Heavy Metal

Front view of the French light cruiser Montcalm, 1953
lluyglwxydv61.jpg
 
An aerial view of the battleship USS Oklahoma, originally built in 1910. The Oklahoma was operated by the U.S. Navy until she was sunk in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, in December 1941
rnefhydynpv61.jpg
 
USS Los Angeles (CA-135) passing under the Golden Gate Bridge in late Jan. 1947, flying the homecoming pennant
k61ei890qov61.jpg
 
The battleship Bismarck engages Hood and Prince of Wales at the Battle of Denmark Strait, 24 May 1941
krrbq9attcw61.jpg
 
The muzzle of a 203 mm (8 inch) Modello 1927 of the Italian heavy cruiser Zara; note the engravings
x9o8p9wdwgw61.jpg
 
The battleship Bismarck engages Hood and Prince of Wales at the Battle of Denmark Strait, 24 May 1941
View attachment 456624
Notice the angle of the smoke rising from the barrels. It leads to one reason given for the Hood's destruction. The angle of descent of the rounds onto Hood missed its armor belt and penetrated straight into its magazine. That's a theory. WWI ships did not take into account radar guided broadsides; their armor belts were designed for side-on attacks.

Could be, but it also needs to be taken into account that Hood was a Battlecruiser; her armor was much lighter than that of Bismarck and Prince of Whales. After Hood was gone (with only 3 survivors) the PoW broke contact.
 
Sixteen inch aft gun turret from the Japanese Battleship Mutsu, raised during salvage operations in 1970
atbgjbep3qw61.jpg
 
Notice the angle of the smoke rising from the barrels. It leads to one reason given for the Hood's destruction. The angle of descent of the rounds onto Hood missed its armor belt and penetrated straight into its magazine. That's a theory. WWI ships did not take into account radar guided broadsides; their armor belts were designed for side-on attacks.

Thats interesting ... there is an provocative debate here on the armor belts -- I cannot follow it though as i know little about ship design: HMS Hood's armour layout - Naval History Forums
 
I'm hoping they did this for salvage, otherwise, why go through the expense?

Looks like the ship was salvaged for scrap.
From Wikipedia:

"... In July 1944, the oil-starved IJN recovered 580 tonnes (570 long tons; 640 short tons) of fuel from the wreck.[16]

The 1.2-metre (3 ft 11 in) diameter chrysanthemum mon, symbol of the Imperial Throne, was raised in 1953 but lost or scrapped shortly thereafter. One of the 140 mm casemate guns was raised in 1963 and donated to the Yasukuni Shrine. In 1970, the Fukada Salvage Company began salvage operations that lasted until 1978 and scrapped about 75% of the ship. The two aft turrets were raised in 1970 and 1971. Despite the fact that the salvaged components were remarkably preserved, in particular the two gun turrets, bow (including chrysanthemum mount) and stern (with every propeller, and intact rudders and steering gear), the ship was broken up to for its low-background steel and sold to an anonymous "research institute."[50] The salvagers retrieved 849 bodies of crewmen lost during the explosion. In 1995, the Mutsu Memorial Museum declared that no further salvage operations were planned.[51]

The only significant portion of the ship that remains is a 35-metre (114 ft 10 in) long section running from the bridge structure forward to the vicinity of No. 1 turret. The highest portion of the ship is 12 metres (39 ft 4 in) below the surface."
 
Back
Top