HMS Hood

[Corinthian]

Why was it considered so special, especially during the run up to the Bismarck engagement? Almost everything I've read that mentions the Hood made it sound like it was sooooooper dooooooper the bestest battleship (I know, battlecruiser) of the RN. What made some think that the Hood could go toe-to-toe with the Bismarck? Even without the "lucky shot" from the Bismarck, had the Hood and Bismarck went on one-to-one on a longer engagement, was the Hood as good as the Bismarck?

[Rocky Davis]

I truly believe that HMS Hood was very well matched with Bismarck and Bismarck's twin battleship. In all of my own personal studies, I pretty much came to the conclusion that Hood was doomed in that brief battle by a lack of situational awareness by the Hood's command. Had the HMS Hood and escorts been fully prepared for battle, the outcome could have been determined by the flip of a coin. As it was, the Germans were more agressive, gained the initiative and had a remarkable first salvo that pretty much doomed the Hood and her crew.

[Yama]

Why was it considered so special, especially during the run up to the Bismarck engagement? Almost everything I've read that mentions the Hood made it sound like it was sooooooper dooooooper the bestest battleship (I know, battlecruiser) of the RN. What made some think that the Hood could go toe-to-toe with the Bismarck? Even without the "lucky shot" from the Bismarck, had the Hood and Bismarck went on one-to-one on a longer engagement, was the Hood as good as the Bismarck?

 

It was special, because during inter-war period, Hood was the largest warship in the world. Combined with favourable aesthetics, it was the "shop window" of Royal Navy. Losing Hood was like if Lanzhou would sink USS Enterprise in Battle of Taiwan Strait.

[Guest JamesG123]

There is also the veneration that has come after the fact.

[Corinthian]

It was special, because during inter-war period, Hood was the largest warship in the world. Combined with favourable aesthetics, it was the "shop window" of Royal Navy. Losing Hood was like if Lanzhou would sink USS Enterprise in Battle of Taiwan Strait.

 

I've always wondered about that, about being the largest. Was it really the largest in dimensions? Or also in displacement (don't count the Yamato and US battleships). Was it the largest by then even with the King George V class BBs? Or the Bismarck? I've always thought the Hood was simply a long, modernized battlecruiser, but the real heavyweights of the RN remained the KGV and QE BBs.

[Mk 1]

I've always wondered about that, about being the largest. Was it really the largest in dimensions? Or also in displacement (don't count the Yamato and US battleships). Was it the largest by then even with the King George V class BBs? Or the Bismarck? I've always thought the Hood was simply a long, modernized battlecruiser, but the real heavyweights of the RN remained the KGV and QE BBs.

 

Among the RN boats:

 

Hood

Length: 860ft

Displacement: 47,000t (don't know if that's standard or loaded)

 

KGV

Length: 745ft

Displacement: 42,000t (don't know if that's standard or loaded)

 

Rodney

Length: 710ft

Displacement: 34,000t (don't know if that's standard or loaded)

 

QE

Length: 640ft

Displacement: 33,000t (don't know if that's standard or loaded)

 

Clearly the Hood was the largest of the RN battle ships. Longer (visually larger) by a wide margin. Heavier by a wide margin than all others save the KGVs. But the KGVs were just working up, and it was the Hood that was known throughout the fleet (and around the world by fleet-watchers). It had heavier, well-proven guns compared to the KGVs. Also the Hood was faster than any of them.

 

Called a "Battlecruiser" due to her speed (31 knots when first trialed), she was more of a fast battleship. Although as events showed, her protection was not as good as might have been wished.

 

During the interwar years Hood was the "main event" when it came to showing the flag. When she appeared, you knew that the Brits were serious. The "Mighty Hood" they called her.

 

 

 

Compared to her nemesis:

 

Bismarck

Length: 824ft

Displacement: 42,000t (standard)

 

 

At least that's how I understand the relationships. But I don't claim any particular expertise on the subject ...

 

-Mark 1

Edited February 20, 2011 by Mk 1

[RETAC21]

Why was it considered so special, especially during the run up to the Bismarck engagement? Almost everything I've read that mentions the Hood made it sound like it was sooooooper dooooooper the bestest battleship (I know, battlecruiser) of the RN. What made some think that the Hood could go toe-to-toe with the Bismarck? Even without the "lucky shot" from the Bismarck, had the Hood and Bismarck went on one-to-one on a longer engagement, was the Hood as good as the Bismarck?

 

And she was the only one of the pre-war ships capable of catching and fighting with Bismarck one to one on more or less equal terms. Don't forget the Germans cheated happily on Bismarck and she wasn't supposed to be as tough.

[Corinthian]

Shep, RETAC: I see, thanks. I guess I got misled by the label "battlecruiser." I've always thought the Hood, being a BC, was lighter than any of the RN BBs. Personally, she doesn't look much of a BB, more like a heavy cruiser - a large heavy cruiser at that (and for heavy cruisers, the Alaska-class is still tops in the looks factor). I didn't realize Hood was that big.

[rmgill]

Shep, RETAC: I see, thanks. I guess I got misled by the label "battlecruiser." I've always thought the Hood, being a BC, was lighter than any of the RN BBs. Personally, she doesn't look much of a BB, more like a heavy cruiser - a large heavy cruiser at that (and for heavy cruisers, the Alaska-class is still tops in the looks factor). I didn't realize Hood was that big.

 

They were a VERY close match. Plunging fire on the decks was what did her in.

 

HazeGray.org has:

 

Hood class battlecruisers

 

Displ: 42,670 tons load

Dim: 860 x 104 x 28.5 feet

Prop: Steam turbines, 24 boilers, 4 shafts, 144,000 hp, 31 knots

Crew: 1477

Arm: 4 dual 15/42, 12 single 5.5/50, 4 4/45, 6 21 inch TT (2 sub, 4 aw)

Armor: 5-12 inch belt, 1.5-3 inch deck, 5-12 inch barbettes, 15 inch

turrets, 11 inch CT

Originally designed as light battlecruisers, cancelled and

restarted as battlecruisers/fast battleships. Three ships

cancelled after Jutland. Often considered to be the first

modern fast battleship.

 

Hood

Built by John Brown. Laid down 31 May 1916, cancelled and scrapped.

Laid down again 1 Sept 1916, launched 22 Aug 1918, completed 5/1920.

Refitted 1929-1931. Reconstruction authorized 3/1939, cancelled due

to war. Final armament was 4 dual 15 inch, 7 dual 4 inch, 3 8 barrel

AA, 5 AA rocket launchers; displacement had reached 48,360 tons full

load. Was very badly in need of refit or replacement by 1941. Sunk by

Prinz Eugen and Bismarck 24 May 1941 off Iceland.

 

 

 

Bismarck class battleships

 

Displ: 41,700 tons standard; 50,900 tons full load

(Tirpitz 42,900 standard; 52,600 tons full load)

Dim: 813.5 x 118 x 28.5 feet

Prop: Steam turbines, 12 boilers, 3 shafts, 138,00 hp, 29 knots

Crew: 2092 (Tirpitz 2608)

Arm: 4 dual 15/47, 6 dual 5.9/55, 8 dual 4.1/65, 8 dual 37 mm, 12 20 mm

Armor: 10.6-12.6 inch belt, 3.1-4.7 inch deck, 14.2 inch turrets,

13.8 inch CT

Designed as long range unsinkable commerce raiders, design

was based on WWI Baden class.

 

Bismarck

Built by Blohm & Voss. Laid down 1 July 1936, launched 14 Feb 1939,

commissioned 27 Aug 1940. Pursued by much of the British fleet

during her first attempt to break out, damaged by 14" shells

24 May 1941, later torpedoed, brought into battle 27 May 1941,

wrecked by gunfire and sunk by torpedoes and scuttling charges.

[Argus]

I'd be most reluctant to call Hood a Battleship or a Battlecruiser, nor even a Fast Battleship, although theoretically she was the first of that breed. Hood started life as a Battlecruiser, changing priorities and ideas evolved from wartime experience saw her adapted in design/construction towards Battleship levels of protection, producing a new type the the Fast Battleship, but she was never designed as one of those either. So in my view Hood is/was a unique hybrid between all three types, of course I'm also a heretic in not thinking she was particularly hansom, I don't like stalky barrettes.

 

shane

[EchoFiveMike]

Hood was a big bitch because she was a 1915/1916 design and used comparatively ancient machinery. All the high pressure, high output stuff was developed in the 20's for the Treaty ships.

 

By the time she met Bismarck, she had been in service without serious refit for 20 years, she was tired. S/F.....Ken M

[sunday]

Not so unique. One could say that Kongos, especially after their last refits were also fast battleships.

[Argus]

They were a VERY close match. Plunging fire on the decks was what did her in.

 

 

Sorry Ryan, I'd beg to differ there. Sure the numbers line up reasonably well, but there was a 20 year difference in age between the two ships, and Hood was a lashed-up compromise where Bismark was designed with Hood specifically in her sights. The fact that Bismark was based on design art as old as Hood, and poorly applied at that*, is just a little more spice to the situation

 

shane

 

* Basically the (very good to superb) structure/management of naval design and shipbuilding in Imperial Germany largely evaporated under Versailles, and when the Nazi's put Humpty Dumpty back together again, they had stuff all in the way of retained institutional knowledge. On the technical side the best they could do was dust out the archives and use late WWI designs as a pattern to frame their new efforts, which was fair enough, warships are very different structurally from anything built for merchant use and nothing short of a Blue Ribbon liner comes close in systems. The technical problem with that, was they perpetuated some bad ideas from the Kaisers yacht club, three screw machinery being the prime example, and being inexperienced they made some mistakes of their own even on 'known' ground (like running fire control systems outside the citadel), and many more when they moved into new territory (high pressure steam plant, modern fire control etc).

 

All of which was made a lot worse by the Nazi's, or rather the old Imperial naval officers, rebuilding the project management system to fit their idea of what was wanted rather than mirror the old one faithfully. Under the Kaiser, the naval architects controlled the process and essentially told the sailors what they were getting, only asking how they would like things packaged and where the light switches should be. This rather annoyed the sailors, who as the users thought their opinion should be paramount and the grubby blacksmiths were there to build what they were told - with the obvious result. Over ambitious specifications (defined by the user), with engineering project management by the user and the poor inexperienced designers stuck between a gold plated rock and diamond hard place. It's no accident that the really effective German warships of WWII came out of specialist commercial yards (Germania/Lurseens etc) where the Naval administration could only supervise not direct.

[Corinthian]

of course I'm also a heretic in not thinking she was particularly hansom, I don't like stalky barrettes.

 

shane

 

That'd make two of us. I guess she's too long. Seeing that long superstructure. From a distance, it makes her look like a DD. I guess shorten her amidships, she'll look more battleship-y, rather than an ocean liner with guns sticking out.

 

Kongo, OTOH, looked gorgeous, especially with that pagoda structure.

[Argus]

Kongo, OTOH, looked gorgeous, especially with that pagoda structure.

 

No, there is a refined aesthetic taste - and then there is the pagoda superstructure, the two I'm sorry to say are not mutually compatiable.

 

I've got no trouble with Hood's length, or much else that couldn't have been sorted out by decently clothing B and X barbettes as the RN managed in every other class of battleship. Refit that squat and superfluous conning-tower with a respectable set of Queen Anne's Mansions, and she'd look spectacular.

 

shane

Edited February 20, 2011 by Argus

[snafu_72]

Great Britain had always been a worldwide sea power and the HMS Hood personified that ideal up to WWII. She was the pride of the fleet and the Admiralty took a gamble that she could slug it out with the Bismark long enough for the battleships and aircraft carrier battle fleets to arrive and overwhelm what was left. Unfortunately the Germans had superior fire control technology, used it perfectly and at the distance they shot got their first salvo on target. The Hood's CO knew that his decks were not armored sufficiently and wanted to get into a range where the Bismark's fire would be of a flatter trajectory. Budget constraints, ego and bad luck did the Hood in and a few days later the Bismark followed her into the sea forever.

[DKTanker]

It was also able to do something truly wierd. Because it was relatively light and had bags of power, if she accelerated from a near stop to full power, the bow would start to lift out the water like a speedboat. I didnt believe, but I think there is a photograph of her that exists from the time of the bombardment of the French fleet that shows her doing it, and a veteran of that action related seeing her do it. With antics like that Im not surprised people fell in love with her.

Relatively light? The Hood was the largest by displacement (48,000+ tons fully loaded), dimensions, and armament BB or BC in the world during the interwar period.

 

Veneration aside, she was badly in need of a refit by 1941. I think she was a match for Prinz Eugen, but going toe to toe with Bismark was a sign of desperation or overconfidence depending on how you look at it.

She should have been a complete overmatch for the 8" cruiser.

[Delta tank 6]

No, there is a refined aesthetic taste - and then there is the pagoda superstructure, the two I'm sorry to say are not mutually compatiable.

 

I've got no trouble with Hood's length, or much else that couldn't have been sorted out by decently clothing B and X barbettes as the RN managed in every other class of battleship. Refit that squat and superfluous conning-tower with a respectable set of Queen Anne's Mansions, and she'd look spectacular.

 

shane

 

I thought she was a beautiful ship. Now, not to drive this thread off topic, but the battle was between: HMS Hood, HMS Prince of Wales and two heavy cruisers HMS Norfolk and HMS Suffolk (total 16 X 8 inch guns) vs. Bismarck and Prinz Eugen. Now my question what did the two British heavy cruisers do during the engagement in which HMS Hood was sunk? Where they even there?

 

Mike

[mnm]

Fuuny that people speak of Kongo here, it was laid down in Vickers yard at Barrow-in-Furness in 1911, while Hood was laid down five years later at the Clidebank, 120 nautical miles away

[Archie Pellagio]

That'd make two of us. I guess she's too long. Seeing that long superstructure. From a distance, it makes her look like a DD. I guess shorten her amidships, she'll look more battleship-y, rather than an ocean liner with guns sticking out.

 

Kongo, OTOH, looked gorgeous, especially with that pagoda structure.

 

There are some days I wonder if we're related...

 

[Yama]

I thought she was a beautiful ship. Now, not to drive this thread off topic, but the battle was between: HMS Hood, HMS Prince of Wales and two heavy cruisers HMS Norfolk and HMS Suffolk (total 16 X 8 inch guns) vs. Bismarck and Prinz Eugen. Now my question what did the two British heavy cruisers do during the engagement in which HMS Hood was sunk? Where they even there?

 

They lost contact with the Bismarck, and when Holland's squadron made contact, they were too far away. Weather was poor, Germans always waited for poor weather to break through.

[JOE BRENNAN]

Sorry Ryan, I'd beg to differ there. Sure the numbers line up reasonably well, but there was a 20 year difference in age between the two ships, and Hood was a lashed-up compromise where Bismark was designed with Hood specifically in her sights.

I agree, not really comparable ships despite some similarities. Bismark was much better protected, with over 19,000 tonnes of armor to Hood's 13.5k, and while Bismark displaced a bit more at full load that armor had to cover less length. See link to William Jurens' 1987 WI article about what actually happened to Hood. The ship was criticized most famously for lack of horizontal protection but he concluded the killing 38cm shell more likely penetrated the 7" mid upper belt at oblique enough angle to reach magazines further aft, another long known though less infamous flaw in the ship's protection scheme (he shows diagram of a similar hit actually recorded against a full scale mockup of Hood in 1920).

http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_Hood_p1.htm

 

Hood was a one ship (ever completed) class of largest capital ship in the RN, and world, so came to symbolize British naval power more than any given ship in the more uniform stable of capital ships of say the USN. USS Arizona's special place is almost entirely restrospective because of the circumstances of her loss; Hood's fame increased after her loss but she was already the most famous warship in the world between the world wars.

 

Joe

[MiloMorai]

Among the RN boats:

 

Hood

Length: 860ft

Displacement: 47,000t (don't know if that's standard or loaded)

 

Standard: 42,450, Full load: 48,350

 

KGV

Length: 745ft

Displacement: 42,000t (don't know if that's standard or loaded)

 

Standard: 38,000, Full load: 44,800

 

Rodney

Length: 710ft

Displacement: 34,000t (don't know if that's standard or loaded)

 

Nelson Class

Standard: 33,950, Full load: 38,000

 

QE

Length: 640ft

Displacement: 33,000t (don't know if that's standard or loaded)

 

Standard: 26,250, Full load: 33,000

 

Jane's Battleships of the 20th Century

[Delta tank 6]

There was some speculation posted on wikipedia about a flaw in her guns perhaps causing the explosion. Has anyone heard anything about that?

 

I have not read that, I did read a book that had three possible scenarios for her loss. Without searching in which book it was in, one explanation was the magazine that held her black powder charges that launched her float planes was hit, IIRC 600 tons of black powder exploded and that was the end of the ship. Another was her torpedoes that she carried were hit and exploded inside her. And of course the hit that penetrated her decks while she was making a turn which increased the probability of a penetration. This is all from memory and readings done twenty years ago! I have not studied this battle other than reading about it and the possible reasons why Hood was lost.

 

Mike

[Corinthian]

There are some days I wonder if we're related...

 

 

Luke, I am your father...?