All or nothing concept?

Yes the best hope for IZ theory to work in practice is a daylight open water engagement where each ship is only going to be shot at by one ship. The Battle in the Denmark Straits between Bismark, Hood and POW is the closest example of this I can think of. Hood was, in theory, inside her immunity zone when she blew up.

 

...which should count as a point against the theory, IMHO!

 

Unfortunately theory is what you have to work with. Even in the age of computers you can't calculate the result of a strike on any part of the ship coming in at any angle from any size of shell. Even if you could there is no way of taking into account the 'dumb luck' factor. If we use Tiornu's example what theory or model is going to predict the course of an 8" shell after striking an icecream machine? You have to try to come up with a theory that will hopefully work most of the time.

 

True.
I was being frivolous, I'm afraid.
I have a tendancy to do so now and then...

btw - I enjoyed the 'how warships are designed' link! :lol:

 

I can assure you that Hood was not in her IZ when she blew up. In fact she had no immune zone to be in. She had what we sometimes call a zone of dual vulnerability, that is, a large band of ranges where both her belt protection and her deck protection were vulnerable to penetration.
As an incremental ship, Hood doesn't lend herself well to IZ calculations. Against 8in shells, she had a decent IZ, but that's about it.

 

What do you think of the theory that HOOD was actually sunk by PRINZ EUGEN, rather than BISMARK?

 

There's a place for fertilizer, but not in the house.

 

Sounds like a winner to me. :lol:

 

The Prinz Eugen theory has gone through multiple incarnations over the years. It first appeared, and properly so, in the Admiralty's own inquiries into Hood's loss. The proposition was examined, then dismissed precisely for the reasons you would expect. There was simply no way for 8in shells to have caused the magazine explosion, directly or indirectly. This should have been the end of it. No new evidence, no postwar revelations have emerged to impeach the reasoning of the inquiries. Now we have had an opportunity to see the Hood wreck itself, and still nothing new has come to light. In fact, all that we've learned has reinforced the original conclusion that a 15in shell killed Hood.
The usual explanation is that the hit by PE's shell caused a fire on the boat deck (true) and that this fire somehow sneaked down into the heart of the ship to a magazine (fantasy). No mechanism for this flame propagation has ever been offered up that the inquiry didn't specifically look into and dismiss.
A couple years ago, a fellow named Andrew Norman found himself with a surplus of spare time and wrote a book in which he offered a theory that PE dropped a shell down Hood's stack and thus caused the fatal fire. I believe this meets the definition of a "howler." I certainly howled when I realized he was serious. What is it with stacks? Some folks used to claim that Arizona was destroyed by a bomb down her stack. The Germans claimed Marat was blown up by a bomb down her stack. These claims were also false. But at least a bomb could actually go down a stack. Unless PE managed to bank a shell off a low-flying gull, how is she supposed to get a shell to plunge straight down a stack? Norman doesn't even make an effort to explain it. I think this is the only book I've ever gone to the trouble of panning on Amazon. And B&N. And a couple times on Amazon UK where, for reasons I don't understand, it has two listings.

 

The hood was sunk by a shell going through her deck as it hadn't been refitted with beter armour.

If I am thinking correctly, will check and come back.

 

From http://www.voodoo.cz/hood/


On May the 24th 1941, the two titans located each other..

At 05.52 AM, Hood opened fire on Bismarck. Two minutes later, DKM Bismarck responded to Hood' s gunfire and the Battle of Denmark Strait began.

At 06.00, a gigantic explosion with a thunderous flame ripped the Hood into two and Hood dissappeared. In less than ten minutes of battle, Hood was lost.. Only 3 men survived, and more than 1400 died aboard the battlecruiser.

Hood was very powerful, fast and beatiful ship. She had 8 X 38 cm. main guns and a top speed of 31 knots, but her armor was not as thick as a battleship armor. When Bismarck's heavy 38 cm. shells hit and penetrated her citadel armor and detonated inside an ammunition store, this battlecruiser' s end came quickly.

Within 1-2 minutes, the massive 42.000 ton battlecruiser sunk due to a thunderous explosion. But, the British people never forgot their brave battlecruiser.

 

"The hood was sunk by a shell going through her deck as it hadn't been refitted with beter armour."
Yes, this was the key factor. It was not that her armor was not as thick as battleship armor. At the time she entered service, Hood was arguably the best-protected ship in the Royal Navy.

 

Now when talking turned to HMS Hood, there is one good page to visit:
http://hmshood.com/.
That has most information about HMS Hood I'm able to find from internet.

 

As originally completed her deck armour was as good as the much admired Queen Elizabeth class. Unfortunately being a relatively new ship and the various crisises of the 1930s worked against Hood so she didn't receive a rebuild inter-war that might have saved her.

 

The irony is that Renown, as ship that hardly approached Hood in degree of protection, might have survived the hit that killed Hood because she did get a full modernization. Even Repulse, not indulged to the same full treament as Renown, might have withstood the hit.

 

MkII Shell Magnet

Where does your MkII shell magnet feature in the current theory?

:smok:

 

Re: MkII Shell Magnet

Nothing is too outlandish. I've seen a couple claims that Hood blew herself up with no help from the Germans. I've also seen a claim that Norfolk sank Hood. I'm currently advocating the theory that it was done by a Klingon star cruiser.

 

Re: MkII Shell Magnet

Wasn't there a meteor shower at the time??

 

Re: MkII Shell Magnet

Hood blewing herself up:
According to William J. Jurens and his
"The Loss of HMS Hood
A Re-Examination"
Published in Warship International 1987

Original text can be found from http://www.warship.org/new_page_2.htm
But ofcourse many of you have already read that article.

That Norfolk-theory really escapes me, what kind of theory it is?

 

Re: MkII Shell Magnet

"That Norfolk-theory really escapes me, what kind of theory it is?"
A silly one. Someone decided that both the Germans and the Hood lay in the same general direction from Norfolk. In fact, they were positioned approximately 45deg apart at the time of Hood's loss, as gauged from Norfolk.