Why do you think the Prinz sank Hood?

No. The Prinz Eugen was incapable of penetrating any of the armor of the Hood at the range of engagement. In fact, the Prinz Eugen's 8" guns were not even capable of doing significant damage at the engagement range to Hood. It has been rather conclusively proved Bismarck fired the fatal round.

One of the sources I read, stated that perhaps the Prinz Eugen had the range and degree of plunging fire to penetrate the Hood's secondary armour amidships, thus touching off her AAA magazines and perhaps causing a chain reactions of explosions throughout the ship, before breaking her into three pieces.

I doubt the weight of explosives in the AA mags would have been enough to penetrate the main deck armor. Also, considering the location of the mags, it doesn't seem likely that an explosion would be efficacious. Take note of the "blow out" panels on the modern M1A1 tanks, designed to allow an explosion to expend to the outside of the tank's hull rather than be contained inside the armor.

However, I'd like to read your source if you would be so kind as to provide a reference?

__________________
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
Veteran: USN, 1969-1989
http://www.hyperwar-ghq.com/ (Volunteer coordination site. Want to help?)

That theory dates back to the 70's I believe. Possibly the 80's it's generally not given much weight today. Check out the kbismark forum and I'm sure you can find a fair amount of discussion on it.

one question i have to forumers is why some of them maintan that the bismark was primarily designed as a commerce raider and not for open engagement with enemy battleships. i tried looking at the german design program for their schlackshiffe (H-series) and can find no mention of this, besides possible application. all the features built into the series (h-38 for the bismark) shows a priority for firepower, transverse stability, small and tight compartments, high angle armor slope, all of which imply survivability when engaging enemy battleships, particularly at close range.

the Hood was a battle cruiser. designed for speed. the cost here was light armour. that's why she blew up

The thing that has always fascinated me about the Hood/Bismarck saga was the two incredible pieces of luck involved.

The first of course is the shell in the Hood magazine, and the second is the torpedo in the Bismarck rudder.

I believe that the battleship encounter at Jutland had a hit ratio of about 2% or a fraction more.

By WW2, that ratio had improved to about 4%.

A hit almost anywhere else on the Hood would not have been fatal but this one was. And the torpedo could have struck 5 feet away and not hurt the Bismarck.

And about 3000 men died.


OJ

__________________
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". - Voltaire.

same with the Arizona at pearl harbor. 1 lucky bomb right into the mag.

Computerised battle of the Hood vs the BIsmarck
YouTube - BISMARCK VS HOOD IM ALIVE THE GREAT BATTLE

__________________

Nice one Tomcat!

__________________

I thought this information quite intriuging.

from Bismarck History

She was undergunned with 15" guns. Imagine with only 13 inchers.

__________________
"Don't one of you fire until you see the whites of their eyes! Powder is scarce and must not be wasted. Fire low! You are all marksmen and could kill a squirrel at a hundred yards. Reserve your fire and the enemy will all be destroyed! - Israel Putnam, at the Battle of Bunker Hill, 1775
"War is a conflict of great interests which is settled by bloodshed, and only in that is it different from others." - Karl von Clausewitz

The Bismarck was not only the most famous Battleship but also feared to the point of Churchill sending the entire Britsh fleet after Bismarck.And it weighed fully armed at 53,000 tons. As far as gun size goes actually the 15 inch was just as dangerous as the American 16 inch guns were. this is a quote from dkmBismarck about it's main guns "The calibre of the German 380 mm guns (i.e. diameter of bore multiplied by number of calibre to give length of barrel) has traditionally been stated at 47. This figure is no longer quoted in qualified sources and it has been impossible to trace its origins. Furthermore, cal. 47 seems to be inconsistent with the considerable weight of the piece (more than 110 tons) compared with the weight of other modern battleship guns." Bismarck guns were actually 52 caliber allowing for heavier powder charge which gives it walloping hitting power. People only look at the inches when comparing gun power which is only half of the equation. The Bismarck seems to get a bad rap all the time for being overrated;well put any american or british ship in that same situation it was in and any other ship would have blown up and split in two. also look at the fact that Bismarck is in one piece on the bottom of the ocean; whereas Yamato, Hood and many other battleships went kerplewy" blew up into two pieces when sinking. Bismarck wins the all around best battleship award.

Terry, I know you done it many times before, but would you address this, please?

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

This is complete nonsense. The Bismarck was armed with the 38cm SKC 34 gun. The design details and characteristics are well known. In fact, several are still in existance such as the ones mounted in Battery Vara in Norway or Battery Todt at Cape Griz Nez in France.

The 38cm SKC 34 gun had a overall caliber of 48.4. The gun including breech weighed 244,713 pounds. Overall length was 64.442 feet.
It used a loose built up liner with 90 rifling grooves with a twist of 1/36 at the breech and 1/30 at the muzzle. Overall length of rifling was 724.596" and a powder charge of either 452.4 or 575.4 lbs was used.
The AP shell weighed 1,763.70 lbs and was fired at a muzzle velocity of 2,690 fps. Maximum range as mounted in the DRH LC/34 twin turret as aboard Bismarck was 39,589 yards theoretically.

The US 16"/45 Mk 5 (as on the Maryland class), 16"/45 Mk 6 and, 16"/50 Mk 7 all out perform the German gun at any range using either the lighter AP Mk 5 2,240 lb shell or more substancially using the later 2,700 lb Mk 8 round. The French 380mm Mle 1935 mounted on the Richelieu class equal the German gun in performance while the Italian 381mm Model 1934 gun of the Vittorio Veneto class slightly out performs it.

If anything, the SKC 34 had good, if unspectacular, performance on par with other nation's 15" naval guns. It was easily outperformed by 16" and even the rather poor Japanese 18.1" guns across the board.

As for her sinking in one piece: Only the fact that all the main magazines were flooded long before she sank and that there were no direct penetrations into a magazine saved her that fate. Scharnhorst, like Yamato had her forward magazines detonate in her final battle (North Cape). So, claiming any superior performance based on this claim (that the magazines did not explode) is just supercilious in nature.

My dad was on the King George IV and i heard that it was one of the ships that sunk the bismarck? Is that true?

The story is it was scuttled from the inside, orders from there captain

It was not in the Pacific, it was in the Atlantic

It was not as simple as that, the Hood's destruction was virtually a lucky shot and the sword fish were only able to hit the Bismarck due to the fact that the heavy AA guns on the Bismarck could not train low enough to hit them. The Bismarck however was a dangerous ship and was a problem if she got out into the Atlantic. Could you imagine the amount of ships the RN would have to divert to attempt to find her in the vastness of the Altantic? Not of course that it would have mattered in the long run for the war, but it could have caused many more merchant men's lives.

__________________

The Bismarck was a very dangerous ship, the reason she lost in her final battle, was because she was very outnumbered. She would have been very able to break out into the Atlantic, just lucky was on the RN's side to be able to keep tabs her and coordinate there fleets to intercept her. Although the Swordfish was a very obsolete aircraft that in reality had no place in the ww2 battles, her torpedoes were not, and very capable of say .... disabling a Battleship.

When was the last time any aircraft carrier was hit by enemy fire?

But ok, are you saying that an F4 Phantom could not cause significant damage to the USS enterprise in anyway shape or form and that there was absolutely no chance that she could dodge the defensive fire form the carrier, to at least disable her and make her run for home, thus allowing your home fleet to catch and sink her?

__________________

No offence firefoxy. But Im finding it very to understand your points or even your logic.

__________________


For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman.

The Hood was not hunted as soon as she left her port. The Bismarck's troubles with the sword fish were regrettable for the Germans, and had they been given more time and allowances, they have have developed a more superior defense doctrine against low flying torpedo planes. The Germans were not as experience with Sea born aircraft as the American, Japanese or even the British, she was barely able to keep a large enough Navy going. Here Navy in ww2 was appalling, but in reality no real fault of her own, mainly due to the Versailles Treaty she was limited with her navy.

As already said the Bismarck was a dangerous ship, and one on one with any battleship in the world, I believe she had a chance of winning. The Bismarck was a waste of money and timem but none the less impressive. Was she overated? I don't think so, that is why the British spent a lot of hips to find her, and then again the amount of resources in bomber sorties going after her sister ship the Tirpitz.

__________________

2 Battleships against the might of the Royal Navy, Commonwealth Navies and the Royal Airforce, what did you really expect them to do, take hem all on by themselves? Considering that the Tirpitz and the Bismarck were commissioned in different years automatically means it will be 1 ship against the entire RN.

The Bismarck destroyed the RN's most powerful ship, and damaged another with the help of the Prinz Eugen. The Tirpitz never fired her guns in anger and this would have been because the British had seen what the Bismarck could do, since after all they were sister ships, so they decided to destroy here in a Fjord by bombers and not allow her to get into the open sea.

__________________

Nonetheless the Commonwealth were there and supplied Destoryers and other warships to the Channel and convoy areas. Although these areas may seem irrelevent, had the TIrpitz or the Bismarck broken out into the Atlantic, it would be those few commonwealth destroyers alongside the RN that would hut them down.

AS I said to you in another thread, maybe you should turn your sole opinions into opinions with facts.

__________________

If the RAF won then it appears they were the real TOP dogs and the "luftwaffer" (correction: Luftwaffe) who is much overrated, right?

__________________