HMS Hood's Survivors | Eve of Destruction (Part 1 of 2)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- Ordinary Signalman Ted Briggs, Able Seaman Robert Tilburn and Midshipman William John Dundas were the only survivors from HMS Hood's 1418 crew. Only Briggs and Tilburn ever told their tales.
Here Hood's survivors detail their memories of the battlecruiser and the leadup to the disastrous confrontation with Bismark and Prinz Eugen in the Battle of the Denmark Strait.
I only recently learnt that the actor Jon Pertwee (Dr Who). was a Sailor on Board The HMS Hood and was only Transfered Off of The Ship Shortly Before She Sailed To her Ill-Fated Encounter With The Bismark To Do a Training Course. One Very Fortunate Man. Huge Respect To The 1418 Who Lost Their Lives On That Dreadful Day.
Yes, I read that many years ago in biography of his. Amazing what fate does to a life
Thanks I didn't know that. What stories that generation had to tell. We won't see their like again, which may be a good thing if it means no more world wars.
This will be emotional to watch, this tale is always heartwrenching. That fine ship put in more than twenty years of sterling service with thousands of superb crew serving time onboard. A ship like her isn't purely built for battle, she is also to project the strength of the Empire around the world and carry on diplomatic visits. She did that and so much more superbly. RIP to the crew, you are remembered.
She may have been a sterling ambassador, but for WW2 the battlecruiser was outdated and obsolete. If anything Jutland already proved the battlecruiser concept did not work as intended. And of the 3 RN battlecruisers in WW2 2 were sunk with massive loss of life. In hindsight the RN should have built carriers instead. The RN sorely needed more of them throughout the war.
@@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623 Mistakenly comparing Hood to a WW1 battlecruiser follows this falacious argument.
A ballet dancer has a head, two arms and two legs.
I also have a head, two arms and two legs.
Therefore I must be a ballet dancer.
HMS Hood bore NO comparison to WW1 battlecruisers, and to state it did simply highlights your own lack of knowledge on the subject.
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 I did not compare her to a WW1 battlecruiser, just that the performance of WW2 RN battlecruisers was as underwhelming as it had been in WW1. For whatever reason. When 2 generations of ships of a special class of ships underperform very badly in 2 wars then it is warranted in my opinion to say that the battlecruiser concept was flawed and a waste of resources.
It was not as the idea of battlecruiser was sound, having a battlecruiser that can out run a battleship and able to kill the enemy cruisers that are a threat to your trade is actually logical if you are the British Empire who is reliant on seaborne trade that must be protected
@@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623 Hood though in need of updating by WW2 was still a "battleship" in all but name.
When you say two out of three battlecruisers were lost during WW2, you seem to forget that the RN's latest, most modern battleship was also lost with Repulse, so what does Repulse's loss prove? That warships without defending aircover are vulnerable to aerial attacks? Well done.
Your overall judgement on the use of battlecruisers may well hold some merit, but is also 80 years after the event.
I've got a photo of our late grandfather on the deck of the 'Hood. He was later to die on board the HMS Celendine in 1944 age 31. Thanks again for your excellent work. ☘️
Respects.
A fine ship and a brave crew. May both their memories be kept fresh
Thank you so much for sharing these stories, we must never forget the sacrifices that were made so that tyranny could be stopped.
Your doing a great service to future generations, preserving this important history.
So many ships of all sizes from torpedo boats to aircraft carriers and battleships were lost during the war along with thousands of men that they almost seem like mere statistics. It is when you hear those fortunate enough to survive to tell the story that the reality strikes home hard and the waste and futility of it all is so evident. If you are empathic Its hard not to shed tears when you hear these two men, now gone, tell the tale of the Hood, not just of her loss but her life and the lives of those to whom she was home.
Rest in peace Gentlemen
Albert Edward Pryke Briggs MBE, 1923 - 2008
Robert Tilburn 1921-1995
William John Dundas 1923-1965
Fantastic. The best account from survivors. My father served aboard R.N., and in one period the U.S.S.South Dakota during W.W.2 and narrowly avoided being selected for his crew.
You've done it again - a superbly compiled and edited piece of work. Hood's story is almost as over-rehashed as Titanic's, and yet you have managed to put us there on the Hood, in the early hours of May 24th, with the thud of the sea, the smell of fuel oil, and a sense of taut anticipation
Wow. High praise indeed.
But that is what I'm aiming for: an alternative to the over-refined, compressed and focus-grouped productions.
I think if we were going to preserve any capital ship as a museum, Hood wouldve been the most likely. No other ship gets described so fondly. She was the finest we had or so we thought.
Many thanks for this excellent documentary. Of all the ships that fought in WWII, the _Hood_ is the one I'd most like to see survive the war and become a ship we could all visit.
Thank you so much for sharing this history so that future generations can learn from this important past. These are events that should never be forgotten. I appreciate so much your efforts in making this available for others to see.
A very fine documentary, the words of the survivors and clips of Hood, l have never seen before. The technical analysis makes a good case for a Bismarck shell to have entered Hood below the water line, through the seven inch armour, into or about the four inch magazine.
The ifs and buts, are academic, but had Holland made PoW the leading ship, matters might have a different outcome.
My mates grandfather was on the Hood. His father had a very different up brining as a result and talking to him about it suddenly made the whole thing a tiny bit closer to me. Thanks a lot for taking the time to bring these recollections to us. Great work, mate.
Interesting that the commentary of Ted Briggs seems to be heading for the ‘plunging fire’ explanation for the disaster. We shall see?
By all accounts this was a catastrophe, felt in every corner of these islands.
I have to wonder how Ted Briggs if he had been able to find out that all the evidence that his ship was the victim of a fatal lucky shot that went underneath Hood's defense and led to her blowing up
@@Knight6831 you haven't asked what Ted should have wondered?
@@DaveSCameron The best description I heard was by Drach in his video on the sinking. He described it like being a much loved local down the pub is knocked out by some yob who just walked in. As he’s congratulating himself he looks around to see everyone in the pub glaring at him and getting to their feet, grabbing chair legs and bottles and cricket bats in the process.
Basically would the evidence that we have now that Hood was destroyed by a shell under the belt be convincing to him
Tilburn's words when picked up by HMS Electra - "just my bad luck to be picked up by a Chatham ship!"
HMS Hood, most elegant warship to ever sail the seas.😊
That would be the Yamato.
@@harryshuman9637 lol no
The colour film of HMS Hood was a pleasant surprise. I did not know that such footage existed.
Here is a less edited copy of the footage, accompanied by a beautfitul soundtrack.
ruclips.net/video/RSVrKErscEY/видео.html
Ref Time stamp 4.30, 2 off hoods ex 5.5 inch guns are still sited at Fort Bedford Ascension Islands South Atlantic, Well worth a visit that small island is covered in history.
Hood was unique. A perfect weapon to catch and kill all of those German battlecruisers, pocket battleships, heavy cruisers and the other commerce raiders. Plenty fast enough and heavy enough to destroy them all.
So what did the Admirals do? None of that. Instead they sent her out against a brand new super-Dreadnought. The literal one and only German ship that she couldn't possibly handle and one that a battlecruiser was never designed to fight against. Those Admirals should have been court martialled. But of course this is Britain and the establishment look after their own.
Thanks for the upload. A tribute to all those brave men denied their true calling and sent on a suicide mission by sheer stupidity.
Why do you feel that prior to the million to one shot on her that "she couldn't handle Bismarck"?
Bismarck belt armour = 12.6 inches
Hood belt armour = 12 inches (Though angled so as to give 13 inches of protection).
Bismarck deck armour = 4 inches
Hood deck armour = 3 inches
Bismarck main armament = 8x15" guns
Hood main armament = 8x15" guns
Hood's deck armour is actually a complicated science really
In 1941, Britain was fighting for her very life, and the war could have gone either way, HMS Hood and HMS Prince of Wales were sent out because they were what we had, the country was desperate, and the two ships should have been enough to do the job, and maybe they would have, had it not been for such a calamitous and fluke hit which struck and sank HMS Hood.....I'm also wondering how, if HMS Hood "couldnt handle" Bismarck, perhaps you can explain three days later she was also sunk......the engagement between Hood and Bismarck wasnt a mistake, nor was it a "suicide mission" or a "decision of sheer stupidity" that those were the ships involved, and there was no case of the "establishment looking after their own"....... I really suggest you read serious accounts of the battle, and the actual events of 24th May 1941, and learn the facts before making such an ill-informed and inaccurate, and rather foolish comment.....Bismarck and HMS Hood were very similar, fairly evenly matched, and probably Bismarck's biggest advantage was that she was nearly 20 years newer than HMS Hood....Your comment does you no credit, and is very disrespectful to the men of the Admiralty who had to take the decisions, and to the men who lived and died doing their duty during the battle........
Absolutely fantastic channel, nice to hear ted briggs talking again what a gentleman he was, sadly missed like all those of that generation.
Thank you for an interesting program, I look forward tp the follow up.
We'll likely never know exactly what caused the loss of Hood. That said, the remaining theories are all equally viable. It's worth pointing out however, that both Captain Leach (who was looking directly at Hood when the deflagration began) and Commander Lawson of Prince of Wales stated in a post- battle interview at Scapa Flow their opinion that the exploding UP ammunition from the boat deck fire sunk Hood. This was an opinion shared by Ted Briggs as well, who suggested the possibility that flash penetrated to the after 15" magazine via the inside floor of a 15" turret. Since Leach had been DNO (Director of Naval Ordinance) prior to his appointment to the command of Prince of Wales, he had a solid enough base of knowledge of UP ammunition. It's also worth noting that after the loss of Hood, UP mountings were no longer installed in British warships- and were removed from every ship which had them.
The second inquiry revealed accounts by eyewitnesses who observed the deflagration of the 4" magazines in progress prior to any supposed hit by a 15" shell. Since it's now believed that the 4" magazine deflagrated first and set off the after 15" magazine, it's a very real possibility that the boat deck fire could have reached the 4" magazine- via either a hatch or trunk left open (although the enquiry revealed that they had all been ordered shut) or via battle damage to the ship's ventilation systems.
For the record, I'm not saying that the boat deck fire sunk Hood. It is however, at the very least equally as possible as a 1 in- a- million shot from a 15" shell penetration. The only thing that can be said with certainty is that after approximately 20 years of sterling service with the Royal Navy, Hood was sunk by the combined fire of both Bismarck and Prince Eugen.
This "UP ammo" theory is oft repeated, but no one can explain how a locker carrying 20 reloads (each one carrying 8oz (228g) of high explosive so approximately 4.5kg of HE in total) was meant to penetrate the multiple armoured decks of Hood and reach the 4"HA magazine that it's believed initiated the destruction of HMS Hood. The shell hoists for the 4in AA ammo together with all their integral safety interlocks were NOWHERE near the UP rocket ammo lockers being right at the back of the superstructure aft of the torpedo control tower, her forward 4" ammo hatches were forward of her leading funnel. How would a UP rocket "penetrate to the after 15" magazine via the inside floor of a 15" turret" exactly?
Prinz Eugen's 8" shell that struck Hood's boat deck was carrying just under 20lbs (~9kg) of high explosive at several times the speed of sound and STILL failed to penetrate.
How could there be an "eyewitness account" of the prior deflagration of the 4" HA magazine? No-one from below decks survived.
I'm not denying that Capt Leach made the statement, but I'm at a complete loss to understand how he seemingly reached that conclusion.
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 You asked me to explain that on another video, and I did- via the ship's ventilation systems or through the floor of a 15" turret. I also explained this in the post which you replied to here.
@@manilajohn0182 I know that the possibility of internal fire spread though the ship's ventilation systems is a distinct possibility but the "UP ammo" theory simply appears to be illogical nonsense.
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 You may wish to read about the boat deck fire- which began with a shell explosion and then escalated through a series of explosions into a raging inferno which left the entire midships of Hood ablaze. I believe that it was Captain Leach who characterized the fire as "...a vast blowlamp".
I'll repeat again that I'm not saying that the boat deck fire sunk Hood. I'm saying that it's at least as great a possibility as yet another 1 in- a- million shell hit. You're free to see the possibility as illogical nonsense if you wish- but Captain Leach, Commander Lawson, and Ted Briggs disagree. That doesn't mean that they're correct; it means that they understand something which to you appears to be illogical.
@@manilajohn0182 I'm well aware of the boat deck fire, and the fact that by most acounts it had largely subsided by the time of Hood's destruction.
You seem to be taking it personally that I have challenged the "UP ammo" theory. If the theory was your own personal one I'd understand a bit more. I merely asked if anyone could explain the idea of how small non AP charges stored in a light metal locker on her boat deck could somehow cause the deflagration in Hood's 4" HA magazine, that was protected by FIVE intervening decks ranging in thickness from ¾" upto 3".
He is so soft spoken and gentlemanly. CC is helpful...
Excellent work, thank you!
The theories as to what exactly sunk the Hood are still unresolved. A deck penetration has pretty much been dismissed (angles were wrong and fuse timers on German shells were too short for a magazine detonation).
Yeah it's why the theory that Armoured Carriers' colleague Drach came up with is probably the right one
@@Knight6831 ... I agree ... he put forward a very sound theory
@@Knight6831 to be fair the 2nd court of inquiry was likely correct
"12) If the muzzle velocity was more than about 3050 fps a shell could have penetrated Hood's 12-inch belt and have got at a vital area (i.e. in or near a magazine).
(13) If it was as low as 2721, although it could not penetrate the 12-inch belt, there is a strip on the ship's side about 18 inches deep and 42 feet long where the shell could enter and pass over the top of the 12-inch belt and yet get under the flat portion of the protective main deck. With a fuse delay of about 55 feet it could explode in a vital part.
(14) There is a zone a few feet wide the length of the magazine group where a shell could fall short of the ship and enter the ship below the armoured belt. Assuming a fuse delay of about 75 feet this shell could get to a 15-inch magazine and with a delay of 55 feet get to a 4-inch magazine. About half the travel would be underwater.
(15) German shells probably have longer fuse delays than ours and experience shows that their fuses are fairly erratic. In the action off the River Plate, two German shells burst 65 and 70 feet respectively.
(16) Little is known of underwater trajectory but the general opinion was that if a shell hit below the waterline it would be slowed up so much that a fuse delay of 75 feet under these circumstances would be unlikely." actually MV was around 2700
no no no not the germans! sureley it was due to unsafe ammunition handling again1
I could be wrong, but isn’t the current consensus that the shell came in just under or behind the main belt and then detonated in one of the secondary magazines
Excellent video!
Compelling! Im praying that this is the first of a two or three part series. 🙏
At this stage I've edited enough for a three parter. The challenge, however, is finding enough suitable footage to support it.
@@ArmouredCarriers Ive thanked you before and I do so again. Nothing is more captivating than the ‘own words’ testimony of the combatants and imho you’ve captured that niche on RUclips through your consistency and hard work. Please keep ‘em coming, within the limits of the available authentic material.
Many thanks. I am sometimes falling back on some CGI from games etc, obviously. But I try to minimise it. The alternative is to cut even more words ... and sometimes that just ruins the story. @@hisdadjames4876
Another superb video
Thanks again!
My uncle served on the Hood, he had appendicitis and was transferred to the base hospital. While in recovery she sailed on her final voyage. He later served on HMS Trinidad, “The ship that torpedoed itself”
Good cruiser, an unfortunate incident.
Two U.S. submarines sunk themselves in WW2 as well. Perhaps they always come in threes...
@@manilajohn0182 There was a problem with the torpedo gyroscope in cold climates. The torpedos did a boomerang and ran in a circle.
@@machendave The torpedo had 23 design flaws- 4 of which were mission critical. By that I mean that if any of the four mafunctioned, the torpedo would fail.
They were the firing pin, the depth gauge, the rudder, and the magnetic warhead. The Navt Bureau of Ordinance certified it ready for service after only two live fire tests- one of which failed. The weapon was declared ready for service despite the fact that it had a 50% failure rate in testing. Neither BurOrd nor the navy leadership was aware a ship's magnetic field was effected by such factors as latitude on Earth, the location where the ship was constructed, and even the direction which the ship was pointing in while it was under construction. They learned through the school of hardvknocks, and a number of men were killed in the learning process.
We need the rest of the interviews
It’s coming. More of a struggle than anticipated finding available / suitable footage.
along with the loss of the Royal Oak at Scapa Flow, the sinking of the Hood were the two most heavily felt blows to the Royal Navy. its not so much their loss as the way they were lost that hurt the most.
When will you upload the next one ?
Footages are very nice ❤❤❤❤🇬🇧🇬🇧👑👑
But their stories are not worth experiencing. Brave boys and men who fought in that era to save the free world❤🇬🇧👑
I've done the audio track. Just need to find enough footage and time to splice it together.
It is now thought that a shell from Bismarck penetrated the side of Hood, under her armoured belt and detonated her magazine
As Kennedy tells us in his book "Pursuit", Hood needed the reinforced deck armor planned for her that never happened. She was at a range where Bismark's shells would be plunging down; not anywhere close to a horizontal path. Those who later try to alter that truth and claim any other kind of hit cannot show you where it's ballistically possible. We know exactly what the characteristics of the Bismark's guns are b3ecause of post-war testing of Tirpitz. And Holland knew his chosen course was risking Hood to exactly that plunging shellfire. It's more important that we know the truth than it is to 'save face' about an embarrassing mistake. I'm sure Holland had his reasons for the course he drove and I'm equally sure he wouldn't have placed Hood at anything he perceived as extreme risk. Like so many things in war, the combined circumstances and odds simply didn't play out.
I highly recommend "Pursuit" not only as a well-researched book on the sinking of Bismark, but also as an enthralling read. Do be sure to check the references and footnotes in back as they are extensive and almost as good as the book itself to read. You will find more about the 3 survivors of Hood there.
Jurens established quite a few years back that the angle of fall of such a shell would not have penetrated Hood's deck armor to reach either a 4" or a 15" magazine.
@@manilajohn0182 And yet at that range no other trajectory was possible and I have yet to hear anyone claim Hood blew up on her own. We have to remember that armor isn't homogeneous and that there are seams, doors, stacks, ventilators, bulkhead connections etc compromising ultimate strength in various places. When no other angle of hit is possible, and at that range there wasn't, then this HAS to be what happened, and it coincided with the expected and observed fall of shot too. Jurens can conjecture all he wants but somehow it was a plunging shell which did Hood in.
@@P_RO_ There are three theories on how Hood was sunk, and they've been in place for years- and some of them for decades. You need to begin reading about them . Wiki is a good starting point.
@@P_RO_ The original "plunging fire" theory doesn't stand up to informed scrutiny. Using the German's own AVKS (Artillerie Versuchs Kommando (See) - Naval Artillery Testing Command) data tables gives an "angle of fall" for shells from Bismarck's 38 cm SK C/34 cannons of approximately 12° from the horizontal at the range where Bismarck's killing shot was fired from (approx 8½ nautical miles).
Prebuild Admiralty testing of Hood's armour had demonstrated that her 3in deck armour was proof against 15" shellfire anywhere below 20° angle of fall.
V/Adm Holland was well aware of Hood's vulnerability to "plunging fire" it was specifically why he had raced to close the engagement distance from the start of the battle, to cross & escape the "danger zone" from plunging fire. Having succesfully done so he was in the process of a turn to port to open his aft gunnery arcs when the fateful shots landed.
The current favoured (and very plausible) theory suggests that the wake of Hood's bow wave at speed exposed a section of her lower hull abaft her mainmast (indeed plan view photos of Hood moving at high speed clearly show this "wave trough"), and a shell from Bismarck hit the exposed area and penetrated BELOW her 12" side armour belt.
There were also eyewitness reports from a number of HMS PoW crew members of unusual behaviour of Hood's "X" turret shortly before Hood's deflagration, which give rise to the theory that there MAY have been a "misfire" or malfunction within that turret which resulted in a "magazine event".
If you'd like to listen to a very good video on the potential events that led to Hood's destruction then this video ruclips.net/video/CLPeC7LRqIY/видео.html is probably the best availble on YT.
It looks as if the Hoods decks where almost under water in rough sea.
Humber Super Snipe is the car delivering Churchill to Chequers.
the number od sailors killed on HMS Hood was almost the same number of passengers lost with the Titanic.
She wad a beauty ,no more war between British and Germans.
All Rip.
Batllecruiser from ww1 what gonna go wrong? Respect to lost sailors😞
2.27 is Nelson/Rodney, not Hood.
Didn't Dundass write a book? I remember that I read one by a midshipman from Hood but could have been Biggs as well, I think he was trying to become an Officer too
I don't think so. He didn't even talk to his family about his experiences before he was killed in a car accident in the 1960s.
The HMS Hood Association website says he never spoke publicly or privately about what happened that day of the sinking.
Probably not a good idea to dash in without destroyers and shadowing cruisers (who were well able to track Bismarck), with aging Hood in the lead. Bismarck had no speed advantage, so Holland should perhaps have chased and cornered the foe with more diverse force, covering Hood’s weaknesses with Prince of Wales heavier guns and armor plus heavy cruisers and destroyers. In the event, Hood led the charge, at a bad angle and with the sea spray impairing the optics needed for firing accuracy. And he had the newer Prince of Wales act as his appendage.
Holland had to pretty much do what he did, He can't afford to let the German get ahead and force a tail chase, he has 2 ships and had Hood and Prince of Wales battered Bismarck into a flaming wreck nobody would be in anyway surprised only in the light of what actually happened does his action face any criticism
Fine, but no need to make Prince of Wales secondary and subject to Hood’s lead. This inflexible tactic wasted time and naval artillery (esp as Hood mistakenly shot at Prinz Eugen at first). No point in giving Germans a pair of predictable battleship trajectories to shoot at. Moreover, the British heavy cruisers should have been brought into the fight by advance plan. Prinz Eugen’s hits on both Hood and Prince of Wales should have been countered (if not prevented 9 by a beating from Norfolk and Suffolk.
@@andrewdewit4711 There are several decisions which with hindsight V/Adm Holland might have made differently.
Letting the more heavily armoured HMS PoW lead the charge into battle being the most obvious alternative, but also he may have considered the possibility of permitting PoW some leeway to act independently once battle had been given.
Holland's desire to maintain radio and radar silence prior to the engagement so as to prevent alerting the two German ships to his impending arrival, while having a great positive aspect also carried a few "negatives". Due to the radio silence V/Adm Holland was unable to alert Rear Admiral Wake-Walker in Norfolk as to his intentions, with the result that the heavy cruisers were unable to close from a stern chasing position in time to take an active part in the Denmark Strait engagement. But the radio silence also meant that Holland was unable to recall what remained of his destroyer escort, HMS Acates, Echo, Electra and Icarus (two other destroyers Anthony & Antelope had earlier headed to Iceland short of fuel) as the four remaining destroyers had earlier been directed by signal light to carry out a fan search to the north when contact with Bismarck had been lost by Norfolk & Suffolk for a few hours shortly before midnight on the 22nd May, and so they were 30-40 miles north of Hood & PoWs position and therefore unable to take part in the action when battle was joined.
Also Holland's decision to exercise radio and radar silence prior to engagement meant that Hood's and PoW's Type 284 gunnery radar, which required between 30 to 45 minutes "warm up" time to become fully functional, was therefore not available during the battle, and so Hood had to rely on her "last gen" Barr & Stroud optical rangefinders during the engagement.
But we must also all remember that while Holland was aware of many more variables and factors which we 82 years later are not, he did NOT have a "realtime top down view" of the various ship dispositions in the hours before engagement and so there must have been a considerable amount of "fog of war" when he made his fateful choices which we "armchair admirals" don't have to contend with.
To be sure, it’s too easy to judge in light of what happened. But rather than uncritically embrace the dominant narrative, it seems useful to review - realistically - what options were available. After all, it was only thanks to a dud shell that Prince of Wales wasn’t lost as well. @@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684
Guy at 8.33 sounds like late England boss Bobby Robson.
What unbeleavble Pictures
Only THREE people SURVIVED this.. oh my dear God 😢...
I fully understand that she’s called beautiful, she was. Fighting ships have their own standards of beauty and by every measurement to these standards the grace oh hoods lines, the distribution of turrets, funnels, conning tower and so on, tick all the boxes for me. A horrible pity she was lost but she’d probably have ended up in a scrappers yard, had she made it thru the war. That would have been worse. 🤷🏻♂️
I'd wager the families of the 1418 men who died onboard her might feel differently about the last part of your post,
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 Probably. But that’s war, ppl die. The over 2,000 ppl on the Bismarck probably weren’t eager to die either. Most of them still did. You can see war as an endless series of unnecessary slaughter, I highly doubt even a single one of the millions who died woke up on his last day saying “yeah, today I want to be blown up, burned to a crisp, squashed or just shot”. 🤷🏻♂️
@@frankodo3251 Surprised that you found WW2 "unnecessary". Perhaps you would be happy to still see nazi death camps operating across Europe today?
Thanl you German 😊
The 3d model footage looks like it is from War Thunder
World of Warships
Is Ted Briggs still alive?😢
No.
@@manilajohn0182 when did he die?
@@kristelvidhi5038 Wikipedia says 4 October 2008.
@@manilajohn0182 a year after his interview in Dogfights?
@@kristelvidhi5038 I dunno when he did that one...