My great uncle was a stoker 1st class on the HMS Hood and was on board when it was sunk. My great aunt was devastated and kept looking for him for years after that. RIP Stoker 1st Class Lawrence Crowley
This documentary must've been made after Albert Edward Pryke "Ted" Briggs MBE unfortunate passing. Ted was one of the last 3 survivors of HMS Hood and he passed back on October 4th, 2008. He has been in almost every documentary regarding the Bismarck and HMS Hood as he was one of the three survivors out of 1500 brave servicemen who survived the sinking of the Hood.
From what I recall he was the only one who spoke about it on camera. But he lived to be a good age, unfortunately living with the haunted memories of that day when his ship went down, tbh anyone of us would be traumatized for life by that experience
I can only imagine what the pilots felt as they attacked Bismarck - over a 1000 people inside a steel fortress, with some really powerful weapons, all focused on killing you in the most expedient way possible.
They were actually lucky in some ways - the old fashioned “stringbags” they were flying could take a ton of punishment and still be flyable, and they were so slow that the flak and timed fuses were going off before they were in range of the blast. The saddest thing is their lack of numbers when compared to the massive air fleets in the Pacific war. The sheer weight of ordnance involved would have doomed Bismarck to immediate destruction just as Force Z faced less than a year later.
And you're in a slow BIPLANE that has to fly in a straight line to drop your torpedo - which may not even work. The only saving grace was that they flew so low that many of the Bismarck's anti-aircraft guns couldn't depress low enough to hit them.
I talked to my parents, uncles and grand parents about the Hood and their reaction was shock, anger and a burning desire for revenge. At that moment, sinking the Bismark became a national preoccupation. When you are talking about psychological impact, as with the blitz, the net result was reinforcement of the British determination to endure and to win.
Why pay for part 2? Why is this not mentioned at start of part 1? There is already a lot of advertising within the content and now you want me to pay...tough luck.
Good thing I jumped into the comments 2 mins in. Plenty of other docs about same subject without having to pay for anything or watch a part 2. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Saved me some irritation I thank you for that
That 15 year old kid found out what war was really like, after he went to the bridge all eager & perky, only to find a jumbled pile of flesh bone and burning metal. Kids should never have to see or experience things like that. Just goes to show the grit & steel of their generation.
Spectacular, immensely well done - and Andrew Choong of the National Maritime Museum is a total master of his brief, makes it so interesting and engaging rather than 'nerdy'. Well done!
Except he got Bismarcks beam wrong at "30 metres", .. which he says is wider than Hoods 100 ft beam, .. Ummm??🤔 It was actually 120 ft across, hence about 36.5 metres. Perhaps he has trouble with Metrics? 🙄
Horribly outdated armour layouts and inefficient AA and secondary layouts? The Bismarck twins were outdated on launch compared to the damn Nelson-Class.
@@youraveragescotsman7119 Bismarck's armor sheme wasnt dated for the North Atlantic and standard Battle ranges.Most ships had Bad AA at the start of the war.
Great documentary! Also the short lived story of Bismarck is one of my favorite historical topics of WW2! It’s just shocking how quickly Bismarck sent the pride of Britain’s navy to the bottom quickly with the loss of almost all hands! Also what it took to bring Bismarck down is equally as staggering! Those brave biplane pilots had some serious courage to throw their ancient machines against a modern battleship and land an extremely lucky hit on the rudder that doomed the ship.
@Israel Hands You mean the Hood right? In that case yes Hood never hit the Bismarck, but the prince of Wales did hit Bismarck twice. One being a hit that ruptured her fuel reserves and made her return to home. Well “almost” returned home that is.
Steven Moore, It never ceases to amaze me the amount of praise and hero worship the Bismarck seems to attack. This was a ship that went out to sink unarmed merchant vessels and only lasted a week of that single mission. The 'pride of the Royal Navy' was 20 years its senior. What is the big deal about Bismarck? It totally failed in its mission.
@@lyndoncmp5751 It wasn’t the mission it was the ship herself! By the time of her commission in mid 1940 she was the most heavily armed and armored ship in the world. That’s why she was so feared, and even though she didn’t fulfill her mission her existence as a fighting ship will always be legendary
Steven Moore Yes but her role was to take out allied merchant ships and to cause havoc with supplies to Britain. Bismarck totally failed in that singular mission and found herself on the run less than a week into her one and only mission. Cheers.
@@stevenmoore4612 Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! No, just plain no. She was neither the most heavily armed nor best armoured. That is a complete myth. German equipment, military or otherwise, is always held up as being better than anyone else's (whether it's justified or not) on account of it being German. Facts were that its main armament was well behind that of the British Nelsons, American Colorados and Japanese Nagatos and were only on a par with the new French and Italian battleships. Even this is being generous. Its much vaunted armour did not stand up very well to the Rodney's guns during her sinking. So much so that the British ship knocked out half the Bismarck's main armament with just a single hit. She was put out of the fight as a retaliatory unit very quickly and didn't score a single hit on any of the British vessels during the short time she was functional. The German ship's horizontal armour was woefully insufficient ( just like the Hood's ) and, moreover, vital communication lines and fire control systems were placed ABOVE this armoured deck. You won't be surprised to know that these exposed lines were soon cut during the Bismarck's final engagement. The KGV class were contemporaneous with the Bismarcks and so a comparison is fair, and they had not only much thicker armour on both belt and deck, but more extensive too. For example, side belt was a colossal 23 feet deep whereas Bismarck's was a paltry 16 feet. Of course, the British ships did not have the elementary design flaw of having fire control systems above the armoured decks either. The only thing the German ship had in its favour was an exceptional crew who did as much as could possibly be expected of them, and probably more, under the circumstances. It was this that caused the British no end of hassle for that particular operation, not the ship itself. The crew were of the highest order ( pity they chose to serve such a vile regime ) while the ship most certainly wasn't.
@@isilder And your point is? Morse Code now a days cannot be read by most people in fact very few people. In a lot of documentaries when depicting the use of Morse code any old random Morse is used. Yet here in this documentary the Morse for Bismarck and destroyers etc is correct.
@@isilder Movies / documentaries often use morse but the amount of text sent is a fraction of what is indicated either verbally or by caption in a scene. This documentary actually has the morse matching the text in the captions. It is being sent in the clear without encoding in this documentary. The element weighting was pretty poor. Just an observation on the morse, not a critique on whether they did what was actually done at the time.
The day that the Hood was ordered to go to the Bismark, she was under orders to go into dry dock to have her decks armour plated. One seaman was ordered off the Hood to attend a course. He became Dr Who in the BBC series of that name.
Is it me or did he do the voice over just after having a dental operation or something, his voice sounds very different in the v.o compared to the filmed on location sections.
I read your comment before I watched it, and yes, oh my lord, it's so pronounced. He definitely sounds like he had some dental surgery. It's not his normal voice. Why he would do voice over in such a condition, who's to say. But yes, it's very obvious.
Drachfinel makes a compelling argument that Hood was hit below her armour belt where the wake dips exposing the hull below the static waterline. We know what happened next.
Why didn’t they extend the armour belt so it went lower in the hull to give the boat better protection ????Is it something to save weight ???? Did the navy change the way they protect there boats for the future ???
@@russcooke5671They assumed since the shell was going to hit the ship above the water, and shell's with underwater punching capabilities weren't even the norm, despite that, Hood had a Great torpedo protection that served "technically" as that underwater belt Bismarck's gunnery officers were extremely lucky because the Shell hit right in-between the Main Belt and Torpedo Belt, which was rather thin, passed through the weak inner side armor plates, and into Hood's Ammo which thereby sunk Hood
@@russcooke5671 Hood was a battlecruiser. It traded armor for speed. It was supposed to catch and sink any cruiser but not fight battleships. It was supposed to outrun a battleship it came across. It was madness to have the Hood fight the Bismark. The British should have learned that from the battlecruisers blowing up at Jutland. It was not designed to take hits from 15 inch guns. A larger armor belt or more deck armor would have added a lot of weight and slowed the ship down.
Been watching Extra History's take as well as other channels that covered the battle....but my god, the footage is one of chills and eerie memory. Perfect documentary.
May 20, 1941. A restaurant in Stockholm. A British officer the navel attaché to neutral Sweden is having diner alone when the water interrupts him with a telephone call from the embassy. His eyes widen. He slams down the receiver and rushes out. Waiting for him at the embassy is a Norwegian colonel, the men Swedish intelligent leaks to if they want information to land in British hands. He has a sighting report from a Swedish cruiser. They relay it to London via encrypted telegram and it says: At 1500-hour, two large warships, escorted by three destroyers, fiver ships and ten or twelve planes, passed to the northeast. The Ships are German and the Hunt is on.
The one leged housekeeper of our school, a gentle giant we boys all liked, had been one survivor of Bismarck. In 1968 (a lot of students rebellions in Germany that year. The young ones confronted their parents with their roles in WW2) one of the elder school boys aged 18 set the school on fire at night and the keeper allone fought the fire untill the fire brigades arrived. Just an anecdote.....and by the way. sinking ships and killing each other is not the way to solve problems.
Hartmut Writh It's a pity you Germans never thought about that, before invading every country that you could! 6million innocent people were also slaughtered!
Unfortunately, sinking ships, leveling cities and killing people ARE sometimes the only way to solve problems. Look at what Ukrainians have to do to survive as a people.
I feel that those sailors who were not in charge of where the ship went or what she did, I view as innocent in naval combat. I mean, they’re locked into this ship, usually in a small cramped space or dangerous space (munitions or stoking, or heck cooking), and without their approval they are fired upon and sunk. What I mean is I feel their culpability is far less than tank commandos, fighter pilots, infantry or camp guards. I can’t even imagine the horrors that housekeeper saw during the sinking of the Bismarck. I wholeheartedly applaud his bravery in fighting the school fire alone until backup arrived. I think that backlash you mentioned is severely under-studied. I would be very interested in hearing more of your experiences. I struggle to put myself in those childrens’ shoes (mainly because my ancestors were farmers and flight academy instructors, not soldiers in their own rights). But finding out one or both parents had been involved in unethical war behaviours… I can well imagine the kids rebelled, it’s not surprising at all.
My great uncle, Edmund Church was the chief petty officer gunnery instructor aboard HMS Rodney during the battle of the bismark. He won a dsm for his part in the battle, he could recall how many rounds were fired during the battle even in his 90s, I wish I had recorded his stories from ww2. His brother was captured in tobruk and died in the sinking of ss skillen, which was covered up by the allies until the 1980s.
Just trying to imagine the horror of being trapped under deck in a sinking ship, like hundreds of men in HMS Hood and in the Bismarck must have been, is just too horrendous to contemplate. Hatches above and to all sides clamped tightly shut from the other, inaccessible side, many maybe even without knowing what was going on until water poured through air vents, such a fate must have been horrific to say the very least. Those men who died on the upper decks through gunfire or other reasons can be considered lucky in comparison. One can only hope that their passing was quick and comparitively painless and may all who died on board of the two ships rest in peace for all eternity. God bless them all.
I think gracefully that wouldn't have been the case for Hood. If you look at the wreck only small sections of the bow and stern are complete, everything else is completely destroyed so we can only hope that during that havoc the crew died instantly
The commentary by the British crews is excellent, what I note is their professionalism and intelligence, the Royal Navy took the best men I think, I am sure there were talented men in the other services but the Navy seemed to have a very high quality on average.
Hi Ali , is history a hobby for you? It is for me but years ago I did a degree in it, but academics normally ensure that nothing engaging is on the syllabus !
Hey there. Yeah David I actually wanted to study history. However due to few career opportunities I had to pursue the law instead. I am transitioning to career counseling and management sciences right now. I love history. My modest book shelf is squarely dominated by works on history.
@@alitahir4147 hi, good for you, keep history as a hobby and develop your career, these days you need to have that sorted out, it’s a competitive world, a couple of years ago I read a book called:- “U Boat Killer” by Captain Donald Macintyre, I throughly recommend it full of the history of this extraordinary aspect of the battle for the Atlantic, hope you can get a copy.
@@iansneddon2956Thank you Ian for your view regarding my comment. I said very detailed not that there is no more details left to say, but if one include all the details it would be a three hour long documentary, I found it very interesting and informative documentary that it made me search more regarding this ship and it's faith.
20:46 that's a lot of piffle being talked there HMS Hood was laid down as a battlecruiser and during her construction, the design was changed (more and thicker armour) This led to her being launched as a fast battleship Two US admirals who visited and inspected her after she entered active service even used this exact term As completed, her armour protection wasn't weaker than that of the Queen Elizabeth class battleships At longer ranges, her inclined 12" belt offered even more protection than the vertical 13" belt of said battleships Her deck wasn't thinner than on the Queen Elizabeths either That whole battlecruiser malarkey about Hood simply hasn't got a technical basis
Loved Part 1. It's a real shame Part 2 is pay-walled. With all the ads that were in Part 1 you'd think RU-vid offered sufficient revenue to put Part 2 on here as well.
The house keeper of my school had been a surviving sailor of Bismarck. He lost his right leg back then. But today we are facing wars against Russia again. Did we all learn from WW2? No. Very sad.
British don't have anything to match Bismarck??? Arghhh.....what about the KGVs - in '41 they already had KGV and PoW with Duke of York also being commissioned. Hood had better armour than QE, she was a fast battleship, not a battlecruiser.
You have to look at each war in history moving forward. Troops standing shoulder to shoulder walking across the battlefield Changed as weapons become more rapid firing By WW1 Troops waited for the enemy to cross the line And dug trenchs to avoid the bullets And shells Aircraft was looked at as a very small start to owning the air Ships still slow And Poor to fair range WW2 Aircraft was the key in Very many parts of the war ..It was the front of the Germans Across Europe And it turned the tables at the Battle of Britain It was a bomb dropped on/near the Tirpitz that sank her And a damaged rudder that kept Bismarck from its key advantage : speed And range She had already proven the power of both of these with the Hood. Other notes : Atomic Bomb, The Dam busters, Dresden, And many pockets of other ops WW1 was a trench war..WW2 was a Airwar
If you like this stuff, the history channel did a doco titled simply "Sink The Bismarck". It's much more comprehensive with interviews from both Allied sailors and Bismarck survivors. Much more information than this one.
Despite Prince of Wales being forced to retreat, its hit on Bismarck's bow was "mission kill". Bismarck's had lost several thousand tonnes of fuel oil whether by leakage or sea water pollution as well as 2-3 knots off her speed capability was forced to abandon the mission and eventually try to head for Brest. After Bismarck's hit on Prince of Wales' bridge, Bismarck never landed another shell on a British warship
The KGVs were the most underrated battleships because they "only" had 14 inch guns. But those guns used a heavier charge and tremendous punching power. Now you have 10 barrels with heavy hitting power plus when the woes were worked out of the main and secondary gun turrets they were fearsome ships. Their heavy secondary armament could reduce an enemies upperworks to shambles and the 14 inch shells could penetrate any armour on a Bismark or new Italian battleship which was what they were compared to. Look what Duke of York did to Sharnhorst in short order (whose armor almost rivaled Bismark).
The sword fish pilots are in a large part responsible for sinking Bismarck. Unbelievable bravery. They were only lads who never imagined death. There bravery sent a very large message “ no surrender “
A great friend of my parents, Viv Say - a truly lovely man, was a Chief Engine Room Artificer on HMS Rodney for all 6 years of the war. Every year, Viv and his wife Connie, an ex-Wren, would host a 'Sink the Bismarck' night, which would always be a very jolly 'liquid' occasion! When I joined the Royal Navy, Viv was one of my character referees, giving him and me a bond of understanding, which was special. Viv told me once, that every year on May 27th, he would have a quiet, very personal, often emotional moment to himself - as he re-lived how he felt when the Bismarck finally sank. The relief to be still alive, the relief that the all-embracing fear of the battle with Bismarck, the exhaustion of many hours at action stations. All the RN ships in that action were well aware of what had happened to the Hood - and how badly damaged the Prince of Wales was after engaging Bismarck. Bless you, Viv - memories of time with you I still hold dear.
The title shoud be "sinking HMS Hood" no Bismark 🤣. RIP to both the legendary ships💕 those were the pinnacle of the naval technology,of there own era. RIP to all the legends servings on those mighty ships .
Seen from such distances as occured during the battle, it was indeed quite easy to mistake the Prinz Eugen for the Bismarck, both ships having very similar upper deck silhouttes. The German ships had changed position during the night because the Bismarck's radar was not working properly and therefore the Eugen took the lead with her radar working in order.
Shout out to the Johnny Horton classic, "Sink the Bismarck" "In May of nineteen forty-one the war had just begun The Germans had the biggest ship, they had the biggest guns The Bismarck was the fastest ship that ever sailed the sea On her deck were guns as big as steers and shells as big as trees..."
@@drpsionic So did Bismark! sunk by obsolescent aircraft, they found it, damaged it, 300 miles from home all it could do was wait for the Royal navy to finish it!
As i've understood the Scharnhorst class cruisers was that they had more armour than their treaty restricted 11inch guns would normally dictate. This would have made them a problem in a straight up cruiser engagement.
If only HMS Hood had been modernized and upgraded during the interwar period. She would have been turned into a modern “Fast Battleship.” But like the American aircraft carrier USS Lexington there was always something else just a little bit more important that had to be done first….
But Kind Sir, back in 1918, ppl were chanting and calling for “la der des der”…the last of the last war…engaging in peace and hoping that Germany would never re-@rm. Peace treaties seem a waste of time and the Geneva convention a laughing stoxk now. Good night everyone. Must be a right ol’ underwater graveyard on the sea bed.
I am shocked. The Morse code in this video is 100% accurate and genuine. Although it's "canned" code; automated, which did not exist during WWII. Only hand sending which was erratic and much less uniform. Still....
Enjoy it while you can, the globalist corporate hegemony now taking over HATES national histories... they perpetuate national identities....that doesn't fit in with the mocha melting pot of the future.
This was a fantastic documentary. But I disagree with the HMS Hoods designation as a battle cruiser. In any other navy she would have been a fast battleship. Also at the range Bismark and Hood engaged, plunging fire was not a factor. That information is out of date.
You need to read more. Perhaps view some of Drachinifel’s videos. Hood was laid down as a battle cruiser, 1 of 4 at the time. Or perhaps the RN was mistaken in its own designation... As regarding plunging fire, just look at Drach’s video on point.
No idea if my comment will show as I use a lot of bandwith and i am fully aware of it. So if I understand there is ‘direct fire” and the other method “ lobing” shells like you would with a basket ball, a brick…
Having to submit credit card details to watch part 2 is yet another case of the all too common use of despicable tricks. Try this, 'SINK THE BISMARK' 1960. its a great movie, and its FREE
It costs a lot of money to produce documentaries of this quality. Would you like to work for weeks/months/years on a project and not get paid? I certainly wouldn't. No one is forcing you to pay. If you don't want to, don't.
@@graemebaker I think this is the age verification they are talkign about which is increasingly turning people away from YT. I have found a few alternatives now. Ill be damned if i give google my personal details. They have enough info on me already. I dont need to give them any more.
The RN quickly dealt with Graf Spee, sank Italians battleships at Taranto and kept Sharnhorst & Gneisenau pretty much boxed up. They also had numerous radio listening stations so radio signals could be accurately plotted. Added to that, Ark Royal’s Swordfish were effectively all weather heavy lift STOL aircraft. They could fly and deliver ordnance when everyone else was locked down against storm conditions. Germany never had an operational carrier and Bismarck & Prinz Eugen were on their own. RN was weak against U-boats. Yet again Hitler’s megalomania played into Allied hands. A bigger U-boat fleet could have won the first Atlantic war.
if germany only had u-boats then the RN would have focused on anti-sub warfare so building some surface ships wasn't a bad idea, though in hindsight and with better luck the Bismarck and some support ships could have done alot of damage. It should have waited for its support ships before setting off to the Atlantic
Crippled (eventually) by a bunch of antiquated bi planes flown in horrendous weather then chased down by the British fleet after its old prize fighter the hood was put down so shockingly quick. It wasnt lions that hunted her down it was a pack of bulldogs tearing a wolf down. This is one of those battles that swells the British heart with incredible pride and respect for such skill and bravery equally for both sides.
@@daneelolivaw602 fairey swordfish Slow but rugged and reliable enough to operate in bad weather conditions that would ground a more modern aircraft.........it was still alot to ask of flying in that weather with no real idea where Bismarck was...such an incredible level of skill to even get a decent run at Bismarck.
These were 2 brilliant episodes. Very well put together and presented. I really liked the audio clips of the various members of the Royal navy giving their accounts of the action. Overlaid with some quite ominous music, really added to the tension. It is truly very impressive just how much of a beating the Bismarck took before it went down. Lets not forget, the Germans scuttled her. So it could have quite possibly have stayed afloat for a lot longer! Very skillful engineers made in my eyes, one of the best battleships of the entire war. The British, hampered by the Washington naval treaty were forced to reduce armour protection and as a result, they just couldn't take the amount of punishment Bismarck and Tirpitz could. I'm surprised this wasn't mentioned.
Just to correct some of the errors in your post, Bismarck sank as a direct result of the actions of the Royal Navy. Also while Royal Navy battleships did have to make sacrifices to keep within the international inter-war naval treaties armour was NOT one of the things sacrificed. Both the British "Nelsons" and "KGVs" had heavier armour in a more efficient scheme that the German Bismarcks.
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 The Bismarck would has sunk anyway I grant you, but The Sailors aboard did skuttle her. It says so in the Same documentary! Bismarck's crew just hastened its sinking by a few hours, not wanting the Brits to get the satisfaction. We could argue till the cows come home about the Washington Naval Treaty. If they didnt sacrifice Armour, then what was? The British certainly didn't sacrifice firepower. Why did the British persue Battlecruiser type ships, Trading armour for speed?
@@justandy333 The British didn't pursue 'battlecruiser type ships.' They were evolving a hybrid battleship/battlecruiser type, the Admirals which were, at least in the case of the one completed vessel, Hood, far more of a fast battleship. Hood, for example, had battleship level armour, with the speed of a battlecruiser. After, the Nelsons & the KGVs had superior armour to any other capital ship except the Colorados.
I thoroughly enjoyed this. One criticism : the audio bytes from seaman DENNIS PECKHAM were impossible to hear. The volume was too low. You should edit those segments again.
It was tragically ironic that by closing fast on the German ships to avoid plunging fire, Admiral Holland actually put HMS Hood in the exact position for Bismarck to sink her by said plunging fire. Whether Hood could have survived a broadside duel against both Bismarck and Prinz Eugen is of course an academic question, but the outcome could hardly have been worse, had Holland decided thus.
Quite a cosy cockpit in the Lancaster. Would be nice to sit up there when wet and windy, providing you weren't flying. Could one lie down and take a nap, do you think?
Very well done docu, I like it a lot! I'd like to add tho, a major reason for the loss of the battlecruisers at Jutland was poor ammo handling, so I'm not sure I'd call them a dead-end wrt design. They were never meant to fight battleships, but the RN seems to forget that whenever they need big guns. You can't expect a ship to do well against an opponent it wasn't built to fight, that doesn't make it a bad design.
The battlecruisers were designed to do what they did at the battle of the Falkland Islands, run down and destroy enemy cruisers. The armor on these ships was quite adequate to take on cruisers armed with 8 inch guns, with overwhelming firepower to destroy said cruisers.
Sank of Bismarck Proved obviously the important of Air covering of Fleet pieces ....which Bismarck had not air covering from sky ...too nice video from excellent historical channel
I find striking that a video about British naval tenacity and dedication is edited by people who have so little regard for their own language that they headline their work in such profound ignorance of its diction.
