HMS Hood sunk! 1,341 crew feared dead (5-24-41)

The Pittsburgh Press (May 25, 1941)

WORLD’S BIGGEST WARSHIP SUNK BY NAZIS IN GREENLAND BATTLE

Hood sent to bottom by Bismarck; fear crew of 1,341 lost

By Wallace Carroll, United Press staff writer

05, HMS Hood after explosion (Norman)

London, May 24 –
The Admiralty tonight announced its most serious loss since the Battle of Jutland, the blowing up of the world’s mightiest dreadnaught, the 42,100-ton Hood, in a battle off Greenland, with the German battleship Bismarck.

The loss of the Royal Navy’s pride, queen of the seas since her completion in 1920, was due to an “unlucky” hit by the 35,000-ton German battleship Bismarck. A shell from the Bismarck penetrated the Hood’s powder chamber and sent her to the bottom with the loss of virtually all her 1,341 officers and men.

The Admiralty’s grim communiqué furnished few details of the action, fought high in the iceberg-ridden sea of Greenland on the outskirts or possibly even within the limits of the American neutrality patrol zone.

But the Bismarck, the Admiralty said, was also hit and even now is being pursued by other units of the fleet whose white ensign has for a century signified lordship of the open seas.

The loss of the Hood was the cruelest single blow the British fleet has suffered in the war. It cost Britain her second capital ship since the start of hostilities. The first was the battleship Royal Oak, sunk by a U-boat in Scapa Flow.

Ironically, the Goliath of the Royal Navy went down at the hands of the very warship which German propagandists had proclaimed would dethrone her as the mightiest warship afloat.

The battle brought face to face two of the heaviest ships ever to clash at sea – each capable of hurling a seven-ton broadside from batteries of eight 15-inch guns. But the Bismarck was 19 years younger than the Hood and probably fought on better-than-even terms despite the Hood’s edge in weight of 7,000 tons.

The Bismarck, it was admitted, had the benefit of late improvements in hardened steel and increased gun firepower.

Britons, while grieving the Hood’s loss, took some comfort from the fact that the new King George V battleships are now in service and also from Britain’s present margin in battleships – she having 15 to Germany’s known four.

But there was speculation as to the purpose of the German battle squadron in ranging so far west as the Greenland area. It was noted by naval experts that use of battleships for commerce raiding is extremely wasteful because each capital ship requires a substantial escort of smaller warcraft.

Some British suggested, half humorously but with a tinge of seriousness, that possibly the Germans:

…have decided to protect Greenland against United States aggression.

The Admiralty reported that the Hood, carrying the flag of Vice Admiral L. E. Holland, intercepted a German naval force, apparently headed by the Bismarck, and gave battle.

A communiqué said:

British naval forces intercepted early this morning off the coast of Greenland German naval forces including the battleship Bismarck.

The enemy were attacked and during the ensuing action HMS Hood (Capt. R. Kerr, CBE RN) wearing the flag of Vice Admiral L. E. Holland, CB, received an unlucky hit in the magazine and blew up.

The Bismarck has received damage and pursuit of the enemy continues. It is feared there will be few survivors from HMS Hood.

Thus, the Royal Navy suffered its most grievous blow of the war and possibly of all time. Only the losses of the World War battle of Jutland, on which both the British and German fleets hammered each other unmercifully, appeared comparable to the disaster announced by the Admiralty tonight.

The Hood was one of the most heavily armored battleships afloat. Its construction was undertaken at the height of World War I, Sept. 1, 1916, at Clydebank, Scotland, and on March 5, 1920, she was completed.

The Hood had a speed of 32 knots, one of the few battleships which the British possessed capable of matching speed with the new German battleships and pocket battleships.

Because of her speed, huge armament and heavy armor, she had been considered ideal for operating with a small escort flotilla against sea raiders.

How the German shell came to penetrate the Hood’s magazine was not indicated. But it seemed obvious that it must have been a lucky hit, since the magazines were located in the depths of the great craft, heavily protected by slabs of armor plate and multitudinous devices.

Although the rated capacity of the Hood was 42,100 tons, she tipped the scales at 46,200 tons with full load. The great ship was 860 feet, 7 inches long with a beam of 105 feet, 2.5 inches.

Against the Bismarck, however, the Hood had only a slight edge in armament. The Bismarck had a speed about equal or slightly less than the Hood and, like the Hood, mounted a main battery of eight 15-inch guns. The chief difference between the two battleships was in armor plate. The Hood, with 15-inch steel plates on the face and 11 and 12-inch plates on the sides of her turrets, with 12, 7 and 5-inch slabs of steel on her sides amidships and only slightly less heavy slabs forward and aft, was a massive mountain of steel.

The British have also lost the aircraft carriers Courageous and the Glorious (both 22,500 tons). The cruisers Effingham, Calypso, Curlew, Southampton and Bonaventure have also been lost by the British. Except for the Effingham (9,770 tons), all of the cruisers were of 5,000 tons or less. The British aircraft carrier Illustrious has been damaged badly by bombs.

13 auxiliary cruisers, all of 14,000 tons or more and including the Carinthia (20,277 tons), have been destroyed.

The Admiralty had admitted the loss of 25 of its submarines, 43 British destroyers and 161 auxiliary craft of less than cruiser rank. Most of them were very small vessels of the trawler and minesweeper class.

Germany’s single greatest naval loss of the war was the pocket battleship Admiral Graf Spee, scuttled off Montevideo after defeat at sea by three British cruisers. The Germans have also lost the cruisers Karlsruhe and Blücher and recently, the battleships Gneisenau and Scharnhorst have been blasted repeatedly by the RAF at Brest.

Italy has suffered heavy losses in battleships, cruisers, destroyers, submarines, torpedo boats and troop transports. She lost her entire Red Sea fleet as a result of British victories in East Africa.

The number of German submarines lost has never been totaled, because the Germans rarely admit submarine losses and the British Admiralty adheres to a policy of concealing victories over U-boats.

The audio courtesy of RRG of the German announcement of the sinking:

2 Likes

SINKING OF HOOD MAY RUSH DECISION ON U.S. NAVY AID

Washington, May 24 (UP) –
President Roosevelt tonight rounded out a strongly anti-Axis speech for delivery to the nation Tuesday, as sinking of the mighty British battlecruiser Hood appeared likely to hasten a decision on further strengthening of U.S. Navy operations to help Britain in the Atlantic.

Aside from the weakening of the British fleet by the loss of this great ship, the fact that a strong German detachment was able to reach the Greenland area and strike such a blow there caused re-examination of the North Atlantic situation.

It may affect the entire picture of American aid for Britain and the future course of administration foreign policy – some important details of which Mr. Roosevelt is expected to reveal in his forthcoming fireside chat.

Secretaries Frank Knox and Henry L. Stimson have been urging all-out U.S. naval action in the Atlantic for weeks, asserting that Britain needs help to protect her supply lines. Now those who favor such help were expected to cite the loss of the Hood as increasing the need for it.

A number of Congressional figures, meanwhile, delivered speeches bearing on this nation’s role in the world situation. Sen. Joseph F. Guffey (D-PA), a staunch advocate of convoys, again urged that course in a radio address.

House Democratic Leader John W. McCormack (MA) told the institute of government at Chapel Hill, NC, that:

If we must have war, Hitler is the person who will determine the issue.

Post-war reconstruction, he said, must follow Democratic lines.

Other portentous decisions are being weighed within the administration, not the least of which is the question of possible repeal or amendment of the Neutrality Act, presumably to free American merchantmen for direct service to Halifax and, conceivably, even the British Isles.

Similarly, administration leaders are weighing the extent to which American naval power in the Pacific can be shifted to Atlantic lanes for operation in the U.S. patrol.

On the matter of Neutrality Act revision, there has been no definite intimation, by Mr. Roosevelt that he personally favors the repeal proposals.

A United Press survey of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee showed that if the administration were to press for repeal, sentiment is likely to be about 13–10 for repeal. This is the same vote by which the Committee rejected the administration-opposed resolution by Senator Charles W. Tobey (R-NH) to ban convoys.

Shortcut is hinted

Senator Claude Pepper (D-FL), frequent protagonist of many New Deal foreign policies, conferred with Assistant Secretary of State Adolf A. Berle Jr. today and said after the meeting that the Neutrality Act might be repealed “by common consent” rather than by legislative action.

Whether that might be a clue to the administration course was conjectual. Much significance was attached to it.

In explaining his point, Senator Pepper said:

It is only a matter of time before we repeal the Neutrality Act either by law or in fact. It might be repealed as we repealed the Johnson Act by passing the Lead-Lease Bill – that is, by superseding legislation. Further, it might be repealed by common consent, like the 50 destroyers that were transferred [to Britain]. You know, if we had waited for legislation to transfer the destroyers, the Senate would have been debating it yet.

Colony action talked

Still up in the air is the question of possible United States action against French possessions in the hemisphere, and even at Dakar on the French West African “bulge” only 1,600 miles from South America. Several isolationists as well as interventionists agree that seizure of the New World French possessions might be a smart thing.

Latest to take on the matter was Senator James M. Mead (D-NY), a strong administration supporter, who suggested in a letter to Secretary of State Cordell Hull “seizure by force without delay” of all French possessions in the Western Hemisphere unless the Vichy government consents to allow us to use them as bases.

Senator Mead specifically advocated seizure of French Guiana, Martinique, Guadeloupe, St. Bartholomew, Clipperton, St. Pierre and Miquelon.

In return for the use of these areas, he suggested, the United States could cancel a portion of the multi-billion-dollar French war debt, establish credits here for the provision of non-military supplies to French possessions and unoccupied France or by any other acceptable formula.

Senator George W. Norris (I-NE) opposed any action against the French possessions, telling reported that such a move would “throw France squarely into Germany’s arms” and permit the Nazis to “openly use French warships.” He said:

I think it would hurt rather than help England by seizing those possessions.

Mr. Roosevelt, meanwhile, drafted his Tuesday fireside address with the assistance of Judge Samuel Rosenman of the New York Supreme Court, an old friend and frequent consultant on important speeches.

Presidential Secretary Stephen T. Early said the President had completed a first draft of 22 pages, indicating that the speech would require at least 30 minutes to deliver.

2 Likes