|
Post by jodak on May 24, 2016 6:53:43 GMT -6
I thought that I would create a Europe companion thread for WW2 in the Pacific and start with this - Today is the 75th anniversary (May 24, 1941) of one of the salient events of WW2, the Battle of the Denmark Straight, in which the HMS Hood was sunk by the German Bismark.
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 24, 2016 10:20:52 GMT -6
I thought that I would create a Europe companion thread for WW2 in the Pacific and start with this - Today is the 75th anniversary (May 24, 1941) of one of the salient events of WW2, the Battle of the Denmark Straight, in which the HMS Hood was sunk by the German Bismark. Jodak, Not to be a jerk, but I believe that is Strait, not straight. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 24, 2016 12:36:17 GMT -6
Fred: You are not being a jerk. However, grammar is not one of America's strong points. Finger pointing, name-calling, insults and lies seem to be what America is great at.
Besides what the heck does this have to do with the LBH?!
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on May 24, 2016 14:29:41 GMT -6
I don't suppose it does CH, but Kodak has been kind enough to put this thread in the relevant place on the board and this place has nothing to do with the BLBH and that's why it is called "General and Miscellaneous.
|
|
|
Post by dave on May 24, 2016 14:32:35 GMT -6
Horse Having a bad day? Seem a little testy.
jodak I vividly remember seeing the movie "Sink the Bismark!" and developing a life long love affair with the Hood. She was one of the most beautiful ships ever commissioned but with a glass jaw so to speak. The Bismark was a tough ship to sink and luckily for the British that old biplane torpedo bomber hit her rudder and prevented him reaching France. The Home Fleet arrived to sink the Bismark. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by edavids on May 24, 2016 14:34:33 GMT -6
I thought that I would create a Europe companion thread for WW2 in the Pacific and start with this - Today is the 75th anniversary (May 24, 1941) of one of the salient events of WW2, the Battle of the Denmark Straight, in which the HMS Hood was sunk by the German Bismark. In 3 more days or so we can celebrate the sinking if the Bismarck, thereby avenging the loss ot the Hood.
|
|
|
Post by jodak on May 25, 2016 12:44:46 GMT -6
Dave, I was actually flipping through stations, came across that movie, and watched it again just a few nights ago. Maybe they had it on because the anniversary was approaching. I have a couple of comments in regard to your comment about Hood having a glass jaw. Although she definitely had shortcomings, I think that they and the Bismarck’s strengths are both overblown and have left enduring perceptions that are not quite the reality. To begin with, battlecruisers were not as unarmored and frail as is commonly believed but were actually quite heavily armored but just not to battleship standards. Secondly, some, of which I am one, hold that the Hood was not really a battlecruiser at all but was actually more akin to and an early iteration of what would become known as the fast battleships. The same could have been said of the U.S. Lexington class had they been completed as designed and not converted to carriers. The “admiral” class of ships, of which Hood was the only one completed, had originally been intended and designed as battleships. However, Admiral Jellico made the case that the British were in good shape vis-a-vis the Germans in regard to battleships but lacking in battlecruisers, especially in light of the rumored German intent to build a new class of super battlecruisers. As a result the admirals were redesigned as battlecruisers, which essentially meant employing somewhat thinner armor in a tradeoff for greater speed, but were still battleships at the core. However, Hood was laid down on the same day as the Battle of Jutland was fought, and work on her was immediately halted until the lessons of that engagement could be analyzed and incorporated into her design. That resulted in her being again up armored to close to her original design, and, as completed, her armor accounted for a little over 30% of her total weight, which was very much in line with contemporary battleships, while the standard for battlecruisers was armor that accounted for about 25% of the ship’s weight. However, she was still capable of speeds of near 30 knots, and, in keeping with their practice of classifying capital ships that could exceed 25 knots as battlecruisers, the British continued to regard and refer to her as such, which is where the enduring perception of the Hood as a battlecruiser comes from, although she did not fit the model as we now think of it. The British also contributed to the confusion over exactly what was regarded as a battlecruiser by referring to both the German Deutschlands and Sharnhorsts as battlecruisers, although they were vastly different ships, and the Germans and everyone else appropriately classified them as heavy cruisers and battleships respectively. However, even though Hood was fairly heavily armored in total, it was of a poor configuration and did not adequately protect the ship’s vitals. That was particularly true of the deck armor, especially toward the two ends of the ship, but that may just be a manifestation of the fact that most ships of Hood’s vintage had inadequate deck armor in light of the subsequent improved gunnery capabilities and plunging fire that we have previously discussed. In that sense you are correct about the Hood having a glass jaw, and one of the principal theories as to her demise is that a shell penetrated her deck armor and exploded in a magazine. However, that is not certain, and there are at least two other theories/possibilities that I am aware of. Just as I believe that the Hood’s weaknesses have been exaggerated, I think that history has magnified Bismarck’s capabilities and that she would have in fact been at a disadvantage in a stand up fight with any of the newer allied battleships that she might have encountered – the British King George Vs, the French Richelieus, or the U.S. North Carolinas, South Dakotas, or Iowas. Granted the Prince of Wales (King George V class) did not fare well against her, but there were considerable extenuating circumstances to that. I even think that the five newest of the older U.S. battleships, the Tennessee and Colorado classes, would have proved very capable in an engagement with the Bismarck, as, in a sense, they were the last of the true battleships that were designed to dish out and absorb punishment, without concern for speed, anti-aircraft capabilities, etc. To sort of put all of this in perspective, I have built the below table that provides comparisons of the Hood to her nearest relatives, the Renown battlecruisers and Queen Elizabeth battleships, as well as the Bismarck and the penultimate battleships, the Iowas. As you can see, Hood was superior to the Renowns in all respects and compared quite favorably with the Queen Elizabeths, as well as with the Bismarck in everything except deck armor and main battery range. Bismarck also had a slightly faster rate of fire, and, being considerably newer, I assume she benefited from more modern equipment, such as better radar directed fire control and other modern improvements, but I’m not sure of that.
Renown Hood QE Bismarck Iowa Displacement (standard) 27,200t 46,800t 27,500t 41,700t 45,000t Speed (knots) 31 31 24 30 33 Range (kmi) 4,000 5,332 5,000 8,870 14,900 Complement 950 1,325 1,300 2,050 2,900 Main Battery: Number/Diameter 6 x 15 in 8 x 15 in 8 x 15 in 8 x 15 in 9 x 16 in Shell Weight (AP) 1,900 lbs 1,900 lbs 1,900 lbs 1,800 lbs 2,700 lbs Rate of Fire 2/min 2/min 2/min 2.5/min 2/min Total Broadside Wt. 11,600 lbs 15,500 lbs 15,500 lbs 14,400 lbs 24,300 lbs BW/min 23,300 lbs 31,000 lbs 31,000 lbs 36,000 lbs 48,600 lbs Range (yds) 33,500 33,500 33,500 39,950 41,600 Armor: Turret (face) 9.0 in 15.0 in 13.0 in 14.0 in 19.7 in Belt (max) 6.0 in 12.0 in 13.0 in 12.6 in 12.0 in Deck (max) 2.5 in 3.0 in 4.0 in 4.7 in 7.5 in
|
|
|
Post by dave on May 25, 2016 19:46:12 GMT -6
jodak As always I love reading your posts which are so informative and thoughtful. I was referring to the Hood's lightly armored deck as compared to the other ships and classes you listed in your chart. I, as usual, have gone off half cocked in the sense I was unaware of classifications of capital ships and had considered the Hood as Battle Cruiser without thinking of the various classes of capital ships.
I have made a note to read more about these ships and classifications just as soon as I study up on the Black Death that decimated Asia and Europe in the mid 1330's. I am always comforted by how little I know and how much more time I will need to read and update myself on various subjects. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by jodak on May 26, 2016 6:46:52 GMT -6
Dave, you didn't go off half cocked at all, and I didn't mean to imply that I thought you had. You are quite correct that the Hood did have a glass jaw of sorts, in that her relatively thin deck armor was a definite handicap. However, she was still a very strong and capable ship, and that was what I was trying to point out. As I said, I think that the common perception is that the Bismarck was all powerful while the Hood was a paper tiger that had no business being in the same ocean with her, and I think that both perceptions are exaggerated. Keep in mind that, although the British had several newer and more modern battleships, Hood was still the pride of the fleet, which would not have been the case if they did not feel that she was the baddest thing that they had. The Germans thought so as well, and I once saw an interview with a Bismarck survivor in which he said that all of their training and drills were based upon fighting the Hood.
You are also correct in thinking of the Hood as a battlecruiser, as that is how the British classified her and, as a result, how she has generally always been regarded. My point in that regard is that British regarded her as a battlecruiser solely on the basis of her superior speed and not due to the lighter armor that we normally associate with battlecruisers. The London Naval treaty treated battleships and battlecruisers the same and lumped them together into the all encompassing category of "capital ship", so there is no definitive standard as to exactly what was a battleship and a battlecruiser and different nations defined them differently. As I mentioned in an earlier post, navies generally strove for what was regarded as "balanced ships", in which a ship's offensive and defensive capabilities were balanced, with the yardstick being that a ship was considered balanced if her armor was deemed capable of withstanding shells comparable to her own. Due to their heavy guns and somewhat thinner armor, battlecruisers did not fit that mold and that is perhaps the best way to differentiate them from battleships, which were more balanced, and, by that standard, I believe Hood was more of a battleship.
some things that relate to this that you might find interesting -
www.informationdissemination.net/2014/12/the-enduring-myth-of-fragile_16.html
www.dcr.net/~stickmak/JOHT/joht39shipvscruiser.htm
www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/b/battlecruisers-in-the-united-states-and-the-united-kingdom-1902-1922.html
|
|
|
Post by dave on May 26, 2016 9:22:20 GMT -6
jodak I appreciate your kind words but I did speak (write) without thinking very deeply regarding the Hood's shortcomings. I take no offense at anything your write and point out but rather take your comments as good advice and learn from my mistakes. I have no ego hangups when it comes to education, being ignorant is not a sign being stupid is.
I am going to read the articles you listed and the will get back when I will be able to form more cogent comments and ideas. I do have another question for you to ruminate on and share with me your thoughts.
The Hood's deck armor was 3" The Arizona's deck armor was 5" Yet the Arizona sank from a 16" modified shell penetrating his forward armored deck. Naval department speculation being that a hatchway may have been opened leading to the black powder magazine which exploded causing the main magazine to blow. Not sure who or what is correct but the point being her armor was 5" and did not protect the ship. So maybe the Hood did not have a glass jaw after all. Look forward to your comments. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by jodak on May 26, 2016 14:21:57 GMT -6
Both were probably just a product of their times, when deck hits were considered unlikely and not particularly necessary to protect against. However, although the Arizona/Pennsylvania class was one of the oldest in the fleet, they had heavier deck armor than all subsequent classes up until the North Carolinas, and theirs was only marginally thicker. On the other hand, small apparent differences in armor can actually be quite large. For example, the difference between the Hood's 3 inches and the Arizona's 5 inches of deck armor would, on the surface, appear to be small but is actually an almost 70% difference, so, in that sense, the Arizona was a good deal more heavily armored than the Hood. The reasons as to why it was not sufficient include several possibilities, including, as you indicated, the possibility of fire/explosion being propagated through open passageways until it reached the magazine. Since the ship was not buttoned up for battle any number of hatches could have been open or things not stored properly that could have contributed to that, just as it is possible that the explosion on the Hood was not the result of a direct hit to the magazine either. However, assuming that the Arizona's explosion was strictly the result of a bomb penetrating directly through the deck and ship to the magazine, there are a few extenuating circumstances to that. To begin with, had she suffered a hit in the same place from shellfire, the shell would have impacted/penetrated the armor at an angle, which would have served to increase the armor's effective thickness (remember all of the sign/cosign stuff?), as well as possibly following a trajectory that would have caused it to explode somewhat higher in the ship than in the magazine. All of that was taken into consideration in ship and armor design. As it was the bomb hit at near vertical, where the effective thickness of the armor was minimized, and probably passed straight down through the ship to the magazine. Also, shells striking at an angle had a greater chance of being "decaped", which was the armor piercing cap being broken off or mangled before it could penetrate the armor, while the prospects of that were also minimized by a direct, in this case vertical, hit. Finally, the bomb was probably dropped from a considerably higher altitude than would have been the case with a shell traveling at even maximum trajectory, so the momentum and penetrating effect would have been greater. As a tangent to that, both the Arizona and Hood were designed at the time that 14 inches was the standard battleship armament, while the Hood was ultimately done in by a 15 inch shell and the Arizona a 16 inch shell/bomb, with the greater weight and penetrating power that entailed.
|
|
|
Post by dave on May 26, 2016 18:07:35 GMT -6
jodak Good point about the Arizona and Hood being designed and protected for 14" shells not 15" or 16" I had not thought about that point. I understand that the vertical fall of the shell that hit the Arizona was never anticipated or protected against. I wonder if she had been at General Quarters would her sinking been changed? Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Jun 6, 2016 8:04:30 GMT -6
June 6, 1945
People of Western Europe, A landing was made this morning on the coast of France by troops of the Allied Expeditionary Force. This landing is part of a concerted United Nations plan for the liberation of Europe, made in conjunction with our great Russian allies. I have this message for all of you, although the initial assault may not have been in your own country, the hour of your liberation is approaching.
General Dwight D. Eisenhower Broadcast to France June 6, 1944
|
|
|
Post by dave on Jun 6, 2016 10:47:39 GMT -6
June 6, 1944 General Eisenhower's statement to the Allied Expeditionary Forces!
Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Forces:
You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you. In company with our brave Allies and brothers-in-arms on other Fronts you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world.
Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well trained, well equipped and battle-hardened. He will fight savagely.
But this is the year 1944. Much has happened since the Nazi triumphs of 1940-41. The United Nations have inflicted upon the Germans great defeats, in open battle, man-to-man. Our air offensive has seriously reduced their strength in the air and their capacity to wage war on the ground. Our Home Fronts have given us an overwhelming superiority in weapons and munitions of war, and placed at our disposal great reserves of trained fighting men. The tide has turned. The free men of the world are marching together to victory.
I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty, and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than full victory.
Good Luck! And let us all beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Jun 6, 2016 15:50:13 GMT -6
The human cost of the Normandy Landings on June 6th are estimated at over 9,000 with about 2,500 fatalities.* Compare this fight with the destruction of Antietam^ Federal Casualties 12,400 and 2,100 fatalities Confederate Casualties 10,320 and 1,550 fatalities
*http://www.ddaymuseum.co.uk/d-day/d-day-and-the-battle-of-normandy-your-questions-answered ^https://www.nps.gov/anti/learn/historyculture/casualties.htm
|
|