it was deeply silly for them to place a battlecruiser in that situation... what would have been ideal would have been both Nelson and Rodney on Bismarck while their slow their FAR better protected and have far better guns
Have some RESPECT ! People died for what they beleaved in. Something most of us will never have to do because they did. I respect everyone that fights for what they beleave in. Right or wrong. Thanks for the show. TSFG
I just fell sorry when the Salior on the Hood says 'She gone bout 30-40 degrees when we realised she just wasn't coming back' A great ship lost before her time
I just fell sorry when the Salior on the Hood says 'She gone bout 30-40 degrees when we realised she just wasn't coming back' A great ship lost before her time
I just fell sorry when the Salior on the Hood says 'She gone bout 30-40 degrees when we realised she just wasn't coming back' A great ship lost before her time
I love how the english translations have almost nothing to do with what the german veterans are saying. At least in parts. Sometimes they are better, but too often they use it as background to continue with their melodrama.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
YOU FUCKING BRITISHERS, GERMANY WILL GET ANOTHER GREAT LEADER LIKE HITLER & WILL BUILT MORE POWERFUL SHIP LIKE BISMARK, THEN WE WILL GET YOU AGAIN YOU ASS HOLES, YOU CONTROL MEDIA OF ALL WORLD & TELL NEGATIVE NEWS..& SPREAD HATE, NUDITY & VIOLENCE....YOU HAIRS OF QUEENS PUSSY...FUCK YOU LL ENGLISH MEN & WOMEN,,,,I HATE YOU MOTHERS FUCKER..HEL HITLER & GERMANY, WE DON'T START WORLD WAR YOU UK * USA START IT, FDR REPORT SAYS THAT US ATTACK ITS OWN SOIL PERAL HARBOUR, U DISHONEST COUNTRY PEOPLE,,
The caps lock on your computer might be broken kid. By the way, I am an American with German ancestors who fought for America. you are an insult to the good things in life born of German heritage. You disgrace even your own people in your own country.
@10mism Poor you.. is this your way to show off?? hahahaha.... HITLER DECLEARED war against USA when Japan attacked them at pearl harbor... Use your head to what you have it for.. Hitler was a sad person that NEVER EVER knew what he woke up when he decleared war against USA... USA never started a world war... Hitlers power abuse started it...Im from norway,and I have alot of people in my family that fought against Hitlers men... im sooo proud of what they acomplished against those nazi pigs!
@JackTheNoober As long as the Nazis and new nazis have that way of looking at the jews and other people but aryan,they are pigs...for god sake,we are ALL human beeings!!! some friends of my grandfather and grand mother had to die due to nazi bullets... luckely my grandfather,and two of my moms uncles survived their fighting against the nazis. One of the uncles manned one of the 280 mm that sunked Blücher :D :D :D
While Bismarck had many "innovations" her designers never seemed to be able to concieve that a naval battle would take place over 20km. While it is true in the atlantic the weather did play a major part in the short range engagements, advances in radar meant that even in a snow storm a target could be tracked and shelled. It seems that they didnt have much belief in radars abilities, otherwise Bismarck would have had her radar replaced with the newest one available.
the jappanese battleship yamato was most powerful ship aflout when the bismark was around but never fully used. the yamato was desgined as a bombardment weopon... WHAT I MEEN BY THIS it could fire shells over the horisin. no other ship in the entire world could do this. and it had a powerful anti aircraft battery but at the time didnt have many gun emplacements till it was refitting with temprey ground emplacements. the bismarck was powerful but was only in the atlantic.
Yamato was not comissioned until december 1941. the ability to shoot over the visual horizon means nothing in a naval battle unless you have over the horizon radar (since the visual horizon is less than the radar horizon).
and if you are talking range of guns, they are as follows: (German 11inch/54 46,749Ky), (Italian 15inch/50 46,219Ky), (French 15inch/45 before use of US shells and powder 45,600Ky), (French 13inch/45 45,600Ky), (Japanese 18.1inch/45 45,275KY), (USA 16inch/50 42,345KY), (Japanese 16inch 41,995Ky), (GB 16inch 40,000), (German 11inch/52 39,890Ky), (German 15inch 38,932Ky), (Japanese 14inch 38770Ky), (GB 14inch) 38,600Ky, (USA 16inch/45) 36,900KY, (USA 14inch) 36,800Ky, (GB 15inch) 33,600Ky
why do they at the start show the incoming shell at such a high angle when the battle wasnt fought at the distance required for this angle to be true?
Sure talk about plunging fire, but at this range (shown) bismarck is 39,590 yards away (max range of her guns).
at 16,500 yards the angle of decent of the shell is 10-11 degrees (not the 40+ deg shown).
Hood was never build to attack battleships her job was to kill heavy cruiser even if she had a change hood could never got off her shots... RIP HOOD!!!!
It is a sad sight to see a famous warship like hood be destroyed in such a manner. She really needed that refit, if she had got it she would looked like a cross breed between repulse and KG5, with hangars and and great armour.
it was foolish of the brits to think that Hood and the POW could take Bismarck and the Prinz Eugen alone. a totaly untested warship, and an outdated battlecruiser from WWI designs. boggles my mind that they seriously thought they could stop a warship that conducted gunnery drills against their target ship they nicknamed the 'Hood'. most people dont know that bismarck had radar range finders and visual range finders. thats why she was able to put shells on target faster than hood.
@akulaknight You forget Bismarks radar was out of action thats why Prinz was leading formation, they used optics to sink Hood,best optics in the world but their gunnery radar was never accurate enough for blind shooting- even my 1943 by then radar in Duke of York so good Sharnhorst did not even know she was there until DOY fired on her!
Prince of Wales, first operation Bismark, her guns don't work properly but she hits Bismark 3 times and inflicts the damage that makes Bismark head for France. Second operation- crosses Atlantic at full speed with Churchill aboard for meeting with American President- they sign the Atlantic Charter. POW still has scars from Bismark action. A few months later she is the first modern Battleship to be sunk by aircraft while at sea. She lasted less than a year but what a career!
@chrysanthos66 Well, you should read about 'USS Enterprise', the only survivor of Yorktown-class aircraft carriers, one which took part in every single episode of the Pacific War, was a hero-ship, and even so, despite trials to convert her into a museum, she ended-up being scrapped.
@flyus747 Because the term 'dogfight' predates the advent of powered flight a considerable margin,contemporary accounts of naval battles during the Anglo/Dutch wars of the 17th century use it so it seems quite appropriate to use it in this context .
14,500 yards at that range against britsh deck amour birmarck can only penetrate 1.7inches of deck amour. Due to the higher muzzle velocity and thus less angle. at 14ky the incoming angle is 8.8deg.
I think Brits had advantage because they had radars, careers and a lot of ships at all. And of course Great Britain has culture of the fleet. isn't it right?
unlike the germans the british didnt stop research of things like radar in 1940, and unlike the germans they actaully finished their aircraft carrriers not stopping construction when they are 90% finished..........
@BarometreFaso he says "hood's deck armour is no more than 3 iches thick and shells dropping from a steep angle can easily penetrate and explode inside"
@BarometreFaso "hood's deck armour is no more than 3 iches thick and shells dropping from a steep angle called punching fire can easily penetrate and explode inside". I missed three words but what i wrote the first time means the exact same thing
but no-one has stopped to consider that the germans used high velocity guns with have a flatter trajectory.
at 20,000 yards the decent angle is only 14.4 degrees, when hood was hit the estimated range is 16,500 yards which gives a decent angle of only about 10 degrees. Which is def not what this video shows. It is more likely that the shell went through the belt. Which at that range (and considering that hood was almost parallel to bismarck) Bismarck could penetrate over 18inches
And in case you are wondering, at that range the table gives the deck penetration (of British deck amour) as only 2 inches.......... So the shot had to have gone through the belt.
perhaps mishearing the first bit, followe by the narrator saying 'punch through' can casue a misunderstanding.
Though its kind of irrelevant as the shell trajectory they show is totally wrong. I'm not sure why I am the first to highlight the issues with this (that i know of). Are the British trying to save face (not sure why it would matter after so long) or if people just hadnt bothered to do research and 'look at the numbers'
@notsureyou I tend to agree. The researchers on this show really do screw up sometimes, or maybe the animation directors. Its a good show, but all in all it does have major problems.
since bismarck is my fav ship (no im not a nazi etc) ive heard the story so many times. and the main thing they talk about everytimes is hood's weak deck amour and plunging fire.
and from what im seeing from looking at the data it seems very unlikely that the fatl shell went through the deck.
In this documentary they show an angle of at least 30deg (im being generous the angle is closer to 40-45 deg), but the angle would actually been between 10-12 deg (when it hit)
Also the Bismark was smaller than the Yamato making it a smaller and faster target, unlike the Yamato a large and slow target, an easy target for the Bismark
I dont care what people say about the Yamato, the Bismark would have destroyed it. sure the Yamato has the bigger gun but what the use if you dont have good accuracy and radar system and the Yamato only fired 2 shells/min the Bismark fired 3.
if the germans would have supported those 2 battle ships... the outcame might have been different... but then if they had escorts it wouldn't have been a surprise attack by the german navy xD
@CallicoJackracham i wish, but she was still training while this battle happened. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were supposed to accompany Bismarck and Prinz Eugen. but both were damaged. Lütjens wanted to delay the opperation until Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, and tirpitz were ready. Admiral Raeder refused. the rest is history.
A few sick ironies are 1,The Hood was named for the admiral of HMS Invincible and HMS Invincible left twice as many survivors as hood(6 for HMS Invincible and 3 survivors from hood) and 3 the big one is that both ships were destroyed by a magazine explosion. The similarities are just creepy beyond belief.
Don't get me wrong. I don't sympathize with Nazi's but for the short time that Bismarck was operational it managed to sink the H.M.S. Hood the pride of the British Royal Navy. That by it's self is one hell of a feet.
The Grandfather of one of my older Sister old schoolfriends was apparently one of the survivors from Hood. Apparently he got blown out of the magazine
Need to find out who the crew was that fired that final salvo from the Hood, while it was about to go under. Magnificent valor, of those men, who stayed at their post, fighting literally, until the end. I salute them, and all who died that day. Bravery. There isn't a finer example, than that.
I have the book "Bismarck&Hood. There is a theory that final salvo was caused by the detonation of the forward magazines. The bow is detached from the mid section and the theory is the fire raced through the fuel bunkers and ingnited the foreward magazines.
@Dwnshifter So, there could have been rounds in the chambers, so to speak, with power kegs in place behind them. When the fire reached the space, I guess the rest is history. We will never know, but your explaination seems plausible to me.
@Dwnshifter I still believe HMS Hood was sunk by a salvo from Prinz Eugen. Her smaller caliber main guns had to fire at e higher arc therefore her shells would have plunged down into the Hood. Bismarck's heavier caliber main guns would have fired at a shallow arc and possibly glance off the Hood without penetrating her deck.
The book "Bismarck & Hood" has a theory that the fire from the aft magazines raced through the fuel bunkers and inginted the forward magazines. The evidence is plates on the starboard side of the midsection are ripped off and the bow section which is detached from the from the mid section. The conning tower appears to have been launched landing 1000 yards away. In short that "Final salvo" may have been an exlposion. No disrespect to the fallen hood crew intended,
Great graphics in his video but wrong about the final shell hit sinking the Hood, although it looked that way at the time. It has been confirmed that the Hood sank when her rear magazines exploded and this was from long range German hits early in the battle, starting a series of fires deep inside her. Gunnery experts agree that the final shell hit should not have breached the Hood's side armour at that range. Holland did not miscalculate by turning when he did, but the ship was already doomed.
And the Atlantic was just as important a battlefield as the Russian plains as were the skies over Germany. Also: the Russians were Germany's allies until June 1941. Britain was the only country that fought Germany throughout the war.
@DavidMJordan - Respectfully I'd have to disagree with a couple statements here- there was a non agression pact signed between Hitler's Germany and Stalin. They were not 'allies'. And- if you remember your history- the US (obviously covertly- via OSS and MI6) , some of the Canadian 'services'
and most of the overtaken countries betrayed by their elected officials (ie : Czech, Poland, French, etc...) had bands of resistance forces who fought against Hitler's Germany from the onset....
@saintdlee so to say that only the Brits were there from the onset or were 'alone' does not do right by those who died unsung.... Again- respectfully and in my opinion only...
@saintdlee Germany invaded Poland on 1st September 1939 and USSR 2 weeks later so they were quite definitely allies in the invasion of Poland. The USSR also helped the Germans by giving their warships access to Baltic ports. That non-agression pact was the trigger for the war and the USSR was just as culpable as the Germans.
@megasalva777 The only chance of attacking Russia was in 1945 (unless a seperate peace with the Germans had been made in 43 or 44) and the decision was Rooseveldt's - who cosied up to Stalin, at Casablanca in unofficial meetings without 'That old imperialist,' (as Roosevelt called Churchill) and drew up the iron curtain thus condemning Poland to another dose of brutal dictatorship. The new order was forged without the consent Britain.
@megasalva777 You might be right but by May 1945 Stalin had 200 divisions. U.S. forces might have lost a million men pushing the commie army out of Germany and then overrunning Russia. Of course we did have the bomb but at the time we didn't own many of them. Stalin's spies knew how many we had.
By eliminating the Bismark the British could properly take advantage of the Enigma code they had secretly broken to supress the U-Boats. Without the convoys we would have had no ability to rearm and continue fighting. Our Navy was still strong but we were fighting alone at this time, if Germany had won the world would be very different today.
@jacksawild Germany technically won over Britain, the British were unable to pose any further threat to Germany at that time. However, the mistake was mostly done by Hitler, who's conquer the world schedule was distorted since the British gave more fight than expected, which left Germany vulnerable when invading the USSR. Hitler was a total idiot, he of all people had the real chance of destroying Britain for good and did not do it.
@zaho87, Germany never won the battle at sea, they never could compete with the Royal navy which was the biggest in the world at the time plus they also lost the battle of britain in 1940. You are totally right about hitlers strategy though, fighting a war on two fronts against the allies and the USSR was total madness.
@zepsterboy Taken from that perspective yes, but the inability of the UK to attack Germany directly was a loss, and the sole survival of the British was on the reliance of US convoys throughout the Atlantic. Hitler's impatience and stupidity made him lose that war, which was good, cause otherwise the Germans could have won :)
@DavidMJordan There were many US ships at the same time, in fact this forced the US navy to transfer ships from the Pacific to the Atlantic, making them vulnerable to attacks like the one on Pearl harbor. The majority of the British Royal Navy was patrolling the English Channel, while the rest were engaged in the Mediterranean sea against Italy.
@Strahoz 'The majority of the British Royal Navy was patrolling the English Channel'
This is totally untrue. Very few ships were in the channel because they would have been vulnerable to air-attack and it is certainly true that British ships accounted for all German capital ships in the Atlantic and provided most of the escorts for the convoys.
Warships of that era used cordite charges to propel their shells, not "powder" as stated in the video. Hood's main magazine contained 102 tons of cordite.
Why didn't they commit HMS Renown instead of HMS Hood? HMS Renown got all the refits needed. Her nickname was HMS Refit and was in the area. Out of 1418 men only 3 survived and none of them is alive today. May they all rest in peace.
Renown was even more lightly armored than Hood. Even after refits. Renown's main belt was only 9in thick at its thickest points vs 12in for Hood. Renown only had six 15in guns vs 8 for Hood. Renown's deck armor was still inadequate. Renown was still a battlecruiser regardless. A battleship was needed to face Bismarck. Had the King George V class not been built to treaty restrictions. Instead being built with 15 or even 16in guns would have been more than a match for Bismarck.
@Superdeath25 Wrong. The purpose of CLs and CAs was to kill anything they could catch, and outrun anything that could kill them. They were escorts, and provided excellent antisub and anti-aircraft fire to protect capital ships, like BBs and the otherwise nearly-defenseless CVs. They were also the primary torpede platforms of WWII, and were much easier (and cheaper) to build than capital ships. They weren't useless, just bad in a stand-up fight against heavier firepower.
Admiral Holland should be named Admiral Stupid. He should not have raced like he did. Or if hed, he should have angled himself to keep his broadsides pointed at the Nazi warships
oh well both ships shouldnt have been there. But as kingtiger 88 said all must be committed in war. HOWEVER I DISAGREE THAT THE BISMARCK WAS THE BEST BB IN THE WORLD AT THAT TIME. THE PRINCE OF WALES WAS MORE THAN QUALIFIED TO TAKE ON THE BISMARCK IF SHE HAD BEEN COMPLETELY FITTED OUT AND PROBLEMS WITH HER QUAD 14 INCH TURRETS SOLVED. IN FACT ALL HER SISTER SHIPS WERE SUCESSFUL SHIPS WITH THE DUKE OF YORK SINKING THE BISMARCK AND THE SCHARNHORST
i cant believe some of the people are so naive. Yes kingtiger 88 is right both ships shouldnt have been there. Hood was an obsolete 1920s era battlecruiser. And the Prince of wales was still in the process of fitting out with workmen still on her and experiencing teething problems with her quad 14inch turrets. Her effective guns were her twin 14 inch cannons. If bismarck was facing a fully fitted out 1944 prince of wales BB. She would have been sunk in no time.
The Brits didn't have anything else in the area, they had to send the Hood or a lot more men would have died if the Bismarck got anywhere near a convoi
I love how on these vids the armchair historians all come out in force arguing over which ships would win in a fight,,,shoing they have no idea about what they talk about
And I bet you know everything sajuuk212? And aren't all Historians "armchair Historians"? Seeing as how they never partook in anything they ever research, document, study or write about?
@thestaggie its not a literal term, sorry when I talk about armchair historians perhaps "youtube" historians would have been a better phrase, people only watching ripped history channel docs rather than having gone out and at least read some good books on the subject or even just wikipedia! (which is suprisingly mostly accurate when it comes to ww2 maritime stuff)
I'm not pointing at anyone in particular, just sometimes i worry if people are just gun nuts blowing off steam if you get my meaning
@sajuuk212 - Fair point. I do agree that alot of people do go un crazier and say things like, "It was the best because it had bigger guns.", without doing a little more technical research. I consider myself an avid war buff, but I'll admit that my knowledge of warships is not the best. Hence I corrected myself after double checking my information and realising I made an error. As I posted, my great-uncle served on the Hood, so it has sparked a greater interest to read more and more about them.
They could not secure air superiority, meaning if they attempted a sea invasion, the transports & landing crafts would've taken heavy punishment in the Channel. Furthermore, the Kriegsmarine only had 2 Battleships, 2 pre-World War one Battlecruisers, 2 Pocket Battleships & 8 Battle/Heavycruisers. The Royal Navy was about 3 times it's size, with the Home Fleet alone being bigger and possessing an aircraft carrier. The invasion fleet would've been slaughtered.
@juggaloz4eternity and anyway just put your tirpitz and bismarck against One IOWA class battleship and i assure you the puny 1700lb shells of your 15 inch cannons will fall in the face of USS IOWA`s 16 inch 2700lb shells
@xxchunchunxx And you place too much emphasis on the weight of the shell. The velocity plays a major role too and the Bismarck fired an AP round nearly 300 metres a second faster. The Yamato fired it's heavier AP shell at a higher velocity when compared to the Iowa-class too.
@thestaggie haha thats debatable my friend the yamato fired its 18.1 inch shells with a velocity of 2559ft ps as compared to iowas 2500ft ps and the quality of its shells were inferior and the ballistics of the 18.1 inch shell werent particularly good as they were engineered for underwater trajectories. As for the Bismarck she fired her shells at 2690ft ps hardly the 1000ft ps more as you have described.
@thestaggie It's important to remember that the greatest threat to ships in WWII was aircraft. The Iowa class was designed with that in mind and its primary role was escorting carriers and fire support. Yamato and Bismarck were designed as pure battleships. As such, the Iowa class proved more effective and more useful. That's the important part
@Eboreg2 The Iowa-class the advantage of hindsight. She was built when the threat of aircraft carriers and their aircarft were well known. The Yamato was also extensively re-fitted with a much improved & formidable anti-aircraft suite at a later date and it helped her non. The Iowa would have have gone down to the same kind of punishment the Yamato took from aircraft if she was ever caught in that situation.
@juggaloz4eternity and besides all your battleships were sunk by the british. Isnt that ironic. The americans didnt even have to lift a finger to help. haha I daresay even the Uss texas could have taken on the bismarck with relative impunity
@xxchunchunxx The Kriegsmarine had 2 Bismarck-class Battleships, 2 Scharnhorst-Gneisenau-class Battlecruisers, 2 WW1-era Pre-Dreadnoughts, 3 Deutschland-class Pocket Battleships/Heavy Cruisers, 3 Hipper-class Heavy Cruisers & 6 Light/Armoured Cruisers. That's 16 front line surface warships of all types. Britain had 17 Battleships alone by early 1940, obviously the Kriegsmarine stood no chance.
And anyhow the armour plate of the Bismarck and yamato couldnt match up to that of the iowa, Bismarcks armour scheme was optimized for combat in the north atlantic and featured an armour layout that makes it hard to get a shell into her vitals. However she is vulnerable to long range fire. And yamato uses the brute force approach by putting the most amount of armour onto the ship but not being efficent in her armour layout. but given that she has that much armour it doesnt matter.
@thestaggie and besides Us battleships used a sort of steel called STS or special treatment steel and the americans poured loads of money into making lighter weight powerplants for their ships and thus were able to use the weight saved into armour application and the fact that the steel was of extremely high quality highlights the superiority of the us armour to german or japanese armour.And besides tests have shown that the belt armour of IOWA was superior to that of yamato
@thestaggie OF COURSE THE KRIEGSMARINE STOOD NO CHANCE MY FRIEND. But it was hitler and his cronies who rushed the germans into war in the first place. and it cant be blamed that they stood no chance since they were the ones who antagonised the british and besides britain only had 2 post world war 1 BBs in 1939 and the KGV class was still building. Numbers aside the Germans had the technological edge when it came to ships at that early stage in the war
@xxchunchunxx Well then, what are you going on about laughing at the Germans having all their Battleships sunk when they only had 4 ships in the class, 2 of which were not considered "ships of the line"? And just take note of how much punishment the Bismarck took; 300-400 hits of which roughly 80 were 14 and 16 inch shells. Not to mention bombs & torpedoes.
@thestaggie Mr staggie i have no intention of laughing at the sinking of their battleships. Im just stating technical facts. I salute captain lindermann and all the rest of the german ship COs who stood by their sinking vessels. And my heart goes out to all those men who died in the north atlantic when the HMS dorshetshire left them for the dead due to a U-boat warning. And btw most of the hits to bismarck were above the waterline.
@xxchunchunxx "The Bismarck had put up a most gallant fight against impossible odds, worthy of the old days of the Imperial German Navy, and she went down with her colours flying." - Admiral of the Fleet Sir John Cronyn Tovey, 1st Baron Tovey, GCB, KBE, DSO, DCL. 2 Aircraft Carriers, 3 Battleships, 4 Cruisers and 7 Destroyers to sink her.
The Yamato had the biggest guns; 18.1 inch versus 15's for the Bismarck & 16's for the Iowa. The Yamato also had the thickest armour, while the Bismarck had thicker belt armour than the Iowa but less in the turrets, bulkheads & deck. Iowa was the fastes, 33 knots, followed by Bismarck, 31 knots & Yamato 27 knots. In an all out gunfight, the Yamato would win. Bismarck was built for speed and agility, Yamato for sheer power & Iowa a compromise. Depends on the crew and tactics really.
But remember this. the 16in guns of the IOWAs had the same amour killoing power as the Yamato 18.1. plus yamatos 18. i guns were heavy. about the same as a Fletcher class destroyer.
Keep muzzle velocity in mind. The Yamato's round was the heaviest at over 2,000lbs and travelled at 780 metres per second. The Bismarck's & Iowa's shells were both around 1700lbs but the Bismarck had a muzzle velocity between 820-1,050 metres per second, depending on the charge, while the Iowa's Armoured Piercing round travelled at the lowest velocity, 762 metres per second. Velocity added to the weight of shot makes a huge difference. So it's possible that the Bismarck had the most punch.
@4everUSNavy - Apologies, I gave misinformation regarding shell weight. The Iowa had 2700 (AP) pound shells, while the Bismarck had a 1050 (HE) & 1800 (AP) shell. The Yamato fired a shell heavy than the Iowa but I cannot find a fixed figure, but it's probably near 3000 pounds. Velocity figures I gave ar correct so the Yamato carried by far the most destructive punch. But, fire control systems, tactics & gun crews will ultimately decide a winner.
This has been flagged as spam show
If you like to watch documentary films on YouTube then visit HOTDOCUMENTARIES,COM
wolawl1 2 weeks ago
How did Brigg survive in the figid water? Most men wouldn't last 3 minutes before hypothermia sets in.
milvipes 2 months ago
@milvipes life boat ?
alcapone796 2 months ago
@milvipes 3 men survived from the Hood, out of a crew of 1,500
TheNavyman53 3 weeks ago
@milvipes Maybe the burning oil from Hood has heated the water enough for them to withstand for more time.
Or their uniforms were well isolating most of their bodies from the ocean.
Or plain simple - they found a raft.
Wykletypl 2 weeks ago
But the targets of the British ships are much larger than the German's. Stupid British are trying to make excuse?
KatiushaVN4 2 months ago
@KatiushaVN4 they are stupid
BlackDHbatman 2 months ago
@KatiushaVN4 dont insult the british nor our navy!
jamondoeco 1 day ago
@jamondoeco
Loss is loss. Just speaking the truth and insult no-one.
KatiushaVN4 13 hours ago
RIP BISMARK the german navy were not very nazi only the army were extreamists
Bogdan8938 3 months ago
@Bogdan8938 only the SS were extremists along with the gestapo
SuperCmoney18 2 months ago
@SuperCmoney18 The GESTAPO was a branch of the SS
TheNavyman53 3 weeks ago
@Bogdan8938 Guess again. Grossadmiral Karl Donitz was an ardent Nazi. He took Hitler's place atthe end of the war as Reichskanzler and Fuhrer.
TheNavyman53 3 weeks ago
deploy the kraken!
ccmtor 3 months ago 8
@ccmtor do you know how badly i wish i could actually say that
jnevins1234 3 months ago
it was deeply silly for them to place a battlecruiser in that situation... what would have been ideal would have been both Nelson and Rodney on Bismarck while their slow their FAR better protected and have far better guns
Frues 4 months ago
5:43 That sounds cool, yet, that would be the scarest thing I hve ever seen in happen in WW2. R.I.P. to all those lost on aboard! :[
BTCRAIL101FILMS 4 months ago
Have some RESPECT ! People died for what they beleaved in. Something most of us will never have to do because they did. I respect everyone that fights for what they beleave in. Right or wrong. Thanks for the show. TSFG
Thestealthfighterguy 4 months ago
Jesus, the Bismarck's recoil is able to rock itself. That's one strong cannon.
Thearbiter84 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I just fell sorry when the Salior on the Hood says 'She gone bout 30-40 degrees when we realised she just wasn't coming back' A great ship lost before her time
KIllerbinful 4 months ago
British Navy weak
KatiushaVN4 4 months ago
@KatiushaVN4 And air isnt made up of gasses....
CaveJohnsonAperture 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I just fell sorry when the Salior on the Hood says 'She gone bout 30-40 degrees when we realised she just wasn't coming back' A great ship lost before her time
KIllerbinful 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I just fell sorry when the Salior on the Hood says 'She gone bout 30-40 degrees when we realised she just wasn't coming back' A great ship lost before her time
KIllerbinful 4 months ago
The hood was obsolete plain and simple, a leftover from jackie fisher's flawed and failed battlecruiser dream.
Fortunatley Royal Navy had a vessel that made the Bismarck Obsolete and she was HMS Ark Royal.
Could you imagine surviving the hit from the mainmast area, lying gruesomely wounded in the infirmary and then minutes later drowning to death??
Dwnshifter 6 months ago
I love how the english translations have almost nothing to do with what the german veterans are saying. At least in parts. Sometimes they are better, but too often they use it as background to continue with their melodrama.
jdoernte 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
YOU FUCKING BRITISHERS, GERMANY WILL GET ANOTHER GREAT LEADER LIKE HITLER & WILL BUILT MORE POWERFUL SHIP LIKE BISMARK, THEN WE WILL GET YOU AGAIN YOU ASS HOLES, YOU CONTROL MEDIA OF ALL WORLD & TELL NEGATIVE NEWS..& SPREAD HATE, NUDITY & VIOLENCE....YOU HAIRS OF QUEENS PUSSY...FUCK YOU LL ENGLISH MEN & WOMEN,,,,I HATE YOU MOTHERS FUCKER..HEL HITLER & GERMANY, WE DON'T START WORLD WAR YOU UK * USA START IT, FDR REPORT SAYS THAT US ATTACK ITS OWN SOIL PERAL HARBOUR, U DISHONEST COUNTRY PEOPLE,,
10mism 7 months ago
@10mism
The caps lock on your computer might be broken kid. By the way, I am an American with German ancestors who fought for America. you are an insult to the good things in life born of German heritage. You disgrace even your own people in your own country.
THEVETERAN7 6 months ago
@10mism Poor you.. is this your way to show off?? hahahaha.... HITLER DECLEARED war against USA when Japan attacked them at pearl harbor... Use your head to what you have it for.. Hitler was a sad person that NEVER EVER knew what he woke up when he decleared war against USA... USA never started a world war... Hitlers power abuse started it...Im from norway,and I have alot of people in my family that fought against Hitlers men... im sooo proud of what they acomplished against those nazi pigs!
ollo1982 5 months ago
@ollo1982 Poor you... Calling all nazis pigs... Most of em were just normal guys like your family. Just following orders.
JackTheNoober 5 months ago
@JackTheNoober As long as the Nazis and new nazis have that way of looking at the jews and other people but aryan,they are pigs...for god sake,we are ALL human beeings!!! some friends of my grandfather and grand mother had to die due to nazi bullets... luckely my grandfather,and two of my moms uncles survived their fighting against the nazis. One of the uncles manned one of the 280 mm that sunked Blücher :D :D :D
ollo1982 5 months ago
ships such as the south dekota yamato and other vessles were equaly designed as a better wartime vessle.
skycaprob 7 months ago
@skycaprob
While Bismarck had many "innovations" her designers never seemed to be able to concieve that a naval battle would take place over 20km. While it is true in the atlantic the weather did play a major part in the short range engagements, advances in radar meant that even in a snow storm a target could be tracked and shelled. It seems that they didnt have much belief in radars abilities, otherwise Bismarck would have had her radar replaced with the newest one available.
notsureyou 7 months ago
the jappanese battleship yamato was most powerful ship aflout when the bismark was around but never fully used. the yamato was desgined as a bombardment weopon... WHAT I MEEN BY THIS it could fire shells over the horisin. no other ship in the entire world could do this. and it had a powerful anti aircraft battery but at the time didnt have many gun emplacements till it was refitting with temprey ground emplacements. the bismarck was powerful but was only in the atlantic.
skycaprob 7 months ago
@skycaprob
Yamato was not comissioned until december 1941. the ability to shoot over the visual horizon means nothing in a naval battle unless you have over the horizon radar (since the visual horizon is less than the radar horizon).
notsureyou 7 months ago
and if you are talking range of guns, they are as follows: (German 11inch/54 46,749Ky), (Italian 15inch/50 46,219Ky), (French 15inch/45 before use of US shells and powder 45,600Ky), (French 13inch/45 45,600Ky), (Japanese 18.1inch/45 45,275KY), (USA 16inch/50 42,345KY), (Japanese 16inch 41,995Ky), (GB 16inch 40,000), (German 11inch/52 39,890Ky), (German 15inch 38,932Ky), (Japanese 14inch 38770Ky), (GB 14inch) 38,600Ky, (USA 16inch/45) 36,900KY, (USA 14inch) 36,800Ky, (GB 15inch) 33,600Ky
notsureyou 7 months ago
Yamato Cannon was not online
StarCraftPilot 7 months ago
why do they at the start show the incoming shell at such a high angle when the battle wasnt fought at the distance required for this angle to be true?
Sure talk about plunging fire, but at this range (shown) bismarck is 39,590 yards away (max range of her guns).
at 16,500 yards the angle of decent of the shell is 10-11 degrees (not the 40+ deg shown).
notsureyou 7 months ago
I really like the sound at 5:42. Does anyone know the name of that sound effect?
BTCRAIL101FILMS 7 months ago
the HOOD was not His Majesty's Hospital Ship it was just plain HMS HOOD aka His Majesty's Ship HOOD
philipstephenbird 7 months ago
3 people didnt go down with the hood, 1500 people were aboard
theproudicelander 7 months ago
Tirpitz's crew were still in training at this time
theproudicelander 7 months ago
Hood was never build to attack battleships her job was to kill heavy cruiser even if she had a change hood could never got off her shots... RIP HOOD!!!!
BlackDHbatman 8 months ago 6
As s sailor I would be the sort to pay my respects to fallen men such as those on the Hood.
MixmasterPhirePhox 9 months ago
@alexveast thats prinz eugen at 2:44. bismarck is at 2:51.
AdamBobadam808 9 months ago
why didnt any allied fighters shoot bismark yet if they were aware of its presence?
alexveast 9 months ago
2:44- 2:4 can u see the face on bismarck
stayawile14 9 months ago
It is a sad sight to see a famous warship like hood be destroyed in such a manner. She really needed that refit, if she had got it she would looked like a cross breed between repulse and KG5, with hangars and and great armour.
barry8472 10 months ago
it was foolish of the brits to think that Hood and the POW could take Bismarck and the Prinz Eugen alone. a totaly untested warship, and an outdated battlecruiser from WWI designs. boggles my mind that they seriously thought they could stop a warship that conducted gunnery drills against their target ship they nicknamed the 'Hood'. most people dont know that bismarck had radar range finders and visual range finders. thats why she was able to put shells on target faster than hood.
akulaknight 10 months ago
@akulaknight You forget Bismarks radar was out of action thats why Prinz was leading formation, they used optics to sink Hood,best optics in the world but their gunnery radar was never accurate enough for blind shooting- even my 1943 by then radar in Duke of York so good Sharnhorst did not even know she was there until DOY fired on her!
pointy2 10 months ago
Prince of Wales, first operation Bismark, her guns don't work properly but she hits Bismark 3 times and inflicts the damage that makes Bismark head for France. Second operation- crosses Atlantic at full speed with Churchill aboard for meeting with American President- they sign the Atlantic Charter. POW still has scars from Bismark action. A few months later she is the first modern Battleship to be sunk by aircraft while at sea. She lasted less than a year but what a career!
pointy2 10 months ago
I wonder why the episode does not mention that Germans at first fought they were fighting HMS 'King George V' and HMS 'Repulse'?
Wykletypl 10 months ago
@chrysanthos66 Well, you should read about 'USS Enterprise', the only survivor of Yorktown-class aircraft carriers, one which took part in every single episode of the Pacific War, was a hero-ship, and even so, despite trials to convert her into a museum, she ended-up being scrapped.
Wykletypl 10 months ago
how can dogfight make this episode if there was no airplanes involved except the catalina and the swordfish which never even engaged in any dogfights
flyus747 10 months ago
@flyus747 Because the term 'dogfight' predates the advent of powered flight a considerable margin,contemporary accounts of naval battles during the Anglo/Dutch wars of the 17th century use it so it seems quite appropriate to use it in this context .
iroscoe 10 months ago
14,500 yards at that range against britsh deck amour birmarck can only penetrate 1.7inches of deck amour. Due to the higher muzzle velocity and thus less angle. at 14ky the incoming angle is 8.8deg.
notsureyou 11 months ago
I think Brits had advantage because they had radars, careers and a lot of ships at all. And of course Great Britain has culture of the fleet. isn't it right?
BarometreFaso 11 months ago
@BarometreFaso
unlike the germans the british didnt stop research of things like radar in 1940, and unlike the germans they actaully finished their aircraft carrriers not stopping construction when they are 90% finished..........
notsureyou 11 months ago
@notsureyou Yeah, i think germans were stupid when they stopped his career construction. but if that career is 100% build it couldn't change anything
BarometreFaso 11 months ago
Someone write what does narrator says from 0:00 to 0:11. problem is that my ears can't perceive English very well. So I hope someone helps me.
RIP to all seamen who died that battle. Whoever they are.
BarometreFaso 11 months ago
@BarometreFaso he says "hood's deck armour is no more than 3 iches thick and shells dropping from a steep angle can easily penetrate and explode inside"
bawsaq 11 months ago
@bawsaq you lost some words.
BarometreFaso 11 months ago
@BarometreFaso "hood's deck armour is no more than 3 iches thick and shells dropping from a steep angle called punching fire can easily penetrate and explode inside". I missed three words but what i wrote the first time means the exact same thing
bawsaq 11 months ago
@bawsaq
but no-one has stopped to consider that the germans used high velocity guns with have a flatter trajectory.
at 20,000 yards the decent angle is only 14.4 degrees, when hood was hit the estimated range is 16,500 yards which gives a decent angle of only about 10 degrees. Which is def not what this video shows. It is more likely that the shell went through the belt. Which at that range (and considering that hood was almost parallel to bismarck) Bismarck could penetrate over 18inches
notsureyou 11 months ago
And in case you are wondering, at that range the table gives the deck penetration (of British deck amour) as only 2 inches.......... So the shot had to have gone through the belt.
notsureyou 11 months ago
@bawsaq it's called "plunging fire", not punching fire. Though it's easy to mishear it. The narrator doesn't speak clearly sometimes.
HalcyonSkies 11 months ago
@HalcyonSkies
perhaps mishearing the first bit, followe by the narrator saying 'punch through' can casue a misunderstanding.
Though its kind of irrelevant as the shell trajectory they show is totally wrong. I'm not sure why I am the first to highlight the issues with this (that i know of). Are the British trying to save face (not sure why it would matter after so long) or if people just hadnt bothered to do research and 'look at the numbers'
notsureyou 11 months ago
@notsureyou I tend to agree. The researchers on this show really do screw up sometimes, or maybe the animation directors. Its a good show, but all in all it does have major problems.
HalcyonSkies 11 months ago
@HalcyonSkies
since bismarck is my fav ship (no im not a nazi etc) ive heard the story so many times. and the main thing they talk about everytimes is hood's weak deck amour and plunging fire.
and from what im seeing from looking at the data it seems very unlikely that the fatl shell went through the deck.
In this documentary they show an angle of at least 30deg (im being generous the angle is closer to 40-45 deg), but the angle would actually been between 10-12 deg (when it hit)
notsureyou 11 months ago
@notsureyou
wikki gives range of 16,500 yards, Hood website gives range of 14,500 yards
hence the 2 different figures
notsureyou 11 months ago
die rodney und die nelson sahen so hässlich aus,als wurden sie damals von der bismarck zusammengeschossen.was für hässliche schiffe.
heikst71 1 year ago
Also the Bismark was smaller than the Yamato making it a smaller and faster target, unlike the Yamato a large and slow target, an easy target for the Bismark
lucifer626 1 year ago
I dont care what people say about the Yamato, the Bismark would have destroyed it. sure the Yamato has the bigger gun but what the use if you dont have good accuracy and radar system and the Yamato only fired 2 shells/min the Bismark fired 3.
lucifer626 1 year ago
a moment of silence pls....to honour hood
JEREX101 1 year ago
if the germans would have supported those 2 battle ships... the outcame might have been different... but then if they had escorts it wouldn't have been a surprise attack by the german navy xD
still... that Bismarck was incredible!
xGarettx 1 year ago
@xGarettx imagine what would have happened if this fight had been closer to norway and the Tirpitz had joined battle together with bismarck
CallicoJackracham 8 months ago
@CallicoJackracham oh man just to think of that posibility makes you imagine that would have been the most epic and fiersome naval battle in history
xGarettx 8 months ago
@CallicoJackracham i wish, but she was still training while this battle happened. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were supposed to accompany Bismarck and Prinz Eugen. but both were damaged. Lütjens wanted to delay the opperation until Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, and tirpitz were ready. Admiral Raeder refused. the rest is history.
akulaknight 8 months ago
1,415 crew killed out of 1,418....bloody hell.
Isthisthelongestname 1 year ago 2
@Isthisthelongestname yea.....SOOO FRIKIN MUCH........tgats why i glad they sunk that stinkin.........whateverr
JEREX101 1 year ago
A few sick ironies are 1,The Hood was named for the admiral of HMS Invincible and HMS Invincible left twice as many survivors as hood(6 for HMS Invincible and 3 survivors from hood) and 3 the big one is that both ships were destroyed by a magazine explosion. The similarities are just creepy beyond belief.
Dwnshifter 1 year ago
@jasincl i think you're referring to the akagi
raymund44 1 year ago
wow.. HMS Hood Rip..
AtLastAtLeast 1 year ago
Part 2 has more views as part 1 :o
BigMete0r 1 year ago
rip hms hood
LittleFarmer14 1 year ago
Don't get me wrong. I don't sympathize with Nazi's but for the short time that Bismarck was operational it managed to sink the H.M.S. Hood the pride of the British Royal Navy. That by it's self is one hell of a feet.
NoSympathy93 1 year ago
The Grandfather of one of my older Sister old schoolfriends was apparently one of the survivors from Hood. Apparently he got blown out of the magazine
TopGunSGA 1 year ago
Need to find out who the crew was that fired that final salvo from the Hood, while it was about to go under. Magnificent valor, of those men, who stayed at their post, fighting literally, until the end. I salute them, and all who died that day. Bravery. There isn't a finer example, than that.
jonesy97 1 year ago 2
@jonesy97
I have the book "Bismarck&Hood. There is a theory that final salvo was caused by the detonation of the forward magazines. The bow is detached from the mid section and the theory is the fire raced through the fuel bunkers and ingnited the foreward magazines.
Dwnshifter 1 year ago
@Dwnshifter So, there could have been rounds in the chambers, so to speak, with power kegs in place behind them. When the fire reached the space, I guess the rest is history. We will never know, but your explaination seems plausible to me.
jonesy97 1 year ago
@Dwnshifter I still believe HMS Hood was sunk by a salvo from Prinz Eugen. Her smaller caliber main guns had to fire at e higher arc therefore her shells would have plunged down into the Hood. Bismarck's heavier caliber main guns would have fired at a shallow arc and possibly glance off the Hood without penetrating her deck.
chloe7829 1 year ago
@chloe7829
My theory is that the shell from Bismarck went striaght through the belt
notsureyou 1 year ago
@jonesy97
The book "Bismarck & Hood" has a theory that the fire from the aft magazines raced through the fuel bunkers and inginted the forward magazines. The evidence is plates on the starboard side of the midsection are ripped off and the bow section which is detached from the from the mid section. The conning tower appears to have been launched landing 1000 yards away. In short that "Final salvo" may have been an exlposion. No disrespect to the fallen hood crew intended,
Dwnshifter 1 year ago
that's a horrible way to go...............
1stinfantrydivison 1 year ago
The price of war R.I.P H.M.H.S HOOD
KI86tony 1 year ago 32
@KI86tony hms not hmhs which stands for His/Her Majisty's Hospital Ship, although your point is taken, a great ship was lost that day
MrVolcanoes22 11 months ago
@KI86tony nah
dasmatango123 7 months ago
Wtf? People give Bismarck ALL the credit for sinking Hood went to Bismarck when Prinz Eugen actually got that first hit.My god you people.
Republic19864 1 year ago
@Republic19864 That's because Bismark got the most hits and delivered the final blow.
guitarking367 1 year ago
RIP Ted Briggs
ThatAdelaideGuy 1 year ago
Great graphics in his video but wrong about the final shell hit sinking the Hood, although it looked that way at the time. It has been confirmed that the Hood sank when her rear magazines exploded and this was from long range German hits early in the battle, starting a series of fires deep inside her. Gunnery experts agree that the final shell hit should not have breached the Hood's side armour at that range. Holland did not miscalculate by turning when he did, but the ship was already doomed.
BernieDM 1 year ago
And the Atlantic was just as important a battlefield as the Russian plains as were the skies over Germany. Also: the Russians were Germany's allies until June 1941. Britain was the only country that fought Germany throughout the war.
DavidMJordan 1 year ago
@DavidMJordan - Respectfully I'd have to disagree with a couple statements here- there was a non agression pact signed between Hitler's Germany and Stalin. They were not 'allies'. And- if you remember your history- the US (obviously covertly- via OSS and MI6) , some of the Canadian 'services'
and most of the overtaken countries betrayed by their elected officials (ie : Czech, Poland, French, etc...) had bands of resistance forces who fought against Hitler's Germany from the onset....
saintdlee 1 year ago
Comment removed
saintdlee 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@saintdlee so to say that only the Brits were there from the onset or were 'alone' does not do right by those who died unsung.... Again- respectfully and in my opinion only...
saintdlee 1 year ago
@saintdlee Germany invaded Poland on 1st September 1939 and USSR 2 weeks later so they were quite definitely allies in the invasion of Poland. The USSR also helped the Germans by giving their warships access to Baltic ports. That non-agression pact was the trigger for the war and the USSR was just as culpable as the Germans.
DavidMJordan 1 year ago
@DavidMJordan they should have listened to patton and should of attacked the russians while they had the chance
megasalva777 1 year ago
@megasalva777 The only chance of attacking Russia was in 1945 (unless a seperate peace with the Germans had been made in 43 or 44) and the decision was Rooseveldt's - who cosied up to Stalin, at Casablanca in unofficial meetings without 'That old imperialist,' (as Roosevelt called Churchill) and drew up the iron curtain thus condemning Poland to another dose of brutal dictatorship. The new order was forged without the consent Britain.
DavidMJordan 1 year ago
@megasalva777 You might be right but by May 1945 Stalin had 200 divisions. U.S. forces might have lost a million men pushing the commie army out of Germany and then overrunning Russia. Of course we did have the bomb but at the time we didn't own many of them. Stalin's spies knew how many we had.
phillippatterson1 1 year ago
2:57 to 3:06. It's hard to believe an 8 inch shell from Prinz Eugen Started that
MisterCyber1 1 year ago
By eliminating the Bismark the British could properly take advantage of the Enigma code they had secretly broken to supress the U-Boats. Without the convoys we would have had no ability to rearm and continue fighting. Our Navy was still strong but we were fighting alone at this time, if Germany had won the world would be very different today.
jacksawild 1 year ago
@jacksawild Germany technically won over Britain, the British were unable to pose any further threat to Germany at that time. However, the mistake was mostly done by Hitler, who's conquer the world schedule was distorted since the British gave more fight than expected, which left Germany vulnerable when invading the USSR. Hitler was a total idiot, he of all people had the real chance of destroying Britain for good and did not do it.
zaho87 1 year ago
@zaho87, Germany never won the battle at sea, they never could compete with the Royal navy which was the biggest in the world at the time plus they also lost the battle of britain in 1940. You are totally right about hitlers strategy though, fighting a war on two fronts against the allies and the USSR was total madness.
zepsterboy 1 year ago 4
@zepsterboy Taken from that perspective yes, but the inability of the UK to attack Germany directly was a loss, and the sole survival of the British was on the reliance of US convoys throughout the Atlantic. Hitler's impatience and stupidity made him lose that war, which was good, cause otherwise the Germans could have won :)
zaho87 1 year ago
@zaho87 The convoys were British bringing American goods to Britain. Britain supplied most of the escorts and a lot of the merchant ships.
DavidMJordan 1 year ago
@DavidMJordan There were many US ships at the same time, in fact this forced the US navy to transfer ships from the Pacific to the Atlantic, making them vulnerable to attacks like the one on Pearl harbor. The majority of the British Royal Navy was patrolling the English Channel, while the rest were engaged in the Mediterranean sea against Italy.
Strahoz 1 year ago
@Strahoz 'The majority of the British Royal Navy was patrolling the English Channel'
This is totally untrue. Very few ships were in the channel because they would have been vulnerable to air-attack and it is certainly true that British ships accounted for all German capital ships in the Atlantic and provided most of the escorts for the convoys.
DavidMJordan 1 year ago 24
@DavidMJordan fk off noob
BlackDHbatman 1 year ago
omg at 7:12 .... eternal glory to those braves sailors ...They prefer to fire one last time instead of saving their life...
Rostokouban 1 year ago
if i was the commander i shall send: Prince Of Whales and King George V.
superpim100 1 year ago
Did Prinze Eugen suffer any damage?
Sokar2488 1 year ago
Warships of that era used cordite charges to propel their shells, not "powder" as stated in the video. Hood's main magazine contained 102 tons of cordite.
dswright71 1 year ago
Why didn't they commit HMS Renown instead of HMS Hood? HMS Renown got all the refits needed. Her nickname was HMS Refit and was in the area. Out of 1418 men only 3 survived and none of them is alive today. May they all rest in peace.
Sokar2488 1 year ago
Renown was even more lightly armored than Hood. Even after refits. Renown's main belt was only 9in thick at its thickest points vs 12in for Hood. Renown only had six 15in guns vs 8 for Hood. Renown's deck armor was still inadequate. Renown was still a battlecruiser regardless. A battleship was needed to face Bismarck. Had the King George V class not been built to treaty restrictions. Instead being built with 15 or even 16in guns would have been more than a match for Bismarck.
thatkidinthegreenhat 1 year ago
@thatkidinthegreenhat Thank you for the information shared.
Sokar2488 1 year ago
If you ask me, by WWII, Cruisers, due to the deployment of stronger battleships, were useless pieces of junk
Superdeath25 1 year ago
@Superdeath25 Wrong. The purpose of CLs and CAs was to kill anything they could catch, and outrun anything that could kill them. They were escorts, and provided excellent antisub and anti-aircraft fire to protect capital ships, like BBs and the otherwise nearly-defenseless CVs. They were also the primary torpede platforms of WWII, and were much easier (and cheaper) to build than capital ships. They weren't useless, just bad in a stand-up fight against heavier firepower.
AH64pilot1 1 year ago
Admiral Holland should be named Admiral Stupid. He should not have raced like he did. Or if hed, he should have angled himself to keep his broadsides pointed at the Nazi warships
Superdeath25 1 year ago
what I find amazing about the hood having 3 survivors is not how few suvived, but what was amazing is that ANYONE survived.
Superdeath25 1 year ago
What sort of aiming devices did Bismarck use? They seem much better than the British ones.
Eboreg2 1 year ago
oh well both ships shouldnt have been there. But as kingtiger 88 said all must be committed in war. HOWEVER I DISAGREE THAT THE BISMARCK WAS THE BEST BB IN THE WORLD AT THAT TIME. THE PRINCE OF WALES WAS MORE THAN QUALIFIED TO TAKE ON THE BISMARCK IF SHE HAD BEEN COMPLETELY FITTED OUT AND PROBLEMS WITH HER QUAD 14 INCH TURRETS SOLVED. IN FACT ALL HER SISTER SHIPS WERE SUCESSFUL SHIPS WITH THE DUKE OF YORK SINKING THE BISMARCK AND THE SCHARNHORST
xxchunchunxx 1 year ago
i cant believe some of the people are so naive. Yes kingtiger 88 is right both ships shouldnt have been there. Hood was an obsolete 1920s era battlecruiser. And the Prince of wales was still in the process of fitting out with workmen still on her and experiencing teething problems with her quad 14inch turrets. Her effective guns were her twin 14 inch cannons. If bismarck was facing a fully fitted out 1944 prince of wales BB. She would have been sunk in no time.
xxchunchunxx 1 year ago
these programmes would be better with out those talking heads every 2 minutes
TheOceanEnterprise 1 year ago
The Brits didn't have anything else in the area, they had to send the Hood or a lot more men would have died if the Bismarck got anywhere near a convoi
Happyrelease1 1 year ago
dude hood was anialated but it whould be cool if parts survived and they brout them to the surface.
DaFloonz 1 year ago
I know they found the wreck Bismarck but have they found the Hood?
nx9117 1 year ago
Yes they did, I saw a program on tv about it, i think it was called Finding Hood and Bismark.
Chimpswithacamera 1 year ago
I love how on these vids the armchair historians all come out in force arguing over which ships would win in a fight,,,shoing they have no idea about what they talk about
sajuuk212 1 year ago 3
And I bet you know everything sajuuk212? And aren't all Historians "armchair Historians"? Seeing as how they never partook in anything they ever research, document, study or write about?
thestaggie 1 year ago
@thestaggie its not a literal term, sorry when I talk about armchair historians perhaps "youtube" historians would have been a better phrase, people only watching ripped history channel docs rather than having gone out and at least read some good books on the subject or even just wikipedia! (which is suprisingly mostly accurate when it comes to ww2 maritime stuff)
I'm not pointing at anyone in particular, just sometimes i worry if people are just gun nuts blowing off steam if you get my meaning
sajuuk212 1 year ago
@sajuuk212 - Fair point. I do agree that alot of people do go un crazier and say things like, "It was the best because it had bigger guns.", without doing a little more technical research. I consider myself an avid war buff, but I'll admit that my knowledge of warships is not the best. Hence I corrected myself after double checking my information and realising I made an error. As I posted, my great-uncle served on the Hood, so it has sparked a greater interest to read more and more about them.
thestaggie 1 year ago
too bad most people don't think like that. You cant believe anything you hear anymore so i agree with you. -_-
dogfight001 1 year ago
I agree...
The ships were only as good as the men in command.
56AngelDust 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Germas could have destroyed britan
juggaloz4eternity 1 year ago
They could not secure air superiority, meaning if they attempted a sea invasion, the transports & landing crafts would've taken heavy punishment in the Channel. Furthermore, the Kriegsmarine only had 2 Battleships, 2 pre-World War one Battlecruisers, 2 Pocket Battleships & 8 Battle/Heavycruisers. The Royal Navy was about 3 times it's size, with the Home Fleet alone being bigger and possessing an aircraft carrier. The invasion fleet would've been slaughtered.
thestaggie 1 year ago
the germans made the best battleship of all time take that stupid britians!
juggaloz4eternity 1 year ago
Really?,didn't do them a lot of good did it? .
iroscoe 1 year ago
@juggaloz4eternity and anyway just put your tirpitz and bismarck against One IOWA class battleship and i assure you the puny 1700lb shells of your 15 inch cannons will fall in the face of USS IOWA`s 16 inch 2700lb shells
xxchunchunxx 1 year ago
@xxchunchunxx And you place too much emphasis on the weight of the shell. The velocity plays a major role too and the Bismarck fired an AP round nearly 300 metres a second faster. The Yamato fired it's heavier AP shell at a higher velocity when compared to the Iowa-class too.
thestaggie 1 year ago
@thestaggie haha thats debatable my friend the yamato fired its 18.1 inch shells with a velocity of 2559ft ps as compared to iowas 2500ft ps and the quality of its shells were inferior and the ballistics of the 18.1 inch shell werent particularly good as they were engineered for underwater trajectories. As for the Bismarck she fired her shells at 2690ft ps hardly the 1000ft ps more as you have described.
xxchunchunxx 1 year ago
@thestaggie It's important to remember that the greatest threat to ships in WWII was aircraft. The Iowa class was designed with that in mind and its primary role was escorting carriers and fire support. Yamato and Bismarck were designed as pure battleships. As such, the Iowa class proved more effective and more useful. That's the important part
Eboreg2 1 year ago
@Eboreg2 The Iowa-class the advantage of hindsight. She was built when the threat of aircraft carriers and their aircarft were well known. The Yamato was also extensively re-fitted with a much improved & formidable anti-aircraft suite at a later date and it helped her non. The Iowa would have have gone down to the same kind of punishment the Yamato took from aircraft if she was ever caught in that situation.
thestaggie 1 year ago
@juggaloz4eternity and besides all your battleships were sunk by the british. Isnt that ironic. The americans didnt even have to lift a finger to help. haha I daresay even the Uss texas could have taken on the bismarck with relative impunity
xxchunchunxx 1 year ago
@xxchunchunxx The Kriegsmarine had 2 Bismarck-class Battleships, 2 Scharnhorst-Gneisenau-class Battlecruisers, 2 WW1-era Pre-Dreadnoughts, 3 Deutschland-class Pocket Battleships/Heavy Cruisers, 3 Hipper-class Heavy Cruisers & 6 Light/Armoured Cruisers. That's 16 front line surface warships of all types. Britain had 17 Battleships alone by early 1940, obviously the Kriegsmarine stood no chance.
thestaggie 1 year ago
@thestaggie
And anyhow the armour plate of the Bismarck and yamato couldnt match up to that of the iowa, Bismarcks armour scheme was optimized for combat in the north atlantic and featured an armour layout that makes it hard to get a shell into her vitals. However she is vulnerable to long range fire. And yamato uses the brute force approach by putting the most amount of armour onto the ship but not being efficent in her armour layout. but given that she has that much armour it doesnt matter.
xxchunchunxx 1 year ago
@thestaggie and besides Us battleships used a sort of steel called STS or special treatment steel and the americans poured loads of money into making lighter weight powerplants for their ships and thus were able to use the weight saved into armour application and the fact that the steel was of extremely high quality highlights the superiority of the us armour to german or japanese armour.And besides tests have shown that the belt armour of IOWA was superior to that of yamato
xxchunchunxx 1 year ago
@xxchunchunxx what tests where these?
dougstiro 1 year ago
@thestaggie OF COURSE THE KRIEGSMARINE STOOD NO CHANCE MY FRIEND. But it was hitler and his cronies who rushed the germans into war in the first place. and it cant be blamed that they stood no chance since they were the ones who antagonised the british and besides britain only had 2 post world war 1 BBs in 1939 and the KGV class was still building. Numbers aside the Germans had the technological edge when it came to ships at that early stage in the war
xxchunchunxx 1 year ago
@xxchunchunxx Well then, what are you going on about laughing at the Germans having all their Battleships sunk when they only had 4 ships in the class, 2 of which were not considered "ships of the line"? And just take note of how much punishment the Bismarck took; 300-400 hits of which roughly 80 were 14 and 16 inch shells. Not to mention bombs & torpedoes.
thestaggie 1 year ago
@thestaggie Mr staggie i have no intention of laughing at the sinking of their battleships. Im just stating technical facts. I salute captain lindermann and all the rest of the german ship COs who stood by their sinking vessels. And my heart goes out to all those men who died in the north atlantic when the HMS dorshetshire left them for the dead due to a U-boat warning. And btw most of the hits to bismarck were above the waterline.
xxchunchunxx 1 year ago
@xxchunchunxx "The Bismarck had put up a most gallant fight against impossible odds, worthy of the old days of the Imperial German Navy, and she went down with her colours flying." - Admiral of the Fleet Sir John Cronyn Tovey, 1st Baron Tovey, GCB, KBE, DSO, DCL. 2 Aircraft Carriers, 3 Battleships, 4 Cruisers and 7 Destroyers to sink her.
thestaggie 1 year ago
@thestaggie I know that. I acknowledge that fact. But in technical terms the bismarck is simply outclassed by the latest battleships
xxchunchunxx 1 year ago
My great-uncle was on the Hood. Fortuanately for him, he was given leave 2 weeks before she was sunk.
thestaggie 1 year ago
Who would win if ever happened
USS IOWA(my Fav)
IJN YAMATO(ew)
DKM Bismark
4everUSNavy 1 year ago
The Yamato had the biggest guns; 18.1 inch versus 15's for the Bismarck & 16's for the Iowa. The Yamato also had the thickest armour, while the Bismarck had thicker belt armour than the Iowa but less in the turrets, bulkheads & deck. Iowa was the fastes, 33 knots, followed by Bismarck, 31 knots & Yamato 27 knots. In an all out gunfight, the Yamato would win. Bismarck was built for speed and agility, Yamato for sheer power & Iowa a compromise. Depends on the crew and tactics really.
thestaggie 1 year ago
@thestaggie
But remember this. the 16in guns of the IOWAs had the same amour killoing power as the Yamato 18.1. plus yamatos 18. i guns were heavy. about the same as a Fletcher class destroyer.
4everUSNavy 1 year ago
Keep muzzle velocity in mind. The Yamato's round was the heaviest at over 2,000lbs and travelled at 780 metres per second. The Bismarck's & Iowa's shells were both around 1700lbs but the Bismarck had a muzzle velocity between 820-1,050 metres per second, depending on the charge, while the Iowa's Armoured Piercing round travelled at the lowest velocity, 762 metres per second. Velocity added to the weight of shot makes a huge difference. So it's possible that the Bismarck had the most punch.
thestaggie 1 year ago
@4everUSNavy - Apologies, I gave misinformation regarding shell weight. The Iowa had 2700 (AP) pound shells, while the Bismarck had a 1050 (HE) & 1800 (AP) shell. The Yamato fired a shell heavy than the Iowa but I cannot find a fixed figure, but it's probably near 3000 pounds. Velocity figures I gave ar correct so the Yamato carried by far the most destructive punch. But, fire control systems, tactics & gun crews will ultimately decide a winner.
thestaggie 1 year ago
Iowas guns could punch through 30ft+ of reinforced Concret. from 24 miles away.
4everUSNavy 1 year ago
@thestaggie The yamato carried 3200lb AP shells. Big no doubt but with a 2700lb shell coupled with good firecontrol and tactics should prevail
xxchunchunxx 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
DAMN YOU NAZIS! DAMN YOU TO HELL!
Superdeath25 2 years ago
Surprisingly well-researched account of the battle. Very dramatic, yet accurate narration. Good job!
Treetop64 2 years ago
5:06 that must have been a big hit to the royal navys pride.
dogfight001 2 years ago