Jump to content


Photo

Hms Hood And Other Ships


  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#1 MiloMorai

MiloMorai

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,014 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa

Posted 16 April 2018 - 1206 PM


  • 0

#2 Tim the Tank Nut

Tim the Tank Nut

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,225 posts
  • Interests:WW2 Armor (mostly US)

Posted 17 April 2018 - 1008 AM

breathtaking

 

but very sad

 

Holland was a fool...


  • 0

#3 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Of the Veronica Cartwright Ilk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 46,999 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 17 April 2018 - 1023 AM

I dont know, it worked out. We could afford to lose Hood, but the Germans couldn't afford to lose Bismark. Granted Hood didnt put a scratch on her, but it was POW's shells that did the damaged Bismark and forced her to home, which put her in range of the Ark Royal.

 

Nice we got the Ships Bell back.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...pshire-36361855


  • 0

#4 TonyE

TonyE

    I/Kitsap Militia

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,246 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norway
  • Interests:Them grate steal beest! and, there history.

Posted 17 April 2018 - 1105 AM

Did i spot the HMS Iron Duke in there (at around 03:10)?


  • 0

#5 MiloMorai

MiloMorai

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,014 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa

Posted 17 April 2018 - 1132 AM

YesTony.


  • 0

#6 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,288 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 17 April 2018 - 1759 PM

Had they been able to get another BB or BC into the that groups, the weight of shells might have ended Bismark that day. No doubt they expected battle damage, but not the loss of the whole ship so quickly. I can imagine that such a meeting engagement would have favored the Nelson or Dunkqure.  


  • 0

#7 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,389 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 18 April 2018 - 0157 AM

I'm not sure the French Dunquerque class could absorb much damage. The quad turrets seem to have been unsuccessful in all navies as well.

 

The Nelsons could not keep up in any case.

 

The RN was in its weakest condition in this perilous time 1941-42, no luck in that.


Edited by Ken Estes, 18 April 2018 - 0159 AM.

  • 0

#8 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,288 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 18 April 2018 - 1946 PM

but in that particular case, Dunkerque could have brought all her main guns to bear without having to expose her sides and it would have doubled the number of main guns against Bismark. It seemed a perfect picture scenario for that design


  • 0

#9 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,389 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 19 April 2018 - 1213 PM

Did not work well for PoW  guns bearing forward bearing forward.

 

I wonder about the stress of firing 6-8 major caliber guns on 0 degrees relative bearing.  Many years ago I was told the Iowas could not do it, but I never followed it up when I had the chance. I have the French BB book of Jordan and Dumas, and will check on this. There were no more all-forward BB in the Richelieu class after the first three, rest had fore and after main gun turrets. That tells us something. At Mers el Kebir the two Dunkerques were Med-moored with sterns to the open sea. Not nice.


  • 0

#10 MiloMorai

MiloMorai

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,014 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa

Posted 19 April 2018 - 1553 PM

What are the names of the other two Richelieu BBs?


  • 0

#11 alejandro_

alejandro_

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,034 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oxfordshire, UK
  • Interests:History, cinema, football, aviation, armour, military history.

Posted 19 April 2018 - 1601 PM

Holland was a fool...

 

Can you ellaborate on this? Last year I spent quite a bit of time reading about the Hood sinking and I don't think there is much reason for criticism.


  • 0

#12 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,389 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 19 April 2018 - 1621 PM

Clemenceau, Gascogne. Two more authorized on 1 April 1940, slightly enlarged from Gascogne, would have been named Alsace, Normandie, Flandre or Bourgogne.

 

 

The choices of quadruple turrets originally aimed at weight reduction, to include length of belt armor


  • 0

#13 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,034 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Muncie, Indiana

Posted 19 April 2018 - 1631 PM

Did not work well for PoW  guns bearing forward bearing forward.

 

I wonder about the stress of firing 6-8 major caliber guns on 0 degrees relative bearing.  Many years ago I was told the Iowas could not do it, but I never followed it up when I had the chance. I have the French BB book of Jordan and Dumas, and will check on this. There were no more all-forward BB in the Richelieu class after the first three, rest had fore and after main gun turrets. That tells us something. At Mers el Kebir the two Dunkerques were Med-moored with sterns to the open sea. Not nice.

For the Iowa's, does this mean split-salvos or all 6 at once?


  • 0

#14 Tim the Tank Nut

Tim the Tank Nut

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,225 posts
  • Interests:WW2 Armor (mostly US)

Posted 19 April 2018 - 1652 PM

It's been a long time but years ago I looked at it really hard.

HMS Hood made most of the same mistakes that the British battlecruisers did a Jutland with similar results.  The approach vector of the Hood was the big issue as it kept the ship in the plunging fire area too long.

I think Holland was so desperate that the Germans might get away that he took the risk of engaging at the first chance

Ludivoc Kennedy in Pursuit! had a good piece on the engagement

In any event there's not much excuse for a seasoned ship like the Hood to be late on initial rounds and then be as far off as she was.  Laying 15" all around the Bismarck would've reduced their accuracy.

 

The Hood was/is the prettiest ship ever built and should've been able to handle the Bismarck given the levels of crew experience.  The Bismarck's advantages weren't so great as to make the outcome inevitable.

I suppose at the end of it the Hood was unlucky for the unforgiving moment of history and history balanced out when a Swordfish hit the Bismarck's rudder.

 

If you wrote a movie script no one would buy it


  • 0

#15 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,288 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 19 April 2018 - 1759 PM

Crappy weather, mediocre visibility and limited resources, one can understand why he took the risk. Thanks for the info on stresses ken, food for thought. 


  • 0

#16 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,034 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Muncie, Indiana

Posted 19 April 2018 - 1828 PM

It's been a long time but years ago I looked at it really hard.

HMS Hood made most of the same mistakes that the British battlecruisers did a Jutland with similar results.  The approach vector of the Hood was the big issue as it kept the ship in the plunging fire area too long.

I think Holland was so desperate that the Germans might get away that he took the risk of engaging at the first chance

Ludivoc Kennedy in Pursuit! had a good piece on the engagement

In any event there's not much excuse for a seasoned ship like the Hood to be late on initial rounds and then be as far off as she was.  Laying 15" all around the Bismarck would've reduced their accuracy.

 

The Hood was/is the prettiest ship ever built and should've been able to handle the Bismarck given the levels of crew experience.  The Bismarck's advantages weren't so great as to make the outcome inevitable.

I suppose at the end of it the Hood was unlucky for the unforgiving moment of history and history balanced out when a Swordfish hit the Bismarck's rudder.

 

If you wrote a movie script no one would buy it

Not so fast on the movie script. I present...

 

 

And the song...

 


  • 0

#17 Unreal John

Unreal John

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,587 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lawrence, KS
  • Interests:military affairs in general, concentrating on WW II

Posted 20 April 2018 - 1135 AM

By coincidence, my most recent reading has included the recent reprint of Running A Big Ship: The Classic Guide to Managing a Second World War Battleship, by "Commander of HMS Hood Captain Rory O'Connor, R.N."  The last bit is in quotes because it is a classic case of "two peoples divided by a common language".  In the text it is revealed that he was the XO ("Executive commander") rather than the CO, in the late '30s.  In other battleships it was a billet for a commander, but Hood, usually the fleet flagship, rated a junior captain for the job.

The author has a particular affection for peacetime ceremonial.  "A great ship should pass on her way, in and out of harbour, with a certain pomp and splendour and with a flourish of trumpets.  For this purpose, a row of a dozen buglers against the skyline at each end of the ship, seamen on 'B' turret and Royal Marines on 'X' turret..."  I had wondered how long into the war this lasted, and the buglers seem to be there when Hood passes beginning at 1:50 in the video.

Captain O'Connor was KIA when his first command, HMS Neptune, ran into a minefield in December 1941 and went down with exactly one survivor.


  • 0

#18 Harold Jones

Harold Jones

    Shaken but not deterred...

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,512 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Armor, History, Fishing and Beer

Posted 20 April 2018 - 1234 PM

Did not work well for PoW  guns bearing forward bearing forward.

 

I wonder about the stress of firing 6-8 major caliber guns on 0 degrees relative bearing.  Many years ago I was told the Iowas could not do it, but I never followed it up when I had the chance. I have the French BB book of Jordan and Dumas, and will check on this. There were no more all-forward BB in the Richelieu class after the first three, rest had fore and after main gun turrets. That tells us something. At Mers el Kebir the two Dunkerques were Med-moored with sterns to the open sea. Not nice.

When we did a tour of the Wisconsin a couple years ago the docent did say that the 16" guns were never supposed to be fired directly over the bow.  I don't recall anyone asking why.   


  • 0

#19 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,389 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 20 April 2018 - 1400 PM

Thanks, Harold, my source was something of the same level. Maybe N Friedman has something on that.


  • 0

#20 alejandro_

alejandro_

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,034 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oxfordshire, UK
  • Interests:History, cinema, football, aviation, armour, military history.

Posted 20 April 2018 - 1450 PM

HMS Hood made most of the same mistakes that the British battlecruisers did a Jutland with similar results.  The approach vector of the Hood was the big issue as it kept the ship in the plunging fire area too long.

I think Holland was so desperate that the Germans might get away that he took the risk of engaging at the first chance

 

 

The original plan by Holland was to have Norfolk and Suffolk attacking Prinz Eugen and Hood and Prince of Wales Bismarck. The attack was calculated to take place at 2:00AM, at that latitude the sun would reflect the German ships silouettes while covering the Hood/PoW in darkness. The maneouver would cut the German T from the Sout-East.

The problem was that at 00:28 Suffolk lost radar contact with Bismarck; Holland was forced to divide his force and send destroyers North, while Hood/Prince of Wales went South-East.

When contact was restablished at 3:00 Hood/Prince of Wales were 56 kms ahead to the South-East. At 3:20 the British position worsened because the German ships made a turn to the West.

The issue was that Holland was not sure what the Germans would do. On everyone's mind was the raid by Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, which sunk 22 merchand ships between January and March 1941 while avoiding the British capital ships. If the Royal Navy lost contact with the German ships the same could happen again -even worst as Bismarck could face older battleships-, so he took the risk of attacking from an initial position of disadvantage.


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users