Bismarck vs. Hood

[Elwood]

Poking around on Youtube, this popped up.  Fascinating, IMO.  Never seen it before.  Shot by a German officer on the Prinz Eugen, the cruiser accompanying Bismarck.  Shows Hood's shots falling short then over the Bismarck.   Then, the Hood burning in the distance.   The audio was put in, I believe, not the actual audio.  Still, great visually.   

I guess I should head over to the movie thread but I've watched Sink the Bismarck a couple of times, (1960), actually paying close attention at least once.  I think it's an accurate attempt at the story of the engagement.    


www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DT0NqBgoAs

[quincannon]

It is fairly accurate as movies go. Great book on the subject that anyone interested should read "Hunt the Bismarck" by Angus Kostame. Takes the Bismarck story from conception of the design to the end in May 1941. Wish they had a book of the quality on the Admiral Graf Spee, and the raider Atlantis, although Rugg did a pretty good job on the later, but by now quite dated.

It has long been a topic of speculation among my naval oriented friends in the UK, most of them very accomplished model makers in 1/1200/1250 scale what the Bismarck/Hood affair would have been like had Hood been fully modernized, something unfortunately delayed the canceled by the run up to war in the late 1930's. I suspect the outcome would have been pretty much the same, although most of them disagree. Hood was a tired old tub, and modernization in my view would have been akin to putting lipstick on a pig, in much the same way we did with Tennessee, California, and West Virginia.

[miker]

Hood was doomed from the start because it was a flawed concept not meant to be in the main battle line but to chase down heavy cruisers and commerce raiders. Cruiser speed, cruiser protection, and battleship armament. British lost at least 3 BC at Jutland because they tangled with the main battle line. Admiral Hood was killed almost as his Namesake slid off the ways. FDR fancied BCs and forced the Navy to build some. Fortunately all they had to do was shore bombardment and anti-aircraft protection and they were removed from service quickly after the war ended.

Now of course, there is little armor on US ships except maybe aircraft carriers.

[quincannon]

HMS Hood was named for Admiral Sir Samuel Hood - 1st Viscount Hood, not Admiral Horace Hood who went down on Invincible at Jutland.

You are of course correct in the designed purpose of battle cruisers. They were designed for one purpose and utilized for a completely different mission at Jutland.

Our Alaska Class, with the exception of their main batteries, had about the same anti-aircraft capabilities as the Baltimore Class of heavy cruisers. A complete waste of money and production effort based upon the concept, according to Fahey in his 1941 edition of "Ships and Aircraft of the U S Fleet", as answers to the Scharnhorst Class of German battleships. Oddly enough though the Alaska Class was the Navy's first choice when it came to converting conventional ships to missile cruisers in the early 1950's. They were big, and ideal for the intended mission. The fly in the buttermilk though was only Alaska and Guam were completed, and Hawaii was only 70% complete when mothballed after the war, and the other three were never laid down. So, there were not enough of them to field the number of missile ships required. Had the class of six been completed they would most likely have seen long and perhaps distinguished careers. I personally saw the Hawaii at Philadelphia in 1958, and although incomplete she was a beautiful ship.

[miker]

My reembrace is that Hood (the one at Jutland) was related to Hood (who the BC was named after).  Hence my conflation.

I have a 1/350 model of Alaska, languishing in my closet.  I worked on the main battery gun turrets, then carefully put it away. I have the USS MO as well in its modern version.  I have a Baltimore and Montana in 1/700.  I managed to avoid buying the  1/350 Montana and I have never seen a 1/350 Baltimore.  Which is probably fortunate.

[quincannon]

Conflation is good for the soul. I don't recall if they were related or not, but it sure would not surprise me.

The point though is well made. Battle cruisers were Jackie Fisher's fever dream and a complete waste of money. A solution trying to find a problem.

Trumpeter has been promising a Baltimore and a Pittsburg (the rounded stern version of the Baltimore) for at least ten years in 1/350, and have failed to produce one. Doubt they ever will. Going back a long way I would love to find and build an old Aurora Saint Paul in 1/600 (give or take) scale, but that is my fever dream.

[Elwood]

Nov 9, 2023 15:14:10 GMT quincannon said:

I personally saw the Hawaii at Philadelphia in 1958, and although incomplete she was a beautiful ship.

Seen numerous pics of Alaska and Guam. Beautiful ships.