Denmarck Straits: Hood´s gunnery fault?

[Tiornu]

Vanguard was given added strengthening for her 30deg mounts to handle super-charge propellant.
There is no indication that Hood suffered an accident. There were a dozen ships in the RN with older 15in mounts, and none of them ever suffered any flash accidents. In fact, the only 15in accidents in the RN that I know of were caused by faulty US-made shells. These accidents did not cause any crew casualties. Even if we theorize an accident in the mount, that still doesn't explain the ship's loss. How does the flash get down into the magazines when the RN had some of the tightest anti-flash measures in the world?

[Karl Heidenreich]

Hood´s loss was properly explained by Bill Jurens´ study, there is nothing new to discover after that. The HMS Hood Association and the British Goverment stand for that.

[Gudbrandur]

Right, Karl.
The Bismarck was heading from north to south, sailing down current, tilting stern up and down.
The Hood was heading from east to west, rolling left to right. With current from the right,.
Both ships where firing of front gunnery if I am right. The waves where about 7 to 10 m high.
Under these circumstances the aft magazine of the Hood, erupted up in an massiv explosion and she, ended up on the bottom of the ocean at 63.20N, and 31.50W.

Aiming gunns under these circumstances is very hard indeed. What is the connection between the front gunnery magazines and the back magazines.
The speed of the Bismarck is no higer than she can take in waves of 8 to 10 m. The Hood has the same speed problem.
If there was an golden bullet hitting the Hood, then that was one bad luck, for naval history.

[Bgile]

Right, Karl.
The Bismarck was heading from north to south, sailing down current, tilting stern up and down.
The Hood was heading from east to west, rolling left to right. With current from the right,.
Both ships where firing of front gunnery if I am right. The waves where about 7 to 10 m high.
Under these circumstances the aft magazine of the Hood, erupted up in an massiv explosion and she, ended up on the bottom of the ocean at 63.20N, and 31.50W.

Aiming gunns under these circumstances is very hard indeed. What is the connection between the front gunnery magazines and the back magazines.
The speed of the Bismarck is no higer than she can take in waves of 8 to 10 m. The Hood has the same speed problem.
If there was an golden bullet hitting the Hood, then that was one bad luck, for naval history.

You obviously have a completely misinformed view of this battle. The seas were not a significant factor in gunnery, and Bismarck's fire against Hood was very accurate from the beginning. Bismarck was firing all her guns, trained to port.

[RF]

I think the proper conclusion really is that Hood suffered one fatal blow, just as Bismarck was also later to suffer a fatal blow, albeit one that did not encompass immediate destruction of the ship, that goes under the heading of ''fortunes of war''.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Bismarck´s hit on Hood was fatal and a product of a very precise aiming. The Swordfish´s torpedo hit on Bismarck´s rudder was both fatal and a lucky shot. There is a big diference.

[iankw]

I'm no expert on battleship gunnery, so I will await wiser heads on this. However, this is the first time I have ever seen a hit on another ship described as precise (I thought there was such a thing as dispersion?).

regards

[Karl Heidenreich]

iankw:

I'm no expert on battleship gunnery, so I will await wiser heads on this. However, this is the first time I have ever seen a hit on another ship described as precise (I thought there was such a thing as dispersion?).

regards

What I was trying to say is that Bismarck´s hit on Hood was not due to luck but to an artillery fire process, very accurate, that at the end give the best results, while the Swordfish hit was due to (heroic yes) a great amount of luck.

[paulcadogan]

Happy New Year once again...

Karl, my friend, I cannot agree with you in your contrasting of the two hits. You are correct in that the Bismarck's salvo was aimed with precision gained through months of exercises with excellent equipment - BUT Schneider certainly could not have been aiming to strike Hood at the precise point that would take the shell to the magazine. He was aiming to strike the Hood! The fact that the shell went where it did was sheer luck!

The same applies to the aerial torpedo. The Swordfish did not simply fly in and drop their torpedoes at random and hope for a lucky hit! They flew in at angles they hoped would send the torpedoes into Bismarck's hull - they certainly were not aiming for the steering compartment! They attacked based on training and practice. Bismarck in turn had to turn and weave to avoid them and the fact that one of the two that struck home was a crippling blow to the steering mechanism is also sheer luck.

Both are examples of the very same thing.

Also, for those who are interested or who have not already seen them, there are some good threads in the Hood forum dealing with Hood's gunnery in the Denmark Strait, including the level of accuracy, the possible use of radar and the effects of the spotting top hit.

I don't believe any of PoW's shells fell close to the Prinz, but Hood's definitely did, based on the references given by Antonio - close enough to have the cruiser's decks awash with water from the collapsing splashes. According to Captain Brinkmann in the Prinz's war diary the ship was very "lucky" not to have been hit!

All the best to everyone for 07.

Paul

[Antonio Bonomi]

Ciao all,

Thanks Paul

I am sure you were referring to those links :

http://www.readybb.com/hmshood/viewtopi ... =1809#1809

http://www.readybb.com/hmshood/viewtopi ... =1808#1808

http://www.readybb.com/hmshood/viewtopi ... =1807#1807

I am sure we can have others competent opinions from here as well.

Ciao Antonio