![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I recently came across the following post by Bill Juren on Kbismarck.org Who really sank the Hood? Bismarck or Prinz Eugen?
Bill Jurens has commented at greater length in the HMS Hood Association’s Battlecruiser Hood Forum Alleged Forward Magazine Explosion. In view of his statements, I have removed all references to a forward magazine explosion.
John Moore 309 10:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Clearly you feel strongly about this issue, ItsJodo, but it will save us all time and trouble if you appreciate that personal abuse in not permitted on Wikipedia. Since I wrote the post on which you have commented (in 2006), I have discovered that I was mistaken in expecting that would be a consensus for the omission of this theory from the article. I have therefore added a reference to the theory in the "Wreck" section. I hope that this addresses your concerns. Regards, John Moore 309 12:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I did not write that you were retarded, but I wrote that removing references to a forward magazine explosion was retarded. I am very sorry that you took that personally. Also, if you thought I was calling you retarded, I am sorry that you thought that.--ItsJodo (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The above is very funny.--ItsJodo (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I have added these sections, which I hope expand significantly on the material they replace, with minor corrections (such as the correct ranks for Vice-Admiral Blake and Rear-Admiral Walker). In accordance with the “no original research” policy, he material is based mostly on Jurens and the transcript of the proceedings of the Walker enquiry, (the latter available in full on the superb Hood Association website).
You do not need to browse very far in Wikipedia to discover that, over 60 years on, the fate of HMS Hood remains a subject of intense and occasionally ruthless debate. I will be honest and say that I have been disturbed by the standard of some of the editing which has taken place on this article in recent months (see my comment on “Integrity of Primary Sources” below). I am relatively new to Wikipedia, but my understanding is that the job of Wikipedians is to inform debate, by providing verifiable evidence, rather than to use the project as a platform for advocacy. I also believe that as an editor, if I make a substantive change to an article, I have a duty to identify myself, explain my rationale, and give other editors a chance to challenge what I have done.
If anyone has a serious problem with my changes, then I would urge them firstly to do as I have done, and study carefully the source material cited in the article, which I consider to be of the utmost value though by no means infallible; and secondly to raise them here on the discussion page (which is on my watchlist) rather than making wholesale changes or reversions. In asking for such consideration, let me say that I have spent many painstaking hours on compiling, checking and re-checking this work, taking particular pains to eliminate POV, and that I have not knowingly included any statement which is not attributable to either a primary source or to a published authority of international and long-standing repute (such as John Roberts, VE Tarrant, WE Jurgens and Anthony Preston).
I look forward to your comments.
John Moore 309 17:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
John Moore 309 00:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I've just spotted the fact that an anonymous editor recently changed a verbatim quotation from the 2nd Board of Enquiry, by substituting the words Prinz Eugen for Bismarck. This strikes me as a non-trivial change, although the editor responsible didn't think it worthwhile to complete an edit summary (if anyone is interested, the change was logged at 23:17 on 24 Feb 2006). Surely, if the editor believes that the conclusion of the Board was mistaken, his or her proper course was to say so; for example to write "the Board of Enquiry mistakenly concluded that ...". As it is, the change resulted in a complete misrepresentation of a primary source. John Moore 309 17:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I've just noticed that someone has redirected HMS Hood (1918) to the current title, HMS Hood (51). I'm guessing the idea was to use Hood's pendant number to disambiguate (as in USS Enterprise (CV-6)), but the date system seems to be the overwhelming choice for RN ships. I'm sure it should be moved back to HMS Hood (1918), but I don't feel confident about making this kind of change. From my reading of the how-to, it seems there may be side-effects from undoing the redirect, since the article was subsequently edited. Perhaps someone with more experience with this sort of thing would like to give it a try. SRH 02:52, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've removed (rather abruptly I'm afraid) 144.136.26.120's text on Hood's actions at Mers-el-Kebir. We have a whole article on that battle, so details should go there. (And that article has almost no detail about the action itself, so if 144.136.26.120 could fill in more about who did what, it would be an improvement. I think it's just what that article needs. Other than a shorter title.) SRH 14:32, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If possible, the names of the survivors should be mentioned. After all, there were only 3 of them. I think that they diserve to be known as the only men to live through the Hood. Kaiser Matias 02:22 24 May 2005 (UTC)
I happen to know their names and I will add them. (Ted Briggs, Bob Tilburn and Bill Dundas)
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 23:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
STAN:
I have some additional books for 'further reading'. Should I send them to you and have you put them in, or would you like me to add them myself?
PAUL
I read an article years ago in the Sunday Express where it mentioned a guy who was at the stern and was being dragged down by cables.
He took his jack knife out and cut himsself free and swam to the surface.......
Dave
There are at least three theories on why the Hood exploded: -Bismarck's 15" shell penetrated either a gunpowder magazine (or the engine room and blew the rear firewall away, so the explosion could propagate to the magazine) -Prinz Eugen's 8" shell set the unrotated projectile ammunition pile on fire abord the Hood's deck and the flames were sucked into the ship via a left open door or some failing ventillator -Hood blew itself up due to 15" autoloader malfunction or human error. An old lady came forward some 3 years ago to say in public what his father, an RN veteran confined in her. Hood had unreliable gunnery equipment and its crew were poorly trained after the mid-1930s, they almost managed to blew themselves up during an excercise some week prior to the battle. Such an event would not be unparalleled in the course of naval warfare or the history of the Royal Navy. It is quite plausible. 195.70.48.242 20:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
It has been shows that the shells from Bismarck hit Hood at about 13 degrees from the horizontal (surface of the water). The deck armor played no part. The shell that destroyed Hood hit the side armor, not the deck armor. 147.240.236.8 22:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
This article nails its colours on the sinking very firmly to the Prinz Eugen mast. The actual cause may never be known, of course, but isn't there a problem in stating that Hood was hit by a 6" shell from Prinz Eugen at 06.01? Hadn't the cruiser already changed target to Price of Wales and been firing at the battleship for at least 4 minutes by that time? I asked the same question of the "Battle of the Denmark Strait" talk page but without response to date. Regards Patrick.
Can anyone clarify what the armor penetration figures mean? It gives 'They rated at a vertical penetration of 297 mm and an horizontal penetration of 72 mm at 20,000 yd (18 km). Hood's magazines carried 120 rounds for each gun.' The 72 mm figure seems strangely low, that's less than three inches of penetration. I've also never heard of giving x and y values for penetration. Is that referring to plunging vs. direct fire? If so, we can't use the same range for both numbers. MilesVorkosigan 17:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
There is a footnote in Flagship Hood regarding this. I do not have the book in front of me, so I can't provide the page number off hand.
I note from [the review] that one complaint was that characteristics of the Hood should be covered more on the Admiral class battlecruiser article. I personally don't hold with that since they only ever built the Hood and she was modified along the way but is ther any other information on the planned ships available. GraemeLeggett 16:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
This isn't really to do with the article, rather then a question about the HMS Hood, and its records.
My Grandfather served on HMS Hood, but jumped ship, and got arrested in Canada. He then served in the Merchant Navy, and saw the Hood sink.
Does anyone know where you'd find records regarding the people who served on the Hood? Regards User:Norfolkdumpling
The British used the English system for gun diameter. 1pdr = 1 inch; 2pdr = 1.5 in; 6 pdr = 2.25 in; 12 pdr = 3 in.
40mm = approx. 1.57in, slightly larger than 1.5 in., but not the same.
Someone need to provide a reference where the British used the metric system for the 2pdr gun before Britain was on the metric system.
This occurs in several other articles relating to British ships as well.
68.61.35.13 23:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Should her epithet "the Mighty Hood" be in the intro? GraemeLeggett 11:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, most of the images of Hood on Wikimedia Commons have recently been purged, mainly on the grounds of "unknown sources". If anyone wants to upload some fresh ones, they can protect them from this fate by using Permission=Released into Public Domain by HM Government (UK), with the template, ((PD-BritishGov)) , which looks like this:
![]() | This work created by the United Kingdom Government is in the public domain.
This is because it is one of the following:
HMSO has declared that the expiry of Crown Copyrights applies worldwide (ref: HMSO Email Reply) | ![]() |
John Moore 309 21:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I was just thinking why they haven't got this famous picture "Sinking of HMS Hood" on the page. --Mcflashgordon 15:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the main picture is perhaps a little unflattering. I have a great pic of Hood im Malta in '38, and it's a more stiking 'pose'. Suggest a change. Dapi89 23:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead and change it. If someone doesn't like it, I'm sure we'll find out. Parsecboy 01:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Somebody should get a better picture. In the article, it says the shell that sank the Hood hit around the vincity of her mainmast. Current pictures of the Hood doesn't enable me to see the mainmast. It has no labels, and I would very much like a new picture with labels.ItsJodo 16:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)ItsJodoItsJodo 16:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say it hit near the mainmast.--ItsJodo 16:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with a new picture for the Hood.--ItsJodo 16:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but you're right. It does have somthing to do with the Hood. Please excuse my mistake.--ItsJodo (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Would anyone object if I standardised and sorted all the notes and references? I think the article could do with a separate "Notes" section with all the actual inline citations in a "Citations" section as at HMS Royal Oak (08). I propose to put the bibliography listings into horizontal format. I don't know about everyone else but it's such an eyesore on the editing page. At the very least it needs alphabetising and actually updated with all the sources cited in the article. Harlsbottom (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Hood was sunk by Bismarck. Your edits are justly ridiculed as "stupid". There isn't a single authoritative book that questions this fact. Unless your trying to tell everyone that you know better than Roger Chesenau, the Hood historian? Dapi89 (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)