HMS Hood (51)

[USSWisconsin]

What exactly happened, in detail, on the HMS Hood (pennant #51) during the minute before she sank? (yes I know she blew up after being hit by enemy fire)

Was it a simple 15" golden hit from Bismark?
Did the torpedoes on Hood contribute?
Was it a lucky 8" hit from Prince Eugen?
Did the UP AA rockets play an important part?

What do you think?

[1979]

I voted for 15 inch hit.

[Dreadnought]

What sunk the Hood?

IMO, Several factors even before the 15" shell fire.

1) Failure to get her into the yards for her refit which would have given her more armor strength then what she had. Hood had a very busy schedule and as this was well noted her refit was put off time after time.

2) The decision to approach the Bismark the way that she did. Failure upon her CO to calculate a more strategic approach as in "bows on" protecting Hood's armor weakness. Instead the approach brought these two ships side by side with unequal armor schemes particulary keeping in mind Hoods age 15" guns and armor scheme against Bismarks 15" guns, heavier armor and newer fire control.

3) Failure to identify Bismark first and foremost before opening fire on the wrong ship (Prince Eugan) allowing Bismark to get Hoods range immediately and open fire.

These were major faults even before Hood was hit.

IMO, The Brits should have called upon more seasoned heavier units for this fight instead of the two that it did. They should have used time to their advantage and brought in heavier units and allowed Bismark to slip away if even for a short time instead they allowed time to push them into a fight with an uneven match and paid for it with Hoods loss and damage to a brand new Prince of Wales.

[surfgun]

HMS Hood is in the Battleship thread section? I guess it looked like a Battleship. From what I Understand, it was Bismark's 15" hits that did her in.

[USSWisconsin]

HMS Hood is in the Battleship thread section? I guess it looked like a Battleship. From what I Understand, it was Bismark's 15" hits that did her in.

Closer to a battleship than a cruiser - battlecruisers are part of the battleship linage IMO.

I too believe the Bismark sank the Hood, but the torpedoes and UP rockets may have contributed, the Captain of Prince Eugen, witness at hearings on the sinking later, speculated that the AA rockets may have went off and made things worse amidships, perhaps igniting an open wound... his testimony was discounted, but the variety of different eyewitness accounts and testimony makes me wonder if it was a simple stand alone hit that sunk her.

http://www.hmshood.com/

[USSWisconsin]

What sunk the Hood?

IMO, Several factors even before the 15" shell fire.

1) Failure to get her into the yards for her refit which would have given her more armor strength then what she had. Hood had a very busy schedule and as this was well noted her refit was put off time after time.

2) The decision to approach the Bismark the way that she did. Failure upon her CO to calculate a more strategic approach as in "bows on" protecting Hood's armor weakness. Instead the approach brought these two ships side by side with unequal armor schemes particulary keeping in mind Hoods age 15" guns and armor scheme against Bismarks 15" guns, heavier armor and newer fire control.

3) Failure to identify Bismark first and foremost before opening fire on the wrong ship (Prince Eugan) allowing Bismark to get Hoods range immediately and open fire.

These were major faults even before Hood was hit.

IMO, The Brits should have called upon more seasoned heavier units for this fight instead of the two that it did. They should have used time to their advantage and brought in heavier units and allowed Bismark to slip away if even for a short time instead they allowed time to push them into a fight with an uneven match and paid for it with Hoods loss and damage to a brand new Prince of Wales.

In hindsight, they Hood and PoW were over matched by the Bismark and PE, largely due to training and readiness - but Bismark's technical superiority (armor) over Hood was a definate factor. Had the two cruisers been in the fight it might have went better for the Brits, and luck played a part as well. Still the Hood was the fastest and biggest ship in the RN, it is likely she was the right ship, with the proper support - which she didn't have at the moment of truth. PoW did remarkably well in the fight, given the circumstances, IMO.

[Tzimisces]

I seem to remember reading that the RN inquiry thought that the torpedos were considered likely as she was at the edge of her immune zone.
The RN ships could have been handled better, no doubt. As far as waiting for more heavy units, we can say that whatever the Royal Navy was, it was never timid. The Hood and a new battleship refusing battle was, I believe, unthinkable, even if it had been the Bismarck and Tirpitz. The Royal Navy prized aggressiveness. Didn't Captain Leach want to continue the battle, withdrawing reluctantly and indignantly?

[Dreadnought]

In hindsight, they Hood and PoW were over matched by the Bismark and PE, largely due to training and readiness - but Bismark's technical superiority (armor) over Hood was a definate factor. Had the two cruisers been in the fight it might have went better for the Brits, and luck played a part as well. Still the Hood was the fastest and biggest ship in the RN, it is likely she was the right ship, with the proper support - which she didn't have at the moment of truth. PoW did remarkably well in the fight, given the circumstances, IMO.

Ah, but in hindsight it took "The Old Lady" HMS Rodney which was on her way to refit after convoy escort to "layeth the Royal smack down" after being recalled. Older, slower, uglier and by far outdated by Bismarks standards but by far the worst mast to appear on the horizon that morning from the German point of view. Her gunfire was devastating to the Bismark and accurate to boot. The Prince was to live another day being fortunate enough to break off days before but no doubt would have sunk that morning as well. The Terriers had the Foxes dead to rights that morning as fate took another stroke of events. This time for the British fortune. HMS Rodney limped home after that engagement doing more damage to her own superstructure from gunfire then any gunfire from the Bismark. You can bet she did so proudly. Many aboard HMS Rodney as it is wriiten had believed her hull plating would seperate from the amount of shock her hull recieved from salvo after salvo of her 16" guns because of her age and condition at the time of battle.

The Ugly Ducklings moment in the sun came that morning.

It is written that Churchill himself wanted that ship sunk so badly that he didnt care if they had to tow KGV home after battle. No ship was to dissengage until she was destroyed and the sinking confirmed by witness.

A good proverb for that particular day... "Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill."

[USSWisconsin]

Imagine the Norfolk and Suffolk coming in on two different bearings firing torpedoes and 8" guns at Bismark, from the other side - leaving the bearing directly opposite Hood and PoW open for long salvos from those two. Bismark wouldn't have had the luxury of all her targets in one area and a speed edge allowing her to choose the range. The Hood might not have recieved the deadly attention she did before she got in a lucky hit of her own - a couple well placed "old" 15"/42's could have ended the days of Bismark too. Rodney was the answer in hindsight, the RN's biggest, and most accurate guns... Oh crap the Bismark said.... How about four British battleships/battlecruiser bringing Bismark to action? (add Rodney and KGV to Denmark Strait, perhaps one of the Renown sisters too - and have the cruisers doing the diversion attack as well- owch. I suspect a broom might have appeared above Hoods mast instead of leagues of seawater - and Ballard might have looked in a different spot for Bismark and PE, and there might have been a British cruiser down there too.

I wonder if a Ballard expidition might shed new light on the Hood in the next few years.

[Tzimisces]

Part of the problem with deploying Rodney with Hood and PofW is her designed speed was, I believe, 23 knots. With her age and her machinery in bad condition I wonder if she could have managed even 20 knots. Would they have caught the Bismarck in the Denmark straight if they had to go at Rodney's best speed?

[tankie]

HMS Hood is in the Battleship thread section? I guess it looked like a Battleship. From what I Understand, it was Bismark's 15" hits that did her in.

From what i believe it was one shot that hit the Hood in her magazine .

[Tiornu]

PE was not even firing at Hood at the time of the explosion, which forces us to imagine all sorts of bizarre factors if we want to link the two. The fire that PE caused aboard Hood was so inconsequential that the skipper ordered his men not to bother with it. He preferred letting it burn itself out rather than endanger any crewmen with firefighting.
There was a time when some folks theorized a torpedo explosion might have broken the hull apart. This was a stretch to begin with, but we now know it didn't happen that way. We don't need Ballard; we've already had a pretty good survey of the wreck, and there's no doubt that the aft magazines blew.
All in all, there's little indication of any sort that Hood was sunk by anything but a simple 15in shell hit. It's boring, but that doesn't change the probabilities.
The British cruisers could have gotten into the fight, but I wouldn't expect much from them. They would have to first catch up with ships going full speed, and that takes time.
The distinction between cruisers and battleships is not as distinct as we sometimes think. Nowadays we're used to the unmistakable division that the Washington treaty created, but things weren't always so clear. I have a title coming out in the next couple months, called Thunder in Its Courses, which discusses the issues and nomenclature surrounding battlecruisers. If it's a subject of interest, you may want to check it out. It shouldn't be too pricey.

[USSWisconsin]

PE was not even firing at Hood at the time of the explosion, which forces us to imagine all sorts of bizarre factors if we want to link the two. The fire that PE caused aboard Hood was so inconsequential that the skipper ordered his men not to bother with it. He preferred letting it burn itself out rather than endanger any crewmen with firefighting.
There was a time when some folks theorized a torpedo explosion might have broken the hull apart. This was a stretch to begin with, but we now know it didn't happen that way. We don't need Ballard; we've already had a pretty good survey of the wreck, and there's no doubt that the aft magazines blew.
All in all, there's little indication of any sort that Hood was sunk by anything but a simple 15in shell hit. It's boring, but that doesn't change the probabilities.
The British cruisers could have gotten into the fight, but I wouldn't expect much from them. They would have to first catch up with ships going full speed, and that takes time.
The distinction between cruisers and battleships is not as distinct as we sometimes think. Nowadays we're used to the unmistakable division that the Washington treaty created, but things weren't always so clear. I have a title coming out in the next couple months, called Thunder in Its Courses, which discusses the issues and nomenclature surrounding battlecruisers. If it's a subject of interest, you may want to check it out. It shouldn't be too pricey.

I would agree, the most probable scenario was a simple 15" hit, but a very ideal one - penetration to the right place, detonation at the right spot.. No question about the aft magazines exploding.

http://www.hmshood.com/hoodtoday/200...tion/index.htm

I am very interested, I didn't find the title on Amazon tonight, I'll keep my eye out for it. I have been interested in the armored and protected cruisers and their linage for some time. Cruisers are impressive ships too.

[Tzimisces]

I forgot about that website. I looked at it a few months ago, and it does appear that a penetration of the magazines is the likely cause. I voted for torpedo based on stuff I read years ago. In retrospect the torpedo theory seems a bit self serving, in that it absolves the Admiralty from committing a fatally flawed ship.

[USSWisconsin]

I forgot about that website. I looked at it a few months ago, and it does appear that a penetration of the magazines is the likely cause. I voted for torpedo based on stuff I read years ago. In retrospect the torpedo theory seems a bit self serving, in that it absolves the Admiralty from committing a fatally flawed ship.

The wreck is pretty shattered, I don't think a torpedo or UP explosion could be ruled out from the wreckage, it is pretty clear that the magazines exploded - and that happened coincidentally with the Bismark hitting her there, but these other explosions could have been involved too... we may never know. We can probably rule out the hits from PE sinking her.