Naval History Forums

Hi guys, I am curious about this painting of the Hood sinking, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Hood# ... S_Hood.jpg, whose anniversary happens to be today. Did anyone actually see Hood in such a high angle?

Regards

Most of her hull would be out of the water in that painting, I think.

Hi OpanaPointer,
I'm not skeptical about the angle (several witnesses saw Hood bows almost vertical) but by the length of her hull out of the water that looks a bit exaggerated: the stern was already gone and all the large internal spaces (engine rooms) flooded, thus not enough buoyancy to have the bridges and the funnels raising out of the water, possibly only the forecastle with the fore turrets.


Bye, Alberto

Alberto Virtuani wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2019 5:51 pm Hi OpanaPointer,
I'm not skeptical about the angle (several witnesses saw Hood bows almost vertical) but by the length of her hull out of the water that looks a bit exaggerated: the stern was already gone and all the large internal spaces (engine rooms) flooded, thus not enough buoyancy to have the bridges and the funnels raising out of the water, possibly only the forecastle with the fore turrets.


Bye, Alberto

Exactly what I was thinking. How many people actually saw it?

Regards

Hi Marcelo,
if you mean the portion of the ship out of the water, I think nobody stated that they could see up to the second funnel...

IMO the painter just wanted to show the "Hood" with her profile clearly recognizable, not the exact length of the ship outside the sea.


This is Tedd Briggs in his book (http://www.hmshood.com/crew/remember/te ... p.htm#Ch20) : "I turned and fifty yards away I could see the bows of the Hood vertical in the sea."

Schmalenbach (http://www.kbismarck.com/archives/pg-ktb.zip, pag.45) however depicted the scene exactly as in the paint...


Bye, Alberto

Thanks Alberto. The document mentions 40°, less than the painting I think.