Agreed. It happened so we know it must be possible, no matter how unlikely. Hood's armor "should" have been able to defeat a 15" shell, but clearly it didn't. Not to mention how close we came to losing the Iowa in 1990 in the explosion in Turret 2... And that wasn't even in combat, but just a "routine" (if there is any such thing) firing exercise. Crazy things happen when we high explosives are being used.
@@SOU6900 - The unsinkable claim is somewhat erroneous or at least exaggerated.. "Though it’s an exaggeration to claim that nobody thought the ship unsinkable, it may be true that, before the Titanic sank, people were not particularly interested in whether the ship was unsinkable. The Titanic’s selling point was really its grandeur and luxury, not its safety. Most of the articles and advertisements for the Titanic focused on its size and accommodations, not on the details of its design, and the affluent passengers who boarded the ship chose it for its prestige and comfort. It was only after the ship’s demise that the “unsinkable” moniker really took off, presumably for dramatic effect. So even though the ship was in fact touted as “unsinkable” before it sank, it was the irony of its tragic sinking that actually brought that claim to the fore." www.britannica.com/story/did-anyone-really-think-the-titanic-was-unsinkable
No ship is unsinkable? Tell that to Yamato ....... oh wait ..... but its in space! .... shut up nerd! Thats 40 year old anime, no body watches it anymore. A shout out to Drackenifel !! Cool !!
"Would what sunk Yamato have sunk New Jersey? It seems like the attention of 280 uncontested bombers and torpedo planes over the course of an hour and a half could sink a small island, to say nothing of a battleship.
Maybe. American aa was much betger than japanese. The japanese short ranged aa kinda sucked balls and was unreliable and hard to reload and didn't have much ammo capacity. The americans excelled in short range aa with 40mm and 20mm cannons and great long range with 5 in cannon
The proximity fused shells on American AA should make a considerable difference too, but in the end, that's just way to many aircraft for pretty much any ship to survive against I would think.
@@thegooddoctor2009 negative chief. Shooting down 50 vs 20 planes and still sinking, does not constitute a victory. Nor does shooting down 'extra planes' really matter.
@@WorshipinIdols Not necessarily- the loss of Boise was probably a Type 91 shell hit which travelled through the water exactly as designed and so bypassed her armour. You can argue that the japanese were lucky to hit a magazine but that was exactly what they had designed the Type 91 for. Not a fluke in this case but a lot of wngineering effort to make the shell behave that way
Flukes? Jutland wasn't a fluke. When you intentionally defeat the protections that keep turret isolated from your magazine, it drastically increases the odds of a hit causing problems. And you can get a chain reaction even easier with far less starting elements by leaving explosive stashed in abundant piles between the two ends. Resulting in a nice chain detonation effect, a fuse the size of a ship. Just add some germans trying to light that fuse at several thousand yards with 11 inch guns.
Hahaha I just messaged Drachinifel the other day asking if he knew of your channel (and that he should check it out if he didn't because it's awesome)-- he told me that he indeed did and that he was happy word was spreading about your work. I love both of your work, and I hope to see more collaboration in the future!
Thoroughly agree with this statement. Both spectacular channels- top 15 favorites on RU-vid. Would love (love love love) to ser a video-length or maybe series collaboration between you. Perhaps your mutual thoughts on the technical aspects of the Iowas- where you agree; where you disagree; speculative outcomes of various matchups; etc etc Regardless, thank you for the genuinely educational and truly original material you continue to generate. You are a standard bearer and raise the bar for how youtube ought to be used by all.
Not agree... Battlecruisers dont have the armor of a battleship. Just big caliber guns! Thus, there faster . As i understand hood was to get a makeover with additional armor but it didnt happen. And deck armor is always lighter on all nations warships; plunging fire is hazardous to all wsrships
My uncle went down on the Hood, my mother said he was so proud to serve on her. Then are many theories of why she blew up. Drachinfels theory is a good one, it just elaborates the way in which a shell may have penertrated to the magazine.
Iknew a man living in Seaham Harbour he left the ship six months before her loss told me she was a very happy ship the best he ever served on but they were aware she was getting a little elderly.
I've read that both the USN and IJN considered HMS Hood to be a fast battleship. You agree, and I'm glad that you've brought that up early in the video. HMS Norfolk and HMS Suffolk were County-class cruisers, not destroyers as stated. Great video, as usual :)
To be perfectly honest the only reason Hood is considered a battlecruiser in Britain these days is the popular narrative and inertia. If British nomenclature was consistent on the matter, every big gun warship that could make more than 25kts would be a battlecruiser - Hood, Bismarck, Scharnhorst, NJ, King George V. Even Yamato. But Hood will always be a battlecruiser. She's a thing of myth now.
@@bairdrew Hood was the only completed example of the Admiral-Class Battlecruiser design. She was laid down and completed as a Battlecruiser and was intended to counter the German Mackensen class battlecruisers. There was no matching battleship class with the Admirals, they were the first post-Jutland design and the next Battleship class would be the N3's. If you compare the N3's to the matching G3 battlecruiser design it's clear that the RN maintained the big/tough/slow battleship, longer/weaker/faster battlecruiser design, but post-Jutland there was a huge jump in size of the designs and the post-Jutland battlecruisers would be better designated as fast battleships despite how the RN designated them at the time. The confusion comes largely because Hood was the first post-Jutland design using the old naming but the newer style of design. Her Armour scheme was pure battlecruiser (essentially the same scheme as the HMS Tiger) aside from introducing turtleback, but her armour fraction was increased significantly vs the earlier designs as the thickness was increased everywhere. She was the utter antithesis of her immediate predecessor, HMS Courageous, which was the least armoured battlecruiser ever made, being essentially a light cruiser with 15" guns, the Hood on the other hand was in many ways a Tiger upsized to the point where she could make battlecruiser speed while having armour on par with a Queen Elizabeth class battleship. Note it's really a myth that BC's were always big guns and less armour, the German HSF battlecruisers were armoured close to the same level as British dreadnoughts, they carried lighter guns instead of less armor (11" on most of them, going to 12" with SMS Derfflinger at the same time the RM went to 13.5" guns on HMS Tiger, the Mackensen's would have had 13.8" guns vs the 15" on the Courageous and Admiral classes)
@@bairdrew HMS Hood was the first ship of the Admiral Class battlecruisers. Only Hood was finished the rest of the class being cancelled. Her armour was upgraded following the battle of Jutland in which three British battlecruisers blew up. Due to her improved armour Hood was considered to be more like a fast battleship than a battlecruiser. As insufficient deck armour may have been one of the causes of her loss she will probably always be known as a battlecruiser. Battle cruisers were designed to replace armoured cruisers so essentially a cruiser with a battleship main armament, which compared to a battleship traded armour for speed. As WWII battleships were both fast and well armoured there was no trade off and due to their armour these ships are rightly to be called battleships.
A few things to remember, Hoods stern deck was lower than most ships, (sometimes known as the submarine deck). The British also stored their shells below the powder magazines., so the vulnerable part was closer to danger in this part of the ship. Plans for Hoods refit show that they intended to raise this area with an extra armoured deck and accommodation. Thus in comparison with the New Jersey, the aft magazine would be at least 2 decks higher in the ship.
I'm so glad to have found this site - you're probably the best person I've ever heard at making this incredible, physical 'things' understandable. I'm a naval nerd myself, so I already speak the language, but you give more info with less guff than anyone I've ever heard. You and Drach are taking up FAR too much of my time, and my recording space! ;-)
Thank you, Ryan for yet another brilliant video! I do sinccerely hope that in these difficult times, you will stay safe and healthy and provide us all with many similar treats!
Hood was unlucky to be hit beneath her belt armour. Prince of Wales was also hit below the armour with the shell stopping by her keel. However, this shell was decapped on impact with the water and arrived facing backwards. It failed to explode.
It's to be said though that this scenario was based off the premise that New Jersey or any Iowa class would be operating the same as Hood, and be in the same spot. I find this unlikely. The major concern was that Hoods thinner deck armour which was less protected than modern ships of the time was less effective against plunging fire, and that she would be more effective at closer ranges where her fire control systems would be more accurate and effective. New Jersey had very good deck protection, so her captain would be less anxious to get in close. As well, her radar guided fire control systems and her amazing fire control computer excelled at long range combat. I suspect that if an Iowa class squared off against a Bismarck class, the Iowa would have maintained longer ranges and not have found herself in the same place Hood was, where a flat trajectory round would test the belt armour at all.
Hood were planned to have a big rebuild along the same lines as Warspite got. That included a completely new fire control equipment including it's radar system, though Hood already had such a thing. The rebuild would have included a vast improvement in protection, too. A scrap between Tirpitz and New Jersey in 1943 would probably require that: England is controlled by Germany. Tirpitz is already rebuilt with equipment on a par with the US ones.
The problem is that the video is explicitly discussing whether or not NJ could have survived being hit in the way that H was. That she would very probably not have been in that position is actually irrelevant in light of that. The question being asked, fundamentally, is "could NJ have survived a 15" shell from Bismarck that bypassed her vertical and horizontal protection" and the answer the video comes to is that "if it hit in or near a magazine as with Hood, then no". The fundamental issue with your comment is that whilst you are completely correct, none of what you said is actually germane.
But it wasn't plunging fire that sank Hood. Range was too close for that. Belt armor is what the Brits WANTED to be hit. It was a lucky shot, simple as that. That lucky shot is far less likely to happen to a real Battleship, particularly a newer one.
@@SealofPerfection There's actually no way to say that without knowing how Hood was hit. If Drachinifel's theory is correct and a shot got under the belt armour near the magazine, no ship is surviving that.
@@gordoncroft4524 You can absolutely say it, because the range was too close for plunging fire. Plunging fire is when you stand off at long range and your shell drop down on the target at a steep angle. The range between Hood and Biz was 10 miles, give or take. That's not plunging fire, especially not with a high-velocity gun like Bismarck had.
When they photographed the Hood, they found that the Hoods rudders were in a position where it would indicate that the Hood was altering course to starboard, this would have closed the distance between Hood and Bismarck. This course of action would have reduced the range and any incoming shell would have a decreasing arc of trajectory, or flatter trajectory. This would decrease the chance of the deck being hit where the armor was weaker, and permitting the side amour to take the hits. The Hood was scheduled while in refit, to have the deck amour strengthened prior to this engagement, but was cancelled or delayed for probably for cost reasons.
The way I view it is any of these capital ships could have destroyed another under the right circumstances. Some ships were superior to others and tilt the odds in their favor in an engagement but all of them were capable of landing the lucky blow on the other. If the battle of the Denmark straight were fought 100 times, I'd say the odds would favor the Bismarck maybe 30% of the time. Hood was old and PoW very very much not ready for a fight but its still two capital ships vs one. (30% is pretty good odds im a 2 v 1) The magic bullet hit in just the right spot and history is history. If the battle was fought 100 times id be very surprised if that particular shot was seen more than once or twice.
@@Skiiiiiifreeeeeee Interestingly the Battle was won by the time hood went down. Damage received by Bismark rendered her unable to sustain her operations in the Atlantic. There is a reason the orders from Germany were to NOT engage hostile ships. It would take very little to render Bismark unable to sustain operations in the area. After that it became a question of How the British would take her out of the battle. Swarms of Bombers? Torpedo Air Strikes at night> Sailing Warspite in for some point blank shots and aiming to ram Bismark to render her destroyed. History will never Know. But Hood didn't have to Detonate like that. Bismark Lost the battle as it was. But the English would have probably been forced to disengage once Torpedos were sighted, and Bismark would have to sneak away while the two damaged British Battleships supported their stalking cruisers by making best speed and keeping reasonably close on Bismarks Tail while repairing the damage they HAD taken. Thereafter it became a question of How long Till the Radar lost track in the darkness of night?
@@glenmcgillivray4707 no doubt, the battle was won by the time Hood sunk. However, while it's impossible to lay claim with any certainty, im reasonably convinced that the catastrophic loss of hood would not have happened once in 50 more tries had the battle been fought in the same conditions. We can overanalyze hoods weaknesses and lack of refit all we want but it was plain bad luck.
After Hoods refit, she was far from a Battlecruiser at over 40000t and 32Kts, with 8 x 15" Guns. IDK why it annoys me, when they say "The Battlecruiser Hood"?🤣
I was among those suggesting this comparison and I most say: Bravo! I have been interested in pretty much everything concerning battleships for decades now and your analysis and argumentation is absolutely top class. Worth waiting for!
When I was in my teens my father and I were watching the movie about the sinking of the Bismark he mentioned that he met one of the survivors of the Hood. He was conscripted into the Royal Navy in 1940. At the time I thought that was amazing to have met him but forgot to ask what they discussed, or if they discussed anything!
Great discussion Ryan. Hood is a significant, interesting ship for many reasons. Agree, the first fast battleship and as such a precursor to the Iowas.
The theory about the second explosion came from the documentary which found the Hood. I made the mistake of raising this will Bill Jurens (one of the historians involved) in an online chat. He totally disowns that theory and felt the way it was published without his agreement damaged his reputation. He said the loss of the bow was due to the hull piching as it imploded due to water pressure as the ship sank to the bottom. FE modelling expected a pinch at the position the bow failed so a bit of additional loading or weakened structure and the bow fails.....
Bryan, you and Drachinifel both did a great documentary. You both did your homework thoroughly. Thanks for pointing out that HOOD was really called a "fast battleship" instead of a "battle-cruiser."
@Hoa Tattis Correct on Radar facts. I served on the HMS Glamorgan and it's guns pounded the Argentine ground forces. The radar picked up the exocet missile as it was coming in and tryed to turn but took a hit in the hanger where the air crew where and through the deck into the galley which was destroyed.
That's because battle cruisers where never designed to take on battleships and the British spend roughly twice the amount of time involved in the world wars compared to USA.
Not really, the losses at Jutland were due more to procedural mistakes and poor ammunition handling while the two WW2 losses, Hood and Repulse, were lost in very different circumstances. The Hood was, as mentioned, lost to a freak shot and Repulse was sunk by aircraft along with Prince of Wales. Some observers, particularly Captain Leach's son, have noted that Churchill's sending of two capital ships into a combat zone without effective air cover against an adversary that was as capable as the Japanese reflected "supreme British arrogance" but that's for history to decide.
When I was a young kid I saw The Movie “SINK THE BISMARCK” With my older Brother , I FREAKED 😯😮😲😱 When The HOOD was Hit and was BLOWN ☄️🔥💥💥 OUT of the WATER !!!! This is a MUST SEE MOVIE !
@ Brad Davis: "Sink the Bismarck" is a tremendous war movie. The special effects are superb for circa 1960. They hold up well even today, some sixty years on. My family lived in suburban Chicago then, and there was a show on Sunday afternoons at 4PM called "Family Classics," hosted by Frazier Thomas. That's where I saw the film for the first time.
@@GeorgiaBoy1961 I've loved this film since the '60s (there's still something about that Brit "stiff upper lip" thing that clings on). Some points where I wish it could have been done differently: The Hood seems to be riding too high out of the water, somewhat spoiling her appearance; No real action shots of Rodney in the final scenes: The Germans abandoning what looks like a "Dido" class cruiser. Apologies to the purists for going off-topic.
@@JohnnieE1961 - Good observations about the special effects. Whatever short-comings the film had, they did a good job for the time, IMHO - certainly much better than Michael Bay's (2001) "Pearl Harbor," whose tech glitches include a brief shot of a guided missile cruiser that slipped by the continuity people in post-production. Kenneth More did a magnificent job as Captain Shepard, and Dana Wynter as Second Officer Ann Davis likewise. The other cast were marvelous, too, and the on-screen chemistry was great. Stiff upper lip indeed! Rule Britannia....
@@JohnnieE1961 there's some very rare footage in that film, HMS Vanguard 's turret was used as Hoods, the loading sequence is shown, including the lift and the rammer. The gun is loaded with one shell and two bags of propellant. Its pretty impressive
Excellent collaborative followup to Drach's video, I too am glad that the discussion has started again. When you consider the amount of luck involved for every scenario that has been put forward, and the chance that the fatal shot failing to land at all, it's amazing that a 21-year old ship in dire need of a refit was able to keep up with something brand new. When Bismarck's broken radar and Hood's inexperienced crew come into the equation, the mystery of the Glorious Golden BB Shot only deepens. Ventis secundis!
Part of the reason that Hood could catch Bismarck was that Bismarck, simply put, wasn't as fast as she's touted as being, and because she wasn't at full steam anyway, due to the danger presented by ice floes and the need to follow Prinz Eugen, who couldn't maintain her full speed in the weather conditions anyway. This, coincidentally, is why Holland seperated off from the destroyers - in the prevailing conditions they couldn't keep up with Hood and PoW either.
Seems the conclusion basically is, Biz wouldn't have penetrated Jersey's magazines from the same distance. And that said, there's always a fluke that could happen and if that happened, no Battleship would survive it. Tirpitz survived such a fluke by luck....one of the many bombing raids on her penetrated deep into the ship.....and didn't explode. Could have been catastrophic. Luck does play a role.
At the range the battle occurred, the only thing that would prevent Bismarck from penetrating into NJ magazine (through the belt), is if she wasn't beam on to Bismarck. Which is what would have saved Hood except for a design problem (which Bismarck also had), but anyways back to the topic at hand, at 17KM assuming that the target is beam on, and that the ship is not rolling (which would increase, or decrease belt effective thickness) Bismarck penetrates 460mm of armor (from the site Kbismarck, so this is 460mm of KC n/A) that is not sloped The Belt of all WW2 era American battleships was sloped which does increase the effective thickness, however that is not the end of the story. Firstly the shell would only be arriving at a downward angle of just 12.8 deg (assuming 17km), which means that due to the higher velocity of Bismarck's guns, the slope is less effective at increasing the total effective thickness because one of the contributors is reduced, Secondly the quality of the belt armor indicates that the 307mm belt actual thickness is less than 307mm of British, German, or Italian belt armor. For example at 18,000 YARDS based on the table done by Nathan Okun Bismarck will penetrate (EFF) the following thicknesses (not sloped): British cemented: 17.4 inches US class A: 19.4 inches Italian Terni cemented: 16.4 inches German KC n/A: 18 inches Japanese vickers hardened armor: 19.9 inches This is caused by the high percentage in the thickness of the face hardened layer for the US class A, it is simply to high for a plate of this thickness (essentially with such a high percentage, anything from memory over 8 inches leads to a diminishing return in resistance by having a thicker plate)
@@notsureyou What you're not taking into account, however, are a few other things: One, the outer hull of an Iowa is STS. 1.5" thick. Very capable of decapping an incoming projectile, or at the least "yawing" it and causing it to not hit the armor straight-on. This actually happened with South Dakota at Guadalcanal, with a 14" shell at close range. If the shell doesn't hit the armor straight-on, it's not likely to penetrate....it will gouge it and detonate outside....if it detonates at all. There's also the backing steel and concrete that the armor is mounted on to consider. It adds to the equation. Next, there's either the 2nd or 3rd deck armor to contend with, depending on how high the shell enters the ship. Then you ultimately need the shell to be able to penetrate the STS armor that's actually around the magazines. This isn't even considering what else it might hit...strakes, structural steel, equipment, etc...it's not like there's just the armor and then the magazines. There is literally tons of stuff in the path of any incoming shell before it can even think of seeing any powder. That's why Hood's hit was so lucky. Hood had all that stuff in the way, too....just not as much armor, but still had all the equipment, frames, etc....and that shell somehow missed all that and went right in the magazine and was undamaged enough to explode. And then you get into the fact that the magazines are relatively a very small part of the ship. You have to be lucky to put a shell even in that area, much less have it be lucky enough to avoid all the obstacles and ever see the powder flats. That is why it is so hard to sink a Battleship. It's not just a matter of "Ship X can penetrate X" of armor, Ship Y has less than that so she's done" Doesn't work like that....pretty much, ever. Battleships are huge, have lots of equipment inside, and lots of armor and you have to be very lucky to actually have one of your shells penetrate all the way to a magazine, despite all the calculations.
The same attack probably not but it may have been a 'fluke' on the hood anyway. Would iowa class be invulnerable at that range or even much more effective? Not really.
@@LTPottenger "Not really"? The Iowa's would far safer at that range than Hood was, and with better at gunnery to boot, as Hood never came close with her accuracy. It was pretty short range. Less than 10 miles when she was sunk, IIRC. Only 3-4 miles farther than Washington was from Kirishima 2 years later at Guadalcanal, in the dark, and Washington just mauled Kirishima. 20+ hits. Iowa or any other US fast BB would have been VERY effective and relatively immune at those ranges. And yes, even on the Hood, that hit was a fluke. Flukes can always happen, but mostly don't. And that type of fluke was FAR less likely to happen to an Iowa in the same situation, was the point.
@@SealofPerfection I doubt it's a fluke at all, people are just in denial that the main belt could be penetrated but it really wasn't designed for modern guns but ww 1 guns. Bismarck's guns and ammo are also much more comparable to the 16 inch guns then hood's guns and iowa class is a lot narrower and vulnerable in many wasys than bismarck, and when the iowas first came on bismarck would probably be more accurate too. In fact they showed amazing accuracy in gunnery and had trained for it with the turrets even before the ship was laid down. If iowa class tried to stay far away it simply wouldn't hit anything, it is very hard to do so miles away even with accurate radar ranging.
Good video. It is good to see you recognize the excellent analysis that Drach has done on all his videos. I love watching his videos. It is the golden BBs (something that should not happen but does) that can totally turn the tide of a battle. You cannot design against a golden BB all you can try to do is limit them.
The way I read it was that, the one in a million shot that sank the Hood was not only that, but, the Hood was a WW1 veteran with wooden decks, more modern for the time in WW2 had metal decks with proper armour in vital places.
most ww2 ships had wooden decking- it offers better footing for sailors, more friction when wet. and that initial layer is not teh armour- in WW1 we were not using wood as a barrier against high velocity 11 and 13 inch shells. The wood is esentially a decorative layer in terms of shell protection- it does nothing- its teh steel underneath the wood that does the work... soooooooo- maybe 1/10 for overall understanding of stuff. pls read more books and try again.
yeah, how the question is asked would greatly affect the answer: either "would the new jersey survive a magazine detonation" or "by a bunch of 15 inch shells" and/or comparing armoring of the magazines
I agree, Hood was sunk by a 1 in a million shot, that happens. If even the Iowa's suffered that type of shot they would be destroyed, ANY ship would. The narrator of this channel needs to wake up and realize that no ship is indestructible, not even his beloved Iowa class and despite their good qualities they did suffer from significant weaknesses. No design is perfect. I recommend Drachinifel for a much more balanced and unbiased view
@@BattleshipNewJersey as you said in this video nobody knows exactly what happened but most agree it was a golden bb. What was rhe belt armour on iowa class?
I feel that a discussion of "immunity zones" would have helped with the explanation. A battleship's immunity zone is the range band where incoming fire is arriving at a steep enough angle that it cannot go through the belt armor, but not yet steep enough of an angle to penetrate the deck armor. HMS Hood was being maneuvered to enter its expected immunity zone for the Bismark's guns.
I disagree Holland want to get in to decisive range and use his barrel advantage to mission kill Bismarck at a range where hits hurt. Bismarck would have receiving a salvo every 15 seconds which he would hope would reduce the ability of Bismarck to reply.
@@JevansUK It was both. He wanted to get close because he could do more damage that way (especially given PoW's systems issues) and also Hood in particular had a known vulnerability to plunging fire due to the relatively weak deck armour compared, she was designed for the closer ranges common in WW1 and her armour scheme had weaknesses known to both sides. Holland wanted to duplicate what was later done to the Bismarck, but he got disastrously unlucky. If Drach is correct, he took a golden BB below the waterline at the one spot where the local water level would be below the belt and there is photographic evidence that shows this weak spot when Hood is making speed. It's an odd confluence of the trough of the bow wave being at exactly the wrong spot to allow a below the belt hit in the worst possible location. Interestingly, Bismarck took a 14" hit from PoW exactly the same way Drach suggests Hood was hit, but got lucky when the torpedo protection detonated the shell (which might not have occurred if Hood had got that hit instead of PoW given Hood's heavier 15" shells)
The underwater hit on pow seems to yawed 180 in the water ended up hitting the ship base first, force involved cause the fuse to fail, speculation being that if the fuse had worked the shell would have exploded in the water without reaching the ship.
@@adam_mawz_maas oh wait are we saying in a engagement that had an exchange of about 15-20 salvos all 3 battleships could have had a hit below the waterline which went under the armour belt. With Bismarck it's not really the torpedo defence system detonating the shell more the shell detonating while in the tds and the system containing the blast, the fuse would have initiated when it hit the water. Maybe the Japanese weren't insane.i was reading something the other day about the ww1 combat experience findings and they input into the 1920s capital ship designs of the royal navy and remember it saying something about 20 degree angle of impact with the water being about the point where shells start to not skip off the surface and strike the target upwards. Wonder if post 1920s shell design reduce that value significantly.
I’d like to think the New Jersey would have landed some hits on the Bismarck and who knows that might have affected Bismarck’s magic bullet. Definitely a great discussion.
The NJ would have likely opened fire at greater range than the Hood. The 16 inch guns of the Rodney, vs. 15 inch of Hood and Bismark, was what crippled Bismark and sealed her doom.
Speaking about Iowa vs. Yamato. I think it will be a decisive win of Iowa. The reason: Iowa’s fire control system is far superior and can engage Yamato at a further range than the other way. Also, Iowa’s 16 inch gun can punch through the belt armor of Yamato. After the war the USN did a test on a piece of armor of the Yamato found in Japanese shipyard and proved that was the case. The armor is still on display outside Washington Navy Yard museum today.
There is the deciding issue really, with USN top tier radar and fire control it’s not terribly likely for a Yamato to get a hit before her guns are at least disabled. Especially if it was all 4 Iowa’s vs the 2 Yamato Class should that have ever happened in real life. Had the air attacks not been used the USN had planned to take an entire battleship fleet against her. Rule #1 in war, never play fair.
The more important question is which ship's fire control would degrade first. It wouldn't take many 16/18.1 inch hits to knock out superstructure radar and range finders. Whoever hit first at range with HE would probably put the other ship into a death spiral of decreasing accuracy letting their opponent close and increase their accuracy, leading to further degradation. The real deciding factors are luck and plotting. The fire control plotting of IJN BBs was not great. Even with Yamato's radar, I have my doubts that their actual efficiency would be much better than that seen on other IJN BBs. The IJN plotting system used colored dyes in the shells to determine which shells came from which turrets and then the plotting room determined new firing adjustments for each turret. The process was limited in speed and susceptible to human error. The use of mechanical computers in USN BBs sped up the process immensely with the crucial detail that it was faster than the guns could be reloaded.
I'm afraid that almost everything that you said is inaccurate. The immunity zone of the Iowa class was only about 5,000 yards against her own 16" .50 cal. gun, while that of the Yamato class was about 11,000 yards against her own 18.1" gun- and the Japanese weapon had slightly better penetration characteristics. The tests which the U.S. Navy conducted on the fragment of armor from the construction site of Shinano were conducted at short range, with one of them fired at almost point blank range. NavWeaps has an analysis of the test at the bottom of the page dedicated to that subject. It's worth your time reading it. Iowa's fire control system was the best in the world in 1944, but the crews of the fast battleships had little training with it because the ships were predominantly used as escorts for fast carrier task forces. I'm in no way attempting to disparage the Iowa class, as they and their crews rendered honorable service for our Navy. Truth matters however, and it should always take precedence over urban legends and myths. In this case, the Iowas are in at least one area just like the Yamatos; during their careers, none of them sunk, by themselves, any ship of destroyer size or larger, and registered only one hit with their main batteries- despite straddling their targets repeatedly. Probably the best indicator of the degree of inexperience of the crews of the fast battleships came from Rear Admiral Willis Augustus Lee- commander of the Battle Line in the Pacific theater. In June of 1944, Lee was offered an opportunity by Admiral Mitscher to engage the Japanese in a night action during the run-up to the battle of the Philippine Sea. Lee declined the opportunity, stating that the "...possible advantages of radar more than offset by difficulties in communications and lack of training in fleet tactics at night".
@@timberwolf1575 Bismarck's fire director nest has a big scourge from an 16 inch shell. That type of hit would decimate fire control availability on any battle ship. The same thing with Yamato, Musash and Shinano against US battleship fleet, who gets crippling hits on an enemy will probably dominate.
Corrections: her armor wasn’t the same as the QEs and the Revenges, it was actually a modified improvement on their designs. Hood’s belt had a slope, the QEs and Revenges did not. While the Bismarck and Hood both had 4 twin 15” guns, Hood’s was in the Mark II turret that no other 15” armed ship in the Royal Navy had, and the 15” Mark I hun itself was a tried and true powerhouse that proved well at Jutland. Whereas Bismarck’s was brand-new. Hood and Bismarck’s secondary batteries aren’t all that comparable. Hood only had 7 twin 4” Mark XVI quick-firing dual-purpose guns, while Bismarck had 6 twin 5.9” guns and 8 twin 4.1” guns. Bismarck honestly has the better secondary battery, tbh. Hood could only make 32 knots initiallyz From the mid-30s-onward Hood could only make up to 30 knots. Considering the KGVs were around 28 knots, Hood probably maintained a similar speed for that reason.
@@Aelvir114 A max. 40 degree elevation isn't very much use as dual purpose the 5.9 were for surface engagements, the 105s were for AA As such, the Bismarck had equal secondary guns as hood for taking on surface targets (12)
@@Nightdare those guns have a listed AA shell, “HE L/4,6 nose fuze, AA 5a: 98.5 lbs. (44.7 kg)”, and the note says that the AA Shell was used aboard Tirpitz.
@@Nightdare the 15cm guns could be used in a dual purpose role, but Bismarck was rushed out the door with no AA ammo for them (a mistake Tirpitz would NOT repeat)
I would argue that in any case an Iowa class battleship’s strategy would have been to stay at range, as their deck armor was quite good, and rely upon their highly advanced fire control systems and radar to inflict damage upon their target at great distance. I would assume that they would to their best to keep their target at the maximum possible range and use all of their strengths to their advantage. Hoods captain knew his desk armor wasn’t quite sufficient enough to withstand a plunging shells, so he had to close the range. As discussed in the video, Hood was a rather tired unit, she wasn’t as technologically advanced as she once was. However in all honesty, this shouldn’t have happened, it was a 1 in a million shot, and Hoods captain tried his best to ensure it didn’t happen. This type of 1 in a million shot would doom any ship. But I think if an Iowa were in the exact same spot as Hood when she got hit, I think it is a lot less likely that she would have gone down, I think the 1 in a million shot is a lot less likely to have happened . However as I previously mentioned I think and Iowa in the same engagement would have stayed at range and used it’s superior fire control and radar to pummel the Bismarck into submission from afar, and would not have closed the range like Hood was forced to do.
That's likely what would have occurred, as the Iowa's more advanced radar fire control allowed them to be more accurate at long range. That's a capability that was used very effectively by the US Navy at Surigao Straight, and somewhat less so at the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal.
HMS Hood is such a beautiful ship. Something about British battleships(cruisers) have a sense of their country's character in. They are simple, powerful, stately but brutal and menacing at the same time. Though the Yamato's, Iowas, N Carolina's and S Dakotas are all beautiful in their own right, I think only the Alaska Class is the penultimate design in battleship/battlecruiser(CB) design. HMS Hood is a close second, even today, Hood would be a beautiful and menacing ship to encounter, a symbol of classic British naval power. HMS Vanguard shares some traits, but for some reason, the Hood is flawed but more aesthetic to me at the same time.
One thing you’ve forgotten is all U.S. Fast BB’s from BB55 to BB64 plus the two CB’s used STS for their entire hull skin. I’ve been combing through my complete library of Dulin and Gartzke’s stupendous works on all BB’s of WW II along with several other’s on the Iowa’s. ( Before I go on I beg forgiveness of those who read this I am a disabled vet and I have a very hard time typing so I had to dictate this I apologize for any grammatical errors or things which might not make sense in advance) . In the area’s over where the armor belt was the Iowa class had 1.5” STS hull plating. This was increased from the previous two classes of 1.25” of STS over the belt on the BB57-60 class and around and below the belt on BB55&56. The point is the Iowa’s belt tapered to 1.625” where it met up with the bottom/keel deck. The U.S. was the only country wealthy enough in the second world war to use STS armor steel for the entire Hull plating. The designer’s did this with the hope it would prematurely decap an incoming fuse before it impacted the belts of BB’57-64. On the Iowa’s the STS over the belt was .25” thicker than on the So. DK.’s. So it was 1.5” of STS. German shell’s didn’t always reliably detonate or detonated early. Recall the 15” shell found deep in the POW from Bismarck and it’s fuse was faulty. Additionally, Hood was 20 years older in her technology-this men’s how to make armor. Now the one type of armor the U.S. was not as good as the U,K was class A armor. Depending on sources you read 75-95% as effective. However U.S. class B and STS were every both the equal of the R.N.’s armor. For the U.S. our class A wasn’t as consistent in quality as the U.K.’s. However, you are talking about a hit in an area where every other nation on earth only used mild standard steel for hull plating. ONLY the U.S. used STS EVERYWHERE OVER THE ENTIRE HULL. So say the German shell falls short, instead of meeting 1-2cm of mild steel it will meet about 37mm of STS. Then if it punches through there is a higher chance if it went through some water, the U.S. STS hull will decap the German round and set off the fuse and it may explode in the liquid loaded torpedo defense system and then hit the 1.625” bottom of the main belt. If it gets through this, magazines were usually STS. On Hood she was a generation older and had no STS used so lavishly as the U.S.N. Did on all their fast BB’s and CB’s. Thus I think with rapid excellent damage control, the STS might just buy them time to stop a fire or secure a dud. U.K. Damage control was the equal of U.S.N. But the HOOD sadly didn’t have so much structural armor steel built into her-even beams. The U.S. Navy spared no expense. Thus I think with the same hit the ship of the same generation defeat’s the shot which blew up Hood and smashes Bismarck into a ruin with 16” MK8 SHS from her 16”50 cal MK7. Take it for what it’s worth but it wasn’t fair to put Hood in front leading. Although new, POW should have been in front because she could and did soak up a lot of punishment from Bismarck. I think the same happens with a battleship which was superior to Bismarck in every way. I would have Loved to see HMS Vanguard (the most beautiful creation of the R.N.) stomp Bismarck out of existence but alas she was too late for the whole war.
Here's a question before the House: were the British at that time using the same fire doctrine that they were using at the time of Jutland? Marine archaeologists diving on the British battlecruiser wrecks on the Jutland battlefield revealed that the Brits were keeping additional ready ammunition in the turrets and had kept the interconnecting hatches between magazines open to enable ammo transfer between gun positions. This was due to, especially in the Battlecruiser Fleet, a fire doctrine emphasising rapidity of fire over accurate fire, due in large part to the lack of adequate firing ranges in the area of the Rosyth base (Third BCS had been sent to Scapa Flow for this reason, so that they could get some decent shooting practice in.) Is there any evidence that the Brits had done the same thing on the Hood at Denmark Strait?
A good question. I'm not sure if Drachinifel's video touches on this, but it might be worth checking out. I THINK they did change the regulations - or made sure the regulations were again followed - after Jutland, but I don't know for certain. Hopefully someone else can give a more definitive answer.
Hood's magazines didn't allow that, they were a completely different layout than the pre-Jutland designs. Only Vanguard had anything resembling the pre-Jutland layout (she had a weird 2-stage design to allow for pre-Jutland turrets to be re-used while limiting the risk of a full magazine explosion, as a result her ready mags might have been able to do that but her mains could not)
it wasnt revealed by diverson wrecks that exploded- it was revealed by naval crew in teh immediate aftermath of jutland- ie, was known for the last 90 plus years ot discovered by TV wonks. but that doco was crap and needed to sound like it had some new news in it and just blathered to fool the ignorant it was new news.
They say Hood had a habit of leaving blast doors open so that they could increase the rate of fire of their 15-in guns. If they done it to the 15 inch guns they probably did it to the 5-in guns also. They just opened up a great possibility of explosions running through the ship.
thats simply untrue- the blast doors had mechanical interlocks which were designed in such a way as it was IMPOSSIBLE to leave tehm all open- one being open was only possible if the ones above and below it were closed. This was added post jutland - because that was done on some batlecruisers at jutland.
@@demonprinces17 the royal navy was obsessed with preventing this sir. Losing four capital ships in one battle with the loss of nearly all their crews leaves an impressive amount of paranoia
Thanks to Drach and yourself for very helpful commentaries. So, I am getting from this that the same kind of hit could do in NJ but it still sounds like the "golden beebee" would have had, perhaps, to be platinum. I find it awfully painful that Hood, classed as a battlecruiser, went up like the 3 at Jutland. A comparison of those ship's demise with Hood's (you could throw in Arizona's or Yamato's) loss to add another dimension. Keep up the good work. As an ex-pat Brit and a former Arizonan, I am always interested. Additionally, the Kongo's loss, as they were rebuilt battlecruisers to fast battleships, might be an interesting angle.
I mean it's a simple point of fact my extensive reading and Ryan's observation is to the point that the Royal Navy never considered Hood a fast Battleship or a battleship at all they never called it as such HMS Hood was designed and outfitted as a battle cruiser and she inhabited that characteristic it's been best described to me that she was a battle cruiser with Battleship characteristics and yeah they did enhance her after the battle of Jutland but I just don't feel she made the cut she's 4/5 of the way there her deck armor is anemic and by the time we get to the second world war plunging fire and Main battery ranges are significantly greater I don't believe she was ever designed or intended to compare and compete with the vessel comparable caliber to her own but I and many in the community with respect would say she was not a battleship at all close but not quite her high top speed came at a price
The underwater hit theory is not Drach's, it was first posited by William Jurens several years ago. Jurens was the source for Drach's video and assisted with the script. Jurens's article on the Hood where he outlines this and many other factors is available for free online.
NJ wouldn't have fought Bismarck like Hood did. With 16 inch guns and greater speed, NJ would keep greater distance and avoid giving Bismarck any shot at all.
A good "what if" that the New Jersey actually participated in is Halsey's failure to form TF34 at Leyte Gulf. What if Halsey had formed TF34 rather than taking it on Bull's Run, how the New Jersey would have fared? edit, no I don't have an ax to grind against Halsey. He was a good 'fighting' admiral, he was just shit at sticking his head outside and looking at the weather.
Kinda funny; the very thing that the Iowa's were designed for and really the only chance they would wind up having throughout the war, (if I remember my history correctly), and, because of Halsey, they weren't there.
I always got the impression that the Iowa class where designed to be fast battleships, Montanas where designed for fighting Yamato. If it was a 1 on 1 battle I don't think it would have gone that well for an iowa however if that iowa had a battle partner it would have been an easy victory.....
@@mcduck5 Montana was just the next step in design. Yamato wasn't even known about. An Iowa should be favored over Yamato because of fire control, speed, armor and radar. A smart Iowa captain would stand off a long range and shoot at Yamato. He would have a huge advantage from there. After Halsey took TF34 and attempted to intercept Yamato, he realized the Sodak's were slowing him down, so he further separated Iowa and New Jersey from TF34 and surrounded them with cruisers and destroyers and let them forge ahead. Their orders were to engage from long range.
I once read a report that said after the war tests were conducted on captured Japanese armor which showed that because of the relative states of the metallurgical development between the US and Japan, an Iowa's 16 inch armor piercing shell could have penetrated the armor on Yamato, but Yamato's 18 inch rounds could not have penetrated an Iowa's belt armor. They would have done an enormous amount of shock damage and definitely damaged the armor, but short of two rounds hitting the exact same place Yamato could not penetrate an Iowa's armor. I don't know if the reduced barrel length of a North Carolina or South Dakota's main armament would have made a significant difference in their penetrating power, but I'm pretty sure Yamato would have been in the fight of her life against either one.
The question I think you didn’t bring up. Would New Jersey’s superior radar and targeting equipment allowed her to keep more distance to use as added protection? Would it have allowed better long range shots that might have put the German ships out of action?
One of the newer theories on Hood's sinking is that the fatal shell was an 8" from Prinz Eugen, that actually went down into the second funnel into the broiler area, and this caused an explosion that cascaded into numerous magazine explosions breaking the Hood into three sections. From the Hood's wreckage, no fatal 15" holes could be seen, now this lack of visual evidence could simply be the area in question is destroyed, so we can't determine the damage, but other located WWII wrecks we can see holes in the armored citadel. Either way, Hood got very unlucky with a hit.
There's additional pictures of the trough Drach identifies. You can see it pretty prominently in photos of the speed test after Hood's last refit. Personally, I think stacking ammunition or something broke in the Y turret and interlockers were defeated by own crew. The similarities to the Jutland explosions seem too coincidental. But then again, if Indefatigable blew up because of armor failure rather than ammunition practices in a manner similar to Black Prince, then maybe I'm wrong.
but- the explosion clearly does not originate in the main weapons system magazine, cos is an explosion a second before the main explosion.. so its nothing like jutland, where all the main explosions are primarily in the main magazines owing to (various reasons) not triggered by something else going off next door like with hood. part from that minor point, your bang on.
I would be interested in seeing an analysis of the damage caused to other modern US battleships in WWII by 14-16" shells fired by an Axis battleship. It would seem if the Alabama or South Dakota weren't seriously damaged, then New Jersey should have survived an engagement with Bismark....or at least not sunk by a golden bb as he describes it.
I read it was scheduled to be in for a refit but it got postponed. Regardless of how good the protection looks, they were going to uparmor the deck and give her an overhaul. She was in need of mantainence.
You would probably be killed by spalling if you were on the immediate opposite side of the impact. If the spalling didn't get you, you could experience concussive force comparable to a very close low explosive detonation. Think being next to a couple of kilos of gun powder when it went off.
Would be the best way to go, as we all will. A slow drawn out painful death is no fun. Just started month 28 after doc said 18 at best. Wish I had been there NOW!!!!!!!!!
There are two battleship sinkings I would really like to see covered. The sinking of the British Force Z and the sinking of the Italian battleship Roma. I suspect the New Jersey's superior anti-aircraft ornament would change the odds, but would it be enough?
Everyday I listen to Ryan, Plainly Difficult, Drach and the History Guy. True entertainers imo. Feel like Ryan has been putting out considerably more content recently. So cool
This is the first of many documentaries or talks I've seen that referred to HMS Hood as the world's first Fast Battleship. This is a very sound claim, and accurately describes HMS Hood. I really enjoy how you covered points of view from various sources and clearly explain your reasoning for why a plunging shell breaking through and igniting Hood's magazine most likely is not what actually happened. There's so much to think about here including whether or not the anti-flash hatches to the main magazines may have been open. To allow for rapid loading, it was common practice for the RN to leave the anti-flash hatches open and stack their cordite bags and ammo outside of the mags. This is contributed to the losses of HMS Invincible, HMS Queen Mary, and HMS Indefatigable during the Battle of Jutland. All three of which sank very fast with a tremendous loss of life. Unfortunately, it is difficult to figure this out for certain regarding the Hood since there were only three survivors, whom have since passed on. If stacking the cordite bags and ammo outside of the mags, with the anti-flash hatches open, did take place all it would have taken was a shell detonating near the location of the stacking or near/within the turret to set off a chain reaction. If a shot hit near or detonated within a main turret, assuming hatches were open, a fire ball could have traveled down the tower of the turret setting off a reaction that way as well. Many possibilities and many sound theories. I think it's time I dove back into the story of the Hood, it's been a few years. Very good video.
Outstanding video, but Iowa could have played chicken with Bismarck and dictate the course of battle, firing her A & B turrets all day minimizing her profile and only bring C turret to bear for the final kill (in my opinion)
How to play chicken ?? Bismarck were a fast battle ship , though less than a Iowa. Iowas doesn't have a large enough speed advantage to be able to control its exposure against something like Bismarck. Remember also that Bismarck did have orders to avoid big enemy units.
@@TheStefanskoglund1 2-3 knots is all you need. It's a slow motion game. Iowa can keep the range wherever she wants it, although I suspect her captain would close in a bit to make gunnery better. Iowa is better armored than Hood and is actually protected against her own guns, so she will have a nice immune zone vs Bismarck.
Bit off a silly question Hood was laid down in 1917 Iowa was laid down in the 40s no contest between these two ships . The Hood would probably have been scrapped if not for the war once the Admiralty seen the cost off the major refit she was going to get penny pinching was the same then as it is today if not worse
+1 on Drach's video on Hood. It was how she was being operated that exposed her to destruction & in a way that was possible with ANY battleship/battlecruiser.
It's a very fanciful opinion really, probably the least likely theory I have heard. It was either due to a mistake by the crew letting the fire destroy it or it was simply penetrated.13 inches of old and possibly damaged armor is not magically immune to 15 inch guns, especially not higher velocity ones with a more advanced projectile than it was tested against.
Idea for the next video: Would an Iowa class ship have survived what happened to the RMS Empress of Ireland? My best guess: Probably not, but it probably would've taken the other vessel down with it.
It would've been interesting to see a refit Hood, had Hood survived. I seem to recall that Hood's machinery was held together with duct tape and hopeful thinking at that time. IIRC, part of the planned upgrades were to totally gut and rebuild the machinery spaces with modern parts, so that 32kt top speed probably would've been even higher with the likely increase of shaft horsepower from higher pressure steam (Hood's working pressure was 235psi vs the KGV's 300psi) and the reduction in weight from fewer boilers.
I hope over 4 years I can visit each iowa class battleship in order. As someone from iowa. It's amazing that we are known for more than just corn fields
The Fuso was sunk at Surigao Strait by the concentrated fire of six old US BB's. Replacing those with six of the older Japanese BB's, could NJ survive that or even be able to withdraw in good order if caught by surprise?
I remember hearing a theory of how the fatal shell penetrated into one of the torpedo magazines and how that started the chain reaction that doomed Hood.
Another great video. I like that you don't appear to have what you say all scripted out. That you stop mid sentence and think about what you want to say show that you want to get it right and not have your word misinterpreted
I would say that it depends on what you mean. No ship would survive a magazine explosion, but according to Drachinifel, the shell hit the 4" dual purpose magazine on Hood which was right next to the 15" powder magazine. It also hit that spot because of how the bow wave exposed the hull from her 1931 refit according to Drachinifel. Is the Iowa set up in the same way? If so, then no. But ultimately, it is all conjecture as there isn't enough of the Hood left to make a reasonable interpretation. I look forward to you insights.
Interesting as usual. One suggestion however: at the outset, when you say "watch this video for..." "and watch THIS video for..." while pointing to your left, it might be nice to actually have something there to select.
Might have been Interesting. Think the Iowa's Armor was beefed up. Since the Builders were trying to give it chance against the Powerful and Large Yamoto GUNS.
When the Iowas were designed, the US had no idea the Yamato class existed, much less what her main armament was. The Iowas were designed to withstand hits from 16 inch shells (and many people argue that they weren’t really as heavily armored as they should have been since speed was prioritized more than on any other class of battleship). Protecting your ship from guns equal to your own was the standard for all post dreadnought class battleships. The proposed Montana class would have been a more even match for the Yamato but even then they weren’t designed against 18 inch shells.
Not at all. The Iowa's vertical armour is in terms of thickness the same as Hoods at it's thickest. The deck armour is ofcourse considerably better and the metallurgy involved too, so the Iowas are of course better protected than Hood. But if one were to remake Hood in 1944 or whatever, using modern metallurgy, she'd actually be better protected than the Iowas believe it or not. She'd not be as fast on the sprint, nor have as powerful a broadside. But British armour was qualitatively the best in the world at the time, so 12 a inch thickness of (then) modern British plate provided better protection than even US armour.
@@billgere5293 no they didnt know. they knew the Japanese were building SOMETHING- but thats about it. its a well documented historical fact that they were shocked as hell (along with rest of world) when the yamato appeared with bigger guns than any other ship and being mahoosive ( a technical term) in such a way they rendered all current designs in allied navies somewhat overmatched and this was new news that scared folks. so your just plain ignorant to assume american knowledge on this one on basis that america MUST know everything important about its enemies..its just not true.
Interesting compliment to Drachs very interesting video. It was without a doubt a golden BB and as such speculating is difficult because even if we knew definitely it would be in the “ bl00dy Hell” category. It would be interesting to speculate how the battle would have gone if Hood had not blown up!
@@HockeyGoon939 no effect lmao dude read up on the Roma Etc, everything the Germans hit felt it. It would have likely left NJ afloat but mission killed with a long journey home to the yards. Warspites dated armour saved her from worse damage.
