Why was HMS Hood sent to engage Bismark?

[shockinhockin]

haha yeah probably should have noticed that

[DumbleDerp]

haha yeah probably should have noticed that

 

Country of my birth - Boyo! 

[shockinhockin]

that will explain the quick notice of a daft error like that then

 

[chaplainDMK]

As previously mentioned the Hood PoW combination was the closest available force when Bis was spotted so was the force sent to stop her.

 

No one expected the Hood to suffer from a 'golden twinky' shot and sink prior to any real engagement happening. PoW continued the fight but was ordered out of the fight by the Admiralty as due to her being still 'worked up' after completion she was not ready to fight on her own. Captain Leach insisted that the order be given in writing as he did not wish to withdraw.

 

PoW did suffer gun malfunctions during the fight, but at no stage were these 'fatal to her fighting capabilties. The KGV class come in for some stick due to 'failures in gunnery' during action, but the two actions quoted are PoW V's Bis and DoY v's Scharnhorst. The first was a brand new ship still getting ready and the 2nd was during a gale and no ship could fight according to its paper specifications in such conditions - so we get a much over hyped 'not a good turret design' conventional wisdom growing up around them.

 

KGV's were plagued by turret problems at the start, Prince of Wales had 1 gun of A turret jammed and Y turret completely jammed during the first engagement with Bismarck, then A turret completely jammed when she engaged Bismarck the second time when it was shadowing it with Norfolk and Suffolk.

 

In the final battle with Bismarck King George the V had A turret jammed for 30 minutes, and 5 out of 10 guns were out of operation by the end of the engagement (had to be repaired in port), and A turret had constant issues with misfires, reportedly missfiring 3 times. 

 

I mean as far as I know this was fixed later, but in 1940 these boats weren't reliable. 

[OVanBruce]

Wales 

 

I hereby propose him as WOWs oficial mascot. He'll give a royal welcome to all new players.

[Deamon93]

The KGV-class had these issues fixed later on. By the time of the the engagement with Bismarck they were rushed into service to increase the numbers since the most modern BB they had were the Nelsons until they arrived.

[cosmin]

 

Unless you have some serious evidence to back that claim up i don't believe a word of it. Also "if" the US did something like that, that has no relevance. It is clearly explained what and why the events surrounding the Hoods sinking occurred. Look them up before coming up with crazy conspiracy theories. 

 

It also said that US code breakers broke the Japanese codes and were aware of the incoming attack at Pearl Harbor , but they let it happen anyway to influence the public opinion towards war against Japan and Germany . Funny thing is how their aircraft carriers were not there at the time of the attack

[philjd]

 

KGV's were plagued by turret problems at the start, Prince of Wales had 1 gun of A turret jammed and Y turret completely jammed during the first engagement with Bismarck, then A turret completely jammed when she engaged Bismarck the second time when it was shadowing it with Norfolk and Suffolk.

 

In the final battle with Bismarck King George the V had A turret jammed for 30 minutes, and 5 out of 10 guns were out of operation by the end of the engagement (had to be repaired in port), and A turret had constant issues with misfires, reportedly missfiring 3 times. 

 

I mean as far as I know this was fixed later, but in 1940 these boats weren't reliable. 

 

and the USS Idaho conducted a "simulated protracted engagement" in 1942, firing a total of 156 x 6 gun salvo's at an average interval of 1 min 24secs, but only managed 20 salvos with the full number of guns, the average number of guns in each savo was 3.82, suffered 205 equipment failures during the exercise. But still, only the KGV's get flagged as 'unreliable'. It only tends to be the KGVs that get this type of 'study' and 'label' for some reason.

 

From the same study that the above came from

"The first major accident between the wars occurred in 1924 aboard USS Mississippi.  Seven salvos had been fired satisfactorily from the right gun of Turret II.  The shell and powder for the eighth salvo had been rammed, but just after the rammer was withdrawn, a small grey mass of smoke and flame came out of the breech followed immediately by a blinding flash of flame.  Fire and gas filled the gun compartment and passed through the safety doors into the other gun compartments, the upper handling room, and the turret officer's booth. 47 men were killed, most of them from suffocation, and nine others were injured.  An investigation later concluded that the bore had not been inspected properly after firing and that the safety doors had not been properly closed.  Four hours later, as the dead were being removed from the turret, the body of one of the men struck and closed a firing switch in the turret officer's booth.  This fired the left gun, which had not yet been unloaded, injuring ten more men standing in the vicinity of the muzzle.  The Court of Inquiry, demonstrating common sense and considerable compassion, recommended taking no disciplinary action for this later accident, concluding that, ". . . the magnitude of the casualty caused the minds of all concerned to be centered upon the dead rather than upon examination of the guns."  Coincidentally, this same turret burned out again under almost identical circumstances in 1944, this time via the center gun, killing 43.  The second casualty took place during the loading of the 13th salvo.  The breech was open, the projectile had been rammed home, and the rammer head was found stopped against the base of the projectile.  The air ejection system had been turned off, implying that the chamber had been checked and cleared, and the center powder car doors were open.  There had been no material failure; once again an investigative team ascribed the accident to careless checking of the bore. Again, the tragedy was compounded by successive human errors; the fireball probably reached the turret officer's booth and other interior spaces after someone opened the door to the center gun chamber while the unburned gases trapped inside were still hot enough to flash"

 

Sadly, errors, mishaps and breakdowns occur in all ships.

[chaplainDMK]

 

and the USS Idaho conducted a "simulated protracted engagement" in 1942, firing a total of 156 x 6 gun salvo's at an average interval of 1 min 24secs, but only managed 20 salvos with the full number of guns, the average number of guns in each savo was 3.82, suffered 205 equipment failures during the exercise. But still, only the KGV's get flagged as 'unreliable'. It only tends to be the KGVs that get this type of 'study' and 'label' for some reason.

 

From the same study that the above came from

"The first major accident between the wars occurred in 1924 aboard USS Mississippi.  Seven salvos had been fired satisfactorily from the right gun of Turret II.  The shell and powder for the eighth salvo had been rammed, but just after the rammer was withdrawn, a small grey mass of smoke and flame came out of the breech followed immediately by a blinding flash of flame.  Fire and gas filled the gun compartment and passed through the safety doors into the other gun compartments, the upper handling room, and the turret officer's booth. 47 men were killed, most of them from suffocation, and nine others were injured.  An investigation later concluded that the bore had not been inspected properly after firing and that the safety doors had not been properly closed.  Four hours later, as the dead were being removed from the turret, the body of one of the men struck and closed a firing switch in the turret officer's booth.  This fired the left gun, which had not yet been unloaded, injuring ten more men standing in the vicinity of the muzzle.  The Court of Inquiry, demonstrating common sense and considerable compassion, recommended taking no disciplinary action for this later accident, concluding that, ". . . the magnitude of the casualty caused the minds of all concerned to be centered upon the dead rather than upon examination of the guns."  Coincidentally, this same turret burned out again under almost identical circumstances in 1944, this time via the center gun, killing 43.  The second casualty took place during the loading of the 13th salvo.  The breech was open, the projectile had been rammed home, and the rammer head was found stopped against the base of the projectile.  The air ejection system had been turned off, implying that the chamber had been checked and cleared, and the center powder car doors were open.  There had been no material failure; once again an investigative team ascribed the accident to careless checking of the bore. Again, the tragedy was compounded by successive human errors; the fireball probably reached the turret officer's booth and other interior spaces after someone opened the door to the center gun chamber while the unburned gases trapped inside were still hot enough to flash"

 

Sadly, errors, mishaps and breakdowns occur in all ships.

 

Well King George the V class was the pinnacle of the Royal Navy and was present at practically all the important engagements at the start of the war, and reliably showed that it's guns were unreliable. 

 

HMS Rodney, with bigger guns than HMS King George the V, and it's well publicized issues, managed to fire 340 16" shells at Bismarck with no major issues, and was steaming at 2 knots over it's designed speed to intercept Bismarck. Most Battleships could do far far far better than have 50% of it's main battery out of action after 1,5-2 hours of firing. 

 

I mean the turrets and the guns were rushed into service, the original design called for the KGV's to have 9 15" guns, but was later switched out to 12 14" guns (later reduced to 10 14" guns because another quad turret would have made the ship unstable and break the London treaty 35,000 ton displacement), and the entire ships were rushed into service without proper gunnery trials or anything. Like everyone pointed out, Prince of Wales had carpenters on board when it was chasing Bismarck. These ships would have ideally been deployed in 1942, not 1940, but the Royal Navy needed new ships in 1940. They were great battleships, but just rushed into service in 1940. You don't hear much issues with Duke Of York at North Cape for example. 

[WhiskeyWolf]

Funny thing is how their aircraft carriers were not there at the time of the attack

You find ferrying planes to isolated outposts funny?

[Zedrick]

 

USA allowed most of there pacific battleship fleet to get sunk in order to gain a propaganda advantage (but that's a topic for another thread). Public opinion is a funny thing, its not always positive events that have the best impact.

 

Interesting fact. Did you know that Germany allowed the Bismark to get sunk in order to gain a propaganda advantage? Oh, they also lost the war on purpose in a failed attempt win the heart of the general public.

[QuantumBomber]

Zedrick, on 10 April 2015 - 12:22 PM, said:

 

Interesting fact. Did you know that Germany allowed the Bismark to get sunk in order to gain a propaganda advantage? Oh, they also lost the war on purpose in a failed attempt win the heart of the general public.

 

Someone sensible ^^
 

cosmin, on 10 April 2015 - 11:36 AM, said:

 

It also said that US code breakers broke the Japanese codes and were aware of the incoming attack at Pearl Harbor , but they let it happen anyway to influence the public opinion towards war against Japan and Germany . Funny thing is how their aircraft carriers were not there at the time of the attack

 

Unless once again there is solid evidence to back up your claims, i don't believe a word. I'm sure errors were made but i truly believe that the RN and US never caused the deaths of so many men just for "propaganda". 
 

[philjd]

 

Interesting fact. Did you know that Germany allowed the Bismark to get sunk in order to gain a propaganda advantage? Oh, they also lost the war on purpose in a failed attempt win the heart of the general public.

 

According to a discussion I had with Eric Grove, he theorised at the time that the Bismarck sortie was the stick element of a carrot and stick policy to try and get a peace treaty with the UK (the carrots being dangled by Rudolf Hess).

Operationally, the KM would have been better off waiting for the Tirpitz to complete its working up exercises.

[xCaptainObviousx]

[philjd]

 

Well King George the V class was the pinnacle of the Royal Navy and was present at practically all the important engagements at the start of the war, and reliably showed that it's guns were unreliable. 

 

HMS Rodney, with bigger guns than HMS King George the V, and it's well publicized issues, managed to fire 340 16" shells at Bismarck with no major issues, and was steaming at 2 knots over it's designed speed to intercept Bismarck. Most Battleships could do far far far better than have 50% of it's main battery out of action after 1,5-2 hours of firing. 

 

I mean the turrets and the guns were rushed into service, the original design called for the KGV's to have 9 15" guns, but was later switched out to 12 14" guns (later reduced to 10 14" guns because another quad turret would have made the ship unstable and break the London treaty 35,000 ton displacement), and the entire ships were rushed into service without proper gunnery trials or anything. Like everyone pointed out, Prince of Wales had carpenters on board when it was chasing Bismarck. These ships would have ideally been deployed in 1942, not 1940, but the Royal Navy needed new ships in 1940. They were great battleships, but just rushed into service in 1940. You don't hear much issues with Duke Of York at North Cape for example. 

 

DoY achieved something like a 70% of maximum firing rate at North Cape, but most of that is down to the weather.

 

KGV - the interlocks were complex, no one wanted a repeat of Jutland, I have no problems with the reliability of the PoW given that it hadn't even completed its working up so was bound to be 'buggy'.

NelRods - turrets did suffer mechanically in the early phases of their careers, mostly due to the wear on lightweight components in the turret design, but these were ironed out by the mid 30's. The only mechanical mishaps that I am aware of for Rodney v's the Bismarck is that when the guns were fired at zero elevation, at times they would jump out of their cradles! (this is ignoring the fact that when the guns fired they tended to blow the deck planking off also )

[chaplainDMK]

 

DoY achieved something like a 70% of maximum firing rate at North Cape, but most of that is down to the weather.

 

KGV - the interlocks were complex, no one wanted a repeat of Jutland, I have no problems with the reliability of the PoW given that it hadn't even completed its working up so was bound to be 'buggy'.

NelRods - turrets did suffer mechanically in the early phases of their careers, mostly due to the wear on lightweight components in the turret design, but these were ironed out by the mid 30's. The only mechanical mishaps that I am aware of for Rodney v's the Bismarck is that when the guns were fired at zero elevation, at times they would jump out of their cradles! (this is ignoring the fact that when the guns fired they tended to blow the deck planking off also )

 

Like I said, the KGV class wasn't unreliable, it was just rushed, primarily reliability issues only occured on KGV and PoW, KGV being commissioned very quickly after launch, and PoW being sent out to it's first action while still not finished. The other boats were reliable since they had time to be ironed out.

[Ecclesiastes]

You have to take into consideration that the RN did not have that many capital ships that could keep up with bismarck. The 5 Revenge class Battleships and the 5 Queen elisabeth Battleships were too slow. Then you have the two Nelsons, which were also too slow. Those battleships were good for escort duty (Bismarck would not engage them because the german strategy was to outrun anything they couldn't outgun). The KGV's were just entering service, but apart from KGV they were hardly battle-ready. As said, Prince of Wales went to sea with civilian mechanics finishing the last touches on her.

 

Bottom line is that the Royal Navy had 5 ships that would both be able to keep up with Bismarck and stand a chance in a gun duel. Those were Hood, Repulse and Renown, all three battlecruisers, but armed with 15" guns (roughly on par with Bismarck) and the 2 KGV's King George V and Prince of Wales (Of those 5, I'm not even sure if they were all available, since force H at Gibraltar usually also included a fast battlecruiser). That is not a lot of ships if you want to cover all routes and still want to win an engagement. Hood wasn't ideal to take on Bismarck, but all things considered, it was all they had...

 

Why she was in front has also been answered, it was both the fact that she was more veteran than PoW (which was still working up and untested in combat) and the fact that the Hood was a flagship with suitable equipment for command and the vice-admiral on board, the flagship usually leads the formation. She just got very unlucky. As for the conspiracy theories, those are very nice and all when your safely behind your computer with 20/20 vision and have a good time connecting unrelated dots (and reading uninformed sh*t on the internet), but please keep them out of here unless backed up by lots of facts, its a gross lack of respect to the many sailors that died for their country there. But to answer your insinuation: Vice-admiral Holland was the one who put the Hood in front, and Vice-Admiral Holland was the one who went down with her. There was no higher command that ordered her to be in front so she could sink for King and Country. She wasn't supposed to go down at all, the RN was already short on fast capital ships, with Tirpitz almost finished, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau still operational and the fast Battleships of the Italian fleet threatening the med.

[philjd]

 

 The force mix was as follows

1) KGV + Repulse

2) Hood + PoW

3) Renown - Force H

[cracktrackflak]

Hood was perfectly capable of mauling or even sinking Bismark. She had an experienced, fully worked-up crew, and had the benefit of previous ship-to-ship engagement action.

 

Hood in fact only had to achieve a few main armament hits to ensure that Bismark would have to break off and run for France (nearly all BB on BB engagement hits being documented as achieving severe or critical damage). Once Bismark turned for home, it was doomed anyway - either to be sunk en route or be trapped and bombed as Tirpitz was. The Germans' critical weakness in sea power (both WW1 and WW2) was lack of operating bases outside of the area easily blockaded by Britain.

 

Apart from the quantifiable differences between Hood and Bismark - armour, speed, armament, etc - there are also the unquantifiable differences in culture - tradition, fighting aggression, sense of mission, etc - between the RN and Kriegsmarine.

 

Hood was unlucky; another 20 seconds or so would have seen her complete her racing turn-in, and then she'd have had full belt armour protection and a full broadside engagement...

[great_kahn]

Hood was perfectly capable of mauling or even sinking Bismark. She had an experienced, fully worked-up crew, and had the benefit of previous ship-to-ship engagement action.

 

Hood in fact only had to achieve a few main armament hits to ensure that Bismark would have to break off and run for France (nearly all BB on BB engagement hits being documented as achieving severe or critical damage). Once Bismark turned for home, it was doomed anyway - either to be sunk en route or be trapped and bombed as Tirpitz was. The Germans' critical weakness in sea power (both WW1 and WW2) was lack of operating bases outside of the area easily blockaded by Britain.

 

Apart from the quantifiable differences between Hood and Bismark - armour, speed, armament, etc - there are also the unquantifiable differences in culture - tradition, fighting aggression, sense of mission, etc - between the RN and Kriegsmarine.

 

Hood was unlucky; another 20 seconds or so would have seen her complete her racing turn-in, and then she'd have had full belt armour protection and a full broadside engagement...

 

 

What do you think would have been the result of a broadside engagement?

[Deamon93]

 

 

What do you think would have been the result of a broadside engagement?

 

Bismarck/Prinz Eugen would have suffered more damage, then again will never know.

[2ndaryBattleTank]

Why do I get the sense that people tend to see HMS Hood as some glorified rust bucket that was totally outclassed by Bismarck? Look up the stats: Hood was similar to Bismarck in displacement, firepower and speed. Even the thickness of the armor seems broadly comparable, except, which may have been crucial, for the deck armor. This meant Hood was more vulnerable at long range from plunging fire, but otherwise the two ships seem to have been well matched.

 

I think the admirals will have felt that as long as Hood could close the distance quickly enough it would stand a pretty even chance. Given the threat Bismarck represented to the convoys keeping Britain in the war they made a calculated gamble hoping that Hood would survive the first few long range salvos and in the end it didn't pay off due to excellent German gunnery and some rotten luck. That is war for you.

 

 

[philjd]

What people also forget or don't actually know is that only hours before the encounter the  4DD's that were accompanying Hood/PoW had been released from accompanying them, the speculated reason was to broaden the search pattern after Norfolk and Suffolk lost contact. So the intention was to engage with Hood/Pow +4 DD's plus 2xCA which ought to have been decisive. Sometimes fate just likes to chuck a wobbly into intentions.

[indycar]

 

Unless once again there is solid evidence to back up your claims, i don't believe a word. I'm sure errors were made but i truly believe that the RN and US never caused the deaths of so many men just for "propaganda". 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8932197/Pearl-Harbour-memo-shows-US-warned-of-Japanese-attack.html

 

not to mention the unfortunate events on september 11th and few other "incidents"

 

 

[QuantumBomber]

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8932197/Pearl-Harbour-memo-shows-US-warned-of-Japanese-attack.html

 

not to mention the unfortunate events on september 11th and few other "incidents"

 

 

 

But Mr Shirley said: "Based on all my research, I believe that neither Roosevelt nor anybody in his government, the Navy or the War Department knew that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbour. There was no conspiracy.

Read your own evidence. It was several mistakes that led to theses event. Still has nothing to do with the hoods sinking. Just another conspiracy  to help your own distrust in your government, Its a pity that some Americans distrust their government to that extent.