The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Wed Apr 23, 2014 12:31 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 7:22 pm
Posts: 553
Location: Ogallala, Nebraska, USA
Saura,

The Hood had four screws. How many more do you want?

I agree that widening the stern would solve the problem of buoyancy, and if it was done right, may not compromise speed. A Hood with a transom stern? Now, there's an interesting idea!

Also, those torpedo tubes have got to go! Hood used to have a second pair of tubes located in the hull forward of the bridge.
These had been removed at an earlier refit. The tubes she carried at the end were also mounted within the hull, so that they lacked much ability to transverse. Even if the ship were to retain torpedoes, they should have been mounted above deck destroyer-style on a pivot. Torpedo tubes on a capital ship was a real Victorian-era concept.

Another way to look at a rebuild would be, how much damage did she escape with after her tangle with Bismarck and Prinz Eugen? What got shot up was going to have to be repaired/replaced anyway. If she got her stern shot off, it may not be as big a deal to replace it under those circumstances.

Maybe we could just substitute the hull of USS Kentucky under her.

_________________
Les Foran
On the Oregon Trail


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 4:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:24 am
Posts: 1091
Location: Saint-Andiol, France
Why not removing the X turret? That would have lightened her quite a lot...

Having a bit of spare time, I amused myself in redrawing the bridge in a more compact design.


Attachments:
Hoodwhatif.jpg
Hoodwhatif.jpg [ 76.98 KiB | Viewed 949 times ]

_________________
Image
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 6:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 8:43 am
Posts: 378
Location: Cork, Ireland
When built, the QE's had a 13 inch vertical armoured belt and 2 inch armoured deck, Hood had a 12 inch angled armoured belt (which equated to 14 inch of vertical armoured belt), and a 3 inch armoured deck, she was actually one of the most heavily armoured ships of her time. The increase in gun ranges over the years rendered ALL capital ship deck armour "too thin", not just Hood. Had she recieved her planned 1942 rebuild, she would have been as well protected as any other contemporary vessel.

_________________
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 6:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:37 pm
Posts: 1104
Location: Smith's Falls, Canada
Les,

Yeah, I thought the Transom might look interesting on the Hood - she'd behave as if a longer hull, so in theory would have some better effect. If she'd been designed a year or two later, it could well have happened, with the capture of the HSF and study of their more modern ships.

Either removing the torpedoes entirely or using a trainable mount is equally a good idea. I might suggest, ripping them out and using the old casemate positions for a belowdeck trainable mount position alternatively, it would provide cover, and still be trainable.

The rebuild plan included a tower structure, so likely that would have been put into action if it had been a case of she needed a rebuild. If she took the shot that killed her in the superstructure instead, she likely would have gotten that. If she'd had her stern given a nicely sized hole, she probably would have seen some rebuilding there as well.

She probably would have seen some additional armor, owing to a few changes and her revised supserstructure layout, which probably would also have given her a secondary battery worth more than a kick in the head. Equally, she would likely have, as with most ships, lost those UP rockets.

_________________
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 6:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:56 pm
Posts: 1154
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Lesforan wrote:
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.


Remember that quite a few of the first carriers were made out of the hulls of battlecruisers of roughly the same time of Hood. You have at least the 2 Courageous class plus the unique Furious, the 2 Lexington class and Akagi. Hood was not smaller then Courageous and Glorious and though both were lost very early in the war I believe they would have performed quite well...Furious did a fine job despite her age and limitations. The other 3 well their career, even if short for Lady Lex, speaks for themselves.
What am I saying....I'm not even a great fan of carriers at all (i.e. "Bird farms")!!!! Moor Hood next to Victory!!! :big_grin:

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


Hmmmm, yes....there has been many times a discussion over the classification of Hood. If she was in fact the last of the Royal Navy battlecruisers or if she was the first of the fast battleships. I'll stick with my stubborn conservative old fashion view of this Mighty Lady that she was the last of battlecruisers.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 6:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:56 pm
Posts: 1154
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Secondo wrote:
Having a bit of spare time, I amused myself in redrawing the bridge in a more compact design.


Looks very nice indeed though I prefer the original "triangle" bridge!!! It's part of her beauty after all!!! :thumbs_up_1:
One comment and don't take me wrong please....raise the bridge a little...the smoke from the first funnel would not be very appreciated by the officers on the top!!! :big_grin:

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 7:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 7:22 pm
Posts: 553
Location: Ogallala, Nebraska, USA
Secondo,

You certainly did a good job on your drawing. I think the plan was, if Hood had survived, the next refit would have eliminated her armored conning tower (to save weight) and incorporated an armored bridge in the style of the KGV. The director atop the conning tower would have had to find a new home.

Filipe,

If I recall, the hull proportions of the Hood were more extreme in length/width than the other battlecruiser conversions you mentioned. For many years, Hood was the world's largest warship, including all you mentioned, plus all battleships (at least until the late 1930's).

I have always considered Hood to be a battlecruiser, just as I have always considered S&G to be battleships (because that is what their owners classed them as). I also consider the German "pocket battleships" to be armored cruisers, because that is what they are (they don't fit any other definition). For the same reason, I consider the Alaska-class to be battlecruisers, even though that is not what they were to be used as.

If you are going to build a carrier to be a heavy fleet carrier, as the battlecruiser conversions were, and you expect it to carry a large number of aircraft, it is going to have to have a broad beam. Or it will be top-heavy to the point of being unstable.

_________________
Les Foran
On the Oregon Trail


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 6:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:24 am
Posts: 1091
Location: Saint-Andiol, France
Well, in fact I took the bridge from HMS Ajax, the tripod and some details (searchlights and radars) from HMS Renown. I thought the bridge would have to be reduced in size to save weight. I may try to fit her the conning tower from some other ships as well (thinking about the extremely handsome bridge of Strasbourg :heh: )

This is Hood fitted with Renown's bridge. She looks even better :smallsmile:


Attachments:
HoodWI2.jpg
HoodWI2.jpg [ 85.34 KiB | Viewed 956 times ]

_________________
Image
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:56 pm
Posts: 1154
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Secondo wrote:
This is Hood fitted with Renown's bridge. She looks even better :smallsmile:


Well done. She still looks gracious for granted. Good option in putting the AA structure in front of the bridge.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 7:22 pm
Posts: 553
Location: Ogallala, Nebraska, USA
Secondo,

Yes, that looks real good. The antiaircraft structure Filipe refers to could be a reduced-size conning tower, too.

_________________
Les Foran
On the Oregon Trail


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 12:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:56 pm
Posts: 1154
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Lesforan wrote:
The antiaircraft structure Filipe refers to could be a reduced-size conning tower, too.


Indeed and doesn't give the look of a Myoko class heavy cruiser bridge face which is something too high.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 8:20 pm
Posts: 1026
Location: Porto, Portugal
The replacement of Hood's known bridge and mast with spotting top with a tower bridge like the one on the KGV, Renown and modernized Queen Elizabeth, could save many tons.

Another area where a lot of tons could be saves would be amidships, behind the funnels where a catapult might be fit with a hangar, although the later would decrease the weight gain.

Yet another area where tonnage could be spared would be the machinery, should it be replaced. New machinery could be found that would be lighter with the same power output, or more powerful indeed. If the could gain a couple of knots, I would call that a good day, for as long as it was reliable.

I'm not in favour of removing any of the turrets, and increasing the quarterdeck above the waterline would have no impact on the buoyancy. On the other hand a transom stern would, and help with the speed too, so I would go with that, if the damage would justify it. Otherwise, bigger bulges would correct the rolling problems and help keep her higher in the water... bulges did marvels to the Royal Sovereigns and didn't really hurt their speed.

A more moderate modernization could see Hood retain the bridge (that's one of its trademarks), but the removal of the amidships superstructure and the placing of secondary turrets lower on the deck. The torpedo tubes would have to go, and that would be a few more tons saved.


Marco


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 7:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:04 am
Posts: 290
Location: London, England
I think in the real world of May 1941, had Hood survived the Battle of the Denmark Strait, she would have been hastily repaired & rushed back into service as quickly as possible, Also, had the lucky hit not been so lucky, one can assume Admiral Holland would have pressed home his attack and it is therefore likely Prince of Wales would have suffered heavier damage too, and thus been out of service for longer.

However, some thoughts, I Know we are talking 1941, and the Battleship/Battlecruiser were still thought to be supreme. What if one of her main turrets were severly damaged, especialy if the guns themselves suffered, (Thinking along the lines of Warspite 1943, X turret knocked out by glide bomb, the turret was never repaired / removed and the ship remained in service although she was only used as a glorified monitor after that) Would / Could the guns have been replaced? (would/could they have diverted guns / turret from Vanguard, still not laid down at this point). Highly improbable senario, but that is the fun of "What if".

Had both ships suffered, which would have had priority, three ways to look at it, 1.) The one which could be refitted quickest. 2.) Hood because she was the most famous, and to the British public the pride of the Royal Navy, or 3.) Prince of Wales because she was newer, and on paper a more effective combat unit. That would as much be a politcal consideration as a practical one. Had the Bismarck been sunk, or crippled I could see the likely, Churchill having somewhat of a romantic streak Hood being given priority.

I would like to think Hood would have got a decent upgrade and rebuild, but I feel most likey, the damage would have been patched up, exrernaly, UP mounts and quad 0.5's removed and replaced with additional pom poms / 20mm, maybe new aa directors / radar and the ship rushed back into service. But again that depends on the level of damage, and how much needed to be rebuilt.

Had the ship gone to the states for refit, and major reconstruction, how would the America's entry into the war affected work on her, with regard to material & labour priorities. would work have rushed to get her out quickly to allow refitting the ships damaged at Pearl habour, or even she brought to a state where she could return to the UK for completion to free up space.

had a major refit been undertaken in the UK, could be looking at 3 yrs work, as priorites change would it have ever been completed, or again would some hybrid have resulted to get her out of the yard and back in service.

There are so many if's & buts.

I am considering this build in 1/700th and am intending to reduce the width of the shelter deck (to reduce weight), lower the 4" battery on to the foc's'le deck level, get rid of the up mounts / quad 05"s reduce the boat stowage to keep the pom poms on the shelter deck level (increasing the number of carley floats) adding 4 quad mounts to replace the up mounts 8 single 20mm, 4 to replace the quad 05's and 2 each on top of B and X turrets, and and beef up the light aa directors. I am tempted to try and work an eighth twin 4" in but I don't know yet.

Si

_________________
Simon Heathwood


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 8:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 8:20 pm
Posts: 1026
Location: Porto, Portugal
Simon_Hwood wrote:
However, some thoughts, I Know we are talking 1941, and the Battleship/Battlecruiser were still thought to be supreme. What if one of her main turrets were severly damaged, especialy if the guns themselves suffered, (Thinking along the lines of Warspite 1943, X turret knocked out by glide bomb, the turret was never repaired / removed and the ship remained in service although she was only used as a glorified monitor after that) Would / Could the guns have been replaced? (would/could they have diverted guns / turret from Vanguard, still not laid down at this point). Highly improbable senario, but that is the fun of "What if".


I think that Hood would have suffered serious damage regardless of the outcome. Prince of Wales was never in serious danger, but she wasn't much of a fighting unit either. With fire concentrated on the Hood as the leading ship, she would never get out of the battle without enough damage for the admiralty to realize she was dangerous to herself.

Indeed she was very precious, but since I'm sure she would have suffered enough damage to spend at least half a year under repair, they might as well modernize her, exactly because she was a valuable ship. Her vulnerabilities solved, she would have made a much better fighting ship than any of the "R" class ships. And even with those vulnerabilities, as it has already been pointed out, she wasn't more vulnerable than any of the other vintage battleships.

So it's the issue of the turrets being replaced. They could, there would be spare turrets from the Glorious and Courageous which at the time weren't yet needed for the Vanguard AND by the time they would be needed, there would be plenty of "R" turrets available because by late 1944 and early 1945, several of those ships were already on a reserve status. If Bismarck had survived, Hood would have been more valuable than ever and her extensive modernization would have been justifiable.


Quote:
Had both ships suffered, which would have had priority, three ways to look at it, 1.) The one which could be refitted quickest. 2.) Hood because she was the most famous, and to the British public the pride of the Royal Navy, or 3.) Prince of Wales because she was newer, and on paper a more effective combat unit. That would as much be a politcal consideration as a practical one. Had the Bismarck been sunk, or crippled I could see the likely, Churchill having somewhat of a romantic streak Hood being given priority.


I would believe that in any case, Hood would have suffered worse than the Prince of Wales, thanks to old age and poorer armor. One of the two could be sent to the USA for an extensive refit.


Quote:
I would like to think Hood would have got a decent upgrade and rebuild, but I feel most likey, the damage would have been patched up, exrernaly, UP mounts and quad 0.5's removed and replaced with additional pom poms / 20mm, maybe new aa directors / radar and the ship rushed back into service. But again that depends on the level of damage, and how much needed to be rebuilt.


I think that like I said, Hood would have been more important than ever, should the Bismarck have survived, simply because the RN had a serious lack of fast battleships/battlecruisers. It took a whole squadron of cruisers, plus a battleship, to intercept the Scharnhorst at night, with her radar dead, so those ships would hardly be intercepted by the Rodney, the "R" or the Queen Elizabeth class; unless a carrier would be available, Hood would be the only ship available that could probably make a chase.

[/quote]Had the ship gone to the states for refit, and major reconstruction, how would the America's entry into the war affected work on her, with regard to material & labour priorities. would work have rushed to get her out quickly to allow refitting the ships damaged at Pearl habour, or even she brought to a state where she could return to the UK for completion to free up space.[/quote]

I would keep Hood in the UK, unless strictly necessary. The USA by then probably had enough industrial output to repair either ship before December 7.

Quote:
had a major refit been undertaken in the UK, could be looking at 3 yrs work, as priorites change would it have ever been completed, or again would some hybrid have resulted to get her out of the yard and back in service.


Again, not if it was realized that the RN had only three ships capable of chasing and fighting it out with Bismarck and Tirpitz. Should those two attempt a break out, they could outrun the RN and in any case, whatever the damage Hood would have suffered, it would tell the RN that their remaining battleships were a lot more vulnerable, no?

Quote:
I am considering this build in 1/700th and am intending to reduce the width of the shelter deck (to reduce weight), lower the 4" battery on to the foc's'le deck level, get rid of the up mounts / quad 05"s reduce the boat stowage to keep the pom poms on the shelter deck level (increasing the number of carley floats) adding 4 quad mounts to replace the up mounts 8 single 20mm, 4 to replace the quad 05's and 2 each on top of B and X turrets, and and beef up the light aa directors. I am tempted to try and work an eighth twin 4" in but I don't know yet.


That's how I would do it: the less shelter deck, the mor tonnage available elsewhere.

Marco


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 9:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:24 am
Posts: 1091
Location: Saint-Andiol, France
Marco_Trigo wrote:
With fire concentrated on the Hood as the leading ship, she would never get out of the battle without enough damage for the admiralty to realize she was dangerous to herself.

Indeed she was very precious, but since I'm sure she would have suffered enough damage to spend at least half a year under repair, they might as well modernize her, exactly because she was a valuable ship. Her vulnerabilities solved, she would have made a much better fighting ship than any of the "R" class ships. And even with those vulnerabilities, as it has already been pointed out, she wasn't more vulnerable than any of the other vintage battleships.


The Admiralty had been warned about Hood's flaws even before the war by a DNC report. Anthony Preston also says that she was bound for replacement in 1941. I don't think that she would have been modernised to the extent of having new machinery and a thicker armored deck, or even a new bridge. The last of the KGV family, that could easily deal with Bismarcks, were going to be completed soon, and the priority in capital units was already shifting to aircraft carriers. Even if I had fun drawing on her a new hypothetical bridge, I don't think that RN could afford to invest the amount of valuable resources and manpower required to bring again Hood to the front line.
Perhaps the best role for her, due to her still handsome speed, would have been to act as an aircraft carrier escort, after having undergone an AA refit.
However, what camouflage scheme do you think is best suited for her? :eyebrows:

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 8:20 pm
Posts: 1026
Location: Porto, Portugal
The KGV couldn't keep up with the Bismarck or the Scharnhorst, plus, the war in the Mediterranean wasn't going so well and Hood would be valuable there too, as you said as fast escort.

Thing is, should she be damaged bad enough to warrant extensive repairs, she probably would. I mean, we're talking about Hood: the Queen Elizabeth and the Valiant were attacked in December 1941 and returned to service in 1943 and I just don't see why Hood wouldn't be worth the same effort, especially because the RN would have two less battleships.

Marco


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 2:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
Posts: 2597
Location: The city that rests on top of 100 earthquake faults
No one has yet explained why, from the perspective of May or early June 1941, a fully modernized and well equipped Hood that won't be available until August 1942 would seem to be more valuable than patched up Hood that could be available no later than last quarter of 1941.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 4:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 8:43 am
Posts: 378
Location: Cork, Ireland
Possibly from the point of view that PoW would be a fairly straight forward repair, ie, being new, no overhauling was required, DoY was due to complete in a few months, KGV was fully operational, and Renoun and Repulse were fully operational, so that would give the RN 5 fast ships to counter Tirpitz and Bismarck (if she survived) by the end of '41, allowing more time for a full rebuild of Hood, but I still think Hood would have had a lesser rebuild and be re asigned to convoy/Carrier escort.

_________________
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: Thu Aug 20, 2009 6:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 8:20 pm
Posts: 1026
Location: Porto, Portugal
I'll add to what Aidan said, what secondo explained: the admiralty was fully aware of Hood's vulnerabilities.

A patched up Hood would remain a vulnerable but very valuable ship. Should she have been hit by exactly the same shots, she would have had a very close shave and the admiralty would either leaver her unrepaired or they might just as well fix her most serious problems and modernize her.

The Brits did spend a whole lot of effort repairing and refitting other battleships. In 1941 and even in 1942 they needed them.

Marco


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 7:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:04 am
Posts: 290
Location: London, England
The more I think about it, the more I am sure Hood would have had been patched up and sent back out again. In spite of her shortcomings she was too important as a relatively fast platform for moving heavy guns around to have out of action except for any longer that absolutely necesary (Thinking about her actual refits during the 1939-41). The level of the refit would have depended on what / where was damaged / destroyed.

The level of damage is where the speculation comes in, if the bridge had suffered heavily, then it may have been expediant to fit a new bridge structure, albiet i would imagine much simplified, otherwise I seriously doubt it would have been modernised,

This is the real enjoyment of what-if you can come up with an event sequence to allow for almost any scenario, with a bit of imagination.

It is good to see some varried and well argued opinion on this topic.

Si

_________________
Simon Heathwood


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

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 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

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