The Ship Model Forum

[quote="PaulC"]Well Frank, Flyhawk has set a very high bar for themselves that they don't seem to have a problem elevating even further!

But..they have a very long list of future kits coupled with a slow release rate. Who knows where Hood is in the development process. There is probably still time for an "intervention" to make sure they have all the latest. Hopefully, given their penchant for excellence, they'll be receptive![/quote]

Well, if anyone here is in contact with them, you know what to do. Please send them our way. We have some info they might be interested in.

Well Frank, Flyhawk has set a very high bar for themselves that they don't seem to have a problem elevating even further!

But..they have a very long list of future kits coupled with a slow release rate. Who knows where Hood is in the development process. There is probably still time for an "intervention" to make sure they have all the latest. Hopefully, given their penchant for excellence, they'll be receptive!

[quote="PaulC"]Hi Frank,

I have 5 Hoods - 2 Airfix (1937, 1941), Tamiya and Trumpeter 1/700 and the disastrous Lindberg 1/400.

When Flyhawk's is released, it will be six.

Paul[/quote]

Ah I figured you’d have made a few Hoods Paul!

Flyhawk- haven't heard much about that. We’ve never been in contact with them. It doesn’t seem very marketable unless they go for finer detailing and accuracy OR a different timeframe (1920s would be great...or my favourite era, the Spanish Civil War - NO ship was sexier than Hood in 507C, hubba-hubba!). If it’s as sunk (yet again...yawn), I can only hope they’ve paid attention to this forum, EJ’s site and of course the Hood website. I hope they don’t use those damned Morskie plans or Kagero book (avoid those like the plague folks).

I like Flyhawk and have high hopes...I just hope thy don’t make all the same old mistakes or step backwards like Trumpeter did. Naturally, the HMS Hood Association will be happy to review the kit if Flyhawk want to provide one.

Hi Frank,

I have 5 Hoods - 2 Airfix (1937, 1941), Tamiya and Trumpeter 1/700 and the disastrous Lindberg 1/400.

When Flyhawk's is released, it will be six.

Paul

Just curious, but how many of you have built multiple models of Hood? I don’t mean just two, but three or more? Has anyone ever built most (or even all) of the most well known mass-produced models of the ship? I’m referring primarily to the Airfix, Heller, Tamiya, Italeri, and of course all sizes of the Trumpeter kits (even their 1/200 cock-up). That’s eight of the most well known and easily accessible models of the ship. Yes, yes, I know there are more, but I figure these are the most common.

I of course have had examples of all these kits but mainly for review purposes. I never bothered to build most of them (many were consigned to the bin or given away). I can never seem to finish any of them anyways. Of course, one day I WILL finish a 5/6/7Bs aka Mighty ‘Ood aka Mighty Hood aka Wobbly aka Largest Submarine aka @#$&@ ( there are still some nicknames that I promised to never tell, LOL).

Anyway, as one of her representatives I’m curious about this.

[quote="chuck"]Does anyone know of a good drawing or photos of the fly off platforms which the Hood carried on her B and X turret shortly after completion?

It appears the Fairey Flycatcher fighter parked on top of the turret, and then rolled down platforms attached to the top of the gun barrels for take off.

My question is are the portion of the platform mounted on top of the barrels split to accommodate the barrels elevating separately? Do they recoil with the barrel or are they stowed away when the guns fire?[/quote]

When installed, the "planks" for the platform extension appear to have spanned across both barrels. Naturally, this required both barrels to be identically elevated. I would assume the underside brackets were stowed along with the platform extensions when the system was not in use. At least in the many photos of the ship with the platforms (albeit when no aircraft were aboard), the support struts are not in place.

Of course, the reality is that she rarely actually carried aircraft for long periods of time. She never had much luck with aircraft.

There a few photos of the turret-top system AND aircraft in use aboard Hood, but by far, her early 1930s stern catapult (what a disaster!) and Flycatcher arrangement was FAR better documented. Of course, even if you cant locate detailed photos of Hood's platforms, you can likely consult similar platforms in use on other ships. Repulse and others also operated these gun house & barrel top platforms. Though probably not identical to those on Hood, I would bet they were very similar.

Does anyone know of a good drawing or photos of the fly off platforms which the Hood carried on her B and X turret shortly after completion?

It appears the Fairey Flycatcher fighter parked on top of the turret, and then rolled down platforms attached to the top of the gun barrels for take off.

My question is are the portion of the platform mounted on top of the barrels split to accommodate the barrels elevating separately? Do they recoil with the barrel or are they stowed away when the guns fire?

Thank you Frank, I'm not going to 'throw my hat in the ring' for this one - just yet!

Cheers Jabb.

[quote="Jabberwock"]So, Frank, is it possible to add a small note to each section to indicate that that particular improvement has been addressed in the Pontos set?[/quote]

Sorry for the very late response, but I rarely check online forums these days. We would be happy to add something like that to our article if someone would like to compile the information for us. We’re currently putting more effort into our crew database and our photo collections, but we can still certainly make changes to other areas. It all comes down to time and resources. So again, If anyone would like to compile such a list as Jab referenced, we’d be happy to use it (and of course, anyone contributing would be given credit online if they wish).

Thanks a lot James a fantastic explanation ,very interesting indeed.
IMHO Hood was a great ship ,just a unlucky one, a real beauty and magnificent vessel .

Concur... an excellent and informative post.

The point about Hood being very heavily armoured, even more so than many classified as battleships, was well made.

A perspective changing post... and we don't get many of those!

Really good explanation Jamie!

We can also consider that the diagrams illustrate the tests done in 1920 with [i]British[/i] 15-inch shells. Bismarck's 38 cm, though a lighter shell, had a higher muzzle velocity and therefore may have had greater penetrating power. In 1941, British experts testified that a shell with a MV of 3050 fps could have penetrated the 12-inch belt and reached a magazine. Bismarck's shells could exceed that.

Still the 7-inch belt, through the 2-inch scarp, then the 1-inch lower deck was more likely, given that the ship was still well inclined towards the Germans when she took the final hit (her A-arcs had just opened as she turned).

Paul

Thank you for the good dissertation! Quite informative.

[quote="Fliger747"]What is the latest thought on Hood's armor and the "fatal hit"?[/quote]

Based on the range and the German gunnery tables, the shell trajectory would be somewhere close to 14 degrees below horizontal. This has been known by people seriously interested in Hood for a good while, but like all sorts of misinformation, myths like "plunging fire" are oft repeated and very difficult to kill.

Hood's deck armour wasn't weak per se - it was a multi-deck system. What it lacked was one very heavy deck. The main belt armour was 12" thick and covered the waterline to just above the magazine roof. Above this was a 7" armour up to the next deck and 5" above to main deck level. Round-downs at 45% within the hull should have protected the interior from oblique shots but these were light at 2" compared to 4" (I think) on the Queen Elizabeths. This was planned to be upgraded at the refit that Hood kept being passed over, mostly because she was still the warship least in need of it other than the Nelson class and until the KGVs were commissioned.

[img]http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/no21987-1920_Gunnery_trials_sketches.jpg[/img]

Hood was [i]very[/i] heavily armoured overall with over 32% of her displacement attributed to armour - this was ground breaking stuff and she was, overall, more heavily armoured than any battleship at the time. There's a school of thought that she only retained the Battlecruiser classification because the Royal Navy was traditional, and that's how she was initially laid down, and she was clearly too fast to simply chug along in battle line. She was absolutely not a 1911 "Invincible" repeat.

Whilst the German gunnery was erratic at best, Hood's final turn appears to have corrected the range for Bismarck and the final hit penetrated close to the mainmast through the 7" armour and reached NOT the 15" main magazine but the adjacent unarmoured 4" magazine which had been expanded in a previous minor refit. At the outbreak of war the dubiety of this expansion was raised and this work too was to be undone at the next refit.

There was no massive explosion, no secondary explosion of the forward 15" magazine or anything like that. There was an updraft of smoke through the deck ventilators from the engineering spaces and tall column of red, hissing flame appeared vertically from the boat deck. Overpressure from the rapidly expanding gases generated by the aft magazines burning blew out the plating amidships and broke the keel. According to Ted Briggs' account, the commanding officers didn't even appear to realise what was happening behind them to the hull. The helmsman called "Steering's gone!" and was answered with "Very good. Switch to emergency steering."

What is the latest thought on Hood's armor and the "fatal hit"?

I now have my sticky mitts on the 1/200 Hood and the Pontos set.

I have carried out a bit of research and am now in a position to get going as it were. Many many thanks to those who have contributed to the Pontos set and the HMS Hood Association for their review and critique of the kit and suggestions for improvements.

This is directed towards Frank and the review on the hood site - [url]http://www.hmshood.com/hoodtoday/models/trumpeter/trumpeter200.htm[/url]

The section on 'Suggestions for Improvement' is comprehensive and very well written and contains quite a number of improvements required, a considerable number of these have been addressed in the Pontos kit after excellent contributions from Frank EJ and many others.

So, Frank, is it possible to add a small note to each section to indicate that that particular improvement has been addressed in the Pontos set?

Just a thought

Cheers Jab

You're welcome. And yes, a bit of white would be nice.

EJ, you are a star!

Shame really would have made a nice contrast in that area!

Cheers, Jabb

I have one good shot (that I cannot share) that shows the support pillars in this area (below the boat crutches) and these pillars are partially white. The contrast shows the ceiling to be hull colour.

Quick question, never seen it asked nor, after a bit of research, can I find the answer myself.

Underside of shelter-deck (boat-deck, Trumpeter's 'up-deck') colour?

Hull or white?

Cheers, Jabb