Hood's sinking: the timing of that fatal hit

[Byron Angel]

..... Funny thing about the use of second time increments in data log entries. I have been studying British BC gunnery logs from Jutland which indicate salvo discharges by hour-minute-second. There are STILL complaints about the accuracy (or one might say correctness) of the log entries, because the intervals appear to some to be "too regular" in certain cases. I suspect that another reason behind the complaints is that, if taken at face value, the log data tend to contradict certain assumptions about British gunnery methods then in use - hence, they must somehow be "wrong".

The historian's task is a hard lot indeed.

B

[Herr Nilsson]

Thanks Marc, interesting examples.

Still no seconds in all of them, as seconds were very unusual (as well in all other Navies). In case of the PG KTB on May 24, there was no space to add a line after 6:00 and before 6:01 with the correct timing (6:00:20) and the Hood explosion statement.

PG KTB.jpg

Therefore they just added the 20 seconds between 6:00 and 6:01 to better precise an extraordinary event.

Of course you can interpret it in a different way but the 6:01:20 is in contrast with other German sources and with the fact the master chronometers between BS and PG (assuming a quality not very different from British ones as per Culverin post and due to the fact they were at sea since few days) could not differ by 1 minute. By the way, with Antonio Bonomi's battle timing and interpreting 6:00:20, even the chronometers of PoW (Gunnery map salvos) and PG differ by less than 10 seconds.

Bye, Alberto

What a pitty that Group North didn't know how to read war diaries correctly.

[alecsandros]

What a pitty that Group North didn't know how to read war diaries correctly.

... The 2 times are most likely different, so it seems that someone made a mistake, either in reading or in writing.

[comsat38]

Paul,

Congrats. on your paper re timing of Hood's fatal hit. Your version of the events make much more sense than anything else I have seen on the subject. Witnesses can be honest but still mistaken, and when under fire it is understandable that errors on "plots" can be made, leading to the acceptance of incorrect versions of events.

I sometimes wonder why persons "here present" on this site and on the Hood site endlessly argue about what really happened on May 24th 1941 in the DS. I can only put it down to the fact that this was the RN's heaviest loss of both ship and men, and that, on the other side, their one and only victory at sea against the RN worth mentioning. I have to suppose that the sinking of the carrier "Glorious" was somewhat inglorious, by comparison. No disrespect intended: I am just trying to think of a major German victory at sea to compare with the DS battle.

Frank Daniels

[Guest]

I am just trying to think of a major German victory at sea to compare with the DS battle.

Although on a much smaller scale and of far less strategic importance, there were victories by some of the smaller KM vessels such as the hilfskreuzer, such as Thor defeating three armed merchant cruisers and sinking the last one, and of course Kormoran sinking HMAS Sydney.

There was also the successful seaborne invasion of Norway, carried out in the RN's own backyard, which I would count as a major naval success.

If you widen the scope to WW1 then there is the Battle of Corenel.

[RF]

I am just trying to think of a major German victory at sea to compare with the DS battle.

Although on a much smaller scale and of far less strategic importance, there were victories by some of the smaller of the KM vessels such as the hilfskreuzer, such as the Thor defeating three British armed merchant cruisers and sinking the last one, and of course Kormoran sinking HMAS Sydney.

There was also the successful seaborne invasion of Norway, carried out in the RN's own backyard, which I would regard as a major naval success.

If you widen the scope to WW1 then there is the Battle of Coronel.

[paulcadogan]

Hi Frank,

Thank you for your kind words! As you can see from this thread, there has been much discussion and much dissent and I fully accept that there are divergent interpretations of the events and respect them. I don't have all the answers, none of us do, though we keep on searching. None of us can change, obviously, what ACTUALLY happened 73 years ago - only our personal understanding.

When it comes to the DS battle, IMHO, it is an event that stands out above all others for many of us. The central factor in this is HMS Hood herself - the legendary, world famous, largest and (for many) most beautiful warship in the world - utterly destroyed in minutes by this "upstart" German battleship. The sense of shock for all on hearing the news was incredible, leading to the question "How could this be possible?" This event and the subsequent chase and sinking of the Bismarck then propelled that ship to legendary status - the whole story being something any fiction writer could not have dreamed up any better!

Not even the sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse, which Churchill says gave him the greatest shock of the war, or the destruction of four Japanese carriers at Midway, inspired the level of disbelief and questioning that Hood's loss did.

And...it seems pretty certain....the level of interest is contagious, and once you are "infected" you can't help yourself! Hence the ROBUST exchange of thoughts and ideas in places such as this great forum!

Paul

[comsat38]

Yes, I was thinking only of WWII, but the comments about other naval actions are, of course, valid. I was trying to put my finger on what I think might be a very British obsession with either honourable defeat, as seems the case here with the battle of DS, or honourable narrow victories, such as that shown in the film "Zulu". We do not obsess over overwhelming victories, of which there must have been many, especially towards the end of WWII. I have just been reading "Captain Scott" by Sir Ranulph Fiennes and again we are looking at an honourable defeat, albeit one inflicted on those men by nature in all its fury. The way in which those men accepted their fate is held up as a moral example which men fighting in WWI tried to emulate.

I realise that you all enjoy the give and take of argument, be it ever so technical, and that you think it something that is, in its own way, enjoyable. Nevertheless, is there not something deeper going on here and will there ever come a time when it has to stop. In the case of HMS Hood, I think that a lot of this has to do with the fact that this ship was unique, the only member of the Admiral class. Yes, that and the fact that no other ship was quite so photogenic.

Best wishes

Danny

[RF]

.... I was trying to put my finger on what I think might be a very British obsession with either honourable defeat, as seems the case here with the battle of DS, or honourable narrow victories, such as that shown in the film "Zulu".

Well, I am British and I am somewhat bemused with these comments.

DS was a disaster for the RN. I don't see any concept of ''honourable defeat'' as being applicable at all.

The film Zulu seems to me to be even less relevant, particulary as the film, directed by Cy Endfield, is set in South Africa. The prequel Zulu Dawn demolishes any idea of morality or honour on the part of those people who decided to invade and annex the Zulu lands for much the same reasons that the USA was and is intervening in places like Iraq and Syria.

[RF]

Yes, that and the fact that no other ship was quite so photogenic.

What - even more so than Bismarck?

[comsat38]

Dear RF,

With all due respect, I think you confuse those who go into battle with those who send them in; the latter may have secret geo-political reasons for what they do, as today's world seems to show. I think, looking at those who go into battle, that a disaster can still be an honourable defeat, viewed from the point of view of those who took part and survived. The sailors of HMS Hood and HMS Prince of Wales accepted the risk, in the same way that Captain Scott accepted his risks on his journey. It sets an example. I do not know for how much longer it will mean anything. As for "Zulu" I think that those who fought against superior odds would not be thinking about any geo-political reasons for their having to be there in the first place. That is the concern of the desk-bound who sent them to South Africa. I think there is an obsession with losses such as Hood, or narrow margin victories. It is not just a British obsession. There was also Themopylae.

As for Bismarck: yes a very impressive warship, designed to look, as well as be, powerful. My abiding impression of Bismarck, though, is that "he", (following Lindemann) is somehow very sinister. I'm sure that this impression comes from within me, that it is not designed into the ship by its builders. I think the defining image of Bismarck comes early on in the famous film, when the ship is anchored in a Norwegian fjord, shrouded in camouflage and mist. Clearly, Bismarck's crew would have had a completely different impression of their ship.

Kind regards

Danny