World of Warships - Know Your Ship #5 - HMS Hood Battlecruiser

Episode 5 of Know Your Ship! In this educational video I cover the Admiral class battlecruiser - HMS Hood, commissioned by the Royal Navy after World War 1. HMS Hood was the pride of the Royal Navy and a symbol of the strength of the Royal Navy. Sadly, on her mission to confront the German battleship Bismarck, Hood was sunk with the loss of 1415 lives. There were only 3 survivors. The last of whom Ted Briggs passed away in 2008. Admirals, get to know the symbol of the Royal Navy before taking command of her in World of Warships! Enjoy and see you all in battle!
Footage from this video from:
"Hunt for Hood", PBS, 2001, Colour
"How the Bismarck Sank HMS Hood", Channel 4, 2012, www.channel4.co...
"Battleship", Discovery Channel, VHS, Narrated by Hal Holbrook
"Dogfights - Hunt for the Bismarck", History Channel, 2007
Images found on Google Images under uses for non-commercial purposes.
Video is for purely educational purposes and has not been monetized.
Stay TUNED for more DAILY videos.
If you like this video don't forget to LIKE and SUBSCRIBE for more videos :)
www.youtube.co...

[@dizzyrizzy2634]

My great grandad served on board HMS HOOD and went down with her. May her and her crew Rest In Piece.

[@ichasegaming]

Ohh Soarz Sorry to hear that, rest in peace

[@tyb1329]

I sorry for your loss

[@thefighter824]

my grand father was at the Bismarck but he survives but probably Rest in Peace for alle victimes at all nations

[@WozzasWatches]

my grandad,2nd class stoker was lost with her.but she will always be remembered.go visit her bell that was recovered,its at portsmouth.

[@beherith2874]

🇬🇧

[@nerdymidgetkid]

Documentary: "There seems to be something wrong with the design of the British ships". Admiral Beatty: "There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today".

[@ichasegaming]

nerdymidgetkid Yeah...occasionally they do get stuff wrong, thx for the correction :)

[@HarryFlashmanVC]

He should have said :" I seem to have realised that I'm an incompetent fool risking the lives of my sailors in battle cruisers vs hoppers battleships!" Beattey should have been cashired for incompetence. Battle cruisers like Hood were built to chase down heavy cruisers and commerce raiders and sink them. They were strategic power projection. Beatty, unlike Cunningham, did not have to engage, Holland had no choice. He knew he was pitting a treaty regulated battleship, PoW with wet paint, new crew and no effective main armament and a battle cruiser against the most powerful battleship in the world, a ship built in violation of international treaty, Bismarck. Holland is a man who I have the greatest respect and sympathy for, he knew the odds, the recovery of the rudder position of the Hood, exonerated him from the slander of armchair admirals seeking to hide their irresponsibility in preparing Britain for war. Holland and Cunningham had already had the horror of the French action at Mel el. Kebhir, what would have been going through his head after that... What Ww1 and ww2 showed is when big gun ships clashed, the casualties on those sunk were horrific. The film of Hms Barnham explodingwhere you can see hundreds of sailors running on to her capsizing Hull as the ship explodes, engulfing them all, is very very sobering.

[@johnsmith-gh6cl]

Beatty did say this during the battle of Jutland and has nothing to do with the sinking of the Hood, he died in 1936, Hood sank in 1941

[@WozzasWatches]

i never knew HOOD actually fired a final shot while sinking.i thought that was a myth.my grandad was lost with her that morning.R.I.P mighty HOOD

[@jamesricker3997]

awesomeANDROID1 They found the wreck,that final shot was her foreword magazine exploding.

[@WozzasWatches]

oh i see,thanks

[@ilo3456]

James Ricker I will continue to believe that brave sailors remained in the turret and let out a shot as a sign that the British would fight to the end.

[@Kris-qy7hh]

CPU Purple Heart/Neptune of course, such brave people.

[@C4rn1fex01]

Going broad side to a Bismark. That's a paddlin'

[@Traunman]

+David Mutch I can really hear Jingles voice sayin' that phrase! :D

[@C4rn1fex01]

+Manuel Traunfellner :D

[@Whiskey2shots]

+David Mutch just fukin lost in ahahahahahaa

[@gamelard1963]

+David Mutch and then jingles saying "and look at this cruiser here, BOOM, there you go. ammo rack and detonation, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!: lmao

[@C4rn1fex01]

+Game Lard haha yeah perfect

[@biathe4017]

OMG the colored film of the Hood is so Beautiful! Such a Mighty and powerful Battlecruiser

[@colleenjin8794]

History tells us showing broad side on to enemy ships wins battles, while in world of warships your ship will just get citadeled.

[@dynamicworlds1]

Why I'm waiting for War Thunder to eventually get to ships and see how well they do.

[@AgentTasmania]

Real life naval gunfire made WoWS dispersion look like the finest sniper alive. Getting more shells out was the bigger advantage.

[@dubsy1026]

it wasnt the shells accuracy. they were quite accurate. it was just hard to find the range

[@AgentTasmania]

Dubsy 102 Ranging, leading, firing platform bobbing on waves. The acuracy of the shots was very poor. Sure if you had a fixed platform and knew where to aim the shot itself would be pretty accurate, but the accuracy of actual practical fire was dreadful.

[@dubsy1026]

By accuracy, I mean dispersion, which wasn't as bad

[@johnsmith-gh6cl]

A lot has been debated about the Hood, be it her weaknesses and her fitness to be in the battleline in WW2. so lets go back a bit to when and why she was built. The Hood was built as one of the class of 4 new ships - the Admiral class (the other 3 as far as I know were to be Anson, Rodney and Howe) these ships were of a modified design to the Hood and quite different in profile. They were however scrapped at the end of the war and the names were reallocated to future ships. They were designed after lessons learned from the destruction of 3 battlecruisers lost in catastrophic circumstances at Jutland. she wasn't commissioned until January 1920 and was a very different ship to what had been before. Her armour and weaponry was in line with current RN battleships Queen Elisabeths and the Revenge class but a lot more speed - about 10 knots, almost a third more than those could manage. The Hood was the largest and fastest warship afloat at this time, generally reckoned to be a battlecruiser, but (often) regarded as a fast battleship, I think that's more accurate. Before WW2 the Hood was heavily employed cruising the British Empire showing the flag and all that entailed - a waste of a ship that would have been better employed elsewhere. WW2 breaks out and the Hood is still in commission and in dire need of refit, better still a rebuild on the lines of HMS Renown (significantly the only RN battlecruiser to survive both world wars). That rebuild never happened. Hood could not spared being taken out of service and eventually she came up against the Bismarck ( Not forgetting the bombardment of the French fleet -which wasn't a fight, that was virtually target practice, a regrettable incident.) How did the Hood compare against Bismarck? on paper very well actually, both ships had 8X15 inch guns of similar destructive power, both were fast ships, Hood was slightly faster but Bismarck had superior fire control. Secondary armament was largely irrelevant in battleship V battleship action (due to the range). Its not "obvious" that Hood was destroyed by a more modern 'state of the art' ship, because Bismarck was no such thing, so heres why... The Bismarck class were heavily based on the WW1 Baden class battleship - a ship that was never tested in combat - built too late to see action, its seems a little risky to use an untried and untested vessel (and by this time now old) as a basis for a new state of the art ship, SMS Baden was seized by the Royal Navy and examined very carefully by engineers, they were surprised that internal compartmentation was not considered adequate for such as ship and the ships structure and scantlings (whatever they are) was "flimsy at best". So Bismarck was based on this? The Baden was eventually sunk outside Portsmouth by gunnery from HMS Revenge ( a "budget version") of the Queen Elizabeth class using similar 15" guns fitted to the Hood. Admittedly, the Baden was stationary, unmanned and couldn't shoot back but it proves that no ship is unsinkable. My views maybe controversial to some but they are facts and not for a second would I deride either Hood or Bismarck, as they were the best there were at the time, what happened to both of them is burned into history, cant change that. Finally, so the Hood was sunk by a lucky shot? that depends whose side you're on, its fairly obvious that Hoods deck armour was penetrated resulting in her destruction. Interestingly when the Bismarcks wreck was discovered by Dr Ballard it was evident that its deck armour had been penetrated in places by Royal Navy shellfire. A waste of life on both sides, I hope we never see its like again.

[@AllThingsCubey]

Baden may have been badly compartmentalised, but Bismark wasn't. The thing was nearly unsinkable even after all combat capabilities were destroyed. However the documentary keeps saying it's the most powerful warship afloat, which is total crap. The Americans and Japanese had more powerful ships even by the time of this engagement, fairly early in the war.

[@Odin029]

I have to admit, watching Hood pass by in color, that ship was pretty damned impressive to look at

[@maverick4220]

HMS Hood Vs Bismarck one of the most famous battles.

[@thesuperstorm4940]

May them men who died be remembered forever and since then we will always will remember them

[@alfie0915]

I have always been fascinated by the story of HMS Hood, so much so that I joined the Hood association. This could have been a victory for Hood, if she managed to sink the Bismark! Imagine the newspapers of the time? But she is still with us! Her bell has been recovered and her wreck is still there, unlike all the other warships that have now been scrapped and turned into razor blades!

[@theabstract100]

A couple of people wrote that "if the hood would have sunked the bismark". It wasnt even close and the hood wasnt made to fight battleships. The hood was killed by its own propaganda. It was a really nice ship but not as good as some say, since the deck armor was weak and a "lucky shot" kils the whole ship (murphies law). The Bismark just was to big for her. And the Bismark as well as the yamato were absolutly faszinating, in the end they were useless since Aircraft Carriers were the biggest thread. The argumentation in the Documentary starts with weak deck armor, than unlucky route and a lucky shot in the end. At least the first and third argument dont fit together. Sounds to me like findin a way of finding excuses for the brutal reality. The Titanic is unsinkable is the same kind of argument...

[@theabstract100]

A couple of people wrote that "if the hood would have sunked the bismark". It wasnt even close and the hood wasnt made to fight battleships. The hood was killed by its own propaganda. It was a really nice ship but not as good as some say, since the deck armor was weak and a "lucky shot" kils the whole ship (murphies law). The Bismark just was to big for her. And the Bismark as well as the yamato were absolutly faszinating, in the end they were useless since Aircraft Carriers were the biggest thread. The argumentation in the Documentary starts with weak deck armor, than unlucky route and a lucky shot in the end. At least the first and third argument dont fit together. Sounds to me like findin a way of finding excuses for the brutal reality. The Titanic is unsinkable is the same kind of argument...

[@theabstract100]

A couple of people wrote that "if the hood would have sunked the bismark". It wasnt even close and the hood wasnt made to fight battleships. The hood was killed by its own propaganda. It was a really nice ship but not as good as some say, since the deck armor was weak and a "lucky shot" kils the whole ship (murphies law). The Bismark just was to big for her. And the Bismark as well as the yamato were absolutly faszinating, in the end they were useless since Aircraft Carriers were the biggest thread. The argumentation in the Documentary starts with weak deck armor, than unlucky route and a lucky shot in the end. At least the first and third argument dont fit together. Sounds to me like findin a way of finding excuses for the brutal reality. The Titanic is unsinkable is the same kind of argument...

[@erlienfrommars]

Whether the Bismarck landed a lucky shot or not didn't really matter. Bismarck can tank Hood's shells for quite a while, but Hood's armor is easy picking for Bismarck even it it hits elsewhere. on an alternate history battle Hood would've still sunk, while Bismarck may get away with some moderate damage.

[@bairdrew]

@Sea Kei Kleiner. Well, no actually. Hood's 15 inch cannons could and did penetrate Bismarck's armour. her last salvo before she blew up hold Bismarck in the fore-fuel cells, ruining a few thousand tons of fuel and causing her to list slightly. Bismarck's armour was of a similar thickness and design to Hood's (asides the turtleback) and their weight-of-shot were very similar. Had the turn been completed Hood would have been quite able to damage Bismarck severely. So it really does matter very much. Hood's vertical armour was thick and well angled - she could have taken nearly as much punishment as Birmarck could have taken from her.

[@michaelcoulter1114]

The most beautiful warship ever built, hands down!

[@the_black_rose3336]

All I can say is R.I.P. Hood.

[@eplekake3870]

The HMS Hood was laid down as a battlecruiser, construction began in 1916, however after Jutland both horizontal and vertical armour was increased. As completed, she was armoured on the same scale as the QE class battleships, but with the lessons of Jutland partly (only partly) worked into the design (thicker magazine crowns, thicker decks, modified turret shields etc). In addition she had more speed and a better underwater protection system than the QE's. The DNC (Director of Naval Construction) described the Hood as a (fast) battleship, but the Admirality (who focused on operations) chosed to classify her as a battlecruiser.

[@Yusuf1187]

I've always loved the Hood as well. Something about that combination of speed and firepower in a long sleek package. If she had just undergone those intended refits to increase her armor then she could have matched any other battleships of WW2. For some reason the Hood is the only ship that makes me genuinely sad to think of it being sunk. (obviously the loss of *people* on any ship is awful, but I am referring to the ship itself)

[@nathanjonesy1406]

Saladin1187 It took one hit from Bismarck then sunk it sucks really.

[@Yusuf1187]

NATHAN JonesY That's an issue with the thin deck armor, not the entire ship's design. She had the same firepower as the Bismarck for example, but had dumber people in charge of deciding when and how it got refit to gain the necessary armor.

[@Archris17]

Saladin1187 The HMS Hood, the IJN Yamato (and her sister ship, the Musashi) and the USS Arizona. The first was a victim of the foulest luck and the bad judgement of the Admiralty, rather than her captain and crew. The Yamato, Musashi and Arizona never even stood a chance; each of them was sunk by aircraft, without ever having fired their guns at the enemy. The loss of ever soldier, sailor and airman is a tragedy, but those great ships, all cut down by such cruel fate, without a chance to ever fulfill their purpose, is just heartbreaking. Machines that big, unique and impressive have souls as much as any human, more than some degenerates even perhaps, for all the labour and dreams and resources required to make them.

[@frankdunbar2560]

I feel for the unlucky "Bismarck."

[@frankdunbar2560]

That's because the "Hood" sucks.

[@abedfo88]

being British, this almost makes me cry

[@aircooledcamper]

Some late expert opinions of why the British battlecruisers at Jutland went down so easily, besides expert German gunnery and relatively light armor, are that the British were not practicing good "housekeeping" regarding their powder handling during the battle. There is apparently evidence that there were magazine doors left open and powder bags stacked up in unprotected areas the facilitate fast firing.

[@zzirSnipzz1]

I heard that as well

[@Kaythify]

That's sad like the "Deathstar" in Star Wars, only a tiny little hole and the germans hit it...

[@ubaybadarrudin7292]

Wow you're right

[@Silamon2]

Really Enjoying these videos, I already knew most of what was said about the final battle of the Hood but it was still nice to hear it again. Can't wait to command both the Hood and Bismarck in WoWs, its gonna be great

[@ichasegaming]

sephirothdawn2 Thank you :) Glad you like these

[@crabbyguy2737]

Yeah i am going to sail the HMS Hood and blow old bisface out of the water!!!

[@Fiasco3]

Aging warship gets sent into tackle the Bismark without getting its much needed upgrade that would of saved it. British High-Command at its best.

[@Digmen1]

Yes, but Hood had with her the brand new (un-tested) Prince of Wales and two heavy cruisers. So it was 4 against 2. I tend to blame Admiral Holland Both capita ships should have opened fire on Bismark.

[@bairdrew]

Hood was actually pretty much the equal of Bismarck. Armour was of a similar thickness and overall scheme. Speed was comparable. Guns were comparable. The upgrade to the horizontal armour would not have changed anything, because the reason Hood exploded so spectacularly was what the shell that penetrated her decking reached when it exploded. Bismarck's 15"s at that range would still have penetrated her upgraded horizontal armour. What did the shell hit? Well, her magazines, that much is obvious. But there are magazines and there are magazines. If that shell had found the store room for Hood's own 15" shells then there would have been an explosion, to be sure. But Hood would almost certainly have survived it. The real problem is that Bismarck's shell hit Hood's cordite stores. This was the propellant the British used for their naval guns, and it was horrendously flammable and powerful stuff. And it was stored above the actual shells, whereas more modern ships stored their propellant underneath the shells themselves. The British ships of Hood's generation that weren't fully upgraded (the R-class, 2 of the QE class, Repulse and Hood) retained the propellant above because it allowed for quicker loading and firing. If those store-rooms had been the other way around, Hood would have survived that hit, completed her turn, and been able to rain fire down on Bismarck with her 15"s.

[@ilo3456]

DigNap15 Easy to blame a dead man.

[@ilo3456]

bairdrew Naval War back in the day was mostly about luck and hoping your shells hit something critical. I was first planning on refuting you claim that the Hood was pretty equal to the Bismarck but I decided to research before making a rebuttal and found myself quite humbled as they actually where very similarly armoured with the Hood being slightly more lightly armoured. Of how the battle would have turned out had the Hood survived the hit and made the turn it is quite difficult to tell as the battle in the end is up to luck most of the time and hoping your shots land and the enemy's miss their mark. As an extra I will leave the pages I used to research for anyone interested on seeing it for themselves. HMS Hood: www.hmshood.com/ship/hoodspecs2.htm Bismarck: www.kbismarck.com/proteccioni.html

[@Jacen436987]

I mean Rodney was pretty old by then too and she fared a lot better against Bismark

[@bg147]

Hood had a very sleek, lean quality. One of my all-time favorites.

[@MrCoolvideos6]

My grandfather was in the navy and on this ship:)

[@killerbeast-fx2ke]

Did he survive

[@abedfo88]

We have recovered the ships bell today. what a tribute!

[@lebiggay7144]

Then hms hood sank by Bismarck what a sad ending for British but a happy ending for Germans

[@lebiggay7144]

But then Bismarck sank

[@PortbyhanMan]

+Banana doge much doge She faced the full fury of the RN, however honour demanded that she pay for sinking the Hood. And she did. Terrible loss of life over both engagements. R.I.P. all those who served during both battles.

[@benconway9010]

Jakey learn ur history U stupid idiot hood never sank Bismarck ark royal King George and prince of Wales and a couple of others did

[@michaelbuckler]

One point straight away. much of the general footage, including seemingly the veteran colour footage just before the Churchill sequence, is of the Repulse, Renown's relatively unreconstructed sister. You can tell, because among other thins, Repulses forward funnel is taller than the rear funnel.

[@TheSleepingMeerkat]

I was never really a fan of 20th century warships design wise, being more of sailing ship person, but when you look at the Hood you just got to admit she was one beautiful ship.

[@ichasegaming]

***** Indeed, she was gorgeous

[@Hudson-1947]

We have fed our sea for a thousand years And she calls us, still unfed, Though there's never a wave of all her waves But marks our English dead: - Rudyard Kipling

[@trent8002003]

Some of the footages were those of the Repulse (or Renown)!

[@annewolfe1427]

Yeah, good catch. It's HMS Repulse in '39. Smaller "fighting-top" and uneven funnels, (by then Renown sported even funnels and a more modern conning set-up minus the top after her last pre-war refit - the one that like Hood, Repulse also never lived to get completed...)

[@superancientmariner1394]

+Anne Wolfe It's a very common mistake in many documentaries.

[@trent8002003]

+Anne Wolfe Wow impressively intimate knowledge!

[@CaptainSmith23]

Amazing story. So much destruction in such a short time.

[@ichasegaming]

CaptainSmith23 Indeed, very tragic story

[@erika_itsumi5141]

this episode of Dogfights is when i fell in love with HMS Hood. such a beautiful ship ^^

[@pencils1951]

I have been interested in the Hood since the very early 60's and I've read many accounts of her life, those who served aboard, and her demise. This video accurately reflects a potted history of the Hood. She was a beautiful ship of her time, but so was Bismarck and was state of the art When the Prince of Wales set sail she still had contractors on board working on the guns, she was still on her shakedown trials. In short, one too new, and one too old.

[@ichasegaming]

Justin Case Yep, had it been the more worked up newer units of the Royal Navy, the fight would have turned out differently

[@Karagianis]

iChaseGaming If they'd just taken the time to refit it with new deck armour it might have been able to take it. I mean after refit the HMS Renown, a smaller battlecruiser of the same sort of age had as much deck armour as a Revenge class battleship.

[@bairdrew]

No. Bismarck was new. Not state-of-the-art. Those are two different things. The Bismarck's construction was essentially along the same lines of evolution as the Bayern-class of WWI. She might have been completed in 1941, but her armour scheme (both thickness and arrangement), physical layout and so forth were of the 1917-1923 era. In terms of her arrangement and protection she was of the same generation as Hood herself, which the sole exception of her seatakt ranging system. As to deck armour issue - simply put Bismarck's shell would have penetrated Hood's deck armour at that location whether it had been thickened or not; The real problem is that Bismarck's shell hit Hood's cordite stores. This was the propellant the British used for their naval guns, and it was horrendously flammable and powerful stuff. And it was stored above the actual shells, whereas more modern ships stored their propellant underneath the shells themselves. The British ships of Hood's generation that weren't fully upgraded (the R-class, 2 of the QE class, Repulse and Hood) retained the propellant above because it allowed for quicker loading and firing. If those store-rooms had been the other way around, Hood would have survived that hit, completed her turn, and been able to rain fire down on Bismarck with her 15"s.

[@johnsmith-gh6cl]

@@bairdrew Bismarck was based on the the last German battleships of World War1 , the Baden class that never saw action so never proved to be worthy ships, that's a pretty reckless thing to do - design a ship on an unproven old design? Bismarck was a capable formidable warship but had a short miserable life like her sister, the Tirpitz. State of the Art? that concept didn't exist then she was Hitlers show piece to the world and was lost on her first operational voyage, The Hood did last a bit longer, like 1920 to 1941 not bad when you think about it.....

[@BellaZuikaku4785]

wow, now I know what really happen when the Hood and Bismarck battles and Hood was sunk. Thanks for the video. sigh... If Hood did the turn sooner, she would have survive

[@johnsmith-gh6cl]

there is no way of knowing that, if she had turned no one can speculate what would happen next

[@PinkPanter1337]

Imagine the pride if she sunk Bismarck and Prinze eugen

[@ichasegaming]

Panter I can certainly imagine that..

[@tyb1329]

the ship will be at a dock at the UK

[@thefighter824]

but she didn't

[@Scoobydcs]

some good meds there fella lol

[@PinkPanter1337]

eatthisvr6 Nah

[@Fenris86]

Hood definitely was a pretty ship.

[@luisvieira7591]

If I had to define the HMS Hood , I would define it as "an unlucky ship", It was unlucky to have been built in a era where the "all or nothing" scheme of protection had not been adopted by the British, It was unlucky to have had so many diplomatic missions that the needed reconstruction never took place. It was unlucky that when that reconstruction was scheduled , WW2 started. It was unlucky that there was not even time to clean the hull, so the intended 30-31 knot speed had decreased to some 28 knots - had it been able to run at 30, the hood would have completed the turn and be in a position to not be hit by that sell at that angle and in that area). It was unlucky that the prince of wales had turrets issues and could not engage properly. it was unlucky in getting hit where it was. It was unlucky due to the fact that British gunfire practises still allowed the turrets crews to overstock cartridges of cordite like they had done in Jutland , with the results that most know. It was unlucky in exploding after in essence the first hit, what forever turned it on a glass cannon, when in fact 1)the actual level of protection was not that different from what was used in the queen Elizabeth class ( and none thinks that the Warspite was fragile) , 2) the Hood incorporated some novel ideas in terms of capital ship construction, like a inclined belt , many of them adopted later on by the US and Germans 3) it's slayer, the Bismarck was far from the one hit wonder that persisted in the urban mythos when the Germans based the Bismarck on the plans of the Mackensen and Ersatz Yorck classes of battle cruisers, both older and more traditional than the Hood itself.

[@ichasegaming]

Luis Vieira I have to agree, HMS Hood was just very unlucky, had some of those factors gone her way, she might have survived the engagement.

[@Denton1952]

I consider Hood a fast battleship. As do many other prominent sorts, experts, on that sort of thing. I am just a hobbyist. Her armor was indeed similar to Queen Elizabeth. I do not exactly consider "All or Nothing" the end all be all. I know that many do, but Bismarck was not exactly "All or Nothing" and she absorbed tremendous punishment--of course that ship had more armor than any other except Yamato. She could not resist plunging fire much better than Hood, essentially All or Nothing is meant to protect the vitals, primarily, in long range slugfests. All or Nothing has its flaws though. A compromise idea.

[@Anacronian]

***** You can consider Hood a "fast battleship" all you want but it was a battlecruiser - in fact many would argue that it was the quintessential battlecruiser of history - and no Hood did not have comparable armor to a Queen Elizabeth, In fact a Queen Elizabeth had more tons of armor than the Hood even though the Queen Elizabeth's were much smaller ships. Hood's biggest problem was that it was a battlecruiser and it was fighting a ship it was buildt to run away from - the entire point of battlecruisers was that they were supposed to outgun anything that could outrun them and they could outrun anything that could outfight them but british commanders were trained to be super agressive so if they saw a enemy they would fight them no matter what, they would never run away .. which really made the battlecruiser concept a poor concept for the brits.

[@luisvieira7591]

Anacronian actually the Hood carried more armour than the queen Elizabeth. Originally the Hood was supposed to have 10.100 tons of armour, but that was increased to a total of 13700 tons on the 1917/8 final design, representing ~ 32 percent of the standard displacement of 41700. The queen Elizabeth's as built had 9000 tons of armour , equivalent to around 30 percent of the standard displacement. . Armour specs for Hood were main belt: 305 - 127*, bulkheads: 127 - 102, turrets: 381 , barbettes: 305- 127 , main deck: 76 -38, CT: 279-229 * flared (belt was inclined what increased resistance to penetration) armour specs for QE were main belt: 330 - 152, bulkheads: 152 - 102, turrets: 330 , barbettes: 254 - 102, main deck: 76 -25 , CT: 279 so the armour scheme of both QE and Hood was not that different.

[@Denton1952]

Yeah so as I was saying, people get "transfixed" on the names for ships like Scharnhorst or Hood and say "well Hood is a battlecruiser because the Brits say so," and the Scharnhorst is a battlecruiser because the Brits say so," yet when it comes to Alaska fan bois who have no clue say that's a Battlecruiser because "they say so." The truth is different altogether. Hood is considered by prominent people, authorities, to be either the ultimate battlecruiser, or the best of the WWI era fast battleship designs due to the sheer amount of armor she had. I am not making this up. Just because Bismarck destroyed Hood quick does not mean Hood had paper thin armor. She had more armor than most of her contemporaries, if not equivalent. She certainly was not afraid of anything except save the new German battleships but she fought anyway. I look at Hood as a battleship, it is a battlecruiser by name but definitely an old battleship from the WWI era. Her armor scheme was modified post Jutland but not geared towards long range combat--plunging fire. This was not a lesson at Jutland. Protecting the magazines was. However the ranges started increasing drastically beyond WWI standards during the 20's and 30's. Hood was now obsolete, that's all.

[@randyjohnson805]

Nothing better than a conspiracy video or a battle ship video

[@ichasegaming]

Randy Johnson awesome :)

[@timothystuedemann5390]

I find it odd that a pride of the fleet was a battlecruiser and not a battleship.

[@ichasegaming]

Timothy Stuedemann she was the biggest :)

[@timothystuedemann5390]

OK now I get it. I have another question. When the British are eventually introduced what might we expect from them? For example American fast battleships and Japanese powerful battleships. What might be the flavor of British ships? Before anyone asks they are probably going to add the British ships into the game.

[@timothystuedemann5390]

Oh and thanks gather the information for these videos. I enjoy learning about these ships. Favorite class: Iowa Favorite ship in class: USS Wisconsin

[@reconranger1370]

Timothy Stuedemann

Timothy Stuedemann Biggest and Quite old. Just very much a "traditionalist" ship. Which was why it gained the name. Important thing to note "pride of the navy"≠"best/most-combat-effective ship"

[@TDavis-ml6kl]

Sunk by the Prinz Eugen, 8" shell easily penetrated her 3" deck armor and set off a catastrophic chain of events. Boom!

[@HarryFlashmanVC]

The Hood is a fascinating story. The HMS Hood Association website has a truly humbling memorial page.l which gives you a bio of every crew mwmber. Really brings home the human story. Theres a really good recent book on Bismark out by Tamelander and Zetterling which has extensive background and recent research on Hood

[@Denton1952]

People always say Hood was weak. The reality was she had armor to rival pretty much any battleship prior to WWII. In a close range slugging match, if she charged in (and made it doing so) pretty much any ship less than 35,000 tons was going to find a worthy fight. That effectively meant everything form slow US Standards to Nagato.

[@babalonkie]

She NEVER surrendered!!!... "WE SHALL NEVER SURRENDER!"

[@thegeneral123]

The flaw with the BCs at Jutland was actually that the Royal Navy had focused on rate of fire above all else for quite some time. So accuracy was poorer than the Germans by quite some margin. However the real flaw was that all the safety measures put in place to isolate shells and powder bags from damage. Isolating parts, shutter doors etc. Had been disabled to allow more rapid fire. Plus lots of ammo and powder were loaded into the turret to further facilitate rapid fire. So a penetrating hit would set off any stored ammo and powder, then flash through the ship. Causing a catastrophic chain reaction. They literally welded safe stowage doors open or removed them. The vulnerability to plunging fire focus is true as a general observation but was not really the primary cause of this.

[@jfw091]

Why is the map model of Bismarck 8x larger than HOOD.... and why do they look like Axis and Allies game pieces >

[@conundrum62]

Just to advise you chase that access to the channel 4 documentary "How the Bismarck Sank HMS Hood", Channel 4, 2012 ends in 19 days so you may wish to download/rip a copy of it.

[@ichasegaming]

+Stuart 64W Got it, thanks

[@tommeakin1732]

It makes me bloody sad to hear of Hoods end and the end of most of her crew

[@still_guns]

You're just copying documentaries and posting it on youtube. Surprised you haven't been hit by a million copyright hammers

[@ichasegaming]

BMWM3GTRLOVER First of all, yes I use documentary footage, second, I give credit to original owners, third I don't monetize videos, if you see ads, it's because the copyright owners have claimed it through content ID in which case I don't dispute it and let them take whatever revenue they generate from these videos. These videos are meant to be educational and under fair use provisions, I am not violating anything.

[@mathersdavid5113]

The Nelson class battleships were superior to Hood at the outbreak of WW2. Nine 16 inch guns, better protection. Both survived the war.

[@c0ldyloxproductions324]

another clip from Dogfights! lol i love it

[@tteedghihh]

*Random rant*: God I hate when docos (usually American) stop, then repeat the last few minutes, then give a bit more, stop, repeat, stop, repeat. jbweiqj3$C#R@@#$! Just run the fucking thing! */end rant* (This is nothing against you iChase, your videos are great).

[@aircooledcamper]

+журналист The reason they do that is because the commercial interruptions have gotten to be so long that people forget not just where the show left off, but even what they were watching. I hate it, too.

[@AbandonEarth911]

When brittania ruled the waves and the men who built her lived in Poverty.

[@Soir27]

British navy: we build the strongest and fastest warship German: ha we stole your crown British navy: we stole it again! German: damnit your british! *meanwhile in japan hearing the arguing and had an idea cause of jelousy of both the german and british navy* IJN:hold my katana i got an idea

[@johntechwriter]

It could be argued that luck had nothing to do with the loss of the Hood. Against the Bismarck's plummeting fire, the Hood's insufficient deck armor provided the vulnerability that justified the Germans' enormous investment in their state-of-the-art battleship. The encounter of these two great ships went exactly as it should have gone, logistically. Had the Hood prevailed, now THAT would have involved luck. But the vagaries of fortune were not with the British on that day.

[@SwedishModding]

Can't wait to get a detonation on the hood with my Bismarck. My mind will cry in cheer for historical accuracy.

[@deadlynick1437]

And then your rudder gets destroyed by torpedo bombers and you get reck'd by the whole enemy team. ;-P

[@SwedishModding]

Niklas Gottschling Still accurate :D

[@quazarKiragon]

hehe its funny you should say that, i was in one match and i watched a bismarck get detonated kill by a hit in the ass (rudder)

[@williamgrand9724]

It was a loosing battle, the Bismark probably would have sunk her no matter what.

[@WildBillCox13]

Bismarck was first spotted by the new Swedish aviation Cruiser "Gotland".

[@robewan8222]

R.i.p all on hms hood and her crew

[@Platinumsniper]

Sill waiting for a Hood and Prince of Wales Premium. Maybe even a HMS Rodney since she is the only Battleship to hit another battleship (Bismarck) with torpedoes.

[@generaldisarray4569]

great collection of videos thanks for making this

[@Nitramrec]

Two points, which I found a little bit incorrect in the documentary: - As far as I know, the 4-gun-turrets of the Price of Wales were only fired in pairs, because of the recoil and some problems with this new configuration. - The Bismark is drawn much bigger than the other ships in the view from above, although Hood had a bigger length. That makes no sense but implies, that this was no battle at eye level (seems to be an apology for the defeat).

[@mathersdavid5113]

On crossing the German's T, the much better armoured Prince of Wales should have led the initial run-in, with Hood tucked in well astern with just enough clearance to use her forward guns. This might have happened if Holland had chosen Prince of Wales as his flagship.

[@kidpagronprimsank05]

That shell potentially penetrated 4 inch rear gun and detonated her magazine which detonated main 15 inch gun nearby, causing castophic explosion that tore her in two.

[@Reece1Harding]

@Danny McNeil HOOD was built in WW1... Not WW2 like Yamato.. They won't be same tier.

[@73Trident]

God bless the sailors of Hood and Bismarck. They were combatants in war and all died terrible deaths. And to all you WoWS gamer's this was for real. Real people died and it was at very tough time in world history. Real do you understand that!

[@paulharvell8451]

she was my favorite to curse the bismark!!

[@ollieahokas9179]

Looking at some footage of HMS Hood at sea, she had way low free board and must been a hell to serve on especially in the lowered rear deck which seemed to been like a deck of an U boat.The low free board must have prevented her running on full speed even on medium seas. She was handsome but should been refitted and modernized during the 1930,s like the HMS Renown.

[@Pegasus202]

You have to remember this ship was built in 1916 then upgraded and modified considerably. Hood had a lot of armor added and various other changes. All the extra mass lowered the ships freeboard. You have to change the hull shape to displace more water with air if you want it to sit higher in the water, something that is difficult to do once you've built it. Also you fight a war with what you have, not with what you wish you had. Hood was a good ship, she had a really good balance of speed, firepower and protection. This stands true for Prince of Wales too as they were essentially still building her on the way to intercept Bismarck.

[@kidpagronprimsank05]

She didn't get the nickname "the world biggest submarine" for nothing.

[@yourironclassm8ate123]

ty chase i watched this and base my report on ships and i got amazing info out of your vids ty

[@ninjamasterbuilder8675]

H.M.S. hood: I am the superior ship Bismarck: allow me to introduce myself

[@forcumj]

wish you would do more of these

[@YaaqobhTV]

Awsome Video!

[@finalchapter24k]

Love the informative videos

[@ichasegaming]

Miracle 007 Thank you, glad you like them

[@nomar5spaulding]

Holy crap I just realized that at the 2:40ish mark, the narrator is Mr. Carson from Downton Abby. I wonder where Lord Grantham comes into this?

[@Olympian7241]

cool video great warship most famous ever i think only 1 built

[@ichasegaming]

Olympian7241 Yes indeed, only 1 of these beautiful ships built.

[@madharry45]

the german battle cruiser Seydlitz had all of her turrets penetrated at the battle of Jutland. No one ever suggest that her armor was inadequate. This is all horse hockey it was a lack of internal protection to prevent flash reaching the magazines. It was the failure of the royal navy to take in to consideration what happens after the armor is penetrated. German ships had well thought out internal protection flash proof doors between between the magazines and the turrets.

[@SmokeyBCN]

7:50 French warships firing at French warships... great editing Discovery channel...

[@ichasegaming]

***** I know, so many of the various warship docs have got pretty bad editing lol

[@catalyst_yt1472]

if two crew members saw and talked to each other one day, they would be like damb you, you sunk my battleship

[@dr1Voss48]

I would absolutely kill to have her in game.

[@ichasegaming]

dr1Voss48 Eventually she'll make it :)

[@dr1Voss48]

I mean why on earth would they open the Russian line up next? And that rubbish excuse of customer demand for Russian warships is not what I'm talking about. Where were there demands for this? If you're to have a naval warfare game, let's have, at least, the pinnacle naval power that literally ruled the seas for 300 years on up next (Great Britain).

[@theREDdevilz22]

FFS WARGAMING!! IVE HAD ENOUGH OF WAITING FOR THE MIGHTY HOOD! PULL YOUR FINGER OUT YOUR ARSE AND GET HER IN THE GAME!!!

[@joelmontgomery4837]

theREDdevilz22 I agree but hood will probably be a premium and we also want the other British battleships. wargaming why you do this?

[@theREDdevilz22]

Joel Montgomery WarGaming have announced that they will be adding more Royal Navy lines this year 😊😊 hopefully we won't be waiting too long

[@joelmontgomery4837]

theREDdevilz22 yeah hopefully but if wargaming is wargaming they will be stalling like hell or they are going to make the ships rubbish.

[@theREDdevilz22]

Joel Montgomery I've got a feeling they will have had them in development for quite a while now, I'm sure they will be very careful not to fuck them up.. they said 50 new ships are planned for 2017

[@joelmontgomery4837]

theREDdevilz22 yeah I heard there is 50 but there is quite a few probably for the French and other nations. Wargaming doesn't seem interested in the royal navy. I mean really who puts the Russian navy in front of the royal navy. The royal navy was the biggest and most powerful for a while and helped Britain establish a mighty empire

[@mrnobody7882]

Damn I want this ship in game can't wait most likely going to be teir 10 cruiser or it might be teir 5 battleship after all a US admiral commented it as a battleship

[@SpicyLobster]

+Teamtroller 21 HMS hood fires 2 rounds a minute!!! 381mm shell same as Tier 6 Warspite. This battlecruiser might be around Tier 7/8 since Bismack sister class shipTirpitz is also Tier 8 .

[@ricardomdcaldeira]

French Admiral's words stay echoing in ones head... nothing can be said against it though, what a loose loose situation...

[@geoffburrill9850]

Bit of a miss mash that emits many factors such as why Hood initially fired on P.E. whilst P.O.W fired on Bismarck.

[@johnsmith-gh6cl]

Great video but what has HMS Repulse (or Renown) and a brief shot of an Iron Duke class battleship got to do with the Hood? the only thing that these have in common is 2 funnels

[@regmason2329]

The freeboard on the Hood was very small. In heavy weather her decks would be awash. I find this hard to understand knowing the North Atlantic and it's heavy extreme weather.

[@historynerd88]

Nice video clips, very interesting! I am unsure wheter the Hood's main armament could be described as "the most powerful in the world", even by the time she was commissioned; after all, battleships with more powerful guns (16-inch) were being designed or built. And, as good as the 15-inch Mark I naval gun was (and it was good, a very reliable and accurate weapon, with good range and performance against armor), by 1939 it was becoming outclassed by the newer guns that would be fitted on the latest battleships classes to be built. Also, wasn't Hood by 1939 limited to roughly 29 knots in combat situations, because of her boilers and turbined being in dire need of repair or substitution?

[@erika_itsumi5141]

is there any other sources that can confirm that she fired that final salvo before she sunk. also it appears that the gunnery control was submerged at that point. it would have been impossible for the guns to fire that final salvo. I think what they thought was the turret firing 1 final time is actually the B magazine blowing up after the flames from the C magazine in the back vented forwards to the forward magazines meaning Hood blew up twice, not once. And the wreck will confirm that she blew up twice. because the front and back of the Hoods hull was blown off

[@tyb1329]

I hope that they are going to make another HMS HOOD 2

[@Awesomeduud]

They might name a new ship Hood. Navies do that all the time

[@superancientmariner1394]

+Aleksia No chance.....Superstition.

[@GodzThirdLeg]

+Aleksia Sometimes even across two or more navies. Like the name Prinz Eugen: the SMS Prinz Eugen a Kaiser Max class ironclad, the SMS Prinz Eugen a Kaiser Max class(a different class than the other Kaiser Max class) ironclad, the SMS Prinz Eugen a Tegetthoff class Battleship, the HMS Prince Eugene a Lord Clive class monitor and the KM Prinz Eugene an Admiral Hipper class Cruiser.

[@matthewprice8362]

i can only imagine if she lived and became a museum ship

[@captrodgers4273]

hms hood was a ship that should have been retired long b4 the bismark battle

[@ichasegaming]

capt rodgers At the very least it should have gone through it's refit. Sadly never happened in time

[@captrodgers4273]

iChaseGaming

[@Olympian7241]

iChaseGaming not refit (taking machineary out replacing it with newer ie refit) , hood needed a rebuild in aft end of the ship, plans were drawn up to rebuild the hood, in mid 19 thirty ish, example upperworks bridge etc, were going to be very similar to battlecruiser HMS renowns rebuild of her upperworks, there was drawings of what hood would have looked like after the rebuild QE BB also had the rebuild, with upper works etc. rebuild hood ie takes huge task british could do it, min amount of time, 2 + years in dock, that means taking out the top deck and couple below decks barbettes etc cost would be huge, proberly the same cost as 1 KGV class battleship, although it would turn hood into out right battleship 50,000 ton min,ships already 42,500t empty weight, also if the british did go head with it which they did want to do, it would not be worth keeping the turbines anymore, as they were worn anyways after 20 years even though ship still fast at 28.5 knts all that added weight ship would be slow, so they would have to refit new turbines, massive refit massive rebuild,in my opinon KGV which was used 2 days later. should have been at battle with HOOD KGV leading, HOOD supported by norfolk surfolk take out cruiser PE fully worked up KGV take fire from bismark, but history is what it is very unlucky. thats war

[@NephritduGrey]

Great video, but if they turned while still being vulnerable to plunging fire. Wasn't that the wrong choice then and not the right one? I mean I get how they want to make it sound correct for the honor of the Commander but still... But oh well, we only experience one timeline of all the possibilities out there so we'll never know an alternative to how things could have been instead. Cheers for both sides who did their best at their job. Will at least be fun to play a possible matchup in wows then and see the Hood beat the Bismarck there if they're in a close enough Tier.

[@Denton1952]

I am happy World of Warships is introducing everybody to old school naval combat. But everyone playing that "game" has tons to learn.

[@Denton1952]

Essentially, Hood is outclassed since Bismarck can fire more rounds a minute IRL, but if Hood closed the distance so plunging fire was not a threat before turning she would've been safe from her historical destruction. She may have still perished -- after a ton of hits-- but Prince of Wales would've dealt Bismarck much more damage. The QUEEN ELIZABETH class battleships had LESS ARMOR than Hood. Hood was essentially a fast battleship. Her armor arrangement was poor, but it was designed for an era where plunging fire was not common place. That development was towards the end or Post WWI. US standard type battleships from Nevada onward were AON and focused on long range plunging fire as the order of the day. This was after Hood was built. This is the only reason why Bismarck killed her off. Not because she was a "battlecruiser." If you look, at kbismarck.com or Navweps or HMS Hood association Hood had more armor than any other ship afloat until Bismarck was launched.

[@bairdrew]

"Hood is outclassed since Bismarck can fire more rounds a minute IRL" Well no actually. Quite the opposite. Bismarck can fire more shells per minute than Hood IN GAME. IRL ships never, ever fired as many shells as the minimum reload time. They typically fired around once every fifty seconds or so, regardless of nationality. And it is a matter of record that Hood was firing her guns as rapidly as Bismarck at the Denmark Strait. She fired 11 salvos in the engagement and the Bismarck 12, and they were actively firing for about the same period of time each.

[@BigBoooster]

danke für dieses video ever remember. time is running sry mein schlechtes englisch

[@stephensmith5982]

She was a battle cruiser only ineffectively given some additional armor. She was not up to opposing a real modern battleship. She and her crew paid a terrible price.

[@tjd4600]

Is this truly the strongest ship during its time? Or is it the Nagato which have larger guns and better armor?

[@johnsmith-gh6cl]

Depends what you mean by the strongest, when the Hood was built it probably was, (AT THAT TIME) it had 4X15 inch guns - battleship armaments similar to the latest battleships and it was the fastest capital ship of its time, that's actually important when some bugger is trying to kill you ( the Hood did not have the biggest gun fitted to an RN ship - that honour belongs to HMS Furious that was supposed to be fitted with 18" guns but only ever had one and only for a short time), The Nagato was a later ship but did have 16" guns and better armour, same generation but an improvement on what was built before, arguably stronger than Hood but as Japan and UK were actually allies at that time, comparison is a bit pointless, you are strongest when you have allies not enemies, Arms races and war create advancement not seen in peacetime, why bother making something better if you're not threatened or threatening anyone else?

[@dubsy1026]

Better armour is rather debatable actually, Nagato wasn't very well armoured

[@sanstheskeleton7132]

whats the song when Bismarck is introduce?

[@SeanChaos117]

I can't wait for GB to be added! How ironic that the largest navy ( for the first part of ww2 and ww1) is the last to be implemented... Oh well.... But I wonder how the British ships will be implemented:0

[@ichasegaming]

SeanChaos117 Not sure, but it'll be a significant addition ^^

[@michaelnaisbitt1639]

Do people who watch this and other clips like it DETECT a complete lack of respect by the youth of today It seems to me that the men and women who died in WW 2. And Are fighting throughout the world today to preserve mine and your way of life deserve more than caustic comments by creeps who know nothing

[@dannymcneil341]

Something I have been concerned about is how wargaming would balance other ships against the Yamato and the Iowa class, as the royal navy and the German navy did not have ships of comparable fire power/armour and speed. However in this video it is stated that the Hood had torpedoes. That would be an interesting way to balance the pride of the royal navy with the great ships of the other Navy's. It is stated that the Bismark was very accurate due to advanced range finding equipment so perhaps that could be its balancing factor :)

[@ichasegaming]

Danny McNeil I'm sure they'll figure it out, nevertheless, balance is a constantly changing process

[@Denton1952]

If you check out NavWeps you'll see shell penetration tables that show that effectively any ship's armor can be penetrated by any other ship's guns at closer ranges. In fact Bismarck's armor was very strong against even Yamato's at close range, because that was what the armor was designed for, close range. If Bismarck can get close to Iowa---difficult but maybe possible in the North Atlantic, Bismarck has a chance. Then there is the fact that All or Nothing armor schemes are potentially very vulnerable to HE fire, and Iowa cannot afford the loss of her easily lost, unarmored bow, vs another battleship's HE shells. Of COURSE, that all rests on the other ship being able to hit her first, since that seems to be the M.O. of Iowa, to hit first, hardest, and reduce the odds of her getting hit, but apparently Bismarck could hit at those distances, Scharnhorst could, as could Warspite. When it comes to these super beasts fighting each other, there's always a possibility. What if PoW took the lead instead of Hood and absorbed the brunt of Bismarck's fire? Maybe Hood would have landed severe hits on Bismarck. On Paper, Bismarck should've been hurt worse than that ship was at Denmark Strait.

[@GG-ir1hw]

Speed? The RN and German navy had the first fast battleships and the last. At 30knots they were comparable in terms of speed. You are right about the rest.

[@benconway9010]

Correct me if I'm wrong but im sure the Bismarck had 16" guns not 15 pretty sure of it

[@Pegasus202]

Bis: 4*2 15" Prinz: 4*2 8" PoW: 2*4 & 1*2 14" Hood: 4*2 15"

[@jutlandbrill]

make one with the German battleship Bismarck

[@ichasegaming]

jutlandbrill That's going to happen soon, but I first have to finish a couple of other requests first :) But I promise the Bismarck is coming

[@Revkor]

Actually both her magazines went off, that's why only three men survive.

[@aurelian3268]

this calls for a rematch!!!!(in world of warship)

[@newo6631]

well we can put a shipwreck of the bismark next to the shipwreck of the hood if thats what u want

[@sebpower3966]

Why doesn't Britain make great ships like this again.

[@erlienfrommars]

Easy picking for today's Anti ship missiles, remember HMS Sheffield (which was at its time a very modern ship) was sunk by a french Exocet fired by the Argentinian air force planes during the Falkland's War.

[@johnsmith-gh6cl]

We do, mostly cruise liners, but battleships were obsolete during the last war, eventually only of use for shore bombardment and carrier escort, Theres no reason to build old technology now, that would be pointless and a big bugger off waste of money. New military, naval and aviation technology is born out of war, no war = equals not much progress. Think about this, in the 1900s an powered aircraft was first flown in the USA. It flew a very short distance. 30 years later the world had Jet fighters and intercontental bombers, a couple of years later rockets (V2s) that actually left Earths atmosphere before dropping to its targets at 1000s of miles per hour (and you thought Russia or the USA put rockets in space first?) , the Nazis did it first. I wonder if Neil Armstrong would have walked on the moon in 1969 if it hadn't been for Nazi scientists? I somehow doubt it.....

[@johnsmith-gh6cl]

@@erlienfrommars You are sooooooo wrong the Royal Navy ships sunk during the Falklands were completely different to WW1 and WW2 where armour and firepower meant everything, modern warships have little or no armour and are largely built of lightweight materials like aluminium and are smaller and designed to fight an enemy over the horizon by missiles , Its interesting to know that the Exocets that hit some British ships did not actually explode, but caused catastrophic fires caused by the missiles fuel propellent , aluminium will burn and so it did, our ships literally melted because of heat WW1 and 2 armour couldn't do that. I served in action in the Navy during the Falklands war so I think I do know something about this. Firing an anti-ship missile against an armoured WW2 ship? I doubt if it could scratch the paint. the only way to sink an armoured ship such as the Hood and its kind was to batter it to death by shelling, sink it by torpedo or mine or bomb the hell out of it, You can still do that with modern ships. Anti- ship missiles are designed to sink modern ships - not old ones.

[@ywe3]

I am just gonna say this for hood if she was half as good as her fans claim she would've survived her 1st bout but instead it showed her for what she was a battle cruiser NOT a candidate for the "most powerful ship in the world" in fact a true contender for that title was KMS Bismarck...

[@Wanderer628]

Firstly, that wasn't her first bout. Secondly, the claim was made before the Bismark was made, and wasn't really used after the 1930s. And seeing as Bismark was sunk barely a year old, it can't claim the title either idiot.

[@ywe3]

Wanderer628 I'm not gonna call you out for your name calling, instead I'm going to debate with you...your 1st statement about the battle of Denmark strait not being her 1st engagement while technically true it was the first time she met an adversary that was "just as good" as herself. 2nd the claim of best ship in the world was what she was known as to EVERYONE and the term was relevant information...3rd between 39 and 40 the Bismarck Class Battleships were the benchmark for what battleships needed to be although her design might be just a bigger scharnhorst her internals and FCS were not. the stereoscopic rangefinders were the finest quality in the world and the 15in guns she packed were very impressive as both the penetration and range were equal to most navies 16in armed ships...let's face it the Hood might've been a good 1920s design but by 1940 she was borderline obsolete as well she was designed a BC and as such shouldn't have engaged Bismarck or Prinz Eugen as both ships out classed her she stood little to no chance at survival (especially when you consider the problematic KGV class that was with her)...and my point about the KMS Bismarck being a contender at the time is valid in fact she was only sunk due to the Kriegsmarine overestimating the technology employed by the British in terms of their Naval Air Arm. Had Britain had "modern" Carrier born strike aircraft Bismarck would've been much better suited at defending herself...even so Bismarck only sunk after being encircled by no less than 5 Battleships multiple cruisers and numerous destroyers...her crew scuttled the ship for God's sake! THE RN DID NOT SINK THE BISMARCK!...now if we look at the Bismarck as a CLASS, both Bismarck and Tirpitz, the Tirpitz weathered many a airstrike and multiple underwater attacks before 4 tall boy hits (which she survived) and 2 more which penetrated her magazine...just from that alone it took over 72 tonnes of torpex HE to sink 1 ship...