HMS Hood a WW1 ship


One reviewer writes of HMS Hood being "the pride of the British Navy" when it came up against The Bismark. HMS Hood was launched in 1918, Bismark in 1939. The battle in which the Bismark sank the Hood was thus between a WW1 ship and a WW2 ship; the outcome must have been predictable. In such a contest it would have been bravery rather than pride on the part of the crew of the Hood.

reply

Still, no one expected that it would be sunk so quickly and completely. I won't call it a 'lucky hit' because the Bismarck's gunnery was superb but one shell did hit a very vital spot.

reply

Do not confuse age with ability. HMS Hood was indeed the pride of the Royal Navy, not just as a flagship but as a symbol of the British Empire. She spent most of her career acting as an ambassador of sorts, ferrying dignataries around the empire.
The Admiralty were well aware of her vulnerability to long range fire, it was a design flaw in the very concept of a battlecruiser. A vessel with the size and armament of a battleship but with the armour of a cruiser. Sacrificing protection for speed. The German idea of a pocket battleship was the natural progression of the battlecruiser concept. 'Faster than anything stronger; stronger than anything faster'. But all other navies (except Germany) had abandoned this evolutionary offshoot and invested in aircraft carrier development instead.

HMS Hood had long been intended to undergo a major refit like many of her other super-dreadnaught compatriots underwent in the inter-war years. She would have emerged with a look similar to the Queen Elizabeth class of battleship, but her duties never allowed for her to be taken out of service for a few years to undergo the rebuild.

The only flaw in the battle (from a British perspective), was a navigational miscalculation, where the Royal navy had intended to "cross the German's 'T'" a traditional tactical manoeveur used by the Royal navy. Only the Hood and Prince of Wales were not in the desired position when the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen entered weapons range, and the ploy had reversed with the Germans able to engage with broadsides while the Royal navy ships were only able to bring their forrid turrets to bear.

HMS Prince of Wales should not even have been there as she was still incomplete and put to sea with a number of civilian builders still on board. This has become something of a tradition in the Royal navy, a vessel going to war before being fully worked up. With the aircraft carriers HMS Illustrious called into action during the Falklands war, and HMS Ocean in the war with Serbia in the mid 1990's.


"I'm not really me. Thats me there- that pile of albino mouse droppings!"

reply

As an anecdote to your comment, the Swordfish crews on HMS Victorious were very raw, some of them had never done a deck landing! I know this because one of them used to drink in my Mothers pub I have the first copy of his memoirs and we talked about the Bismarck story many times.

reply

[deleted]

The Hood was also a battle cruiser, not a battleship. Battle cruisers were not designed to go head to head with a battleship. Battleships had large guns and strong armor. Battle cruisers, on the other hand sacrificed their armor for speed.

While the Hood was faster than the Bismarck, additional armor would have been more valuable in a head to head battle.

To make matters worse, the Hood's companion, the Prince of Wales was brand new and not ready for battle. For some time during the battle, only two of the Prince of Wales 14 inch guns were operational.



reply

The way I heard it the Hood was supposed to have had weak deck armor which left it vulnerable.

reply