Who really sank the Hood? Bismarck or Prinz Eugen?

[RF]

The concept of ''flasover'' is one that I am familiar with, as it is mentioned in the training programmes for the British civilian fire-fighting service. This is in connection with a door being opened to a confined space(within which ia a conflagration), in which the injection of oxygen sucked in through the door or opening causes the fire to shoot overhead and through the door.
In the case of Hood, for a flashover to be realistic, it would have to traverse several sealed compartments. Thinking about it, it doesn't now seem plausible.
At the time of the programme, the flashover story seemed consistent with Hood being in the three sections they refer. But I am not an expert in marine engineering and in no way could I tell it was wrong.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Bismarck. Period.

[Gudbrandur]

Yes, Karl is right, but Bismarck was part of the Krigsmarine together with the U-Boats. How come we can not have a fair discussion on the Bismarck hunt for ships in convoys just ahead and infront of the force with U-Boats in the death zone of both forces. I just don´t get this. One of the 3 surrvivors of the Hood said it blew up from the inside. This is on record. Maybe the word of the little man does not account. I still think Hood was torpidoed by U-93.

[marcelo_malara]

One of the 3 surrvivors of the Hood said it blew up from the inside. This is on record. Maybe the word of the little man does not account. I still think Hood was torpidoed by U-93.

Effectively it blew from inside, a magazine going off because of a shell impact. I have never heard of the theory of any submarine torpedoing Hood.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Bismarck´s 15" shell was the one that blew Hood. In case of doubt PLEASE refer to HMS Hood Asociation website :
http://www.hmshood.com

there you´ll find Bill Jurens´ forensic analysis.

Or, if you persist in being wrong then read the superb work:
"Battlecruiser HMS Hood: a biography of the ship" by Bruce Taylor. A superb work that had the account of the three survivors during the very moment of the blewing and Cptn . Leach from PoW.

Any other consideration is a waste of breath...

Best regards...

[Admiral-scheer]

Well I don't think Pe could be capable of what happened to Hood.

Her shells were alot smaller and I believe the Hood at that was not even Pe's target Pow was (I believe Lutjens called it KGV though).

Anyway I believe the crew of the Bismarck (Artillery Officers) were awarded with medals for sinking the Hood not the crew Pe.Thus it should be the Bismarck that sunk the Hood and not Pe.

[marcelo_malara]

I like looking for antecedents. The only battleship sunk by cruiser´s gunfire was the Hiei, in Guadalcanal, hit by 30 8" shells at a distance of 6000 m if I am right. That is a far easier scenario for a cruiser-vs-battlecruiser engagement than that of PE-vsHood.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Bismarck was the one that blew Hood, there is no doubt about that. Even the Hood fans and buffs agree on that. There had been oficial and unoficial inqueries and all led to the fact that Bismarck´s 15" shell sunk the Hood.
In case of doubt just click at the http://www.hmshood.com and navigate in order to find what everybody else knows.
Or you can buy Mullenheim Rechberg´s book, José Rico´s book or Bruce Taylor´s book about Hood.

[RF]

With respect to U-93, has its war diary been published, that would account for its activities on 24 May 1941?

[José M. Rico]

Hello all,

We now know where the whole idea of Prinz Eugen sinking the Hood originates from:

THE ARGUS

January 25, 1946

PRINZ EUGEN SANK HMS HOOD, NOT THE BISMARCK

From Our Own Correspondent
And AAP

The British battleship Hood (42,100 tons) was sunk midway between Greenland and Iceland on May 24, 1941, not by the German battleship Bismarck (35,000 tons) as was generally supposed at the time, but by the enemy cruiser Prinz Eugen (10 000 tons). The US Navy Department announced this fact upon Prinz Eugen's arrival at Boston yesterday, as portion of USA's share of the German Fleet.

Prinz Eugen scored a direct hit, blowing up Hood's magazine.

But two days later Bismarck was caught 400 miles from Brest (Prance) and sent to the bottom on May 27, after receiving a terrific pounding from British air bombs, torpedoes, and direct gunfire. Prinz Eugen escaped, presumably to Brest

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/22223994

One wonders what the US Navy Department saw abaord the Prinz Eugen to reach that conclusion.

[paulcadogan]

Weren't there Prinz crew members aboard thie ship along with the US crew?

One could speculate that there was a lot of talk and the simple statement "We were the ones that set Hood on fire." (truth, while British accounts attributed this to Bismarck's third salvo) plus the info in the ship's KTB (would the US have possession of that?) without careful scrutiny or proper translation could have given rise to that point of view.....

[José M. Rico]

Yes, that may well be the case Paul.

[RF]

As I understand it there were members of the Prinz Eugen crew retained by the US Navy, operating under US naval orders, until after the Prinz Eugen had passed through the Panama Canal and arrived in California, en route to its final destination in the Pacific. They were discharged when the Eugen arrived in CA.

As the claim is reported in a newspaper, did it actually come from the US Navy department officially - or crew interviews?

[dunmunro]

I think the claim arose from discovery of PE log and FC data showing that she targeted Hood. However, IIRC, PE didn't use AP ammo when engaging Hood, so the probability of an 8" shell sinking Hood was just about zero.

[steffen19k]

Ultimately, for all the speculation that surrounds just who fired the fatal shot, all we know is that both ships engaged Hood, and that she blew up and sank.

Is it possible that an AP round was loaded and fired in spite of the log reports? I think its possible, in the heat of combat.

But even then, there is this: http://www.warship.org/no21987.htm That does a very good job, IMO, of explaining HOW Bismarck was the one who was most likely to have fired the death round.

I think a better question would be whether or not Hood's gun crews were bypassing the flash protection features and procedures to speed up time between salvos. Its been a documented case of British capital ships, dating all the way back to the loss of 3 battlecruisers at Dogger Bank.