I saw a program on Nat Geo about the battle of Jutland , which inferred that the British ships preferred to put a lot of lead down range , rather than rely on slower more accurate shooting , which was the " German " way - to this end certain safety measures ( on the British vessels ) were dropped , bulkhead doors left open , or even removed to allow for faster movement of the shells and their propellant to the turrets/turret lifts from the magazines - this MIGHT be the reason why HMS Hood blew up so violently
No, this was a WW1 problem. During WW1 the british battlecruisers were "forward deployed" at Rosyth where they had no suitable target-range for gunnery practice. Without sufficent training accurate fire was not possible so they tried to make up with increased firing speed. Note that the 1st battlecruiser squadron (3 older battlercruisers under Admiral Horace Hood), which was stationed at Scapa Flow and had access to gunnery range, was firing very accurately. And actually only the loss of HMS Queen Mary is attributed to open magazine doors, HMS Indefatigable and HMS Invincible were lost due to their amour being too weak to withstand hits from capital ship guns. But that was certainly not an issue during the battle of the Denmark Strait.
Yes, she was old, but her firepower was still the same as HMS Warspite and comparable to Bismarck. And up to this day its not entirely clear show exactly she was destroyed. Theoretically her armour should have protected her at range and angle she was destroyed and that the fatal hit penetrated the deck-armour is not certain. One theory assumes that a shell fell just the right amount of short of the Hood that it could hit her under her belt-amour without having to pass through sufficent water to detonate before hitting the ship.
@@gildor8866 she was firepower wise fine. She needed a refit badly, up armouring etc, sadly it was a one in a million shot by the looks of it, most ships of the era took many hits before being destroyed, she was unlucky
@@Sam-Hamboit was a lucky shot that hit the ammunition area of the ship, naval gunnery at the time is remarkable, 14 miles away scoring direct hits on moving targets is pretty awesome
It's ironic that a battle-cruiser was the pride of the " Andrew" ,and not a battleship , one can only assume from my part , it had something to do with the aesthetics, rather than her armament
Couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately the Bismarck scored a real one in a million shot that literally blew the Hood apart, the fact that even three men survived was a miracle!
I saw a program on Nat Geo about the battle of Jutland , which inferred that the British ships preferred to put a lot of lead down range , rather than rely on slower more accurate shooting , which was the " German " way - to this end certain safety measures ( on the British vessels ) were dropped , bulkhead doors left open , or even removed to allow for faster movement of the shells and their propellant to the turrets/turret lifts from the magazines - this MIGHT be the reason why HMS Hood blew up so violently
No, this was a WW1 problem. During WW1 the british battlecruisers were "forward deployed" at Rosyth where they had no suitable target-range for gunnery practice. Without sufficent training accurate fire was not possible so they tried to make up with increased firing speed. Note that the 1st battlecruiser squadron (3 older battlercruisers under Admiral Horace Hood), which was stationed at Scapa Flow and had access to gunnery range, was firing very accurately. And actually only the loss of HMS Queen Mary is attributed to open magazine doors, HMS Indefatigable and HMS Invincible were lost due to their amour being too weak to withstand hits from capital ship guns. But that was certainly not an issue during the battle of the Denmark Strait.
Such wonderful footage of the Hood, she truly was a magnificent looking ship. Nice video thanks
She certainly was. A glorious vessel.
Truly a beautiful ship, a real work of art. Sadly by ww2 she was out of date, so sadly 1400 men passed away
Yes, she was old, but her firepower was still the same as HMS Warspite and comparable to Bismarck. And up to this day its not entirely clear show exactly she was destroyed. Theoretically her armour should have protected her at range and angle she was destroyed and that the fatal hit penetrated the deck-armour is not certain. One theory assumes that a shell fell just the right amount of short of the Hood that it could hit her under her belt-amour without having to pass through sufficent water to detonate before hitting the ship.
@@gildor8866 she was firepower wise fine. She needed a refit badly, up armouring etc, sadly it was a one in a million shot by the looks of it, most ships of the era took many hits before being destroyed, she was unlucky
The Hood was a ship from a bygone era, if her refit had gone ahead, she’d probably not of been destroyed in the manner she was
A pure fluke shot took her out, if she’d had reinforced armour she may of been spared
@@Sam-Hamboit was a lucky shot that hit the ammunition area of the ship, naval gunnery at the time is remarkable, 14 miles away scoring direct hits on moving targets is pretty awesome
@@wokeysnoleI agree with you, it was and still is an art
It's ironic that a battle-cruiser was the pride of the " Andrew" ,and not a battleship , one can only assume from my part , it had something to do with the aesthetics, rather than her armament
She at the time was also the most advanced when she came out in 1920 that, her aesthetic and size was probably the reason
The first and last of her kind. Rip the 1400
should not have been sent out with teeny deck armour knowing how good german gunners were
To sink in three minutes is some damage. Those men wouldn't have stood a chance of getting out.
Couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately the Bismarck scored a real one in a million shot that literally blew the Hood apart, the fact that even three men survived was a miracle!