The Loss of the HMS Hood

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by QLB, Jan 4, 2017.

  1. QLB

    QLB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Messages:
    11,696
    Likes Received:
    2,019
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've been intrigued about what exactly happened in the Denmark Straits on that fateful May 24th, 1941. That the Hood was sunk and lost with all but 3 men is not in doubt. The consensus is that the after 4 inch magazines and/or adjacent 15 inch magazine was penetrated by one of Bismarck's own 15 inch AP shell leading to her loss. Underwater naval forensic analysis also shows this to be true. The big question is just how did the Bismarck's shell get into the magazine in the first place?
    A lot has been said about the lack of armor on the Hood and while true, the Hood was really a fast battleship and not a battlecruiser. While executing her last 2 Blue turn the ship had was largely approaching its so called "zone of immunity." I've looked at the specifics of the sea fight, examine gun performance data, surviving gun plots and armor penetration tables and I have a number of conclusions.
    1) Pre-war assessment of the Hood showed that there was a shallow zone of vulnerability just below the waterline and under the heavy main belt where a shell could easily penetrate into the magazines. Unlike the Bismarck the Hood's anti-torpedo bulkhead was not armored. However for this to happen the ship would have had to completed her last turn to port.
    2) Penetration of the middle 7inch main belt armor and through the thin inclined deck armor into the magazines, another Admiralty concern. However the range do this is longer than most have estimated.
    3) Penetration of the main deck somewhere about the aft funnel. However armor protection was deemed adequate.
    4) It wouldn't have mattered where the hit was because the British armor was not as good as stated and the German shell penetration better than anticipated. There's something to his. British class B homogenous deck armor was only deemed adequate while vertical protection with cemented armor was considered excellent. The Hood was over 20 years old and had her armor deteriorated or was never as good as stated.
    No one will ever know for sure, but it makes for good debate.
     
  2. Germania

    Germania Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2014
    Messages:
    498
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    It's simple, from 15 miles away the Bismark fired rounds from one of its main guns. At that range it was hard to aim preciously anywhere, and there was no need to given how powerful the rounds were. The round hit it near the center area of the ship and blew it in half. About half were killed our seriously injured immediately, and the vast majority of the other half drowned to death. Many slowly drowned to death whilst injured
     
    Dayton3 likes this.
  3. Deckel

    Deckel Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    Messages:
    17,608
    Likes Received:
    2,043
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not likely. The crew that was not trapped/already killed got sucked under with the ship. The survivors reported they were sucked under as well but managed to survive because a large expulsion of air from the ship propelled them to the surface.
     
  4. Germania

    Germania Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2014
    Messages:
    498
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Confirming much of what I said. I'm sure many survived, and we're sucked under. Slowly drowning, some wounded. Some weren't injured but died due to the elements and time. Some may of been sucked under and not popped up. Some weren't
     
  5. Greataxe

    Greataxe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    9,400
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Another reason why battleships are obsolete.
     
  6. QLB

    QLB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Messages:
    11,696
    Likes Received:
    2,019
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They were obsolescent then. That's not the point though. The big question is how were the magazines penetrated in the first place. Was it the amour that failed, was it the degree of protection or was it a design flaw in the first place? You have to realize that even late 1930's Class A and B battleship armor would defeat all/most cruise missiles today with regards to horizontal protection. Vertical protection is a bit more dicey, but not by much.
     
  7. Greataxe

    Greataxe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    9,400
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    From what little I know, it was a lucky shot by a superior projectile against inferior armor. The Hood was designed to be fast---and armor was sacrificed.

    As no navy is building them, they are too expensive. Much cheaper to load up bombers and missiles and blast the target from the air.
     
  8. QLB

    QLB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Messages:
    11,696
    Likes Received:
    2,019
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're missing the point. This is not about the feasibility of battleships. It's about how the German shell got into the magazine. German AP projectiles were accurate with excellent fuses, perhaps the best but armor piercing capability was only average. Here's the big mystery. There were zones of vulnerability to the Hood which were well known, however the specific scenarios in which this could happen didn't exist......or did they really and were a lot of people wrong. Range, bearing of the Hood to the Bismarck and angle of fall were all important and if you do the calculations according the surviving gun plots and to eye witness reports, then the conditions for penetration just weren't there. BTW, British Class A KC armor was considered the best in the world. This was used for vertical protection. The Class B armor was used for horizontal protection was average, but still good. Not nearly as good as US Class B armor which was excellent. There are only so many ways into the magazines.
     
  9. QLB

    QLB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Messages:
    11,696
    Likes Received:
    2,019
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's completely wrong. The bursting charge of an AP shell is really quite small and it doesn't even have to explode to cause lots of damage. Even penetration into the shell magazine might not be fatal because of the explosives used are very resistant to sympathetic detonation. It's a different story in the powder rooms which is what happened. There were only 3 survivors to Hood as she went down, there were no swimmers and no bodies ever recovered. Also the battle was conducted well short of 15 miles. The longest hits ever on a moving target by a battleship gun was slightly in excess of 26,000 yards (15 miles) and only happened twice with single hits each, both of which were considered lucky shots.
     
  10. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nothing to debate, the Hood was already under construction by the time of the battle of Jutland and it was to late by the time the lessons that were learned at Jutland could be incorporated into the Hood. The Hood wasn't combat survivable by the time it was launched in 1920.

    If the Bismark was 15 miles from the Hood, it's likely the Bismark's 15" projectiles were plunging on the deck and superstructure.

    The further a naval gun AP round is from it target the less penetration to side armor plating. But the further it is from deck armor plating the more penetration of the deck armor.

    The Bismark's 15" gun AP round at 5,000 yards would penetrate 24 1/4" of side armor and a plunging round only 3/4" of deck armor.

    At 29,528 yards it would penetrate 11.98 " of side armor but penetrate 5" of deck armor.

    The Hood's deck armor was from 3" to 1 1/2" thick.
     
    Dayton3 likes this.
  11. QLB

    QLB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Messages:
    11,696
    Likes Received:
    2,019
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm well aware of armor penetration tables and the ship's armor suite was upgraded from previous the initial design. That's why she took two years after launch to be fitted out. She was really a fast battleship and for practical purposes her armor was nearly the equivalent if not the equal of the QE class as built, not a lightweight group of ships. The estimated range of the Hood by the PoW was 15,000 to no more than 16,500 yards The PoW hit the Bismarck 3 times and had better ranging equipment. German estimates by the surviving artillery officer of the Bismarck was at less than 19,000 but range estimation was not his duty. Prinz Eugen data is much closer to the British. In fact, by the time the ship began her 2 Blue turn to port the Hood had entered her zone of immunity. That was the intent and why the turn was made. There's a lot debatable here. Like I said, there are only so many ways into the magazines, plus the data suggested the Germans fused the shells to .035 sec instead of .070 sec. For the ship to be penetrated just below the waterline she would have had to nearly completed her turn to port. Did she? This was never fully answered. The other way was penetration of the 7 inch middle belt then through the 3 inch deck belt but the Bismark would have had to have been at greater than 19,000 yards. The third way is a hit, just aft of the rear funnel. Two possibilities here but both would have had to failure of the armor or was the shell deflected through the engine room bulkheads, essentially the magic BB.
    FYI, construction of the Hood didn't even start till several months after Jutland. Very bad data there Apach.
     
  12. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    38 cm (14.96") SK C/34 -> http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_15-52_skc34.php

    Decent article -> Armor Schemes on W.W.II Battleships -> http://www.chuckhawks.com/armor_schemes.htm

    Then there are the Iowa class BB's.

    Iowa Class: Armor Protection

    One of the main characteristics of a battleship is its ability to withstand an attack. Few ships from the past and no modern ships can equal the survivability of the Iowa Class Battleships. The decision of where to armor and how much armor to use is a very complicated and sometimes frustrating process. Simply adding armor can not be done since this greatly increases weight and reduces the top speed of the ship. The process of protecting a battleship is an art that has been perfected over decades of battleship design. Iowa Class Battleships are an excellent example of superior armor protection and high top speed.
    The armor systems of the Iowa Class ships can be divided into two basic sections. First is the above water armor, which is designed to protect the ship against gun fire and aerial bombing. The second is the below water armor (side protective and triple bottom armor), which is designed to protect the vessel from mines, near miss bombs and of course, torpedoes.

    All the systems needed to keep these ship's combat effective such as magazines, engineering spaces, steering, plotting rooms, command & control, weapons, etc. are protected by heavy armor. The armor box, referred to as the citadel, extends from just forward of Turret 1 to just aft of Turret III. The top, sides and ends of the citadel are heavily armored, however the bottom is not ballistically protected. Critical systems located outside the citadel such as the turrets, conning tower, fire control, directors, etc. are armored extensions of the citadel...
    Iowa Class: Armor Protection - Naval History Forums

    The Armor:

    Armor
    The second basic factor, after firepower, to be considered was Iowa class armor. The armor scheme was a copy of the armor used on North Carolina and South Dakota, only thicker. This armor could, in theory, stop a 16-inch shell coming in at a 45-degree angle. There was some idle talk about making the Iowa class armor tough enough to stop an 18-inch shell, but BDAB dropped the idea when it realized how much more weight and redesign work it would take.

    Nickel-steel was used to manufacture the armor. This type of steel is a kind of stainless steel which has the added benefits that it does not corrode quickly, but bends easily. Nickel-steel was not a new material. From the start, armored warships like USS Indiana (BB-1) used this type of steel. One 17 1/2 inch belt of the nickel-steel ran from the deck to the below water line on both sides of the ship and covered the middle 2/3 of the ship. Eighteen inch plates were used in the turrets and 11 1/2 inch plates were placed on the decks.

    It is interesting to note that much of the Iowa class's armor is just as thick as battleships built 50 years earlier. Wisconsin and her sisters, however, benefitted from advances in steel technology that allowed mills to forge the steel at higher temperatures and heat treatment, which in turn produced a much higher quality steel that was stronger and more elastic. Two plants, Bethehelm Steel's main mill in Bethehelm, PA and Luken Steel's Coatsville mill just ouside Phildadelphia, manufactured most of the armor plating. For the turret plate, however, a special forge was constructed just for the Iowa-class at the Charleston Ordnance Works in Charleston, WV...
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/bb-61-design.htm


    Unlike modern warships, which operate on the concept of eliminating an incoming threat (anti-ship missiles or enemy aircraft) before the given threat strikes a ship and thus carry lighter armor, the Iowa-class was designed and built in an age when ships were expected to withstand an onslaught of naval shells from enemy ships, emplaced coastal defenses from fortified enemy positions near the coast, and the increasing threat of gunfire and armour piercing/ incendiary bombs dropped by enemy fighter and bomber aircraft. Like most World War II era battleships, the Iowa-class was equipped with class B armor plate designed to a post Jutland design (the "all or nothing" armor scheme), but unlike earlier WWII-era battleship, the Iowas benefitted from advances in steel technology that allowed mills to forge the steel at higher temperatures and heat treatment, which produced a much higher-quality, stronger and more elastic armor. The metal was a nickel-steel compound, classified as a stainless steel, that can bend easily and resists corrosion. Most of the armor was manufactured at Bethlehem Steel’s main mill in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and Luken Steel’s Coatsville mill just outside Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The exception was the turret plating, which was forged at a plant built especially for the Iowas: the Charleston Ordnance Works in Charleston, West Virginia...

     
  13. QLB

    QLB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Messages:
    11,696
    Likes Received:
    2,019
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We are not talking about the Iowa. The scenarios regarding the Hood and Admiralty concerns did not exist during the battle during the best of analysis or essentially the Hood was not hit during the time of vulnerability. The Hood was probably at a bearing of 60 to 70 degrees from the Bismarck, certainly well in excess of 45 degrees. The degree of obliquity does not allow penetration of the main belt. 30 degrees essentially doubles the armor thickness, 45 degrees triples it. The Hood was certainly at least as well armored as the Kirishima if not better and the latter was pounded by far better 16 inch guns from the Washington at much closer ranges.
     
  14. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's more fun debating the Iowa's, the only way an Iowa can be sunk is by breaking it's keel.

    Nobody will never know what exactly caused the explosion in the Hoods aft 15" magazine. Was it hit by a German 15" AP projectile ???

    More likely from the spreading fire on the Hood. The Hood was hit by a salvo from the Prinz Eugen 8" guns, not AP rounds but HE rounds setting the weather deck on fire. Not sure if the Hoods secondary 5" guns were removed by this time but if not you could bet there were bags of cordite all over the ship in the ready use boxes that our on deck and have little protection. The Hood's 4" guns like wise but they used shells not powder bags.

    Battle damage procedures hadn't been perfected yet in 1941 and would be learned in the Pacific.

    Don't know what kind of decks the Hood had inside the ship, the U.S. Navy decks were of linoleum and by 1942 it was learned you don't use linoleum on warships. Linoleum burns and burns fast and hot and spreads very quickly.

    It's possible one of the Bismark's 15" AP rounds could have penetrated either the hull or the deck and hit the aft 15" magazine but we will likely never know. I'm going with the spread of fire.
     
    Dayton3 likes this.
  15. QLB

    QLB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Messages:
    11,696
    Likes Received:
    2,019
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope, that didn't happen. There was no way into the magazines and the fire was from ready to use 4 inch ammo lockers on deck. There was no physical connection. The order was to let the fire burn itself out. There was no danger to the ship from the fire. The major event was from a magazine detonation with a powder conflagration being the culprit. The after 4 inch mag makes sense, and the 15 inch powder rooms would have been much harder to reach. The 4 inch cartridges were also not full assembled in the magazines.
     
  16. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The fire from burning rocket fuel from a cruise missile would still kill a battleship even if it didn't penetrate the armor.
     
  17. QLB

    QLB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Messages:
    11,696
    Likes Received:
    2,019
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Besides scorching the paint can you tell me how that works?
     
  18. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You don't have to sink a battleship to kill it. You kill the crew with fire and wreck everything above the armor belt by burning it down, its effectively dead.
     
  19. QLB

    QLB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Messages:
    11,696
    Likes Received:
    2,019
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Uh, they have damage control and much of the crew is behind armor or in multiple compartments. What exactly do you mean by everything above the armor belt? The SMS Derfflinger was hit 17 times by heavy shells and 9 times by secondary armament at the Skagerak including several hits by the same type guns the HOOD carried. And that is with WW1 technology. Yet the Iron Dog never left the line of battle. Do you have any idea of how modern warheads work or are fused?
    Could you also define what LMAO, burning it down means?
     
  20. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    WWI shells don't result in fires that can't be put out with water, that burn as hot as, and that that release toxic gasses like rocket fuel does.

    Modern warfare requires radar and other electronic gear that an anti-ship missile will destroy. The fire will wreck CIWS installations and destroy anything outside of the ship's armor. At that point, attackers would be free to continue to pour anti-ship missiles into it until the fire overwhelms the ability of the ship to sustain it.
     
  21. QLB

    QLB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Messages:
    11,696
    Likes Received:
    2,019
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We are not talking about a what if. The post is about a specific battle, the Denmark Straits and how the HMS Hood's magazines were penetrated. You're off topic and are talking fantasy. You're also talking about multiple hits. BTW do you know what fuel cruise missiles use? Money says you don't. Fuel is pretty much expended at the end of the run. The warhead must penetrate and the fusing must survive the impact.
     
  22. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nor is it a matter of killing the crew. Just knock out the electronics above deck and the ship is blind. At that point it is no longer battle capable and is irrelevant.
     
  23. Johnny Brady

    Johnny Brady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,377
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Maybe the Hood's armour took several previous hits that weakened it before the fatal hit?
    How many hits can armour take before beginning to crack or the welds,bolts and joints become loose?
    Also she was a 'battlecruiser' so her armour wasn't quite as beefy as a battleship.
    (Wiki- A battlecruiser, or battle cruiser...were similar in size, cost, and armament to battleships, but they generally carried less armour in order to obtain faster speeds.)

    PS- My late mother was 19 when the Hood was sunk and she told me that her local neighbourhood in Leicester, England was very sad and subdued when they heard that a local sailor (I think she said his name was Ron Kemp or something similar) went down with the Hood.
     
  24. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fuel is only expended at the end of the run if the run is to its maximum range.
     
  25. vonsigler

    vonsigler Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2011
    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18

Share This Page