May 24, 1941 - The Mighty Hood Goes Down

[Felix/FFDS]

... with the loss of all crew save 3, sunk by the Bismarck which would go down three days later.

[Ivan]

that was one hell of a lucky hit by the bismarck... straight in the ammo stores

more info here

[ozzy72]

It still amazes me that 3 of the crew survived

[Woodlouse2002]

Alas, this is why Battlecruisers should not be sent against Battleships. They may have the same armament, but the armour is nothing like as thick.

I had a great uncle who served as a gunner on Hood. Fortunately for him, he was on leave when she went out hunting Bismarck.

[Felix/FFDS]

Alas, this is why Battlecruisers should not be sent against Battleships. They may have the same armament, but the armour is nothing like as thick.

I had a great uncle who served as a gunner on Hood. Fortunately for him, he was on leave when she went out hunting Bismarck.

The Bismarck was a battlecruiser.  THe HOOD was actually a little bit larger than its German opponent.  The main difference was that the HOOD was state of the art - for 1920.  The Bismarck was state of the art - for 1940:  better optics/firing controls; internal compartmentalization; etc.

[ATI_7500]

But equipped with a vulnerable rudder. One torpedo fired from a flying piece of wood with strings and *bang* the best german battlecruiser is a turkey on display.  :P

[Felix/FFDS]

[quote]But equipped with a vulnerable rudder. One torpedo fired from a flying piece of wood with strings and *bang* the best german battlecruiser is a turkey on display.

[Woodlouse2002]

Actually Felix, Bismarck was a Battleship. Both in class and design. The whole point of a Battlecruiser is armed reconisence for the main fleet of Battleships and they should never be commited to a duel against ships of equal firepower. Therefore fights with Battleships are a bit no no.

Bismarck was a battleship. Designed to fight battleships. Therefore she had the armour to protect herself from incoming fire. Hood however, was not armoured to nearly the same level. This meant that Hood was a good 5 knots faster than Bismarck but far more vulnerable for it.

Hood had just had a refit by 1940. This means she was pretty much state of the art for the 1940's. However, German rangefinders and optics were always superior to the British ones.


Exploder, the rudder is the most vulnerable part on any warship as it is impossible to protect or armour. Both Prince of Wales and Repulse were sunk in 1941 by japanise air attack and both of them suffered hits to their rudders that all but immobilised them.

[Hagar]

I'm no authority on matters naval & could be quite wrong. I read somewhere that some of the intended armoured deck plating was not fitted to HMS Hood for various reasons. (This adds a lot of weight for one thing.) Not that deck armour would have helped on this occasion as I beilieve the fatal hit went straight down one of the funnels, exploding in the magazines. When she was originally designed nobody had thought of shells being "lobbed" accurately from any sort of range so the thickest armour plating was concentrated on the hull above the waterline. Lobbing shells was exactly what the Bismarck's gunners were good at.

[Smoke2much]

If the shell went straight down the funnel I would assume that it would explode in the boiler, not the magazine.

Having said that a boiler explosion would be horrible enough.

It seems that the Admiralty knew of the dangers of Hood's poor protection as early as 1920.  They did nothing as was common with the British between the wars... :-/

[Felix/FFDS]

Actually Felix, Bismarck was a Battleship. Both in class and design. The whole point of a Battlecruiser is armed reconisence for the main fleet of Battleships and they should never be commited to a duel against ships of equal firepower. Therefore fights with Battleships are a bit no no.
.

I stand corrected - my immediate perception was that the HOOD, having been built as a battlecruiser, was actually slightly larger than the Bismarck, but the Bismarck, being newer, was a bit faster (in 1940/41).

The following site offers an intersting account of the HMS HOOD's last action, and some photographs.

http://www.hmshood.com/ship/history/bmhood/BMHood.html

[SilverFox441]

There is actually a growing body of evidence that Bismarck may not have sunk Hood, it may have been Prinz Eugen.

At the engagement range Bismarck's fire would have been going into Hood's armour belt, the lower calibre fire from PE would have been plunging from high angle.

It's not as unlikely as it sounds, American cruisers that were very similar to PE were capable of defeating Japanese ships that were similar to Hood, at very similar ranges. One on one a '20s BC or even BB could be taken by a '40s heavy cruiser...if it all worked out right.

I used to play out these types of engagements using "Action Stations" and found that if you could get a cruiser to the right range it had a very decent chance of winning. If the range was long though...run.

[Felix/FFDS]

And Queen Victoria would have celebrated her 122d birthday the day the Hood was sunk.

[Woodlouse2002]

I stand corrected - my immediate perception was that the HOOD, having been built as a battlecruiser, was actually slightly larger than the Bismarck, but the Bismarck, being newer, was a bit faster (in 1940/41).

You were right about Hood being bigger than Bismarck. But the difference was only 40 odd feet (Hood being 860 feet in length and Bismarck being 823).

Also, on the point of Prinz Eugen sinking Hood, it is very possible. Prinz Eugens 11" guns would have been more than capable of peircing Hoods unarmoured decks.

[Stormtropper]

Arrg......lucky hit by the Krauts. Too bad their luck was short lived..............went down cuz of a torpedo from a obselete piece of British junk...........no offense to the brits

Cheers
Jeff