According to conway's, "the board of inquiry concluded that a 15 inch shell from Bismark penetrated Hood's armor, the 4in magazine very probably exploding first; at the range of loss, 18,000 yards, the main magazine should have been proof against plunging 15 inch fire." Other ideas expressed include: above-water torpedoes, poor material condition, or an 8 inch hit by Prinz Eugene that started a fire on the deck that spread to the AA then main magazines (conway's too). And yes, the main was considered a 2nd rate battleship, but it really was an armored cruiser. Just like Greece's Gorgios Averof, an armored cruiser, that is, by some, considered a battleship.
" Well, once again it depends on our definition of battleship - Hood was a battlecruiser." Protected to the same scale as a contemporaty battleship. If you compare her armor scheme to the Queen Elizabeth, you will see that she clearly had what was battleship armor...in 1921. Honestly, she was the first TRUE fast battleship, just one who's modernization never came like many other battleships between wars. The Brits had some strange ideas, it seems that they rated ships as battlecruisers based on speed rather then armor. An example of this, is that the Vanguard was rated as a "fully armored battlecruiser" when clearly she was a fast battleship. This is what leads people to the silly notion that the Scharnhorst class battleships were actually battlecruisers (regardless of the fact that the Germans themselves called them battleships). They had high speed, therefore the British classified them as battlecruisers. IIRC, the KGV class were originally called battlecruisers as well, but I can't find the documentation on that. So when defining the Hood, you have to look closely at it's armor scheme and compare it to Revenge and Queen Elizabeth, and you will see that calling her a battlecruiser is actually misleading. By the standards of her day, she was for all intents and purposes a fast battleship.
I honestly don't know, and I'm too busy studying for finals to check, but I think armor alone is not enough to classify a ship - what was her armament in comparison to other battleships? You could add as much armor to a ship as you want, no matter how fast, and that doesn't classify it as a battleship.
she (Hood) carried the same battery as the the QE and Revenge...and Bismarck for that matter... 8 X 15"/42
I had heard stories of a shell from the Prinz Eugen. But, I always thought the British sank the Hood. Thanks,
No problemo. And it seems to me that each country had different definitions, and thus, to define a ship, you must first determine which precedent you are dealing with (aka british, german, ect)
The British sank their own ship? Personally, I think it's far more sporting to let the Germans do it...
I was a reinactor for awhile. Eat some of the food they ate. I do not mean camp food. I am talking about food on the march. Mother of mercy is this the end of Rico. Yes slavery was not the big issue when the war started. It was turned into an issue after the Battle of Antietum or Sharpsburg by President Lincoln. Emacipation Procimation. Rumor had it Churchill knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor. He just forgot to pass the info to FDR.
Yep, The British sank her by not getting her in for that refit. They were far too busy showing the flag.
Very sporting, those Brits. Spot the Germans 1 capital ship, just to give them a fair chance at victory?? JM
A very good spot of tea and some crumpets went to the bottom that day, along with hundred of good men, its a sad though.
Boy, we went from most famous ship, to slavery, to who sank the Hood, what's next: Who sank the Bismarck? As for Hood and Bismarck, both ships were lost during combat with the enemy. I feel that it is interesting that Bismarck has become so well known with such a short career. Her only real claim to fame is the sinking of one ship! Had the anti aircraft gun directors been able to track slow moving targets, it might have been a different story. The British Swordfish may never have been able to get close enough to drop their fish without becoming confetti. In simulation, I have held back Bismarck and Prinz Eugene, then sent them out with Tirpitz. In one case, it gave the allied player heart failure when I sailed the three ships into the English channel! Several times I have even massed the German fleet and went toe to toe with the English. Though out numbered, There have been times that I decimated the English, and there were times it came out a draw. But never was the result a defeat for the German Navy. Now getting back on topic. I feel that there is not one most famous ship. But there is a small number of ship with world renown that should never be forgotten.
If Tirpitz would have been worked up, the British fleet deployment would have been different. Tovey would have concentrated his forces in one position to intercept in the open ocean with Hood, KGV, POW, and Repulse, and recon by landbased aircraft and Victorious, and left cruisers to cover the major breakout points and shadow the German battlegroup. Force H would be coming up with Renown and Ark Royal to attempt to join Tovey. The Germans would get pasted. Your chances of a golden twinkie on Hood are small, as KVG will be leading the British formation and along with PoW will recieve the lion's share of the attention from the German ships. Swordfish from Victorious will be making torpedo runs on the German ships...if the Germans attempt to dodge torpedoes their gunnery will be thrown to shambles. If the germans every come out of any encounter with the entire english fleet with anything other then a crushing loss, it's a flaw in the game mechanics being used to simulate it.
Not entirely true, you know the only certain thing in life is its uncertainty. Weather, mechanical issues, commanding mistakes, ect could have effected the outcome and changed it, or even completely reversed it.
Throw in the mix Scharnhorst and Gnisensau as the to were to sail out at the same time as Bismark and Prinz Eugen. You would not really be able to concentrate if those 2 forces were out at sea. Add the Tirpitz and you have a very interesting battle. To think that the British could fly air attacks when a surface engagement is going on would be a little far fetched. All I can say is " LOOK OUT FOR SHEFFIELD".
I have to add a few other tidbits. Victorious did not have a full air complement at the time. I have read that she only had 9 operational swordfish at the time of this operation. Planes were in crates below deck. The British higher ups did not release force H to begin with. There was something going on in the Mediterrian. Crete I believe.KGVs gun turrets were experencing brake downs similar to Prince Of Wales. It would have been an easy task. This is the way it was when Operation Rhienburg was started. Other than the Tirpitz being there this is the way it was. Lots of convoys were out at sea also.
Dan: I would not call myself a "Naval" war gamer. Many, Many, Many, years ago I played numerous war games, Air, land, sea, space, board games and table top war gaming. Then I got hooked on RPG and SCA. Then I made the mistake of getting married and having children. I hung up my swords and armor and packed away the games. Now the children are grown, and I am on my second marriage. Everything is still packed away somewhere in the basement, I think. Just have not had the motivation, time or energy to dig them out. So the answer is that I was a war gamer. Back in the days of "SAC" (Strategic Air Command) we would play marathon war games that would last a week at a time in those underground shelters. I think that is TMI.
One mistake? After my first marriage I became a Civil War reinactor. I am into historical gaming of all sorts. Since 1965.
