Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hood has its refit. Does it make a difference?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hood has its refit. Does it make a difference?

    When Hood was sunk at Denmark Strait she was overdue for a refit. Her engines were in a state no longer being capable of her design speed. Her AA defences were dated as were her fire control and radar.

    Other British capital ships from her generation had been updated including Renown and some of the QEs. Hood, while the need had been identified in the late 30s wasnít scheduled for a refit until 1942.

    This scenario assumes that she was refitted in the late 30s instead of Renown or a QE.

    Likely improvements include the engines making her slightly faster, improvements in fire control, radar, deck armour, torpedo bulge, aa defences.

    http://www.hmshood.com/history/construct/repair42.htm

    One obvious thought that if she was faster the amount of time when she would be exposed to the type of hit that sank her would be reduced.
    "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

  • #2
    Hood would survice the Battle of the Denmark Strait - because it wouldn't be there!

    Three years for a major refit. A page on the proposed 'major repair' to Hood here http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/.../adm229-20.htm

    I guess a small refit could have been done earlier, boilers replaced rather than new engines, more/better AA armament fitted, better fire control etc I don't know how extra armour/time cost/benefit would work out.

    An engine service, new boilers and a scrubbed bottom should have seen an increase in speed, and only a small increase in speed makes that Bismarck hit, miss instead!

    Comment


    • #3
      Unless you improve the deck armor, Hood was going to be hit and sunk!

      Pruitt
      Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

      Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

      by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Gooner View Post
        An engine service, new boilers and a scrubbed bottom should have seen an increase in speed, and only a small increase in speed makes that Bismarck hit, miss instead!
        The increase in speed would be relatively minor when compared to the velocity of the incoming shellfire. If the German gunnery systems were able to compensate for Hood's movement rate and hit her the first time at reduced velocity, adjusting for any improvement in speed due to the refit should be mostly child's play.

        Originally posted by Surrey View Post
        One obvious thought that if she was faster the amount of time when she would be exposed to the type of hit that sank her would be reduced.
        This is true. Hood would have been able to get into range for her own guns faster.
        ScenShare Guidelines:

        1) Enjoy creating it
        2) Enjoy playing it
        3) Enjoy sharing it
        4) Enjoy helping others create them

        The PlayersDB - The Harpoon Community's #1 Choice.

        FAQ http://www.harplonkhq.com/Harpoon/Fr...dQuestions.htm

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Surrey View Post
          When Hood was sunk at Denmark Strait she was overdue for a refit. Her engines were in a state no longer being capable of her design speed. Her AA defences were dated as were her fire control and radar.

          Other British capital ships from her generation had been updated including Renown and some of the QEs. Hood, while the need had been identified in the late 30s wasnít scheduled for a refit until 1942.

          This scenario assumes that she was refitted in the late 30s instead of Renown or a QE.

          Likely improvements include the engines making her slightly faster, improvements in fire control, radar, deck armour, torpedo bulge, aa defences.

          http://www.hmshood.com/history/construct/repair42.htm

          One obvious thought that if she was faster the amount of time when she would be exposed to the type of hit that sank her would be reduced.
          At a Sea Lords Meeting in March, 1939, Hood was confirmed as next in line for modernisation after the completion of Queen Elizabeth. QE completed in January, 1941, by the way.

          By 1939, Hood's machinery was known to be in a parlous state. The First Sea Lord stated that :- 'If this ship is to last another 15 years, which is probable, it is evident that the vessel will have to be laid up for large machinery repairs, and it will be a matter for eternal regret afterwards that the big thing (complete reconstruction) was not done.'

          The proposed full reconstruction involved fitting new main & auxiliary machinery, removing all 5.5 and 4 inch guns, and replacing them with eight twin 5.52 inch mountings, removing the (useless) 0.5 inch machine guns and increasing the number of eight barrelled pom-poms to six.

          Above water torpedo tubes, and the conning tower would be removed, and a new KGV/Renown style bridge fitted, together with a cross deck catapult. Removal of crushing tubes from the bulge protection, and fit out buoyancy spaces as oil-fuel tanks.

          There seem to have been two alternative proposals regarding armour, these being either 1). Remove the upper 5 inch armour belt and improve 2 inch splinter protection on the lower deck, extend the 12 inch belt armour to the upper deck, and increase the thickness of the upper deck to two & a half inches over the machinery and four inches over the magazines. 2). Leave the existing 12 inch and 7 inch belts as they were, and increase the thickness of the main deck to four inches over the machinery, and five inches over the magazines.

          She would, of course, also have received updated fire control tables and gunnery radar etc.

          Unfortunately, although drawings did exist, these seem to have been lost over the course of time. There have also been suggestions that, as there was a shortage of 5.25 inch mountings (some Didos put to sea lacking their full armament as a result), the reconstructed Hood might have received 4.5 inch mountings instead, similar to Renown, Valiant, & Queen Elizabeth. Indeed, the new Hood would probably have looked like a cross between Renown and a KGV, albeit with an extra main turret.

          Possibly, had the 'new' Hood, in company with POW, encountered Bismarck & Prinz Eugen in the Denmark Strait, Holland's tactics might have been somewhat different, in that, with Hood's Achilles' Heel at least partly rectified, he might not have sought to close the range so quickly, and might have been more willing to seek a longer range duel.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
            Unless you improve the deck armor, Hood was going to be hit and sunk!

            Pruitt
            The planned refit would have strengthened her deck armour.
            "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

            Comment


            • #7
              Was it thick enough to withstand 8" plunging fire? I remember the speculation that Prinz Eugen fired the fatal shot against Hood.

              Pruitt
              Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

              Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

              by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
                Was it thick enough to withstand 8" plunging fire? I remember the speculation that Prinz Eugen fired the fatal shot against Hood.

                Pruitt
                Possibly 8" but it is questionable whether any battleship had strong enough deck armour to stop a 15" entirely. Even the Iowa's was only 6" thick at its thickest.
                The fatal shot was fired from Bismarck not PE.
                "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Wouldn't have mattered. The Royal Navy would have continued its suicidal practice of leaving all of the safety doors open and stockpiling shells and cartridges in the open areas in order to keep up a high rate of fire.
                  Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Herman Hum View Post
                    The increase in speed would be relatively minor when compared to the velocity of the incoming shellfire. If the German gunnery systems were able to compensate for Hood's movement rate and hit her the first time at reduced velocity, adjusting for any improvement in speed due to the refit should be mostly child's play.
                    Yes that was mostly tongue in cheek. Improving speed by 3 knots equals about 5 feet per second. Which for a fall of shot taking 20 seconds means Hood moves a 100 feet and that golden hit becomes a meh hit.






                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Surrey View Post

                      Possibly 8" but it is questionable whether any battleship had strong enough deck armour to stop a 15" entirely. Even the Iowa's was only 6" thick at its thickest.
                      The fatal shot was fired from Bismarck not PE.
                      At 20,000 metres the angle of fall from the Bismarcks guns is still only 16.4% giving deck armour a huge 'slope' modifier.
                      According to the data here http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_15-52_skc34.php 6-inch of deck armour should either be completely invulnerable to Bismarcks shells or require a hit at the rather improbable range of 35,000 metres.

                      An upgrade to Hood's deck armour to 5-inches over the magazines should have seen it invulnerable below 27,000 metres to Bismarcks shells.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Gooner View Post

                        At 20,000 metres the angle of fall from the Bismarcks guns is still only 16.4% giving deck armour a huge 'slope' modifier.
                        According to the data here http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_15-52_skc34.php 6-inch of deck armour should either be completely invulnerable to Bismarcks shells or require a hit at the rather improbable range of 35,000 metres.

                        An upgrade to Hood's deck armour to 5-inches over the magazines should have seen it invulnerable below 27,000 metres to Bismarcks shells.
                        Thanks. I had always wondered why deck armour was so thin, even in battleships built in the 30s and later.
                        "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Gooner View Post

                          At 20,000 metres the angle of fall from the Bismarcks guns is still only 16.4% giving deck armour a huge 'slope' modifier.
                          According to the data here http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_15-52_skc34.php 6-inch of deck armour should either be completely invulnerable to Bismarcks shells or require a hit at the rather improbable range of 35,000 metres.

                          An upgrade to Hood's deck armour to 5-inches over the magazines should have seen it invulnerable below 27,000 metres to Bismarcks shells.
                          Still likely to be a lot of extra weight. How would this effect sea worthiness and performance? Would it off set any engine/boiler improvements?
                          Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                          Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Surrey View Post

                            Thanks. I had always wondered why deck armour was so thin, even in battleships built in the 30s and later.
                            So in essence if the refit improved the deck armour Hood isnít sunk. In all probably given the two battleships vs one battleship and a heavy cruiser advantage the British win and Bismarck is sunk.
                            Hood should have been refitted instead of Renown or a QE.
                            Last edited by Surrey; 01 Aug 19, 06:31.
                            "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Surrey View Post


                              Hood should have been refitted instead of Renown or a QE.
                              20:20 hindsight
                              Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                              Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X