Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

HMS Hood (51)

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

  • #31
    I had to vote "OTHER" because I believe the sinking was a combination of an 8" hit from PE that lit off the Rocket Magazine. It was just a coincidence of timing that a 15" round from Bismarck hit (in a different spot) when the rocket magazine burned through to the main magazines.

    At least that's what Kapitan Brinkman testified at a different Naval Inquiry than the one quoted above that contained only one German survivor of Bismarck and the rest were all Brits.

    Nobody wants to believe in a "lucky hit" where in fact at the ranges engaged, ANY hit is more luck than accuracy firing at one moving target from another moving target. But I'm a firm believer in Murphy's first law in that if ANYTHING can go wrong, it WILL. Therefore a chain reaction of fire from the rockets from a "lucky" 8" hit and the coincidental explosion of the main magazines when a "lucky" 15" hit is entirely plausible.

    In truth, I don't think anyone will ever know for sure unless the Hood is raised and brought into a dry dock for thorough examination. Scooting around the wreckage with a push-button controlled mini-sub cannot give the whole story unless you can go all the way inside the ship.
    Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by RustyBattleship View Post
      I had to vote "OTHER" because I believe the sinking was a combination of an 8" hit from PE that lit off the Rocket Magazine. It was just a coincidence of timing that a 15" round from Bismarck hit (in a different spot) when the rocket magazine burned through to the main magazines.

      At least that's what Kapitan Brinkman testified at a different Naval Inquiry than the one quoted above that contained only one German survivor of Bismarck and the rest were all Brits.

      Nobody wants to believe in a "lucky hit" where in fact at the ranges engaged, ANY hit is more luck than accuracy firing at one moving target from another moving target. But I'm a firm believer in Murphy's first law in that if ANYTHING can go wrong, it WILL. Therefore a chain reaction of fire from the rockets from a "lucky" 8" hit and the coincidental explosion of the main magazines when a "lucky" 15" hit is entirely plausible.

      In truth, I don't think anyone will ever know for sure unless the Hood is raised and brought into a dry dock for thorough examination. Scooting around the wreckage with a push-button controlled mini-sub cannot give the whole story unless you can go all the way inside the ship.
      Given that Kapitan Brinkman was probably the most highly trained observer to be closely watching the Hood when she exploded, I give a lot of weight to his testimony, Able Seaman Tillman's account also corresponds to what the Kapitan saw, UP rockets exploding. Not sure that was the cause of her loss, but there is little doubt it happened. I am not convinced that the Hood was sunk by this, it may have been collateral damage to her, that wouldn't have sunk her. I doubt the fragmented wreckage could be raised to any benefit, especially now, when it it very fragile, a lot of the wreckage is laid wide open, due to the disintergation of the remains, so further study in situ on the bottom might provide more info, but time will tell.
      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


      • #33
        So glad i found this site.

        The story of Hood has fascinated me for years, and I cant come to any conclusion myself so I chose to vote "other". I like to think though that the fires already burning on Hoods deck from the UP ammo and the 4" ammo stored outside of the magazine wouldnt have caused the magazine explosion, but I suppose we all know about RN ammo handling during Jutland that caused many losses.

        Could the loss of the Hood be down to poor ammunition handling due to the british obsession for fast firing, causing lax handling of cordite?

        Kieran
        (Still a novice on this subject so go easy):)

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by kie_taylor83 View Post
          So glad i found this site.

          The story of Hood has fascinated me for years, and I cant come to any conclusion myself so I chose to vote "other". I like to think though that the fires already burning on Hoods deck from the UP ammo and the 4" ammo stored outside of the magazine wouldnt have caused the magazine explosion, but I suppose we all know about RN ammo handling during Jutland that caused many losses.

          Could the loss of the Hood be down to poor ammunition handling due to the british obsession for fast firing, causing lax handling of cordite?

          Kieran
          (Still a novice on this subject so go easy):)
          With a 15" shell pentrating and detonating in the magazines, I doubt exposed charges made much of a difference. It is likely there were charges out and being feed to the guns, but even had they been stowed away - it would not have helped much, IMO. At Jutland it was hits on the gunhouses that made the extra exposed charges so deadly.
          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


          • #35
            Fair point, I suppose in a way I am a bit of a romantic and dont really want to admit to myself that it was 15" fire that sunk her.

            I suppose too that the people actually responsible were the british admiralty for not refitting her in the 30s or just for sending an aging battle cruiser and the p.o.w to stop the break out of the most powerfull ship in the Atlantic. If only she had the destroyers and Norfolk and Suffock with her.

            Anyway, thanks for the thread. Great reading.

            Learning as i go:)

            Kieran

            Comment


            • #36
              Hood sinking

              Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
              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?
              ...there has now been established, beyond resonable doubt, that it was a hit from Bismarck's last 4-gun salvo that started a chain reaction below decks.
              It is assumed that the 4" ammo first ignited which in turn lit off the 100+ tons of cordite propellant for the 15" guns.
              The cataclysm was observed rather closely from Prince Of Wales. Her captain stated later that the 5th 4-gun salvo from Bismarck was a perfect straddle
              but only three of the four hits were observed in the water, meaning the 4th went though the deck.
              Minutes later she burnt in two halves, rather than exploded...

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by rolstada View Post
                ...
                Her captain stated later that the 5th 4-gun salvo from Bismarck was a perfect straddle
                but only three of the four hits were observed in the water, meaning the 4th went though the deck.
                Minutes later she burnt in two halves, rather than exploded...
                From angle of fall of the projectile at the distance in question I would conclude that a perforation through the deck into magazines appears as unlikely.

                More likely is a perforation of the main belt as it was penetrable for the 38 cm PsGr until a compound impact angle of about 40 degrees.
                Or even a undershooting of the belt.

                Comment


                • #38
                  The problem with this is many would believe it was an 8" shell fired by the Prince Eugan that made the fatal hit on Hood and not Bismark.

                  As the Baron mentioned in his interview, before the Bismark met Hood in the Straits that Bismarks foward two radars were knocked out due to Bismark firing the forward turrets (Anton & Bruno) on the Norfolk that was trailing her. This turn of events caused the Prince Eugan to change position with the Bismark so Prince Eugan could use her surface search radar in line ahead of the two ships. This later caused confusion and Hood fired on the Prince Eugan first mistaking her for Bismark.

                  It may very well be as the story is told that it was Bismarks 15" shell that destroyed Hood but I posted this just to show how confusing it was and how these minutes when the ships met in battle have been intertwined in their actions. What would have been very interesting IMO, would be if Hoods bridge log had been recovered for experts to examine. I dont believe it ever was. The Prince of Wales log has been referenced in the books but I also dont believe that the Prince Eugans log ever was although it should be in British possesion I would think since the US took possesion of her.
                  Last edited by Dreadnought; 28 Jun 13,, 14:23.
                  Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Burkard Baron von Mullenheim-Rechberg who was the Aft gunnery officer on the Bismarck, said that both the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen were firing at the Hood, so it would be very difficult to say with any accuracy which ship fired the fatal round.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      According war diary Prinz Eugen was ordered for changing target to Prince of Wales at 05.59 past 6th salvo

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
                        The problem with this is many would believe it was an 8" shell fired by the Prince Eugan that made the fatal hit on Hood and not Bismark.

                        As the Baron mentioned in his interview, before the Bismark met Hood in the Straits that Bismarks foward two radars were knocked out due to Bismark firing the forward turrets (Anton & Bruno) on the Norfolk that was trailing her. This turn of events caused the Prince Eugan to change position with the Bismark so Prince Eugan could use her surface search radar in line ahead of the two ships. This later caused confusion and Hood fired on the Prince Eugan first mistaking her for Bismark.

                        It may very well be as the story is told that it was Bismarks 15" shell that destroyed Hood but I posted this just to show how confusing it was and how these minutes when the ships met in battle have been intertwined in their actions. What would have been very interesting IMO, would be if Hoods bridge log had been recovered for experts to examine. I dont believe it ever was. The Prince of Wales log has been referenced in the books but I also dont believe that the Prince Eugans log ever was although it should be in British possesion I would think since the US took possesion of her.
                        For the uninitiated, Deck Logs and Engineering Logs are legal records, kept not for operational purposes (although they are very useful in that regard) but for use in Admiralty Courts should the information they contain be required for insurance claims, law suits, etc., etc., etc. The language used in them is very precise and legalistic. Likewise the Rules of the Nautical Road. Those aren't written for ship's masters and mates, or naval officers. If they were, the word "vessel" would never be used. According to one old four-stripper rather famous on the San Diego waterfront, a vessel is something one either urinates in, or puts flowers in. A "ship" requires rules of the nautical road, not a "vessel." Those rules are written for admiralty lawyers and judges; hence their very legalistic nature.

                        Anyway, being as how USS Prinz Eugen (IX 300) was a commissioned US Navy warship post-conflict, her deck log and engineering log are most likely both in the US Naval War College Library (where I saw the deck log circa 1998) as well as the US National Archives. Much of that stuff is, believe it or not, still classified. The thing one needs to understand is that there are some items regarding actions, ancillary to the actual finding and sinking of Bismarck that the US government would just as soon keep under wraps; even 72 years after the fact. Like the US Navy being actively engaged in a blocking action using USS Wasp (CV 7) and her escorts, just in case Bismarck and Prinz Eugen managed to break out of the GIUK Gap and into the North Atlantic proper. Not to engage mind you; but to maintain contact and report. Had Bismarck chosen to play shoot 'em up with the thin skinned Wasp, she'd have been done for, but we'll never know, because it never happened. You won't find that in the history books, but the operation took place nonetheless, and was a violation of the Neutrality Act. One of many ways in which Roosevelt was playing fast and loose with the law in an effort to drag the US military into some state of preparedness for what was to come.

                        With regard to the discussion about whether it was one of Prinz Eugen's 8" rounds or one of Bismarck's 15" rounds that did the trick with regard to Hood, it's all rather moot when one gets to the real culprit; the British Parliament and Admiralty. They were the ones that killed Hood and all those men aboard her that day, by: a) buying into the concept of the battlecruiser in the first place; b) failing to operationalize the lessons learned about the battlecruisers at Jutland in 1916; c) not properly armoring Hood in the interwar period (not that it would have mattered; see comments in following paragraph), and; d) sending her into the maw of those 15" guns when they knew damn good and well that she would have trouble standing in against even a good shooting 8" cruiser.

                        The real truth of Hood is even worse than the popular history would have us believe. Attempts at adding post-construction armor succeeded in doing a lot of things; very few of them good. The added topside weight significantly reduced her already designed low freeboard such that in North Atlantic operations, some wags referred to her as the world's largest submarine. This also had adverse effects on stability and righting moments; concerns that might have proven untenable even had she not sustained that catastrophic detonation. Damage control is both a science and an art; and having to rely more and more on the art starts rendering the science null and void. You don't muck about too much with righting moments lest you want to turn turtle at the most inopportune times. Moreover, Hood's added topside weight also lowered her maximum speed, especially in rough weather, and that lower than low freeboard exacerbated other aspects of her sea keeping ability, to wit: sea water too easily made its way into ventilation ducting, leading to shorted out switchboards and electrical distribution junction boxes; a less than stellar performance of her intermittent steam system (which provides internal heating to berthing spaces in those beautiful Scapa Flow winters); and a concomitant record number of cases of tuburculosis among the crew. Hood may have looked like a museum piece topside, all "ship shape and Bristol fashion," but below decks, she was a freaking plague ship.

                        In any event, the hunt for the Bismarck and all of its moving pieces is a fascinating onion to peel back, but at the end of the day, the rot we often find almost makes the exercise less than satisfying.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by desertswo View Post
                          For the uninitiated, Deck Logs and Engineering Logs are legal records, kept not for operational purposes (although they are very useful in that regard) but for use in Admiralty Courts should the information they contain be required for insurance claims, law suits, etc., etc., etc. The language used in them is very precise and legalistic. Likewise the Rules of the Nautical Road. Those aren't written for ship's masters and mates, or naval officers. If they were, the word "vessel" would never be used. According to one old four-stripper rather famous on the San Diego waterfront, a vessel is something one either urinates in, or puts flowers in. A "ship" requires rules of the nautical road, not a "vessel." Those rules are written for admiralty lawyers and judges; hence their very legalistic nature.

                          Anyway, being as how USS Prinz Eugen (IX 300) was a commissioned US Navy warship post-conflict, her deck log and engineering log are most likely both in the US Naval War College Library (where I saw the deck log circa 1998) as well as the US National Archives. Much of that stuff is, believe it or not, still classified. The thing one needs to understand is that there are some items regarding actions, ancillary to the actual finding and sinking of Bismarck that the US government would just as soon keep under wraps; even 72 years after the fact. Like the US Navy being actively engaged in a blocking action using USS Wasp (CV 7) and her escorts, just in case Bismarck and Prinz Eugen managed to break out of the GIUK Gap and into the North Atlantic proper. Not to engage mind you; but to maintain contact and report. Had Bismarck chosen to play shoot 'em up with the thin skinned Wasp, she'd have been done for, but we'll never know, because it never happened. You won't find that in the history books, but the operation took place nonetheless, and was a violation of the Neutrality Act. One of many ways in which Roosevelt was playing fast and loose with the law in an effort to drag the US military into some state of preparedness for what was to come.

                          With regard to the discussion about whether it was one of Prinz Eugen's 8" rounds or one of Bismarck's 15" rounds that did the trick with regard to Hood, it's all rather moot when one gets to the real culprit; the British Parliament and Admiralty. They were the ones that killed Hood and all those men aboard her that day, by: a) buying into the concept of the battlecruiser in the first place; b) failing to operationalize the lessons learned about the battlecruisers at Jutland in 1916; c) not properly armoring Hood in the interwar period (not that it would have mattered; see comments in following paragraph), and; d) sending her into the maw of those 15" guns when they knew damn good and well that she would have trouble standing in against even a good shooting 8" cruiser.

                          The real truth of Hood is even worse than the popular history would have us believe. Attempts at adding post-construction armor succeeded in doing a lot of things; very few of them good. The added topside weight significantly reduced her already designed low freeboard such that in North Atlantic operations, some wags referred to her as the world's largest submarine. This also had adverse effects on stability and righting moments; concerns that might have proven untenable even had she not sustained that catastrophic detonation. Damage control is both a science and an art; and having to rely more and more on the art starts rendering the science null and void. You don't muck about too much with righting moments lest you want to turn turtle at the most inopportune times. Moreover, Hood's added topside weight also lowered her maximum speed, especially in rough weather, and that lower than low freeboard exacerbated other aspects of her sea keeping ability, to wit: sea water too easily made its way into ventilation ducting, leading to shorted out switchboards and electrical distribution junction boxes; a less than stellar performance of her intermittent steam system (which provides internal heating to berthing spaces in those beautiful Scapa Flow winters); and a concomitant record number of cases of tuburculosis among the crew. Hood may have looked like a museum piece topside, all "ship shape and Bristol fashion," but below decks, she was a freaking plague ship.

                          In any event, the hunt for the Bismarck and all of its moving pieces is a fascinating onion to peel back, but at the end of the day, the rot we often find almost makes the exercise less than satisfying.
                          Sir,
                          IMO, Hood did have many shortcomings as far as protective armor went and speed being an additional problem however in lue of what was available at Bismarks time of sailing and from what I have read they rushed them to intercept the Bismark being the only heavy ships in the area outside of the cruisers. Had the British destroyers on patrol (that had missed them by about 10 miles) had not missed them and engaged the German ships in say torpedo runs it may have slowed them enough for a better approach to be made or perhaps enough time for more aclimated ships to engage the Germans.

                          It was also noted that although Adm Holland had choices, he chose to close on the German ships from the West which in some opinions was one of the worst choices as Hollands ships would not be able to use their after turrets which reduced his 18 guns in total down to four upon Hood and five upon POW that were able to bear on target where as the germans could bring all 8 upon Bismark and all 8 upon the Prince Eugan. So we are looking at 16 guns against 10 guns in the opening moments of battle.

                          I could see if heavier elements were available at the time of the Germans sailing but apparently they were not before the Germans could possibly make it to Brest or worse yet out into the Atlantic.

                          If she got into the Atlantic perhaps the Brits (maybe with American help no doubt) could have searched for and sunk the refueling ships the Germans had set up for their commerce raiders and stranded her.

                          I didnt know if the USN had her logs (PE) (Germans being known for destroying documents and all before capture) but I do know that PE was thoroughly examined here at Philadelphia's Navy Yard after being awarded as a war prize before being sailed for the Bikinni tests. I know Bismarks went down with her although supposedly a German sub U-556 (later fowarded orders to U-74) were supposed to retrieve them.

                          It would be very interesting to be able to examine all four ships diaries from that engagement.

                          I have read the reports on the Bismarks wreck and found them facinating in many details that oppose some of the inital findings of when the wreck was first discovered.
                          Last edited by Dreadnought; 01 Jul 13,, 22:07.
                          Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
                            Sir,
                            IMO, Hood did have many shortcomings as far as protective armor went and speed being an additional problem however in lue of what was available at Bismarks time of sailing and from what I have read they rushed them to intercept the Bismark being the only heavy ships in the area outside of the cruisers. Had the British destroyers on patrol (that had missed them by about 10 miles) had not missed them and engaged the German ships in say torpedo runs it may have slowed them enough for a better approach to be made or perhaps enough time for more aclimated ships to engage the Germans.

                            It was also noted that although Adm Holland had choices, he chose to close on the German ships from the West which in some opinions was one of the worst choices as Hollands ships would not be able to use their after turrets which reduced his 18 guns in total down to four upon Hood and five upon POW that were able to bear on target where as the germans could bring all 8 upon Bismark and all 8 upon the Prince Eugan. So we are looking at 16 guns against 10 guns in the opening moments of battle.

                            I could see if heavier elements were available at the time of the Germans sailing but apparently they were not before the Germans could possibly make it to Brest or worse yet out into the Atlantic.
                            All of what you say is perfectly true. But truer still is the fact of Hood's very existence, when there was plenty of empirical evidence that when you had a battlecruiser around, they would invariably end up in the battle line, and it would be quickly determined quickly that was no place for them to be. Hence David Beatty's prescient comment 25 years before that, "There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today." Then when effectively having his T capped, Holland just sealed a fate that was already pre-determined. "Stupid is as stupid does" is a dictum that could apply to Hood's entire career. Her end while not ignoble, was nonetheless unnecessary, given what naval warriors and naval architects already knew. If she didn't exist, she wouldn't have been there. It's that simple.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X