capnsensible
Well-known member
Eighty years ago today, HMS Hood was sunk with the loss of1415 men. Respect.
The Mighty Hood.
- Thread starter capnsensible
- Start date
zoidberg
Well-known member
Brings to mind the infamous if laconic “There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!” ( Jutland, nearly 106 years ago )
There was still something wrong with them in the Denmark Strait ( 81 years ago, today ) when the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen did their thing.
I'm hoping HMS Queen Elizabeth is not quite as vulnerable to today's 'plunging' armament.
dom
Well-known member
Sobering and touching video
Frogmogman
Well-known member
A dark day indeed for the Royal Navy.
R.I.P. all of those who went down with her
R.I.P. all of those who went down with her
AndrewfromFal
Active member
That there was something wrong with the Hood was well known, - plans had been made in the late 30s to address the vulnerabilities in the distribution of her armour plating, but sadly these were never implemented.
Given someone with a specially adapted RIB has already managed to stick a limpet mine on the side of HMS QE during an exercise, I'd say plunging armament is the least of her worries...
Railbob
Active member
Have a look on Youtube Drachinifel Channel, he's recently done a couple of videos on the Hood which are very interesting. One of which is a theory on her loss in which it wasn't plunging fire that sunk her but a shell coming in under the armour belt at a point where the bow wave had reduced the waterline to below the belt. If you look at some photos of Hood at speed you can see exactly what he means. 
dombuckley
Well-known member
As a follow-on , there's also a video by the curator of the USS New Jersey. He agrees with Drachinifel, and also states that if an Iowa class had been hit in that position, the result would have been the same.
Ian_Rob
Well-known member
My late mother, who was in the WRNS, was given a broach by one of the Hood’s crew a few months before he was lost. He lived in the same small town.
Stingo
Well-known member
I sincerely hope you (or your sister - if you have one) still have it and will keep passing it down the female line in your family.
What a great story, btw
Snoopy463
Well-known member
Same day 39 years ago HMS Antelope was destroyed by an Argentinean bomb.
newtothis
Well-known member
The same day 56 years ago, I was born.
(No connection, just a satisfied customer.)
newtothis
Well-known member
Also, Bob Dylan was born that day, so win some, lose some.
Ian_Rob
Well-known member
Thank you. Yes, we still have the broach.
Whilst in the WRNS, my mother worked in Shelly House in Chelsea (on the embankment nearly opposite Battersea Power Station) before her section was relocated, because of the intense bombing, to Largs in Scotland. The Wrens slept in the basement and as there were more girls than beds they use to ‘hot-bunk’. Coming off shift one morning, the girl my mother shared with asked her to go to church with her and a couple of other Wrens. Tired after having worked through the night, she declined and went to bed. An hour or so later, the three other girls were killed when a bomb hit the Guard’s Chapel.
Last edited:
Humblebee
Well-known member
Moving stuff. Let's make sure we don't forget all those who lost their lives, whatever side they were on. They were all some mother's sons and thought they were doing the right thing.
LadyInBed
Well-known member
HMS Hood (1891)
was scuttled in late 1914 to act as a blockship across the southern entrance of Portland Harbour after the start of World War I.
I dived on it before it became too dangerous.
was scuttled in late 1914 to act as a blockship across the southern entrance of Portland Harbour after the start of World War I.
I dived on it before it became too dangerous.
Slowboat35
Well-known member
It always seemed strange to me that between the Wars in a Navy with fifteen odd battleships - real brutal heavyweight rhino-armoured sluggers, it was the elderly and known to be fragile Mighty Hood that captured the public's imagination, a 'mere' battlecrusier devoid of the armour of it's post-dreadnought contemporaries. Why was the darling of the Navy the Hood when we had awesome monsters like Nelson and Rodney which made all our other ships look like catapult-armed rowing-boats?
Apart from looks of course, for the Hood was one of the finest looking warships ever built - up there with Scharnhorst and Bismark - imho two of the other top contenders
Apart from looks of course, for the Hood was one of the finest looking warships ever built - up there with Scharnhorst and Bismark - imho two of the other top contenders
Last edited:
Railbob
Active member
Slowboat35, there is considerable debate as wether the Hood was the last Battlecruiser or the first of the fast Battleships, her armour layout was quite different from previous Battlecruisers in that it was heavier along the main belt and that it was also inclined giving it a greater resistance to A.P. shells compared to a vertical belt , this meant that Hood was actually better protected than ships that followed her and several of her predecessors such as the Q.E. class battleships. Of course there's the oft repeated statement about her "thin" deck armour , yes it was thin in its separate layers but overall was relatively good and what is strange is that she was sunk whilst she was in her "zone of immunity" that is plunging fire could not penetrate her deck armour as the trajectory was relatively flat and her side armour could not be penetrated as it was too thick, this is what's leading other better minds than myself to the shell coming in under the belt.
The Hood had several large reconstructions planned which would have increased her deck armour considerably but she could never be spared as she was, along with Repulse and Renown , the only ships capable of catching and engaging Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. As for Nelson and Rodney, although armed with 16" guns they were slow due to the limitations of the Washington treaty, also the 16' guns have several known faults in that they used a light high velocity shell was caused excessive wear to the barrels and resulting in decreased accuracy.
As you can probably tell I'm a bit of a geek with the Hood although I do have a reason in that my Grandfather was one of the Foreman in John Browns yard and worked on her during her construction( my father was a result of a second marriage whilst my grandfather was a good bit older). I've been very lucky in that I have handled her builders plans whilst researching a model I built of her, I still have some photos of her taken directly from the builders plates.
The Hood had several large reconstructions planned which would have increased her deck armour considerably but she could never be spared as she was, along with Repulse and Renown , the only ships capable of catching and engaging Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. As for Nelson and Rodney, although armed with 16" guns they were slow due to the limitations of the Washington treaty, also the 16' guns have several known faults in that they used a light high velocity shell was caused excessive wear to the barrels and resulting in decreased accuracy.
As you can probably tell I'm a bit of a geek with the Hood although I do have a reason in that my Grandfather was one of the Foreman in John Browns yard and worked on her during her construction( my father was a result of a second marriage whilst my grandfather was a good bit older). I've been very lucky in that I have handled her builders plans whilst researching a model I built of her, I still have some photos of her taken directly from the builders plates.
Last edited:
zoidberg
Well-known member
Interesting, in that John Browns yard was less than 2 miles from where I grew up, and The Titan Crane dominated the SW skyline. No, fascinating....
And there were lots of other cranes, for several miles, along both sides of the river.
Neeves
Well-known member
As you would expect the Imperial War Museum have copious photographic history of the Hood at John Brown's and Glasgow University is custodian of all of the original builder's plans from JB. You can buy copies, full size, of any of the JB plans from GU and copies of the photo's from the IWM. My Grandfather was a stoker on the diminutive HMS Canterbury, Light Cruiser, (launched 1916) which was fitted out alongside the Hood. If you search 'Canterbury's' fit out with the IWM - you get the Hood alongside.
Those of the right age in Scotland looked on 'The mighty Hood' with pride and affection and her loss was felt almost like the loss of a family member.
Massie's book 'Dreadnought' is a good intro and for JB, Johnston's 'Ships for a Nation' is a good start.
Jonathan
RobinBirch
Active member
"Massie's book 'Dreadnought' is a good intro and for JB, Johnston's 'Ships for a Nation' is a good start."
I would also recommend Massie's 'Castles of Steel' Both tomes are excellent reads.
I would also recommend Massie's 'Castles of Steel' Both tomes are excellent reads.
