HMS Hood sinking

[Dan Banks]

Just thought it was appropriate to mention that Hood was lost this morning 75 years ago.

[robertmelvin]

Dan, that was definitely worth pointing out. If I recall correctly there were what, three survivors out of her entire crew.

As to the test shots, I see they have given Hood the same exaggerated hull plating as the Merit/Trumpeter Yorktown and Enterprise. Comparing that to the YouTube footage above, this looks extremely inaccurate to say the least. I'll have to look over on the other site to try to find the thread where the conclusion was put forth that the kit is unbuildable. I would be very unlikely to have a go at the 1/200 kit under any circumstances though, as my interest is in USN and IJN subjects and I wouldn't have a place to display the beast if I did build, excuse me, assemble it.

Bob M.

[RaceFuel]

3 survivors of HMS Hood, the last of which, Ted Briggs, passed away 8 years ago.

What is interesting is that, IIRC, no remains were found on the surface after Briggs and the other two survivors were picked up by Electra. That's not to say that there were no other remains, but that the majority either went with the ship or were lost in the very tossing sea.

[hondaman117]

I was a little worried when the test shots showed the exaggerated plating, but in my opinion it is easier to reduce the plating than it is to completely re-create it. I'll probably tone down the plating on my 1/200 Hood when I work on it more like Channell's HMS Nelson, which looks very nice.

In regards to the sinking, it does seem likely that the remains and debris would be quickly swept away considering how stormy the North Atlantic was during the Bismarck chase. Also there was the obvious oil slick from Hood sinking, and I remember reading an interview that said the three survivors thought that others may have surfaced from the Hood, but ended up surfacing in the burning oil slick. The group of three didn't get picked up for close to 3 hours, which is a lot of time for nature to spread out the debris field.

I took a short moment of silence in honor of the Hood's crew at work today, and Friday morning I will probably do the same in honor of the crew of the Bismarck.

[robertmelvin]

As far as disbursal of any debris or bodies from the actual site of the sinking, you would also need to take into account the prevailing currents in the area of Hood's sinking at the time of her loss. It would be interesting to know how far from the spot Hood went down the three survivors were located, and in what direction any drift had taken them. Something else that could at least partially account for the lack of bodies floating in the immediate area of her sinking is the magnitude of the explosion or explosions that occurred as a result of the shell hit from either Bismark or Prince Eugen, as I understand there is some controversy over which ship fired the salvo that sank Hood. I gather, from what little I know because this is not something I'm acquainted with in depth, that Hood was literally split in two by the force of the explosion of a powder magazine and possibly some secondary explosions in quick succession. Gentlemen, please feel free to correct me on this if I'm wrong.

If the explosion or explosions resulting from the final shell hit were violent enough, if they had for lack of better terminology, sufficient explosive yield, the bodies of the crew in a certain proximity could have been vaporized. This would not account for the entire crew, but certainly an unknown portion of them. And, lest I sound ghoulish, I would suggest that any crew that were vaporized by the final explosions aboard Hood would have been the lucky ones.

Finally, Hood was certainly in combat condition (I'm not sure what the RN's term for that at the time was), with her crew at battle stations and water tight compartments sealed. You have to keep in mind that this would not have been like Titanic, where most of the passengers and a goodly number of the crew were on deck when she went down. With Hood, I would suspect that the majority of her crew were below decks in their sealed water tight compartments. They would had to have gone down with her.

On a side note, I suspect that many of us are only one generation removed from this being a living memory. For some members it may be a living memory. Unfortunately, for succeeding generations it has become more remote and I would venture to say that if you polled the American public today, not one in thousand could tell you anything about H.M.S. Hood and her loss. (I except from this members of this forum, and others like it. If you are a member here, you likely have an interest in history, and particularly naval history.) I aim this particularly at the American public education system, in which history seems to a subject that is now wandering in the wilderness. I can only hope that the subject is better treated in other countries, particularly in Europe. The men who gave their lives 75 years ago today deserve better than to be forgotten in such a relatively short, historically speaking, period of time. To borrow from Crosby, Stills and Nash, teach your children well.

Bob M.

[Fliger747]

Being equipped for the mostly pre aviation threat era there was much less topside crew, and a smaller total crew force than later ships. Hood had a smaller wartime compliment than a USN Baltimore Class Heavy Cruiser! Interesting that battle that the best shooting was done by two ships fresh out of workup and in their first days of combat steaming. Prince of Whales got three hits, two below the waterline, and a very minor topside hit that did sever the pneumatic line in the catapult used to launch the Arado, destroying the attempt to fly the Kriegstagbuch to safety. Would have been an interesting document!

The British actor Esmond Knight who played the PoW Captain in "Sink the Bismarck" was actually on the bridge in the battle when she took that hit and lost an eye.

T

[robertmelvin]

when they did a survey of the wreck of the hood, they realized from the amount of wreckage & damage to the wreckage that it was not 1 explosion but multiple explosions that also blew the hull bottom out. if 3 survivors were found after being in freezing or near freezing water for 3 hrs then there might have been more survivors but didn't survive the cold.

You raise a very interesting question that has caused me to marvel that even three men survived. The waters in which Hood sank would have been FRIGID! Probably not a great deal, if at all, warmer than the Bering Sea, to give fans of The Deadliest Catch a point of reference. That they did not die to the last man of hypothermia in the span of three hours is amazing in and of itself. Quite a number of men survived the explosion of the Arizona (www.nps.gov/valr/learn/ historyculture/ ussarizonasurvivors) and I have heard her descibed as "raining sailors" after the blast, but they were blown into warm Pacific Ocean harbor waters close to shore. I also expect she had more topside AA than Hood, but that is a supposition.

I am not surprised to read that it was multiple explosions that ripped through her rather than one massive explosion, even if it was a main powder magazine. I don't see how one explosion could have ripped her bottom out. And, a good point about the lack of topside AA fit and thus less topside crew. A point I had not considered. A ship designed and built for an age of naval warfare that had passed, if few realized it at the time.

In watching the videos generously posted below, I now understand why Hood had a reputation as a "wet" ship. The footage of her with men on deck to give a sense of proportion, she appears to me to have remarkably less freeboard than I would have expected, especially in the far forward and far aft 1/3rds. It looks like there was a lot of water rolling over her weather deck in heavy seas.

Bob M.

[Fliger747]

Hood also was traveling at something close to to 28 knots, the water force at that speed with a major breach would have completely torn the hull asunder. Actually the warm currents that wander up from the gulf stream make the North Atlantic marginally more habitable than the same latitude in say the Bearing sea, but yes the inevitable hypothermia would quickly sap even the strongest unwounded individuals.

Luck does favor the prepared, but never the less Hood always figured into the DKM fears as she dis have the speed and capability to catch and destroy or damage Bismarck, a risk they always wanted to avoid. North Sea and Atlantic visibilitys gave both the possibility to elude and that of unexpected encounter. Two new technologies, aircraft and Radar proved decisive, a portent of the future.

T

[robertmelvin]

she had gained so much weight over the years that her original main armor belt was either just at the water surface if not under it. there is no 1 main powder magazine on a warship but multiples, look at the Arizona as she blew the forward magazine but not the aft.

Actually, David, I didn't intend to imply multiples in the No. 1 Main Powder Magazine, but the force and heat of that blast triggering secondary explosions in other areas in which munitions or anything else that could "cook off" would have been stored. I apologize for the confusion. But it does make sense that there would have been multiple explosions since her bottom was basically ripped out as I understand, not just massively holed in the area of No. 1 Main P.M..

Bob M.

[Fliger747]

With Hood's armored box being very close to the waterline, the force of the explosion would be somewhat contained upward and laterally, but expanding down through the bottom and most easily forward (it was believed to be the aft magazines for X and Y turrets) through the large engineering spaces and possibly causing sympathetic ignition of other "combustible/explosives". Looking at the Ballard photos, one of the more totally shredded warships! She of course had almost a total ordinance load remaining at the beginning of the battle when she was lost. One reason I tend to estimate that the force was mostly internally directed was the lack of a huge "noise". The huge column of flame noted may have been just that, torching erupting upward from the engineering spaces but lacking the explosive "boom".

WAG...

[robertmelvin]

Actually the warm currents that wander up from the gulf stream make the North Atlantic marginally more habitable than the same latitude in say the Bearing sea, but yes the inevitable hypothermia would quickly sap even the strongest unwounded individuals.

T

I hit up Google for some maps of the Gulf Stream and from what I saw by the time it reaches the area of the Denmark Strait the Stream has lost a great deal of its thermal energy and has also become pretty diffuse, unlike, say, off the Florida coast where it is still compact, almost like a river flowing through the Atlantic Ocean. This leads me to suspect that any rise in the temperature of the waters there due to the Gulf Stream would be pretty nominal, not enough to make that much of a difference in how long it would otherwise take for hypothermia to get you.

IIRC Ted Briggs' battle station was in what I would refer to as the "fighting top". Does anybody know where the other two survivors' battle stations were? I also discovered that the total loss of officers and crew was 1,418. That is a surprising small figure to me for what I would have assumed the compliment of a ship Hood's size would have been. But, my initial supposition as to a larger compliment was based on comparing apples and oranges (I know, I should know better), being based on what the compliment of an early war USN battleship would have been. I that at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack, the U.S.S. Arizona carried a total compliment of 1,731. Of that number 1,102 were killed. So Hood's compliment was just a shade under 300 officers and crew less than Arizona. I suppose that is getting to the "factoid" level though.

This has so far been a very interesting thread. Thanks to all for getting it started and keeping it going. And, it has been made even better by the fact that the dialogue has been thoughtful, cordial and conducted with mutual respect for each others' thoughts. I think we've all seen threads on any number of forums that didn't quite go that way.

Bob M.

[RaceFuel]

The debris field and remains of Hood show that it's completely certain that it was the magazines for X and Y turrets that went up. Given the range to Bismarck and Prinz Eugen when Hood exploded (18,000 yards) it was almost certainly a 15" AP round from Caesar or Dora that did the deed.

An 8" round from Prinz Eugen did set off a fire at the mainmast in the ready use lockers for the 4" guns, which created "one hell of a mess and killed quite a lot of people" according to Ted Briggs.

What is remarkable is that according to the crew of PoW, Hood exploded very quietly, so much so that even on board Hood they didn't realize at first what had happened, only reporting that "steerings gone sir" on the bridge after the explosion which broke the ships back and ultimately severed her in two.

[RaceFuel]

One thing to consider with Hood is that the RN at the time was very busy trying to get new ships worked up, like Prince of Wales and shuffling experienced crews to other ships coming in and going out of commission for refit, etc.

[Fliger747]

One of the miscellaneous Hood references Listed her speed in earlier days as 31 knots and at the time of her loss as 28 knots. Anyone know of the veracity of this, it makes some sense as the ship eventually became of deeper draft due to armor upgrades etc.

Certainly a beautiful ship with super clean lines, the "almost" Fast Battleship.

One wonders how much more explosive effect is multiplied by the armored box around the magazines as most of the explosion results from the kiloton or so of propellent, which when confined creates quite an effect! Roma was destroyed by the Fritz X whereas Savanna was also hit in forward magazines (three!) and survived. It may be that the lighter structure yielded and immediate flooding prevented complete conflagration. Additionally the 6" used ammunition with a brass cased propellant.

Robert Tillburn was crew of a 4" midships on the disengaged side and went to the rail to throw up after his mount mates were killed by splinters, it was his position at the rail that saved his life when the fatal moment arrived. Apparently all three survivors got together on a "Biscuit Float". Any body know what these are?

Cheers: T

[Fliger747]

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1783469803

An interesting snippet from what must be a fascinating book about Hood. Apparently all three survivors were able to get mostly out of the water on these 3' square Biscuit Floats.

T

[hondaman117]

One of the miscellaneous Hood references Listed her speed in earlier days as 31 knots and at the time of her loss as 28 knots. Anyone know of the veracity of this, it makes some sense as the ship eventually became of deeper draft due to armor upgrades etc.

That is correct. Like any ship the Hood had been continuously upgraded over her long career. By WWII these upgrades had added so much weight that Hood's draft was 4 feet deeper than intended. The main consequence of this was that the forecastle and poop decks were usually running with water in heavy seas, but it also dropped her speed to about 28 knots. Also, Hood was kept continually in service during the interwar period, so she was denied opportunities for major overhauls. She was scheduled for major refit in 1941, but the start of WWII delayed that as she was needed at the time. By 1940, her machinery was in such bad shape that she could only manage about 26 knots speed, and she finally got a machinery overhaul that restored her speed to 28 knots. Then while chasing Strasbourg she stripped a turbine requiring another overhaul. This was the last overhaul Hood ever received, so at the time of her sinking she had a top speed of 28 knots. Had Hood survived the encounter with Bismarck she would have eventually gotten the overhaul she desperately needed, but I doubt she would have regained her original 31 knot speed.

I'm very glad this thread is alive again, it's getting me hyped for my 1/200 Hood to arrive!

[RaceFuel]

A lot of people seem to think it was British arrogance and supreme confidence in Hood that led to them sending her to fight Bismarck...I would argue that it was instead a sign of desperation. They needed ships to cover Bismarck and Prinz Eugens possible escape routes. The only two capital ships that could, in terms of firepower, hope to at least slow Bismarck and Prinz Eugen down, and were available, were PoW and Hood. A 21 year old battlecruiser in need of a refit and an unfinished, untrained and inexperienced battleship were clearly not the ideal ships to intercept Bismarck, but it was all they had that was close that could intercept Bismarck and Prinz Eugen before they broke out.

Adm Holland knew Hood wasn't the ideal ship for running down and engaging the newest battleship in the world, which is why he was trying to close the range so fast, to minimize the time her decks were largely exposed to plunging fire. Hood's main belt was actually fairly capable of standing up against a battleships main battery...from the Jutland era, so it would have been moderately capable of protecting her from Bismarck. The 20 degree turn to port at 18,000 yards was in result of the (incorrect) belief of Adm Holland that he had closed the range enough to get out from plunging fire and start absorbing rounds into the belt...obviously he was mistaken.

[Fliger747]

The Brits have a saying: "When needs must, the Devil drives". It may be also that the course change was to open the "A Arcs" of the rear turrets. The close formation of Hood and POW may not have been optimal either, allowing Bismarck to change targets easily. Harry Harwood handing his cruisers against Graf Spee did much better, dividing the enemy fire.

Yes, desperate times!

[RaceFuel]

The Brits have a saying: "When needs must, the Devil drives". It may be also that the course change was to open the "A Arcs" of the rear turrets. The close formation of Hood and POW may not have been optimal either, allowing Bismarck to change targets easily. Harry Harwood handing his cruisers against Graf Spee did much better, dividing the enemy fire.

Yes, desperate times!

The turn to port was to unmask X and Y turret, it was just executed too soon. However it's understandable that Adm Holland chose to do so, given that Hood was starting to sustain some fairly significant casualties in the superstructure. Had Hood closed the distance an additional 4,000 yards or so it's much more likely she would have been able to stand and fight longer, however in any situation she was living on borrowed time since any turn to disengage would have exposed weaker armor to fire.

Simply put, in no circumstance, should Hood have been there. Ideally she would have been out of commission, in a yard, getting taken down to her decks and refitted with new machinery, more armor, better sensors, optics, AA batteries, etc...but she wasn't.

[robertmelvin]

The Brits have a saying: "When needs must, the Devil drives". It may be also that the course change was to open the "A Arcs" of the rear turrets. The close formation of Hood and POW may not have been optimal either, allowing Bismarck to change targets easily. Harry Harwood handing his cruisers against Graf Spee did much better, dividing the enemy fire.

Yes, desperate times!

The turn to port was to unmask X and Y turret, it was just executed too soon. However it's understandable that Adm Holland chose to do so, given that Hood was starting to sustain some fairly significant casualties in the superstructure. Had Hood closed the distance an additional 4,000 yards or so it's much more likely she would have been able to stand and fight longer, however in any situation she was living on borrowed time since any turn to disengage would have exposed weaker armor to fire.

Simply put, in no circumstance, should Hood have been there. Ideally she would have been out of commission, in a yard, getting taken down to her decks and refitted with new machinery, more armor, better sensors, optics, AA batteries, etc...but she wasn't.

If, Hood and PoW was all that was available in the way of capital ships, then that was what the RN had to work with. They certainly couldn't send cruisers alone to try to kill Bismark and Prinze Eugen. One unalterable fact of war is that you have to work with the tools at hand, even if they are not ideal. As I understand it, the officer in tactical command took a calculated risk in trying to close on Bismark and P.W. to get out of the range at which plunging fire would be a serious concern. He lost. Simple as that. As Nimitz told Spruance and Fletcher before Midway, "you shall be guided by the principle of calculated risk". The fact is that even the best naval tacticians can calculate the risk, arrive at the best solution, and still loose the fight. Calculated risk is just that, risk. Even the best tactical decision can have a negative outcome. You have to accept certain incalculable factors, such as simple blind luck. My impression and understanding was that the tactical CO had two choices with Hood, close the distance or run. I don't see any any fault that could be attached to the officer in tactical command. He took a gamble that he had to make to have a chance to kill Bismark and he lost. That doesn't mean he made bad decisions. Anybody who has ever played cards for money will tell you that you can have a hell of a hand (I'm a stud poker player myself) and still loose.

Bob M.