The Ship Model Forum

Hi 81542

Thanks for the info, it's all noted and I take note of all the suggested lists and published drawings, as you are aware they are all slightly different and I do wonder if we will ever have a definitive answer. I wish that the two photo's mentioned gave a solid date and then we would all know. I guess that I could follow the photo's, fit the two 16ft dingy's in the cradles and place the 16ft FMB starboard side as seen in the photo. If the photos are earlier it will only be by months or perhaps even just weeks from her sinking, one could always say that the model is a representation of the ship prior to sinking...


Regards

Pete

Given that Mr Foeth has deleted his contributions to this thread, I think it a mistake to dismiss his observations which are almost always supplied with rare photographs to support his thinking then ask him to "stick with it".

I see no irony there. I think he genuinely feels he has been wasting his time posting here.

_________________
James Duff
Sovereign Hobbies Ltd
http://www.sovereignhobbies.co.uk

Current build:
HMS Imperial D09 1/350
http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=167151

If that is the reason why EJF deleted his post then so be it, however, he must realise that his posts are subject to question if someone else can provide details of a reliable Reference (Northcott) that he may not have heard of. That is what I was doing in my post of 4.36pm
Feb 17. Personally, I am sorry if he has decided to withdraw all his valuable work from this thread but neither he nor I or anyone else who uses this site must know that what we post here is subject to discussion and correction.

Concerning rare photographs, fine but it must be remembered that a number of the photographs from the HOOD website and elsewhere may still be copyright or are only to be posted with prior approval; which he may not have had.

81542

It might be worth a little background reading of his research and his work. He owns many of those rare photographs he posts, which he hunts down, buys and shares on his website for the benefit of others. He's forgotten more about HMS Hood than most others know. He is definitely aware of Northcott's book.

I don't think you did question him to be fair, you just dismissed his posts then stated you considered Northcott to be authoritative. It wasn't a well constructed argument, which I know E J Foeth is quite happy to engage in. What he doesn't want to do is waste his time talking to a brick wall.

_________________
James Duff
Sovereign Hobbies Ltd
http://www.sovereignhobbies.co.uk

Current build:
HMS Imperial D09 1/350
http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=167151

0k

Hello All,
Just to confirm that my Ensign on Hood was produced based on information that I copied verbatim from the Ship’s Covers during the early/mid 1970’s. All of my drawings, including all those in the Ensign were produced by me from the “As Fitted” drawings.
Pretty obviously both the words and the drawings could only be written and/or drawn with the information available and to hand at that time. Since publication substantially more information has come to light.
Consequently it has been demonstrated that there are some errors/misunderstandings in my drawings – something I have always acknowledged and admitted will happen from the day I drew them and similarly my words, if they can be demonstrated to be incorrect, then so be it - Some of this later information is available in this thread and also on the HMS Hood Association website. This includes things identified from photos that have become available and also information “discovered” by others (eg Shelter Deck covering(s) and hull colours).
With regard to the boats, the list in my Ensign was copied from the Ship’s Cover. The boats on the drawings were copied from the “As Fitted” drawings.

For the singular avoidance of doubt I confirm without limitation that all of my drawings, including ALL drawings in the Ensign on Hood and ALL those available through A&A Plans and Sambrook Marine were drawn solely by me based on the “As Fitted” drawings (held at that time in the NMM) plus photos, and the words written are also solely mine.

Just for interest, the same applies to ALL the words and ALL the drawings in my Ensign on Renown and Repulse.

Nice to see HMS Hood is still attracting so much attention. Whilst I pop in here from time-to-time I am not a frequent visitor, but I am always very happy to answer whatever I am able and contact can be made by PM and/or email.
Regards
maurice

This is why your reputation as a researcher and author is so highly regarded I think.

_________________
James Duff
Sovereign Hobbies Ltd
http://www.sovereignhobbies.co.uk

Current build:
HMS Imperial D09 1/350
http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=167151

Agreed! Maurice is a Hood Jedi Master!

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.org.uk

Well said Jamie. EJ is EXTREMELY a knowledgeable when it comes to Hood, and believe me, he knows about all the best and most important Hood publications (chief among these are Maurice’s book, the AOTS book and Bruce Taylor’s book). We are most grateful for his tireless research and extreme attention to detail. Hood enthusiasts should be thankful that he’s shared sooooooo much.

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.org.uk

Regarding Boats:

Speaking only for myself, I’ve not found much in the way of official documentation for her 1941 complement of boats (but of course, I’ve almost certainly not been through all records in super detail). The best thing I recall coming across were some S.-1231/D.-786 “Certificate of Test of Boat Slings” in ADM136-13 at Woolwich Arsenal. The latest one was dated May 1940 and had lists of boats and related gear that had been tested. It’s interesting to see the various boat types and serial numbers, etc. (i.e., there’s an “Admiral’s Barge 35’” numbered “38254.”

Oh, and speaking of the final Admiral’s barge, someone [in an earlier post] said EJ never found a photo. Wrong! OF COURSE he’s seen/found photos of it (I know for a fact we have a handful of shots on the Hood Association website, and no, I will not spend time pouring through and reposting them here). The issue is that there are no “beauty” shots: the barge unfortunately tends to be at a distance, viewed from odd angles or otherwise partially out of frame/tarp-covered. Not all details are visible, but using other 35’ barges as examples, it’s not too difficult to extrapolate how Hood’s would have been configured .

I DO see where EJ is coming from: I too have noticed that where her 35’ FMB are concerned, we see the two to port, but have never seen the third craft nor supporting crutches in situ to starboard . It’s not in any of the well known “classic” photos and it’s not in any of the photos that have come to light since the Hood Association website came online back in the ‘90s.

Of course, I know full well that this doesn’t mean it absolutely wasn’t installed. It could simply be that it was never photographed (or existing photos were either lost or are still awaiting rediscovery in some shoe box/dusty attic). What we do see, however, are indications of a pinnace (the craft or its crutches) in our photos from 1941. So, it’s obvious to me that it was definitely there for at least a portion of that year. The big issue here, as someone correctly noted earlier, is that it’s difficult to precisely date some of these photos. Are these from before the craft was replaced, or are these the actual final configuration? Was the 35’ FMB work not completed or put off until a later date ? Goodness knows this was not unheard of…her books are full of such lists.

So, I agree with EJ that we need to consider the possibility and see if there is more info out there to either verify or refute it. There may well be more that we missed or didn’t recognise as significant at the time. Until then, of course, we (Hood site) will assume the 3rd 35footer was there…but let people know of the other possibility.

Please don’t dismiss these kinds of topics out of hand. Any well informed Hood enthusiast should know by now that just when you think there’s nothing else to learn, something unexpected pops-up! Case(s) in point:

Remember when Hood didn’t have a completed Type 279 radar?
It took a previously overlooked (or unavailable) document to show that not only did Hood have a modified 279 (279M) it was fully installed and tested.

Remember when Hood’s forward shelter deck (the bit in front of the boat deck) was painted steel?
It took someone to make the connection that there, in our faces all these decades, were photos clearly showing that those “steel plates” were actually panels of corticene.

Remember when Hood was “blue” or when she had a “red” bottom?
It took some very smart people to locate various samples, formulae and documentation to show she was painted in somewhat different variants of grey. Peacocks was staring some of us in the face for decades…but it took folks with camo/stores expertise to realise the significance.

The point is, the answer may be staring us in the face, or, it may be out there waiting to be rediscovered. Then again, we could be barking up the wrong tree etc. Again, please don’t dismiss things out of hand…especially when they come from folks who are as familiar with the subject matter as EJ. He may not always be right, but I’ve found that the vast majority of the time he usually is!!! Hood enthusiasts should be very grateful for the information and details he’s discovered and shared over the years. I know I am!

Note: I went back in a few times shortly after posting this (but before anybody responded to it) to make some minor syntax/spelling corrections (I had a very rough time typing and correcting this on my little mobile phone!).

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.org.uk

Hi Frank...thank you for your very informative post. EJ is IMHO indeed the authority on all things 'Hood'. For anyone who's not familiar with his blog and planning to build Hood, you will be doing youself a disservice in not reading through it first.

Regaring ships boats, I had been of the opinion that the steam pinnace had been removed from the ship before sinking. Having now read EJ's latest througher piece of research into this I agree with him that one 50ft steam pinnance was still onboard when sunk. The evidence that EJ has presented is undeniable, well done sir.
Therefore once micromaster are open again I shall be ordering one of their fantastic 3D printed models to go on my model.

Pete

ATTENTION HOOD ENTHUSIASTS!

An announcement from the H.M.S. Hood Association website staff:

We are in the process of moving our website content to a different ISP. As part of this, we are moving ALL our content to http://www.hmshood.org.uk

Please update your favourites or bookmarks accordingly (all sections and page names are the same…just replace “.com” with “.org.uk”). For now, we are redirecting pages, but this will be gone by mid-late Summer. After that, the old URL will simply be an alias for the new homepage (no way we’re letting that go on the market).

This move will be followed, later this year and into next year, by a much-needed modernisation effort (a “very large repair” so-to-speak). The site is enormous and will always remain somewhat of a product of the late 90s/early 2000s, but we hope to make it “play better” with modern technology. As part of this, we hope to include a photo database where one can search by date, location, structural feature or other keywords (i.e., “AP507C” etc.). We’d also like to do some different drawings of the ship at different points in her career to help people better understand how to date photos…and show her other paint schemes (if anyone has those skills and would like to offer their help, please let me know…it would involve creation of a 1920 Hood then the various large changes made over the years/how she appeared at key periods). Many thanks!

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.org.uk

Good luck with the move and the website rebuild Frank. The site is most interesting and informative and I've enjoyed watching it develop over the years as more and more new information is uncovered.

Keep up the good work.

Assume many of you have seen this painting, and it may have already be posted earlier in thread, but this page also shows some close-ups............................so just in case;

https://www.josephreindler.com/hms-hood ... e-of-wales

_________________
“We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant, HMS Repulse. 8 December 1941
“A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942

Kevin,

Many thanks for reposting the above I appreciate it.



To everybody,

An unrelated question for the HOOD experts and aficionados : I was spending some time picking over line drawings of our beloved 7-B's this week and noticed that the vertical heights of both funnels are slightly different. Of course the funnel caps both end up at the same height above deck and so are flush and level at the top (unlike say, REPULSE & RENOWN) - but the mizzen funnel appears slightly shorter having its angled/flanged base stepped at a taller funnel house on the shelter deck. John Roberts' AOTS title shows this quite clearly - as do some other lesser illustrated titles.. but for the life of me I can't find many photographs showing it clearly without some distortion in perspective, owing to the clutter of boats & splinter shielding & SL platforms etc usually blocking clear view in the flatter perspective required to discern it clearly..

I think these old Wright & Logan photos may show the difference - but it is obviously hard to discern funnel from surrounding clutter..

Why is it though that so many scale models appear to overlook this not insignificant detail? Flyhawk literally just patterned a new model of HOOD (which admittedly I don't have) - but photographs from the review hosted on this site appear to show two identical parts? Please correct me if I am overlooking something.

Am I missing something???

Thanks in advance for any insight!


Best wishes,

Joseph

_________________
IG: @somewhere_east_of_suez
www.JosephReindler.com

okay so on closer inspection it does appear Flyhawk have caught this detail. sorry it was just hard to tell from photographs..

edit/ the pitch of the horizontal rivet lines gives it away. good on them for picking up on it.

_________________
IG: @somewhere_east_of_suez
www.JosephReindler.com

H.M.S. Hood Association:

Something of a rarity. Showing just how far Naval design had advanced.
HMS Hood with a Pre-Dreadnought Battleship off her Starboard Bow.
Its most likely either Glory, Implacable or Vengeance.

https://twitter.com/HMS_HoodUK/status/1 ... 0599515138

_________________
Pascal

•Battleship Bretagne 3D: https://vu.fr/FvCY
•SS Delphine 3D: https://vu.fr/NeuO
•SS Nomadic 3D: https://vu.fr/tAyL
•USS Nokomis 3D: https://vu.fr/kntC
•USS Pamanset 3D: https://vu.fr/jXGQ

RN's post war Battle Cruisers were if nothing else beautiful ships. In spirit Hood resembles Vanguard with clean and balanced lines. Both escaped the need as exemplified in the Pacific of looking like a porcupine, bristling with light and medium AA. Because of this many USN Cruisers ended up with a larger compliment than Hood.

Lovely photo! Thanks for posting.

So, from one of the comments in the Twitter feed it was taken in 1920. Is that date correct then?

_________________
“We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant, HMS Repulse. 8 December 1941
“A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942

Quick question for all: regarding the stern catapult on Hood, what was the deck surface within the circular bulwark on which the catapult rested? Was it bare teak like the rest of the quarterdeck (which is how Trumpeter depicts it) or was it covered in a metal plate (as GMM's PE set would have it)?

Incidentally, mildly annoying that Trumpy molded the quarterdeck planks at half the width of the ones on the rest of the ship - I assume they're all supposed to be the same!

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?