Which was a bigger blow to the British navy: the sinking of HMS Hood (WW2) or the sinking of HMS Sheffield (Falklands War)?

Bigger British Naval loss?

  • Sinking of HMS Hood

    Votes: 20 76.9%
  • Sinking of HMS Sheffield

    Votes: 6 23.1%

  • Total voters
    26
Apr 2018
746
India
A bit off topic but once I read a somewhat technical article on how a probably early 20s Admiralty analysis of Hood's deck armor predicted the exact angle of plunging fire that could punch through to the magazine. Can't seem to find it now.

Has anybody read something like that?
 
Mar 2015
1,456
Yorkshire
I voted for Sheffield. It was not the sinking of a destroyer. That was happening many times over.

It was the manner of the sinking and the entry of a new word into the English language - the Exocet

There seemed and indeed there was no defence. The worry was that if these hit only one aircraft carrier the game was over.

I think the Admiralty would be much more worried about the Sheffield than the Hood - plenty more Hoods in the fleet and easily replaced.
 

GogLais

Ad Honorem
Sep 2013
5,471
Wirral
I voted for Sheffield. It was not the sinking of a destroyer. That was happening many times over.

It was the manner of the sinking and the entry of a new word into the English language - the Exocet

There seemed and indeed there was no defence. The worry was that if these hit only one aircraft carrier the game was over.

I think the Admiralty would be much more worried about the Sheffield than the Hood - plenty more Hoods in the fleet and easily replaced.
Good point re the Exocet.
 
May 2011
515
UK
Without a doubt it was the Sheffield. The British surface dominance of the North sea and Atlantic in the second world war was unmatched and never seriously challenged, the loss of the aging Hood was meaningless in strategic terms.
Whereas the British attempt at dominance of a small section of the South Atlantic in 1982was perilous and on a knife edge. The Sheffield was on the "gunline", protecting the exposed British task force, Britains only task force. It's loss opened a gap on the British anti air defence. Ships like the Sheffield, Ardent took hits so that the carrier invincible could survive. A couple of more frigates lost, and invincible is under genuine danger. Strategically this was the difference between winning and losing the war for Britain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Iraq Bruin

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,367
T'Republic of Yorkshire
Without a doubt it was the Sheffield. The British surface dominance of the North sea and Atlantic in the second world war was unmatched and never seriously challenged, the loss of the aging Hood was meaningless in strategic terms.
Whereas the British attempt at dominance of a small section of the South Atlantic in 1982was perilous and on a knife edge. The Sheffield was on the "gunline", protecting the exposed British task force, Britains only task force. It's loss opened a gap on the British anti air defence. Ships like the Sheffield, Ardent took hits so that the carrier invincible could survive. A couple of more frigates lost, and invincible is under genuine danger. Strategically this was the difference between winning and losing the war for Britain.
At least one more ship, HMS Coventry, was lost.
 
Mar 2015
1,456
Yorkshire
Even more serious was the loss of the Atlantic Conveyor Container Ship to an Exocet attack. Some rumours that it deliberately (or not) passed in front of the Hermes Flagship and took one for her. In any case it sank with a large number of helicopters which serious hampered teh operation and ment the Paras and Marines had to Yomp most of their equipment across teh Island.

So three out of three successes - fortunately the Argentinians did not have any more Exocets and thanks to Mitterand and the French they opened their books to Royal Navy and refused to deliver more.

Damn close run thing.