Sinking of the Hood- did all the magazines explode?

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.

Moderator: Bill Jurens

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Sinking of the Hood- did all the magazines explode?

Post by paul.mercer »

Gentlemen,
My apologies for reopening a couple of old subjects, I was watching a series on TV the other day called 'The worlds greatest shipwrecks' subtitled 'History beneath the waves' which dealt with the demise of the battleship in favour of the carrier.
In one thread we discussed why some ships blew up as the rolled over and sank (Barham, Scharnhorst, Yamato) and the conclusion of he cause -if I remember correctly, was the shells tumbling out of their racks an exploding and setting off the cordite charges.
Another thread we dealt with the sinking of the Hood and again (if I remember correctly) the conclusion was a shell from Bismarck penetrating the aft magazine caused it to detonate, but the forward magazines did not.
In this documentary, the footage taken of the wreck of Hood was shown again, but the conclusion of the author who led the expedition was the the total devastation of the middle of the ship and the fact the the 'Conning tower' as he described it weighing several hundred tons was discovered over a 1000 yards away pointed to the forward magazine(s) exploding as Hood was sinking stern first. it would have certainly taken an enormous amount of force to project such a heavy object that far, so in light of this I wonder if we should re-examine this theory?
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Sinking of the Hood- did all the magazines explode?

Post by wadinga »

Hello Paul,

I too saw that programme and the claim for a forward explosion was made again. You will recall that Bill Jurens was also on that expedition and has said in his opinion there is no evidence for forward magazine explosion. The only real "evidence" presented is that the Conning Tower structure is a long way from the hull. However, if the claim is made that this 600 ton structure flew through the air somewhat like an ICBM at lift-off, why are A and B turrets located directly above such an explosion not even further away?

The hydrodynamic planing effects of structures travelling down at speed through a long water column are the explanation why the two halves of Titanic are so far apart and it seems to me likely that the tower left the hull near the surface and went down a different path to the hull. Its elliptical form may even have developed a spin as it sank, and the "Magnus Effect" where a rotating body travelling through a fluid develops "lift" at right angles to the direction of travel, might account for deviation from a straight fall to the seabed.

I believe I am correct in saying, none of the witnesses in PoW saw this fabled second forward explosion occur, and Ted Briggs' recollection, stressed as he was at the time, is surely not very reliable.

Some of the graphics in the show were impressive, but I'm sure somebody was talking (yet again) about Hood's deck armour being penetrated, when Bill showed as long ago as 1987 that Bismarck's hit was at an angle of fall of only 10.6 to 13.9 degrees to horizontal and thus deck penetration would be virtually impossible.

In the Prince of Wales wreck segment it was suggested that because the attackers were twin engine aircraft her crew could not believe they were torpedo bombers, but the ship had already encountered this form of attack from Italian SM 79s in the Mediterranean. If the capital ships' outer screen had been much stronger and able to put up a decent volume of AA fire at a distance from the target, the attackers would not have been able to make such a smoothly co-ordinated assault. If the Buffalo fighter protection had turned up earlier, the attacks might have been nowhere near as successful and suffered heavy casualties.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Sinking of the Hood- did all the magazines explode?

Post by Bill Jurens »

It appears that someone is still flogging that old ITN Channel 4 "documentary" on the loss of Hood, or something very similar. I noticed one recently, i.e. about five years ago, where a search team rediscovered -- with apparently some surprise -- that the rudder was actually over on the stern and that the final turn must have been underway when the explosion occurred. This has, of course, been known for years.

One would be correct in noting that the references to the forward magazine explosions on Hood -- if not totally bogus -- are at the very least very least exaggerated beyond recognition. The conning tower separated after the ship sank through normal hydrodynamic effects -- it's inverted on the bottom, and one can look into the area where the bottom of the conning tower was originally attached, which contains rather well-preserved light structures and -- as I recall -- even some furnishings. It appears that the conning tower was heavily supported transversely, i.e. in such a way as to keep it from tilting from side to side or fore-and-aft due to ship movements while at sea, it was not really bolted down that firmly -- which makes sense as there would rarely be any forces directed to move it vertically upward -- and that it more-or-less 'fell-off' at some point during the inverted descent. Unlike the rest of the hull, which would have sunk relatively slowly and been affected by currents on the way down, the conning tower, a heavy and rather streamlined structure 'sank like a rock' and went straight to the bottom. The idea that the conning tower was blasted upward is just plain silly -- there are no surfaces upon which forces can be delivered in that direction and it would be kind of like blowing at the open end of a used toilet-paper roll, and such forces would have certainly heavily damaged the areas where light structure remains.

Bill Jurens
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Sinking of the Hood- did all the magazines explode?

Post by paul.mercer »

Thanks (as always) Wadinga and Bill for your replies.
Looking at it from the points that you both have made it would seem that Mr Mearns theories are at best incorrect or perhaps out-rightly misleading. However it is interesting to see how some ships exploded as they rolled over while others did not, I have always thought (probably wrongly!) that a shell which was designed to take an extremely heavy impact before exploding would go off by just falling from its rack onto the deck.
Looking at the other part of the film which dealt with Pearl Harbour, it said that the Japanese aircraft used modified 16" AP shells on the battleships, one or more of which penetrated the magazines of the 'Arizona'. did any other nation use large caliber shells in this way as it appears to have been a very good and successful idea?
One other point from the film re the sinking of PoW and Repulse it mentioned that PoW's armour did not extend all the way down and - as far as I could make out, this applied to other capital ships, surely the danger from torpedoes must have been taken into consideration when ships were designed, so was it weight considerations that prevented sufficient armour being placed way below the water line? I realise that in the case of Bismarck and PoW the hits by the rudder and propellers were the two places that could not be adequately protected.
User avatar
paulcadogan
Senior Member
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
Location: Kingston, Jamaica

Re: Sinking of the Hood- did all the magazines explode?

Post by paulcadogan »

Hi all,

The idea of Hood's foward magazines "exploding" was again put forward by David Mearns in one of the Youtube broadcasts/videos for the 80th Anniversary back in May. I was flabbergasted that this line of thought still existed! Hasn't he looked at his own wreck footage to see that the bow hull break is forward of the breakwater and the section of hull enclosing the forward magazines is relatively "intact" - i.e. not entirely missing as a whole 1/3 of the ship is missing aft??

And....as Wadinga said above, that A and B turrets and barbettes are there, upside down while X and Y were blown to smithereens?

Had the forward magazines gone up there would have been NO survivors from HMS Hood!

I recall Mr. Mearns saying something to the effect that he is more convinced now than he was at the start because of evidence from the wrecks of other ships such as Musashi and Barham. Two different ships sunk in very different circumstances...

You can view the video here, if you haven't seen it - with the discussion on the "two explosions" taking place about 40 minutes in, though I think it was mentioned earlier.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bw3Q16ZifA&t=2409s

Mr. Mearn's double explosion view is also articulated on the Hood Association's website - been there from day one, and though they mention that it was "hotly debated", the opposing view is not presented (Hmmm...I wonder why? :think: ). He claimed there was a larger "western""debris field" which is supportive of a more catastrophic forward explosion.

http://www.hmshood.com/hoodtoday/2001ex ... /index.htm

Given the above, it is no wonder others will read that and continue put it "forward"(pun intended!). Sigh!

Cheers!

Paul
Qui invidet minor est - He who envies is the lesser man
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Sinking of the Hood- did all the magazines explode?

Post by paul.mercer »

Thanks Paul,
I think that all of the comments made here puts the second explosion theory to bed once and for all.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Sinking of the Hood- did all the magazines explode?

Post by dunmunro »

paul.mercer wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 10:18 am Thanks (as always) Wadinga and Bill for your replies.
Looking at it from the points that you both have made it would seem that Mr Mearns theories are at best incorrect or perhaps out-rightly misleading. However it is interesting to see how some ships exploded as they rolled over while others did not, I have always thought (probably wrongly!) that a shell which was designed to take an extremely heavy impact before exploding would go off by just falling from its rack onto the deck.
Looking at the other part of the film which dealt with Pearl Harbour, it said that the Japanese aircraft used modified 16" AP shells on the battleships, one or more of which penetrated the magazines of the 'Arizona'. did any other nation use large caliber shells in this way as it appears to have been a very good and successful idea?
One other point from the film re the sinking of PoW and Repulse it mentioned that PoW's armour did not extend all the way down and - as far as I could make out, this applied to other capital ships, surely the danger from torpedoes must have been taken into consideration when ships were designed, so was it weight considerations that prevented sufficient armour being placed way below the water line? I realise that in the case of Bismarck and PoW the hits by the rudder and propellers were the two places that could not be adequately protected.
Shell fuzes were designed not to go off from very low velocity impacts.

AP bombs had similar designs to AP shells, but it's best to design the AP bomb to have a larger bursting charge than in an AP shell, to take advantage of the lower striking velocity of an AP bomb and the thinner armour that needs to be penetrated.

The KGV class had a very deep belt - deeper than most contemporary designs, and had a Side Protection System that was designed to protect the ship from UW shell hits and torpedo hits:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedo_b ... ection.png

AFAIK, 3 of the 4 torpedo hits on PoW struck the ship outside the SPS and the one that did hit the SPS, abreast B turret, appears to have been defeated by the SPS, and very little flooding occurred inboard of the SPS in the vicinity of the torpedo hit.
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Sinking of the Hood- did all the magazines explode?

Post by paul.mercer »

Hi Dunmunro
Thanks for your detailed reply, one thing that still puzzles me is that if shells were not designed to go off under a low impact, what caused the explosions when some ships rolled over? It surely couldn't be the cordite as this required something to ignite it, and bearing in mind the number of warships of all type and sizes that were sunk, it seems that relatively few actually exploded when they sank.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Sinking of the Hood- did all the magazines explode?

Post by dunmunro »

paul.mercer wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 9:12 am Hi Dunmunro
Thanks for your detailed reply, one thing that still puzzles me is that if shells were not designed to go off under a low impact, what caused the explosions when some ships rolled over? It surely couldn't be the cordite as this required something to ignite it, and bearing in mind the number of warships of all type and sizes that were sunk, it seems that relatively few actually exploded when they sank.
This is from the BofI into the sinking of HMS Barham:

"...The seat of the explosion was probably abreast X and Y 15 inch magazines, which vented through the upper deck
and the ship's side starboard. We are unable to establish the reason for the
explosion but it may have been due to a fire started in the port 4 inch magazine and
which spread to the adjacent 15 inch magazine..."
HMSVF
Senior Member
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: Sinking of the Hood- did all the magazines explode?

Post by HMSVF »

Hello all,long time!


I saw the documentary and was flabbergasted that the second explosion theory was still being pushed forward. I was shouting at the television "no,no,no"!


Even a numpty like myself can see that a 600 ton conning tower isn't going to be launched in the manner described, short of being attached to a post war ICBM -and that the hull (designed to go through water), however damaged is likely to plane off, spiral or whatever during its descent compared to a solid cylinder made of heavy armored plate.

The whole documentary was was a rehash of old stuff that is now out of date IMHO. Clickbait for television.




Now if they were to revisit HMS Hood with modern 4k cameras... Or Barham,Glorious,Courageous or Eagle... I might watch.


Best wishes


HMSVF
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1656
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Sinking of the Hood- did all the magazines explode?

Post by Byron Angel »

Cordite appears to have possessed some peculiar characteristics. Once ignited, it would continue to combust even underwater in the complete absence of air. That combustion would in turn produce an array of volatile unstable gases which, if confined, would spontaneously deflagrate when a certain pressure threshold had been reached.

See Frederick Noble's lecture on nitrocellulose propellants in "Artillery and Explosives".

Byron
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Sinking of the Hood- did all the magazines explode?

Post by paul.mercer »

Hi HMSVF,
Welcome back, Re the Barham, do you know if anyone has found the wreck?
HMSVF
Senior Member
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: Sinking of the Hood- did all the magazines explode?

Post by HMSVF »

paul.mercer wrote: Fri Aug 06, 2021 9:00 am Hi HMSVF,
Welcome back, Re the Barham, do you know if anyone has found the wreck?

I did a search a few months back and a oceanographic survey site were saying that they had found the wreck...


https://www.merlinburrows.com/found-hms-barham-1941/


No pictures or scans though. Whether they have them and will release them,or are holding on for a documentary maker to access there services? Who knows.
HMSVF
Senior Member
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: Sinking of the Hood- did all the magazines explode?

Post by HMSVF »

Byron Angel wrote: Fri Aug 06, 2021 5:26 am Cordite appears to have possessed some peculiar characteristics. Once ignited, it would continue to combust even underwater in the complete absence of air. That combustion would in turn produce an array of volatile unstable gases which, if confined, would spontaneously deflagrate when a certain pressure threshold had been reached.

See Frederick Noble's lecture on nitrocellulose propellants in "Artillery and Explosives".

Byron

Some of the Japanese battleships (thinking Yamato,Musashi,Kirishima/Hiei) ended up in a right old state. Was Japanese propellant similar to British?
HMSVF
Senior Member
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: Sinking of the Hood- did all the magazines explode?

Post by HMSVF »

dunmunro wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 5:47 pm
paul.mercer wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 10:18 am Thanks (as always) Wadinga and Bill for your replies.
Looking at it from the points that you both have made it would seem that Mr Mearns theories are at best incorrect or perhaps out-rightly misleading. However it is interesting to see how some ships exploded as they rolled over while others did not, I have always thought (probably wrongly!) that a shell which was designed to take an extremely heavy impact before exploding would go off by just falling from its rack onto the deck.
Looking at the other part of the film which dealt with Pearl Harbour, it said that the Japanese aircraft used modified 16" AP shells on the battleships, one or more of which penetrated the magazines of the 'Arizona'. did any other nation use large caliber shells in this way as it appears to have been a very good and successful idea?
One other point from the film re the sinking of PoW and Repulse it mentioned that PoW's armour did not extend all the way down and - as far as I could make out, this applied to other capital ships, surely the danger from torpedoes must have been taken into consideration when ships were designed, so was it weight considerations that prevented sufficient armour being placed way below the water line? I realise that in the case of Bismarck and PoW the hits by the rudder and propellers were the two places that could not be adequately protected.
Shell fuzes were designed not to go off from very low velocity impacts.

AP bombs had similar designs to AP shells, but it's best to design the AP bomb to have a larger bursting charge than in an AP shell, to take advantage of the lower striking velocity of an AP bomb and the thinner armour that needs to be penetrated.

The KGV class had a very deep belt - deeper than most contemporary designs, and had a Side Protection System that was designed to protect the ship from UW shell hits and torpedo hits:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedo_b ... ection.png

AFAIK, 3 of the 4 torpedo hits on PoW struck the ship outside the SPS and the one that did hit the SPS, abreast B turret, appears to have been defeated by the SPS, and very little flooding occurred inboard of the SPS in the vicinity of the torpedo hit.

I was under the impression that the SPS had been compromised by counterflooding and that the hit aside B turret did vent upwards. I believe that it was extended a deck higher on HMS Vanguard. I'm going from memory so I may well be talking bullocks in regards to the last bit.
Post Reply