The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Fri Nov 15, 2019 5:31 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 655 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jun 03, 2019 7:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:51 pm
Posts: 2475
You're welcome. And yes, a bit of white would be nice.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jun 05, 2019 11:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2016 1:52 pm
Posts: 491
Location: Inverness
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 - http://www.hmshood.com/hoodtoday/models/trumpeter/trumpeter200.htm

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

_________________
HMS Hood, the big one!

I used to be indecisive, now I'm not so sure.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 2014
What is the latest thought on Hood's armor and the "fatal hit"?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:40 am 
Offline
SovereignHobbies
SovereignHobbies

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2015 9:09 am
Posts: 881
Location: Aberdeenshire, Scotland, UK
Fliger747 wrote:
What is the latest thought on Hood's armor and the "fatal hit"?


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.

Image

Hood was very 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."

_________________
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


Last edited by SovereignHobbies on Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 am
Posts: 2014
Thank you for the good dissertation! Quite informative.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 7:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:27 am
Posts: 642
Location: Kingston, Jamaica
Really good explanation Jamie!

We can also consider that the diagrams illustrate the tests done in 1920 with British 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

_________________
Hard a starboard.......Shoot!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jun 15, 2019 11:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:06 pm
Posts: 727
Location: Cambridgeshire
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!

_________________
Bill Livingston
Cambridge


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jun 15, 2019 11:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:45 pm
Posts: 1394
Location: Abu Dhabi
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 .

_________________
No Whine Policy
1.- Modify it
2.- Ignore it
3.- Don't build it


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 9:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:50 pm
Posts: 229
Jabberwock wrote:
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?


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).

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.com
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2019 5:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2016 1:52 pm
Posts: 491
Location: Inverness
Thank you Frank, I'm not going to 'throw my hat in the ring' for this one - just yet!

Cheers Jabb.

_________________
HMS Hood, the big one!

I used to be indecisive, now I'm not so sure.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2019 1:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
Posts: 3098
Location: equidistant to everywhere
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?

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:50 pm
Posts: 229
chuck wrote:
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?


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.

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.com
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 16, 2019 3:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:50 pm
Posts: 229
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.

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.com
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 16, 2019 6:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:27 am
Posts: 642
Location: Kingston, Jamaica
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

_________________
Hard a starboard.......Shoot!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 16, 2019 10:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:50 pm
Posts: 229
PaulC wrote:
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


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.

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.com
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:27 am
Posts: 642
Location: Kingston, Jamaica
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!

_________________
Hard a starboard.......Shoot!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Aug 17, 2019 2:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:50 pm
Posts: 229
PaulC wrote:
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!


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.

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.com
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 19, 2019 5:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:12 pm
Posts: 1168
Location: Up The Street From Sam Wilson's House
What are the best 1/700 Hood kits?

_________________
Thomas E. Johnson

http://www.youtube.com/user/ThomasEJohnson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2019 8:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:50 pm
Posts: 229
Thomas E. Johnson wrote:
What are the best 1/700 Hood kits?


Of the four mainstream kits in the 1/700 and 1/720 scale range, I'd have to say the most accurate detail-wise are the two Trumpeter kits (1931 and 1941). Some of the moulding/details are a bit thick, but otherwise, they are pretty up-to-date detail-wise. This is because Trumpeter were still listening to the right people at the time...they had not yet discovered the flawed eastern European plans nor the infamous Kagero book(s). So, while its true that we've found a few more notable detail changes since then, the kits are still good. Indeed, one could build a pretty damn good representation of the ship straight from the box. There are also plenty of aftermarket detail parts for those who want to go full tilt boogie on accuracy (does anyone say "full tilt boogie" anymore?).

Its not that the other two kits (Tamiya's 1/700 1941 Hood and Italeri/Testors/Revell/Zvezda/whoever else produces it's1/720 mid 1930s Hood) are bad. They are actually pretty decent for their era (1970s). The Tamiya kit is based on some drawings created at a time when various details of Hood as sunk had been forgotten/not yet rediscovered. Its also a bit plain/under-detailed. It does, however, lend itself to upgrading quite well. The other kit is a bit more detailed than Tamiya, but the moulding is nowhere near as crisp as Tamiya.

There is another "model" of Hood in 1/700 scale actually...well, its a pre-built miniature but of questionable quality. Its the "Forces of Valor" 1941 Hood. Its just an expensive toy and I've not looked it over in much detail...other than to note that they got all the usual things wrong and installed the mainmast starfish BACKWARDS. So, for obvious reasons, I didn't put it on the list above.

IF Flyhawk goes for Hood, I suspect it will be a game changer as long as they DO NOT USE those aforementioned plans and/or Kagero. If not, then I guess its a business opportunity for all the detail parts companies!

Flyhawk representatives, if you read this, please contact the H.M.S. Hood Association...we want NO money, we just want to help you get the details RIGHT. A review kit would be nice though :thumbs_up_1:

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.com
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2019 2:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:00 pm
Posts: 9
On the subject of HMS Hood’s June 1936-June 1939 AP507C Mediterranean Fleet paint scheme I came across the following photo for sale on Ebay that may be of interest? I am not the seller and have no connection to the seller, I am merely referring to it for HMS Hood modelling detail discussion. The description says the location is Malta and the date is 1938 but gives no more detail than that:
https://www.ebay.ie/itm/ROYAL-NAVY-I-CLASS-DESTROYER-HMS-ISIS-PASSES-HMS-HOOD-AT-MALTA-IN-1938-/192885233246

What strikes me is that HMS Hood’s forward funnel appears to be painted either dark red or dark grey or some other darkish colour. I know guessing colours from black and white photographs is pure speculation and I only say red because it looks similar to the forward portion of the Spanish Civil War neutrality markings on ‘B’ Turret which would also have been red. The funnel cap looks slightly darker than the body so possibly the cap is black and the sides are dark grey or other dark colour?

Curiously the steam pipes running up the funnel sides appear to remain in AP507C light grey as per the rest of the hull and superstructure. I am no expert on analysing photos or anything like that but to me it does appear genuine and not a Photoshop fake. Whatever the actual colour of the forward funnel, in all my books and all the photos and models I have seen of HMS Hood over the years I have never seen her with her forward funnel painted dark like that with the rest of her in AP507C Mediterranean Fleet Colours.

I wonder was the photo taken while the funnel was in the middle of being re-painted? Is the colour a red lead primer that was applied before getting overcoated with AP507C? White primer might be more logical to use with AP507C so then again perhaps not? Or was it a short lived identification friend or foe marking to compliment the Spanish Civil War neutrality markings on ‘A’ and ‘B’ turrets?

Has anyone come across any other photos showing Hood painted like this? Could there be an order buried in the records somewhere instructing that the forward funnel be painted in whatever colour? It would be interesting to find out.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 655 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Haijun watcher and 9 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group