7 times in 2 minutes. 0602 to 0604 by both German ships. Number of hits on Hood? before she is sunk. I think shows superior gunnery at this time of the war
@@roderernst9990 I'm no sailor but I read elsewhere ( Operation Rheinubung video I'm sure) that the British ships were sailing against the wind and waves , unlike the Germans, so were unable to use the main directors, relying on the secondary ones mounted higher up. Plus of course the POW had major malfunctions of her new guns.
A one-for-one numerically maybe, though in chess and warfare, like-for-like swaps are rarely fair exchange. Not to belittle the huge loss of the beloved Hood, the loss of Bismarck from a smaller navy was arguably of more practical, relative and strategic value than that of the Hood. No doubt the Admiralty had to risk the Old Girl. Like in the Battle of Britain, maybe straight swaps are not a "thing" when you have the enemy outnumbered, or when the enemy asset carries a greater threat. Stakes were so high, that even before the Bismarck was sunk, the Hood would have been a worthy sacrifice if she only drew fire from the POW and never fired a shot. Whatever. We are not worthy.
"What killed HMS Hood?"
Showing too much broadside and thus, a paddlin."😄
Bloody gnome cultists are everywhere ;)
who let you out of the salt mines??
Adalbert Schneider did.
@@viridisxiv766 Rita
Drop the poop a quarter, and heave around boys! Naval history just got zesty!
🔥
That was a fantastic and extremely detailed hypothesis. As you were describing the explosive process, i was getting serious chills at what the crew might have experienced. And i like your 'lucky trough hit' theory.
What a tragic loss. My mum told us that her neighbourhood in London during this time was devastated as most of the UK was. Many cried openly in the streets and many marked their respect by wearing a black armband. I hope these men can Rest in Peace and we must never forget any of our service people that died in those wars. We have that day in November to honour them but soo many don't bother, shame on you for that.
28:11 9 inches is "of course" greater than 7 inches... *pause, count with fingers* Yeah, that checks out
Congratulations you have just passed American high school math!
Oh come on they would ask more questions then just one but yea all about that hard
@@philvanderlaan5942 but you forget, New Math means that 7>9 and 7=9 are equally true!
@@trinalgalaxy5943 that's not math that's corporate bookkeeping
@@philvanderlaan5942 it is New Math though... because we cannot really teach math anymore...
The best theory for the loss of the Hood that I have seen - thanks, Drach!
"Damn RNG is always against me"
Amazing video. I remember watching a documentary that stated that the commander knew of his thinner deck armor and tried to close the gap to avoid plunging fire. Considering this very plausible explanation, it makes it even more sad that this kind of incredible hit took place.
It draws even more importance to a simple fact about battleships : if one lucky strike can cripple a ship this size, that takes so long to build and so many men to run, why would you ever risk using them ? I always feel that early WW2 should have sounded huge alarms in naval commanders : Taranto, Hood, Bismarck, only to name those before Pearl Harbor, repeatedly show the inherent dangers of huge battleship battles. The tide could turn in an instant, regardless of how skilled and capable your people were, and you just couldn't replace the losses.
Those poor souls on the Hood and later Bismarck were betrayed by a lucky shot.
Wonderful video.
The problem with this line of thinking is that the examples listed aren’t really indicative of battleships as a whole. Yes, in our 20/20 hindsight, we understand that battleships as we know them are outmoded, but at the time, aircraft carriers were very much an unproven concept and big gun duels were still thought to be the end all be all of major naval engagements.
As for the examples in particular, you run into the same problem with Taranto and Pearl Harbor: both were surprise attacks on an enemy fleet at anchor. While this is something that battleships cannot physically do without some sort of super gun due to their speed, this does not also inherently rule out battleships as being defenseless- if the crews were not in a relaxed state, then it’s very likely that less casualties, both man and ship, would have been inflicted in both instances.
As for Hood and Bismarck, again, the same error is evident in both in that both were doomed by a lucky shot- Hood’s more instantaneous than Bismarck’s, but still. The only reason both are so famous is because of how improbable Denmark Strait and the crippling of Bismarck’s rudder were- battles like North Sea, Sibuyan Sea and Surigao Strait prove that battleships could still take plenty of punishment before going down.
To conclude, we know for sure that battleships are obsolete in the age of the fully understood carrier, in the era in question battleships were still a viable unit until combat experience proved otherwise.
Perhaps the empire should have learned the same lesson. Death Stars are pricey.
Wow well done...I'm a 40 yr process safety specialist in the CPI, and the explosion description attributes are very correct, this IS how an explosion with this type of confinement would behave.
Drach brought it up in his video about ship armour, but he has a background as a materials engineer of some sort, on top of that he has a dedicated community filled with many specialist willing to correct, confirm, critique and improve the content.
Guys no spoilers now, I don't want to know what happens to the Hood OK?
It survived the war, was scrapped and used to make enough chains to supply the entire European BDSM community
It did a back-flip, snapped the bad guy's neck, and saved the day.
It got blown up by the Tripod during the Martian intervention of '42.
She survived the war and was converted into Guided-Missle Battlecruiser, she served in the Falklands War and is now a museum ship
It travelled back in time and helped the British win against the revolutionaries.
Amazingly complex. I didn’t know that ship sinkings were analyzed to this extent. Well done.
The Hood has been analysed for 80 years as her demise was so sudden and complete, when all the previous signs were that she should have given as good as she took.
The key to this mystery is, I think, the silent flaming jet that appeared just before the explosion. An erupting, coherent column of flame emerging with no associated shockwave implies a significant volume of superheated gas at very high pressure suddenly getting a narrow aperture to vent through. Superheated gas being present inclines me to believe the 4" magazine did cook off first, as the 15" wouldn't have messed around overpressurizing compartments but cut straight to shattering the ship. The eyewitness accounts also mention the eerie lack of a shockwave/sound when Hood exploded, again suggesting the ship ruptured from internal pressure rather than being pulverized by a blast wave. Hood's destruction sounds (literally) more like a deflagration than a detonation. The ship probably filled up like a fiery balloon in the milliseconds before explosion. In fact perhaps her deck armor worked _against_ her here by holding long enough to let obscene levels of pressure build in lower compartments.
Taking all that into account, is it necessary for a shell to have hit Hood's magazines at all? All that's really needed is a way to start a fire in that 4" magazine. Could excessive heat and/or pressure from a near-miss have ignited stored charges in a (relatively) slower-burning deflagration?
I have wondered if the young and inexperienced crew made a mistake here that the seasoned crew would noy have. Then its not a lucky shot but could also be a catastrophic munition handling mistake. Excellent analysis to all
@@frankdehaven2572 I might have been inclined to agree with you had it been any other country OTHER than UK. Remember that only 25 years or so again, The RN lost a large number of ships exactly due to munition handling mistakes. As such, to my knowledge, this was one place that crew did NOT cut corners, even a rookie crew. This would have been drilled into them more than anything else. So IJN, USN or KM? Maybe, but RN? I seriously doubt it.
@@Yippidiyippida I dunno, that sounds plausible and all but... we're talking about mid-combat.... Maybe a mix of damage, and crew... shortcuts combined?
@@marhawkman303 Don't forget the ship's age! Metal gets weaker as it gets older, stress fractures build up over time and the Hood (as an older ocean-going ship that had been refit with even more armor at one point) was no spring chicken.
@@Yippidiyippida exactly this. and this was as you said only 25 years after Jutland and the other munitions related catastrophes of the first world war, no one in the royal navy was going to be taking risks with munitions, especially on a battlecruiser, especially when going up against a ship like Bismarck again, that was one lesson the royal navy had learned
I like this explanation a lot. I used to think of the plunging fire through the deck as the most likely thing. But, that wave trough one was new and makes much more sense
One point you should note: The water in the through of the wave would have been agitated. Agitated water offers significantly less drag and has no surface tension. A shell would therefore experience significantly less destructive forces than if it where going through "normal" water. Your theory seems very sound and is the best I've heard.
Especially since Bismarck also received an under belt hit, in the area of Bismarck's wave trough as well
The expedition to Hood's wreck (her rudder positions) showed that Hood was in the process of turning to port when the shell hit. Now, beside the through of the wave, the fact that she was turning, and heeling over to port at 28 knots (albeit at a shallow angle to port) may have exposed a few extra feet of her hull.
Better with animation, to illustrate his arguments. He likes using specialized terms. Lost me some of the way because of that.
@@RayCis1 I think you are mistaken there. She was hit on the starboard side, any boat with a rudder (that includes almost all ships) will heel out when turning. So if she was turning to port Hood would have listed to starboard and therefore "hidden" part of her hull. With that said, when turning sharply, both the bow wave and wake will change form and structure. It might have exposed more of the hull in the area she was hit.
My father served on Hood, though thankfully not on her final voyage.
His elder brother was a Gun Layer on another ship and he spoke of horrific things that took place during combat, things which never make it into official historical accounts.
An outstanding presentation. Thank you for taking the time and effort to explore this as it is eye opening.
You carefully and logically eliminated the alternatives. What is left is most likely what happened. Thank you, Drach.
Elementary my dear Mr. Drach, elementary...
Occam's razor? Or Sherlock Holmes dictum?
Brilliantly explained. The reality of coincidence is that the strangest and most unexpected things do happen. Poor Hood.
Brilliant analysis! For my money the best Drachinifel video to date with the possible exception of the "Operation Rheinübung" video.
Some of your finest work of all time Drach.
She heard a rumour that at some future date Drachinifel would refer to her as "it" - and immediately blew up in rage.
@@bakaweiner6956 this comment is shallower than the extent of her main belt...
ships hate being misgendered. Although I've heard that in Russian, ships are referred to with male pronouns?
@@alexroselle Bismarck was called He and look how that went. "
Actually come to think of it look at all the crap the Russian sub's had happen to them
@@alexroselle How can they be a lady having had so many men in her?
@@alexroselle In italian Navy (and Regia Marina before) warships are male: Battleship Roma is referred in our literature as 'IL Roma'. It can be hard on the tongue while speaking about ships from different navies: we say "IL [male pronoun] Roma e LA [female pronoun] New Jersey sono corazzate [BB]" Regards
Magnificent theory, Uncle Drach, by far the most concrete use of facts and likelihoods I have ever encountered. If I had to place a wager I'd be confident in betting on it.
Thank for a most extensive and erudite explanation of Hood's sinking. Your final conclusion makes a lot of sense and, whilst we will never know the precise reasons, your reasoning is the most logical that I've heard!
Fantastic video! I apreciate how much evidence and knowledge needed to be accumulated to make this video. Great work!
Hearing descriptions of warships dying fills me with sadness for the hundreds/ thousands of souls onboard them. Those poor men...
Great video, Drach. I enjoyed the investigative style, reminded me a bit if a murder mystery.
The bow wave scenario is depressingly plausible: "More haste less speed" becomes "more haste less protection". God bless all who sailed with her, and lost their lives due to Finagle's Law.
Rather ironic considering Fisher once said speed is armour
But if they hadn't sailed at that speed, they'd never had made the interception in the first place...
@@pads-zr9ln That was back when battlecruisers had an almost 10 knot speed advantage over regular battleships. That speed difference meant that a battlecruiser could easily break off an engagement if things got hairy.
Well with all the everything else is impossible I was going to go with the pseudo science explanation of ALIENS!! But the bow wave explanation blows that out of the water (sorry poor choice of words) Damn you Logical thinking!!
yeh it's also wrong ;)
An excellent video sir. All sorts of explanations have been documented but yours is the most accurate. You describe in detail all other scenarios and provide accurate detail of what probably did happen. I have been interested in the Hoods destruction for several decades and no explanation has been as detailed as yours. Well done sir.
I have watched this twice now, to take it all in. I think it ia a very good summation of the evidence and the likely scenarios. Well done Drach!!
There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ship toda-wait wrong World War.
The Beatty curse continues
Other navys are propelled by (in chronological order) sails, coal, fuel oil and nuclear power. The Royal Navy is propelled by tradition ( not all traditions are good ones. ) so following the Jutland tradition.... BOOOOOM.
@@philvanderlaan5942 Historically the Royal Navy among many nations' services has always been a meritocracy.
You may be closer to the truth than you realize. Bad handling practices are very hard to correct and can linger for a very long time.
@@Deevo037 I didn't say it was 100% hide bound was simply tieing it to the original commenters observation about Jutland.
I know the British army was allowing the buying of commissions long after the royal navy required midshipman to pass exams to the point where 20 year old lieutenants were in charge of 35 year old midshipman ( thanks C.S. Forester and Duddly Pope. ) but at that time at the bottom and top ranks you had to know somebody willing to take you on as a midshipman or still be breathing and once a slot opened up and your promotion to Admiral was guaranteed. So in a minor way as much as it has changed in the last 150 years it hasn't always been a meritocracy
Aslo if there isnt a damn thing funny about something, then gallows humor is the only recourse.
No one really knows but a very detailed and professional explanation for the detonation by drachinifel..especially when you factor in the thermal dynamics of the situation..well done drach
no one really knows? there's very little we don;t know
Excellent video. The last part from 37:00 on gave me chills and were upsetting to think about what the crew went through. As what happened to Bismarck's crew a few days later.
I’m not and never have been a “navy guy” but this man and his channel are so damn good that I can’t stop watching his videos.
That's one of the most plausible and indepth explanations of the sinking I've heard yet. It also makes a lot of sense explained this way.
Thanks Drachinfel......Apart from the wave trough theory, the explanation of events from the shell entering the aft machinery spaces is precisely the theory I have touted for the last 40dd years (although I had the shell entering the machinery spaces from the boat deck)
A very thoughtful and clearly well worked out analysis. It's strange that the RN lost one of each major class of capital ship during WWI and WWII except for Nelson and Rodney. HMS Hood of course was a singular design.
Absolutely brilliant - as always! Very thorough and believable analysis and evaluation of HMS Hood's tragic loss.
"CSI: Atlantic" is my new favorite spin-off. But which "The Who" song should it have as it's theme?
There is only one choice: “I Am The Sea" from Quadrophenia
“Talkin’ ‘bout my detonation...”🎼
"See me, feel me, touch me with a 15" shell"
Too soon Drach, still too soon...
*Sobbing, starts WoWs*
Well done Drach,no one else before has ever taken the ships own wave action into account to explain how a shell that shouldn't have gotten in did.
This was super interesting. I loved the inclusion of the ship schematics and trajectory of rounds penetrating the hull.
HMS Hood was first time laid down at the same day (31 may 1916) that admiral Hood died on HMS Invincible.
Interesting fact!
Ooooof
HMS Hood was named for Admiral Samuel Hood, 1st Viscount Hood, 1724-1816. This Admiral Hood fought in the 7 Years War, the American Revolutionary War, and the Wars of the French Revolution. Very capable officer; Nelson thought very highly of him and he was one of Nelson's mentors.
Mount Hood, in the state of Oregon in the US, and the Hood Canal in Puget Sound in Washington State, are also named for this officer. These namings resulted from the voyage of George Vancouver to the Northwest in 1792.
@@boydgrandy5769 1724? The guy lived nearly 200 years and all anyone can talk about is things that are named after him? 😉
@@thomas316 1816, not 1916. He died about 100 years before his descendant Horace Hood (died 31 May 1916 at Jutland).
A remarkably detailed and rationalized presentation, well-presented as always. You were kind enough to acknowledge William ("Bill") Jurens as providing substantially to your presentation. Reading through the well-deserved accolades in the comments, I was struck by the remarkable lack of your followers mentioning the contribution, which you appropriately gave to Mr. Jurens. My little thanks to him as well is intended to make up - minutely - for this general omission. (It would also be interesting to see if the British Admiralty would commenton, or even acknowledge your presentation.)
This is by far the most detailed video I’ve ever seen, I went into this thinking “eh why not listen to another video about the HMS Hoods demise” but you had my full attention by the end.
Superb analysis and presentation - thank you Drach - simply brilliant!
That was a fascinating and very plausible explanation.
The arguments and rebuttals against the other theories made perfect sense.
Thank you, drach
*listening intently "the case is looking quite good for the HMS Hood... there is of course the fact that she did explode" 🤣
Okay, skip back ten seconds I missed what you said for laughing 🤣
It reminds me of comedian Tage Danielsson's classic monologue about Harrisburg
NOT FUNNY
@@hmshood1757 haha!
This is by far the best study and documentation I’ve ever seen in the subject, amazing job sir
What a great and enormous amount of information to digest....great great job!!!
Excellent explanation, so will that be an end of the ‘plunging shell’ myth in all those books..... nope.
Perhaps akin to Oswald's "Magic Bullet"?
@@richardpehtown2412 Or the steel beams
It’s going to be a great morning, more Drach!
dont be rude
Good afternoon.
My thoughts go out to all the brave men lost with the Hood. They were remarkable heroes who fought to the bitter end. Rest in peace lads!!!
Never forget her Aft turret was still firing as it sunk beneath the waves
If that really was the cause of HMS Hood's demise, then it's really tragic. The theory behind battlecruisers was that their speed would compensate for their lack of protection, but in the last case you presented, it was her speed that made the conditions for the lucky shot possible.
I've just watched this. It's excellent. I always thought that Hood sank because of the inadequate deck armour or because she was simply outclassed and out of date. She was just really really unlucky. Another excellent piece by Drach.
The fact the admiralty had already looked into this possibility happening beforehand is probably strong indication that this is the likely cause. They likely also came to the same conclusion afterwards but admitting that you had looked into this prior, and yet still not done anything to fix said possibility, likely led to the after conclusion being somewhat covered up.
I love rich rich historical documentaries like this! Really solid lecture style videos which are almost too much to absorb in one viewing . It’s like the best history lesson ever.
Looking forward to watching this when I have time. My Dad, Douglas Owens, served as a communications officer (morse code) in Royal Navy from 1939 - 1945 going from Scotland to Murmansk in Russia. He used to talk about The Hood. Thanks for posting. xxx
Ty , I learned a lot... one of my teachers sailed on the Prinz Eugen .... guess he would have liked your docu... he told me he saw the Hood go down with nearly all man and it has been a great shock to him and his (german) comrades to experience the reality of war.
I remember listening to another documentary about this episode. There was an account of the response of the sinking of the Bismarck by the house of parliament which was a roar of cheering. The accounts of the people on the ground was very sombre. No sailor likes to see a ship go down even when they are the enemy.
Finally got around to this video and I have to say, this scenario you have presented matches up to my own theory for what happens, only with significantly more detail. Bookmarking this for future reference. Thank you for this.
I love your content, thanks for all your hard work Drach!
HMS Hood is my favorite British warship, such a shame she went down so quick.
I try to look on the bright side (if you can call it that) that at least she went down as a casualty of war. Rather than due to a navigational error or someone being careless with a candle as with some vessels before her.
Or in my opinion worst of all in the case of the 1737 HMS Victory an argument between a shipwright and a member of the admiralty that resulted in the deaths of all 1150 of her crew. Which come to think of it would also be a great topic for Drachinfel to make a video on otherwise you can find out more on wikipedia by searching for her.
@@lernaeanhydra5766 True.
You probably mean 'at all' rather than 'so quick'?
HMS Hood was self-cursed by the crew due to the how low it was in the sea it was nicknamed the largest submarine in the Navy by her crew.
just sailor humour
@@buzzardbeurling Your absolutely correct, however we're told to be careful what we speak as it will come true! I hate saying it, given what happened and I am certainly no kill joy as like a laugh as the next man! We just have to be careful and given that back then the Royal Navy would not allow whistling on deck. Later on in the Falklands War the BFPO address for Ascension Island and the Falklands avoided the number '666', if I recall correctly Ascension Island was numbered '677 or 667'. Just a thought!
The extra armour added to the ship after the Jutland battle put the ship lower in the water. The quarter deck became very vulnerable as it was so low. Pictures of Hood are shown with the quarterdeck completely awash at speed or in heavy seas. After the war when Bismarck's specifications were studied, it was found that Hood had no immune zone to Bismarck. In the absence of lucky hits, the Hood was doomed in this scenario. The HMS Prince of Wales, fired the fatal shots which opened up Bismarck's oil tanks forward, forcing the Ship to abandon its breakout into the Atlantic and the convoys there. Hood should never have been deployed against Bismarck.
@@malcolmtaylor518 those studies were wrong.
Oh and Whilst Hood's quarterdeck was wet it wasn't much worse than any cut down qd design. It's been totally overstated
All battleships, and even more so battlecruisers, have weak spots, and all battleships are wet under war full load (not to speak about 10-20 years adding steel and guns and new stuff for every refit) as they age. A full-blown American battleship lost the admiral in the middle of an Atlantic crossing in WWII, swept by the sea. This bow wave theory appears convincing.
A proper tour de force. Painstaking detailed engineering analysis at its finest.
This channel never ceases to amaze me. Fantastic attention to detail and a compelling theory.
Bravo good sirs... Excellent explanation! Thank you for you efforts, providing this kind of in-depth analysis free is amazing.
Some fantastic detective work here, well done Drach!
25 years after Jutland, and there's still something wrong with our bloody ships today.
Well said, David!
I am sincerely impressed with the depth of research / complexity in, what amounts to, a systematic explanation from an engineering standpoint.