Calling all HMS "Mighty" Hood fans

[PaulC]

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

[Bill Livingston]

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!

[Miguel]

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 .

[FW_Allen]

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).

[Jabberwock]

Thank you Frank, I'm not going to 'throw my hat in the ring' for this one - just yet!

Cheers Jabb.

[chuck]

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?

[FW_Allen]

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.

[FW_Allen]

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.

[PaulC]

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

[FW_Allen]

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.

[PaulC]

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!

[FW_Allen]

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.

[Thomas E. Johnson]

What are the best 1/700 Hood kits?

[FW_Allen]

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

[Mr. Church]

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-CL ... 2885233246

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.

[FW_Allen]

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.

This is a well-known photo in Hood circles. What you�re seeing here is Hood�s forward funnel most likely being painted in red lead before getting a coat of light grey.

[Mr. Church]

Thanks, I had not seen it before.

[FW_Allen]

Thanks, I had not seen it before.

No worries. Your assumption was correct about red lead.

I like this photo: Its good to see the lads following proper painting protocol...only 3 or so years before this there had been a problem where some areas of the ship were overpainted time and time again without stripping/hammering/scraping. The resulting thick, glossy build-up made her look smooth and shiny but obviously caused some operational issues (one of which was that torpedo mantlets wouldn't open). Toby Pridham, got it all sorted out when he took command though.

[FW_Allen]

Good news everyone! We�ve been in contact with Flyhawk Models, and yes, they are indeed planning to produce a Hood!

We have offered to help them with the latest details and they have accepted. So, it still must be in the initial design phase.

That's all I know for now.

[PaulC]

Good news everyone! We�ve been in contact with Flyhawk Models, and yes, they are indeed planning to produce a Hood!

We have offered to help them with the latest details and they have accepted. So, it still must be in the initial design phase.

That's all I know for now.

Hahaaa! I emailed them through their website the other day and asked, as you suggested Frank, that they PLEASE get in touch with you. Yang replied yesterday to say they would, saying "Of course we want to create the best HMS Hood".

Gotta love Flyhawk all the more!