My grandfather was on HMS Electra (the ship that picked up the three survivors from the Hood). He told me that as they were steaming towards the co-ordinates they had been signalled to go to they made hundreds of sandwiches and big urns of "kye" to give to the men they were expecting to pick up out of the water. Needless to say they were shocked and dismayed to find only three men afloat. Very sad. Rest in peace.
My Great grandfather died on the hood , he was on the bridge and probably is still entombed within the remains of the vessel. However , I still argue that she had an end by far better than being scrapped. She now will never be forgotten and her epic phlight in her last battle never forgot
I have a model kit of this beautiful ship as well as the Bismarck and Prince Of Wales. Right now I am working on Prinz Eugen. I have also built USS Missouri, USS Arizona and HMS Warspite.
I am always 100% proud when I see the Hood. When I was a lad my father and uncles talked fondly about this beautiful ship. My surname is Hood and I suppose this helped also. 100% proud BRITISH.
I remember building this ship some years ago... I thought to myself how lovely it would have been to be on board throughought her wonderful career.. the open decks the beautiful design.... So tragic in the way the engagement went with Bismarck. Although I admit I admire the Bismarck more.. just because of her short career and another tragic end. The Hood was indeed a beautiful ship and you cant help but feel for the loss... How Brave they were.... and so proud.
the Bismarck's fatal hit on the hood was also a one in a million though considering the hood was mid maneuver and that the shell manged to plunge though the 4 decks before hitting the heavily armored magazine room at such an angle it managed to disturb the shells within since the room was designed to be unaffected by direct hits
HMS Hood was one of the most handsome battle-cruisers ever built--especially after her rebuild. Nice footage here! With her looks, firepower, and speed, it's easy to see why she was the pride of the RN.
The Hood was a battlecruiser, not a cruiser. A BC is just a battleship with lighter armor. At the time of her fight with the Bismarck, she was the biggest ship in the Royal Navy, and had been up-armored to a theoretical equivalent to a battleship (which increased the weight quite a bit)
Post Jutland experience, the Hood armour was increased, but weight restriction prevented it being thorough enough. Much of the armour was adequate but there were still a few routes where a heavy shell could reach a magazine & the RN was still using cordite. A shell from Bismark found one of these routes & "boom". Someone once said that Hood Vs Bismark was like HMS Majestic turning up at Jutland.
Even as an American, who country has built some beautiful warships, there is no ship that ever left the slipway more magnificent then The Mighty 'ood. Just wow...
Wow! I was raised on 'Sink the Bismarck'! I've never seen color close-up film footage of the Hood before. She looks even better in color than B/W. Thank You for posting that!!
Indeed. The armor of the German BC's where frequently penetrated and also the charges burned. Besides increasing armor thickness, anti-flash protection become more important in the British Navy. It still makes you wonder why ,almost 25 years later, the Hood still blew up after only minutes of battle.
@MaxxAue The crew had also been up all night due to constant firing from the british ships. Bismarck was also leaning to one side. There were other factors involved as to why there were no hits. People tend to forget this fact.
We will never know whether it was a shell from the Prinz Eugen (8 inch) or the Bismarck (15 inch) that started the sequence. All we do know is that Holland was anxious to close the gap and the detonation took place as the vessel was particularly vulnerable as she began turning to port to bring her rear 15 inch guns into action.
@justforever96 The film is of Hood at Gibralter ,summer of 1940 and was from one of two colour films shot by Commander(E) R.T.Grogan , her Chief Engineer . He was in hher at the Denmark Straight.
@SuperAncientmariner Correct. The point I was making is that as redesigned her suit of armour was as heavy as QE`s & Royal Sovereign`s, but was spread over a larger hull. To be sure, she was not as comprehensively armoured as a true battleship, but was much more heavily armoured than a conventional battlecruiser. It is inconceivable that a ship as large, expensive & prestigeous as Hood could have been kept out of action with a BB. Her speed alone made this necessary - "needs must".
Glad the wreck of H.M.S.Hood was finally found and her last surviving crew member,Ted Briggs was able to pay tribute to his shipmates before he went to join them in that great naval barracks in the sky.As far as I'm concerned, the Mighty "Ood was THE British battlewagon of the last war.
I corresponded with Briggs about the time that Bismarck was found on the bottom of the Atlantic. He was a very kind and thoughtful man that I much admired and still do.
I only half agree. The only real problem with battlecruisers is that they were never used for what they were designed to do. A "cruiser" is light and fast, designed to cruise and engage weaker ships. The rule of thumb was that a ship had armor equal to it's own guns. The battlecruiser was supposed to go out and DESTROY enemy cruisers, and run away from battleships. The results of trying to go toe-to-toe against battleships is obvious. Their only safety lay in running, but they didn't.
@Factnotfictionpeople i've also reminded some here she was a battlecruiser bulit just after ww1 which scarificed armour for speed, she was due for a refit to recieve new engines, armour and superstructure but ww2 stopped all that
@DaManzMoney You are correct, that is the reason why she never got the upgrades. She could not be spared because the RN was so stretched with worldwide commitments and there were other urgently needed units in the process of being build, upgraded, or repaired.. At that point, they needed every heavy unit that was available, unfortunately Hood was one of them (thats 39 to 42)
HMS Hood had been extensively refitted prior to 1941 and, but for the 'lucky' shot of the Bismarck, could very well have given a good account of herself as a worthy adversary. Prince of Wales could likely have dealt with the German light cruiser escorting Bismarck and the entire outcome would have subsequently been assessed on a completely different basis. I fully understand the WW1 -v- WW2 ship mentality, but this was never really part of the equation here. I'm getting the words 'lucky strike'
to all those who are discussing battleship or battlecruiser...its irrelevant...Bismarck could run 29 knots and was outgunning, outrunning and outperforming Hood and any other battleship in service in 1941 in firepower, armour, aiming accuracy and in steafastness. Bismarck had not the biggest guns but was the most modern Battleship of the World in 1941
After Jutland, armour on existing designs and battlecruisers under construction (like Hood) was increased. After the war the 'All or Nothing concept' was developed in the USA Nevada class: only heavy armor or no armor at all. The British adopted this stratagy in the Nelson and King George V class (like Hood's companion Prince of Wales), the later class informally called a fast battleship. Battlecruisers where intended for 'hit and run', Battleships for prolounged battle
@justforever96 The arial B&W film is the older. Her 5.5s were removed in 1938. The DP mount you can see (where the two 4"" were) was one of 7 such mounts.
Seydlitz was saved by heroism of one of the crew opening a white hot valve and flooding the magazine,it was a blessing in disguise for the Germans who realised how close they had come to disaster and altered their procedures accordingly .
My father had a uncle who served on the Hood, but he was discharged with lung problems in the 1930's. I later heard (and saw why) they called her the royal navy's biggest submarine as she was a very wet ship in even moderate seas, not comfortable for those on-board.
I'm curious...which of these shots is the older? The B&W footage shows a pair of open-air QF 4" guns aft of the torpedo range-finder (where the superstructure "V's" together). But at :15 you can see what looks like a single, enclosed dual-purpose mount, which also overhangs the upper deck. In addition, I wonder if the Wikipedia article on the Hood is accurate...didn't she still have her 12x5.5" QF guns in 1941? The model I built has those, pom-poms and the open-air 4.5" guns I mentioned above.
@Factnotfictionpeople I am just now watching Expedition : Bismarck, and I am at the part where they plot each hole in the hull, all around the ship. I will try to upload the entire movie, either in full or in several parts. I agree, the above comment was harsh and I apologize for it, I just wanted you guys to agree that the Bismarck was a better ship than all others in the Royal Navy. I will comment here when I manage to upload the documentary.
@Factnotfictionpeople I am not a Yank, pal. Secondly, the Royal Navy gave orders to the 44 ships in the area at the time to start hunting the Bismarck. The German Battleship was destroyed after taking at least 12 torpedoes and 25 bombs. This means that it was built properly. This also means that it could eat each ship in the Royal Navy in fair fights, one-on-one, maybe even two or three at a time. But not 44. The numbers are taken from an English site, so it is not biased towards the Bismarck.
Being seen as the best in the Navy she spent most of her career visiting various foreign ports and cruising the worlds seas. As it is she was scheduled for a major refit (including more armour) in 1939 but when the war broke out it was canceled and she was sent to join the Home fleet. Things might have been different if she hadnt...
Just a few points:- a) Hood could make 30 knots as could Bismarck. b) Bismarcks gunnery was out through an early hit on her main gunnery control. c)It was not steaming in circles but was veering a zig zag between NW and NE. d) Radar was used for gunnery ranging by the RN as well as plotting movement. Bismarck's was optical. e) 20 to 1? In the final battle it was 2 to 1 (Rodney & KG5) with Dorsetshire and Norfolk on the sidelines
Some reports suggest Holland wished to approach head on, he had good reason, at 50kts or 100,000 yds per hour he would close from max visibility in less than 15 mins to meeting point and dropped elevation to a flat trajectory in 7.5 mins negating falling fire, he would face 4 Bismark guns, utilise PoW 6 guns and Hoods 4 and forced Bismark to turn. He missed the correct turning point because the cruisers lost contact so all his plans went awry.
@SuperAncientmariner I always thought that the Hood was within her range for some time before she began to turn? As for 20deg port, I imagine it means a change of 20deg from her present track. The actual position that the rudder must be in to achieve this varies depending on speed and the seas, not to mention how quickly it must be done! I don't know about "10deg short of hard to port"...is the rudder limited to 30deg in each direction (i.e. 60deg total arc)?
@mbabist01 Just re-visiting some of my older comments. I don't know the date of these films, but I wonder whether one was taken before the Hood's re-fitting and one after, when they had added the extra armor? That could explain why she rode higher in on shot than in the other. Maybe I should go back and look closely to see if she has more AA in one that the other.
@justforever96 That could well be, or it could be an optical illusion in the color film. Color film has a way of doing that, which is why I prefer using black and white when taking photos for research.
@HelmutVillam Trouble is, if she had received the upgrades, the speed traded with the weight increase would have meant she could no longer be classed as a fast battleship.
A agree with your comment wkm1605. Both sides lost many lives, in war there is no winner. Many brave people fought and died because the politicians failed and it was our countries that paid the price. Im glad that our Countries can be friends as it should be ! Lets leave the beating of each country to the football pitch ! regards from Kidderminster, UK
uggizat. Yes, the merchant sailors were fighting men as were the cooks on Hood and Bismarck as well. In modern wars there are only two groups of people- those who suffer and those who profit. Poor buggers all sailors, rest in peace all of them.
@futch2121 Theoriginal design of Hood (one of 5 designs) was similar to the QE class only in armament and machinery. She had a different hull form with reduced protection.. Her final design of 1917 increased her weight by 5000 tons with a loss of freeboard and an increase of hull depth She was designed as a BC and entered service as such, her protection was not sufficient to classify her as a Battleship (see Anatomy of the ship...Battlecruiser Hood by John Roberts.)
@thespawnof66 She was very over weight. They added like 5,000 tons of armor. Her hull was 'Highly stressed". Revisions done on her during construction were done quickly and were faulty. She was a bit top heavy. She sat low in the water and had a tendency to roll in heavy seas.
The main problem with the battlecruiser is this: Part 1 - In any clash between capital ships, it will always be the tactically superior decision to engage with maximum number of ships. Meaning, including the battlecruisers in the battle. Part 2 - Since the battlecruisers, due to their armament, pose as big threat as the battleships, but at the same time are so much more vulnurable, the tactically superior decision is always to dispose of these first, by making them the primary target.
An 8" HE shell would not have gone through Hoods deck armour. But dont worry, there was once a theory that the 8" shell had travelled all the way down the Hoods funnel and into the bowels of the ship. LMAO By the way, Did you know that the actor Esmonde Knight was on the Prince of Wales too. He was blinded by splinter fragments when a 15 inch shell passed through the bridge without exploding. Whilst he did regain a little sight, he was still about 3 quarters blind. Thanks for the reply.
@megajameskelly Hipper had La Mort boilers with Blohm and Voss turbines, PE had La Mort boilers but with Brown-Boveri turbines. PE could only make 28 knots due to a problem with the top of the port low pressure turbine, and the middle engine was getting insufficient cooloing from higher water temp. in the seas she had reached going south.She had also developed a noisy Stbd screw. 1 mistake I made, she refuelled from Esso Hamburg and again from the Kota Pinang (..Prinz Eugen, by F-O Busch)
@stalkingalizee No not really you were looking at a lucky hit , also she was a battlecruiser built just after ww 1 which scarificed armour for speed. Hood was supposed to have recieved a refit in 1939 that more than likely would have saved her with more armour and more powerfull machinery, but a little thing called ww2 stopped all that.
@ReinikeVoss Only by virtue of Hood's approach course. It was a matter of Holland steering into the "T" to close range, rather than a manoeuvre on Lutjens' part.
actually, the North Carolina class was the most modern class of Battleships in 1941, USS North Carolina comissioned 9 April 1941, USS Washington 15 May 1941.
You mean a BATTLEcruiser? She was a 48,360 ton capital warship. Hood had a disadvantage in armor protection against Bismarck, but she deployed with the Prince of Wales. Hardly a suicide mission, a lucky shot from the Germans is what did her in so quickly.
@Factnotfictionpeople The secondary armament wasn't able to used against aircraft, the hull design was basically a that of a Baden class battleship. Bismarck was a mighty ship but she did have plenty of weakeness and to honest she would have sunk alot faster if the british were able to park themselves miles off her and using plunging gunfire through her decks but they stayed close putting holes in her superstructure that was not going to sink her.
No-one knows for sure that the Hood actually intended to close the range to get "under the guns", since they all died. If I remember right, the Hood turned away well outside of the safe zone. Not to insult a dead sailor, if Holland was making a gamble, he hesitated and was caught still in danger, and lost valuable time that would have given the aft turrets time to fire. As in most combat, luck is really the deciding factor, and the British didn't have it that day.
Hood was changed from her initial obsolete design part way through building, she might have been scrapped, but was built up on a hull for a different design, so in the end she sat too low in the water and was so wet on deck in stormy weather, plans to add armor plate against plunging fire were always put off! Hood was heavy enough as she was, a battlecruiser not a battleship, longer to house extra boilers for high speed, lightly armored to attack battlecruiser scouts not German super-battleships
I believe hood was sunk because of a common practice of leaving the magazine blast doors open to speed up the rate of fire. Had the doors been closed as per the standing orders the blast would of not ignited the powder room. She was an old outdated ship with a very experienced crew. a great old girl who died with her crew doing what she was made to do...defending the relm. R.i.p boys thank you for your sacrifice.
One other problem she had was that the powder magazine was located on top of the shell magazine, later ships reversed this as the powder was more likely to quickly go up. But as someone else pointed out the Bismarks shells were higher velocity and likely to be at a shallow angle, so the idea 4" ammo unsafely stored could be ignored is a possibility. I'd like to find evidence for this though as they had ready use lockers for this and one of the survivors reported these being hit earlier which caused a dreadful mess on the upper decks with many men killed before the shot that eventually ignited her powder magazine (hence the geyser of fire initially shot up before the whole ship exploded). In the Kriegsmarine wargames the Hood was their greatest terror, heavily armed, armoured enough to be hard to fight and too fast to escape. A lucky shot doomed her (although she badly needed better gun optics in a refit), but so did a lucky hit ironically doom the Bismark.
That's for sure. It's kind of funny, I was noticing the other day how people (in the US, at least) almost always unconciously refer to enemy ships as "it" and Allied ships as "her". Apparently ships are "he" to the Russians. I've heard that Hitler thought that the Bismarck should be a "him", but the crew still used "her". Tradition is powerful. Another thing, is it me, or is the stern freeboard in the color film higher than in the B&W film after it? Maybe it's fully loaded in the 2nd shot?
That low quarterdeck, made even lower by frequent overloading of this ship, demonstrates why Royal Navy seamen referred to Hood as the world's biggest and fastest submarine! Conditions below decks in the quarters of the 'ratings' [enlisted men] were so bad that Hood had an atrocious number of TB cases. An impressive ship whenever she steamed into port anywhere in the Empire, but like any warship of the era, Hell to serve aboard for those of low rank.
@alxcsb to be honest i think if the prince of wales hadn't been on her shakedown cruise (she still had civilian technicans on board training the crew to use the guns, radar etc) and had gone into the battle ready to fight you might have seen a completly different end, bismarck did have plenty of weakeness alot of the armour didn't cover vital parts of the ship, the obvious flaw of not been able to steer by her screws which most modern battleships of the era could.
HMS Vanguard (1909) blew up in 1917 in port due an accident; HMS Vanguard (1944) was commissioned after WO II and was scrapped in 1960; Queen Elizabeth (1913) was mined and damaged by Italian frogman (1941) in the Mediteranian. After extensive repair she serviced in the Eastern Fleet (1944-1945) and afterward put in Reserve: scrapped in 1948. The QE was indeed grounded in shallow waters, but grounded isn't the same as sinking. Vanguard Battleships never participated in the Mediterranean.
Either way, Hood was the more fast Battleship (IMHO) then Battlecruiser and should have been more then capable of engaging Bismark on near equal terms. But like any fight, luck played its part here, and we lost a thing of remarkable beauty.
@caferacer56 At this stage, Norfolk and Suffolk were still in contact but beyond range to anticipate,Hollands original plan being to call them in to take on the Prinz E.. (difficult as P.E.was leading and Bismark was between the 3 cruisers. Holland assuming the flag would be in the lead) With the wisdom of hindsight we could say that Hood and PoW should have split (Hood to port, PoW to Stbd) to divide Bismarks fire, and called in Norfolk and Suffolk to further split the fire.
In WO I admiral Fisher promoted the Battle Cruiser above normal Battleship. His opinion was that Speed would be the best Defense. Battlecruiser like the Invincible, Lion, Repulse, Renown etc. were fast ships with Battleship armament , but only limited armour. After the slaughter of the Battle Cruiser's during Jutland, the importance of thick armour became clear: Battlecruisers Invincible, Queen Mary and Indefatigable where lost due to inadequate armour and lack of flash tight ammunition handling
@SuperAncientmariner Your statement may have been true for the first battlecruisers but as gpwasr10 says, Hood, as redsigned, was really a fast battleship. Her suit of armour was equivalent to the Queen Elizabeths & Royal Sovereigns, but the Hood was a much larger hull & this left gaps. In the RN, Hood was known to be deficient in armour for long range action but in close her armour was thought to be adequate.
I find some of the comments on this video idiotic.My great uncle was also was a stoker on the hood.He didnt stand a chance as the other 1400 crew members who died horrible deaths.And yet idiots seem to think its a funny game commenting on this video.I have read the crew of the bismark were also horrified at the speed the hood sank and only 3 survivors.They had respect for there fellow sailors even if from the enemy side.This was a fluke shot that hit the armory and the ship went up like a firework.
r/thathappened You are probably lying. Your grandfather was probably NEVER onboard the Hood, you are just saying that cuz you are sensitive and you cAn'T bEaR all those "immature" comments.
@CapAchab76 I think that they kept the ship during the inter-war years A.) Because ships are expensive and military funding was slim in those years. B.) Because the sailors and the British pop. loved her...she was their biggest ship, and few people knew about her weaknesses until after her demise. C.) Once war was upon them, the British couldn't spare such a ship. I imagine that she would have been replaced given time, but half of a battleships value is just existing. She WAS still dangerous!
@justforever96 Yes, there was, (and as far as I know still ) 60 deg total arc). When the order is given ,eg Port 20.( this refers to rudder angle.) when this is applied the helmsman will announce "20 degrees of port rudder on sir". that will be held until the order" midships"is given ie whenever a new course requirement is met or manoeuvre made. Or it could have been a short turn, in which case it would have been, Port 20, come steady on....(course required)......
Actually there was a fatal flaw (although it was a designed flaw to save weight and produce more speed ) in the procedure and design of the Hood, its armor wasn't designed to stop a vertical impact, this was changed later on in a refit but all they did was add more amour tot he upper decks,add into the the factor she was old and weak compared to the the 16-inch guns on the Bismark and the fact she was a BATTLE CRUISER not a BATTLESHIP and you see why she was sunk.
@stalkingalizee !) It was'nt going round in circles. the rudder hit reversed her course and she was zig-zagging to the NW. 2) Nobody knows how many screws were working. In these conditions, (rudder/s jammed over, 3 props) steering can be maintained by the following. Stop on the side to which the rudders are jammed, ahead on centre screw for foreward motion and astern on opposite side,to counteract drag of rudder and varying speed to maintain a mean heading..cont.
Hoods deck armour was thick enough to stop an HE 8inch shell from Prinz Eugen. Naval architects have actually exmained this theory and dismissed it as nonsense. The fatal shot could only have been a 15 inch monster from Bismarck
@justforever96 Holland ordered the turn (20 degrees to port) on reaching maximum range for his guns. This ws to open the arcs and ,to a lesser degree, limit the spray interference to the main rangefinder.30 seconds sooner or later and the HOOD would have only been straddled. As you say ...luck. One thing I've allways wondered. The order for the 20 degree port turn. Was that an alteration of 20 degrees track or Port 20 meaning 20 degrees of rudder(10 short of hard to port).
@megajameskelly I don't think she was notoriously unreliable as she was a new ship herself (commisioned 1940) The supply tankers were already at sea and PE re-fuelled from one, the Spichern. The disposition of the supply ships at that time would have meant tying up the fleet to find the proverbial needle in a haystack. It would have been viable had the Interception in Denmark straight not occured. Best laid plans etc.
And this was all rather graphically demonstrated in the following 3 days. Lutjens catastrophically breaking radio contact after shaking off Tovey and Wake-Walker and then having to wait for Tovey to turn up and destroy him after a Swordfish from the Ark Royal of Somerville's Force H had crippled the Bismarck.
Hood never should have engaged Bismarck...as I said in a previous comment...german optical naval aiming systems were the best around at the time and it was not a one in a million hit but a 3,3 out of 100...so mathematically spoken Bismarck had to fire 33 shells (or 4 full broadsides with its 8 x 38,5 cm) to score a guaranteed full hit..if not for magazine Hood would have been sunk anyway by a full hit..its just that is was more spectacular the way it happend ..
The Bismark did hit before the fatefull one that ignited her magazine. While the Hood's fire control did need modernizing she still had the updated 15" guns and aiming systems so was a serious threat. And one hit in the right place could have swung the battle in the opposite direction, as Warspite against the Italians or Rodney did against Bismark (a shell from the fourth salvo demolished a turret and blew out the back into the bridge).
This is not how it works If you fire 33 shots at 3.3% that absolutly does not mean you guarantee a hit. The 33rd shot is still 3.3%. If you look at it as a whole after 33 shots it's about 50-60% chance you would have hit it by then.
@futch2121 Well also, IIRC, Hood had mistaken Prinz Eugen (who was the closer) for Bismark and he turned early as a result. Even still there is a good possibility when you look at the prints of Hood, and the location of her Magazine Stores (being further aft then where it was reported that she began brewing up), it is possible the that was an 8" shell from the little Hipper Class ship that set off the deck torpedoes and that is what destroyed her, and not Bismark.
@futch2121 No argument there Bro. My info comes mainly from" Anatomy of the ship,Battlecruiser Hood," by John Roberts and "The Battlecruiser HMS Hood..an illustrated biography....1916 - 1941" by Bruce Taylor. IMHO, these 2 books are all you need.
@DaManzMoney Under the definitions of her time, yes she was a Battlecruiser.but considered to be a fast battleship. Same as the Scharnhorsts, we describe them as battlecruisers but they are registered as Battleships. As I was saying to Helmut, it the upgrades had happened, she would not only have not been a fast Battleship, she would have lost the speed that made her a battlecruiser. She would have become an everyday Battleship.
Holland knew Hood`s weakness & the importance of getting in closer. He compromised however by turning to open Hood`s `A` arcs. In my last post I should have said that POW was more heavily armoured than Bismark. Hood was the most beautiful fighting ship ever designed - unfortunately she was a wrong concept that was tinkered with in order to try to improve her in light of experience. She was a contradiction of the general rule that if it looks right it probably is right.
Actually the thickness of the armour was less relevant at Jutland than the bypassing of magazine protection in order to increase fire rate - flash doors taken off or secured open & charges stacked in turrets & passageways - can you believe? Also the British cordite was more susceptible to to exploding, where American & German powder just burned. Seydlitz turret, heavly armoured, was pierced at Dogger Bank & hundreds killed by burning charges, but they did not explode
@stalkingalizee your wrong, 1 torpedo sealed her fate she was hit in the weakest part of the ship, her rudder which was a badly designed, jammed meaning all she could do was circles (she also couldn't turn using her screws like many other battleships) making her cannon fodder for the british, Hood could have easily dealt with a number of hits from bismarck but was hit in the weakest part of the ship.
Cordite and HE shells do not distinguish between the nation that their host ship belongs to. It is down to handling procedures, protection and of course battle tactics. The IJN learned this the hard way when the Mutsu exploded while at anchor, a repeat of the HMS Vanguard decades earlier.
I hate to tell you but the Bismarck was not much more that a rehashed WWI German battle ship SMS Baden. The Iowa class BBs on the other hand were much newer class of ships. they were the outgrowth of the Washington and S. Dakota's, and most likely the finest BB every built. Not the biggest but the best. The Bismarck not even the best of it's time, let alone of all times.
I'd have to agree the American battleships were impressive, they had good compartmentalization, good guns and heavy for the time AA. Bismark likely learned a lot from the Bayern, but the Bayern was built after the QE2 class, which was our main battleship class of WW2, one that was designed and most built before WW1. Only one of these ships was lost, to a torpedo attack, barnham (3 destroyers picked the submarine up but were inexperienced and ignored it), and Warspite especially faced down much more modern ships, Renown (actually R-class) chased two German Battlecruiser/battleships away (scoring a hit in a storm). I think in the end analysis, apart from the AA there was not a lot of improvement between these and the modern Battleships (Yamamoto had primitive fire control so would likely be pounded into junk by most other battleships), they had achieved their best survivability vs firepower
By figures they where indeed a match. The British used a too risky strategy by 'Bridging the Gap' (such that Hood was not in risk of 'plunging' hits against it's weak horizontal armour) and attacking the wrong ship (Prince Eugen instead of Bismarck) and by both ships 'Bridging the Gap' , Prince of Wales couldn't use it's firepower abeam and use it's adequate horizontal armor for use in long range. (although firepower was limited by lack of crew's experience and technical problems).
Hood should NEVER have been sent to intercept the Bismarck. She was a Battle CRUISER-not Battleship w/ no protection from plunging shells. Vice-Admiral Holland knew this and tried to close the range with Bismarck as quickly as possible before firing a full broadside. He was just starting to turn the ship-when the Bismarck's shell struck.....
My grandfather was on HMS Electra (the ship that picked up the three survivors from the Hood).
He told me that as they were steaming towards the co-ordinates they had been signalled to go to they made hundreds of sandwiches and big urns of "kye" to give to the men they were expecting to pick up out of the water.
Needless to say they were shocked and dismayed to find only three men afloat.
Very sad.
Rest in peace.
My Great grandfather died on the hood , he was on the bridge and probably is still entombed within the remains of the vessel. However , I still argue that she had an end by far better than being scrapped. She now will never be forgotten and her epic phlight in her last battle never forgot
Your great Grandfather is
A good man Rest in piece
Beautiful video - thanks very much.
My uncle was one of the Hood's crew, and as we all know only 3 survived. he was 20 and stoker.
I have a model kit of this beautiful ship as well as the Bismarck and Prince Of Wales. Right now I am working on Prinz Eugen. I have also built USS Missouri, USS Arizona and HMS Warspite.
Do u have a girlfriend?
Actually I have a wife. We’ve been together for almost fifteen years and married for the last twelve.
@@CaptainColdyron222 I love the fact you replied to that asshole 2 years later and destroyed his argument. Hope y'all are doing good
@@ajay999999 you just got Bismarck‘d HARD, what was even your original point? Men can’t have girlfriends when they like ships?
I am always 100% proud when I see the Hood. When I was a lad my father and uncles talked fondly about this beautiful ship. My surname is Hood and I suppose this helped also.
100% proud BRITISH.
I remember building this ship some years ago... I thought to myself how lovely it would have been to be on board throughought her wonderful career.. the open decks the beautiful design.... So tragic in the way the engagement went with Bismarck. Although I admit I admire the Bismarck more.. just because of her short career and another tragic end. The Hood was indeed a beautiful ship and you cant help but feel for the loss... How Brave they were.... and so proud.
the Bismarck's fatal hit on the hood was also a one in a million though considering the hood was mid maneuver and that the shell manged to plunge though the 4 decks before hitting the heavily armored magazine room at such an angle it managed to disturb the shells within since the room was designed to be unaffected by direct hits
HMS Hood was one of the most handsome battle-cruisers ever built--especially after her rebuild. Nice footage here! With her looks, firepower, and speed, it's easy to see why she was the pride of the RN.
I was saddened to hear that Ted Briggs had passed away. The Hood and its crew live on in all our hearts. For our today they gave their tomorrow....
The Hood was a battlecruiser, not a cruiser. A BC is just a battleship with lighter armor. At the time of her fight with the Bismarck, she was the biggest ship in the Royal Navy, and had been up-armored to a theoretical equivalent to a battleship (which increased the weight quite a bit)
Post Jutland experience, the Hood armour was increased, but weight restriction prevented it being thorough enough. Much of the armour was adequate but there were still a few routes where a heavy shell could reach a magazine & the RN was still using cordite. A shell from Bismark found one of these routes & "boom". Someone once said that Hood Vs Bismark was like HMS Majestic turning up at Jutland.
Even as an American, who country has built some beautiful warships, there is no ship that ever left the slipway more magnificent then The Mighty 'ood. Just wow...
Wow! I was raised on 'Sink the Bismarck'! I've never seen color close-up film footage of the Hood before. She looks even better in color than B/W. Thank You for posting that!!
Incredible ship, by 1940 Hood was old but still formidable, one of 5 British Battleships sunk during the war...
Nevertheless, she was one of the most beautiful ships ever built.
Indeed. The armor of the German BC's where frequently penetrated and also the charges burned.
Besides increasing armor thickness, anti-flash protection become more important in the British Navy.
It still makes you wonder why ,almost 25 years later, the Hood still blew up after only minutes of battle.
Thank you for this video, i had never seen color footage of this ship before, very nice thanks.
@MaxxAue The crew had also been up all night due to constant firing from the british ships. Bismarck was also leaning to one side. There were other factors involved as to why there were no hits. People tend to forget this fact.
We will never know whether it was a shell from the Prinz Eugen (8 inch) or the Bismarck (15 inch) that started the sequence. All we do know is that Holland was anxious to close the gap and the detonation took place as the vessel was particularly vulnerable as she began turning to port to bring her rear 15 inch guns into action.
@justforever96 The film is of Hood at Gibralter ,summer of 1940 and was from one of two colour films shot by Commander(E) R.T.Grogan , her Chief Engineer . He was in hher at the Denmark Straight.
@SuperAncientmariner Correct. The point I was making is that as redesigned her suit of armour was as heavy as QE`s & Royal Sovereign`s, but was spread over a larger hull. To be sure, she was not as comprehensively armoured as a true battleship, but was much more heavily armoured than a conventional battlecruiser. It is inconceivable that a ship as large, expensive & prestigeous as Hood could have been kept out of action with a BB. Her speed alone made this necessary - "needs must".
R.I.P Ted Briggs, now you can be at peace with your crew.
Glad the wreck of H.M.S.Hood was finally found and her last surviving crew member,Ted Briggs was able to pay tribute to his shipmates before he went to join them in that great naval barracks in the sky.As far as I'm concerned, the Mighty "Ood was THE British battlewagon of the last war.
I corresponded with Briggs about the time that Bismarck was found on the bottom of the Atlantic. He was a very kind and thoughtful man that I much admired and still do.
I only half agree. The only real problem with battlecruisers is that they were never used for what they were designed to do. A "cruiser" is light and fast, designed to cruise and engage weaker ships. The rule of thumb was that a ship had armor equal to it's own guns. The battlecruiser was supposed to go out and DESTROY enemy cruisers, and run away from battleships. The results of trying to go toe-to-toe against battleships is obvious. Their only safety lay in running, but they didn't.
@Factnotfictionpeople i've also reminded some here she was a battlecruiser bulit just after ww1 which scarificed armour for speed, she was due for a refit to recieve new engines, armour and superstructure but ww2 stopped all that
@DaManzMoney You are correct, that is the reason why she never got the upgrades. She could not be spared because the RN was so stretched with worldwide commitments and there were other urgently needed units in the process of being build, upgraded, or repaired.. At that point, they needed every heavy unit that was available, unfortunately Hood was one of them (thats 39 to 42)
HMS Hood had been extensively refitted prior to 1941 and, but for the 'lucky' shot of the Bismarck, could very well have given a good account of herself as a worthy adversary. Prince of Wales could likely have dealt with the German light cruiser escorting Bismarck and the entire outcome would have subsequently been assessed on a completely different basis. I fully understand the WW1 -v- WW2 ship mentality, but this was never really part of the equation here. I'm getting the words 'lucky strike'
Yeah it was a good ship until the Bismarck made it Pop the Hood
lucky my ass
the germans were good sailors also
to all those who are discussing battleship or battlecruiser...its irrelevant...Bismarck could run 29 knots and was outgunning, outrunning and outperforming Hood and any other battleship in service in 1941 in firepower, armour, aiming accuracy and in steafastness. Bismarck had not the biggest guns but was the most modern Battleship of the World in 1941
After Jutland, armour on existing designs and battlecruisers under construction (like Hood) was increased. After the war the 'All or Nothing concept' was developed in the USA Nevada class: only heavy armor or no armor at all.
The British adopted this stratagy in the Nelson and King George V class (like Hood's companion Prince of Wales), the later class informally called a fast battleship.
Battlecruisers where intended for 'hit and run', Battleships for prolounged battle
What a classic looking ship she was. Just stunning lines.
@justforever96 The arial B&W film is the older. Her 5.5s were removed in 1938. The DP mount you can see (where the two 4"" were) was one of 7 such mounts.
Seydlitz was saved by heroism of one of the crew opening a white hot valve and flooding the magazine,it was a blessing in disguise for the Germans who realised how close they had come to disaster and altered their procedures accordingly .
My Grandfather serve on the Hood in signals, unfortunately I don't remember him at all as he died too young.
My father had a uncle who served on the Hood, but he was discharged with lung problems in the 1930's. I later heard (and saw why) they called her the royal navy's biggest submarine as she was a very wet ship in even moderate seas, not comfortable for those on-board.
Amazing. Where was that colour film shot? It doesn't look like the UK.
I'm curious...which of these shots is the older? The B&W footage shows a pair of open-air QF 4" guns aft of the torpedo range-finder (where the superstructure "V's" together). But at :15 you can see what looks like a single, enclosed dual-purpose mount, which also overhangs the upper deck. In addition, I wonder if the Wikipedia article on the Hood is accurate...didn't she still have her 12x5.5" QF guns in 1941? The model I built has those, pom-poms and the open-air 4.5" guns I mentioned above.
@Factnotfictionpeople I am just now watching Expedition : Bismarck, and I am at the part where they plot each hole in the hull, all around the ship. I will try to upload the entire movie, either in full or in several parts. I agree, the above comment was harsh and I apologize for it, I just wanted you guys to agree that the Bismarck was a better ship than all others in the Royal Navy. I will comment here when I manage to upload the documentary.
@Factnotfictionpeople I am not a Yank, pal. Secondly, the Royal Navy gave orders to the 44 ships in the area at the time to start hunting the Bismarck. The German Battleship was destroyed after taking at least 12 torpedoes and 25 bombs. This means that it was built properly. This also means that it could eat each ship in the Royal Navy in fair fights, one-on-one, maybe even two or three at a time. But not 44. The numbers are taken from an English site, so it is not biased towards the Bismarck.
Being seen as the best in the Navy she spent most of her career visiting various foreign ports and cruising the worlds seas. As it is she was scheduled for a major refit (including more armour) in 1939 but when the war broke out it was canceled and she was sent to join the Home fleet. Things might have been different if she hadnt...
Just a few points:-
a) Hood could make 30 knots as could Bismarck.
b) Bismarcks gunnery was out through an early hit on her main gunnery control.
c)It was not steaming in circles but was veering a zig zag between NW and NE.
d) Radar was used for gunnery ranging by the RN as well as plotting movement.
Bismarck's was optical.
e) 20 to 1? In the final battle it was 2 to 1 (Rodney & KG5) with Dorsetshire and Norfolk on the sidelines
Some reports suggest Holland wished to approach head on, he had good reason, at 50kts or 100,000 yds per hour he would close from max visibility in less than 15 mins to meeting point and dropped elevation to a flat trajectory in 7.5 mins negating falling fire, he would face 4 Bismark guns, utilise PoW 6 guns and Hoods 4 and forced Bismark to turn. He missed the correct turning point because the cruisers lost contact so all his plans went awry.
@SuperAncientmariner I always thought that the Hood was within her range for some time before she began to turn? As for 20deg port, I imagine it means a change of 20deg from her present track. The actual position that the rudder must be in to achieve this varies depending on speed and the seas, not to mention how quickly it must be done! I don't know about "10deg short of hard to port"...is the rudder limited to 30deg in each direction (i.e. 60deg total arc)?
@mbabist01 Just re-visiting some of my older comments. I don't know the date of these films, but I wonder whether one was taken before the Hood's re-fitting and one after, when they had added the extra armor? That could explain why she rode higher in on shot than in the other. Maybe I should go back and look closely to see if she has more AA in one that the other.
As a Royal Navy officer said "Hood fighting Bismark was like the old Majestic turning up at Jutland".
@justforever96 That could well be, or it could be an optical illusion in the color film. Color film has a way of doing that, which is why I prefer using black and white when taking photos for research.
@HelmutVillam Trouble is, if she had received the upgrades, the speed traded with the weight increase would have meant she could no longer be classed as a fast battleship.
A agree with your comment wkm1605. Both sides lost many lives, in war there is no winner. Many brave people fought and died because the politicians failed and it was our countries that paid the price. Im glad that our Countries can be friends as it should be ! Lets leave the beating of each country to the football pitch ! regards from Kidderminster, UK
@justforever96 BTW, which model did you make.?
That was after her 140mm secondaries were removed, and replaced with twin 120mm dual purpose AA guns. Is there a date on this film?
uggizat. Yes, the merchant sailors were fighting men as were the cooks on Hood and Bismarck as well. In modern wars there are only two groups of people- those who suffer and those who profit. Poor buggers all sailors, rest in peace all of them.
@futch2121 Theoriginal design of Hood (one of 5 designs) was similar to the QE class only in armament and machinery. She had a different hull form with reduced protection.. Her final design of 1917 increased her weight by 5000 tons with a loss of freeboard and an increase of hull depth
She was designed as a BC and entered service as such, her protection was not sufficient to classify her as a Battleship (see Anatomy of the ship...Battlecruiser Hood by John Roberts.)
What's a beautiful and majestic ship😍😍😍😍
@thespawnof66 She was very over weight. They added like 5,000 tons of armor. Her hull was 'Highly stressed". Revisions done on her during construction were done quickly and were faulty. She was a bit top heavy. She sat low in the water and had a tendency to roll in heavy seas.
The main problem with the battlecruiser is this: Part 1 - In any clash between capital ships, it will always be the tactically superior decision to engage with maximum number of ships. Meaning, including the battlecruisers in the battle.
Part 2 - Since the battlecruisers, due to their armament, pose as big threat as the battleships, but at the same time are so much more vulnurable, the tactically superior decision is always to dispose of these first, by making them the primary target.
An 8" HE shell would not have gone through Hoods deck armour.
But dont worry, there was once a theory that the 8" shell had travelled all the way down the Hoods funnel and into the bowels of the ship.
LMAO
By the way, Did you know that the actor Esmonde Knight was on the Prince of Wales too.
He was blinded by splinter fragments when a 15 inch shell passed through the bridge without exploding.
Whilst he did regain a little sight, he was still about 3 quarters blind.
Thanks for the reply.
@megajameskelly Hipper had La Mort boilers with Blohm and Voss turbines, PE had La Mort boilers but with Brown-Boveri turbines. PE could only make 28 knots due to a problem with the top of the port low pressure turbine, and the middle engine was getting insufficient cooloing from higher water temp. in the seas she had reached going south.She had also developed a noisy Stbd screw.
1 mistake I made, she refuelled from Esso Hamburg and again from the Kota Pinang (..Prinz Eugen, by F-O Busch)
@stalkingalizee No not really you were looking at a lucky hit , also she was a battlecruiser built just after ww 1 which scarificed armour for speed. Hood was supposed to have recieved a refit in 1939 that more than likely would have saved her with more armour and more powerfull machinery, but a little thing called ww2 stopped all that.
@ReinikeVoss Only by virtue of Hood's approach course. It was a matter of Holland steering into the "T" to close range, rather than a manoeuvre on Lutjens' part.
actually, the North Carolina class was the most modern class of Battleships in 1941, USS North Carolina comissioned 9 April 1941, USS Washington 15 May 1941.
Where was the colour film shot? Was it Malta?
You mean a BATTLEcruiser? She was a 48,360 ton capital warship. Hood had a disadvantage in armor protection against Bismarck, but she deployed with the Prince of Wales. Hardly a suicide mission, a lucky shot from the Germans is what did her in so quickly.
@Factnotfictionpeople The secondary armament wasn't able to used against aircraft, the hull design was basically a that of a Baden class battleship. Bismarck was a mighty ship but she did have plenty of weakeness and to honest she would have sunk alot faster if the british were able to park themselves miles off her and using plunging gunfire through her decks but they stayed close putting holes in her superstructure that was not going to sink her.
No-one knows for sure that the Hood actually intended to close the range to get "under the guns", since they all died. If I remember right, the Hood turned away well outside of the safe zone. Not to insult a dead sailor, if Holland was making a gamble, he hesitated and was caught still in danger, and lost valuable time that would have given the aft turrets time to fire. As in most combat, luck is really the deciding factor, and the British didn't have it that day.
@spookespook What constant night firing was this?
Hood was changed from her initial obsolete design part way through building, she might have been scrapped, but was built up on a hull for a different design, so in the end she sat too low in the water and was so wet on deck in stormy weather, plans to add armor plate against plunging fire were always put off! Hood was heavy enough as she was, a battlecruiser not a battleship, longer to house extra boilers for high speed, lightly armored to attack battlecruiser scouts not German super-battleships
I believe hood was sunk because of a common practice of leaving the magazine blast doors open to speed up the rate of fire. Had the doors been closed as per the standing orders the blast would of not ignited the powder room. She was an old outdated ship with a very experienced crew. a great old girl who died with her crew doing what she was made to do...defending the relm. R.i.p boys thank you for your sacrifice.
One other problem she had was that the powder magazine was located on top of the shell magazine, later ships reversed this as the powder was more likely to quickly go up. But as someone else pointed out the Bismarks shells were higher velocity and likely to be at a shallow angle, so the idea 4" ammo unsafely stored could be ignored is a possibility. I'd like to find evidence for this though as they had ready use lockers for this and one of the survivors reported these being hit earlier which caused a dreadful mess on the upper decks with many men killed before the shot that eventually ignited her powder magazine (hence the geyser of fire initially shot up before the whole ship exploded).
In the Kriegsmarine wargames the Hood was their greatest terror, heavily armed, armoured enough to be hard to fight and too fast to escape. A lucky shot doomed her (although she badly needed better gun optics in a refit), but so did a lucky hit ironically doom the Bismark.
And one was my brother Kenneth. Ramsey rawson duckworth age 19 years
That's for sure. It's kind of funny, I was noticing the other day how people (in the US, at least) almost always unconciously refer to enemy ships as "it" and Allied ships as "her". Apparently ships are "he" to the Russians. I've heard that Hitler thought that the Bismarck should be a "him", but the crew still used "her". Tradition is powerful.
Another thing, is it me, or is the stern freeboard in the color film higher than in the B&W film after it? Maybe it's fully loaded in the 2nd shot?
That low quarterdeck, made even lower by frequent overloading of this ship, demonstrates why Royal Navy seamen referred to Hood as the world's biggest and fastest submarine! Conditions below decks in the quarters of the 'ratings' [enlisted men] were so bad that Hood had an atrocious number of TB cases. An impressive ship whenever she steamed into port anywhere in the Empire, but like any warship of the era, Hell to serve aboard for those of low rank.
and the officers too. their bunks was in the front of the ship the wettest side
@alxcsb to be honest i think if the prince of wales hadn't been on her shakedown cruise (she still had civilian technicans on board training the crew to use the guns, radar etc) and had gone into the battle ready to fight you might have seen a completly different end, bismarck did have plenty of weakeness alot of the armour didn't cover vital parts of the ship, the obvious flaw of not been able to steer by her screws which most modern battleships of the era could.
Love everything about this ship except it's end.
HMS Vanguard (1909) blew up in 1917 in port due an accident;
HMS Vanguard (1944) was commissioned after WO II and was scrapped in 1960;
Queen Elizabeth (1913) was mined and damaged by Italian frogman (1941) in the Mediteranian. After extensive repair she serviced in the Eastern Fleet (1944-1945) and afterward put in Reserve: scrapped in 1948.
The QE was indeed grounded in shallow waters, but grounded isn't the same as sinking. Vanguard Battleships never participated in the Mediterranean.
Either way, Hood was the more fast Battleship (IMHO) then Battlecruiser and should have been more then capable of engaging Bismark on near equal terms. But like any fight, luck played its part here, and we lost a thing of remarkable beauty.
It proved the point that huge battleships with monster guns are no match for aircraft .
@caferacer56 At this stage, Norfolk and Suffolk were still in contact but beyond range to anticipate,Hollands original plan being to call them in to take on the Prinz E.. (difficult as P.E.was leading and Bismark was between the 3 cruisers. Holland assuming the flag would be in the lead) With the wisdom of hindsight we could say that Hood and PoW should have split (Hood to port, PoW to Stbd) to divide Bismarks fire, and called in Norfolk and Suffolk to further split the fire.
In WO I admiral Fisher promoted the Battle Cruiser above normal Battleship. His opinion was that Speed would be the best Defense. Battlecruiser like the Invincible, Lion, Repulse, Renown etc. were fast ships with Battleship armament , but only limited armour.
After the slaughter of the Battle Cruiser's during Jutland, the importance of thick armour became clear: Battlecruisers Invincible, Queen Mary and Indefatigable where lost due to inadequate armour and lack of flash tight ammunition handling
@SuperAncientmariner Your statement may have been true for the first battlecruisers but as gpwasr10 says, Hood, as redsigned, was really a fast battleship. Her suit of armour was equivalent to the Queen Elizabeths & Royal Sovereigns, but the Hood was a much larger hull & this left gaps. In the RN, Hood was known to be deficient in armour for long range action but in close her armour was thought to be adequate.
@futch2121 yes. The extra armour came as a result of Jutland
I find some of the comments on this video idiotic.My great uncle was also was a stoker on the hood.He didnt stand a chance as the other 1400 crew members who died horrible deaths.And yet idiots seem to think its a funny game commenting on this video.I have read the crew of the bismark were also horrified at the speed the hood sank and only 3 survivors.They had respect for there fellow sailors even if from the enemy side.This was a fluke shot that hit the armory and the ship went up like a firework.
Pat Chamberlain answering to the comments 1st part... this is the internet ... everything is a floping joke...!
Aleksis Daniels Ekks That’s no excuse
My Grandfather was on the Bismarck and pulled the trigger that killed your granduncle.
Yeahhh.
r/thathappened
You are probably lying. Your grandfather was probably NEVER onboard the Hood, you are just saying that cuz you are sensitive and you cAn'T bEaR all those "immature" comments.
AndyHappyGuy lol a Redditor calls someone else sensitive. Is he not wholesome keanu chungus 100 enough for you? Grow up.
@CapAchab76 I think that they kept the ship during the inter-war years A.) Because ships are expensive and military funding was slim in those years. B.) Because the sailors and the British pop. loved her...she was their biggest ship, and few people knew about her weaknesses until after her demise. C.) Once war was upon them, the British couldn't spare such a ship. I imagine that she would have been replaced given time, but half of a battleships value is just existing. She WAS still dangerous!
That ship about to be turned to scrap so fast lol
@justforever96 Yes, there was, (and as far as I know still ) 60 deg total arc). When the order is given ,eg Port 20.( this refers to rudder angle.) when this is applied the helmsman will announce "20 degrees of port rudder on sir". that will be held until the order" midships"is given ie whenever a new course requirement is met or manoeuvre made. Or it could have been a short turn, in which case it would have been, Port 20, come steady on....(course required)......
Actually there was a fatal flaw (although it was a designed flaw to save weight and produce more speed ) in the procedure and design of the Hood, its armor wasn't designed to stop a vertical impact, this was changed later on in a refit but all they did was add more amour tot he upper decks,add into the the factor she was old and weak compared to the the 16-inch guns on the Bismark and the fact she was a BATTLE CRUISER not a BATTLESHIP and you see why she was sunk.
@stalkingalizee !) It was'nt going round in circles. the rudder hit reversed her course and she was zig-zagging to the NW. 2) Nobody knows how many screws were working.
In these conditions, (rudder/s jammed over, 3 props) steering can be maintained by the following. Stop on the side to which the rudders are jammed, ahead on centre screw for foreward motion and astern on opposite side,to counteract drag of rudder and varying speed to maintain a mean heading..cont.
Hoods deck armour was thick enough to stop an HE 8inch shell from Prinz Eugen.
Naval architects have actually exmained this theory and dismissed it as nonsense.
The fatal shot could only have been a 15 inch monster from Bismarck
@justforever96 Holland ordered the turn (20 degrees to port) on reaching maximum range for his guns. This ws to open the arcs and ,to a lesser degree, limit the spray interference to the main rangefinder.30 seconds sooner or later and the HOOD would have only been straddled. As you say ...luck.
One thing I've allways wondered. The order for the 20 degree port turn. Was that an alteration of 20 degrees track or Port 20 meaning 20 degrees of rudder(10 short of hard to port).
some people now belive that it wasnt actually bismark that sank hood but a shell from the prince eugen
@megajameskelly I don't think she was notoriously unreliable as she was a new ship herself (commisioned 1940) The supply tankers were already at sea and PE re-fuelled from one, the Spichern. The disposition of the supply ships at that time would have meant tying up the fleet to find the proverbial needle in a haystack. It would have been viable had the Interception in Denmark straight not occured. Best laid plans etc.
And this was all rather graphically demonstrated in the following 3 days. Lutjens catastrophically breaking radio contact after shaking off Tovey and Wake-Walker and then having to wait for Tovey to turn up and destroy him after a Swordfish from the Ark Royal of Somerville's Force H had crippled the Bismarck.
Hood never should have engaged Bismarck...as I said in a previous comment...german optical naval aiming systems were the best around at the time and it was not a one in a million hit but a 3,3 out of 100...so mathematically spoken Bismarck had to fire 33 shells (or 4 full broadsides with its 8 x 38,5 cm) to score a guaranteed full hit..if not for magazine Hood would have been sunk anyway by a full hit..its just that is was more spectacular the way it happend ..
The Bismark did hit before the fatefull one that ignited her magazine. While the Hood's fire control did need modernizing she still had the updated 15" guns and aiming systems so was a serious threat. And one hit in the right place could have swung the battle in the opposite direction, as Warspite against the Italians or Rodney did against Bismark (a shell from the fourth salvo demolished a turret and blew out the back into the bridge).
This is not how it works
If you fire 33 shots at 3.3% that absolutly does not mean you guarantee a hit. The 33rd shot is still 3.3%. If you look at it as a whole after 33 shots it's about 50-60% chance you would have hit it by then.
@futch2121 Well also, IIRC, Hood had mistaken Prinz Eugen (who was the closer) for Bismark and he turned early as a result. Even still there is a good possibility when you look at the prints of Hood, and the location of her Magazine Stores (being further aft then where it was reported that she began brewing up), it is possible the that was an 8" shell from the little Hipper Class ship that set off the deck torpedoes and that is what destroyed her, and not Bismark.
@futch2121 No argument there Bro. My info comes mainly from" Anatomy of the ship,Battlecruiser Hood," by John Roberts and "The Battlecruiser HMS Hood..an illustrated biography....1916 - 1941" by Bruce Taylor. IMHO, these 2 books are all you need.
@DaManzMoney Under the definitions of her time, yes she was a Battlecruiser.but considered to be a fast battleship. Same as the Scharnhorsts, we describe them as battlecruisers but they are registered as Battleships. As I was saying to Helmut, it the upgrades had happened, she would not only have not been a fast Battleship, she would have lost the speed that made her a battlecruiser. She would have become an everyday Battleship.
Holland knew Hood`s weakness & the importance of getting in closer. He compromised however by turning to open Hood`s `A` arcs. In my last post I should have said that POW was more heavily armoured than Bismark. Hood was the most beautiful fighting ship ever designed - unfortunately she was a wrong concept that was tinkered with in order to try to improve her in light of experience. She was a contradiction of the general rule that if it looks right it probably is right.
Actually the thickness of the armour was less relevant at Jutland than the bypassing of magazine protection in order to increase fire rate - flash doors taken off or secured open & charges stacked in turrets & passageways - can you believe? Also the British cordite was more susceptible to to exploding, where American & German powder just burned. Seydlitz turret, heavly armoured, was pierced at Dogger Bank & hundreds killed by burning charges, but they did not explode
@thespawnof66 The extra armor that had been added made her top heavy already. Wonder if they would have retained her good looks after the rebuild.
@stalkingalizee your wrong, 1 torpedo sealed her fate she was hit in the weakest part of the ship, her rudder which was a badly designed, jammed meaning all she could do was circles (she also couldn't turn using her screws like many other battleships) making her cannon fodder for the british, Hood could have easily dealt with a number of hits from bismarck but was hit in the weakest part of the ship.
I think that Hood was able to win when even modernizing.
Cordite and HE shells do not distinguish between the nation that their host ship belongs to. It is down to handling procedures, protection and of course battle tactics. The IJN learned this the hard way when the Mutsu exploded while at anchor, a repeat of the HMS Vanguard decades earlier.
I hate to tell you but the Bismarck was not much more that a rehashed WWI German battle ship SMS Baden. The Iowa class BBs on the other hand were much newer class of ships. they were the outgrowth of the Washington and S. Dakota's, and most likely the finest BB every built. Not the biggest but the best. The Bismarck not even the best of it's time, let alone of all times.
I'd have to agree the American battleships were impressive, they had good compartmentalization, good guns and heavy for the time AA. Bismark likely learned a lot from the Bayern, but the Bayern was built after the QE2 class, which was our main battleship class of WW2, one that was designed and most built before WW1. Only one of these ships was lost, to a torpedo attack, barnham (3 destroyers picked the submarine up but were inexperienced and ignored it), and Warspite especially faced down much more modern ships, Renown (actually R-class) chased two German Battlecruiser/battleships away (scoring a hit in a storm). I think in the end analysis, apart from the AA there was not a lot of improvement between these and the modern Battleships (Yamamoto had primitive fire control so would likely be pounded into junk by most other battleships), they had achieved their best survivability vs firepower
By figures they where indeed a match. The British used a too risky strategy by 'Bridging the Gap' (such that Hood was not in risk of 'plunging' hits against it's weak horizontal armour) and attacking the wrong ship (Prince Eugen instead of Bismarck) and by both ships 'Bridging the Gap' , Prince of Wales couldn't use it's firepower abeam and use it's adequate horizontal armor for use in long range. (although firepower was limited by lack of crew's experience and technical problems).
Hood should NEVER have been sent to intercept the Bismarck. She was a Battle CRUISER-not Battleship w/ no protection from plunging shells. Vice-Admiral Holland knew this and tried to close the range with Bismarck as quickly as possible before firing a full broadside. He was just starting to turn the ship-when the Bismarck's shell struck.....