back to article Microsoft co-founder recovers ship's bell of 'The Mighty Hood'

A team led by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen has recovered the ship's bell of battlecruiser HMS Hood – the pride of the Royal Navy, which, on 24 May 1941, was sent to the bottom of the North Atlantic by the German battleship Bismark, with the loss of 1,415 lives. Video still showing the recovery of the bell of HMS Hood An …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    as a Devonport ship the bell should be headed down to Plymouth rather than Pompey!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Or maybe it should have stayed where it was. Personally I'm unimpressed by American billionaires fishing for trophies on war grave sites.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Go

        @ Ledswinger....

        Maybe you should ask what those directly involved think before bitching about this:

        "There is no headstone among the flowers for those who perish at sea. For the 1,415 officers and men of HMS HOOD who lost their lives so violently in battle on 24 May 1941, the recovery of her bell and its subsequent place of honour in the National Museum of the Royal Navy will mean that there will be a place where future generations will be able to gaze upon it and remember with gratitude and thanks, the heroism, courage and personal sacrifice of HOOD’s Ship’s Company who died in the service of their country ~ well after the remains of HOOD have long gone."

        http://www.hmshood.com/association/archive/specevents/bell2012.htm

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          We will have to agree to differ. Speaking for myself, I still hold the view that they didn't need to disturb the wreck in pursuit of nick nacks to create a memorial. Are you honestly saying that it will somehow be a better quality memorial because there's a piece of Hood stuck on it?

          And to extend the debate, we're now good friends (of sorts) with our European neighbours. Do you propose that the bell of the Bismarck be retrieved to remember the crew who fought for their country? Or the bell from the French navy battleship Bretagne, sunk in port by Hood, with the loss of a thousand French sailors?

          1. Slartybardfast

            "Do you propose that the bell of the Bismarck be retrieved to remember the crew who fought for their country? Or the bell from the French navy battleship Bretagne, sunk in port by Hood, with the loss of a thousand French sailors?"

            If they want to, why not?

          2. Laura Kerr

            @Ledswinger

            I'm in two minds about this. I agree that plundering war graves is a despicable thing to do, but in this case, those most affected by the loss of the Hood appear to have given their blessing. By the same token, if the relatives of the Bismarck or Bretagne's crew were OK with it, I would feel that their wishes should be respected, provided the respective governments agreed.

            What does bother me is the risk of this setting a precedent. They've got the bell and no-one's complained too loudly, so hey, why don't we get the wheel? Or some of the guns? After all, there'll still be plenty of twisted metal left down there to 'memorialize' the ship.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: @Ledswinger

              A ship's bell has a special meaning for sailors. In some ways, it impersonates the ship herself. It's far more than just a piece of metal to be shown in a museum.

              1. N2

                Re: LDS

                Hi,

                A ship's bell has a special meaning for sailors. In some ways, it impersonates the ship herself. It's far more than just a piece of metal to be shown in a museum.

                Correct - (I am retired RN submariner )

                1. Laura Kerr

                  Re: LDS

                  "A ship's bell has a special meaning for sailors."

                  Yes, I do understand that, and appreciate the reasons for recovering it. But not everyone who has the ability to reach the wreck may appreciate the difference between the bell and other parts of the ship. Look at how the Titanic's been plundered, for instance. OK, she isn't a war grave, but she's still the last resting place of 1,500 people.

                2. Salts

                  Re: LDS

                  @LDS & N2

                  Agree the bell is the heart of the ship, recovering any ships bell is worthy, wonder how many christenings it has recorded on it?

            2. Triggerfish

              Re: @Ledswinger

              By the same token, if the relatives of the Bismarck or Bretagne's crew were OK with it,

              I absolutely was (grandad was merchant navy during WW2 as well), the soldiers on the Bismarck fought just as bravely and most likely did not want to be there as much as the average allied soldier or sailor. Hate the politicians and human nature if you want for getting us into wars, but not sure your average conscripted soldier really deserves much hate.

              Likewise I have found it odd to go to places like the Kwai festival and find lots of Japanese there (esp since other Grandad was a Chindit), but I don't hate them for coming to see it, I don't hate it has donated/built by (can't remember the name) Japanese Ironworks company on the Bridge, I can understand my Grandad never wanting to buy Japanese, I can dislike some politicians in Japan denying the Japanese war crimes, I don't hate the average Japanese person though.

              We should learn from the past, but not neccessarily relive it.

              Also I would say if the survivor of the Hood felt it was fitting then it is fittting.

            3. Triggerfish

              Re: @Ledswinger

              What does bother me is the risk of this setting a precedent. They've got the bell and no-one's complained too loudly, so hey, why don't we get the wheel? Or some of the guns? After all, there'll still be plenty of twisted metal left down there to 'memorialize' the ship.

              Well the people who go rob war graves are going to do it anyway. They aren't going to see a sanctioned lift as permisson, they just do it anyway.

              Personally if you want to go to the North Atlantic and try and recover a wreck cherished by the RN at 2800 metres depth in conditions were if you fuck up you can really be in trouble, I'd have no qualms about our lads taking a few pot shots at you with naval guns during.

      2. BlinkenLights

        American Billionaire Fulfills Wish of Last Hood Survivor

        From the Telegraph article...

        "Ted Briggs was one of only three survivors from a crew of 1,418 on board HMS Hood when it was sunk by the Bismarck in the North Atlantic more than 74 years ago.

        Before he died he had often hoped the mighty ship’s bell could be salvaged from the seabed as a fitting memorial to those killed in the Royal Navy’s worst loss of life from a single ship during the Second World War.

        His wish was finally fulfilled last week, seven years after his death, when the bell was recovered by research a team led by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen."

  2. Fihart

    Unmistakable irony here.

    Given that large corporations take as long to change course as an oil tanker, will they be diving for Microsoft's lost mojo at some point in the future.

    1. Martin Budden Silver badge
      Coat

      Re: Unmistakable irony here.

      It's not irony, it's brassy.

  3. Amorous Cowherder
    Facepalm

    "Once it's fit for public consumption..."

    I'll bring my knife and fork along!

  4. Howker

    It was Clydebuilt. The bell should be headed up to Glasgow/Clydebank!

    1. Pookietoo

      Re: It was Clydebuilt

      The shipbuilders didn't go down with it, the sailors based at Devonport did.

      1. Howker

        Re: It was Clydebuilt

        Sorry, I was ignorant of the ship's long history there. You are absolutely right

  5. Richard Jones 1

    The Impact On The Public Was Terrible

    It was one of the most shattering losses of the war which had a heavy toll on members of the public. My mother spoke of it in very hushed tones whenever there was any mention of the loss in a TV programme. She had no direct connection, but its mention recalled other more direct losses from those dark times.

    1. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

      Re: The Impact On The Public Was Terrible

      This is what you get when you make a ship "The Pride of the Royal Navy". The ship was almost a celebrity in it's own right, appearing in naval reviews, news reels, tea and cigarette cards, encyclopaedias, and 'Boys Own...' type books between the war. The same could be said about HMS Ark Royal, as well.

      It is clear that when HMS Hood entered service in the early 1920's, she was one of the most modern ships afloat, with her sheer size, speed and beauty, for a warship, making her easily recognisable.

      Unfortunately, she inherited the worst design characteristics of British battle cruisers from the first world war, and rapidly fell behind contemporary capital warship design between the wars.

      In the mid 1930s, she was supposed to have had a major refit, strengthening the deck armour and changing the shell supply system, and having 'modern' fire control and aircraft detection radar and defence fitted. But the uncertainty of when hostilities with Germany would start, and the emergency capital shipbuilding program that was in progress meant that this never happened, and when the war started, she was in a very poor condition. She should not really have been sent against an adversary such as Bismark, especially not with HMS Prince of Wales, which had not actually been accepted into service, so was not ready for combat.

      But such was the desperate need for capital ships, there was no alternative, and the rest is, as is said, history. There was an element of (bad) luck involved, but the outcome of that battle was almost a foregone conclusion. Hood would never have returned from the encounter in a good condition, and in hindsight, the outcome, although tragic, was actually about as good as could have been expected. This is because sufficient damage was done to Bismark to make it so that rather than continuing on to the Atlantic, she turned and headed for Breast for repairs, which gave Force 'H' the chance to find and damage her further, leading to her eventual demise.

      If Bismark had turned back, and remained a potent force until Tirpitz was completed, the Royal Navy would have had to keep significantly more ships in home waters, and escorting convoys.

      Imagine how difficult a force consisting of Bismark, Tirpitz, Scharnholst and Gneisenau, together with the Hipper class criusers would have been to cope with. It would have been really difficult for the Home Fleet to stand up against it, even though the Royal Navy would technically outnumber them.

      The spin off from that would have changed the outcome of the war in the Mediterranean and the Far East. It is often easy to overlook the value that the British carriers gave in the Indian sea and Western Pacific while the US was so woefully short of carriers after the battles of the Coral Sea and Midway, and the Med. was critical for North Africa.

      So the loss was tragic, as is most war, but it served a purpose.

      1. Reticulate

        Re: The Impact On The Public Was Terrible

        "This is because sufficient damage was done to Bismark to make it so that rather than continuing on to the Atlantic, she turned and headed for Breast for repairs, which gave Force 'H' the chance to find and damage her further, leading to her eventual demise."

        Sent to the Bottom, in fact.

        1. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

          Re: The Impact On The Public Was Terrible @Reticulate

          It was not Force 'H' that sank Bismarck, and depending on what you read, it may not have been the British warships that caused her to sink at all.

          After Bismark's rudder was jammed by a similarly lucky torpedo strike from one of Ark Royal's Swordfish, HMS King George V, from Scapa Flow, and HMS Rodney, originally journeying to Canada for refit, engaged Bismarck, and fought her to a near standstill, but Bismarck was still floating and under power when KGV and Rodney had to withdraw because of lack of fuel. It was left to the cruiser and destroyers to try to sink Bismarck. It is debatable whether the numerous ship-launched torpedoes are what caused Bismarck to sink, or whether it sank due to the scuttling valves being opened.

          It is clear that Bismarck was finished as a German warship, but as I said, it may not have been the British that sank her.

      2. Richard Jones 1

        Re: The Impact On The Public Was Terrible

        Yes sadly, as you point out, the Hood was over 'bulled up' and under suited for her then role. Her roll as almost a rallying point was, in retrospect a possible mistake. Her lack of suitability was culpable, yet as you said a purpose was served and we are now able to sit and write reviews about the events.

        1. Steve 114
          Thumb Down

          Re: The Impact On The Public Was Terrible

          Her Captain knew very well her vulnerabiliy to plunging shells, which is why he was trying to close the range. To be hit in a turn was plain unlucky, but... 'good shot' to the other side. So it's a War Grave? Leave sleeping bells lie.

          1. graeme leggett Silver badge

            Re: The Impact On The Public Was Terrible

            In some respects unlucky to be hit at all in the opening salvoes between the ships rather than after several exchanges.

      3. rjmx
        Coat

        Re: The Impact On The Public Was Terrible

        > she turned and headed for Breast

        I think you mean "Brest".

        Still, the mistake is understandable. I tend to do the same thing.

        1. Sarah Balfour

          Re: The Impact On The Public Was Terrible

          Bet he feels a right tit now…

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The Impact On The Public Was Terrible

        I don't think you can underestimate the strength of the Royal Navy Home Fleet back then. Don't forget when Scharnhorst came up against the Duke of York she got a right pasting and ultimately was sunk

        1. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

          Re: The Impact On The Public Was Terrible

          Yes, but Scharnhorst not equal to Bismarck, and was engaged by a force consisting of several heavy and light cruisers that could match her in speed if not armament, and HMS Duke of York, that easily out-gunned her. The mistake was to allow DoY to get close enough to engage with her superior firepower. Once that happened, Scharnhorst did not really have a chance. But even then, it is not clear that the British ships actually sank her. The German hull design was outstanding, and it was proved over and over again that German capital ships were difficult to sink.

          The real deciding factor was that the British radar that allowed the ships to locate and herd Scharnhorst, and then engage in dark condition that would have been impossible before the advent of ranging and fire control radar. This enabled the British to fight in the almost total darkness of an Arctic winter night. In theory, Scharnhorst should have been able to run away from the encounter, but her captain made some poor decisions, and did not know where the British ships were.

          A similar encounter between a single KGV battleship and either Bismarck or Tirpitz would not have been anything like the same. I would have expected a 1-on-1 battle like this, even with supporting British ships, would have resulted in either both ships leaving damaged, with the worst damage being suffered by the British ship, or the British ship being sunk. As was the case in the Denmark Strait with Hood and Prince of Wales. If PoW had not withdrawn she would have been more seriously damaged than she was.

          The KGVs, although modern ships, were smaller, slower, less heavily armoured, and although they had a bigger broadside, it was of smaller calibre guns (14" vs. 15") with a shorter range and penetrating power.

          Up until the advent of the IJN Yamato and Musashi, and the US fast battleships, Bismarck and Tirpitz were regarded as the most potent battleships afloat. The British had to rely on numbers rather than the strength of their ships to counter them.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: The Impact On The Public Was Terrible

            But the point is it is because of the overwhelming numbers of Royal Navy ships a one on one encounter wasn't likely to happen. You very rarely had more than 2 or 3 German ships together where as we had several capital ships plus screening destroyers light or heavy cruisers and maybe the odd aircraft carrier for good measure. Germany might have had good ships but they had too few of them to make a real difference.

            During the Norwegian campaign both Scharnhorst and Gneisenau (they were together ) were engaged by HMS Renown (on her own) and Gneisenau was beat up pretty bad, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau had to disengaged (their superior speed allowed this).

      5. Voland's right hand Silver badge

        Re: The Impact On The Public Was Terrible

        There was an element of (bad) luck involved,

        No. I was explaining this to junior 3 days ago as a part of explaining artillery "straddle". Repeating of the explanation:

        Bismark and its escorts successfully straddled the Hood with its previous two salvos. When you are straddled in naval combat (in the days prior to radar guidance) you bank for your life to avoid the next salvo. You MUST change course. There is no achievable armor thickness that will save you from a full WW2 battleship broadside. You will be done for. 11 inch shells cannot be stopped by a steel plate. At all.

        For reasons we will never know the Hood failed to execute the straddle avoidance maneuver correctly.

        As a result it got hit.

        The results would not have been different if it was refitted with better armor. In fact _LESS_ armor would have been better as the engagement of the Norfolk with German capital ships in 1943 has proven - their shells went through without exploding.

        So please stop repeating the result of the board of inquiry which was more worried about morale and public opinion at the time, not finding the real cause.

        1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

          Re: The Impact On The Public Was Terrible

          So please stop repeating the result of the board of inquiry which was more worried about morale and public opinion at the time, not finding the real cause.

          Voland's Right hand,

          That looks like a rather niche reading of history. I've not read enough about the actual battle to know whether Hood failed to take avoiding action after being straddled.

          However WWII battleships did regularly survive hits from other battleship guns. Which had larger than 11" guns too. I think the Bismark had 16" guns.

          The problem for the Hood was that it exploded. Which meant that plunging fire was able to enter the magazines - and blow the ship up. Unless it was destroyed by too much live ammo being around, able to take a flash back to the magazines (and it was due for work on the loading system - I've not read about this in years). Thicker deck armour should cause the enemy's shells to explode at deck level, which is not much fun for the people up there, but stops them destroying the ship in one go. So you then lose whatever systems they hit near, and that's for damage control to try and fix so you can contine the battle. Or if you lose too many turrets and can't fight, you try to run away. And that's what faster speed or a destroyer screen is for.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: The Impact On The Public Was Terrible

            agreed WWII armour was effective even against 16" shells, it was where Hood was hit that did it for her.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: The Impact On The Public Was Terrible

          There's still a difference from being hit, suffer heavy damages, but not fatal/critical one, and being hit and explode in little time. In the Pacific, several battleship sustained heavy hits and still survived, and were able to be repaired and return to action. Other took a lot of hits before being sunken

          The battlecruiser design of the Hood left little chances to sustain a one-to-one combat with a true battleship, even if it had been upgraded. The Royal Navy was blinded by its own propaganda, and its risk-adverse tactic which kept the fleet too often in harbours - and having battleship sunk there instead of trying to sunk the enemy fleet.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: The Impact On The Public Was Terrible

            We didn't really stay in port in WW11 You might be able to argue this in WW1 but not WW11 Royal Oak was sunk whilst in harbour at the very start of WW11 but it was so early in the war that things hadn't really been mobilised then it was the "phoney war"

        3. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

          Re: The Impact On The Public Was Terrible @Vorland

          That's not correct. It is clear that a direct 15" shell it would cause terrible damage, but battleships rather than battlecruisers were armoured to take punishment as they dealt it. Think of the punishment that both Bismarck herself and Scharnhorst suffered from gunfire from British battleships without sinking, before possibly being sunk by torpedo.

          Hood was engaged in a turn to bring her aft turrets to bear, which was required to double the number of guns able to fire on Bismarck. She would not have been able to alter course that much without slowing that turn. Couple that with the fact that the Bismarck was using ripple-fire, where there were not full salvo's being fired, but instead each turret was firing as they were reloaded, there was not really a gap to manoeuvre. The Germans had independent fire control in each turret, and it was generally accepted that German fire control was second to none in the world at the time (typical German efficiency!)

          It is arguable that maybe Hood and Prince of Wales should have got closer before turning, but that is debatable, and only makes sense if you realise how much weaker Hood was to plunging shells from long range fire compared to shallower trajectory fire, which would have tended to hit the more protected sides of the ship.

          Hood was a ship from a previous generation. Because earlier ships did not have the elevation on their guns, their range was limited. At shorter ranges, shells are more likely to hit the side of the ship rather than the deck. In addition, whatever deck armour Hood had was arranged over several decks, rather than the all-or-nothing thick armour that came about as a result of the analysis of SMS Barden in gunfire trials after Hood's design was cast. As a result, Hood could probably have stood toe-to-toe with Bismarck for a considerable time at close range, but not at the range that the battle was fought.

          The "luck" was where the fatal shell hit. It is widely regarded that it penetrated deep into the ship because of the weak deck armour before exploding, and then detonated either close to the fixed above waterline torpedo tubes, or in one of the magazines or the access ways that lead to the magazines. This was the cause of the loss of several battlecruisers at Jutland, and which had only partially been addressed in Hood. There were supposed to have been flash curtains between the magazine and the power room below the turrets, but it is theorized that these were open, because they slowed down the reloading of the guns.

          As a result, munitions in the Hood were ignited, which led to her quick loss. There are many other places where had that shell hit, there would have been significant damage, but no loss of the ship.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: The Impact On The Public Was Terrible @Vorland

            also not forgetting the Prince of Wales was a brand new ship (something like 2 months old!) with a new crew only just finished working up and she also suffered from several mechanical failures during the engagement.

            1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

              Re: The Impact On The Public Was Terrible @Vorland

              The Prince of Wales still had dockyard crew onboard fixing various problems. I seem to remember the captain gave up and buggered off at the point that 3 of his turrets had stopped working due to mechanical failures. The ship wasn't ready for combat.

          2. naive

            Re: The Impact On The Public Was Terrible @Vorland

            Possibly retrieval of the bell is a good thing, it does disturb the grave of the poor men who died for their country, in return the bell on display will for many centuries remind the public of those heroes who gave their life, so they will never be forgotten.

            The "luck" that the Bismarck had was no luck at all, it was plain technical superiority originating from state of the art 30's German tech over the WW1 era English technology used in the Hood. The English ships were doomed before the first salvo was fired. Hood was not more then an empty display vessel, used to inspire confidence for the mighty English navy to the public, rushed into war by a military ignorant of technical progress in 25 years, using the same sloppy powder handling procedures which were the cause for sinking of several English ships in Jutland.

            The sinking of the glorious should already have been a warning to the admiralty to be cautious in engaging German capital ships, instead they chose to sacrifice the life of many good men in outdated armored coffins, which battleships already were at that time without air superiority and protection against subs. http://www.kbismarck.com/hood-sinking001.pdf

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: The Impact On The Public Was Terrible @Vorland

              I don't think you can compare what happened to Hood with the Glorious. Glorious didn't engage the Germans she was found by Scharnhorst and Gneisenau whilst she was headed back to Scapa. As soon as she was found she was doomed a WW1 converted light battle cruiser and a couple of destroyers against two brand new battleships, no chance

            2. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

              Re: The Impact On The Public Was Terrible @Vorland

              I dispute that Hood was useless, but in the state she went into the battle with Bismarck, for all the reasons already stated, she was a flawed ship.

              Had the deck armour and shell handling been addressed, she would have been better, but it is clear that Bismarck was an even better ship, not just because she was more modern, but because the Germans cheated in their adherence to the Washington and London naval treaties by understating her size.

              As built, Hood was nearly as well protected as the Queen Elizabeth class superdreadnought battleships, and had she been modernised in a similar way to Queen Elizabeth, Valiant and Warspite, she would have been a much more serious contender. But the work required would have taken over a year, and priority was put on speeding up building the newer King George V class.

              What a lot of people here appear to be missing is the difference in tactics between offensive and defensive naval requirements. Although in it's total size, the British Home Fleet easily outnumbered the German High Seas Fleet, the British could not force an engagement at their choosing. They had to spread their capability around to get the best chance of any engagement.

              The Germans, in comparison, had only to avoid the British ships in order to be a disrupting force. As can be seen in the earlier commerce cruises of Admirals Graf Spee, Sheer, and Hipper, and Lutzow, which between them tied up such a lot of ships escorting and searching for them that prevented their use for other purposes. As an illustrative point, once Tirpitz and Sharnhorst were out of the picture, the Home Fleet was significantly reduced, allowing more ships in the Mediterranean and Pacific.

              Imaging if instead of a ship like Graf Spee, which could be fought off by a number of cruisers in a task force or convoy, Bismarck had been in the Atlantic, sailing from Brest. Effectively, every convoy across the Atlantic would have to have been escorted by a battleship, as a screen of even 6" or 8" armed cruisers, let alone just destroyers, sloops and corvettes would easily have been swept aside, effectively destroying the convoy and making any remaining merchant ships easy prey for the U boats. See what happened to PQ17 in the Arctic after the mere threat of an attack from Tirpitz. It would have had a dramatic effect on the war as a whole.

              Once Bismarck had been sunk, Hitler became so reluctant to risk his surface naval power that they effectively became impotent, residing in ports to be picked off one at a time by air attack.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: The Impact On The Public Was Terrible @Vorland

                yep those dirty cheating Germans not complying with the Washington treaty! That's one of the reasons why the KGV class were a weird design with quad turrets as she had 10*14" guns rather than the 9*16" that's Churchill wanted. Of course the Lion class which was cancelled had 16" guns and the single HMS Vanguard that entered service after the war had 15" as there were some left over in storage!

                And of course what hasn't been mentioned yet is the total lack of German aircraft carriers.

                Ahhhh this is just like Naval history lectures back at Uni in the early 90s

                1. graeme leggett Silver badge

                  Re: The Impact On The Public Was Terrible @Vorland

                  To expand on the Washington treaty angle. And making it a bit simpler along the way.

                  The British had a choice pre-war while complying with the treaty: either go with 14-inch guns and have the ships probably built before it all kicked off, or wait until it was clear the treaty was done for (with the out break of war) and build bigger gunned ships which wouldn't be ready for a couple of years.

                  As the idea was to prevent war, the British couldn't be seen to abandon the treaty. The US being neutral at start of war had time after the collapse of the treaty limits but before entering the war to build 16-inch gunned ships.

            3. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

              Re: The Impact On The Public Was Terrible @Vorland

              naive,

              I'd dispute most of your post. Bismark and Tirpitz were modern ships, Hood was built around 1920. Technology had changed. The admiralty were well aware of the ship's weaknesses - the refit had been planned and put off for years. But budgets were tight, the Hood was doing much showing of the flag (actually an important job when you're trying to influence neutral powers), and other ships were a higher priority.

              You're quite correct that Hood and Prince of Wales were pretty likely to lose. One was still working-up, and not fit for combat, the other had obsolete defences, though was still very dangerous as it had large guns. And it's not that the Hood hadn't had work done, it's just that it wasn't sufficient. Apparently it was too heavy when fully loaded, as they'd added some deck armour, but that didn't really account for when it had a full wartime stores load.

              Using what you've got is very dangerous of course, as the admiralty should have learned from the battle cruisers. Jackie Fisher had designed them as a counter to counter German commerce raiders. So they'd be armoured to fight cruisers, and need the speed to keep up, while having the guns of battleships - to defeat them quickly, before they could get away. Being so bloody shiny, they got lumped in with the main battle fleet because they were there. And got punished when fighting real battleships. They were ideal scouts, for the same reason they were ideal for sea-lane patrol - speed, and the ability to run away from anything they couldn't kill.

              The Germans built their ships on a different philosphy. They weren't trying to defend a huge empire, keep the sea-lanes open for trade, and blockade an opponent permanently. So they didn't have to carry as much food or fuel. Which meant more space for engines, armour or guns. They tended to favour speed and armour above guns. So Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were direct descendents of their WWI battlecruiser designs. 11" guns, rather than the British 14"-16", but almost battleship levels of armour - and high speed. German destroyers were huge, almost light cruisers sized but they suffered by not having enough of them. The Royal Navy were starting to build huge ones by the outbreak of WWII, and it was one of the first things Churchill put a stop to when he took over at the Admiralty. The Navy needed lots of destroyers, and quantity has a quality all of its own.

              The Germans had the luxury of building a few very high quality ships, but the Royal Navy had to do duty in too many places at once to be able to afford to do that. So the RN had to cover a wide area, and have reserves to deal with any German threats, whereas the Kriegsmarine only had to get lucky, and break through, once to be dangerous. But by having fewer ships they'd often fight outnumbered, when it came to it - and they could never win permanently, only be an annoyance.

              They did have superior rangefinding gear though. I think it took radar guidance for the RN to catch up.

              Finally, I don't know what the Glorious has to do with the subject. That looks to have been a command mistake, in detaching it to return home with minimal escort. But carriers do not survive combat with battleships, if they're ever unfortunate enough to get caught.

        4. Dapprman

          Re: The Impact On The Public Was Terrible

          Hood possibly failed to change course due to existing damage. I'm not sure where the 3 minutes of battle come from it was actually close to quarter an hour and the Hood had already taken serious damage to the stern including a secondary amo store exploding (AA shells in ready position).

          BTW the Bismark's guns were 15" ;)

      6. IvyKing

        Re: The Impact On The Public Was Terrible

        Peter G.: The USN's shortage of carriers was most crucial after the battles around the Solomon's in late 1942. Fortunately for the Allies, the loss of experienced airmen was even more severe problem for the IJN. What was probably an even more serious problem for the USN at that time was the poor quality of the torpedoes for the submarine force, it wasn't until mid 1944 that the sub force had a good supply of decent torpedoes.

        A lucky stroke for the USN was in early 1943 was the availability of proximity fuzed shells.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The Impact On The Public Was Terrible

      yep it was a bad sinking along with two other Devonport ships sunk early in the war Royal Oak lost very early in the war October 1939 sunk with the loss of over 800 men whilst at anchor in Scapa Flow And Glorious sunk with the lost of 1200 in 1940

  6. JimmyPage Silver badge

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9aM1f8nVYc

  7. Calum Morrison

    There is one other existing memorial

    I always thought these were placed immediately prior to Hood's last journey but it seems they predate that somewhat. Still, a fitting memorial about as close to her last resting place as it is to get on the UK mainland.

    http://www.hmshood.com/hoodtoday/eriboll.htm

  8. John Doe 6

    But The Hood is a war grave, how the hell did he get the permit to go down there ?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      See my link in earlier post and the 1st line gives it away.

      "With the approval of the Secretary of State for Defence"

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like