The sinking of HMS HOOD - on TV now

Can somebody explain a conclusion made in the TV programme?
Towards the end, I think they said that because the rudder wasn't damaged, it proved that the ship had been turning correctly according to specified tactics.
Or similar statement.
I'm sure they are correct, but the significance escapes me
 
Steaming directly towards Bismark only allowed the A and B turrets the ablility to engage plus minimizing the hull shape for a hit from Bismark.

When in range (15,000 yards?) a command to steer "RED xx° would allow the X and Y turrets to bear and give them the ability to engage the enemy.

Because she sunk so suddenly suggest that she was in the act of turning to port at the time she blew up as the rudder was held to port when found on the sea floor.

.
 
Naval Gunnery

BTW, D of y was the same class as Anson Howe and KGV.
I suppose that, as a navigating specialist, I would be a bit scathing about the gunnery branch, who liked to do everything at the double and blow whistles. They also wore patent leather gaiters.
The big difference between naval gunnery and shore-mounted artillery, was the tendency of ships to move in three directions, and that this ship's movement had to be taken out by adjustments in two dimensions only. Add the ship's rolling and pitching, and you end up with what was niftily called "Gun canted trunnion training error". Sort that out!
I loathed guns and gunnery officers. I preferred to work with the carriers or the anti-submarine gang. I served twice with Percy Gick, known as the only four-stripe lieutenant in the navy. Story about him.
As a Rear Admiral he came on board HMS Cumberland to inspect the ship's company in best bib and tucker. All hands fell in except the laundry crew who worked round the clock. As he walked past the laundry, he heard the noise within, and demanded the door be opened.
It exposed the laundry Petty Officer dressed only in his underpants, who called his gang to attention. "Ship's laundry, sir"
The Adniral handed his sword to me, took off his trousers, handed them to the PO and ordered "Press these!" He stood there in his underwear while his troiusers were prseed.
Pronounced them well done, redressed and went on with his inspection.
Back to Jutland. The idea that it altered the war is no longer claimed. In our naval history lectures at Greenwich it was freely admitted to have been a shambles, poor signalling was a major fault and compounded poor ship-handling and station-keeping as well as mediocre gunnery.
The aim had been to destroy the German battlefleet so that the British fleet could enter the Baltic and commit mayhem. That was Boggy Fisher's strategy. It would have meant an early end to the war.
It wasn't until real naval officer training took place starting in the thirties that things began to improve and we got rid of the playboys. Many of these were discharged during the post Invergordon crisis, and later replaced by chosen merchant navy officers during the recession. These latter, then tragically out of work, were called the Hungry Hundred.They were to be very valuable from 1938 onward.
 
binch said:
The aim had been to destroy the German battlefleet so that the British fleet could enter the Baltic and commit mayhem. That was Boggy Fisher's strategy. It would have meant an early end to the war.
Click to expand...
No chance, I'm afraid. The draught of most British battleships was too great. No landing craft either. No logistic support. A Fisher pipedream, rather like Gallipoli.
 
Fascinating thread, much more so than most of the documentary was.

Did you see the footage of the old actor, Esmond Knight, talking about (and very realistically imitating) incoming shells?

He was blinded aboard the Prince of Wales during the battle, but went on to an illustrious acting career - in fact he played the captain of the Prince of Wales in the 1960 film, Sink The Bismarck.

Decades later he was on stage in the West End, in a play my mother had a small part in. She invited him to our Sussex home for a weekend. Somewhere we've pics of the old boy enjoying the sun in a deck-chair with my sister and I (just kiddies) playing on the grass. :rolleyes:
 
binch said:
The aim had been to destroy the German battlefleet so that the British fleet could enter the Baltic and commit mayhem. That was Boggy Fisher's strategy. It would have meant an early end to the war.
Click to expand...

I thought the aim was to destroy the German fleet so they couldn't challenge the RN's supremacy at sea and therefore the blockade of Germany. Whilst they failed to do that the Germans never dared to go in for round two and remained in port until they sailed to scapa flow to surrender in 1918. This means that from a tactical point of view the RN could claim a victory because they remained masters of the worlds seas. The Germans could claim a win because they weren't destroyed and sank more ships than they lost.

RN losses were mainly due to misusing battle cruisers. They should have been attached to the main battleship squadrons and used for heavy reconnaissance and to offer protection to the battleships from smaller faster cruisers. Instead they were formed into a squadron of their own and sent in against the German fleet ahead with no support from the better armoured battleships. After hey started taking a pounding then the dangers of the ammunition handling procedures made themselves obvious.

Still it would have been interesting to see what the results would have looked like if the Germans had stayed and fought rather than running for home as soon as they realised they were up against the Grand fleet.
 
Last edited:
QUOTE]

I thought it was Eugene Esmonde VC but I admit I haven't checked my facts[/QUOTE]

Esmomde led the attack on the German battleships Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, and cruiser Prinz Eugen when they made the channel dash from Brest back to Germany. Esmonde led a flight of six Swordfish against them without fighter cover and all were shot down as I remember.
 
Woodlouse said:
I thought the aim was to destroy the German fleet so they couldn't challenge the RN's supremacy at sea and therefore the blockade of Germany. Whilst they failed to do that the Germans never dared to go in for round two and remained in port until they sailed to scapa flow to surrender in 1918. This means that from a tactical point of view the RN could claim a victory because they remained masters of the worlds seas. The Germans could claim a win because they weren't destroyed and sank more ships than they lost.

RN losses were mainly due to misusing battle cruisers. They should have been attached to the main battleship squadrons and used for heavy reconnaissance and to offer protection to the battleships from smaller faster cruisers. Instead they were formed into a squadron of their own and sent in against the German fleet ahead with no support from the better armoured battleships. After hey started taking a pounding then the dangers of the ammunition handling procedures made themselves obvious.

Still it would have been interesting to see what the results would have looked like if the Germans had stayed and fought rather than running for home as soon as they realised they were up against the Grand fleet.
Click to expand...

The blockade had been in place since the start of the war and was one of the key factors in Germany's defeat.

Yes the continued existence of the High Seas Fleet tied up the Grand Fleet when they could have been doing other things but their primary purpose was to keep the High Seas Fleet in port.

Any one who suggests the Germans won has a very strange view of winning, the High Seas Fleet ran like a startled rabbit as soon as they realised that it was not just Beatty's battle cruisers they were fighting but the Grand Fleet. Or put it another way the Germans won so securely that they never needed to go to sea again except to surrender.
 
maxi77 said:
Any one who suggests the Germans won has a very strange view of winning, the High Seas Fleet ran like a startled rabbit as soon as they realised that it was not just Beatty's battle cruisers they were fighting but the Grand Fleet. Or put it another way the Germans won so securely that they never needed to go to sea again except to surrender.
Click to expand...

Actually, That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation, and what would consitute victory for either party,,,


In the UK's case victory would have been the destruction of the German fleet, to allow the uk total dominance.

Now, you would think that in germanys case they would have wanted to destroy the Royal navy.... And no doubt, that would have been nice...

But actually, the destruction of the royal navy's grand fleet would not have actually destroyed the royal navy as a threat... As they had many More resources that they could have deployed if needed...

The same situation existed in the Mediterranean in ww2... Britain could risk its fleet because of their depth of resources... The Italians couldn't...

The German grand fleet was a classical "fleet in being". Victory for them meant existing... Victory for the Germans meant denying victory to the Royal navy...

So they won. the royal navy failed to destroy the Germans Fleet, and therefore failed to take away it's threat... The quick way to victory for the Germans was to run away.l. If the royal navy didn't destroy them in this one chance... They lost.

The Germans fleet In being still existed.. And still denied the royal navy of total control as a consequence.
 
Grumpybear said:
God thing too. In all probability Indomitable would have followed the other two to the bottom
Click to expand...
We have been here before. Anyhow my main reason for posting was to address a criticism about "the prats" who sent the battleship to its demise without air cover. The risk was appreciated and Plan A was foiled by poor driving skills in the RN.

Your post also mirrors the dysfunctional thinking in the far East top brass during 1941. Prior to the war they were contemptuous about the military ability of slitty eyed oriental forces to threaten Singapore. Then when things were going badly on the Malay peninsula they ennobled the japs with mythical powers to explain away their own lack of ability.

Had Britain owned a panzer division and capable commander like Heinz Guderian and not sent it to France with the BEF in 1940, no doubt you would claim, "lucky escape otherwise the division would have been lost at Dunkirk".

Grumpybear said:
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
Click to expand...
At the time time Ark Royal was doing a sterling job in the bob alley that was the run to Malta. Indomitable was a modern carrier and more capable than you suggest.

Who knows how Admiral Phillips would have played his cards at Singapore given the knowledge a carrier was on its way two weeks behind.
 
Anyone else been in a Gun Turret of a warship when it is shooting?

It is VERY LOUD.

Needs painting afterwards. By me, usually, on HMS Glamorgan. 1975.
 
In that year, you could tell which weapon system had been recently used by watching me paint something shortly afterwards. The seaslug missile was big and the launcher huge. Painted by....me.
 
maxi77 said:
Any one who suggests the Germans won has a very strange view of winning, the High Seas Fleet ran like a startled rabbit as soon as they realised that it was not just Beatty's battle cruisers they were fighting but the Grand Fleet. Or put it another way the Germans won so securely that they never needed to go to sea again except to surrender.
Click to expand...

Quite right old chap after we let their shells fall on our boats and blow them up so that the resultant smokscreen would confused the nasty hun. We frightened them away by ensuring they noticed how many shells we were firing as they were landing all around them (intentional if we had wanted to hit them we would).

Loss of a few of our ships was no problem providing we scared them and by jove we did and anyone who suggests that they were frighten by our stupidity in continuing an action where we were losing so many ships does not understand the british way! After all whats a few chappies lost when we could get 50,000 shot in the first few hours of the Somme.

The leadership of the generals and admirals was outstanding in WW1 and the british navy is the best in the world and has nothing to learn from the inferior hun.

Long may this attitude prevail and the lower classes should not question their betters just learn to die quietly.
 
Sailfree said:
Quite right old chap after we let their shells fall on our boats and blow them up so that the resultant smokscreen would confused the nasty hun. We frightened them away by ensuring they noticed how many shells we were firing as they were landing all around them (intentional if we had wanted to hit them we would).

Loss of a few of our ships was no problem providing we scared them and by jove we did and anyone who suggests that they were frighten by our stupidity in continuing an action where we were losing so many ships does not understand the british way! After all whats a few chappies lost when we could get 50,000 shot in the first few hours of the Somme.

The leadership of the generals and admirals was outstanding in WW1 and the british navy is the best in the world and has nothing to learn from the inferior hun.

Long may this attitude prevail and the lower classes should not question their betters just learn to die quietly.
Click to expand...

Please remind me which side surrendered in the end? Twice......:rolleyes:
 
capnsensible said:
Please remind me which side surrendered in the end? Twice......:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Rereading the statics of US shipbuilding, manpower, aircraft etc makes any sensible person realise that its logistics and often not even superior equipments or tatics that won the war.

And for those that deride the Americans fighting ability look at their looses in the bombing campaign against germany, the losses of say Easy company (Band of Brothers) but more frightening are the losses of the US Marines in the pacific campaign.

The way they stuck at their objectives in the face of large losses was only eclipsed by the Russians on the eastern front. By comparison to those two goliaths we were pussy cats!!

If we look at germany we fought the rag tag and bobtail of the Wermach across europe and it still took us 10 months. Look at the losses at Arnham when we faced a decimated SS regiment that were there to rest and reform after suffering such horrendious losses on the Eastern Front. All the initial reading I did was very much written by the victors but later works were more analytical and give a better overview. With an open mind, cold unbiased analysis you can do things better next time around. Lack of this after WW1 caused many of the mistakes to be repeated in WW2.
 
Last edited:
Once America entered the war. the outcome was inevitable..

A population of 60 million without oil resereves cannot fight a population of 200 million with oil reserves.. in the end the Vermach simply did not have enough machines, guns, fuel or men to replace those being killed on the front and back lines...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

B
Halberg Rassey 31
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
2K
ashtead
ashtead
O
South Coast - Cheap boating option
4 5 6
Replies
107
Views
3K
Boathook
Boathook

Share this page

Top