Jump to content


Hood Magazine


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

mesmergoat #1 Posted 19 May 2017 - 06:58 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 42
  • Member since:
    09-13-2016

Is the Hood magazine overly susceptible (more than the norm) to detonation if you hit it just right? The hit that sunk it was supposedly right between the stacks. Does it have a weakness there in the game ship? Sunk in three minutes or less with only three survivors. Will we be seeing this in-game? And would the signal flag for -100% chance of detonation protect you?

 


Edited by mesmergoat, 19 May 2017 - 06:59 PM.


The_first_harbinger #2 Posted 19 May 2017 - 07:03 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,268
  • Member since:
    10-28-2015

AFAIK The Hood's magazine detonation is not due to a direct hit from Bismarck's main battery, but a subsequent effect after a detonation in the boiler rooms. Yes, this weakness was depicted somewhat accurately in game, the turtleback armor's angle of the Hood made her vulnerable to mid-range battleship rounds, exploiting the low main belt coverage area and the slanting of the turtleback.


"May the Meteorblitzkrieg begin!"
Battleship Cult Cardinal

Ships that deserves Admirals' love series

Latest addition: Algérie

 


Compassghost #3 Posted 19 May 2017 - 07:05 PM

    Captain

  • Supertester

  • 5,201
  • Member since:
    04-04-2015
I haven't been detonated yet. 15 battles in.

Destroyer_Suzukaze #4 Posted 19 May 2017 - 07:17 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,303
  • Member since:
    06-02-2013
In order to fire faster, the Hood used to leave magazine doors open and stack bags of chordite in passageways. Her magazine failure was systemic as much as anything

Sharkbait_416 #5 Posted 19 May 2017 - 07:18 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 743
  • Member since:
    01-08-2016

I had 90% of my health erased by a Bismarck at 15km. There is definitely a weak spot.  No detonations though. 

 

The ship came with the magazine module upgrade.


Follow the link for a WoWS Invite Code: http://playtogether..../invite/7gbYqmz


Helstrem #6 Posted 19 May 2017 - 07:40 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 267
  • Member since:
    05-18-2015

View PostDestroyer_Suzukaze, on 19 May 2017 - 01:17 PM, said:

In order to fire faster, the Hood used to leave magazine doors open and stack bags of chordite in passageways. Her magazine failure was systemic as much as anything

 

That was British BCs at Jutland, not Hood.  It also was not a hit amidships causing the boilers to go, it was most likely a penetration of a he upper belt with the shell ending in the aft magazine.

El_Judarino #7 Posted 19 May 2017 - 07:52 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,712
  • Member since:
    04-10-2015

View Postmesmergoat, on 19 May 2017 - 01:58 PM, said:

Is the Hood magazine overly susceptible (more than the norm) to detonation if you hit it just right? The hit that sunk it was supposedly right between the stacks. Does it have a weakness there in the game ship? Sunk in three minutes or less with only three survivors. Will we be seeing this in-game? And would the signal flag for -100% chance of detonation protect you?

 

 

The signal flag is supposed to completely protect you according to the devs.

 

In about 10 games in Hood, I've yet to be detonated, though I have eaten plenty of citadel hits when stupidly showing my sides/being outplayed.

 

I *have* had my turrets knocked out several times, this is partly because I have avoided equipping the mod that boosts main armament durability, specifically because I thought I might want to equip the magazine protection mod instead. I have since decided that was silly, and will be equipping main armament durability mod the next time I take it out of port.



renegadestatuz #8 Posted 19 May 2017 - 08:13 PM

    Captain

  • Members

  • 5,383
  • Member since:
    07-03-2013
These jokes are going to get old fast.
 
​Those who rebel, must be cleansed of their ways.

SparvieroVV #9 Posted 19 May 2017 - 08:25 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,149
  • Member since:
    06-20-2015
Managed to get a citadel and knock out the engine of a Hood around 12-14k with Lolrado at what I thought was a bad angle. So the upper belt being an issue sounds like something to consider?

My battle chat is disabled. So this is me saying "Hello" if I should happen to see you in battle.


GrandAdmiral_2016 #10 Posted 19 May 2017 - 08:59 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 687
  • Member since:
    01-02-2016
The Hood was hit abaft the mainmast by a 15-inch shell from Bismarck that entered the after 4-inch magazine at an acute plunging angle and detonated in it. The after 15-inch magazine is right next door, less than 20 feet away. Either magazine going would compromise the structure of the ship's girder strength, and a sympathetic detonation of the 15-inch magazine would be highly likely, even with the ship closed up to action stations. The weak point of entry was the lack of adequate deck armor over the aft engine room. The 4-inch magazine is just beyond it (see John Robert's Anatomy of the Ship:The BattlecruiserHood-pages 36, 46 and 61) and the deck armor is only 2 inches thick at that point as it is just beyond the main protective deck's heavier protection. The RN (and the DNC responsible for ship design and upgrading) were well aware of the weak points in the protection but the ship was needed so badly in service that she could not be spared for 12 to 18 months of dockyard time necessary to upgrade her, either prewar  from 1936 to 1939 (Ethiopian Crisis and Spanish Civil War) or in wartime after that. All she got was the bare minimum necessary to remedy ongoing defects and upgrade her AA, two months in 1940 at Devonport and two months at Rosyth in early 1941. Tough luck for a fine ship with a great crew. Remember their sacrifice.

Kanzler_Bismarck #11 Posted 19 May 2017 - 09:06 PM

    Ensign

  • Beta Testers

  • 998
  • Member since:
    11-11-2012

View PostGrandAdmiral_2016, on 19 May 2017 - 08:59 PM, said:

The Hood was hit abaft the mainmast by a 15-inch shell from Bismarck that entered the after 4-inch magazine at an acute plunging angle and detonated in it. The after 15-inch magazine is right next door, less than 20 feet away. Either magazine going would compromise the structure of the ship's girder strength, and a sympathetic detonation of the 15-inch magazine would be highly likely, even with the ship closed up to action stations. The weak point of entry was the lack of adequate deck armor over the aft engine room. The 4-inch magazine is just beyond it (see John Robert's Anatomy of the Ship:The BattlecruiserHood-pages 36, 46 and 61) and the deck armor is only 2 inches thick at that point as it is just beyond the main protective deck's heavier protection. The RN (and the DNC responsible for ship design and upgrading) were well aware of the weak points in the protection but the ship was needed so badly in service that she could not be spared for 12 to 18 months of dockyard time necessary to upgrade her, either prewar  from 1936 to 1939 (Ethiopian Crisis and Spanish Civil War) or in wartime after that. All she got was the bare minimum necessary to remedy ongoing defects and upgrade her AA, two months in 1940 at Devonport and two months at Rosyth in early 1941. Tough luck for a fine ship with a great crew. Remember their sacrifice.

This. 

There was a theory that the killshot was from the Prinz. But I am pretty sure that has been discredited now.



grizzly95 #12 Posted 20 May 2017 - 05:27 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 269
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostKanzler_Bismarck, on 19 May 2017 - 04:06 PM, said:

This. 

There was a theory that the killshot was from the Prinz. But I am pretty sure that has been discredited now.

 

iirc that Theory is that the fire on the boat deck (started by the Prinz) spread down the ammunition trunks for the DP guns, and caused ammo to cook off in the 4in mag, which collapsed the bulkhead to the 15in magazine and did the rest. 

 

Eyewitness testimony placed the jet of flame in the vicinity of the mast, which would suggest the 4in magazine. The explosion followed this than. 

 

In all honesty we will never know though, not even by examining the wreck. From what i have found, the ship was quite literally fragmented by the series of explosion (Aft magazines, fuel storage, forward magazines), so much so that the ships armored conning tower is located separate from the other 2 debris fields. And the midships portion (largest to survive) is off by itself too. 

 

http://www.hmshood.c.../hood/sonar.png


Edited by grizzly95, 20 May 2017 - 05:34 AM.


Battlecruiser_Tiger #13 Posted 20 May 2017 - 05:29 AM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,353
  • Member since:
    08-10-2016

 

It is a thing.


[KNMSU] is seeking new members. Please PM me before applying! Thank you!

"Semi-notorious forum twit"


dseehafer #14 Posted 20 May 2017 - 07:46 AM

    Rear Admiral

  • Beta Testers

  • 7,284
  • Member since:
    08-20-2012

These two gifs show the most accurate, to-date, theory on how Hood was destroyed. As you can see she was not pierced between the funnels.

 

http://i.imgur.com/RuRfuE4.mp4

 

http://i.imgur.com/T8Gaoq7.mp4


CREATOR OF THE "A DETAILED LOOK AT" AND THE "WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE??" SERIES!! 

KlnDiJZ.gif

"The whole strategy of the war turns at this period to this ship (the Tirpitz), which is holding four times the number of British capital ships paralyzed, to say nothing of the two new American battleships retained in the Atlantic."

- Winston Churchill

 


Admiral_Thrawn_1 #15 Posted 20 May 2017 - 10:55 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Members

  • 1,646
  • Member since:
    02-27-2017

View PostDestroyer_Suzukaze, on 19 May 2017 - 07:17 PM, said:

In order to fire faster, the Hood used to leave magazine doors open and stack bags of chordite in passageways. Her magazine failure was systemic as much as anything

 

You think they would have learned their lesson after Jutland about doing that... :facepalm:




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users