HMS Hood

[Bangor Fire 35]

One of the best ships and battles of all time you can go to www.hmshood.com

[Firefly]

Excellent site, well done for this find and welcome aboard.

[Bangor Fire 35]

Excellent site, well done for this find and welcome aboard.

Thanks for the greeting fyi william golding who wrote lord of the flies was in this battle he was on board one of the destroyers that sank the bismark.

[Charles]

Excellent site, well done for this find and welcome aboard.

Thanks for the greeting fyi william golding who wrote lord of the flies was in this battle he was on board one of the destroyers that sank the bismark.

Haha I just finished readin Lord of the flies in school. But I didn't like it :? it was crappy in my opinion.

Didn't know about Golding taking part in the battle.

[PzKpfw VI Tiger]

Excellent site, well done for this find and welcome aboard.

Thanks for the greeting fyi william golding who wrote lord of the flies was in this battle he was on board one of the destroyers that sank the bismark.

Haha I just finished readin Lord of the flies in school. But I didn't like it :? it was crappy in my opinion.

Didn't know about Golding taking part in the battle.

I just finished reading it as well! I can tell that me and Mr. Golding just don't meet eye to eye :roll: Anyway nice site, and welcome aboard!

[pdf27]

For what it's worth my Great Uncle served on the Hood in the inter-war years. I'm not sure exactly when (he died a few months after I was born) but the odds are overwhelmingly that he was transferred off long before Denmark Strait.

[Gen. Sandworm]

Might say that I show a short sinking of the Bismark. That sadly sunk the Hood.

[Bangor Fire 35]

Might say that I show a short sinking of the Bismark. That sadly sunk the Hood.

although it was a short battle it was historic.

[PLT.SGT.BAKER]

only 3 out of 1,415 crewmen survived, only one of them are still living, TED BRIGGS.

[Bangor Fire 35]

only 3 out of 1,415 crewmen survived, only one of them are still living, TED BRIGGS.


one died in the 60s the other in 2002 and ted is the last one

[student-scaley]

wasn't briggs the signaller?

[PLT.SGT.BAKER]

i..think so.

[arhob1]

Interesting site thanks.

The film of the battle at http://www.hmshood.com/ship/history/bshood/film.html was incredible - I didn't realise that this existed. The huge clouds of smoke when Bismarck fired its main armament were bigger than the ship itself - wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of that lot. Quite sobering at the end to see the German crew celebrating whilst such huge loss of life had just taken place.

A question -

Somewhere - presumably in the Atlantic somewhere - the film shows Prinz Eugen being refuelled by an oiler the "Spichern". The oiler seems to be on its own, does anyone know anything about the casualty rates on this type of vessel as it looks a lonely and dangerous type of a job to me. I'd imagine that casualty rates would be somewhat like those for the U boats themselves but am just guessing? I read an account once of a merchant convoy (might have been going through the Med to Malta) when one of the tankers got torpedoed, oil being lighter than water just spread for miles as a thin burning sheet which gave little chance of survival for anyone in the water or in a life boat. Anyone have any stats or info on the oilers?

TIA

[pdf27]

I read an account once of a merchant convoy (might have been going through the Med to Malta) when one of the tankers got torpedoed, oil being lighter than water just spread for miles as a thin burning sheet which gave little chance of survival for anyone in the water or in a life boat. Anyone have any stats or info on the oilers?
IIRC it depended rather a lot on exactly what fraction of oil it was carrying. Aviation fuel is of course highly explosive, and fuel oil is IIRC toxic if swallowed. However, I've also seen accounts of tankers surviving damage that would have sunk any other type of ship (even warships) due to the very very high level of compartmentalisation inherent in the design. A very good example of this is the tanker Ohio on one of the Malta convoys during WW2 - it survived at least one torpedo hit and multiple hits from bombs, etc. and still made port. Note that in this photo the Ohio's decks are awash, and it was lashed between two destroyers to keep it afloat when it actually arrived in Grand Harbour. It was sufficiently damaged that it never went back into service however, and was scuttled near to Malta after the war.

http://www.merlinsovermalta.com/images/the_ohio.jpg

Incidentally, it's worth reading up on that particular convoy. The 5 merchant ships that did get through to Malta of the 14 that left the Clyde carried enough supplies that get Malta running again and turn the tide of battle in North Africa. Of these 5, 3 were damaged - the rest of the merchant ships in the convoy were all sunk.
The losses the RN was prepared to take to get convoys through to Malta are also pretty staggering (in this convoy alone, they consisted of 1 aircraft carrier, 2 cruisers sunk and a destroyer sunk, with 1 aircraft carrier, 2 cruisers and 4 destroyers damaged).

[jnd2089]

HMS Hood, the pride of the RN until it sunk in '41...
Superb ship indeed

[Timbo in Oz]

my Mother and Father both visited the lovely Hood when it was here in Sydney. before the war.

was probably beginning to sprout 4"AA /DP guns by then.

Mind you as an aside - I still don't see how you can make

what has been found down below

disprove an 8 inch hit or 2 from PE (more probable at least), that began it.

While I'm not sure that the high angle of descent PE's APBC shells did have had in this period was actually steep enough to go down inside through a funnel.

But there is the lack of a typical whoomph-CRACK of a lot of propellant going up! IE a ship blowing up.

If 4" magazines had gone off on either side of a boiler room could that give us a boiler explosion? too?

it clearly came seriously apart - and disappeared, quite suddenly!

[1000ydstare]

As an aside, the island of Malta was also given a George Cross as a whole for their efforts during the war.

for much of the war, iirc, the island was defended by 3 Gloster Gladiator biplanes before some spits reached the island.

HMS Hood suffered from a possible brittle iron used in her construction (incidentally the same sort of iron used on RMS Titanic) and the fact that her turrets were directly connected to the magazine. Which allowed the flash back the destroyed her. Most of her younger sisters had one or more flash doors that provided a fire break to prevent such an explosion.

Edit to add. after seeing last post.

Boiler explosions that are fatal to ships of this size, class etc, are (I think) usually caused by sea water hitting hte boilers, causing the explosion.

[Stumpyhussar]

As an aside, the island of Malta was also given a George Cross as a whole for their efforts during the war.

for much of the war, iirc, the island was defended by 3 Gloster Gladiator biplanes before some spits reached the island.

HMS Hood suffered from a possible brittle iron used in her construction (incidentally the same sort of iron used on RMS Titanic) and the fact that her turrets were directly connected to the magazine. Which allowed the flash back the destroyed her. Most of her younger sisters had one or more flash doors that provided a fire break to prevent such an explosion.

Edit to add. after seeing last post.

Boiler explosions that are fatal to ships of this size, class etc, are (I think) usually caused by sea water hitting hte boilers, causing the explosion.

The 3 aircraft quoted were Sea Gladiators called Faith, Hope and Charity. It was a myth that they were they only defence but it added to the courage of the garrison and islanders showed during a very difficult time.

The Hood 'weakness' of steel has also been shown as cobblers, she was as strong as an ox and it was the flash suppression within the ammunition hoists that PROBABLY caused the massive explosion that sank her. We'll never know for sure.

Hood never had any sisters, she was one of a kind. In my humble opinion the most beautiful ship ever built.

Links provided if requested or you can Google it yourself ;)

[1000ydstare]

Her sisters that I referred to were other battleships, not neceesarily actual sisters of the same class.

How would the flash suppression cause the explosion?

[Stumpyhussar]

Her sisters that I referred to were other battleships, not neceesarily actual sisters of the same class.

How would the flash suppression cause the explosion?

Ok, sorry, didn't want to be pedantic but was. A 'sister' ship is a one that is built to the same class (Hood) as opposed to the same type (Battlecruiser). When Hood was was built there were 4 others planned/laid down but were cancelled or scrapped post war.

Given the disaster of the battle of Jutland (for the Battlecruisers) there was an inquiry into British losses post WW1 and one of the reasons the Germans lost less ships in that battle was because their flash protection down the ammunition hoists. If a turret was hit the any explosion that detonated the bag charges could only go as far as the next barrier down to the magazine and this was done by flaps that stopped this. Germans had more, Brits had less. You'd think that they'd have learned but wouldn't put my shirt on it. Hood was due a massive re-build in 1939 so cant say that this modification was carried out.

Will look at this again for links and will post what I find, won't leave you hanging, no probs.

[2nd of foot]

I have seen that it was partly flash and partly procedure. It has been suggested that to increase fire the flash doors were left open to speed the movement of charges. This could have been because a lot of importance placed on speed of shot not accuracy of fire. In peacetime you can judge in competitions speed of shot but not accuracy due to the cost and location to fire main guns.

So when it came to combat the same drills were carried out as they had been in training. When the flash came the doors were open. The navy had known about flash for a very long time, you only have to look at the precaution used in the handling of gunpowder to see this. The design was in use but the training failed, as is quite often the case. Complacency will get you every time.

[Cuts]

... Complacency will get you every time.


Ain't that the unfortunate truth !

[Stumpyhussar]

I have seen that it was partly flash and partly procedure. It has been suggested that to increase fire the flash doors were left open to speed the movement of charges. This could have been because a lot of importance placed on speed of shot not accuracy of fire. In peacetime you can judge in competitions speed of shot but not accuracy due to the cost and location to fire main guns.

So when it came to combat the same drills were carried out as they had been in training. When the flash came the doors were open. The navy had known about flash for a very long time, you only have to look at the precaution used in the handling of gunpowder to see this. The design was in use but the training failed, as is quite often the case. Complacency will get you every time.

Aint that the truth. From Cheiftain onwards the army has used bag charges in their tanks. They're stowed in water filled containers in the hull and this causes a delay in the loading procedure. The yanks in their abrahams stow a lot of ammo in the turret bustle (sticky-out bit on turret). This has an automatic opening/closing system when firing the gun. During a gunnery competition called the CAT cup they disconnected the doors so it was easier to load. If you'd done a crew commanders course at bovvy you'd have seen the damage it does.

Sorry to go off topic, still looking for the links.

[Rising Sun*]

for many years the biggest ship it was ever build . the bismarck was the bigger since 1937 . it was sunk by bismarck but i dont think it was "fair"

Japan's Yamato, commissioned December 1941, and her sister ship the Musashi, commissioned August 1942, were the biggest battleships ever built.

[Librarian]

Almost completely forgotten part of the highly distressing account regarding devastation of the HMS "Hood", honorable ladies and gentlemen, is the verity that aforesaid occurrence actually was graphically described by a combat artist Julius C. Schmitz-Westerholt, who was on the deck of the German heavy cruiser "Prinz Eugen", which have escorted the battleship "Bismarck", and from whom subsequent watercolor sketches of the battle are originating.

This truthfully rare graphical report of a direct eyewitness of the encounter was originally published in an article that was printed in the notorious "Signal" Magazine (U/Nr. 17, September 194, pp. 24-26).

It has to be mentioned that these illustrations were created throughout duration of the actual combat between the Kriegsmarine and the Royal Navy. After the battle Mr. Schmitz presented his finished work to the commander of a German heavy cruiser "Prinz Eugen", captain Helmuth Brinkmann, who had confirmed that the artist veritably represented all segments of the battle.

Additional note: due to enormous dimensions of the original German magazine, as well as to inherent technical limitations of my scanning equipment that is momentarily available, precise scan of the most intriguing part of the aforesaid naval duel – scan of the artistic rendering that presents the very moment of the explosion will be posted here posteriously.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/HoodSinking-JuliusSchmitz2.jpg

"Das Schlachtschiff der 'King George' Klasse zieht sich am sinkenden 'Hood' vorbei -The battleship of the 'King George' class passes the sinking 'Hood'".

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/HoodSinking-Schmitz3.jpg

"Abschuß einer Vollsalve des Schlachtschiffes 'Bismarck' mit dem Widerschein auf dem abziehenden Qualm der vorherigen Salve überzeugend dargestellt - The firing of a full salvo by the battleship 'Bismarck', with the mirroring of the barrage upon the drifting smoke of the previous salvo."

I really do hope that I will be able to unearth some more appropriative scanner very soon. Those giant double-pages (single-page dimensions: 35 x 26 cm!) are representing a real scanning nightmare… :(

[aly j]

One of the best ships and battles of all time you can go to www.hmshood.com

Are you shore about that,she may be the best in ww1 but in ww2
she was sunk like 5 mintues incountering the bismark:)

[Adrian Wainer]

One of the best ships and battles of all time you can go to www.hmshood.com

Hi, Bangor Fire. The battlecruiser concept might have had utility for a weaker Naval power that was largely land based and wished to employ their fleet as commerce raiders, but for the British which aimed to be a leading Naval power and whose fleet was primarily assigned to a defensive function in protecting oceanic trade routes to an island nation, the battlecruiser as a weapons system does not appear to make such sense to me in respect of the role the Royal Navy was required to carry out. As for the engagement of the Hood with the Bismarck, whilst making no criticism of the bravery and professionalism of the crew of the Hood RIP, there is no way I could view this as "one of the best battles of all time" nor could I from the aspect of a weapon of War view the Hood as "one of the best ships of all time", since the purpose of the Hood was to sink the enemy ships not be sunk by them. All that said, the Hood was sent on a mission in engaging the Bismarck, for which this class of ship was simply not designed to fulfill, with almost inevitably tragic results.

As for the issue of flash protection problems in the British ships at Jutland, leaving aside the issue that the British ships at Jutland in order to carry more munitions in to battle filled their magazines to the brim and importantly from a safety aspect carried munitions in more vulnerable areas of the ship i.e. outside the magazine areas in order carry more munitions in to battle, what may be of relevance to the hood or not is that munitions hoist system at Jutland on the British ships incorporated less doors than the equivalent German ships so that on the German ships, there was never a clear path for a flashover from the turret to the magazine but on the British ships there could be a clear path for a flashover from the turret to the magazine, when the system was handling munitions.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

[ww11freak34]

it was pne of the best ships but it was no match to the bismarck it was sunk on its first combate mission.

[aly j]

HMS Hood, the pride of the RN until it sunk in '41...
Superb ship indeed

This is what i dont under stand,the hood was great in ww1 era.
Bye the time of ww2 ,why havet they up dated too a hood-2. If they did, the Hood-2 would of been modern to match the Bismark and the Hood 1 could of been use againsted smaller German ships,any one know why?

[pdf27]

Hi, Bangor Fire. The battlecruiser concept might have had utility for a weaker Naval power that was largely land based and wished to employ their fleet as commerce raiders, but for the British which aimed to be a leading Naval power and whose fleet was primarily assigned to a defensive function in protecting oceanic trade routes to an island nation, the battlecruiser as a weapons system does not appear to make such sense.
Read up on the Battle of the Falkland Islands. That is THE classic use of Battle Cruisers, and indeed the only time they were used as intended. And they proved to be extremely effective.

[Mk VII]

updated in the sense of 'modernised hull' or 'new construction'?
The battleship building holiday decreed by the Washington Treaty (and the London Treaty which followed it) prevented Britain building any (apart from Nelson and Rodney which were experiments) until 1936 and imposed a 35,000 ton limit on the new designs which the RN did eventually build as the King George V-class (under the Second London Treaty, which was eventually abrogated because the Japanese refused to ratify). There were also limitations on the reconstruction of existing vessels (which is why Courageous and Glorious were eventually converted to aircraft carriers)

[Adrian Wainer]

This is what i dont under stand,the hood was great in ww1 era.
Bye the time of ww2 ,why havet they up dated too a hood-2. If they did, the Hood-2 would of been modern to match the Bismark and the Hood 1 could of been use againsted smaller German ships,any one know why?

If it was a Hood 2 ie a new ship it would still be a battlecruiser and so at a disadvantage against a battleship. Why didn't the British Government up date the Hood to a better standard ie Hood 1 plus which would have been a sensible thing to do, the reason was they were trying to save money.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

[Mk VII]

Hood was scheduled for a major reconstruction in 1941, which would have left her resembling a modified Renown. By 1939 the ship had steamed more than a million miles and her machinery was practically worn out. In particular the secondary armament had no HA capability and was regarded as so much dead weight. As it was, the war situation meant that she could not be spared and little could be done before the end.
The Depression had severely reduced the capacity of the shipbuilding industry and in particular the yards which had experience in warships. Armstrongs went broke in 1927 and were absorbed by Vickers, Coventry Ordnance Works closed in 1925, Beardmores in 1929, Palmers in 1932. The modernisation of the Queen Elizabeths and Warspite was done in the 1930s and to have hurried work along faster would have taken more money and maybe yard capacity than was realistically possible.

[Mk VII]

Last Hood survivor, OS [later Lt] Ted Briggs, dies age 85
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/britainatwar/3141076/Ted-Briggs-last-survivor-of-the-HMS-Hood-dies-at-85.html

[aly j]

If it was a Hood 2 ie a new ship it would still be a battlecruiser and so at a disadvantage against a battleship. Why didn't the British Government up date the Hood to a better standard ie Hood 1 plus which would have been a sensible thing to do, the reason was they were trying to save money.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian WainerNow i understand .
bye saving money ,it nearly cost them the war.
Hope they learn from ww2.:)

[ww11freak34]

one of the best ships but got sunk in its first battle

[Mk VII]

It's first battle was the bombardment of the French fleet at Mers-el-Kebir in 1940.

[CliSwe]

Re Hood: She was officially designated "fast battleship", and it was envisaged that she would oppose enemy battleships in combat. True, she was laid down as a battlecruiser, but was extensively up-armoured in the 1930s, bringing her displacement up to ~42,000 tons. Had that chance-in-a-million shot not landed, it was quite conceivable that Bismarck would've been sunk by the combined efforts of Hood and Prince of Wales. As for the battlecruiser concept, it was the idea of "Jackie" Fisher (1st Sea Lord at the time) that a fast, heavily-armed vessel be deployed ahead of the fleet to pursue and destroy the enemy's cruisers. He never meant them to slug it out on the gun line, but those big guns were a fatal attraction for admirals wanting overwhelming firepower. The RN kept the three they had left in 1939 (Hood, Renown & Repulse). Hood, of course, was employed as a battleship; Repulse gave an excellent account of herself before being overwhelmed by Japanese torpedo bombers off Malaya; and Renown was extensively modernised and had a highly successful war.

Cheers,
Cliff