Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length.

[Martin (Admin)]

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10231455917366893&set=gm.6102717493153705&idorvanity=399753236783521

[raflaunches]

I still think she was an achingly beautiful for a warship reflecting the era she was conceived and built in.
My tatty picture photo of Hood:

[raflaunches]

Picture From Facebook


I remember reading a book several years ago which mentioned Hood’s fuel consumption at different speeds. For a vessel so big (for her time) it’s amazing how much she used at full speed:
70 tons per hour to achieve 32 knots
7 tons per hour to achieve 14 knots


A massive difference considering her fuel tanks held 3895 tons!

[raflaunches]

I was watching a newish documentary this afternoon about the sinking of the Hood. They went back to the wreck with David Mearns and Innes McCartney to investigate the wreck of Hood properly. The interesting theory that seems to match the viewpoints of the eyewitnesses now seems to be that Hood may have been struck below the waterline in a similar way that the Japanese trained to bounce shell to hit below the waterline but possibly been completely unintentional by Bismarck. They essentially proved that Bismarck was not firing deck penetrating salvos and Hood’s armour was too thick/layered to allow a German WW2 15inch shell to penetrate all the way to a magazine room. The only way it would have a chance would be to hit below the armour belt and deflect upwards into the magazine room.



The strange events of the day involved at least two of the ships involved (and if ever proved ,three) suffering direct hits below the waterline, Bismarck was hit by HMS Prince of Wales causing her to lose a significant amount of oil fuel, and POW hit by Bismarck causing serious flooding making her to disengage from the battle.

[Colin Bishop]

Nick,
Have you read Iain Ballantyne's book Killing the Bismarck?

Colin

[meechingman]

I was watching a newish documentary this afternoon about the sinking of the Hood.

What channel was it on? I'd love to watch this on 'catch up' or when it's repeated. Thanks

[Colin Bishop]

One of Bismarck's shells was subsequently found in the bilges of Prince of Wales having penetrated below the armour belt but did not explode.

It just goes to show what a lottery armour protection is. There are always vulnerable pathways to vital internal spaces. I have seen a documentary demonstrating that one of Bismark's shells could have penetrated above the belt and above the deck protection to reach Hood's magazines. It cannot be proved after all this time but there are many instances of ships being struck at their weakest points. The US North Carolina was the only one of her general type to be hit by a torpedo but the hit was in the worst possible position abreast turret 1 where the hull was narrower than further aft and the torpedo defences less effective.

Colin

[raflaunches]

Hi Colin


No I haven’t read that book yet, just added it to my basket on Amazon for future reading.

[raflaunches]

What channel was it on? I'd love to watch this on 'catch up' or when it's repeated. Thanks

I’ll double check, but I think it was a documentary either on YouTube or Disney (Nat geographic). It was about an hour long and was the attempt to recover the ships bell.

[Colin Bishop]

You will like that book Nick, it is hugely informative and gives a real sense of the battle and what the participants on the British side were thinking at the time. The Padre on Rodney was apparently ordered off the bridge for urging Captain Dalrymple Hamilton to stop the slaughter in the final stages of the battle but Dalrymple Hamilton knew that it was essential that Bismark be sunk rather than reduced to a floating wreck that could have been salvaged after the British were forced to leave the scene due to lack of fuel. Efforts were made to save Bismarck's crew but were curtailed by the U Boat threat.

War is a cruel business and this book gives an insight into it. It's not a book you forget, I have read it three times.

Colin

[dodes]

I have read and heard umpteen experts giving their opinion on why Hood erupted. But my father watched Hood for 30 minutes before she went with high powered watch keepers binoculars, at the time he was a Chief Petty Officer E R A first class an he described her with 11 possibly12 major fires out of control, she was on fire from stem to stern. Other on the spot witness's describe the main deck forward of the mainmast lifting. The D N C at the time declared it was her torpedo store of over 30 torpedoes erupting. He was persuaded by the Admirals in London to alter his story as he wanted to remove her torpedo armament completely as he consider them useless and a liability but was refused by the torpedo officiados influence in the Admiralty at the time. Also a urgent signal went round the fleet that oil based paint was not to be used below decks and all the tops of magazines must have a steel top, as some of Hoods upper small weaponry had wooden topped mags, my great uncle told me about the signal as he thought it strange, at the time he was a Captain Overseer based in Glasgow and was in charge of the fitting of all guns to all warships built on the Clyde. After all the common reason among all the guys until recent generations put it down to her going around the world all the time and giving ship visits and so each time she went in a quick coat of shiny gloss was put on in the walkways and some guys who left her before the action described up to 1/4" of paint in places in the walkways ect. But you will not get confirmation on it now as she is now described as a valiant death ride to Vahalla.