| Author |
Message |
    
Michael Cundiff
Member
Username: robin
Post Number: 827
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2009 - 11:00 pm: | 
|
On a seperate thread (Edmund Fitzgerald), we steered off track and went into H.M.S. HOOD.
At any rate Michael Standart & I were mentioning the BISMARCK's 16" armor piercing rnds. fired upon HOOD. Have you seen the actual footage of these rounds being fired, footage taken from the nearby PRINZ EUGEN, complete with sound. Awesom!
Michael Cundiff
NV, USA |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 24988
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2009 - 1:21 am: |
|
Actually, both the Hood and the Bismarck had 15" guns. Anybody interested can see some technical data on these weapons at the following websites.
HMS Hood: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_15-42_mk1.htm
DKM Bismarck: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_15-52_skc34.htm
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Alyson Jones
Member
Username: firefoxy
Post Number: 728
Registered: 11-2008
| | Posted on Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 2:01 am: |
|
I have just learnt something on a WW2 forum,about Bismarck and the Hood.
Bismarck maybe newer and bigger but she was built by a German company that as not built a war ship in a decade,mean while the Hood was built by the Royal Navy,which are the top guns of building war ships in there carrier.
Turns out that the Bismarck was kind of not living up to her name, like History protrayed her to be. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 25288
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 2:48 am: |
|
>>Turns out that the Bismarck was kind of not living up to her name, like History protrayed her to be.<<
That's actually very close to the reality. While often portrayed as the Death Star of the age, in many respects, the Bismarck was actually quite backward.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Stanley C Jenkins
Member
Username: stanley_c_jenkins
Post Number: 586
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 12:36 pm: |
|
The Hood was built by J.Brown & Co, rather than the Navy, although the British Navy could (and did) construct ships in its own dockyards at Portsmouth, Devonport and elsewhere. She was one of the greatest warships of her day but, as a battlecruiser she was fast but not as well armoured as a "full" battleship. Having said that, I think the Germans were lucky to sink her as they did on 24th May 1941, though as it turned out their victory was of the Pyrrhic kind. |
Alyson Jones
Member
Username: firefoxy
Post Number: 738
Registered: 11-2008
| | Posted on Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 1:08 pm: |
|
Hi Fella's.
Michael sir. You agree with me on this,i was not expecting you too!i'm quite please with myself.
Stanley. I agree with you about Germany being lucky with Hood. I really do think that if the hood was an battle ship and not a cruiser,she would have made Bismarck run for her money.
Another thing about the Bismarck,the Germans built her over the international limit law.Means every ship built were not aloud to be built over a certain limit, which the Bismarck was over the limit causing her too be bigger than what she was suppose to be.Making a slight difference in battle. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 25311
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, February 8, 2009 - 3:26 am: |
|
>>as a battlecruiser she was fast but not as well armoured as a "full" battleship.<<
That's not entirely accurate I'm afraid. It would be more accurate to say that the Hood was armoured to the standards of what became known as a fast battleship with her armour accounting for up to 33% of the ship's weight. Compare this with the HMS Nelson (29%) or the HMS King George V at 36%.
The problem here is that the armour protection was done to the standards of World War One where battle ranges were shorter and plunging fire wasn't much of a problem even if it was trotted out as a handy excuse for the failings of contemporary warships. By World War Two, plunging fire was a very real problem and the Hood was not up to dealing with what the Bismarck could dish out.
If you have a copy of the late Antony Preston's "The Worlds Worst Warships" you can see his write up starting on page 96. The Bismarck has an entry in the same book starting on age 148. There's some really interesting stuff there which trashes a lot of the myths.
>>Another thing about the Bismarck,the Germans built her over the international limit law.<<
Actually, you'll find that just about everybody did that during the time the Washington Treaty which limited naval armaments was in effect, either through
a) "creative" measurements of the ships tonnage which had nothing to do with the actual weight of the ship or
b) Simply doing whatever they wanted and lying about it on the official paperwork.
The problems with the Bismarck didn't come from the ship being too big but in not making the most of what they had available to build a better ship which was up to the same standards as the rest of the world.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Alyson Jones
Member
Username: firefoxy
Post Number: 748
Registered: 11-2008
| | Posted on Sunday, February 8, 2009 - 3:45 am: |
|
>>Actually, you'll find that just about everybody did that during the time the Washington Treaty which limited naval armaments was in effect<<
Ok. fair enough.
Michael sir.I know the Hood was very great for her time. But when ww2 came up she was an older ship,could her age have something to do with her failure with the Bismarck? I do believe that the Hood design was a great design but her age? |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 25317
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, February 8, 2009 - 4:01 am: |
|
>>But when ww2 came up she was an older ship,could her age have something to do with her failure with the Bismarck? <<
That was part of it. Pitting a World War One vintage warship against a warship of a later era was like pitting a Victorian pre-dreadnaught against one of the super-dreadnaughts which fought at Jutland and with the same predictable consequences.
Hood might have made a better showing for herself had pre-war economies not got in the way of essential repairs, maintainance, and modernisation. As it was, by the time of this battle, the ship was worn out, in desperate need of an overhaul, and didn't benefit from having her deck armour beefed up as had been planned.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Alyson Jones
Member
Username: firefoxy
Post Number: 749
Registered: 11-2008
| | Posted on Sunday, February 8, 2009 - 4:09 am: |
|
Omg.Michael sir. That's what i said on the ww2 forum (in my own words)and they still reckon Bismarck was the greater ship. That really peed me off.
May i use you're wordings in you're postings please?
Too me Bismarck was not that great as everyone thinks she is!meanning bad points |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 25323
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, February 8, 2009 - 4:38 am: |
|
>>May i use you're wordings in you're postings please? <<
So long as you note that I was the source. However, you would be better served by digging into your own sources and using them to back up any arguements you have. At best, I'm just a member in a forum with some firm opinions and a bit of information to offer.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Alyson Jones
Member
Username: firefoxy
Post Number: 750
Registered: 11-2008
| | Posted on Sunday, February 8, 2009 - 5:57 am: |
|
Thank you Michael sir. I can trust that you're information is right,you are an expert!
I could do my own study , but i still need to word it in more of an adult way,which you're wordings are perfect. |
Stanley C Jenkins
Member
Username: stanley_c_jenkins
Post Number: 587
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, February 8, 2009 - 11:42 am: |
|
>>the armour protection was done to the standards of World War One where battle ranges were shorter and plunging fire wasn't much of a problem<<
Well that's not entirely correct because three of the Hood's "half-sister" were blown up by plunging fire during the Battle of Jutland. The so-called battlecrusers were not battleships, and they should never have been matched against "full" battleships such as The Bismark.
The age of the Hood was not as important as the fact that she went to war without being modernised and up-graded. HMS Warspite, an older vessel, had been modernised and, in her rebuilt condition, she served with distinction throughout World War II (and should have been preserved).
I think the main point about HMS Hood is, she was built for peacetime duties as nobody could have imagined that there would be another major war so soon after the 1914-18 "War to End Wars". To that extent, her designers persisted with the lightly-armoured battlecruiser concept despite the loss of three similar vessels in World war I. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 25331
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, February 9, 2009 - 3:29 am: |
|
>>Well that's not entirely correct because three of the Hood's "half-sister" were blown up by plunging fire during the Battle of Jutland.<<
Actually, they weren't, although that was the excuse given at the time. You can read the whole sordid tale in Friedman's "Firepower" but the short version is that they overloaded the main magazines. This might not have been so much of an issue were it not for the fact that the propellant charges were removed from their storage containers to speed up handling. Worse, they were set up in the hoists leading all the way down into the powder magazine so when a shell hit a turret top and penetrated, it essentially lit a fuse which flashed all the way down into the magazines themselves.
This much was figured out shortly after Jutland but it was covered up at the time.
With her armour accounting for 33% of the ship's actual displacement, I wouldn't say she was lightly protected. Unfortunately, the scheme used was hopelessly obsolete.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Jeff Brebner
Member
Username: wheeds
Post Number: 48
Registered: 4-2008
| | Posted on Monday, February 9, 2009 - 6:26 pm: |
|
That's very interesting about the Jutland ships. I hadn't heard that. What was it the admiral said, "There seems to be something wrong with our ships today"? I'll have to track down a copy of that book. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 25357
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, February 9, 2009 - 6:48 pm: |
|
>>What was it the admiral said, "There seems to be something wrong with our ships today"?<<
Yep. He was one of the officers who drew a reprimand for it in the wake of the investigation too since he knew about the overloading of the magazines and the shortcuts which were being taken. Trouble was that this sort of thing doesn't look all that good in wartime so the matter was covered up, the official line about weak armour and plunging fire was trotted out, the report was buried, the reprimand canceled, and the investigating officer was re-assigned to the China Station.
>>I'll have to track down a copy of that book.<<
Not a problem. Go to http://www.amazon.com/Naval-Firepower-Battleship-Gunnery-Dreadnought/dp/1844157016/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234205117&sr=1-3
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Stanley C Jenkins
Member
Username: stanley_c_jenkins
Post Number: 588
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Monday, February 9, 2009 - 7:23 pm: |
|
I did not say that HMS Hood was lightly armoured. On the contrary, I said she was “was one of the greatest warships of her day”. In fact, many people would have argued that, in the 1930s, the “Mighty Hood” was the pride of the British Navy – a huge ship with an overall length of 860 ft and eight 15-inch guns. I did, however, suggest that she was not as well armoured as a "full" battleship.
There are two main theories regarding the loss of the Hood and her half-sisters Queen Mary, Indefatigable and Invincible, one of which blames their thin deck armour, while the other blames flash fires caused by premature detonation of ammunition which caused a chain reaction in the ammunition supply system.
On a footnote, it is interesting to note that Admiral Beatty (who had said “something’s wrong with our bloody ships today” when his battle-cruisers began blowing up) had a grandmother who had been buried twice in the family vault at Killurin, once in 1846 when she was not quite dead, and then in 1848 when she was really dead. It is said that, on the first occasion, she had woken up from a coma when her butler tried to cut off one of her fingers to steal a ring – the butler, thinking that she had risen from the dead ran away in terror. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 25361
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2009 - 4:40 am: |
|
Errr...what you said was "To that extent, her designers persisted with the lightly-armoured battlecruiser concept despite the loss of three similar vessels in World war I."
Given the amount of the ship's weight devoted to armour protection, asserting that the Hood was lightly armoured doesn't quite hold up under close examination. The thin deck armour doesn't hold up well either since divers who examined the wrecks of the Queen Mary and Indefatigable found that the armoured decks had not been penetrated. (Yes, they went down for a look see.)
What actually happened to these two ships is a bit more then a theory since the real issues were worked out at the time. The thing is, you don't just admit to the public in wartime that three capital ships were lost because you were taking shortcuts with safety in ammunition handling and stowage.
It's embarrassing!
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Stanley C Jenkins
Member
Username: stanley_c_jenkins
Post Number: 589
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2009 - 11:57 am: |
|
I have not said that the Hood was lightly armoured. I said she was not a "full" battleship because certain compromises were built in to her design. The operative words are "battlecruiser concept", which is surely well understood by most historians - the battlecruisers being strange hybrids which were far more like battleships than cruisers. To say that HMS Hood was "lightly armoured" without these important qualifications is to grossly misrepresent my original meaning. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 25384
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2009 - 4:37 pm: |
|
To say that she was armoured according to the battlecruiser concept is also misleading. Compare Hood's armour accounting for 33% of the ship's displacement to the Invincible's which amounted to only 20%.
The Hood was more of a fast battleship then a battlecruiser. The problem here was that the armouring scheme itself was already obsolete when the ship was laid down. The USS Navada had pioneered the 'all or nothing' concept in 1911.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Stanley C Jenkins
Member
Username: stanley_c_jenkins
Post Number: 590
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2009 - 9:25 pm: |
|
I agree that the Hood was more of a battleship than a battlecruiser, as her designers had obviously considered that the faults inherent in the original "battlecruisers" had been rectified by the provision of additional protection.
It could be argued, however, that the very term “battlecruiser” is misleading, and open to more than one interpretation. It obviously meant something in Admiral Jackie Fisher’s mind when he was pushing the battlecriuser concept – a concept taken to extremes by Admiral Fisher’s three “tin-clads”, the Furious, Glorious and Courageous, huge ships (and therefore obvious targets) which had only 3-inch vertical protection and were popularly known the “Curious”, “Spurious” and “Outrageous”. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 25400
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - 4:18 am: |
|
>>It could be argued, however, that the very term “battlecruiser” is misleading, and open to more than one interpretation.<<
And probably by deliberate design too. The original operating concept was to use them as commerce raiders, and what this got the Navy were overgunned heavy cruisers. The mistake...the really BIG mistake...was to use them in the battle line where they were clearly unsuitable for ship to ship combat with a full battleship.
The post war economies being what they are, it was probably a lot easier to sell a battlecruiser then a battleship, especially the one unit that was already reasonably well advanced in construction. Hence the name game which sold well but was completely divorced from reality.
>>a concept taken to extremes by Admiral Fisher’s three “tin-clads”, the Furious, Glorious and Courageous, huge ships (and therefore obvious targets) which had only 3-inch vertical protection and were popularly known the “Curious”, “Spurious” and “Outrageous”.<<
Three outrageously unpopular and unsuccessful ships. The 18" gun on the Furious was rarely fired and the monsterous recoil actually caused some signifigent structural damage. At least they saw useful service when converted to aircraft carriers.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Stanley C Jenkins
Member
Username: stanley_c_jenkins
Post Number: 591
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - 4:45 pm: |
|
I don't think Admiral Fisher's battlecruisers were intended for commerce raiding because Britain did not, in general, "do" commerce raiding. I thought that battlecruisers such as the Inflexible and Invincible were intended to seek out and destroy enemy commerce raiders, which meant that they had to be more powerful than the German cruisers used for commerce raiding. The British battlecruisers were highly effective at the Battle of the Falkland Islands, when they destroyed Admiral Spee's cruiser squadron.
If used in a major engagement, in conjunction with "full" battleships, they would form a fast division which would seek out the enemy and, if necessary, engage the enemy's own battlecruisers. At Jutland, they were used as "bait" for the German battleships - a risky task, but one that would have been successful if the Germans had not made two 180 degree turns in order to run away. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 25418
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 2:54 am: |
|
>>I thought that battlecruisers such as the Inflexible and Invincible were intended to seek out and destroy enemy commerce raiders, which meant that they had to be more powerful than the German cruisers used for commerce raiding.<<
Mmmmmm...point taken. Whatever the case may be, it was never intended that they slug it out with a fully armoured battleship. Cruisers are one thing and it was intended that they have the speed to match them and the firepower to outgun them.
Going up against a battleship, which had much better protection, that was another matter entirely. Unfortunately, the lure of the firepower they offered overruled their glaring deficiencies in protection.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Jim Hathaway
Member
Username: compassrose
Post Number: 305
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 4, 2009 - 11:40 pm: |
|
Perhaps an example of overspecialization in warship design?
Honjitsu tenki seiro naredomo nami takashi-...
Akiyama Saneyuki
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 26429
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, April 5, 2009 - 4:31 am: |
|
>>Perhaps an example of overspecialization in warship design?<<
More like overthinking the problem, then using the ships in roles for which they were not designed. Gaurre de course is an old and respected tactic but hardly the sort of thing you need such overwhelming firepower for. The idea was to be powerful enough, well protected enough and fast enough to deal with heavy cruisers while avoiding combat with battleships.
It was forgetting the "Avoid combat with battleships" part which led to trouble. For the British in World War One, there was also the matter of overloading the magazines which led to some incredibly dangerous conditions. If they hadn't been in the habit of having bags of uncased powder in the hoists leading all the way into the magazines, some of these ships would most likely have survived.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
