The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 6:42 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
I have wondered about a couple of different "What-if" possibilities if HMS Hood had survived her engagement with Bismarck. Given that she was in bad shape and needed much repair work. What would have been the results IF she was sent to the USA for repair and modernization? Two different schemes are possible, new armament, armor, and equipment are sent from the UK for the repair and rebuilding strictly to British Specs OR a hybrid design utilizing USN equipment with a British superstructure design. Read 5-in/38-cal twin mounts (likely eight mounts) and Mk 37 directors???


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 1:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:37 pm
Posts: 1111
Location: Smith's Falls, Canada
Hmm, there's some interesting concepts to be had there. She'd probably be given her superstructure upgrades as planned, considering the odds are, her existing one would be toast for the most part. So she'd wind up looking something like a KGV, and from that point, it comes to the question of her secondary battery. 5/38's would look interesting, and let's admit, 5.25's weren't exactly in grand supply - the Toothless Terrors are a testament to that.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 1:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:41 am
Posts: 1227
Location: turning into a power-hungry Yamato-models-munching monster... buahahahaha...
I have thought about this some time ago for a modelling project as well.

Given the importance of Hood as a maior asset I doubt she would have got an upgrade taking her out of the game for two years or more. The end result I came up with was some sort of R-class upgrade - loads of 4in twins, octuple/quad pompoms, 20mm Oerlikons on the turret tops, perhaps cutting the mainmast, things like that.

Jorit

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 5:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:37 pm
Posts: 1111
Location: Smith's Falls, Canada
Often mentioned, the Hood was considered for a major refit, but they never put funding or time into it, she would have been refitted with a KGV-style structure and similar in the refit, from what I recall. So, after getting into a slugging match and limping away, she's already out of the fight for repairs, why wouldn't they put the extra into it and get her fully done?

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 5:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
Posts: 3374
Location: equidistant to everywhere
I think you are all considering this from a modeler's perspective of "how would a modernization make Hood a much cooler ship to model". In reality the areas of the Hood where modernization would do the most good for her combat effectiveness in 1941 would not require visible changes to her outside.

I think the main objective of any modernization to the Hood in times of war would be to replace obsolete Dreyer V fire control table with the far superior Admiralty fire control table (AFCT). RN had a spare AFCT set available in 1941 and were considering which of the R class battleships to install it in. Had the Hood survived and underwent modernization, surely she would have received it. This would make for the most dramatic improvement to her actual gunnery potency possible under the circumstance. The only external difference this requires would be a new director control tower (DCT) somewhere on her superstructure. Perhaps the DCT could directly replace the old director-range finder copula on her armored conning tower.

Weight permitting, a secondary objective would be to install additional armor over the outboard, down turned portion of her arched armored deck as a stop gap solution to the glaring vulnerability in her horizontal protection known since her commission.

Every other moderation proposal, like replacing the entire bridge with a new one of wholly new design, replacing the adequate 4.5" DP gun with better US 5" DP guns, replacing the entire armored deck, replacing boilers, etc, would likely be considered unaffordable luxuries for so important a ship in times of such great need.

So visually the Hood would likely emerge from any modernization not significantly different from how she went in. But her surface fire control would now be far superior. With AFCT she would be able to effectively engage a target on a ahead or astern bearing when rolling heavily herself - something she could not do in Denmark strait with her old WWI vintage Dreyer table. She would be able to continue to engage a target that is only intermittently visible, also something she could not do in Denmark strait. Her protection would also be superior in the one area where she was really vulnerable - the turn of armor deck to join the bottom of the armor belt. It was here where Bismarck's fateful shot penetrated perpendicularly through very little armor before going into her magazine.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 6:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
Actually I was thinking more of how or if the modernization plans that the Admiralty had for HMS Hood would have been altered if the decision was made to send her to the USA. The cruiser HMS Delhi and others that went to the USA for extensive repairs in 1941+ due to overtasked yards (and lack of the material required??) in the UK, provided the seed for this thought. Delhi's use of 5-in/38-cal and Mk 37 directors was as much an evaluation by the Admiralty of these weapons in light of the shortage of other similar heavy AA weapons (they never seemed to be able to make enough 5.25-in mounts). I had read that more such use of USN 5-in DP guns may have happened if not for the USA entry in the war and our need for these weapons in 1942-43. I was assuming a badly damaged ship that would have required a lengthy rebuild anyway and the decision being made to rebuild her ... aka the West Virginia, California, etc. ... would have made the time involved considered acceptable. They certainly would have updated the fire control, radar, etc during the rebuild. Utilizing USN twin 5-in/38-cal mounts would have been relatively minor mod to the existing Admiralty design if only eight mounts were installed.

Of course if she had much less damage, then your scenario would have been more likely, since she would be returning to service much quicker. I would have thought that they would have attempted adding more armor as well in either case ... to the extent possible. HMS Rodney had a limited refit at Boston in 1941 and HMS Nelson had a major refit in late 1944 at New York. HMS Nelson was at least CONSIDERED for a replacement of her 6-in and 4.7-in guns with USN twin 5-in mounts. So it wasn't impossible for a USA refit.

My thoughts wonder how a rebuilding of HMS Hood in the USA would have impacted her War Service the rest of the war had she survived.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:24 am
Posts: 1246
Location: Saint-Andiol, France
Having red what Antony Preston says in his book The world's worst warships, I think that every modernization should have dealt with the fact that the wartime Hood was already overweight.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
Posts: 3374
Location: equidistant to everywhere
Rick E Davis wrote:
Actually I was thinking more of how or if the modernization plans that the Admiralty had for HMS Hood would have been altered if the decision was made to send her to the USA. The cruiser HMS Delhi and others that went to the USA for extensive repairs in 1941+ due to overtasked yards (and lack of the material required??) in the UK, provided the seed for this thought. Delhi's use of 5-in/38-cal and Mk 37 directors was as much an evaluation by the Admiralty of these weapons in light of the shortage of other similar heavy AA weapons (they never seemed to be able to make enough 5.25-in mounts). I had read that more such use of USN 5-in DP guns may have happened if not for the USA entry in the war and our need for these weapons in 1942-43. I was assuming a badly damaged ship that would have required a lengthy rebuild anyway and the decision being made to rebuild her ... aka the West Virginia, California, etc. ... would have made the time involved considered acceptable. They certainly would have updated the fire control, radar, etc during the rebuild. Utilizing USN twin 5-in/38-cal mounts would have been relatively minor mod to the existing Admiralty design if only eight mounts were installed.

Of course if she had much less damage, then your scenario would have been more likely, since she would be returning to service much quicker. I would have thought that they would have attempted adding more armor as well in either case ... to the extent possible. HMS Rodney had a limited refit at Boston in 1941 and HMS Nelson had a major refit in late 1944 at New York. HMS Nelson was at least CONSIDERED for a replacement of her 6-in and 4.7-in guns with USN twin 5-in mounts. So it wasn't impossible for a USA refit.

My thoughts wonder how a rebuilding of HMS Hood in the USA would have impacted her War Service the rest of the war had she survived.


If Hood had not succumbed so quickly to a lucky shot, it is not all together clear to me that the engagement which followed would have resulted in her being particularly seriously damaged.

1. Hood's early fire was poor, but that must have been caused at least in part to the fact that she was firing ahead, and her Dreyer fire control table had no provision for correcting trunnion tilt that would result from the ship rolling in a heavy sea while firing ahead. When Hood was destroyed, she was in the midst of a turn that would have brought the Bismarck onto her beam, that would have markedly improved her fire control because while firing abeam, rolling would no longer induce trunnion tilt. Furthermore by opening the arc of X and Y turret, the turn would also have doubled her volume of fire. So immediately after the turn, we can expect Hood's fire to become twice as heavy and substantially more accurate than it has hitherto.

2. Green crew not withstanding, Prince of Wales's fire was accurate right from the beginning, thanks to her highly automated admiralty fire control table. she hit the Bismarck 3 times for the 4 times Bismarck hit her.

3. Lutjens was under strict orders to avoid engagement with superior enemy force, which he followed religiously on a previous cruise.

So the net conclusion seem to me to be that had Hood completed her turn, Bismarck would begin to rapidly take damage from combined fire of Hood and Prince of Wales. Without the hindsight bias cause by the actual fate of the Hood, which presumably wouldn't effect anyone at any time in the scenario where the Hood avoided that fate, it seems to me that no really sane commander in May 1941 would really have said the odds favored the Bismarck in an engagement against both POW and Hood simultaneously. In that case it seems to me that Letjins would opt to attempt to disengage while her slim speed advantage of the British squadron remains intact, rather than fight to the finish.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 1:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 8:43 am
Posts: 377
Location: Cork, Ireland
Just a personal view, due to financial concern's, material shortages etc, and the fact that at that point in time the RN could ill afford have her most powefull ship out of action for any lenght of time, I think visually Hood would have remained pretty much the same in general layout. Fire Control, Radar etc would certainly be upgraded, but I feel a fair emphasis would be on clearing away all that vunerable clutter on the boat deck, replace most of the boats with life rafts, dump the UP's etc and fit a more balanced and heavier AA outfit, overhaul rather than replace engine's/boiler's plus, widen the torpedo bulges, ok that wouldn't solve the weight problem, but it might get her out of the water a bit more, thus making her a bit dryer and more stable. I think she would have returned as a very fast heavy escort for a Carrier group or convoy duty, who knows. I can see some "what-If" models of her showing up soon.

_________________
What Admiral Nelson really said when he put the telescope to his blind eye,,,,
"I see no ships,, whats that Hardy? oh er, right, ah, thats better, F@@k Me, look at all those ships"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 9:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
Chuck,

My going in ASSUMPTION is that HMS HOOD was seriously damaged by the same shell(s) only that they didn't cause a magazine explosion but maybe something more like serious damage to the power plant or a hit on the bridge. All shots in battleship engagements that hit the target are "lucky" hits to one extent or another. A few feet difference may have made all the difference for all those crew members who lost their lives.

The question is "What would the Admiralty have decided to do about repairing/upgrading the HMS Hood if she was clearly going to be out of action at least for a year?" If the decision was made and she was able to reach the USA, what would the repairs done there entail??? My belief is that this much loved ship would have received a major upgrade, but I have no idea of how extensive it would have been or where it would have happened at. Many UK warships were going into USA yards for various repairs in 1941, so I see that as a possible course of action. Heck she may have gone direct to the USA from the engagement.

This is a "What-if" exercise after all. :smallsmile: :smallsmile:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 1:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
Posts: 3374
Location: equidistant to everywhere
Well, what if the Hood takes the maximum amount of damage she could survive in Denmark Strait? I think the answer is her repair would only take 3-4 month, not a year. Look at other battleships and battlecruisers that were pummeled to within an inch of their lives by gun fire to see what "pummeled to an inch of life by gun fire" means. The German battlecruiser Seydlitz probably took very close to the absolute maximum amount of damage any capital ship can survive without sinking from the sheer number of holes enemy shells have made. Yet she was repaired in 4 month. The upshot seems to be that in a squadron engagement scenario, battleships really are not tough enough to survive long range artillery bombardment that would have destroyed their upperwork or cause so much deep damage that it would take a year to repair. They would have sunk long before that. The conclusion is any gunnery damage they could limp away from would be repaired in just a few month.

So would it be justified to lengthen the period the Hood would be out of action from 4 month to 1 year by carrying out an extensive modernization with a lot of frills at the same time? I think not, particularly if we were to assume that Tirpitz would remain a threatening presence before the third KGV becomes available, or worse, the Bismarck also survived and were undergoing equally rapid repair and could come out again in company with Tirpitz.

BTW, the US choose to rebuild Pearl Harbor battleship because her industrial capacity and economy far exceeded those of Japan, she already had a vast naval rearmament program under way, and just by running out the clock she would gain on Japan (Something Yamamoto realized and feared). These do not apply to Britain and Germany.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 6:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 8:43 am
Posts: 377
Location: Cork, Ireland
Looking for opinions here, if Hood had survived and went Stateside for repairs/refit etc. what do you reckon would be a likely AA and secondary outfit, would she retain the Pom pom's or replace with bofor's, keep the twin HA 4 incher's or use some other mount, keep/add to the 0.5 mg's or replace with twin 20mm, and what would be a likely Radar/director upgrade, just curious here as I'm thinking of doing a what-if based on a Stateside refit as opposed to a complete rebuild.

_________________
What Admiral Nelson really said when he put the telescope to his blind eye,,,,
"I see no ships,, whats that Hardy? oh er, right, ah, thats better, F@@k Me, look at all those ships"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 7:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:56 pm
Posts: 1185
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Secondo wrote:
Having red what Antony Preston says in his book The world's worst warships, I think that every modernization should have dealt with the fact that the wartime Hood was already overweight.


Precisely!!! Her weight was a serious problem specially affecting the quarterdeck that was awash very easily in moderate seas. Putting a new bridge à la KGV or Renown style or adding more armour would have to be compensated in taking out several other feature aboard her so that she wouldn't go overweight more. The possible solution would have been perhaps to raise the quarterdeck and possibly eliminating the Y turret. We are talking of thousands of tons being put aboard. She was something around 48.000 tons at the time of her loss...something a bit over her design displacement which was faulty already in terms of her quarterdeck. Also most likely her speed, that by 1941 was not the same as the early 20's one, would have been reduced. In terms of AA guns I see little possibility of putting aboard her 5/38's USN like HMS Delhi. Hood would required most likely some 8 of these mounts to have an effective secondary battery. Yet, it's most likely that she would receive RN weaponry possibly a battery of 4.5's similar to those on Renown and Queen Elizabeth. In any case I think her battery of 4' was good enough. Light AA would come in form of more octople pon-poms and perhaps a few Oerlikons IF they were available at the time after late May 1941. And please, remove those pesky useless torpedo tubes amidships!!! Hazardous to say the least!

_________________
"Build few and build fast,
Each one better than the last"
John Fisher


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 12:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
If the damage was restricted to outside the citadel and the machinery and hull were OK and the Admiralty wanted to keep HOOD in an obsolete configuration and they used every available resource in the UK ... 4-months may have been enough time for repairs. But, if say half her machinery was ruined and/or shafts were taken out of alignment ... it would take much longer. Removing the superstructure to replace machinery is a time consuming task. At least one USN destroyer I know of took nine months to repair after grounding. But this was a lightly armored Battle Cruiser and her citadel was vulnerable to plunging 15-in gun fire. The repairs required to repair WWI era ships was different than repairs to WWII era ships. Repairing/replacing radar/fire control equipment/communications/etc requires additional time that basically has to wait for structural repairs to be done first. The kind of "LUCKY" damage I'm thinking of would have HMS HOOD being hit with say two hits ... one penetrates the machinery spaces and one the bridge ... the HMS HOOD would be limping away. KGV was a modern battleship and she was designed to take a beating better than HOOD. It always was silly to put a Battle Cruiser up against a Battleship with similar armament in a shootout duel and ALWAYS expect a good outcome for the Battle Cruiser.

Once again, my scenario is that HMS HOOD WAS IN BAD ENOUGH condition to require machinery repair (which is why there would be a very long repair cycle required) and her bridge would be at least damaged. I have no idea about how long it would take to procure a new turbine for HOOD, but I suspect it wasn't an "off-the-shelf" item. I think the opportunity to take care of her over-weight condition (bugles?), obsolete fire control, inadequate AA armament, and other problems ... would have been likely taken. While the machinery/hull is being repaired, he materials and prefab of the superstructure and weapons could proceed. HOOD would have been available for service again in mid-1942, plenty of time to be useful in the war.

This is a what-if ... not a evaluation of the likelihood that it could happen. After all ... NO ONE in the UK and not even on the BISMARCK thought HOOD would blow-up that early in the engagement.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 12:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 8:43 am
Posts: 377
Location: Cork, Ireland
I agree with Filipe, her weight was critical, and her speed had dropped from 33 knots in 1920 to 28 knots in 1941. In order to carry the extra weight of a full tower bridge and deck armour upgrade, she would have to go on a serious diet to compensate, which would most likely mean complete new engine/boiler instalation and replacement of all major equipment with new, lighter versions, and possibly raising the quarterdeck and/or extending the boat deck aft to encompass "Y" turret in order to try to solve the wetness problem, which would mean a very lenghty rebuild time which wouldn't be very practicle with Tirpitz ready to go, and possibly Bismarck still in the game. I think the Admiralty would have gone for a "quick fix" solution, dump all unnecesary existing weight, including "those pesky torpedo tubes", concentrate on improving electronics/AA fit, and overhaul existing machinery. Plus, another thing to consider, unlike other RN Capital ships, Hood was a "Symbol", instantly recognisable, if she emerged with a totally new profile, the "Symbol" value might be lost, the British public adored the Hood and more than likely would get pretty upset if Hood ended up looking like a KGV, which might sound a daft reason for not doing a full rebuild, but Hood was a unique ship, and the position she held in the public eye was something I believe the Admiralty and Government would have to consider, and as we all know, politics and sentiment often took preference to practicality.

_________________
What Admiral Nelson really said when he put the telescope to his blind eye,,,,
"I see no ships,, whats that Hardy? oh er, right, ah, thats better, F@@k Me, look at all those ships"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 12:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 7:22 pm
Posts: 559
Location: Ogallala, Nebraska, USA
Hood is one of my all-time favorite warships, so this is a little difficult to say. But I think by 1941, time had run out for Hood.
Her main, chronic problem was her wet quarterdeck. This looks to me, a layman, as a design defect: not enough buoyancy in the stern to compensate for the weight of the machinery and turrets above.

The only ways I see to fix that would be to either increase the underwater size of the hull (increasing displacement), or, as been suggested, eliminating Y turret.

Increasing underwater volume would probably mean changing out the aft frames for wider ones. This would entail practically building a new hull from the boat deck aft. Another way, adding large underwater bulges, as was done on some monitors, would be a "Mickey Mouse" solution that would destroy the already compromised speed of the ship.

A larger underwater hull would probably mean more powerful engines, with snowballing costs.

The other option, removing the Y turret, would leave the ship with only six 15" guns. Not a very good choice when confronting the eight 15" guns of the Germans. Or the even heavier guns of the Japanese.

I think the writing was on the wall for Hood when her secondary guns were removed and replaced by the H/A 4" mounts on her boat deck. This was, in my opinion, a real downgrade of her ASuW capability, and showed that the Admiralty was placing less emphasis on her in that role. She had already proved herself quite useless as a platform for aircraft.

Rather than put all that money into a ship that was so far past her prime, I think the RN would have been better off with another KGV. If Hood was indeed a "national treasure" (and I think she was), she should have been retired and moored alongside HMS Victory.

_________________
Les Foran
On the Oregon Trail


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 8:43 am
Posts: 377
Location: Cork, Ireland
I agree she was worn out by '41, but the QE's, which were all much older, once rebuilt went on to give sterling service throughout the war. If she had been given a full rebuild, Hood could have been a valuble and usefull asset. I agree totally with the view that she should have been retired and preserved, unfortunately, at that time Britain needed to have every possible ship in the water, they could not afford to have a major unit tied up for any lenght of time. It's a real pity they didn't retire her, because quess where I'd be every sunday.

_________________
What Admiral Nelson really said when he put the telescope to his blind eye,,,,
"I see no ships,, whats that Hardy? oh er, right, ah, thats better, F@@k Me, look at all those ships"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:56 pm
Posts: 1185
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Heavens forgive me for what I am about to say!!!
Given all her problems since birth and during her inter-war long and endurable career I guess the best option for the Admiralty would have been to convert her to aircraft-carrier like Courageous and Glorious were. This between the wars of course because it would turn a very difficult enterprise during wartime. If she was by mid-30's considered a "less-valuable" asset for ASuW duties and more a ship-in-being for purpose of national pride then my choice would have been either to moor her next to Victory to continue to give the powerful image she gave during her career or she was to be converted to a CV. Yet, a few things to take in consideration. If Iron Duke, which was a very active ship in WWI and in a certain way pride of the RN, was dismantled why would they keep Hood as a "museum" or school ship? Hood of course one of the most beautiful warships built in the 20th Century deserved every penny to be preserved but would the Admiralty think that way? Was her influence, image and status that big between the wars to be worth transforming her in a museum? Was her influence, image and status that big between the wars to be too much worth for not transforming her in CV following the lines of her predecessor small battlecruisers?
Ok, despite being a very big fan and defender of Mighty Hood I better go back there to the shelter and put my helmet one!! INCOMING!!! :big_grin:
Ventis Secundis...

_________________
"Build few and build fast,
Each one better than the last"
John Fisher


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:37 pm
Posts: 1111
Location: Smith's Falls, Canada
Realistically, the difference between Hood and the Queen Elizabeths regarding their ability for extended service would be the fact the QE's were Battleships, and built to take punishment from the start. By contrast, Hood lacked armor, lacked a secondary battery worth much of anything, has problems, and just in general would need a serious rebuild in order to do anything.

Widening the quarterdeck might be an interesting solution though, giving her a widening to increase buoyancy could also allow space for additional screws, and if you undo her taper and give her a more pronounced transom stern, you would get the effect of lengthening the hull in principle, which might affect her speed characteristics positively. It's questionable how to affect the quarterdeck position, though the stern alteration might be an interesting solution. Repair and Refit had six 15's and weren't horrible for performance (unless you count a swarm of bombers) for all intents and purposes.

Of course, at the end of the day, the question is how close to the reality are you going to play it with the design of your rebuild.

One could also say that if you're going to try and keep Hood's general profile, then keep the mast but go Pagoda style - the Japanese battleships were tripods originally, they just built extra levels on, adding extra legs in cases, but that's a bit of a slippery slope in theory, and I could get lynched for heresy thinking such things.

Alternately, one could say removing Hood would have freed up treaty tonnage that could have been used to make the Rodnols worth a damn for seakeeping performance and the like, a little closer to the G-3's they were born from.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 7:22 pm
Posts: 559
Location: Ogallala, Nebraska, USA
Filipe,

I too am an admirer and defender of Hood. That is why I disagree with her last two refits, that took away her fine secondary batteries and replaced them with a rather sparse AA battery of 4" guns and a very dangerous and ineffective AA rocket system.
Not only did they sacrifice her combat effectiveness, but also sacrificed her good looks.

I don't think she would have made a good CV. Her hull form was too narrow in relation to its length. She was a stretched version of a Queen Elizabeth: hull elongated for extra boilers to give her the speed needed by a battlecruiser.

The battlecruiser was supposed to be the eyes of the fleet, but by the time Hood was completed, that role had already been taken over by aircraft.

You could, I suppose, argue that Hood was the first of the fast battleships.

_________________
Les Foran
On the Oregon Trail


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 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