Janes Fighting Ships pretty easy to look up, and should take you about as much time as it did to respond to a post that was not even directed at you. If you need some help just input British Fleet 1939 order of battle...
According to Janes fighting Ships used by the world since 1898, The five Deutchland Class Heavy Cruisers were at the time the newest most advanced and heavily armed and armored Heavy Cruisers of there class, the large passive sonar array and magnetic amplifier technology used in there fire control systems so impressed the allies that the captured systems from the Prinz Eugen were used by the americans after the war the array even being installed on the sub USS Flying Fish in 1945
It is interesting to note that despite England was the great sea power, Germany made ships that were far better than the british skips. Bismarck was a far better ship than the King George V-class, and Prinz Eugen was a far better heavy cruiser than the Norfolk, Suffolk, and Dorsetshire. Rodney wad old, did only 23 knots, but had 16 inches guns. Bismarck did 30 knots with 15 inches guns. King George V and Prince of Wales had only 14 inch guns and did only 28 knots.
@Skallagrim414 KGV class were much better armoured, and the 14 inch gun performed better, it also provided for a heavier broadside. it is a myth that bismarck/tirpitz were better ships, because they werent. what they were, was faster.
@1legomaster although a fantastic movie the parts you mention were not very accurate, The hood never was able to bring all her guns to bear as shown and the Prince of Wales was also much closer to the Hood when she blew up actually having to take evasive action to avoid a collision with flaming wreckage, Lutjens was hesitant to give orders to open fire and engage as it was against his primary orders, but Lindemann would have none of that and gave the order to open fire after the 2nd request.
This is one of the best war movies in terms of historical accuracy. While there may be one or two things they get wrong like the Bismarck shooting down a few Swordfish torpedo bombers it is more accurate than most war movies made now a days.
At the Battle Of Jutland in 1916, four British battle cruisers (predecessors of the Hood class) blew up with few or no survivors, apparently for the same reason the Hood was destroyed: a single shell penetrated to the ammunition and propellant storage, ignited fires, and detonated the ship's own explosives.
@tgcnow Accept what you say about the Hood but recent TV documentary said the Jutland losses were due to stockpiling explosive charges at "choke" points on the supply chain. The priority was to maintain the rate of fire at all costs but charges had to be manhandled. Most of this was done by 16-17 year old boys and to avoid delay they were allowed to hold extra charges this caused a chain reaction that went right down to the magazines.
@freebeerfordworkers I have heard that theory, but, under the circumstances, there is no way to verify poor ammunition handling on the ships that were destroyed. Is there any documentation of such practices on other ships?
My understanding is that, in the ships sunk at Jutland, the flaw was in the design of the turrets and magazines, which allowed a powerful enough explosion to reach the ammunition storage spaces.
@tgcnow The documentary was on a main British channel - BBC or ITV. With modern journalists love of exposing official "cover ups" they said it was the conclusion of a report completed in the early 1930's by senior officers. The line was those responsible were still serving in the top ranks & had an interest in keeping quiet. In the RN then battleship gunnery officers were a very select group sharing experience so it is probable bad handling was common on all ships, which is how they knew.
@tgcnow its as simple as this: hood was NOT a battleship. it was a battlecruiser - a compromise whereby the ship sacrificed armour for speed, but kept the battleship armament. fact is bismarck was no match for any modern british battleship from rodney + nelson onwards, it could just outrun them. had the prince of wales been fully operational, it couldve probably taken on both of these ships with relative ease.
@StormBurn88 "The Royal Navy conducted two inquiries into the reasons for the ship's quick demise. The first, held very quickly after the ship's loss, concluded that Hood's aft magazine had exploded after one of Bismarck's shells penetrated the ship's armour. "
@barrhavener britain doesnt do worse than germany at all. germany has 20m more people and has a proportionately bigger economy. germany however is now stagnating, britain is growing at 1%.... and the euro will drag germany down with it (unfortunately, having spent a good few months of my life in germany, i know for a fact it is a great country.) and the british empire was done in by the americans, who bankrupted us charging for their "help" in world war 2.
Interesting to note is that the Hood was never able to fire a full broadside at either German Ship, and that Lutjens was hesitant on giving the order to fire even after the Bismarks gunnery officer requested twice. Lindemann intervened and stated ""Ich lasse mir doch nicht mein Schiff unter dem Arsch wegschießen. Feuererlaubnis"!. (I'm not letting my ship get shot out from under my ass. Open fire!).
@StormBurn88 Actually The Prinz Eugen scored the first hits on the Hood at 5.57 with a salvo from her 8 inch guns that struck aft and started a large fire, after firing a total of 6 salvos at the Hood she was ordered to shift her fire to the Prince of Wales and scored the first hits on her with her 2nd salvo. Bismark kept fire on the hood and at least one shell from the Bismarks 5th salvo penetrated the Hoods deck armour reaching the rear magazine which finished her off in less then 8 minutes
@kenc1161 The German Navy had some appreciation of radar. Since the building of the 3 pocket battleships, all subsequent German capital ships had radar directed guns. Strangely, the German navy never used radar for sea or aircraft search.
@kenc1161 hood was still a capital ship. however it had never been tested in battle for example. they also underestimated the skill of bismarcks gunners, so the outcome here was no forgone conclusion.. the hoped for (and without the benefit of hindsight, the likely) probable outcome was that these ships would smash 10 kinds of shit out of each other, then break off the engagement with heavy damage requiring massive repairs on both sides. the navy had other battleships, germany only had bismarck.
@hogalog Very True, but things might of gone better for the Brits if they had followed the original battle plan, using the Norfolk and Suffolk to engage the Prince Eugen, and the Hood & POW to engage Bismark with there 4 escort destroyers causing havok, but the many blunders like detaching the destroyers just 3 hours earlier and a tragic misguided order to change course to try to reduce the range gave up there huge tactical advantage. But then what could we talk about 70 years later.
@hogalog But the German Navy actually had 4 Battleships, Bismark, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, and 6 Very Heavy cruisers that outclassed any in the British Fleet.
Deutschland, Admiral Scheer, Admiral Graf Spee, Prinz Eugen,Blucher, Admiral Hipper. They also had 2 Pre-Dreadnaught battleships Schleswig-Holstein, and Schleisen. All these ships saw combat and have interesting stories. well worth the read for anybody interested in stuff like that.
@kenc1161 the british had repulse and renown, 2 cruisers that despite their age far outclassed any german cruiser. a pre dreadnaught was almost worthless in world war 2 and at this time, tirpitz hadnt ben built, scharnhorst and gneisenau were crippled and being repaired (and were only heavy cruisers anyway) and tirpitz had only just had its keel laid down.
@hogalog as I said earlier if your really interested in things like the small German surface fleet in WW11 do a little more research. I wont get into a debate on opinion since everybody has one, but I will post facts. Tirpitz was laid down in 1936 as Bismark and would be completed in Feb 1941, The Scharnhorst & Gneisenau were considered Battleships/Battle cruisers as Hood and where having there boilers repaired from a sortie earlier in Feb, Neither ship will be heavily damaged until July 1941.
@hogalog The Repulse & Renown were Both BattleCruisers and of course they could outgun the German Heavy cruisers but were slower then the Pocket Battle ships of the Deutchland class or Hipper heavy cruiser class, The Germans banked on that and all had ongoing orders to avoid battles with allied heavys and only concentrate on merchant shipping. The 2 "almost worthless Pre-Dreadnaughts" both proved there worth. There is a great video here of the Schleswig-Holstein firing first shots of the war.
@kenc1161 yes but we arent on about bombing around the atlantic sinking unarmed merchantmen, or shelling poland.... we are on about matching the royal navy in battle, which the germans stood absolutely no chance of doing. im also aware of the tactical limitations of the royal navy commanders, this was nothing new, they did their best to fuck jutland up aswell but won by sheer weight of numbers.
@hogalog It was never about matching fleets, Germany being a defeated power for the most part had to abide by the Washington Treaty more so then the 5 super powers that monitored it and could never of had the numbers or could even come close to the numbers the brits had, if they did we would all love the polka and saur kraut right now because it would not of been fair....That just my opinion...
@kenc1161 theres a good book called "operation sealion", i forget who the author was. its an alternative history based around a german invasion of britain actually going ahead. even with massive air and land superiority, the german invasion still would have failed - germany had lost the minute britain declared war on them, it was all just a matter of time and method.
@hogalog thanks I will check it out, I used to have a computer game called Panzer General that had that scenerio, but with actual available forces, I liked it so much I could win with either lol.
@kenc1161 the whole of britain was set up for defence in depth, to draw them in and defeat them in a war of attrition. they were going to destroy all lorries/railway rolling stock etc that they couldnt move in time, kill all the draft animals, burn all the food etc. scorched earth in the retreat, to mean the germans would have to bring in everything from across the sea and it just couldnt be done. britain wouldve won within days.
@kenc1161 oh aye, since 1066 nobody has succeeded.... and we were usually fighting among ourselves for most of that time ;) i live in county durham and the amount of castles and battlefields from the wars with the scotch is incredible.... theres also still evident bomb damage from world war 2 in sunderland, hartlepool and middlesbrough.
@kenc1161 British Fleet 1939 19 Battleships/Battlecruisers 9 more competed during war including 5 KGV class. 7 Aircraft carriers 6 more completed 15 Heavy Cruisers 41 Light Cruisers 9 more competed 8 AA Cruisers 16 more completed 113 modern destroyers 24 more completed 68 old destroyers 53 modern subs 11 more completed 54 escorts 80 more completed 44 minesweepers 10 more completed Pre-Dreadnaught 2.
It was sheer madness to take that on with the 119 ships they had...
@kenc1161 But imagine having to deal with 19 or more of the Bismark Class Battleships, scary to think they had 11 of these in various stages of construction.
@kenc1161 I dont know where you get your numbers?? We did NOT complete 9 battleships/battlecruisers during ww2. Only the 5 KG5 class, and if these are not included in the 19 you quote at start of war, then that means we had only 10, not 19. All we had during the war was. 5 Revenge class, 5 QE class, 5 KG5 class, Hood and the two Repulse class ships = 18 in total, yet you say 19 + 9 more completed in war?
I am not sure if they could make the explosion bigger in a bath tab (I mean making special effects those days). The film maker actually did a very good job with just toy ships, making it look quite realistic.
That can be problem if this film is published in today's blu ray technology (like "the Longest Day").
If they re-make this film (like "Pearl Harbour"), they would surely use computer graphics which looks like a comic book to me.
The actor at 5.42 was the late Esmond Knight. He was a naval officer on the bridge HMS Prince of Wales during this epic naval action. What you see here was a recreation of what he actually experienced twenty years earlier. The action caused him to lose the sight of an eye.
@admiralfaffy "Launched in 1939, the Bismarck carried a formidable array of weaponry – 8 x 15 inch guns, 12 x 5.9 inch guns, 16 x 4.1 inch AA guns, 16 x 20mm AA guns and 2 x Arado 96 aircraft." Sorry, I think I'm right about Bismarck's guns and you're mistaken. Perhaps you are thinking about the British battleships she fought, which were armed with 14" guns.
Besides, I was referring to the 15" guns on the British battleship Vanguard, which doubled for the Hood in this film.
@MartyInLa The British battleship King George V had 14" guns, the Rodney had 16" guns (although that Mark of the gun was not considered very successful). The Bismarck did have 15" guns, as did the Hood, although of an earlier generation.
I was thinking while watching this amazingly realistic sequence that the Prince of Wales was sunk with heavy loss of life in December 1941, 6 months after this battle, by the Japanese air force.
the germans sounds lame in this video XD but i know the german is a proud people of the war history so there hows to blame is the dame britts who my whas fightingt my country in the 30 years war from sweden
In naval battles like the one depicted here, exactly how far apart were the ships when they lobbed shells at each other?
Movies like this one give the impression that they were fairly close, but weren't they much further apart then that? I've heard they were like about 10 miles or so.
How heavy was the typical shell that was fired at another ship?
@frantic1971 She pretty much did. An old ship the third shell hit her main magazine so she blew up and sank in 3 minutes taking 1400 men with her. Look up "HMS Hood sinking last survivor Ted Briggs". One of only 3 men to survive the sinking he passed away in 2008 and gives a good account of what happened.
@frantic1971 HMS Hood was built in 1920 as a fast battle cruiser, and hence she didn't have the thick deck armour of battleships of her size (about 44,000 tones). In the mid 1930's she did have a major refit and thicker armour was applied to he forward sections, but it was not fitted to her midships in attempt not to degrade her 35 knot top speed too much. The best held theory is that the Bismarks fifth salvo straddled her and one, or maybe two shell went through her lightly armoured mid ships.
She was struck by a 15in shell from Bismarck's aft turrets, which ignighted the ammunition in her 4in anti-air magazine, and the fire quickly spread to the aft 15in magazine which exploded ripping the ship in half and causing her to sink very quickly, while she was going under the forward magazines exploded, blowing the bow off (according to the evidence provided by the wreck) all but 3 of her crew were killed by the explosions or were pulled down as she sank
And a film that featured the last British Battleship in service at the time, HMS Vanguard. She was used to shoot the internal gunnery sequences for both the Hood and the Bismarck.
There's a problem here, the leading german ship was the Prinz Eugen, as a matter of fact, Admiral Holland, onboard HMS Hood believed Pz Eugen to be the Bismarck and thus gave the order to target the cruiser instead, while in PofWales they did realize Bismarck was the one on the back (and shot accordingly). Also, during the real engagement, the british were shooting to their right while the germans to their left, here it's shown the other way around. Great effects for a 1960 movie though :-)
This movie was made in 1960, and its so historically accurate (not totally but so much more so than most American junk), and I still find it, time after time after time, to be absolutely riveting! Terrific movie! The special effects are amazing - even for that time - the Bismarck looks exactly like the Bismarck, the Hood exactly like the Hood, the PoW exactly like the PoW. A stunning achievement, especially for that time! Bravo!
@CanadianKeiffer America and England have been allies for a very long time and anyone in there right mind will tell you the war would have been much different if america hadnt joined the european theater. just because canada doesnt have any thing to be proud of doesnt mean you have to downplay everyonelse. just because England owns you doesnt mean you have to kiss there ass.
The actor playing Captain of HMS Prince of Wales knew a thing or two about what happened-Esmond Knight was blinded and lucky not to be killed by a 15 incher from KMS Bismarck.Most around him in the compass platform were killed.
Of course, the film makers were limited by 1960 special-effects technology; but at the outset of the battle, the opposing ships were at such distance that their shells lasted almost a full minute in flight. Apparently, an updated, corrected version of this movie with computer-generated imagery and full surround sound was in the works at one of the British studios recently, but died in committee due to budget shortfalls. 'Tis pity, suh.
What a great WW2 movie, Mr. Kenneth More plays the part of a Royal Navy officer so well. I especially like the part in the beginning of the movie where he is taking over command and being shown around by the officer he is replacing. He runs a taut ship! I have seen this movie many times and have yet to tire of watching it. It is a fitting tribute to the brave officers and men of HMS Hood, all but three of whom were killed in action when the ship's powder magazines exploded. Rule Brittania!
Always liked this movie since I saw it as a boy. Kenneth More is one of the best Britain ever produced and I can happily watch still pictures of Dana Wynter. But why did they make Lutjens into a Nazi fanatic? He was anything but.
supposedly Captain Lindemann was heard to say " I will not let my ship be shot out from under my ass", when Lutjens initially refused to open fire first, per his orders that the Bismarck was NOT to engage capital ships.
A small piece of historical trivia...Esmonde Knight , who plays Captain Leach of the Prince of Wales, was actually a leftennant on the POW when she was in the fight with the Bismarck...He lost his left eye, later became an actor, and insisted on playing this role in the movie.
@prudenceislandboy Another piece of trivia: Lutjens is portrayed as a fervent Nazi, but in reality he was hardly that. He was frowned upon by the German high command when, in the late '30's he disobeyed an order to have one of his officers removed because he was Jewish. Also, when Hitler came aboard before the Bismark set sail for her on and only mission, Lutjens refused to give him the Nazi salute, settling for the more traditional naval salute.
In the real action, the shell that hit the Prince of Wales' bridge did not explode, but passed right through - in one side and out the other. The casualties were caused by fragments of the compass binnacle, which was in the path of the shell. The captain was the only one left on his feet. POW actually hit the Bismarck twice, destroying the supply from the forward fuel tanks. This would prove critical later on.
@SRGW USS Mount Hood AE11 WW2 ammunition ship blew up and killed the entire crew of 350 in 1944 no remains of the crew were found and dozens of sailors killed on nearby ships. Seems being on ship named Hood in WW2 was not good for your health
immerhinn das zweit größte schlachtschiff aller zeiten .. nach dem japanischen schlachtschiff .. gedenket alle den kriegern und opfern , aber ehret den kämpfern !
maybe I am wrong, but I think the ships were missplaced in this movie. On the original charts of this engagement I saw that Bismarck came from north west and Hood came from east by south east.
They take much longer to ensure maximum safety in the Iowa video, particularly with the charges, mainly because they aren't in a battle situation. Hood on the other hand had to load quickly since 50000 tons of Kriegsmarine was bearing down on her.
Also, this loading sequence was from the HMS Vanguard, a far more modern ship than the Hood.
The gun mounts on Vanguard were almost identical 15" mk1 mounts of ww11 vintage which had been in storage after the Glorious and Courageous were converted to aircraft carriers.
Hood had 15" mk2 mounts with a little more elevation but the loading drill was almost the same if not identical.
In Spanish: From Venezuela. In the Malvinas war (1982) pilotos argentinos in obsoletos aviones llegaron a hundir buques ingleses que tenian valor por hasta 500 millones de dólares!!!
@farmerned6 Hi...from Venezuela: Yeah...is correct....only one things, HURRA for the pilots argentinos poor in equiment and short of experience...sorry for my english....
In Spanish: From Norte del sur: Venezuela; Busquen en internet un trabajo titulado: La Batalla que Nunca Fue. Se trata DEL COMO PUDO HABER SIDO UN ENCUENTRO ENTRE EL BISMARCK ALEMAN Y EL IOWA NORTEAMERICANO EN 1943. Pista busquen en acero y vapor.
In reality, Admiral Lutjens orderd Bismarck not to engage, since that wasn't her mission. However, captain Lindemann, after taking a number of salvos, said "I will not have my ship be shot out from under my ass," and he gave the order to engage
The funny thing is that Hood and Prince of Wales took Prinz Eugen under fire first. From the far it looked like the Bismarck. Prince of Wales noticed after a while that they made a mistake and started to fire at Bismarck without Hood.
The actor playing the captain of the Prince of Wales actually served on that ship as a junior officer during this action, Esmonde Knight. He was wounded by a splinter created by the shell that passed through the bridge. He nearly lost his eyesight permanently but recovered later.
In the real battle, the 15-inch shell that hit Prince Of Wales in the bridge did not explode, but passed right through, destroying the compass binnacle on the way. The splinters killed and wounded everyone on the bridge, except the Captain. Meanwhile, a 14-inch shell from POW had hit Bismark, destroying lines to the forward fuel tanks, and making the fuel in them inaccessible.
HOW DARE YOU SIR! HOW VERY MCUH DARE YOU! To call the Hodd an AMERICAN ship? The scandel... you blaggard. I ought to string you up by the highest yard arm at chatam docks!
The facts are that the US Navy never built a single battlecruiser. The only class of battlecruiser ever planned for the US Navy was the Lexington class. However, 4 of the hulls were cancelled, and the other 2, Lexington and Saratoga, were converted to carriers. Other than that, the fact is that the US Navy never commissioned a Battlecruiser
Frankydman, Well if it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it may in fact be a duck. I am slightly versed in Naval "stuff" and I am a BB buff of sorts. The US Navy had CLs, CAs and CBs, Cruiser Light; Cruiser Armored; and Cruiser B? I am assuming Cruiser Battle. For the unfamiliar here are some facts on CB-1&CB-2.
Displacement 27,000 Tons
Armament 9 x 12"/50 12 x 5/38AA
Speed, 33 Knots, Crew 1517.
9x12 inch guns an 33 knots would of made old "Jackie" Fisher happy!!
Look, I am not trying to argue with you; in fact it just so happens that I read somewhere that it is actually debateable whether they were battlecruisers or "Large Cruisers," though I have read at least 3 sources where they were described as "Large Cruisers"
Look, don't blame me, blame my sources, any information I post is from a source that I found online, so I am not to blame.
Battleships and Battlecruisers by Richard Humble ISBN 0890096236 page 167, refers to them as Battle Cruisers. The Complete Encyclopedia of Battleshipsm by Tony Gibbons, ISBN0-517-378108, page 268 they are referred to as "officially designated large cruisers (CB). Reason designated large cruisers is that they were not designed to engage BBs, but to counter other Battlecruisers (paraphrasing).
Here is what I read from "The Complete Encyclopedia of Battleships" page268:. . "They were not designed to engage battleships, but to counter the fast raiders of the Scharnhorst type believed to be under development by the Japanese Navy in the late 1930s." They were beautiful ships and were battlecruisers in every way except the US Navy called them large cruisers. I don't know how they handled, I have not seen much written about them. They were bigger than any German ship but Bismarck class.
Yes, direct copy out of the book, read it slowly, it will make sense. I looked it up Scharnhorst she was heavier than USS Alaska, but Alaska had more and bigger guns, a lot more guns especially in the AA category.
There is reason why the Alaska class could not be named Battlecruisers. The USN simply named them Large Cruisers so that their unique protectorate/territory naming scheme could hold (as opposed with states for BBs and cities for CA/CLs)
@Trek001 Ha-ha, well said. Historical fact, a Scot named John Paul, had a horrid temper. He joined the British Navy as a Captain, on his 1st voyage he shot a crewman for annoying him. He was to be hanged. He jumped ship, joined the colonists, added Jones as his surname, started the American Navy, and uttered the immortal words "I have not yet begun to fight".
2:51
Admiral Holland: "Blimey!"
kuribayashi84 1 week ago
What's the name of the movie. Please
goshoone 1 month ago
@goshoone "Sink the Bismarck".
CanadianKeiffer 1 week ago
Janes Fighting Ships pretty easy to look up, and should take you about as much time as it did to respond to a post that was not even directed at you. If you need some help just input British Fleet 1939 order of battle...
Enjoy yourself
kenc1161 1 month ago
According to Janes fighting Ships used by the world since 1898, The five Deutchland Class Heavy Cruisers were at the time the newest most advanced and heavily armed and armored Heavy Cruisers of there class, the large passive sonar array and magnetic amplifier technology used in there fire control systems so impressed the allies that the captured systems from the Prinz Eugen were used by the americans after the war the array even being installed on the sub USS Flying Fish in 1945
kenc1161 1 month ago
@kenc1161 sorry correction the 5 Hipper class Heavy Cruisers, The Deutchland class were the so called pocket battleships..
Peace
kenc1161 1 month ago
It is interesting to note that despite England was the great sea power, Germany made ships that were far better than the british skips. Bismarck was a far better ship than the King George V-class, and Prinz Eugen was a far better heavy cruiser than the Norfolk, Suffolk, and Dorsetshire. Rodney wad old, did only 23 knots, but had 16 inches guns. Bismarck did 30 knots with 15 inches guns. King George V and Prince of Wales had only 14 inch guns and did only 28 knots.
Skallagrim414 1 month ago
@Skallagrim414 KGV class were much better armoured, and the 14 inch gun performed better, it also provided for a heavier broadside. it is a myth that bismarck/tirpitz were better ships, because they werent. what they were, was faster.
hogalog 1 month ago
4:44 to 6:06 was amazingly accurate. The full on chase was stunning. I must see this whole movie. Looks amazing :)
1legomaster 2 months ago
@1legomaster although a fantastic movie the parts you mention were not very accurate, The hood never was able to bring all her guns to bear as shown and the Prince of Wales was also much closer to the Hood when she blew up actually having to take evasive action to avoid a collision with flaming wreckage, Lutjens was hesitant to give orders to open fire and engage as it was against his primary orders, but Lindemann would have none of that and gave the order to open fire after the 2nd request.
kenc1161 1 month ago
Thanks for informing me. Not really much of a WW2 fan :)
1legomaster 1 month ago
ENGLISH ship Hood?
mrgeorgeallison 2 months ago
@species6339 it shows that we British don't mess around. Rule Britannia!!!!!
madmouse71 3 months ago
Do you realize that the Turpitz and the Bismarck are almost 3 times the size of a British cruiser?
madmouse71 3 months ago
@madmouse71 Then hail the British spirit for taking on a superior enemy, what does that say about us!!!
species6339 3 months ago in playlist War 2
This is one of the best war movies in terms of historical accuracy. While there may be one or two things they get wrong like the Bismarck shooting down a few Swordfish torpedo bombers it is more accurate than most war movies made now a days.
Mustang84211 3 months ago
Its amazing the effort needed to load the main guns on the H.M.S Hood.
species6339 3 months ago in playlist War 2
me gustaria ver un remake de esta pelicula, antes del fin del mundo
batleamster23 4 months ago
At the Battle Of Jutland in 1916, four British battle cruisers (predecessors of the Hood class) blew up with few or no survivors, apparently for the same reason the Hood was destroyed: a single shell penetrated to the ammunition and propellant storage, ignited fires, and detonated the ship's own explosives.
tgcnow 5 months ago
@tgcnow Accept what you say about the Hood but recent TV documentary said the Jutland losses were due to stockpiling explosive charges at "choke" points on the supply chain. The priority was to maintain the rate of fire at all costs but charges had to be manhandled. Most of this was done by 16-17 year old boys and to avoid delay they were allowed to hold extra charges this caused a chain reaction that went right down to the magazines.
freebeerfordworkers 2 months ago
@freebeerfordworkers I have heard that theory, but, under the circumstances, there is no way to verify poor ammunition handling on the ships that were destroyed. Is there any documentation of such practices on other ships?
My understanding is that, in the ships sunk at Jutland, the flaw was in the design of the turrets and magazines, which allowed a powerful enough explosion to reach the ammunition storage spaces.
tgcnow 2 months ago
@tgcnow The documentary was on a main British channel - BBC or ITV. With modern journalists love of exposing official "cover ups" they said it was the conclusion of a report completed in the early 1930's by senior officers. The line was those responsible were still serving in the top ranks & had an interest in keeping quiet. In the RN then battleship gunnery officers were a very select group sharing experience so it is probable bad handling was common on all ships, which is how they knew.
freebeerfordworkers 2 months ago
@tgcnow its as simple as this: hood was NOT a battleship. it was a battlecruiser - a compromise whereby the ship sacrificed armour for speed, but kept the battleship armament. fact is bismarck was no match for any modern british battleship from rodney + nelson onwards, it could just outrun them. had the prince of wales been fully operational, it couldve probably taken on both of these ships with relative ease.
hogalog 1 month ago
are you an ignoramus? thats what happened one shot one kill, thats why it ws so shocking. one well placed shell.. same as the uss arizona
jlibertas 6 months ago
@StormBurn88 "The Royal Navy conducted two inquiries into the reasons for the ship's quick demise. The first, held very quickly after the ship's loss, concluded that Hood's aft magazine had exploded after one of Bismarck's shells penetrated the ship's armour. "
Ridley44Lev 7 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
out dated battleship sunk we won the war end of..now germany got a immigration problem with muslims....win that fucker lol
MrMilfhunter2003 7 months ago
@MrMilfhunter2003
And Germany does better than you guys economically today and is the only country that does well Europe.
And say bye to the British Empire today ---- the Sun had finally set long time ago when Hong Kong was returned to China.
barrhavener 2 months ago
@barrhavener Britain does okay for itself despite the bad economy. Something that you can't say is that Germany won both World Wars. Ha.
BlueonGoldZ 1 month ago
@barrhavener britain doesnt do worse than germany at all. germany has 20m more people and has a proportionately bigger economy. germany however is now stagnating, britain is growing at 1%.... and the euro will drag germany down with it (unfortunately, having spent a good few months of my life in germany, i know for a fact it is a great country.) and the british empire was done in by the americans, who bankrupted us charging for their "help" in world war 2.
hogalog 1 month ago
Interesting to note is that the Hood was never able to fire a full broadside at either German Ship, and that Lutjens was hesitant on giving the order to fire even after the Bismarks gunnery officer requested twice. Lindemann intervened and stated ""Ich lasse mir doch nicht mein Schiff unter dem Arsch wegschießen. Feuererlaubnis"!. (I'm not letting my ship get shot out from under my ass. Open fire!).
kenc1161 7 months ago 35
@StormBurn88 Actually The Prinz Eugen scored the first hits on the Hood at 5.57 with a salvo from her 8 inch guns that struck aft and started a large fire, after firing a total of 6 salvos at the Hood she was ordered to shift her fire to the Prince of Wales and scored the first hits on her with her 2nd salvo. Bismark kept fire on the hood and at least one shell from the Bismarks 5th salvo penetrated the Hoods deck armour reaching the rear magazine which finished her off in less then 8 minutes
kenc1161 7 months ago 26
@kenc1161 The German Navy had some appreciation of radar. Since the building of the 3 pocket battleships, all subsequent German capital ships had radar directed guns. Strangely, the German navy never used radar for sea or aircraft search.
tmenator 5 months ago
@tmenator The bismarck had radar for sea search, it just got knocked out when she first fired her guns at the Norfolk.
10995 5 months ago
@kenc1161
ROFL I just realised that in this film, the ships are in the exact OPPOSITE position to what they should be....
From memory PE also hit Hood with her second salvo (first salvo was a straddle).
And at the range Hood was hit the shell would had to have gone through verticle armour not horizontal.
notsureyou 4 months ago
@kenc1161 hood was a battlecruiser and no match for a battleship, it was as simple as that.
hogalog 1 month ago
@hogalog If the Brits believed that they would of never engaged but hindsight is cheap...
kenc1161 1 month ago
@kenc1161 hood was still a capital ship. however it had never been tested in battle for example. they also underestimated the skill of bismarcks gunners, so the outcome here was no forgone conclusion.. the hoped for (and without the benefit of hindsight, the likely) probable outcome was that these ships would smash 10 kinds of shit out of each other, then break off the engagement with heavy damage requiring massive repairs on both sides. the navy had other battleships, germany only had bismarck.
hogalog 1 month ago
@hogalog Very True, but things might of gone better for the Brits if they had followed the original battle plan, using the Norfolk and Suffolk to engage the Prince Eugen, and the Hood & POW to engage Bismark with there 4 escort destroyers causing havok, but the many blunders like detaching the destroyers just 3 hours earlier and a tragic misguided order to change course to try to reduce the range gave up there huge tactical advantage. But then what could we talk about 70 years later.
Peace..
kenc1161 1 month ago
@hogalog But the German Navy actually had 4 Battleships, Bismark, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, and 6 Very Heavy cruisers that outclassed any in the British Fleet.
Deutschland, Admiral Scheer, Admiral Graf Spee, Prinz Eugen,Blucher, Admiral Hipper. They also had 2 Pre-Dreadnaught battleships Schleswig-Holstein, and Schleisen. All these ships saw combat and have interesting stories. well worth the read for anybody interested in stuff like that.
kenc1161 1 month ago
@kenc1161 the british had repulse and renown, 2 cruisers that despite their age far outclassed any german cruiser. a pre dreadnaught was almost worthless in world war 2 and at this time, tirpitz hadnt ben built, scharnhorst and gneisenau were crippled and being repaired (and were only heavy cruisers anyway) and tirpitz had only just had its keel laid down.
hogalog 1 month ago
@hogalog as I said earlier if your really interested in things like the small German surface fleet in WW11 do a little more research. I wont get into a debate on opinion since everybody has one, but I will post facts. Tirpitz was laid down in 1936 as Bismark and would be completed in Feb 1941, The Scharnhorst & Gneisenau were considered Battleships/Battle cruisers as Hood and where having there boilers repaired from a sortie earlier in Feb, Neither ship will be heavily damaged until July 1941.
kenc1161 1 month ago
@hogalog The Repulse & Renown were Both BattleCruisers and of course they could outgun the German Heavy cruisers but were slower then the Pocket Battle ships of the Deutchland class or Hipper heavy cruiser class, The Germans banked on that and all had ongoing orders to avoid battles with allied heavys and only concentrate on merchant shipping. The 2 "almost worthless Pre-Dreadnaughts" both proved there worth. There is a great video here of the Schleswig-Holstein firing first shots of the war.
kenc1161 1 month ago
@kenc1161 yes but we arent on about bombing around the atlantic sinking unarmed merchantmen, or shelling poland.... we are on about matching the royal navy in battle, which the germans stood absolutely no chance of doing. im also aware of the tactical limitations of the royal navy commanders, this was nothing new, they did their best to fuck jutland up aswell but won by sheer weight of numbers.
hogalog 1 month ago
@hogalog It was never about matching fleets, Germany being a defeated power for the most part had to abide by the Washington Treaty more so then the 5 super powers that monitored it and could never of had the numbers or could even come close to the numbers the brits had, if they did we would all love the polka and saur kraut right now because it would not of been fair....That just my opinion...
the exchange has been fun hog
kenc1161 1 month ago
@kenc1161 theres a good book called "operation sealion", i forget who the author was. its an alternative history based around a german invasion of britain actually going ahead. even with massive air and land superiority, the german invasion still would have failed - germany had lost the minute britain declared war on them, it was all just a matter of time and method.
hogalog 1 month ago
@hogalog thanks I will check it out, I used to have a computer game called Panzer General that had that scenerio, but with actual available forces, I liked it so much I could win with either lol.
kenc1161 1 month ago
@kenc1161 the whole of britain was set up for defence in depth, to draw them in and defeat them in a war of attrition. they were going to destroy all lorries/railway rolling stock etc that they couldnt move in time, kill all the draft animals, burn all the food etc. scorched earth in the retreat, to mean the germans would have to bring in everything from across the sea and it just couldnt be done. britain wouldve won within days.
hogalog 1 month ago
@hogalog The Brits have been destoying foes attempting to cross the pond since the begining of time, Id say they are pretty freaking good at it...
kenc1161 1 month ago
@kenc1161 oh aye, since 1066 nobody has succeeded.... and we were usually fighting among ourselves for most of that time ;) i live in county durham and the amount of castles and battlefields from the wars with the scotch is incredible.... theres also still evident bomb damage from world war 2 in sunderland, hartlepool and middlesbrough.
hogalog 1 month ago
@kenc1161 British Fleet 1939 19 Battleships/Battlecruisers 9 more competed during war including 5 KGV class. 7 Aircraft carriers 6 more completed 15 Heavy Cruisers 41 Light Cruisers 9 more competed 8 AA Cruisers 16 more completed 113 modern destroyers 24 more completed 68 old destroyers 53 modern subs 11 more completed 54 escorts 80 more completed 44 minesweepers 10 more completed Pre-Dreadnaught 2.
It was sheer madness to take that on with the 119 ships they had...
kenc1161 1 month ago
@kenc1161 But imagine having to deal with 19 or more of the Bismark Class Battleships, scary to think they had 11 of these in various stages of construction.
kenc1161 1 month ago
@kenc1161 I dont know where you get your numbers?? We did NOT complete 9 battleships/battlecruisers during ww2. Only the 5 KG5 class, and if these are not included in the 19 you quote at start of war, then that means we had only 10, not 19. All we had during the war was. 5 Revenge class, 5 QE class, 5 KG5 class, Hood and the two Repulse class ships = 18 in total, yet you say 19 + 9 more completed in war?
admiraldma 1 month ago
The funny thing is, the explosion of the real-life Hood was much bigger.
Thoralmir 8 months ago 2
@Thoralmir
I am not sure if they could make the explosion bigger in a bath tab (I mean making special effects those days). The film maker actually did a very good job with just toy ships, making it look quite realistic.
That can be problem if this film is published in today's blu ray technology (like "the Longest Day").
If they re-make this film (like "Pearl Harbour"), they would surely use computer graphics which looks like a comic book to me.
barrhavener 2 months ago
@StormBurn88 No, but it was blown in half on the 5th salvo.
Thoralmir 8 months ago 2
70 YEARS AGO THIS DAY---THIS SCENE.
DOLRED 9 months ago
1 person must be a Jerman :P
emochiken99 9 months ago
@emochiken99 Jerman? Well, I am German, too, and I like the movie anyways. It just shows what happened.
LeutholdJR 7 months ago
@CallicoJackracham yes I am related to Admiral Gunther Lutjens
animalloverforever42 9 months ago
Comment removed
animalloverforever42 9 months ago
The actor at 5.42 was the late Esmond Knight. He was a naval officer on the bridge HMS Prince of Wales during this epic naval action. What you see here was a recreation of what he actually experienced twenty years earlier. The action caused him to lose the sight of an eye.
DigbyCaballero 10 months ago
Prince Of Wales survived this battle only to be sunk by the Japanese air force near Singapore in December 1941.
STP43FAN1 10 months ago
OMG if Project 24 was fighting he would already knock those 4 ships into the bottom of the sea :/ =D
BlackDHbatman 11 months ago
Open fire when you have the range...OMG!
misterpeaky 11 months ago
Comment removed
BlackDHbatman 11 months ago
UBELIEVABLE, yeoman whered the Hood go?
Yeoman: .......... I dont quite know sir, I cant see..... theres a black cloud in the way.
admiralfaffy 1 year ago
the hood was PWNED!!!!!
gold384 1 year ago
@gold384 What the fuck does that mean?
Pitcairn2 2 months ago
I swear, I never get tired of watching those amazing 15" guns being loaded. I've probably watched this scene a thousand times,
MartyInLa 1 year ago
@MartyInLa Sorry to raid on ur naval parade but the Bismarck was equipped with eight 14 inch guns not 15 inchers.
admiralfaffy 1 year ago
@admiralfaffy
Wrong. 15 inch (38cm) is correct.
I always get a laugh at the German bridge officers looking out through fogged over binocs.
cv6enterprises 11 months ago
@MartyInLa Sorry to raid on ur naval parade, but the Bismarck was equipped with eight 14 inch guns not 15 inchers.
admiralfaffy 1 year ago
@admiralfaffy "Launched in 1939, the Bismarck carried a formidable array of weaponry – 8 x 15 inch guns, 12 x 5.9 inch guns, 16 x 4.1 inch AA guns, 16 x 20mm AA guns and 2 x Arado 96 aircraft." Sorry, I think I'm right about Bismarck's guns and you're mistaken. Perhaps you are thinking about the British battleships she fought, which were armed with 14" guns.
Besides, I was referring to the 15" guns on the British battleship Vanguard, which doubled for the Hood in this film.
MartyInLa 10 months ago
@MartyInLa The British battleship King George V had 14" guns, the Rodney had 16" guns (although that Mark of the gun was not considered very successful). The Bismarck did have 15" guns, as did the Hood, although of an earlier generation.
Luapside 9 months ago
I have Christmas cards from the crew of the Hood.
Bloody Royal mail I got them this Christmas. :-)
0ddba1l 1 year ago
I was thinking while watching this amazingly realistic sequence that the Prince of Wales was sunk with heavy loss of life in December 1941, 6 months after this battle, by the Japanese air force.
Pearsey 1 year ago
Amazing took entire home fleet to sink on battleship lucky Rirptiz wasn't there home fleet would have been lost
DocMEDICK 1 year ago
there are some naval historians who have said that it may have actually been the Prinz Eugen's shells that blew up the Hood.
sdcow 1 year ago
Wasnt some of the footage here filmed on the Vanguard?
HuntersChaseTheBand 1 year ago
@HuntersChaseTheBand Yes it was. The scenes of the crews running up companionways and loading the guns are on Vanguard.
PenzancePete 1 year ago
I am related to the admiral of the Bismark!!
animalloverforever42 1 year ago
@animalloverforever42 related to admiral Gunther Lutjens?
CallicoJackracham 9 months ago
Kenns9 he's saying right gun shell. Right gun 1st half charge. Right gun 2nd half charge!
farmboy009 1 year ago
Sooo stupid... just a few cheap aeroplanes could sink a monster like Bismack and 2000 men dead. Ships of that age were in fact too weak.
TK2008BEST 1 year ago
the germans sounds lame in this video XD but i know the german is a proud people of the war history so there hows to blame is the dame britts who my whas fightingt my country in the 30 years war from sweden
loppan109 1 year ago
In naval battles like the one depicted here, exactly how far apart were the ships when they lobbed shells at each other?
Movies like this one give the impression that they were fairly close, but weren't they much further apart then that? I've heard they were like about 10 miles or so.
How heavy was the typical shell that was fired at another ship?
farmerne 1 year ago
@farmerne In the official admiralty report into the loss of HMS Hood, it says the range between Hood and Bismark was about 16,500 yards
stashyjon 1 year ago
what is the guy loading the mains screaming???
kenns9 1 year ago
What happened with the Hood? It looks in the movie like a single German shell completly destroyed the ship.
frantic1971 1 year ago
@frantic1971 She pretty much did. An old ship the third shell hit her main magazine so she blew up and sank in 3 minutes taking 1400 men with her. Look up "HMS Hood sinking last survivor Ted Briggs". One of only 3 men to survive the sinking he passed away in 2008 and gives a good account of what happened.
freebeerfordworkers 1 year ago
@frantic1971 that actually happend, it hit the ammo room or whatever u call it
scids225 1 year ago
@scids225
You mean the magazine
snakes3425 1 year ago
@frantic1971 HMS Hood was built in 1920 as a fast battle cruiser, and hence she didn't have the thick deck armour of battleships of her size (about 44,000 tones). In the mid 1930's she did have a major refit and thicker armour was applied to he forward sections, but it was not fitted to her midships in attempt not to degrade her 35 knot top speed too much. The best held theory is that the Bismarks fifth salvo straddled her and one, or maybe two shell went through her lightly armoured mid ships.
stashyjon 1 year ago
@frantic1971
She was struck by a 15in shell from Bismarck's aft turrets, which ignighted the ammunition in her 4in anti-air magazine, and the fire quickly spread to the aft 15in magazine which exploded ripping the ship in half and causing her to sink very quickly, while she was going under the forward magazines exploded, blowing the bow off (according to the evidence provided by the wreck) all but 3 of her crew were killed by the explosions or were pulled down as she sank
snakes3425 1 year ago
wahahaha! uss hood? hahahaha
mamalugi12 1 year ago
And a film that featured the last British Battleship in service at the time, HMS Vanguard. She was used to shoot the internal gunnery sequences for both the Hood and the Bismarck.
KiwiKugai 1 year ago
Very good movie. Thanks for uploading this scene!
stealth4386 1 year ago
There's a problem here, the leading german ship was the Prinz Eugen, as a matter of fact, Admiral Holland, onboard HMS Hood believed Pz Eugen to be the Bismarck and thus gave the order to target the cruiser instead, while in PofWales they did realize Bismarck was the one on the back (and shot accordingly). Also, during the real engagement, the british were shooting to their right while the germans to their left, here it's shown the other way around. Great effects for a 1960 movie though :-)
UserNumber777 1 year ago
This movie was made in 1960, and its so historically accurate (not totally but so much more so than most American junk), and I still find it, time after time after time, to be absolutely riveting! Terrific movie! The special effects are amazing - even for that time - the Bismarck looks exactly like the Bismarck, the Hood exactly like the Hood, the PoW exactly like the PoW. A stunning achievement, especially for that time! Bravo!
CanadianKeiffer 1 year ago 5
@CanadianKeiffer America and England have been allies for a very long time and anyone in there right mind will tell you the war would have been much different if america hadnt joined the european theater. just because canada doesnt have any thing to be proud of doesnt mean you have to downplay everyonelse. just because England owns you doesnt mean you have to kiss there ass.
WinchesterMod94 11 months ago
@WinchesterMod94 lol il pwn your little face if its needed
BlackDHbatman 11 months ago
The actor playing Captain of HMS Prince of Wales knew a thing or two about what happened-Esmond Knight was blinded and lucky not to be killed by a 15 incher from KMS Bismarck.Most around him in the compass platform were killed.
fokjock 1 year ago
Of course, the film makers were limited by 1960 special-effects technology; but at the outset of the battle, the opposing ships were at such distance that their shells lasted almost a full minute in flight. Apparently, an updated, corrected version of this movie with computer-generated imagery and full surround sound was in the works at one of the British studios recently, but died in committee due to budget shortfalls. 'Tis pity, suh.
gbwisconsin 1 year ago
What a great WW2 movie, Mr. Kenneth More plays the part of a Royal Navy officer so well. I especially like the part in the beginning of the movie where he is taking over command and being shown around by the officer he is replacing. He runs a taut ship! I have seen this movie many times and have yet to tire of watching it. It is a fitting tribute to the brave officers and men of HMS Hood, all but three of whom were killed in action when the ship's powder magazines exploded. Rule Brittania!
palapescada 1 year ago
Always liked this movie since I saw it as a boy. Kenneth More is one of the best Britain ever produced and I can happily watch still pictures of Dana Wynter. But why did they make Lutjens into a Nazi fanatic? He was anything but.
yamsid 1 year ago
Modern Britain is virtually owned and controlled by USA, but her war ships still carry the prefix HMS.
To prefix the Hood as USS is spectacularly ignorant.
CaptBubble 1 year ago
Lol, I love it: "Those are not cruisers! They are battleships!"
DarthOrbit 1 year ago 4
His Majesty's Ship
kevinkards1 1 year ago
sink the BISMARK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
5678simon 1 year ago
I've loved this movie since I saw it as a child.
I have models of the Bismarck, the Hood, the Prince of Wales, and the Arc Royal.
magnus802701 1 year ago
Great video
tron2102 1 year ago
supposedly Captain Lindemann was heard to say " I will not let my ship be shot out from under my ass", when Lutjens initially refused to open fire first, per his orders that the Bismarck was NOT to engage capital ships.
prudenceislandboy 1 year ago
The two guys shouting Shoot! and Fire! are having an unrelated argument with each other over the phone as to which is the correct term to use.
IMelkor42 1 year ago
@IMelkor42
That was for the benefit of the viewing audience, so they'd know for certain between the German and Brit.
benhurfanclub 1 year ago
A small piece of historical trivia...Esmonde Knight , who plays Captain Leach of the Prince of Wales, was actually a leftennant on the POW when she was in the fight with the Bismarck...He lost his left eye, later became an actor, and insisted on playing this role in the movie.
prudenceislandboy 1 year ago
@prudenceislandboy Another piece of trivia: Lutjens is portrayed as a fervent Nazi, but in reality he was hardly that. He was frowned upon by the German high command when, in the late '30's he disobeyed an order to have one of his officers removed because he was Jewish. Also, when Hitler came aboard before the Bismark set sail for her on and only mission, Lutjens refused to give him the Nazi salute, settling for the more traditional naval salute.
benhurfanclub 1 year ago
Either way this sequence gives a very rare look at how a 15 inch gun was loaded on a ww2 era battleship.
prudenceislandboy 1 year ago
In the real action, the shell that hit the Prince of Wales' bridge did not explode, but passed right through - in one side and out the other. The casualties were caused by fragments of the compass binnacle, which was in the path of the shell. The captain was the only one left on his feet. POW actually hit the Bismarck twice, destroying the supply from the forward fuel tanks. This would prove critical later on.
MarsFKA 1 year ago
They appear to be far closer together in the film than they actually were.
tincoffin 1 year ago
"USS" Hood? She was a British battleship, not american you dumb fool.
SRGW 1 year ago 2
@SRGW USS Mount Hood AE11 WW2 ammunition ship blew up and killed the entire crew of 350 in 1944 no remains of the crew were found and dozens of sailors killed on nearby ships. Seems being on ship named Hood in WW2 was not good for your health
jers59 1 year ago
@jers59 we have a mount hood her in oregon, hope she dont go
glynamus 1 year ago
@glynamus Move. Mt Hood will eventually go
jers59 1 year ago
immerhinn das zweit größte schlachtschiff aller zeiten .. nach dem japanischen schlachtschiff .. gedenket alle den kriegern und opfern , aber ehret den kämpfern !
seetangadler 2 years ago
maybe I am wrong, but I think the ships were missplaced in this movie. On the original charts of this engagement I saw that Bismarck came from north west and Hood came from east by south east.
NordJager 2 years ago
In the gun loading sequence the loader says "Right gun shell" twice, implying he loaded two shells into the gun...
After that he says "Right gun first half charge" and then "Right gun second half charge".
HelmutVillam 2 years ago
it would have been neat-o to see how the germans loaded thier big guns, but those beef eating English fellas sank em all!
hwoods01 2 years ago
seems to be a much quicker way of loading those guns than the "american" method on the Iowa class..
hwoods01 2 years ago
They take much longer to ensure maximum safety in the Iowa video, particularly with the charges, mainly because they aren't in a battle situation. Hood on the other hand had to load quickly since 50000 tons of Kriegsmarine was bearing down on her.
Also, this loading sequence was from the HMS Vanguard, a far more modern ship than the Hood.
HelmutVillam 2 years ago
The gun mounts on Vanguard were almost identical 15" mk1 mounts of ww11 vintage which had been in storage after the Glorious and Courageous were converted to aircraft carriers.
Hood had 15" mk2 mounts with a little more elevation but the loading drill was almost the same if not identical.
yorksgeezer 2 years ago
In Spanish: From Venezuela. In the Malvinas war (1982) pilotos argentinos in obsoletos aviones llegaron a hundir buques ingleses que tenian valor por hasta 500 millones de dólares!!!
eduarlambert 2 years ago
Argentinian super etendard entered service 1978 versus
RN sea harriers entered service 1978
obsoletos?
34 HARRIERS versus 220 STRIKE PLANES (121 jet fighters 10 bombers at least)
Falklands war 1982
farmerned6 2 years ago
In Spanish: Saludos...No super etendard...sino olds A-4 Skyhawk...search: la guerra aerea de las islas malvinas...
eduarlambert 2 years ago
2 Ships sunk by super etendard + exocets
1 by skyhawks and daggers
2 by skyhawks alone
Only the skyhawks were "old" 1966 & 1970 US Refurbished
the mirage's , dagger's & super etendard's were modern (70's),and all faster than the sea harriers
still odds of 6-1 in favour of Argentina
farmerned6 2 years ago
@farmerned6 Hi...from Venezuela: Yeah...is correct....only one things, HURRA for the pilots argentinos poor in equiment and short of experience...sorry for my english....
eduarlambert 2 years ago
In Spanish: From Venezuela. The Malvinas war; aviones antiguos hundieron barcos que costaban 500 millones de dólares....
eduarlambert 2 years ago
In Spanish: From Norte del sur: Venezuela; Busquen en internet un trabajo titulado: La Batalla que Nunca Fue. Se trata DEL COMO PUDO HABER SIDO UN ENCUENTRO ENTRE EL BISMARCK ALEMAN Y EL IOWA NORTEAMERICANO EN 1943. Pista busquen en acero y vapor.
eduarlambert 2 years ago
In reality, Admiral Lutjens orderd Bismarck not to engage, since that wasn't her mission. However, captain Lindemann, after taking a number of salvos, said "I will not have my ship be shot out from under my ass," and he gave the order to engage
frankydman 2 years ago
FROM VENEZUELA: IT IS CORRECT?
eduarlambert 2 years ago
If you are asking if what I said was correct, yes, I am correct.
If you are asking if the movie was correct, the answer is no. They only did it this way to make Lutjens look more like an antagonist
frankydman 2 years ago
The funny thing is that Hood and Prince of Wales took Prinz Eugen under fire first. From the far it looked like the Bismarck. Prince of Wales noticed after a while that they made a mistake and started to fire at Bismarck without Hood.
AnimePrayer 2 years ago
The actor playing the captain of the Prince of Wales actually served on that ship as a junior officer during this action, Esmonde Knight. He was wounded by a splinter created by the shell that passed through the bridge. He nearly lost his eyesight permanently but recovered later.
yorksgeezer 2 years ago
I have read his memoirs!!!! That man had so much honor in him, he was a true sailor, and gentleman.
NordJager 2 years ago
It was the HMS Hood, not the USS Hood
spookespook 2 years ago 2
In the real battle, the 15-inch shell that hit Prince Of Wales in the bridge did not explode, but passed right through, destroying the compass binnacle on the way. The splinters killed and wounded everyone on the bridge, except the Captain. Meanwhile, a 14-inch shell from POW had hit Bismark, destroying lines to the forward fuel tanks, and making the fuel in them inaccessible.
MarsFKA 2 years ago
Gun loading sequence and 15" gun shots were filmed on the last RN BB HMS Vanguard scraped almost as soon as the film crew left the ship!
elswick1542 2 years ago
Her name was HMS Hood you bloody prat!!!....
bertiecbx550 2 years ago 2
HOW DARE YOU SIR! HOW VERY MCUH DARE YOU! To call the Hodd an AMERICAN ship? The scandel... you blaggard. I ought to string you up by the highest yard arm at chatam docks!
Trek001 2 years ago 11
Hood....Hood.....not Hodd!
;) happy day.
Blain1971 2 years ago
YEAH! YOU TELL 'EM!!!!
spookespook 2 years ago
Yea! The US Never built a single battle cruiser anyway. The only battlecruisers it ever laid down were converted to carriers.
frankydman 2 years ago
The US Navy did in fact build two battle cruisers in World War II they were CB-1 USS Alaska and CB-2 USS Guam.
deltatank6 2 years ago
Actually they were classified as "Large Cruisers"
The facts are that the US Navy never built a single battlecruiser. The only class of battlecruiser ever planned for the US Navy was the Lexington class. However, 4 of the hulls were cancelled, and the other 2, Lexington and Saratoga, were converted to carriers. Other than that, the fact is that the US Navy never commissioned a Battlecruiser
Well, that's what I heard anyway.
frankydman 2 years ago
Frankydman, Well if it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it may in fact be a duck. I am slightly versed in Naval "stuff" and I am a BB buff of sorts. The US Navy had CLs, CAs and CBs, Cruiser Light; Cruiser Armored; and Cruiser B? I am assuming Cruiser Battle. For the unfamiliar here are some facts on CB-1&CB-2.
Displacement 27,000 Tons
Armament 9 x 12"/50 12 x 5/38AA
Speed, 33 Knots, Crew 1517.
9x12 inch guns an 33 knots would of made old "Jackie" Fisher happy!!
deltatank6 2 years ago
Look, I am not trying to argue with you; in fact it just so happens that I read somewhere that it is actually debateable whether they were battlecruisers or "Large Cruisers," though I have read at least 3 sources where they were described as "Large Cruisers"
Look, don't blame me, blame my sources, any information I post is from a source that I found online, so I am not to blame.
frankydman 2 years ago
In only 500 characters:
Battleships and Battlecruisers by Richard Humble ISBN 0890096236 page 167, refers to them as Battle Cruisers. The Complete Encyclopedia of Battleshipsm by Tony Gibbons, ISBN0-517-378108, page 268 they are referred to as "officially designated large cruisers (CB). Reason designated large cruisers is that they were not designed to engage BBs, but to counter other Battlecruisers (paraphrasing).
deltatank6 2 years ago
Really? I read that they were built to counter the German Pocket Battleships.
frankydman 2 years ago
Here is what I read from "The Complete Encyclopedia of Battleships" page268:. . "They were not designed to engage battleships, but to counter the fast raiders of the Scharnhorst type believed to be under development by the Japanese Navy in the late 1930s." They were beautiful ships and were battlecruisers in every way except the US Navy called them large cruisers. I don't know how they handled, I have not seen much written about them. They were bigger than any German ship but Bismarck class.
deltatank6 2 years ago
Uh, Scharnhoarst was a German ship (You said Japanese)
frankydman 2 years ago
Yes, direct copy out of the book, read it slowly, it will make sense. I looked it up Scharnhorst she was heavier than USS Alaska, but Alaska had more and bigger guns, a lot more guns especially in the AA category.
deltatank6 2 years ago
There is reason why the Alaska class could not be named Battlecruisers. The USN simply named them Large Cruisers so that their unique protectorate/territory naming scheme could hold (as opposed with states for BBs and cities for CA/CLs)
HelmutVillam 2 years ago
Well, if BBs were always named after states, then explain the USS Kearsarge (BB-5)
frankydman 2 years ago
Kearsarge was the only exception to the naming scheme, as it was named by congress. Every other BB was named after a state.
HelmutVillam 2 years ago
Comment removed
HelmutVillam 2 years ago
"At Chatham docks"
Or Better yet... the John Brown and Company Shipyards! (Where she was built)
frankydman 2 years ago
@Trek001 Ha-ha, well said. Historical fact, a Scot named John Paul, had a horrid temper. He joined the British Navy as a Captain, on his 1st voyage he shot a crewman for annoying him. He was to be hanged. He jumped ship, joined the colonists, added Jones as his surname, started the American Navy, and uttered the immortal words "I have not yet begun to fight".
locheelad2 1 year ago
@Trek001, the Hodd?
gbwisconsin 1 year ago
@Trek001 stfu. your blathering ruins the usual comments.
gold384 1 year ago