Calling all HMS "Mighty" Hood fans

[EJFoeth]

I have only a handfull of images showing the rear of the conning tower, but those that do all show an opening and never a door hinged on the outside.

C2.jpg

C3.jpg

C4.jpg

The 2nd one doesn't show an all-black area; might be a door on the inside?

Edit: Original plans:

C5.jpg

Note that tiny sliding doors on the inside are indicated but nothing for the opening in the rear of the conning tower.

[chuck]

I looked at the plans in AOTS. It appears hood�s armored conning tower at this level is really a nested armor tube structure, not a single armored box. The armored admiral�s tower, 5.5 inch control tower and 15� control tower on the level above extend downwards to the floor of this level to form an inner armored tube inside the 11� external armored enclosure, The exterior door way on the outer armor enclosure opens immediately towards the back of that inner armored tube.

This inner armored tube should offer significant protection for personnel inside the outer enclosure against shrapnel�s and fragments entering the outer enclosure doorway.

The inner armored tube probably affords blast protection for personnel in the admiral�s tower, 5.5 inch control tower and 15� control tower as well, but not for personnel between the inner tube and outer enclosure, such as the helm position at the forward end of the outer enclosure.

There does not appear to be sufficient space between the outer armor enclosure wall and inner armor tube to facilitate an inward swinging armored door.

So hood�s armored conning tower is really a largely enclosed armored shelter with a stronger inner keep, not a single fully enclosed armored box like on the Iowa.

[Fliger747]

Also notice that the armor thickness in the drawing appears to be thinner aft. A common design feature with barbettes etc as hits would be extremely oblique or a shell would already be fused and maybe tumbling from passing through extensive structure if from further aft.

The ease of ingress/egress from the scenario proposed earlier would be an advantage. However a lot of weight involved in the larger diameter! Hood was not a treaty ship.

[chuck]

Yeah, i�ve Read the British paid a lot of attention to the design of capital ship bridge structure between start of WWI and WWII. One of the requirement was for the admiral to be able quickly get a view directly astern to keep tabs on progress of any fleet or squadron maneuver. So maybe the open doorway is designed to let the admirably frequent the open walkway on either side of the base of tripod mast behind the conning tower during battle.

[slowhand]

SOME OTHER THOUGHTS ON THIS CONNING TOWER DOOR ISSUE.
THERE IS A QUITE CLEAR PICTURE OF HOOD UNDER CONSTRUCTION ( TAKEN FROM A CRANE?) CLEARLY SHOWING AN OPENING AT THE REAR OF THE CONNING TOWER BUT NO ACTUAL DOOR.ADMITTEDLY THE SHIP IS NOT FINISHED, THE GUNS ARE STILL UNCOVERED, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE A DOORWAY TO ME.
ALSO THERE IS A PICTURE OF HOOD MOORED ALONGSIDE SOMEWHERE WITH LOTS OF CROWDS SIGHTSEEING ( AUSTRALIA MAYBE?) AGAIN SHOWING WHAT LOOKS LIKE AN OPEN DOORWAY BUT NO ACTUAL DOOR. SEEMS QUITE CLEAR CUT TO ME NOW, SO THAT`S WHAT I WILL DO WHEN I GET ROUND TO IT.
STILL SEEMS QUITE ODD THOUGH!!
CHEERS

[Thomas E. Johnson]

Is there a list of the inaccuracies in the trumpeter 1/200 Hood? I�m curious to see how bad they really are.

[EJFoeth]

http://www.hmshood.com/hoodtoday/models ... ter200.htm

[chuck]

The hull is their least inaccurate in 1/200 kit i�ve Tries so far. Better than Bismarck, far better than Missouri.

[Thomas E. Johnson]

The hull is their least inaccurate in 1/200 kit i�ve Tries so far. Better than Bismarck, far better than Missouri.

I know hey have issues. I don�t display my ship models next to a set of blueprints though, and I�m not a rivet counter, at least not anymore. As long as a model captures the spirit of the original, and is around 85% accuracy, I�m happy with that.

[chuck]

The hull is their least inaccurate in 1/200 kit i�ve Tries so far. Better than Bismarck, far better than Missouri.

I know hey have issues. I don�t display my ship models next to a set of blueprints though, and I�m not a rivet counter, at least not anymore. As long as a model captures the spirit of the original, and is around 85% accuracy, I�m happy with that.

It�s 85% accurate, maybe even 95% accurate. It looks like hood in 1941, there are no really jarring errors.

However there are many minor errors and oversights, some are easy to correct, some of which would be challenging to correct without fairly significant scratch building.

[Thomas E. Johnson]

It�s 85% accurate, maybe even 95% accurate. It looks like hood in 1941, there are no really jarring errors.

However there are many minor errors and oversights, some are easy to correct, some of which would be challenging to correct without fairly significant scratch building.

I�m happy with results like that for all my ship models. In my mind a scale model isn�t supposed to be spot on to the original subject matter anyways. It is an artistic impression of something real, with artistic liberties taken by its creator to reflect his or her�s own liking.

[MartinJQuinn]

Gallery entries on page 1 updated

[Jabberwock]

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

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

Hull or white?

Cheers, Jabb

[EJFoeth]

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

[Jabberwock]

EJ, you are a star!

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

Cheers, Jabb

[EJFoeth]

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

[Jabberwock]

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 ... ter200.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

[Fliger747]

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

[SovereignHobbies]

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.



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."

[Fliger747]

Thank you for the good dissertation! Quite informative.