What’s also Saddening about this is the fact that the Prince of wales which she was with at the time of the sinking , would be sunk her self by the end of that year in the China sea by Jap air craft , 
Tonight my mum reminded me that my day had brought a job lot of ship post cards and in there was a Christmas car with a picture of the HMS Hood on and was sent by a crew member
Tarmaceater:
If there any scuba divers out there I can recommend diving at the Scapa Flow to see the sunken German navy warships , what an experience and definitely spooky in the descent down in darkness then you see the ship upside down.
Brave divers go inside the ship using rope as you can get lost if visibility is lost .
It’s unusual to find relatively intact warships to dive on. On the one hand warships are much sturdier than merchant ships, but on the other, their deaths tend to be far more violent, unless they are deliberately scuttled, as at scapa.
But wreck penetration is extremely dangerous. The ones at scapa aren’t for the faint hearted or the novices!
The only other scuttled warship in UK waters that I can think of is the Scylla off Plymouth, and that’s an artificial reef. If anyone knows of any others I’d be grateful for the info.
Carryfast:
cav551:
Starting at around 32 minutes some of the factors to take into account to illustrate that naval gunnery is a bit more complicated than just “up a bit, down a bit”.To be fair if you’re intending to drop a shell through thinly armoured decks as opposed to through the side of a thickly armoured hull that’s obviously all about trying to make an artillery shell behave like a mortar round.
There was obviously no problem with Bismark’s range finding or fire control.
I realise that first time around you didn’t understand why Drachinifel has come to the conclusion that it was a hull shot which sank Hood so watch the video again and pause it to study the drawings. He goes through each theory in detail and explains the angle of impact relative to the range, concluding that Bismark’s shells would have hit at roughly 14 degrees.
The discovery of Bismark’s wreck and subsequent dives have shown that it was neither Rodney’s guns nor Dorsetshire’s torpedoes which ultimately dispatched the ship to the deep; the ship was scuttled.
The mention of the Swordfish crews’ bravery and contribution to the ship’s demise link nicley to the Scharnhorst with both the Channel Dash of February 1942 which saw all the attacking Swordfish destroyed, but also with the later sinking of Scharnhorst.
Over Christmas 1943 Scharnhorst like Bismark, was disabled, then cornered and battered into a flaming hulk, unable to defend herself any longer and going down with the loss of 1968 of her crew.
Following Scharnhorst’s sinking, the British Admiral commanding, addressed his officers and paid tribute to the German Admiral Bey. This could be equally fittingly applied to the almost 6000 of those lost on the Hood, the Bismark and the Scharnhorst and to those Swordfish crews.
Admiral Fraser : " Gentlemen the battle against the Scharnhorst has resulted in victory for us. I hope that if any of you are called upon to lead a ship into action against an opponent many times superior, you will command you ship as gallantly as Scharnhorst was commanded today.”
cav551:
Carryfast:
cav551:
Starting at around 32 minutes some of the factors to take into account to illustrate that naval gunnery is a bit more complicated than just “up a bit, down a bit”.To be fair if you’re intending to drop a shell through thinly armoured decks as opposed to through the side of a thickly armoured hull that’s obviously all about trying to make an artillery shell behave like a mortar round.
There was obviously no problem with Bismark’s range finding or fire control.
I realise that first time around you didn’t understand why Drachinifel has come to the conclusion that it was a hull shot which sank Hood so watch the video again and pause it to study the drawings. He goes through each theory in detail and explains the angle of impact relative to the range, concluding that Bismark’s shells would have hit at roughly 14 degrees.
As I said I think his premise that trajectory is dependent on range is incorrect.As proved by the reference to landing two shells at the same time, on the same target, from one gun.How would that be possible if plunging v lower angle fire is ( relatively ) range dependent ?.
If there was no issue with Hood’s deck armour then what was the big thing about closing the range as fast as possible to avoid ‘plunging fire’ all about and how did they reach the conclusion that plunging fire can’t still be created by firing at relatively closer ranges.
He can’t possibly know what elevation that Bismark’s guns were firing on Hood at because all of those records went down with the ship.
But we do know that the Navy was very worried about Hood’s ability to deal with plunging fire and her Captain had been ordered to base his tactics on that premise.
But they would have been expected to know that a relatively closer range isn’t mutually exclusive with plunging fire just as relatively further range isn’t mutually exclusive with firing at lower elevation.
Realistically it was just a repeat of the lessons that the Kreigsmarine had learn’t from Jutland and they knew that Hood had all the same flaws as any other type of Cruiser class in that regard.
In compromising protection for a few knots of extra speed and more importantly for the government of the day saving a few bob for the bankers.
Something wrong with our bloody ships indeed three of em in WW1 followed by another in WW2 was clearly more than a coincidence.
Drachinifel seems to be doing the same thing as many other historians in trying to divert attention from the government’s complicity in those losses.
The excuse of fire doors having been left open to speed loading obviously wasn’t going to work again in this case.
Strange how no one ever raised the question why were only the ‘cruisers’ affected by that supposed issue at Jutland.
Contrary to Drachinifel’s view the German designers themselves state deck armour penetration of 3.3 - 3.7 inches at a range of less than 25,000 yards and an angle of fall of 19 - 22 degrees.
Hood’s deck armour was 3 inches max.
While Ted Briggs himself stated that he was told by an officer near him that the hit was at the ‘‘base of the main mast’’ obviously still within the danger range at that point.His story also confirms Hood’s dodgy deck armour.
The truth is Bismark didn’t need anything like 60 degrees of fall.
Carryfast:
Contrary to Drachinifel’s view the German designers themselves state deck armour penetration of 3.3 - 3.7 inches at a range of less than 25,000 yards and an angle of fall of 19 - 22 degrees.
Hood’s deck armour was 3 inches max.
youtube.com/watch?v=RqVfdeGCov4 9.53 - 10.24
The SS Thistlegorm is an amazing dive site in the Red Sea , full of cargo to look at including sitting in the Captain’ s bath tub .