The battle of the Denmark Strait - a study of the Prinz Eugen film

The last moments of the HMS Hood, the last battle of the Bismarck. 24 May 1941

[@stevenmoore4612]

This footage os absolutely amazing! Also I never knew that Bismarck’s turrets had names. You learn something new everyday.

[@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684]

Anton, Bruno, Caesar & Dora. RN ships turrets are named A, B, X & Y

[@lorienbruchel3689]

The camera is directed towards the British ships to the south. The Prince of Wales turns west after the explosion of the Hood and then south. In the last section, it is marked all the way to the east, which is incorrect. The large smoke cloud is the HMS Suffolk, which is out of the engagement. If you look closely, you can see the smoke already in the first sequence on the left edge of the frame when the Prince of Wales and the Hood are still positioned next to each other.

[@Delextra705]

Thanks you for the explanation

[@williambradley9419]

Well done sir !!! Spotting PoW's 14 in shell travelling at approx 1500mph a millisecond before it hit the water is first classs observation. If I could offer one correction.... in the final scene, if you look at the plot of PoW during the battle and after Hood's demise, then the pall of smoke on the left is smoke from HMS Hood's debris field, and the larger pall on the right is PoW (with her aft "X" turret jammed and unable to bring fire to bear on Bismarck/Prinz Eugen) withdrawing under cover of smoke.

[@manilajohn0182]

Fun (and historical) fact: Captain Leach of Prince of Wales- probably the best eyewitness to Hood's demise- was personally of the opinion that Hood was sunk by exploding UP ammunition, whose flash and flames likely penetrated the flash proofing of X turret.

[@WorshipinIdols]

I am not sure exactly what your saying, but I think the best and most convincing explanation I ever heard was from Drachinifel. Who convincingly argues that the shot that sank the Hood struck below the main armor belt near the rear secondary magazine (which was only one very thin bulkhead away from the main magazine). This was as a result of the Hood causing a large bow wave as it was doing approximately 30+ knots, which lowered the water line significantly on the rear part of the ship exposing most if not all of the main armored belt. This allowed the Bismarck’s shell to clear the armored belt from below, just beneath it, without having to travel through a meaningful amount of water.

[@manilajohn0182]

@@WorshipinIdols Drachinifel has not "proved" anything, my friend. He has merely convinced you with one video which promotes his personal theory. His theory has no existing evidence to support it. Unlike Drachinifel, Captain Leach was actually there and looking directly at Hood when the deflagration began. Leach (who was the Director of Naval Ordnance before he was posted as Captain of Prince of Wales) stated to Captain G. H. Oswald his belief that Hood was sunk as a result of flash and/or flame from detonating UP ammunition penetrating the flash proofing of X- turret. That ammunition was ignited by an 8" hit from the German heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen. Cheers...

[@WorshipinIdols]

@@manilajohn0182 this is not true, the same Captain Leach states EXPLICITLY that the Hood was straddled by a half-salvo from Bismarck. “…as I was looking at the Hood a salvo arrived from the Bismarck with 2 shots long and 1 short, although it could have been the other way around. But at that moment I felt that something had arrived aboard the Hood, this caused me to continue to look for a bit further and not more then a second after I had that thought a large fire burst from the hood’s deck behind X-turret in the shape of a funnel, a rather big funnel…” This straddle only contained 3 observable shots as the 4th had entered the hood from the side. There is no possible way that the Prinz Eugen could have caused a catastrophic detonation of the HMS Hood’s main (or secondary for that matter) magazine. Or is it a coincidence that the moment Bismarck’s salvo arrived the Hood exploded? Also I didn’t say he proved anything, I said he argues convincingly. You know it’s small matters like that that separate people who are serious about the matter and amateurs who cling on to their favorite myths.

[@WorshipinIdols]

@@manilajohn0182 and yes, his theory has a great deal of proof. Why don’t you watch it and get back to me, it’s only 45 minutes or so. I’d love to hear what u have to say on it.

[@manilajohn0182]

@@WorshipinIdols You're completely wrong. Firstly, you used the phrase "convincingly proves". Then you edited your post and changed it to "convincingly argues". Frankly, stating a falsehood regarding something that elementary hardly qualifies you as "...serious about the matter...". It in fact makes you the amateur since you lack honesty. Britain was at war, my friend- and one doesn't give "aid and comfort" to one's enemy by releasing an Admiralty report stating even the possibility that the pride of the Royal Navy was sunk by a heavy cruiser- particularly since it's only a possibility based on Leach's belief. I'm well aware of what the two investigations of Hood's loss state. Those reports were issued primarily for the general public. There is no evidence to support Drachinifel's theory just as there's no evidence to support the Bismarck shell penetration theory. Far too much of Hood was destroyed in the deflagration for anyone to know exactly how Hood was sunk. I saw Drachinifel's video shortly after he posted it. He has no evidence- much less proof- to support his theory. If you believe that he does, then all I can say is that you don't know the definition of either evidence or proof. Don't allow Drachinifel to do your thinking for you. Study military history yourself instead. For example, see "From the Dardanelles to Oran" by Arthur J. Marder. See note 21 on page 116 regarding the statements which Captain Leach and Commander Lawson made to Captain G. H. Oswald at Scapa Flow after the Battle of Denmark Strait. It's worth noting that, after the Battle of Denmark Strait, UP launchers were not installed on any other Royal Navy vessel- and those which had already been installed were removed. While you're at it, take a look into the nature of the boat deck fire. The midships of Hood has been characterized as a mass of roaring flame and explosions which had just begun to die down when the deflagration began. If you read Jurens' article, you'll find that he regards the 4" magazine as already in the process of deflagration when Bismarck's last salvo arrived around Hood. I'm not saying and have never said that this is what happened to Hood- but it remains a possibility. If you choose to read about the loss of Hood, you'll find that the boat deck fire (initiated by a hit from Prinz Eugen) remains one of the possible reasons for Hood's loss. The best that can be said is that Hood was sunk by the combined fire of both Bismarck and Prinz Eugen.

[@joaoguilherme7047]

Awesome video!

[@LBG-cf8gu]

What Joao said...

[@WorshipinIdols]

Um…I don’t think your final observation of the PoW and Hood is correct. When the video switches to the British duo, the sudden flash of line is the catastrophic hit on the Hood’s rear magazine because as the video clearly shows the ship is already on fire and billowing smoke before the hit is registered clearly identifying it as the Hood exploding, not the POWs returning fire. The PoW at this time was neither burning nor laying smoke.

[@murphyoalexander51]

What ship is this actually filmed from? If its from PU then Bismarck should be behind her and not across from her??

[@SoManyInterests]

It was filmed from the Prinz Eugen, the only German ship close enough to film this battle.

[@murphyoalexander51]

@@SoManyInterests But Bismarck wouldve been behind PH, cruising formation, in a line, not across from it.

[@jackflotta]

@@murphyoalexander51 before opening fire they altered course from 220 to 260 I think, so they ended up in line of bearing rather than line astern

[@EricShaw-nr8zv]

my grandfather was on prinz eugen and he said it was prinz eugen who fired salvos on hood and actually sunk it.lutgens never wanted to risk bismark at that point after it was hit and lost significant amount of fuel.

[@terrybrown4400]

Shouldn’t it be 15 inch guns and not 15cm?

[@SoManyInterests]

Nope, as it was a German ship, the caliber was given in cm.

[@terrybrown4400]

@@SoManyInterests I think you will find that 15cm is only around 6 inches. The Bismarck had 15inch guns which are about 38cm.

[@patrickmcmullen7910]

@@terrybrown4400 when you watch the video, multiple shots are fired from the secondary guns, which indeed were only 15 cm. (5.9") They appear to be more amid ship. Bismark had 12 of those. The main guns were as you stated at 38 cm. (15")

[@GR-tr4qq]

Bad aiming English!😔

[@user-ch5fh5gg9j]

It’s hard for me to understand that these are real ships and real battle

[@SoManyInterests]

And yet, it is real.

[@Madmiata79]

And you are watching as 1400 men die