Who really sank the Hood? Bismarck or Prinz Eugen?

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are OFF

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Who really sank the Hood? Bismarck or Prinz Eugen?

Re: Who really sank the Hood? Bismarck or Prinz Eugen?

Post by RF » Mon Feb 29, 2016 6:41 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:Torpedo warheads (hard to detonate when not activated) can make fires worse on the upper decks and kill a lot of people but not sink the Hood (IMHO) as their devastating effect is due to the fact they are built to explode under water. Above the waterline, they would have dissipated most of their energy in the air.
Bye, Alberto


As an incidental note to this I would mention (as we now at long last have the physical evidence documented by inspection of the sunken wreck) that one cruiser carrying torpedoes managed to survive a gunnery battering at point blank range without any of its torpedoes exploding from either direct gunnery hits or from deck/internal fires, such that later on, when drifting out at a much further range, prior to sinking, the starboard torpedo battery was able to fire all four torpedoes which missed their target.
The ship I refer to was HMAS Sydney.

On the other hand, at the commencement of the River Plate battle the Ajax jettisoned its stern mounted depth charges as a precaution against their detonation blowing Ajax's stern off...

Re: Who really sank the Hood? Bismarck or Prinz Eugen?

Post by RF » Mon Feb 29, 2016 6:32 pm

alecsandros wrote:... The killing salvo was seen hitting and destroying Hood by eye wittnesses on Prince of Wales and on Bismarck.


Precisely. Only Bismarck could have fired that salvo.

Re: Who really sank the Hood? Bismarck or Prinz Eugen?

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon Feb 29, 2016 1:18 pm

From my very light knowledge of torpedoes detonation effects , I would say that torpedo warheads detonating outside water are very unlikely to broke the back of such a large ship and they can't penetrate the Hood armored decks (even if thin and not armor grade....).

Torpedo warheads (hard to detonate when not activated) can make fires worse on the upper decks and kill a lot of people but not sink the Hood (IMHO) as their devastating effect is due to the fact they are built to explode under water. Above the waterline, they would have dissipated most of their energy in the air.

Bye, Alberto

Re: Who really sank the Hood? Bismarck or Prinz Eugen?

Post by alecsandros » Mon Feb 29, 2016 10:56 am

... The killing salvo was seen hitting and destroying Hood by eye wittnesses on Prince of Wales and on Bismarck.

IF the salvo coincided with another phenomenon occuring on Hood , it was a big coincidence. :think:

Re: Who really sank the Hood? Bismarck or Prinz Eugen?

Post by RF » Mon Feb 29, 2016 10:28 am

I would be interested to see what Bill Jurens would have to say about the above post, I would imagine that he would have had reason to exclude torpedo detonation as the trigger for Hood's demise.

Apart from that, at the time Hood blew the Prinz Eugen was shooting at POW and not Hood. Nether was there any visible fire observed on Hood in that area prior to Hood's demise.

Re: Who really sank the Hood? Bismarck or Prinz Eugen?

Post by Degradable » Fri Feb 26, 2016 8:40 am

All very interesting, but why should it have been a single she'll strike.
Consideration to fires on deck are very valid. Therefore the picture in "biography of battle cruiser..." show masses of 4" ammunition not even in the RUL.
Considering this trail of ammunition it is still plausible that the Torpedo cooked.
Ultimately a Torpedo storage going of would have broken her back exactly where she broke. Additionally it could lead as with Barham to secondary conflagration including 4" and 15" magazine.
This could better explain the lack of blast removing turrets and going directly up if a 15" was penetrated.

Ultimately though we do not and will probably never know. So as probable as Bismark, it is certainly possible that Torpedo could still be responsible. (Note DNC was largely ignored on this point.). This makes it possible that PE shell assisted if not actually caused the fire.
I would note that this is conjecture on my point and Tiger had a raging fire of similar scale at Dogger.

Re: Who really sank the Hood? Bismarck or Prinz Eugen?

Post by Vic Dale » Tue May 21, 2013 9:13 am

I tend to think that Prinz Eugen's (PG)shell which started the fire on the boat deck must have first struck Hood's after funnel, which may explain why it burst on or above the boat deck rather than passing through the deck and exploding beneath. The resulting fire was impressive but not fatal as far as the ship was concerned. To my mind, the only way PG could get a strike into Hood's after magazine was for a near miss to pass beneath the armour and through the soft shell plating. She got at least one such strike to enter PoW after Hood blew up. PG had shifted fire to PoW on Lutjens' orders before Hood took her fatal hit, as has been illustrated earlier, so she could not have struck the fatal blow.

It is my firm belief that it was a shell from Bismarck which did for Hood and given the relatively flat trajectory of Bismarck's high velocity shells, it is unlikely to have resulted from a turret strike or a strike on the belt or decks. Hood's armour fore and aft was equal to that of a Queen Elizabeth class and her armoured decks and that over the magazines would have been more than enough to defeat Bismarck's shells, because of the shallow angle of strike due to their flat trajectory. I am strongly of the belief that it was a wet strike to starboard causing the shell to pass beneath the armoured belt and directly into the after magazine. Bismarck took serious damage from a wet strike herself and it is fortunate that the strike was not in a magazine.

Re: Who really sank the Hood? Bismarck or Prinz Eugen?

Post by RF » Thu Sep 13, 2012 5:42 pm

Agreed - the absolute proof of the matter is that the Eugen was shooting at the Prince of Wales when Hood blew up.

Re: Who really sank the Hood? Bismarck or Prinz Eugen?

Post by RNfanDan » Thu Sep 13, 2012 1:25 pm

pg55555 wrote:What ?

With your bow and arrow, Cock Robin ?


No, but either of those two notions are only slightly less plausible, in my opinion, than a single 8" HE shellburst having caused the fatal explosion which sank HMS Hood.

This ground has been so heavily trodden through the decades, its soil is no longer arable.

:stubborn:

Re: Who really sank the Hood? Bismarck or Prinz Eugen?

Post by pg55555 » Thu Sep 13, 2012 8:48 am

.

What ?

With your bow and arrow, Cock Robin ?

.

Re: Who really sank the Hood? Bismarck or Prinz Eugen?

Post by RNfanDan » Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:48 am

'twas I who sank it... :whistle:

Re: Who really sank the Hood? Bismarck or Prinz Eugen?

Post by RF » Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:24 am

Jagdboot wrote:Bismarck must have scored the fatal hit on Hood. She was first to make contact with the target. As mentioned earlier in the thred Prince Eugen did not claim the hit.
Jagdboot

But Prinz Eugen hit Hood before Bismarck.

Re: Who really sank the Hood? Bismarck or Prinz Eugen?

Post by Jagdboot » Sat Sep 08, 2012 12:33 am

Bismarck must have scored the fatal hit on Hood. She was first to make contact with the target. As mentioned earlier in the thred Prince Eugen did not claim the hit.

Jagdboot

Re: Who really sank the Hood? Bismarck or Prinz Eugen?

Post by RF » Mon Jul 09, 2012 9:05 am

I think it needs to be repeated, as this little detail is frquently overlooked - at the time Hood blew up the Prinz Eugen was shooting at Prince of Wales and not Hood.

Prinz Eugen originally opened fire on Hood as the lead British ship, obtaining two hits that we know about. Then Lutjens ordered Brinckmann to shift fire on to the POW because while Bismarck was also shooting at Hood the POW was not up till then under any German fire. This order was executed immediately prior to Hood blowing up.

Re: Who really sank the Hood? Bismarck or Prinz Eugen?

Post by pg55555 » Mon Jul 09, 2012 7:50 am

.

A few facts would help.

1: WW2 era cordite was VERY different from WW1 (it was "solventless" and much safer). Also note that the WW1 cordite had a particular problem wit poor quality control.

2: Hood had, since her building, the improved flash-tightness standards imposed because of Jutland - this would have stopped the idea of stacking spare charges (the same applied to Barham).

Lots of idiotic ideas about cordite (both WW1 and WW2) on the web.

.

Top