Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Battlecruiser HMS Hood  
User currently offlineFlagshipAZ From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3419 posts, RR: 14
Posted (13 years 1 month 21 hours ago) and read 895 times:

Gentlemen...
In addition to aviation, I'm also a huge fan of WWII history. Recently the HMS Hood was relocated after 60 years since she went down under the guns of the Bismarck. However, all I can learn is that she lies in 3000 meters of water (10,000 feet), and that she's suffered more damage than first realized. Does anyone here know anymore details about her, in this recent discovery? As always, any info is greatly appreciated. Thanks & regards.


"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineUSAFHummer From United States of America, joined May 2000, 10685 posts, RR: 53
Reply 1, posted (13 years 1 month 21 hours ago) and read 866 times:

I like WWII history as well, Flagship, but I didnt hear about this, I assume that guy Robert Ballard found her??

Greg



Chief A.net college football stadium self-pic guru
User currently offlineFlagshipAZ From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3419 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (13 years 1 month 21 hours ago) and read 864 times:

No, Bob Ballard didn't have anything to do with this discovery at all. This is some ocean group that I've never heard of before now. Stand by...I may still have that newspaper I read this from. But it gives very little details. Regards.


"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 23
Reply 3, posted (13 years 1 month 21 hours ago) and read 870 times:

There are from http://www.warships1.com







"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineUs330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3871 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (13 years 1 month 20 hours ago) and read 862 times:

I heard the group has decided to keep the actual whereabouts of the wreck a secret for fear of robbers, as it is considered to be a memorial.

User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 23
Reply 5, posted (13 years 1 month 10 hours ago) and read 857 times:

Even the U.S.S. Arizona didn't loose as many men as the Hood did. Out of a crew of 1,421, only three men survived when a shell from the German battleship Bismark hit one of Hood's magazines. Had the Hood had more armor protection and had the armor been in the vital areas, then it probably wouldn't have been blown to bits.


"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineKROC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (13 years 1 month 7 hours ago) and read 848 times:

Also, the British had a bad habit of taking the gun powder and ammunition out of where ever it wqas stored, and protected, thinking that they could get to it faster and easier. With all thge ammo and gun powder exposed, that helped lead to the massive explosions. I saw this on the History Channel on there special about battleships.

User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13190 posts, RR: 77
Reply 7, posted (13 years 1 month 5 hours ago) and read 842 times:

B757300 is right about the armour, ironically Hood was due a comprehensive refit, including much greater protection, when war broke out.
Hood was found by a team sponsored by the UK's Channel 4 news, the last surviour still alive gave permission and appeared on the news reports.
The ship is on it's back, and few large structures could be seen, but the ship's bell was found.
The loss of HMS Hood proved one thing, the future was aircraft carriers, torpedo attacks from FAA aircraft damaged the Bismark, making it a sitting target for the guns of the Home Fleet.
Good job Hitler didn't build carriers instead.


User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 23
Reply 8, posted (13 years 1 month 1 hour ago) and read 838 times:

Actually, if Hitler followed his original "Plan-Z", he would have had a balanced fleet by 1948 including a minimum of two carriers. Hitler had originally planned 1948 to be the year war was to begin. Thank God he was stupid enough to start the war in 1939.

This would have been the minimal German fleet in 1948.

Carriers:
2+ Graf Zeppelin class aircraft carriers

Battleships:
6 "Class H" Battleships (Very Close to the U.S. Iowa Class except for number of main rifles.)
2 Bismark Class Battleships
2 Scharnhorst Class Battleships (Armed with Originally Specified 15" Guns)

Battle Cruisers:
3 Schlachtkreuzer Class Battle Cruisers
8-12 Kreuser Class Battle Cruisers
3 Deutschland Class "Pocket Battleships" but
really Battle Cruisers

Heavy Cruisers & Other Kinds of Ships:
5 Admiral Hipper Class Heavy Cruisers
Nuerous Destroyers, Frigates (Destroyer-Escorts) Submarines (U-Boats), and Torpedo boats.

http://www.warships1.com/German.htm



"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13190 posts, RR: 77
Reply 9, posted (13 years 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 825 times:

Interesting stuff about plan Z, you could argue that Hitler also screwed-up by not stopping construction of the Battleships when war broke out, and put everything into U-Boat construction instead.


User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 23
Reply 10, posted (13 years 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 822 times:

The allies greatest asset in Germany was Adolf Hitler. If he had told his generals "Go win the war, I'll be talking a vacation in Austria.", I would hate to think of the result.


"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29795 posts, RR: 58
Reply 11, posted (13 years 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 804 times:

Ahhh.....I have that Johnny Horton song going through my head.

If memory serves the German Navy started the war with a third of the submarine fleet that Karl Donitz wanted to have at the start of the war.

Could you imagine how much tighter the noose around Britian would have been with that larger sub fleet.

Actually the latest evidence is that the Germans scuttled the Bismark to avoid the Brits sinking her and claiming a victory. Sort of another Graf Spree thing.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (13 years 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 801 times:

Flagship,

You've hit a subject dear to my heart. The Battlecruiser has been a subject I have loved even more than battleships and carriers, I've got tons of books on them.

The Battlecruiser was a failed experiment that only lasted about 10 years, and primarily a British invention, pushed by Lord Jacky Fisher. The idea was to take a battleship design, eliminate much of the armor, and stretch the hull by 100 or more feet, and the result would be essentially a superfast battleship which could dictate the rules of engagement to the other side - if the opponent was more powerful, the battlecruiser can run, if the opponent is less powerful, it could dictate the range of engagement, blasting away with heavy guns and denying the opponent a chance of closing in with torpedoes. As the design necessitated a long, thin hull, built for speed and with battleship-style weaponery, it also resulted in the most beautiful military designs ever.

Having the heavy calibre weapons of battleships tempted admirals to use them in the battle line, which resulted in disaster at Trafalgar. The last battlecruisers (including the Hood) which were then under construction were either cancelled or completed with some major modifications.

The first battlecruiser, the Indomitable, was completed in 1908. The last one was the Hood, in 1918.

Charles


User currently offlineFlagshipAZ From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3419 posts, RR: 14
Reply 13, posted (13 years 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 789 times:

Charles...
Glad I could make your day. Just wondering if you knew that the US Navy had a pair of battlecruisers in the WWII timeline. The Alaska class consisted of the Alaska (CB-1), Guam (CB-2) & Hawaii (CB-3). Three others in the class were never laid down. Only Alaska & Guam saw service in the war, being commissioned in 1944. Hawaii was 82 percent completed by the end of the war. And all three were scrapped in 1961. Technically these ships were successful in their own right, but the top brass felt otherwise given the recent memory of the HMS Hood. The Hood, the Alaska class & the Germans' Scharnhorst class were interesting ships for their time. Regards.



"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
User currently offlineN949WP From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2000, 1437 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (13 years 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 790 times:

Charles,

I suppose you meant the Battle of Jutland in 1916 rather than Trafalgar, right?

The Royal Navy lost 3 battlecruisers at Jutland to the Germans, with casualty figures for each lost ship matching that of the Hood disaster. Supposedly some lessons were learnt and put into the design of the Hood, but one lesson that was obviously not learnt by Admiralty was not to use battlecruisers as if they were full-fledged battleships.

'949


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (13 years 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 783 times:

Did I say Trafalgar!?!

I did, and I had the book right in front of me when I did it. Jutland it was.

Duh!!!

The U.S. Battlecruisers were an anachronism. By the way, the Lexington and Saratoga, the first proper aircraft carriers (large and fast) were actually converted battlecruiser hulls.

I suppose the U.S. still kinda liked the idea because of the size of the pacific ocean, where having that kind of firepower with that kind of speed could have strategic implications. But the Royal Navy (still the reference to me until WWII) practically abandoned the concept after Jutland.

Cheers,

Charles


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39854 posts, RR: 74
Reply 16, posted (13 years 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 782 times:

Well not exactly a warship, here is a Battlecruiser Hood of a different type.
1977 Ford LTD Country Squire Stationwagon hood!  Laugh out loud



Bring back the Concorde
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Hood Cable Release Snapped, Costly Repair? posted Thu Jul 19 2007 04:15:21 by VonRichtofen
3 Climbers & Dog Found Alive On Mt. Hood posted Tue Feb 20 2007 02:05:13 by S12PPL
Mt. Hood Climber Found Dead posted Mon Dec 18 2006 01:03:06 by AsstChiefMark
Skidmarks Driving In Da Hood posted Fri May 5 2006 13:04:00 by Myt332
Little Red Riding Hood, PC posted Wed Sep 21 2005 19:55:33 by Halls120
HMS Invincible In New York posted Thu Jul 1 2004 16:32:48 by FoxBravo
Electricity Problems In My Hood At The Moment! posted Thu Feb 12 2004 18:49:37 by Jkw777
HMS, USS And The Rest posted Fri Apr 25 2003 15:25:42 by Banco
Battlecruiser HMS Hood posted Tue Jul 31 2001 04:00:44 by FlagshipAZ