@@fergusmallon1337 The Veneto was a great ship but her technology not , rangefinding, radar , flameless powder were not installed, she survived cape Matapan for a miracle
"Ahead of its time"? You mean with an outdated incremental armour scheme that saw it converted into a floating target in 20 minutes on 27th May, needlessly duplicated secondary armaments, Dual gunned turrets when all other modern battleships were fielding triple and quadruple gunned turrets, and triple screw propulsion that saw 33% of its SHP useless for steering by propulsion alone?
salute for hood she was the best battleship and nice she never be forgotten some of britain battleship hms rodney and king george v are take revenge for
I think about the only 3 that survived and how lucky they were to survive in that Cold cold water ! I can’t imagine the experience of being strattled by Bismarck’s 15inch shells both the sound and seeing the huge gysers that came up out of the water
Dear Fiona, there are at least two naval history experts currently advancing educated opinions on RU-vid channels as to the why and wherefore of the loss of HMS Hood at the battle of the Denmark Strait, Notably Drachinifel and Battleship New Jersey. Even at this late date, virtually eighty years after the Hood was sunk, no-one can say for sure what happened, except that it was an incredibly lucky fluke shot that would have sunk any battleship in exactly the same fashion were it have happened to them. Have a look at the two channels I mentioned above. And, in these difficult times, stay safe and well, and make some more fine videos!. Regards, Les
@@peternewman3487 At the distance these vessels engaged one another in the Battle of the Denmark Strait, even capital ships like Bismarck and Hood only appeared as small , indistinct shapes on the far horizon (we´re talking about in excess of 15 miles here, after all!). Even with todays most modern - guided - weapons, accuracy is a major issue. Surgical strikes by cruise missiles and other "intelligent" ammunition still cause unforseen collateral damage and civilian casualties because of inaccuracy. It should not be forgotten that both ships were moving at high speed, in different directions, on choppy waters. Bismarck´s shells took somethng like 30-odd seconds to reach Hood - and HMS Hood was beginning to turn to bring her after gun turrets to bear on Bismarck. Even the finest range finding equipment could not extrapolate Hood´s precise postion at the time Bismarck fired her salvo . No-one can say just where Hood was actually hit. Drachinifel provides the best guess I have seen to date, and Battleship New Jersey´s Ryan is in agreement. It was a one in a million shot which sank Hood - and had it not hit at that precise point in time and space, Hood and Bismarck could well have been slugging it out all morning on that awful day in the North Atlantic!
@@peternewman3487 If you take the time to watch Drachinifel's rather detailed analysis video of the engagement his conclusions are certainly compelling. Given to even hit a battleship at that sort of range is a remarkable achievement in itself hitting Hood in just the right position to penetrate and detonate the magazines is almost literally a one in a million shot. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-CLPeC7LRqIY.html
@@lesliegrafvondertrenck4170 just watched Drachinifel's surgical examination of Hoods demise. Brilliantly explained and seems the best theory I've heard. I've been fascinated by her tragic end for years and have always gone along with the standard explanations. Hoods deck armour was insufficient thus Admiral Holland was desperate to close the range and avoid plunging fire. Thus was going into battle with an arm tied behind his back. Learning that this was standard RN procedure even for Battleships was interesting. But thinking about it now Hood lasted just minutes into the battle. That's just not right. It surely must have been a million to one shot.
@@peternewman3487 It isn't a case of a shell hitting the target, it is what the shell does when it hits. What that particular shell did when it hit Hood is what is lucky.
No real beast , The problem is the following: what sort of fool sends an old battleship to match the newest and most modern of all ? She didn't have the armored belt that the Bismarck had , The prince of Wales was a ship fresh from the yards , the result a humiliation
The Ship had relatively decent armor. What she was most vulnerable to was plunging fire which coincidently was what killed her. Not to mention at the time Bismarck had the biggest guns in European waters.
@HMS Hood 15 inch guns were common since 1916 amongst british and german ships. As the Hood was built as a battle cruiser, her armor was not strong enough. Like at the Jutland Battle, the battle cruisers could not stand the impact of 13, 14 let alone 15 inch shells.
@@wilfriedschuler3796 yeah I had heard the battle of Jutland really had the navy step back and rethink armor scheme. However I also did read that the Royal Navy was trying to refit their ships with better armor. The Hood was suppose to be one of those ships but since war broke out she didn’t get a refit. Unfortunately In the end the hood would succumb to its ultimate weakness. Weak deck armor
As Ted Briggs said “She was a wonderful, beautiful, proud ship but unfortunately with a glass jaw.” Battlecruisers we’re designed to destroy anything below their weight class and run from anything above that. Bismarck was definitely above. Hood never should have engaged her.
@@fionawimber1028 you have a good point. Battle cruiser did have the speed to outrun anything that might outgun them. But I guess British Admiralty just really wanted Bismarck sunk so desperately that they sent out every available ship to intercept. Unfortunately for them it would cost them their most beloved ship in the Royal Navy. But at the very least the Hoods sacrifice wasn’t in Vein and now the Bismarck also sits at the bottom of the sea.
@@HMSHyde02 they were desperate and hopelessly out of position to deal with Bismarck before she hit the Atlantic. I understand why they sent Hood out but it was still a really stupid decision.
@@fionawimber1028 I'd prefer the breaker's yard and 3500 lives saved any day. Ask the families of all the dead sailors if they feel the end of Bismarck/Hood was "the best way".
Great job done by Japanese torpedo bombers in Nov 1941 in South China Sea. Prince of Wales had earlier managed to escape by launching smoke screen bombs ,in the Battle of Denmark Straits in May 1941 . The honour of sending HMS Prince of wales to the locker of Old Davy Jones was left for the Japanese.
Here's Ashwani again, The deluded Indian whose hatred of Britain skews his judgement. It should be realised that Ashwani seriously believes that Japan fought Britain to provide freedom for India, apparently having no understanding of the Japanese "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" which would have seen India submerged in a FAR more brutal Japanese empire. See the rape of Nanking, and read about the millions of Chinese murdered by the occupying Japanese forces within Manchuria. As it was the millions of loyal Indian troops and the British 14th Army held off the Japanese invasion, and India was rewarded with her own independence in 1947.
As far as size, speed, and armament were concerned Hood and Bismark were pretty evenly matched. Hood's armour on the other hand was much thinner than Bismark's. Hood's only hope would have been to get closer and out shoot Bismark.
@@fionawimber1028 You are quite correct. Bismark managed to hit Hood at long range. The shells were, therefore, falling very steeply and went straight through the decks. I am not sure what Hood's turret armour was like but her belt armour was only about half that of Bismark's so at close range Bismark would have made mincemeat of Hood.
