Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

HMS Hood (51)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    It's true, we can be sure about the aft mag exploding; 275 feet of the hull effectively vaporized.
    In fairness to the Admiralty, they eliminated the torpedo theory and settled squarely on the idea of a penetrating 15in shell. Personally, I don't think they need any absolution anyway. Hood was not the only unmodernized ship to go into battle.
    Even if we accept that a torpedo explosion took place despite the fact that it goes against the eyewitness testimony, it would have nothing to do with the loss of the ship. Look where the torpedo tubes are.
    Cruiser fans may also want a peek at In the Shadow of the Battleship that was published a couple years ago. If you've always wondered about that bizarre heavy cruiser/light cruiser distinction, I get into the details on that.

    Comment


    • #17
      IMO, There was far too many other elements present to rule a torpedo explosion.

      All of her after mags for 4" and 15" were located in that area. Hoods torpedo tubes were located just about under the mainmast as this drawing shows just aft of frame 235. From eye witness accounts Hoods warheads in the above water tubes did not detinate and no sudden explosion was noted in accounts.

      Hood's above water Mk IV & Mk V 21" torpedo tubes and information.
      H.M.S. Hood Association-Battle Cruiser Hood - Ship Specifications and Armament: 21" Torpedoes

      Drawings
      http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/n...Exhibit_Ma.jpg

      These are the findings of the Admiralty:

      H.M.S. Hood Association-Battle Cruiser Hood: H.M.S. Hood Reference Materials - ADM 116/4351: Report on the Loss of H.M.S. Hood
      Last edited by Dreadnought; 03 Mar 11,, 19:35.
      Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

      Comment


      • #18
        Don't forget the key factor in the location of the torpedo tubes. They are above the protective deck, inside their own armored boxes. There's no way for them to cause an explosion in the magazines. And as I mentioned before, they eyewitness testimony offers nothing to indicate a torpedo explosion. You'd think someone would notice a 500-lb warhead exploding. And why would a torpedo explode in the first place? How many times in the war did a shell hit set off a torpedo warhead?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Tiornu View Post
          Don't forget the key factor in the location of the torpedo tubes. They are above the protective deck, inside their own armored boxes. There's no way for them to cause an explosion in the magazines. And as I mentioned before, they eyewitness testimony offers nothing to indicate a torpedo explosion. You'd think someone would notice a 500-lb warhead exploding. And why would a torpedo explode in the first place? How many times in the war did a shell hit set off a torpedo warhead?
          And you can examine the photos of the wreckage. Hood's torpedo tube covers are still in place and in a closed position. This was used as a point of identification for the wreck to insure that the wreckage was indeed the HMS Hood.

          Torpedo tube cover pics on the wreck.
          H.M.S. Hood Association-Battle Cruiser Hood: H.M.S. Hood Today - The July 2001 Expedition to find the wrecks of Hood and Bismarck
          Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

          Comment


          • #20
            Good point.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
              And you can examine the photos of the wreckage. Hood's torpedo tube covers are still in place and in a closed position. This was used as a point of identification for the wreck to insure that the wreckage was indeed the HMS Hood.

              Torpedo tube cover pics on the wreck.
              H.M.S. Hood Association-Battle Cruiser Hood: H.M.S. Hood Today - The July 2001 Expedition to find the wrecks of Hood and Bismarck

              "Above/Left- These are the port side coverings over the never-fitted forward above water torpedo tubes. This was a very distinct feature of Hood, and was the first thing to confirm that this was indeed her wreck. The photo to the right shows these same covers in late 1940."
              not the same tubes - the tubes in question were in the disintegrated portion of the ship

              Would their explosion stand out in the massive confligration the Hood experienced? - - but I agree they probably would not have set off the magazine in their location - though the damage they could have caused might have contributed to the massive disintegration of the ship. Ultimately it probably wouldn't have mattered except in the size of the pieces on the bottom.
              Last edited by USSWisconsin; 03 Mar 11,, 20:50.
              sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
              If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

              Comment


              • #22
                Hm, well, the only tubes on Hood were those above-water ones, the submerged forward tubes having been removed prewar. The tubes were right near the forward edge of the explosion area. But we would have to account for the tubes on both sides.
                The explosion of torpedoes would certainly stand out, if it were powerful enough to chew its way into the magazines, which would have detonated shortly thereafter. But why would the explosion vent its way through armor into the ship rather than venting primarily outward? A normal torpedo hit is so damaging because it's forced by the incompressible water to vent into the air-filled interior of the target. Hood's case would be the opposite, with the blast following the path of least resistance to the exterior.

                Comment


                • #23
                  due to the thicker armor belt on the outside, I would expect them to vent inward and up where armor was much thinner, particularly when the damage that might have initiated an explosion came from inboard, where the inboard side of the armored compartment could have been compromised, the ammunition magazines themselves would probably not be affected - unless other damage had opened them up.

                  The foward torpedo tubes by the aft stack (above water) were not installed - but the doors or covers that were similar to the doors but without hinges were. The aft torpedo tubes are in the red destroyed portion of the ship - in the picture on the wreck overview page along side the main mast http://www.hmshood.com/hoodtoday/200...tion/index.htm

                  Attached Files
                  Last edited by USSWisconsin; 04 Mar 11,, 00:30.
                  sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                  If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
                    not the same tubes - the tubes in question were in the disintegrated portion of the ship

                    Would their explosion stand out in the massive confligration the Hood experienced? - - but I agree they probably would not have set off the magazine in their location - though the damage they could have caused might have contributed to the massive disintegration of the ship. Ultimately it probably wouldn't have mattered except in the size of the pieces on the bottom.
                    In the Admiralty's inquiry their is a part that described part of Hoods hull plating being blown out underneath approximately turret#3 which would be consistant with a massive explosion in that area. The path of least resistance. This account came from one of the other ships close by just after Hood splitting in two. It is my guess that the explosion of a torpedo or torpedo's would be noticable as a few bright flashes and very large booms as compared to powder or shell explosions that took place. It would also be my guess that Hoods torpedoes would not have been out of their storage and in the racks in the overhead close by the tubes.

                    I only have one picture of Hoods torpedo storage and tubes from the interior of the ship.

                    Located in this book:
                    The world encyclopedia of Battleships by Peter Hore. Pg 193 center picture shows one in the rack above the torpedo tubes and one apart at the motor section.

                    In addition to this, half of a torpedo was found in the weckage among a debris field. Fourth paragraph down under Assorted debris and Wreckage.

                    http://www.hmshood.com/hoodtoday/200...tion/index.htm
                    Last edited by Dreadnought; 04 Mar 11,, 15:39.
                    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
                      In the Admiralty's inquiry their is a part that described part of Hoods hull plating being blown out underneath approximately turret#3 which would be consistent with a massive explosion in that area. The path of least resistance. This account came from one of the other ships close by just after Hood splitting in two. It is my guess that the explosion of a torpedo or torpedo's would be noticeable as a few bright flashes and very large booms as compared to powder or shell explosions that took place. It would also be my guess that Hoods torpedoes would not have been out of their storage and in the racks in the overhead close by the tubes.

                      I only have one picture of Hoods torpedo storage and tubes from the interior of the ship.

                      Located in this book:
                      The world encyclopedia of Battleships by Peter Hore. Pg 193 center picture shows one in the rack above the torpedo tubes and one apart at the motor section.

                      In addition to this, half of a torpedo was found in the wreckage among a debris field. Fourth paragraph down under Assorted debris and Wreckage.

                      H.M.S. Hood Association-Battle Cruiser Hood: H.M.S. Hood Today - The July 2001 Expedition to find the wrecks of Hood and Bismarck
                      I've been going through some blue prints and drawings and from what I can find, the armor in the torpedo rooms was the upper 5" belt on the outside and an armored box for the torpedo warheads against the belt, the decks above and below were double thickness plating, but not heavy armor, the inner wall was heavier than the internal fore and aft side walls - which were normal plating. The engaged side may have been prepared to fire torpedoes, they were still part of the drill. The torpedoes found could have come from the other side as there were two tubes on each side. But it is more probable that none of the torpedoes exploded. OTOH, it is likely that UP ammo did explode, the PE Captain testified to this effect, though it is almost certain it did not sink her.
                      sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                      If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                      Comment


                      • #26


                        The official findings

                        Without the upgrade (as she was, with planned upgrade - after uncompleted refit)

                        Note the witness Able Seaman Tilburn saw a fire next to the UP launcher
                        Attached Files
                        Last edited by USSWisconsin; 04 Mar 11,, 16:23.
                        sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                        If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Note that Hood actually was completed with the 3in deck plating extended all the way to the ship's side as shown in the drawing of Trial 3. This is one of the features that argues for Hood's being the best-protected ship in the RN at the time of her completion. However, this full-width protection covered only the areas abreast the main battery. A shell coming from ahead of the ship could impact amidships where this protection was absent and then continue through the hull toward the magazines. This is now recognized as the most likely trajectory for the fatal hit.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Detonation of Torpedoes:
                            A number of writers, including some members of the original boards of inquiry, have speculated that it was an explosion of torpedo warheads which directly or indirectly caused the loss of the ship. The Second Board of Inquiry itself concluded that though such an event was possible, it was not a likely scenario.

                            The board concluded:
                            "Evidence of eye witnesses, REPULSE, and an Officer who had recently served in HOOD leaves little room for doubt that the mantlet doors were closed. A warhead could still, however, have been detonated or exploded by a direct hit from BISMARCK'S shell. There is no direct evidence that such a hit occurred, but it may have done so on either side of the ship. If a single warhead had gone off one other, but probably not more than one, the other warhead would also have gone off. . . . Expert opinion suggested that the explosion of two warheads would produce an all round almost instantaneous flash. It would not have produced the very high column of flame of appreciable duration, which was seen by so many witnesses. Nor was the noise, reported as being heard, compatible with that of a T.N.T. detonation or explosion. The consensus of expert opinion was definitely against the characteristics of the explosion as given in evidence by eyewitnesses being that of T.N.T."70

                            Sir Stanley Goodall, then Director of Naval Construction, held to a dissenting opinion, however:

                            "If one or more shells from the 5th salvo burst in this devastated area [where fire was already burning], where there are eight torpedo heads, four each side, each containing about 500 lbs of TNT at the base of the mainmast, and if one or more of these warheads detonated, the result would be an explosion where it was actually observed. Such an explosion could break the ship's back already weakened in this neighbourhood by the earlier damage. With the force on the after bulkhead of the engine room due to the ship's speed of 28 knots and the low reserve of buoyancy of the after part of the ship, this portion would rapidly sink. The foregoing is an alternative explanation of the occurrence which is as likely as the explanation in the finding of the court."71

                            Sir Stanley was probably wrong. Although no formal calculations were ever done, the court had looked long and hard into the issue, and received the testimony of a number of expert witnesses.

                            Typical of these was Capt. John Carslake, R.N., an explosives expert who testified on Friday, 29 August. After confirming that although he was not an expert on cordite explosions per se, but that he ". . . knew a fair amount" about high explosive detonations, the court subjected him to a detailed examination.

                            "Would a 15-in or 8-in shell striking Hood's side abreast the torpedo tubes detonate a warhead with a pistol in it?" they asked. His answer, based on trials, was "No, not unless it penetrated and detonated inside the mantlet. If it detonated outside it would not detonate the warhead." "Would a direct hit, either from a shell or a splinter detonate a warhead without a pistol in it?" the court inquired. "If the shell detonated on impact with the warhead, it would detonate the warhead. If the shell hit the warhead but did not detonate, it would not detonate the warhead . . ." When asked what would be the probable effects if the warheads detonated, he replied:

                            "I would expect the mantlet, the ship's side, and the forecastle deck to be nearly demolished, but that the major venting would have been as I suggested horizontal. Immediately after the explosion it is anticipated that the observer would have seen a gap in the ship's side, probably some 15 or 20 ft. radius down to the top of the 12-in belt. . . . I would expect the boat deck above the tubes also to be blown away.72

                            B.A. Fraser, Controller, summarized his particular objections to the torpedo scenario in a memo dated 7th July:73

                            "D.N.C. has raised the question of whether the above water torpedoes in 'HOOD' were responsible for the destruction of the ship. I disagree with his view, and accept the report of the Board of Inquiry for the following reasons:

                            a) from trials, a 15-in shell burst outside a torpedo tube protected by a mantlet will not detonate the torpedo.

                            b) Although a direct hit may detonate one torpedo, it is extremely unlikely that others will be countermined. In 'KHARTOM' a torpedo was fixed 74 into the after galley by an air vessel bursting. The head did not detonate but it burnt to detonation in the fire after a considerable period, about 20 minutes, and in 'HOOD' the interval between the first hit and the destruction of the ship seems to have been under 3 minutes .


                            These descriptions are consistent with the results of other experience.

                            To take one example, on 26 December, 1943 the destroyer U.S.S. Brownson (DD-518) was struck by a Japanese bomb which apparently detonated one or more of the 374kg torpex loaded torpedo warheads in her after quintuple torpedo mount.75 The resulting explosion removed or completely demolished all ship structure over a radius of approximately 10 meters. Fifteen minutes later, Brownson sank. Although the detonation of a torpedo tube nest could result in the sinking of a destroyer in fifteen minutes, it is clearly unlikely to have caused the loss of a battlecruiser in three. The chances of a torpedo explosion near the mainmast detonating even the closest of the ship's magazines twenty-five meters and two decks away are inconsequentially small.

                            This was from Navweapons.

                            In the book I have it shows Hoods torpedo tubes from the interior. The torpedo tubes themselves looked pretty heavy so this would probably add an extra measure of protection to the tubes.

                            I did find that Hood was indeed carrying 8 torpedos aboard that day. 4 (2 loads and two spare) for both Port and Starboard side tubes. However the "mantlets" or armored covers that protected the tubes would have been closed since the Captain did not order their openings for battle and as noted by witnesses aboard Hood in prior times would have been secured.
                            Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I previously mentioned Goodall's idea about the torpedoes breaking Hood's back, but we now know that didn't happen.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Tiornu View Post
                                I previously mentioned Goodall's idea about the torpedoes breaking Hood's back, but we now know that didn't happen.
                                Correct, just wanted to show several theories and how they stacked up to witness accounts and expert opinions.
                                Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X