Was the Hood really as formidable as it was made out to be, and was it really as big a deal that the royal navy could reasonably become bent on revenge against the Bismarck for its destruction? Or were there other factors involved?
>>17431197The Hood was an old ship that was on it's way for a total overhaul when it was tasked to find Bismarck. The British response was more driven by the actual threat the ships posed to their very fragile lifeline of merchant ships. Large surface warships were much more dangerous to convoys than submarines. The status of the Royal Navy at the time of Bismarck's breakout meant they happened to had enough warships on hand to chase down and kill the Bismarck. They would have liked to do the same to other German raiders like Hipper, Sharnhorst, and others, but they just weren't able to locate and concentrate forces in time for those.
>>17431197>Muh homework question Ask chatgpt kiddo
>>17431197>at the time of her contructionyes she was a fairly good bb>by the time world war 2 rolled aroundshe was heavily outdated and they knew full well she was, she was going to be retrofitted but she was just press ganged to joing pow in the hunt for bismark since she was the only other capital ship fast enough to keep up and act as assistance>bent on revengebeyond having the pride of the fleet destroyed and thus wanting bismark destroyed to keep moral the bongs have also always been extremely autistic about potential naval threats regardless of how minor they could be, in other words the hunt for bismark post sinking was going to be inevitable
>>17431197Emotions and feelings fall by the wayside in a war or battle of any kind. There is absolutely no way the RN devoted special resources to the Bismarck to "get back at" Germany. They did it for strategic superiority. You don't win wars through emotion.
Having a big fast commerce raider attacking essential supply convoys ment the Bismark had to be sunk
>>17431303Morale is important as well, autist. No one wants to hear that their navies flagship is growing barnacles.
>>17431298>es she was a fairly good bbHood was a battlecruiser,fast and heavily armed, but not designed for action against a modern battleship, her armour was good at closer range, but at long range, a lucky falling shot could end her.
>>17431347Isn't that exactly what happened? A shell from the Bismarck penetrated her hull, ignited the ammunition and the rest is history.
>>17431350Fighting at that range was a mistake, having a barely functioning PoW at her side ment the Hood had to do all the fighting, it was basically a suicide mission
>>17431197Letting Bismarck make port in France would have forced Britain to commit ships to countering her the same way Tirpitz did while in Norway.
>>17431307>fast>BismarckWas she really though?
>FormidableBattleships were worthless during ww2. Nearly every major naval battle was decided by aircraft carriers. There was no 'Battle-of-Jutland' type of battle during the entire war. The battleships were mostly just confined to support amphibious landings or raiding shipping lanes.Hood vs Bismark was a rare engagement, and Bismarck was sunk almost immediately after by an aircraft carrier.
>>17431811Faster than the North Carolina and South Dakota classes America had just built and the King George V class Britain was building. Much faster than any of their older battleships. Only Britain's battlecruisers could keep up and Bismarck had just sank Hood.Of course carriers completely changed the math of this, as shown during the hunt for Bismarck but this was before Pearl Harbor and the sinking of Repulse/PoW so the full might of naval air power was underestimated.
>>17431197TWO THOUSAND MENAND FIFTY THOUSAND TONNES OF STEEL
>>17432216AND A LOT OF HOLES
>>17432592they sunk it themselveshe was the most beautiful battleship ever
>>17432961*sankI'm having some Angrish issues due to undiagnosed anger
