krysa написал:

#1524119
Если мне память не изменяет "Дюнкерк","Прованс",,"Страссбур","Бретань"-между ней и англичанами 3 ЛК было

Нет не изменяет, на нем во всяком случае объявили боевую тревогу.

igor написал:

#1524139
Так и есть.

Спасибо Игорь!

Nemo-800 написал:

#1524116
Пруф.

Алекс написал:

#1524117
Английский документ в студию...

Ба, какие мы грозные.   
Повторю.

Unforgiven написал:

#1524106
Есть соответствующая тема, где все это подробно рассмотрено, включая подводное исследование.

Но для особо ленивых.

Unforgiven написал:

#1196798
We conclude
(1) That the sinking of Hood was due to a hit from Bismarck's 15-inch shell in or adjacent to Hood's 4-inch or 15-inch magazines, causing them all to explode and wreck the after part of the ship. The probability is that the 4-inch magazines exploded first.

Мало? Так я добавлю. На чистом аглицком.

Unforgiven написал:

#1187331
"A Marine Forensic Analysis of HMS Hood and DKM Bismarck."

William Jurens, Assocate Member, Consultant,
William H. Garzke, Jr., Member, Consultant,
Robert O. Dulin, Jr., Visitor, Consultant,
John Roberts, Visitor, Consultant, and
Richard Fiske, Member

A detailed reconstruction of the action leading to the loss of the Hood, including a complete analysis of the probable path of the projectile, which led to her destruction, is now in progress, and should be completed by the end of this year.
A reanalysis of armor penetration calculations first done in 1987 has so far found no evidence that would indicate that the previous computations were substantively in error. This analysis, and the geometry of the protection system as shown in figure 18, suggests that the fatal penetration occurred through the upper deck through the after engine room or slightly aft of the after engine room on the starboard side, in an area where a small section of 75mm laminated armor deck plating had been omitted in order to save weight.
This is entirely in accordance with the findings of the original Admiralty Boards of Inquiry that investigated the loss in 1941.

http://www.sname.org/HigherLogic/System … 7bf73103a7

Unforgiven написал:

#1524151
Повторю.

Cause of the Ship's Destruction

The very sudden and total disappearance of the ship clearly shows that the explosion which sank her was of great magnitude. As noted before, much of the evidence is contradictory and inconclusive, and we realise that many points in connection with the loss of Hood can never be proved definitely.

1. Visible evidence
The first visible evidence of damage which might possibly have led to the destruction of the ship was a fire on the boat deck. It has been established that this followed immediately on a hit on the boat deck, probably from Bismarck's third salvo.

2. Position and Extent
The exact position of the hit and/or the start of the fire is in doubt, but the bulk of the evidence shows that the fire first appeared on the port side and abaft the mainmast. It is certain that it spread very rapidly until it covered a large part of the port side of the boat deck, but there is very little evidence that it spread below. There was no sign of Hood's speed decreasing before the explosion and it might be inferred that the fire had not, therefore, affected the engine rooms.

3. Appearance
Evidence as to the colour of flames, smoke and other phenomena observed in this fire differs very considerably, but analysis of the most reliable evidence indicates that it burned with a reddish/orange flame and comparatively little smoke. Distant observers emphasise the red.

4. Cause
(1) There are three possible causes of such an immediate and rapidly spreading fire
      (a) Petrol
      (b) 4-inch ready Use ammunition
      (c) UP ammunition
(2) The exact amount of petrol which was on board at the time cannot be definitely stated, but if the order known to be in force in Hood a short time previously were carried out - and there is no reason to suppose otherwise - there is no reason to suppose that there was more than two gallons. This would have been on the boat deck abreast the mainmast. There is reason to believe that the petrol stowage in Hood was carefully supervised and not withstanding the opinion of Bismarck's officers which was based on a false assumption, the Board consider it unlikely that petrol was the cause or at any rate the sole cause of this fire.
(3) Eighty rounds of 4-inch ready Use ammunition were stowed in light type lockers on the boat deck and on the foc's'le deck. It is quite possible that either 4-inch or UP or both could be ignited as the result of a shell bursting in their vicinity and there is definite evidence from the survivors that ammunition was in fact exploding in the fire. One survivor (Briggs) gave evidence that the Senior Gunnery Officer reported a fire in the ready Use lockers and Midshipman Dundas is stated to have informed the previous Board that the Torpedo Officer had reported a cordite fire on the starboard side of the boat deck. The noises like big Chinese crackers heard by A.B. Tilburn may have been UP ammunition exploding.

Evidence as to orders which were known to be in force in Hood a short time previous to the date in question regarding the supply of 4-inch ammunition, makes it practically certain that all the hatches in the train of supply would definitely be closed. The evidence of the expert witnesses also shows that the results of a fire amongst the 4-inch ready Use ammunition and UP ammunition should not be fatal to the ship.

5. Conclusion
We have made a careful study of the plans showing stowage of 4-inch and RU ammunition; the evidence clearly shows that some of this caught fire. After consideration of all the evidence and bearing in mind that Hood was definitely hit again after the fire had started, and almost immediately before the explosion, we have come to the conclusion that the fire was not in itself the cause of, and was distinct from the explosion that destroyed the ship.

6. Some cause other than the fire must therefore be sought for the explosions, and the three potential dangers are obviously as follows:
(1) Torpedo warheads,
(2) 4-inch magazines,
(3) 15-inch magazines

7. As regards the torpedo warheads, we put ourselves the following questions:
(a) Could one or more have been caused to explode during the action?
(b) Does the evidence of eyewitnesses correspond to what one might expect to see or hear if one or more warheads detonated or exploded?
(c) Would the explosion or detonation of one or more warheads have caused the ship to sink so rapidly?

8. With reference to (a). Evidence of eyewitnesses, Repulse and an Officer who had recently served on Hood leaves little room for doubt that the mantlet doors were closed. A warhead could still, however, have been detonated or exploded by a direct hit from Bismarck's shell.   There is no direct evidence that such a hit occurred, but it may have done so on either side of the ship. If a single warhead had gone off, one other, but probably not more than one, would also have gone off.

With reference to (b). Expert opinion suggested that the explosion of two warheads would produce an all round, almost instantaneous flash. It would not have produced the very high columns of flame of appreciable duration which was seen by so many witnesses. Nor was the noise, reported as being heard, compatible with that of a TNT detonation or explosion. The consensus of expert opinion was definitely against, the characteristics of the explosion as given in evidence by eyewitnesses being that of TNT.

With reference to (c). Mr. Offord, our advisor in construction, was of the opinion that this could be the case. Other witnesses, experts in explosives but not in construction, were of the opposite view, and the Board are not convinced that such a very rapid sinking would follow from the damage which Mr. Offord considered would result from the explosion of two warheads. Further, there is strong evidence that the widespread and immediate damage actually caused to the after part of the ship was considerably greater than that which Mr. Offord considered would result from two warheads exploding.

We have therefore come to the conclusion that, although the explosion or detonation of two warheads cannot be entirely excluded that this was not the direct cause of the sinking of the ship. As regards the 4-inch and 15-inch magazines the following questions arise:

(1) Is it likely that enemy gunfire during this action would "blow up" any or all of the magazines?
(2) Would the blowing up of magazines produce the effects seen and heard by witnesses?
(3) Would the blowing up of any or all of the magazines cause the rapid destruction of the ship?

Here again, expert advisers were consulted, and lead us to the following conclusions:

As regards (1). Expert evidence shows that this is quite possible if the muzzle velocity of Bismarck's shell was between 2721 and 3050 fps. If the muzzle velocity was over 3050 fps, the probability, bearing in mind the evidence as to the fall of shot, is considerable.
As regards (2). We consider that what was seen and heard was in accordance with what might be expected if the after group of 4-inch and/or 15-inch magazines of Hood had blown up. There is one important point which needed careful consideration and which was remarked on by DNC in his minute NL 9821/41 (Report of previous Board of Enquiry) and by C in C Home Fleet, on NL 11131/41; namely that the position of the explosion as observed by some competent witnesses was much further forward than would, at first sight, have been expected had the 4-inch or 15-inch magazines blown up. This is partially explained on page 3 where we reached the conclusion that not only was a tremendous pillar of flame observed just before the mainmast, but that, in addition, a very heavy explosion was seen practically simultaneously further aft.
Commander Maton and Commander Knight agreed that if the 4-inch magazines went off first, followed instantaneously by the 15-inch, the first visible sign might well be a large sheet of flame directly above or just before the 4-inch magazines. Finally, it must be remembered that our peace time knowledge and practical experience of the results of cordite explosion has been based on experiments with a maximum of about half a ton of cordite. Hood's after magazine contained about 112 tons, over two hundred times as much. The course of the explosion following on the terrific pressures likely to be produced in this case must be difficult to predict.   From the last was there are three examples of the effects on battle cruisers of cordite explosions - explosions which both in appearance and effect gave very similar results to those experienced in the loss of Hood.   As regards (3), there is little room for doubt that the immediate destruction of the after end of the ship followed by the rapid sinking of the remainder would result from the blowing up of the 4-inch or 15-inch magazines - in the case of the former because their explosion would cause the 15-inch also to blow up.


Conclusions

We conclude

(1) That the sinking of Hood was due to a hit from Bismarck's 15-inch shell in or adjacent to Hood's 4-inch or 15-inch magazines, causing them all to explode and wreck the after part of the ship.   The probability is that the 4-inch magazines exploded first.
(2) There is no conclusive evidence that one or two torpedo warheads detonated or exploded simultaneously with the magazines, or at any other time, but the possibility cannot be entirely excluded. We consider that if they had done so their effect would not have been so disastrous as to cause the immediate destruction of the ship, and on the whole, we are of the opinion that they did not.
(3) That the fire that was seen on Hood's Boat Deck, and in which UP and/or 4-inch ammunition was certainly involved, was not the cause of her loss.

Шулерство это плохо.

Nemo-800 написал:

#1524153
Шулерство это плохо.

Нут так и не шулерствуйте, если плохо.

То, что нельзя точно установить всех деталей произошедшего, не означает, что нельзя установить причину произошедшего.
Комиссия рассмотрела все обстоятельства и сделала вывод.
We conclude, прочитали?
Вывод комисии однозначен -  due to a hit from Bismarck's 15-inch shell.

Алекс написал:

#1524157
Пока я знаю точно, что есть ТРИ официальные версии

О, ну тут более чем уместно Ваше

Алекс написал:

#1524117
Английский документ в студию...

Что касается

Алекс написал:

#1524157
А это тут причем? Для вас саморазложение пороха и форс пламени внутрь башни при открывании затвора при затяжном выстреле одно и то же?

Да ради бога, приведите пример, когда после первой мировой "форс пламени внутрь башни при открывании затвора при затяжном выстреле" привел к взрыву погребов.

Алекс написал:

#1524168
Что-то мне подсказывает, что после этого свидетелей не остается...

Ой, это как?
Британцы не узнают, что один из кораблей Ее Величества взорвался? 
P.S. А что там с английским документом про три официальные версии?   

А сколько было спеси

Алекс написал:

#1524108
я знаю точно, что есть ТРИ официальные версии от чего он взорвался.

Алекс написал:

#1524117
Английский документ в студию...

Знаю точно, документ в студию...

Unforgiven написал:

#1524156
рассмотрела все обстоятельства и сделала вывод.

As regards (1). Expert evidence shows that this is quite possible if the muzzle velocity of Bismarck's shell was between 2721 and 3050 fps
Снаряд Бисмарка 2650 футов. До свидания.

Алекс написал:

#1524157
Для вас саморазложение пороха и форс пламени внутрь башни при открывании затвора при затяжном выстреле одно и то же?

Разбирающиеся в японском флоте пусть поправят, но Хьюга вроде во время артиллерийских стрельб рванул? Или учений?

Алекс написал:

#1524221
У "Бисмарка", насколько помню = максимальная начальная скорость снаряда 820 м/с.

Именно так.