The sinking of HMS HOOD - on TV now

[davidfox]

My late father-in-law came off the Hood, not long before this action. He went to be commissioned and so survived. He had seen action on the Hood, however, in the effort to stop the French warships falling into German hands.

Arethusa was also in this action sinking the french fleet at Oran, Arethusa was straddled by the shore batteries, My Father who was in action in F turret apparently stuck his head out and asked a guy who was watching through bino's 'Hows our fall of shot'? he replied 'Dunno im watching there's'!

 

[Sailfree]

From what I have read about the big gun armoured battleship era, it seems a very chancy affair.

When you factor in wind, gun temperature and size of charge, air temperature, relative motion of two boats that are randomly changing course, changing range, ships roll, ships pitching, effect of sudden recoil of smaller guns firing out of sync I think gunnery control in WW2 was a very chancy affair.

Especially when considering the changes over the reloading period (was it about 4min for major guns?).

British Navy did not have a full appreciation of airpower and that sneaky, naughty submarine power (its not British you know old chap!) . Most Navys that could possess battleships got deluded by their considered perceived power and it was only smaller countries that knew how to make best use of their effective navy forces.

In US after Midway and Doolitle raid air power was accepted but the US navy never gave the credit that was due to the stranglehold of Japanese mainland and preventing supplies that the US submarine service achieved. Took the dying off of the old breed admirals and the nuclear sub insisted upon by the politicians that changed attitudes most.

 

[Norman_E]

For any big warship to explode with enough violence to blow it in half and sink the pieces within minutes quite clearly required a magazine explosion, the amount of actual explosive in even the biggest armour piercing shell could not do such a thing on its own.

Clearly a long range shelling match was a bit of a lottery, and it is clear that Hood scored no hits at all on either German ship, whilst being hit several times. I think that settles who had the superior luck on the day, and probably who had the most accurate gunnery systems.

As for taking hits without fatal damage the Prince of wales was hit in that engagement, including by a shell below the main armour belt, which luckily failed to detonate. We can also look at the battle of the River Plate where three cruisers (Exeter Achilles and Ajax) were hit several times by 11 inch and 5.9 inch shells from Admiral Graf Spee, a ship more than twice the displacement of any of them. Although Exeter was badly damaged a combination of its 8 inch and the other two ship's six inch guns did enough damage to the German pocket battleship to force it to seek shelter in Montevideo. The survival of all three British ships is proof that shellfire needs to be either very lucky, or sustained over quite a number of hits to sink even a relatively small warship.

 

[BobPrell]

For any big warship to explode with enough violence to blow it in half and sink the pieces within minutes quite clearly required a magazine explosion, the amount of actual explosive in even the biggest armour piercing shell could not do such a thing on its own.

Clearly a long range shelling match was a bit of a lottery, and it is clear that Hood scored no hits at all on either German ship, whilst being hit several times. I think that settles who had the superior luck on the day, and probably who had the most accurate gunnery systems.

As for taking hits without fatal damage the Prince of wales was hit in that engagement, including by a shell below the main armour belt, which luckily failed to detonate. We can also look at the battle of the River Plate where three cruisers (Exeter Achilles and Ajax) were hit several times by 11 inch and 5.9 inch shells from Admiral Graf Spee, a ship more than twice the displacement of any of them. Although Exeter was badly damaged a combination of its 8 inch and the other two ship's six inch guns did enough damage to the German pocket battleship to force it to seek shelter in Montevideo. The survival of all three British ships is proof that shellfire needs to be either very lucky, or sustained over quite a number of hits to sink even a relatively small warship.

Excellent post.

I might add that Graf Spee did more damage to Exeter than it sustained itself, as you would expect with its greater size and armament. But Oh dear, the chance card was that the damage to the fuel-cleaning equipment meant that GS could not make it back to Germany, and the equipment could not be repaired or replaced in Uruguay, so its cruise was effectively ended.

 

[maxi77]

When you factor in wind, gun temperature and size of charge, air temperature, relative motion of two boats that are randomly changing course, changing range, ships roll, ships pitching, effect of sudden recoil of smaller guns firing out of sync I think gunnery control in WW2 was a very chancy affair.

Especially when considering the changes over the reloading period (was it about 4min for major guns?).

British Navy did not have a full appreciation of airpower and that sneaky, naughty submarine power (its not British you know old chap!) . Most Navys that could possess battleships got deluded by their considered perceived power and it was only smaller countries that knew how to make best use of their effective navy forces.

In US after Midway and Doolitle raid air power was accepted but the US navy never gave the credit that was due to the stranglehold of Japanese mainland and preventing supplies that the US submarine service achieved. Took the dying off of the old breed admirals and the nuclear sub insisted upon by the politicians that changed attitudes most.

In reality the old fire control tables did compensate for most of the nasty variables you mention, the problem was if it was a problem the RN philosophy on range finding which was less accurate but more robust than the German version, of course when the RN had the other guys range then it was down to weight of broadside which was almost always in the RN favour.

As for maritime airpower it was invented by the RN and if it had not been for the dead hand of the 'brylcreem boys' who starved the RN of funding for aircraft during the 30s the FAA would have been a lot better than it was. Mind you they still stopped the Bismark and crippled the Italian fleet despite having to use swordfish. In fact so impressive was the attack on Tarranto the Japanese used it as inspiration for their attack on Pearl Harbour. No the RN exploited air power as much as it could, shame the RAF denied them the resources to do it properly during the 30s, they might have done even better

Yes the USN submarine force did a brilliant job crippling the Japanese supply system, but have you ever thought why Rommel was so short of supplies, it was because the RN submarine flotilla in Malta (who at times during maintenance in of Manoel island had to dive alongside their depot ship to hide from air attack) did actually sink a large proportion of Rommel's supply ships. The RN Submarine Service also operated in the Far East alongside the USN and covered the Burma/Malaya/Singapore/Indonesia area, with some help from the Australians. The RN submarine service also was responsible for much of the supplies and support for resistance movement in many areas during the war, as well as of course delivering the cockleshell heros, attacking Tirpitz and acting as navigation beacons for D Day.

 

[maxi77]

Excellent post.

I might add that Graf Spee did more damage to Exeter than it sustained itself, as you would expect with its greater size and armament. But Oh dear, the chance card was that the damage to the fuel-cleaning equipment meant that GS could not make it back to Germany, and the equipment could not be repaired or replaced in Uruguay, so its cruise was effectively ended.

So the Graf Spee scuttle was nothing to do with RNs signalling game which convinced the Germans that the ship Graf Spee was about to meet the same fate as the admiral she was named for during WW1 in much the same part of the world. The Bismark was given serious fuel problems by a stray shell from the POW which was why she was heading for Brest and was so easy to catch

 

[BobPrell]

So the Graf Spee scuttle was nothing to do with RNs signalling game which convinced the Germans that the ship Graf Spee was about to meet [a dire] fate.

Well I didn't say that. I would think a lot went thru Captain Langdorf's mind. For instance, that he had disobeyed orders to evade combat with even inferior forces, so he bore a huge moral responsibility for the situation the ship was in. This is a probable motive for his suicide.

At least he did not order his crew into a likely "death ride" that would have achieved little because his ship was basically unfit for the trip home, even if it met no more enemy.

The Bismark was given serious fuel problems by a stray shell from the POW which was why she was heading for Brest and was so easy to catch

What stray shell? The shell was fired intending to damage the enemy, which it did. Nothing stray about it.

 

[maxi77]

Well I didn't say that. I would think a lot went thru Captain Langdorf's mind. For instance, that he had disobeyed orders to evade combat with even inferior forces, so he bore a huge moral responsibility for the situation the ship was in. This is a probable motive for his suicide.

At least he did not order his crew into a likely "death ride" that would have achieved little because his ship was basically unfit for the trip home, even if it met no more enemy.



What stray shell? The shell was fired intending to damage the enemy, which it did. Nothing stray about it.

Sorry about the stray bit just slightly riled by the fashionable comments suggest the RN was poor at almost everything. Considering she was not fully accepted and still had contractors on board trying fix the guns she did bloody well.

Yes Langsdorf saved a lot of lives and was probably for the chop if he ever got back, Hitler never liked a loser. It was always a problem for the Germans living up to Bismarks 'No Surrender' tradition, a lot of German sailors died upholding that, thinking especially of Von Spee's squadron and of course the Bismark

 

[Resolution]

Got me!!

Happy to evaluate which is best on effectiveness and the one thing that bought about Bismarks destruction was the Swordfish and the incredibly brave pilots of such outdated aircraft not the gunnery until it was outgunned by some incredible odds.

We had a good look around a Swordfish at the Goodwood Revival meeting last year. Quite surprised at how big it was, in the films you seldom get a decent yardstick as to the size of a plane. It was also more modern - despite being a biplane - than we had been expecting.

 

[Grumpybear]

A carrier was designated to join that task force but some twats in the RN drove the carrier into a reef in the Caribbean. At the same time Churchill was struggling to convince the yanks we were a worthy military ally, so a gesture to engage had to be made.

God thing too. In all probability Indomitable would have followed the other two to the bottom: it was much later in the war before British carriers could embark fighters in adequate quantity, let alone quality. Fulmars and even Martlets would have struggled to catch the Jap bombers, whose gunners were used to seeing off similar and better American fighters flown against them in China, where they had been at war for several years. The USN, much more advanced in naval aviation than the RN, had a hard time of it against the JNAF until they wore them down in 1943-4.

 

[Seajet]

The hit on the Bismarcks' rudder sealing her fate was from the Swordfish flown by the later Admiral Percy Gick, who went on in peacetime to build Emsworth Marina virtually with his bare hands.

Too true Naval Aviation was invented by the RN, along with steam catapult, mirror landing guidance and angled flight decks.

Also sadly true the RN's worst enemy traditionally has been the RAF, who even in the 1960's scuppered the P-1154 'supersonic Harrier' in favour of the TSR2 lemon, and did the same thing again recently scrapping the Harrier - denuding the RN of air cover - in favour of the TSR2's equally lemon replacement, the Tornado !

The Admiralty were not blameless in all this though, the ship driving / cocktail party fraternity scrapping the Sea Harrier FA2 fighter , which had the best radar and weapons in Europe and was the aircraft a carrier would really want rather than or at least mixed with the GR7/9 bomber.

What's this about Missouri etc being nuclear bomb proof then ?

Modern warships have wash systems and air pressurised citadels to deal with radioactive fallout, but as for being under a direct blast, include me out !

 

[Daydream believer]

The Missouri, like the new jersey were adapted to nuclear power after WW 2. They were not able to withstand a direct hit from a small device. Basically a nuclear bomb would just dig a hole so big it would dig a battleship out of the water & vaporise it. The tidal wave would possibly capsize it if the bomb missed

 

[tidclacy]

How was this heavy armour plating fixed to the hull pls

Big single bits like turrets were cast, and most of the hull and deck plates were cast / rolled then rivetted into place.

By WWII there were moves to start using the armour as part of the ships' structure - prior to that, they were separate, and much of the armour wasn't "structural" as such.

Some of the first ships to do this, and to be electric welded (to save weight) were the Graf Spee class pocket battleships. Subsequently, most / all nations went down this route, but I think that there were problems associated with embrittlement in the process.

 

[sailorman]

Big single bits like turrets were cast, and most of the hull and deck plates were cast / rolled then rivetted into place.

By WWII there were moves to start using the armour as part of the ships' structure - prior to that, they were separate, and much of the armour wasn't "structural" as such.

Some of the first ships to do this, and to be electric welded (to save weight) were the Graf Spee class pocket battleships. Subsequently, most / all nations went down this route, but I think that there were problems associated with embrittlement in the process.

Thanks, some rivets

 

[Norman_E]

We had a good look around a Swordfish at the Goodwood Revival meeting last year. Quite surprised at how big it was, in the films you seldom get a decent yardstick as to the size of a plane. It was also more modern - despite being a biplane - than we had been expecting.

I read somewhere that the reason the Swordfish were able to get close enough to drop their torpedoes was that they were slow, and that the German anti aircraft gunnery systems were designed to target incoming aircraft at speeds of over 100 knots, with the result that their shells exploded short. It must have been pretty terrifying for the pilots to have shells bursting in front of them all the way in.

 

[photodog]

I read somewhere that the reason the Swordfish were able to get close enough to drop their torpedoes was that they were slow, and that the German anti aircraft gunnery systems were designed to target incoming aircraft at speeds of over 100 knots, with the result that their shells exploded short. It must have been pretty terrifying for the pilots to have shells bursting in front of them all the way in.

I did a big paper on the raid at Taranto for my degree....

The main reason why the aa gunnery was so inn effective was that they were shooting at the flares being dropped by the high level AC instead of the aircraft themselves... In the dark they really were not able to see the torpedo AC... And did not think a torpedo attack was possible due to the antitorpedo nets... The big secret for us at the time was the magnetic detonators fitted to the torpedos... Which allowed us to set them to run deeper and explode under the target.

The Italians fire millions of rounds at taranto... And didn't hit a thing...Well...not as much as they should have...

The Japanese were able to get their hands on a failed detonator and equip their own torpedos which allowed them to attack the fleet at pearl more effectivley.

 

[tidclacy]

Interesting to note that the blueprint for Taranto was actually a plan to attack the German High Seas Fleet at the end of World War One with torpedo bombers. The war ended before it could be carried out.

The concept was sound, and was first used to great effect by the British 23 years later against the Italian fleet at Taranto in 1940. This raid greatly influenced the Japanese thinking prior to Pearl Harbour.

At the end of WW1 Britain sent a task force to Japan to demonstrate the concept of torpedo bombers!

 

[Grumpybear]

Interesting to note that the blueprint for Taranto was actually a plan to attack the German High Seas Fleet at the end of World War One with torpedo bombers. The war ended before it could be carried out.

The concept was sound, and was first used to great effect by the British 23 years later against the Italian fleet at Taranto in 1940. This raid greatly influenced the Japanese thinking prior to Pearl Harbour.

At the end of WW1 Britain sent a task force to Japan to demonstrate the concept of torpedo bombers!

And between the wars a gang of ex RNAS aviators sold technical and operational secrets to the Japanese. When they were found out, the matter was hushed up because the gang leader was a Marquis.

 

[Norman_E]

Interesting to note that the blueprint for Taranto was actually a plan to attack the German High Seas Fleet at the end of World War One with torpedo bombers. The war ended before it could be carried out.

The concept was sound, and was first used to great effect by the British 23 years later against the Italian fleet at Taranto in 1940. This raid greatly influenced the Japanese thinking prior to Pearl Harbour.

At the end of WW1 Britain sent a task force to Japan to demonstrate the concept of torpedo bombers!

We should not forget that in WW1 Japan was on our side and their navy played a big part in securing the sea lanes in the Far East. Early in the war their ships joined the effort to track and find the Emden.

 

[Grumpybear]

We should not forget that in WW1 Japan was on our side and their navy played a big part in securing the sea lanes in the Far East. Early in the war their ships joined the effort to track and find the Emden.

And afterwards we terminated our alliance with Japan so as not to upset the Septics!