Hms Hood vs. Kms Bismarck

[Brin]

Hi TRDG,

I would suggest a little bit of both, from contemporary reports; apparently Bismarck had fired two ranging shots to the f'wd and aft of Hood. Meanwhile Hood and PoW were steaming in a straight line charge at the Bismarck to close the range. Albeit fairly close together, making it easier for the German gunners to target, whilst foolishly restricting manoeuvrability. The aiming of the fated salvo from Bismarck was probably assisted by a fire that had broken out on the Hood, apparently caused by one of the Prinz Eugen's earlier salvos.

I appreciate that the skirmish theory posted earlier is different to many published theories of Holland attempting to engage in a set piece battle. But to my mind, if Holland wanted to do such, why leave out half of your forces, namely Suffolk and Norfolk? Both of which were within striking distance and were waiting on the order to attack the Prinz Eugen (in accordance with the initial plan), having maintained radar contact for most of the night before.

Or is this a classic case of Holland underestimating his foes and trying to ‘grab’ the glory?

Unfortunately those of the immediate command team went down with the Hood, so speculation remains. Of the three survivors none would have been in a position to have involvement in any of the planning or decision stages. Although Briggs may have witnessed Holland's realisation of his folly leading to the final situation for the Hood.

[TRDG]

Thank you sir, about what I thought it was, was there any radio communication that can shed more light on the subject "locked up: somewhere in Britian perhaps?

Cheers, would'nt this be kinda fun to game this battle, now if we could find a game that we could use here on the net to kinda duplicate this.... Again, no idea if it is feasable.......

Tom

[Brin]

‘…was there any radio communication that can shed more light on the subject "locked up“: somewhere in Britain perhaps?’

That could be possible, for the standard ‘golden’ 50 year confidentiality rule would have expired. Although given the political nature of the Hood’s sinking, coupled with the popular feeling at the time a 75 or 100 year clause may have been applied. The story of HMS Hood was something that I was given as a project to research and present in slide format as an Artificer Apprentice in my younger days, hence the knowledge for the postings. Any further published research or public access to official documentation since, I am not aware of.

In assessing how important the sinking of the Hood was for Britain in 1941, it must be remembered that Britain had previously built a form of Empire, considered itself to be the foremost world super-power of the time, hence the term ‘…the sun never sets on the British Empire…‘. From this point the mess of WW1 had destabilised the traditional class based social structures within Britain and arguably initiated a financial decline in the British Empire, all within a relatively short time base. The technological deterministic land based military approach of Nazi Germany had radically changed the form and format of warfare, effectively leaving its foes behind. A point that is evident in the strategic removal of the British Expeditionary Force in Europe leading to the mess at Dunkirk in May 1940. So faced with military defeat in Europe, the resultant realism that Britain might easily have be invaded, the emphasis of which was evident in Churchill’s famous speech following the ’Battle of Britain’. Britain and her Commonwealth at this point stood alone against the very daunting threat, might and superior resources of Nazi Germany. Her ’lifeline’ in 1941 was a projection of naval power, yet this resource was being stretched to the limit, so the sinking of the HMS Hood as the pride of the RN had far reaching political, social and cultural implications.

If the RN report on HMS Hood had been released for public viewing, then I would have expected the national press to have ‘run’ a story on it. For in 2003 the 50 year rule for the RN file of the WW2 scuba diving hero ‘Buster’ Crabb was due for release. However given the awkward circumstances and nature of his disappearance, coupled with the media focus awaiting the appointed date, influenced the authorities to apply another 25 year clause to it, so I’ll have to wait until 2028 at the earliest to read any official information.

[TRDG]

Very informative and well done Brin, now don't take this "wrong" but that "extra" 25 years tacked on seems like that would be more likely in Russia. As in it sounds like something they might do. This is not a crit per say but more of a "what I first thought about" after reading your post on the facts here. So even in Britian it seems, the U.S. has its fair share of this as well, not to sure it it goes to most of its WW II history. But that may be for another thread.

Cheers, thanks again, I love learning new things here from people every day!!

Best regards

Tom

[Brin]

Hi Tom,

I'll agree that is does seem quite sinister, esp. as it is very recent history. In 2006 the preliminary files concerning 'Buster' Crabb were released for public viewing. A media report from a British national newspaper is available at:

The fate of 'James Bond' naval hero hushed up by government | Mail Online

At the end this article is a quotation from a respected historian Howard Davies;

'...Howard Davies, archivist at the National Archives, said the extent of the cover-up suggested there was more about the case to be told.
"The conclusion that most people will draw is that there is a real intelligence angle to this which the authorities aren't ready to release," he said.' (Daily Mail, 27 OCT 2006).

What Davies is referring to is what historians call an 'unwitting testimony' (a phrase coined by Arthur Marwick), whereby a form of evidence by its very nature of composition unintentionally alludes to further information which has been omitted, a form of double negaitve if you like.

A further article is available on the same website dated 16 Nov 2007, whilst containing a dubious claim by Kolstov, the latter part of the article regarding Miss Handley's efforts and Crabb's war and post war activities provides an insight.

[TRDG]

Thanks for the link, I can now understand this "secret" stuff a little better, as to what their thought process was in doing things the way they do it. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but I understand it beter.

Cheers, I'll really have to read this in full to get the full pic here!!!

Tom

[terminator]

Originally Posted by TRDG

Thank you sir, about what I thought it was, was there any radio communication that can shed more light on the subject "locked up: somewhere in Britian perhaps?

Cheers, would'nt this be kinda fun to game this battle, now if we could find a game that we could use here on the net to kinda duplicate this.... Again, no idea if it is feasable.......

Tom

Try and get hold of the old DOS Game: 'Great Naval Battles North Atlantic'
or even better: 'Fighting Steel' which will run on Windows XP.
I believe certain scenarios may also be possible with: 'Silent Hunter III',
(Although I may be incorrect on that one)
Happy Gaming
terminator

[TRDG]

Thanks T, I'll see what I can dig up on those games, any board games you can think of?

Cheers, by the way, welcome to The Zone, kick back and stay a while.

Tom

[terminator]

Many thanks
Give this 'link' a try:

FIGHTING STEEL PROJECT / THUNDER AT SEA - NWS ONLINE COMBAT GAMING STORE / NAVAL WARFARE SIMULATIONS FORUMS

They should be able to get you a copy of either.
Plus they have a (neccessary) 'patch' (10.43) for Fighting Steel, which should correct any tendancy for the prog. to crash, after a vessel is given a 'turn' command. (when being run on Windows Xp).

On the 'link' page, just click on the topmost 'sticky' for Fighting Steel.

or for more info about the earlier GNBNA, click on (my): 'Remember GNBNA' ?
question.

Cheers
terminator

[Brett]

Originally Posted by LAH 1 SS

another thing to take into account would be that the german range finders on bismark would have been taking note of the fall of shot from prince of wales and hood

alot easier to gauge the range of an enemy vessel when you see where there shots are landing.

from this bismarks shot was far more effective than prinz eugen becuase prinz eugenwould have been trying to find range whilst being fired upon

I hadn't heard that before -- you can determine range of enemy
guns from their shells? How is that done?