Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Battlecruiser HMS Hood: A ‘Battleship’ With Little Armor ?
19FortyFive ^ | 4/14/2021 | Peter Suciu

Posted on 04/14/2021 10:09:07 AM PDT by Onthebrink

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last
To: Onthebrink
This is a pretty lousy article about a fascinating ship, battle and period of history. Did you know that footage exists of the battle as taken from the cruiser Prinz Eugen?

Footage of the Bismarck firing upon the Hood, and Bismarck under fire from the British fleet

Also, I do believe that HMS Vanguard was a larger ship than HMS Hood.


21 posted on 04/14/2021 10:50:08 AM PDT by Antoninus (Republicans are all honorable men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wizdum

Wizdum wrote: “The British found out in WW1 how vulnerable their ships were to the type of detonation that sank the Hood.”

It was later determined that the loss of those three battlecruisers had more to do with operating procedures than lack of armor. At the time, British Captains prioritized rate of fire and removed safety features such as flash/blast curtains between segments of the main batteries. These curtains were there to prevent just such a happening. There were also provisions limiting the amount of powder bags that could be removed from their safety containers which were ignored and powder bags were stacked in the turrets ready to use.

It is often overlooked but these incidents were more the result of rapidly burning propellant than bursting shells. These changes improved the rate of fire but allowed burning propellant to propagate throughout the turret shattering the ship.


22 posted on 04/14/2021 10:52:33 AM PDT by DugwayDuke (Most pick the expert who says the things they agree with.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Onthebrink

Just a bunch of navel gazing.


23 posted on 04/14/2021 10:52:37 AM PDT by CodeToad (Arm Up! They Have!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wizdum

Sorry, Invincible was the 3rd British battlecruiser to explode...


24 posted on 04/14/2021 10:52:43 AM PDT by Wizdum (Tyranny always ends badly for the tyrannical. Ask Ceaușescu, Gaddafi or Saddam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: A Navy Vet
Hard rock: Sabaton Bismarck

1950's pop song: Johnny Horton Sink the Bismarck

25 posted on 04/14/2021 10:55:11 AM PDT by Don W (When blacks riot, neighbourhoods and cities burn. When whites riot, nations and continents burn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Wizdum

I wonder who the guy was that first thought,

“Instead of shooting straight across at another ship, let’s drop shells down on top of them so they can penetrate and go deep.”


26 posted on 04/14/2021 10:55:29 AM PDT by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: A Navy Vet

“Sink the Bismark” — Johnny Horton

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1Ufc2hI4FM


27 posted on 04/14/2021 10:55:39 AM PDT by Bigg Red (Trump will be sworn in under a shower of confetti made from the tattered remains of the Rat Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

You’re thinking of the Graf Spee.


28 posted on 04/14/2021 10:56:05 AM PDT by ebshumidors ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: blueunicorn6
I believe that would be the British with the Dreadnought. Up until then most of the gunnery was flat shooting at each other. Dreadnought introduced the all big gun arching trajectory type of fire.

Looking past the increasing armor belt to fend off direct shots, Dreadnought would use plunging fire to strike the thin steel decks of the opposition.

29 posted on 04/14/2021 11:04:01 AM PDT by Wizdum (Tyranny always ends badly for the tyrannical. Ask Ceaușescu, Gaddafi or Saddam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Onthebrink

Kind of like the U.S.S. Biden.


30 posted on 04/14/2021 11:08:15 AM PDT by kaehurowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stosh

Admiral Holland knew he had to get inside the plunging fire range of the Germans. Hence driving straight for the German ships and masking his aft guns.


31 posted on 04/14/2021 11:08:30 AM PDT by bravo whiskey (Count Rostov "The tyranny of indistinguishable days.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

“This is a pretty lousy article about a fascinating ship,”

Thus it is typical for 19fortyfive.


32 posted on 04/14/2021 11:25:24 AM PDT by Seruzawa (The political Left is the Garden of Eden of Incompetence - Marx the Smarter (Groucho))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Rurudyne

Hood was a battle cruiser. She should have never been put anywhere near a real battleship. It was practically criminal that she was.


Perhaps. But when you’re enemy (Germany) is dictating the terms of the fight, then mismatches are bound to occur. If the Prince of Wales had been able to contribute more to the fight then the Hood may not have been lost.

Similar thing happened at the 2nd Battle of Guadalcanal when the USS Washington got left holding the bag when the South Dakota experienced electrical problems. But the Washington was expertly conned by her skipper and Adm Lee knew more about the practical problems of night-fighting with radar than the experts did. Different outcome.


33 posted on 04/14/2021 11:52:48 AM PDT by Tallguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Right. It wasn’t that the Hood lacked armor, rather it was the way her armor was arranged that was the problem. Plus the fact that her deck armor was thin given the threats of plunging fire and aircraft.


34 posted on 04/14/2021 11:54:47 AM PDT by Tallguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy

Go to page 14, to glimpse the beginning of her story ...

https://books.google.com/books?id=u7M6AAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false


35 posted on 04/14/2021 12:19:12 PM PDT by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ebshumidors

Both were scuttled.


36 posted on 04/14/2021 1:53:10 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: C19fan; Rurudyne; Tallguy; Onthebrink
Rurudyne: "Hood was a battle cruiser.
She should have never been put anywhere near a real battleship.
It was practically criminal that she was."

Tallguy: "...when you’re enemy (Germany) is dictating the terms of the fight, then mismatches are bound to occur."

c19fan: "Some would classify HMS Hood as fast battleship."

By my count WWII Brits had 20 battleships (not including Hood), of which they lost three in battle: Royal Oak (U-47), Prince of Wales (Japanese bombers) and Barham (U-331).
Americans had 24 battleships, of which we lost only one, Arizona at Pearl Harbor.
Others damaged there were repaired & returned to battle.

For comparison Brits had about 20 carriers (5 sunk), Americans had 30, including CVLs (7 sunk), all losses (except CVL Princeton) were pre-war manufacture, none of their then newest ships.

Point is: we're often told how "obsolete" battleships were in WWII, but the truth is they still performed important jobs (i.e., shore bombardment) and survived combat pretty well, especially when protected from air & submarine attacks.

37 posted on 04/14/2021 2:31:07 PM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...) )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Oklahoma capsized at Pearl Harbor, was refloated and an attempt was made to tow her to San Francisco, IIRC, to be refitted.

Halfway there she started taking on water, (accidentally on purpose, IMO, being older and nowhere near as fast as the Iowa class ships), was cut loose from the sea tug and sank, out there somewhere.

For practical purposes, lost as a result of damage at Pearl Harbor.


38 posted on 04/14/2021 2:48:48 PM PDT by OKSooner (John Durham does not exist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: OKSooner

Oklahoma and her crew shouldn’t be forgotten. That was a horrendous way to go.


39 posted on 04/14/2021 4:05:50 PM PDT by Tallguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

The Bismarck would have sunk even without the scuttling.


40 posted on 04/14/2021 4:09:31 PM PDT by princeofdarkness ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson