Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!cbnews!gahooten@ames.arc.nasa.gov From: gahooten@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Greg A. Hooten) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Ship armor Message-ID: <6069@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 29 Apr 89 01:24:02 GMT References: <5929@cbnews.ATT.COM> <5981@cbnews.ATT.COM> <6030@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: NASA - Ames Research Center Lines: 80 Approved: military@att.att.com From: gahooten@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Greg A. Hooten) In article <6030@cbnews.ATT.COM> goofy!Apple.COM!livesey@apple.com (John Livesey) writes: > >There are three popular theories. One that deck-mounted >rockets ignited, causing an explosion. One that a turret hit caused a >magazine explosion. One that a shell hit short, turned almost >horizontal, and penetrated below the armour belt as the Hood heeled. > There is a fourth theory that I read some 12 years ago when a new magazine Sea Classics (ala Air Classics) came out. The author believed that the Hood was sunk by the escorting cruiser to the Biz (Prinz Eugean?). The theory went like this. The Prinz Eugean's guns (8"? Sorry about the memory loss, it was 12 years ago.) were at there maximum range while the Biz was firing at long but not ultra long range. The arc of the smaller shells would have plunged the shell almost strait down while the Biz' shell would have been on a shallower angle. The steep plunge of the smaller shells could have penetrated between the two stacks on the hood into the depths of the ship through the relitively unarmoured decking. I believe that there was mention of weak armor at this place in the ship, that corresponded with the upward explosion of the ship before it broke in half. The article goes on to say that this may or may not have been known by the Germans at the time, but porbably would have been hidden if it was known. Having a cruiser sind a BC (how I have always seen Battle Cruisers designated) sunk by a cruiser while the Biz bagged nothing would have been bad politics at the time. My memory fades. Please correct any and all. GAH! [mod.note: This theory was popular for awhile, but has been shown incorrect. Prinz Eugen's fire did start a large fire on Hood's boat deck (funnel area), but had shifted to engage Prince of Wales before Hood exploded. There had been too much difficulty observing the fall of Eugen's shots on Hood, what with Bismarck's gunnery concentrated there. In Warship International No.2, 1987, W.J. Jurens engages in a fascinating technical discussion of Hood's loss ("The Loss of HMS Hood - A Re-Examination", p 122). He considers the numerous theories of Hood's demise. He considers the shell ballistics, and precise angles of impact, given the relative bearings of incoming shells, to determine the likelihood of penetrations and their locations. He quickly dismisses Prinz Eugen, base on both the testimony of her captain and her utter inability to penetrate the magazines of Hood at the range of combat. Concluding his technical analysis, Jurens suggests that a 15" shell from Bismarck struck Hood near her main mast, plunging into after engine room and exploding in or near her 4" secondary magazine just aft of that compartment; alternately, the shell could have passed through Hood's upper armor belt to reach the same location. Penetration was facilitated by the fact that Hood was engaged in a 20-degree turn away from Bismarck, attempting to open the firing arcs of her stern turrets; this cause her to heel somewhat toward Bismarck, exposing more of her deck armor and decreasing the angle of impact thereupon. The explosion of the shell ignited the powder in that 4" magazine, which burned rapidly, creating an enormous overpressure which burst into the engineering space (visual evidence of which was reported prior to Hood's explosion). The secondary magazine contained some 18.5 tons of cordite. While the expansion into the engine room temporarily relieved the pressure it soon built up again sufficiently to force its way rearwards into X magazine, which contained an additional 49 tons of cordite, then chain-reacted to Y magazine, adding another 45 tons to the tally. The immense and rapidly-building pressure blew Hood apart. Of course, this is just one theory, but it is the most modern and, IMHO, most beleiveable. I *highly* reccommend Mr. Juren's article; it not only describes this important battle in detail, but it's a good primer in battleship design and gunnery considerations. - Bill ]