Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
HMS HOOD
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by jamesandkatherina (U11083688) on Sunday, 5th October 2008
Some of you may be aware that I have a strong interest in HMS HOOD and it is with regret that the last survivor Ted Briggs has died aged 85
God Bless the Hood and all who served on her
J -
Message 2
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Sunday, 5th October 2008
May his ship mates be waiting to greet him, and may the grog flow freely.
-
Message 3
Posted by LairigGhru (U5452625) on Sunday, 5th October 2008
Hear hear to messages 1 & 2.
-
Message 4
Posted by Mark (U2073932) on Thursday, 9th October 2008
One thing is for sure - they are in good company!
-
Message 5
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Thursday, 9th October 2008
always think about the crew of the Hood - they were serving on what they were assured was the most powerful warship on earth - indestructible - invincible - they werent worried about anything surely
yet !!!
did we let them down ??
ST -
Message 6
Posted by LairigGhru (U5452625) on Thursday, 9th October 2008
I understand that deck strengthening work at the critical spot ought to have been carried out, but the ship was allowed to go on so many goodwill tours that the work was never done.
-
Message 7
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Thursday, 9th October 2008
always think about the crew of the Hood - they were serving on what they were assured was the most powerful warship on earth - indestructible - invincible - they werent worried about anything surely
yet !!!
did we let them down ??
³§°ΥΜύ
I have to say I felt quite upset when I heard that Ted Briggs had passed away,whilst he was alive I think that their wwas a tangible living link between the present and HMS Hood and her crew in 1941."Lest we forget" is a commonly used phrase,but I really do hope that people do remember the 1400 crew of Hood and the 2000 or so of Bismark and not just the "action" itself.The most emotive piece I have ever read about HMS Hood was by Ludovic Kennedy,I think it went along the lines of:
"Men were at their stations,watching gauges,checking dials,when suddenly for just an instant they realised that something was wrong and that death had come to take them"
I dont mind telling you that the first time I read that it really moved me,you could imagine stokers,artificers,men in the magazines and gun turrets going about their duty,then .....
For the ship herself? The problem was that the ship was 20 years old.Her protection on redesign was not that disimilar to the "Queen Elizabeths" as buit in 1915(on redesign I mean post Jutland alterations).It was well known that her "achilles heel" was her insufficient deck armour,and its worth pointing out that she wasnt alone, the modernised battleships/cruisers of WW1 (Q.E's and Renown class) all had their deck armour improved.The other problem (shared by HMS Nelson and Rodney)was that she was THE premiere unit of the RN and such,when do you take her out of service? She is faster than the aged Q.E's,she is better armoured than the Renowns,she was undoutabley due a refit and reconstruction,but when do you take her out of service?She, despite her flaws,was a valuable first line unit,indeed the most famous of the RN's battlefleet.Do you decommission her in 1936 during the Munich Crisis,1937,1938? and have your premiere unit in refit?Im not saying its right,but I think you have to see the issue from the perspective of the time...
HMS Hood was apparently a considered a "safe bet" if posted to her and for the most part a "happy ship".What the thoughts were of the crew going into the Denmark Straight battle is difficult to assess as we only had the the 3 survivors accounts.Id imagine that they wouldnt have been that dissimilar to those of HMS Indefatigable,Queen Mary or Invincible.
Just a few musings
Vf -
Message 8
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Friday, 10th October 2008
i have read about the proposed refit - if u were on it it was probably "so what" - look at the power of this ship - cant be sunk
digressing - on the way back from a beer festival on the x channel ferry - my mate who was not a good sailor started panicking when we hit a force 7 gale - i said along the lines off - how can u worry - look how big it is, look at the huge metal walls - the reinforced glass - how can we be sunk !!
it was 2 months to the day before the Free Enterprise disaster - bit like those lads on the Hood i think - and what a
horrible death - 1400 in a matter of minutes
i suppose POW and the Repulse crews felt the same way
st -
Message 9
Posted by chrisramsfan1 (U13940531) on Wednesday, 29th April 2009
Extremely sad to know or ted Briggs death, he is happy at peace with his shipmates, as in the programme when the Hood was found, he explained how he had given up all hope when being dragged down Hood, but with a great rush of air bubbles he popped to the surface, this had haunted him since that day in may 1941.
Was Hood's loss down to bad judgement by Vice-Admiral Holland or just a lucky hit from Bismarck, because Hood's boat deck was already alight from a 8 inch shell from Prinz Eugen.
Hood was firing at Prinz Eugen by mistake due to the direction they were approach the British force, but Prince of Wales's gunnery officer realised the mistake and shifted fire to the Bismarck. Even if Hood had the deck armour stregthened aft, would it still have stopped that shell, because all german naval artillary pieces fired a lighter shell but with a greater fps. Either way it still does not get away from the fact that 1,418 on the Hood and 2,181 on Bismarck died carrying out there duty.
Me and my son both found the naval war memorial at Portsmouth very humberling, names you have read about and heard about you were now seeing them in front of yourself, very sad indeed. -
Message 10
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Wednesday, 29th April 2009
<quote>Was Hood's loss down to bad judgement by Vice-Admiral Holland</quote>
You can only play the hands you are given.I believe that HMS Suffolk lost contact for a short time but it was enough to mean that Admiral Hollands plan of an almost "head on attck" were scuppered.They ended up on a much more fine approach which meant that Hood was invariably be exposed longer.That they targeted the wrong ship can be put down to two things.Firstly the Bismark and Prinz Eugen look very similar.Secondly Prinz Eugen was leading,Bismark had inadvertently fell out of line leaving the cruiser in the "van" position"(hence the very famous photo of Bismark shhooting,astern of prinz Eugen).I dont think the British would expect the premier unit to be second in line.
<quote>or just a lucky hit from Bismarck, because Hood's boat deck was already alight from a 8 inch shell from Prinz Eugen.<quote>
You have to remember that HMS Hood was actually devised BEFORE Jutland.Despite the fact that with guns that could easily fight and fire at 20000 yards,nobody it seems took into consideration that deck armour would play a crucial role.Hood was considered to be well armoured,the pattern of armour was not dissimilar to the Queen Elizabeth class.Until Jutland,where the British learnt a harsh lesson about deck armour and cordite flash.Hood was already "on the boards" and she ended up having to have ammendments made to try and incperate the Jutland lessons.The problem with doing this is that you upset the balance of a ship by adding more weight.Indeed Hood ended up sitting a foot deeper than she should have done in the water.The deck armour issue was well known and had been recognised as early as the 1920's.She had 3 thin decks,what she really needed was one thick one,but despite this and due to her prominece she never recieved the necessary refit.By 1941 she was very overweight and in desperate need of overhaul.As a fighting ship she was expected to take fire,the problem was that any plunging shell was highly likely to penetrate her thin decks and to her internals.Seeing that she carried a hell of a lot of explosivein several magazines a cordite expolsion was a possiblilty.
Was it bad luck?Depends on what you read,Hood ahd just commenced a a "blue" turn (the rudder on the wreck is turned to port)there was a theory that as the ship heeled the shell struck and an easier penetration than if the ship had been level,others say that due to her thin decks she was always at risk.Personally I agree with them.
Vf -
Message 11
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Wednesday, 29th April 2009
whatever!!!
why is it that we - the greatest naval power ever (?) always have the f ups
the Hood - the most powerful ship on earth gets taken out so easily
\pow - the most modern ship afloat and repulse - get taken out by a handful of modern planes
royal oak - submarine in the invincible scapa flow
jutland - seems to be something wrong with our ships (Beattie ?)
Falklands - sheffield coventry ardent etc - easy burners
why us ?? - we are meant to be the best
st -
Message 12
Posted by LairigGhru (U5452625) on Wednesday, 29th April 2009
Several of the above messages alude to the fact that the deck armour problem was well known and understood.
Is it possible that the Germans knew about it too, and that they deliberately made their shells plunge in the hope of hitting this achilles heel? -
Message 13
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Wednesday, 29th April 2009
whatever!!!
why is it that we - the greatest naval power ever (?) always have the f ups
the Hood - the most powerful ship on earth gets taken out so easily
\pow - the most modern ship afloat and repulse - get taken out by a handful of modern planes
royal oak - submarine in the invincible scapa flow
jutland - seems to be something wrong with our ships (Beattie ?)
Falklands - sheffield coventry ardent etc - easy burners
why us ?? - we are meant to be the best
²υ³ΩΜύ
At the end of the day Bismark was sunk.Didnt disapate the shock of the sinking of HMS Hood,but did satisfy feelings of avengeance possibly.
On the other hand, Stalti the RN have a history of getting a bloody nose and still winning.
At Crete Cunning stated (when under enourmous pressure to withdraw) that:
"It takes 2 years to build a ship and 300 years to build a tradition"
regards
Vf -
Message 14
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Wednesday, 29th April 2009
Is it possible that the Germans knew about it too, and that they deliberately made their shells plunge in the hope of hitting this achilles heel?Β
I dont think so personally.
Because of advances in fire control its was possible to fire at long range and achieve hits.Both ships were capable of long range fire,the difference between the two ships was that one could take long range (and was designed to take it)and the other one wasnt.
As Fisher had said almost 40 years earlier,
"Hit First,hit hard and keep on hitting"
regards
Vf -
Message 15
Posted by Pugwash Trouserpress (U1865008) on Thursday, 30th April 2009
Vf,
A quick query re. Message 10.
What was or is a 'Blue Turn'? I've never heard of that before.
Peebs -
Message 16
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Thursday, 30th April 2009
'Blue 2' (20Β° turn to port) I believe it involved a blue pennnant flag being hoisted hence the name.
Regards Vf -
Message 17
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Thursday, 30th April 2009
LairigGhru
Sorry I misread your question in part.
Im sure that the Germans knew that Hood had a "glass jaw" in view of her poor deck protection,however given the range they commenced firing any shell would plunge at that distance.So I would argue that Fishers comment is still valid.Also Bismark had no idea that Hood was in the vincinity until that fateful morning and no choice but to fight due to a lack of sea room due to pack ice.Interestingly though whilst "working up" in the Baltic the practice target and theoretical exercise was always carried out against "HMS Hood".Does that mean that they prepared in advance? Im not convinced about that,HMS Hood was the largest ship in the RN and a symbol of the British Empire,she was also,up till Bismarks construction,the largest ship in the world.
Regards Vf -
Message 18
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Thursday, 30th April 2009
The thing to remember is that Hood was a battle cruiser not a battleship. She was designed to have skimpy armour.
There is still some mystery as to what actually sank her the official version at the time was that the fire on the boat deck set off the five inch magazine. The wreck though, if you know what your looking at, apparantly doesnt show damage in the right places for this to have been the case.
The latest theory seems to be that the salvo that hit her actually landed short but the shells travelled under the water for a while and penetrated the Hood under the armoured belt and exploded under the main magazine which then set off a chain reaction destroying the ship.
I dont think there will ever be a definitive answer though. Well, not without raising the wreck.
Blind luck seems to have played a major part in proceedings. For any armoured war ship there is a range where they are vunerable to plunging fire from a certain type of enemy gun. if you get a bit closer though the shells can only hit the side armour which, on Hood, should have been capable of handling Bismarks main armament. Hood was, according to the records right on the edge of the zone where plunging fire would have had to give way to direct fire into the hull. But still at a range that Bismarks guns couldnt penetrate the armoured belt. She, Hood would have be almost safe but still able to use her guns against the Bismark well within the usable maximum range of her own guns.
A few years a go I brought a computer game that allowed you to fight the Battle of the Denmark Straights. The first time of playing it I got distracted and left it running for about half an hour with Hood and POW pretty much following what is known was the battle plan. I came back to find that there was no sign of the Bismark. I had set it to record the game and re wound it. Bismark had been sunk and Prinz Eugen had legged it.
I have replayed many times since. I've lost count as to exactly how many. Every time Hood and POW win. Ive got the POW to sink! but never the Hood. Ive some times sunk both German ships. But genrally the mission always ends with the Bismark sunk. Try as hard as I can I cannot reproduce what actually happened. My first reaction was that the game was faulty but a re run on a paper based game came up with the same results. -
Message 19
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Thursday, 30th April 2009
There is still some mystery as to what actually sank her the official version at the time was that the fire on the boat deck set off the five inch magazine. The wreck though, if you know what your looking at, apparantly doesnt show damage in the right places for this to have been the case.
The latest theory seems to be that the salvo that hit her actually landed short but the shells travelled under the water for a while and penetrated the Hood under the armoured belt and exploded under the main magazine which then set off a chain reaction destroying the ship.Β
There are several baffling elements to Hoods destruction,a couple of eyewitnesses claimed to have seen the ships "Y" turret have problems,seeing it train,then return aft then return to a firing bearing.They also claimed to see it "misfire".Their testimony was ruled unreliable by the board.It was also mooted that she had recieved a hit in the vincinity of her torpedo magazine,this was also ruled out as the mechanism of explosion didnt fit with what actually happened and it was considered difficult to "ignite" a collection of torpedo's (according to the Admiralty board).When the wreck was discovered MEarns (the project leader)declared that Hood had actually suffered two magazine explosions,one aft and a further one forward,a chap called Bill Jurens (who was also on that exploration) disagree's with these findings.Personally I agree with Jurens Argument that their was only one explosion,the one aft.
I dont think there will ever be a definitive answer though. Well, not without raising the wreckΒ
Agreed.Even if you raised the wreck I still dont think you would find the answer,she is that many pieces and over 60 years have passed destroying what little evidence was left.All we have left are the testimonies of Briggs,Tilburn and Dundas who were the only survivors and those on accompanying ships.
Personally I think that the board got it at least half right.She recieved a hit in her 4 inch magazine,which set off the 15inch magazines.What the mechanism of penetration was I doubt we will ever know.
regards Vf -
Message 20
Posted by tucuxii (U13714114) on Thursday, 30th April 2009
I'll never forget my nan, mum and aunt telling me about the Hood memorial service, so many families in Portsmouth lost loved ones there wasn't room in the Cathedral for the service so it was held in the Kings theatre - the memory of hundreds of bereaved people singing Abide with Me stayed with them for the rest of their lives.
We lost family on the Royal Oak, in the western approaches, in the submarine service and on the Rhine crossings - I'm proud of all of them volunteers every one, they gave their lives to defeat Nazism and give us ll a decent future.
As for the sneering about naval losses the Hood was the Pride of the Navy no one boosted it was the most powerful ship in the world it was a battle cruiser which meant that armour and firepower were sacrificed for speed. What made the Royal Navy great was the ethos not the ships. The German pocket battleships were more powerful. -
Message 21
Posted by chrisramsfan1 (U13940531) on Thursday, 30th April 2009
Hi chaps,
If the case is that Hood's deck wasn't penertrated them it maybe the case that when Hood recived the deadly hit, it may not of been on the deck but just above the armoured belt.The belt was 562ft x 9ft 6ins, from these measurements there is alot of room from the top of the belt to the deck to go at. Somewhere it was said that one of the survivors had said that as he was in the water they had seen that Hood had part of her starboard side blown out.
Also Prince of Wales had a 15inch shell from Bismarck unexploded somewhere up forward and on attempting of defusing it they found it to be full of sand(sabotaged at manufacture).
the explosion in Hood up forward turned out to be under the armoured control tower which was found quite a distance from the wreck. In all this destructive power of the magazine exploding(Ludovic Kennedy said that there was "no bang" in his brilliant book "Sink the Bismarck"). -
Message 22
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Thursday, 30th April 2009
The belt was 562ft x 9ft 6ins, from these measurements there is alot of room from the top of the belt to the deck to go at.Β
I believe that was the 12 inch thickness of belt armour,you have 7 inches of armour above the 12 and 5 inches above the 7 inches
The following diagram shows that the RN had concerns about HMS Hoods armour very early on,notice the date is 1919 and look at the path of shell "A"
Somewhere it was said that one of the survivors had said that as he was in the water they had seen that Hood had part of her starboard side blown outΒ
Ive never read that,but it wouldnt be suprising as Hood had been gutted and blown to pieces from aft of her funnels.
the explosion in Hood up forward turned out to be under the armoured control tower which was found quite a distance from the wreck. In all this destructive power of the magazine exploding explodingΒ
This is matter of conjecture.When the wreck was discovered it was found in 3 pieces.One of the experts claimed that the ship must have suffered a massive explosion up front as the forecastle had seperated from the rest of the hull and that the armoured conning tower was a fair distance away from the wreck.Another expert disagreed with this verhmently for several reasons.
i)If the forward magazines had exploded how come "B" turret is still in position on the ship?
ii)The hull sections of the ship could "plane" away from their positions on the surface as the ship sank due to their hull form.The armoured conning tower (which weighed several hundred tons) would not.It would sink like a stone.Also whils people witnessed turrets aft blowing up,nobody saw a conning tower fly through the air and it was a large object which according to its distance from the rest of the wreck travelled a long way through the air.
iii)If you look at the wreck its in 3 sections,the very end of the stern(aft of "Y"turret),a section of hull from amidships and the focsle.The boat deck,shelter deck and quarter deck up to the turrets was simply blown to pieces.
iv)The fact that the bow seperated from the rest of the hull could simpply be due to the enormous stresses placed on that part of the ship as she sank.She had been sailing at high speed,she then suffers a massive explosion,rolls to port and then sinks raising the bows into the air.That is a massive amount of force on a hull already damaged and not designed to be out of water.
v)The Germans did claim to see Hood fire a last defiant salvo as she sank from her fore turrets,this was likely to be circuits inadvertantly closing and causing the guns to fire.However it doesnt necessary indicate a magazine explosion.
vi)A lot was made that there was only 3 survivors and that this could be attributed to 2 explosions.But its worth remembering that when HMS Indefatigable sank she had 2 survivors and around 1100 deaths,Queen Mary around 10,with 1200 casualties,Invincible 6/7 and another 1100 casualties.Certainly in the case of HMS Invincible there was only one large explosion when P and Q magazines exploded in Queen Mary's case fore magazines exploded.Indefatigable is a tricky one to "nail down" as she was already thought to be sinking by the stern when she was hit again and exploded.Her wreck was heavily salvaged during the 50's and little remain as evidence.Survival was arbitary in these ships,In Indefatigable the survivors were in the spotting top.In Queen Mary the survivors were mostly from the aft 13.5 inch turret (althogh one survivor was from "Q" turret).In "Invincible" the survivor were mainly from the spotting top but amazingly one survivor was from "P" turret,the very turret which had suffered the hit and subsequent explosion.
For these reasons Im sceptical about the "forward explosion theory".All the witness claimed to see a massive explosion admidships between the funnel and the mainmast.Several saw the after 15 inch turrets lifted into the air,of the 3 survivors all were well forward of this area area- if the ship had exploded up forward its doubtful that Ted Briggs or William Dundas would have survived as they were both in the forward superstructure.
If you get time have a read/browse of the HMS Hood Association.Its a fantastic source of reference.Also have a read of this
Vf -
Message 23
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Thursday, 30th April 2009
I'd agree - we will probably never know the precise sequence of events leading to the loss of "Hood". Holland can be criticised, perhaps, for not ordering PoW to lead the line, allowing the better protected ship to take the first shock, but that's not what was (and is) expected of an Admiral in the RN, eqally, Leach could have turned to open his after "A" arc, as Dalrymple-Hamilton did later in the pursuit, again, not what was expected of him. Not sure if it is true, but it is said that PE was leading Bismarck because the latter's forward Seetakt set was either out of action or operating poorly. If Suffolk hadn't lost contact, Holland would still have had his destroyers with him, as well as approaching from a better angle for a quick close, and at least as importantly, with the light in his favour.
-
Message 24
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Thursday, 30th April 2009
Not sure if it is true, but it is said that PE was leading Bismarck because the latter's forward Seetakt set was either out of action or operating poorly.Β
I was under that impression too.As Im mentioned earlier there is a very famous picture of Bismark taken from Prinz Eugen.Bismark appears to be astern of Prinz Eugen.
If Suffolk hadn't lost contact, Holland would still have had his destroyers with him, as well as approaching from a better angle for a quick close, and at least as importantly, with the light in his favour.Β
Fully agree.By the time he had been brought to action the bearing was far to fine to allow a quick closing of the range.
Holland can be criticised, perhaps, for not ordering PoW to lead the line, allowing the better protected ship to take the first shock, but that's not what was (and is) expected of an Admiral in the RN, eqally, Leach could have turned to open his after "A" arc, as Dalrymple-Hamilton did later in the pursuit,Β
To be fair to Holland,POW was a brand new ship with several bugs that had not yet been worked out as the fact that she stil had civillian workers onboard testifies.I suppose I can understand whilst he wouldnt put such a "green" ship in the van.What I dont understand is why Holland kept his ships in such close formation.Why not give POW a degree of independence and try to spilt the Germans fire?
Possibly one of the shortest naval engagements in history and yet one of the most fascinating.
Regards
VF -
Message 25
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Thursday, 30th April 2009
vf
with you there - in its history the rn has always gone for it - graf spee under gunned cruisers went for the throat
jutland - the same
falklands - argie navy went to ground whilst the rn bled and died
as you say the bismark was tracked and sunk no matter the cost
BUT we atill foul up - why
st -
Message 26
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Thursday, 30th April 2009
To quote Churchill βWe had more captains of ships than captains of war,β - still true in peacetime, and as a democracy, we are rarely, if ever, really prepared for war until it arrives - and we have re-learned the eternal truths.
-
Message 27
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Thursday, 30th April 2009
To quote Churchill βWe had more captains of ships than captains of war,β - still true in peacetime, and as a democracy, we are rarely, if ever, really prepared for war until it arrives - and we have re-learned the eternal truths.Β
Very true.
I also think that Churchill had a point when he said
"We are fighting this war with the ships of the last"
VF -
Message 28
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Thursday, 30th April 2009
The ships of the last war - and not even all of those! However, he (and Pound - and later leaders, yes I do mean Wilson, and Thatcher inter alia) were inclined to micromanage from London instead of allowing the man on the spot to do what he could see needed doing.
-
Message 29
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Thursday, 30th April 2009
later leaders, yes I do mean Wilson, and Thatcher inter alia) were inclined to micromanage from London instead of allowing the man on the spot to do what he could see needed doingΒ
To be fair to Thatcher it would seem the one person she did listen to during the build up to the Falklands was Admiral Leach
Though its a pity she hadnt listened to him during John Notts defence act.
Vf -
Message 30
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Tuesday, 5th May 2009
The RN get a bloody nose because out there they are doing the business, up until the last war certainly of defending an Empire. Good example is Jutland; yes the RN lost more ships, but you don't win battles by running away and hiding... Also to consider is the Nelsonian legacy - trying to pull off the masterstroke..wheras the opposite tactic could be said to have been used in WW2 by the US Navy who (maybe) won the war in the Pacific not with battleships, or even carriers, but with a devastating campaign of submarine warfare that goes largely unsung.
And a final thought - Hood vs Bismark was one obsolete ship against 1 ship conceived of obsolete ideas (uprate of the Baden). -
Message 31
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Wednesday, 6th May 2009
'Shells travelling under water' could only happen if they were fired with a low trajectory - ie at close range. Any shells fired at long range must be coming down almost vertically, which would support the 'plunging fire' theory, and rule out the 'hit underwater' theory.
-
Message 32
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Thursday, 7th May 2009
Not so,
HMS Prince of Wales suffered an underwater shell hit at The Battle of the Denmark Straight.It wasnt known at the time but when drydocked a unexploded 15inch shell was discovered along with its hole.It was worked out that the shell had fell "short" and travelled underwater hitting the ship beneath the ships armour.Fortunatley it didnt explode.As for plunging fire,its reckoned that the shell that hit Hood probably hit at about 20 degress of inclination and not straight down.The type of plunging fire you describe is more typical of a howitzer which fires at very high angles as oppossed to a naval gun who's elevation varied from 20 to 40 degrees.
Vf -
Message 33
Posted by jamesandkatherina (U11083688) on Sunday, 10th May 2009
did not know when i first posted that there was so many interested posters this is my cousin
J&K -
Message 34
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Sunday, 10th May 2009
May he, and all those who gave their lives upon the great waters, rest in peace.
-
Message 35
Posted by NICK (U1182021) on Wednesday, 13th May 2009
Well Ive listened to all the talk of how they think that the Hood was sunk and I do'nt think
that we will ever know, but it will soon be another aniversary of the sinking of her so called
victor the might of Hitlers navy "Bismark" and
what do you know the ship that really did the
most to sink her on May 21st 1941 was "Yes" the
oldest lady in the fleet H.M.S Rodney and I was
there to witness her shells smashing the Bismark
to pieces and when she went under my Oppo said
and that avenges the Hood.
I was on the Cruiser H.M.S Dorsetshire that
finished her off with Torpedo'es.
An old Salt. -
Message 36
Posted by NICK (U1182021) on Wednesday, 13th May 2009
To correct a mistake on my previous message
the date of the sinking of the Bismark should
have been 27th May 1941,
What can you expect from an 87 year old veteran -
Message 37
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Wednesday, 13th May 2009
Big fan of the Nelson and the Rodney.
-
Message 38
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Wednesday, 13th May 2009
Another Cherry Tree fan here too - but surely there were a number of even "older ladies" which played their part - Warspite & Queen Elizabeth to name but two.
-
Message 39
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Thursday, 14th May 2009
Well Ive listened to all the talk of how they think that the Hood was sunk and I do'nt think
that we will ever know, but it will soon be another aniversary of the sinking of her so called
victor the might of Hitlers navy "Bismark" and
what do you know the ship that really did the
most to sink her on May 21st 1941 was "Yes" the
oldest lady in the fleet H.M.S Rodney and I was
there to witness her shells smashing the Bismark
to pieces and when she went under my Oppo said
and that avenges the Hood.
I was on the Cruiser H.M.S Dorsetshire that
finished her off with Torpedo'es.
An old Salt.Β
Nick,
As ever its a pleasure to here from you and I hope that you are well.
Vf -
Message 40
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Thursday, 14th May 2009
Another Cherry Tree fan here too - but surely there were a number of even "older ladies" which played their part - Warspite & Queen Elizabeth to name but twoΒ
Id say "Queen Elizabeth" too.I almost (cheekily)put HMS Iron Duke down,but seeing as she was aground in Scapa Flow and was a demilitarised dreadnought I didnt think that she could count!
Nelsol and Rodnol looked the business,you only had to look at them to see what they were about!
Although I have to say I think the proposed "G3" battlecruisers (from which Nelson was "chopped down") would have been magnificent.
Vf -
Message 41
Posted by tucuxii (U13714114) on Thursday, 14th May 2009
Nick -
I know people don't often say this, by I for one am grateful for what you and men like you did for all of us. -
Message 42
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Thursday, 14th May 2009
Too right. Consider the state of the Italian ships when they were "lying under the guns of the fortress of Malta". Individually, ship for ship more than a match for the Mediterranean fleet - but ships can only fight if their crews will fight them.
-
Message 43
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Thursday, 14th May 2009
Quite.
The "Vittiero Vento" class should outmatched the Q.E's and yet what did they achieve???The Axis's greatest successes was the German Airforces attacks on the RN at Crete and the loss of HMS Ark Royal and Barham to german subs.The Itlaians greates success was with human torpedoes when they "sank" HMS Queen Elizabeth and Valiant at anchor.
And yet the Italian battlefleet never took advantage of this.
Vf -
Message 44
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Saturday, 16th May 2009
Yes to me to Nelson and Rodney say "No mucking about!" There was a good quote in one the books on battleships I have somewhere...along the lines of "The British at Washington were fighting for really important things, that they had done the research on....wheras other countries were fighting to keep fripperies."
So yes the Nelson and Rodney were cut down by Washington a bit, but "mano a mano" they were tough & effective. Of course being not all that fast, they were not great at running away...
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ iD
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ links
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.