Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Admiral_Thrawn_1

HMS Hood and Refit plans

29 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3,253
[RKLES]
Members
12,222 posts
13,863 battles

We know that HMS Hood was planned to get major refit and  modernization. But due to the war and then Battle of Denmark straight where Bismarck sank the Hood, prevented her from ever getting refitted. Question is what would Hood’s refitted specs have been? And could she really have taken on more armor and upgrades? Since even though she appears large enough to carry some upgrades, the ship did already sit low enough that they often had some issues with seawater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37
[WPE-2]
[WPE-2]
Beta Testers
194 posts
5,579 battles
3 minutes ago, RipNuN2 said:

They would have to reduce the tea making facilities.

i feel like that wouldve caused some unrest among the crew.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
13,938 posts
5,814 battles
8 minutes ago, RipNuN2 said:

They would have to reduce the tea making facilities.

Tea or riot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
434
[JFSOC]
[JFSOC]
Members
1,411 posts
4,382 battles

In Hood, Design and Construction, by Maurice Northcott, the reconstruction would have been:

Armor

All 5" belt armor is removed and the 2" deck splinter armor is extended outboard, particularly around the magazines.

Scheme A:

The more austere of the two.  The 12" belt is extended up replacing the existing 7" armor and 2" of armor is added to the upper deck over the citadel.  This scheme gives greatly increased short and medium range protection to the ship but does little for bombs and plunging fire at long range.

Scheme B:

The 7 and 12" armor remain the same.  The lower deck is increased to 5" over the magazines and 4" over the engine rooms.  This scheme is better for medium and long range engagements and gives greatly increased deck protection.

As for armament...

That really would depend on costs.  There were plans for either a 4.5" battery like Queen Elizabeth got or a 5.25" battery like on the KGV's.  A cheaper alternative would have been 6 twin 4" Mk XIX mounts.  In all cases the torpedo tubes were removed entirely, and 6 8 barrel 2 pdr pom poms would be included.  The 5.5" secondary guns would have been removed.

The bridge structure is likely to have been redone to look more like a KGV class and that would see the armored conning tower removed.  That would also be a weight compensation for the armor being installed.

The expected / planned estimate of cost was £ 4,500,000 and two to three years in the yards.  This depended largely on the extent to which the Hood's machinery and boilers would be updated and worked on.  This was in line with the three year renovation of Renown

There are no detailed plans of these reconstructions however, as the planning never moved beyond the initial stages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,513
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,502 posts
14,121 battles

@Murotsu nails it with a good source, though I'd add that the 5.5in secondaries had already gone, if they hadn't the major refit would certainly have replaced them. 

There are some 'extrapolations' of how she'd look on the Hood Association website here: http://www.hmshood.com/history/construct/repair42.htm

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,941
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,390 posts
4,762 battles

I am hoping to see a British Battlecruiser line added to WoWS at some point and for the Admiral class to sit at Tier VII or VIII with the top hull being the upgrade, or an approximation of it, that she never got.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
362
[-WTP-]
[-WTP-]
Members
960 posts
8,976 battles

I don't hate this ship, but I don't love it either. You're more or less just a large tank that due to it's speed gets to decide where it takes damage but lack the consistent guns to make it worth while. I can do well but always felt it deserved a little bit "more"...and not some silly gimmick. Oh and I have Nelson now and that thing just shi*s on Hoods soooo...

I would like to see this thing get a refit that makes it more usable, and versatile like Scharnhorst. They can start with increasing gun accuracy. 

I suggest the hull upgrade be treated like an additional perma-camo. 1-2k in doubloons (throw in a "good faith" mission to earn it since we already dropped money on it) for a more "modern" version (balanced in some way...perhaps less health lose defensive fire gimmick in exchange for better armor/AA/accuracy) and those that just want it the way it is will also be happy.

Edited by HeathenForay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,941
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,390 posts
4,762 battles
53 minutes ago, HeathenForay said:

I don't hate this ship, but I don't love it either. You're more or less just a large tank that due to it's speed gets to decide where it takes damage but lack the consistent guns to make it worth while. I can do well but always felt it deserved a little bit "more"...and not some silly gimmick. Oh and I have Nelson now and that thing just shi*s on Hoods soooo...

I would like to see this thing get a refit that makes it more usable, and versatile like Scharnhorst. They can start with increasing gun accuracy. 

I suggest the hull upgrade be treated like an additional perma-camo. 1-2k in doubloons (throw in a "good faith" mission to earn it since we already dropped money on it) for a more "modern" version (balanced in some way...perhaps less health lose defensive fire gimmick in exchange for better armor/AA/accuracy) and those that just want it the way it is will also be happy.

No no no.  Hood is fine as is, though a sigma boost to 2.0 would be appreciated.  I don't have Nelson, but in my experience Hood is more than capable of dealing with Nelson.  My single biggest salvo from Hood was against a Nelson, 45,000 damage, and his reply did about 6,000-7,000 damage.

The refit for Hood should be used in the tech tree for British Battlecruisers as the top hull for the Admiral class ships, either Tier VII (most likely) or Tier VIII.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
362
[-WTP-]
[-WTP-]
Members
960 posts
8,976 battles
2 hours ago, Helstrem said:

No no no.  Hood is fine as is, though a sigma boost to 2.0 would be appreciated.  I don't have Nelson, but in my experience Hood is more than capable of dealing with Nelson.  My single biggest salvo from Hood was against a Nelson, 45,000 damage, and his reply did about 6,000-7,000 damage.

The refit for Hood should be used in the tech tree for British Battlecruisers as the top hull for the Admiral class ships, either Tier VII (most likely) or Tier VIII.

There won't be battlecruiser tree anytime soon. Even if the refit is used on Hood there's no reason it can't be on a tech tree ship...and no Hood is not fine as is. It's gunners are drunk and it's stupid little AA gimmick is useless in the grand scheme of things (AFT to boost my stupid gimmick and give up fire prevention? Uhh nooo....) It's huge so all the spammers can feast on you no matter what you do and said AA gimmick gets knocked out with the first RN BB that looks at you the wrong way.

You got one big salvo on a Nelson, congrats, I mean that from the bottom of my dark sarcastic heart. That was the exception, not the rule. Toe to toe, with equal captains and the Nelson will absolutely wreck the Hood no matter what it does. I have both, I'd never take Hood over Nelson. It's been surpassed and power crept by it's own family member. A refit should be added just to save face as the Hood just feels like a rushed gimmick ship in comparison. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,941
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,390 posts
4,762 battles
20 minutes ago, HeathenForay said:

There won't be battlecruiser tree anytime soon. Even if the refit is used on Hood there's no reason it can't be on a tech tree ship...and no Hood is not fine as is. It's gunners are drunk and it's stupid little AA gimmick is useless in the grand scheme of things (AFT to boost my stupid gimmick and give up fire prevention? Uhh nooo....) It's huge so all the spammers can feast on you no matter what you do and said AA gimmick gets knocked out with the first RN BB that looks at you the wrong way.

You got one big salvo on a Nelson, congrats, I mean that from the bottom of my dark sarcastic heart. That was the exception, not the rule. Toe to toe, with equal captains and the Nelson will absolutely wreck the Hood no matter what it does. I have both, I'd never take Hood over Nelson. It's been surpassed and power crept by it's own family member. A refit should be added just to save face as the Hood just feels like a rushed gimmick ship in comparison. 

No, there won't be any time soon, but the premium is, and should remain, the historical ship.

Hood bounces most of Nelson's shells if you use it right, if Nelson uses HE, well, she is giving Hood the victory.  I am not sure how you play it, but Nelson does not automatically beat Hood.  That was my biggest salvo, but big salvos against Nelson are common.

As far as stats go, Hood is unlikely to be buffed because she performs above average.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
362
[-WTP-]
[-WTP-]
Members
960 posts
8,976 battles
1 hour ago, Helstrem said:

No, there won't be any time soon, but the premium is, and should remain, the historical ship.

Hood bounces most of Nelson's shells if you use it right, if Nelson uses HE, well, she is giving Hood the victory.  I am not sure how you play it, but Nelson does not automatically beat Hood.  That was my biggest salvo, but big salvos against Nelson are common.

As far as stats go, Hood is unlikely to be buffed because she performs above average.

Uhhuh...and I said treat it as a perma-camo that can be bought by people like me who acknowledge the Hood is lacking and fan boys like yourself can keep it as historical as you'd like.

As far as Hood's stats go, if it's above average it's because only the dedicated few who love her play her. Think about it.... My stats in Hood are above average too, doesn't mean I don't think it needs help. It's a niche ship. Nelson has zombie heal and has 9 ACCURATE 16 inch guns with nasty HE and lovely firing angles. Equal skill players the Nelson should come out on top every time short of some stupid mistake the kiting Hood with crummy DPM and drunk gunners can exploit 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
434
[JFSOC]
[JFSOC]
Members
1,411 posts
4,382 battles
On ‎7‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 3:02 PM, Helstrem said:

I am hoping to see a British Battlecruiser line added to WoWS at some point and for the Admiral class to sit at Tier VII or VIII with the top hull being the upgrade, or an approximation of it, that she never got.

Why?  Their battlecruisers all pretty much suck.  Hood is the only decent one.  The Renown's are weakly armored and have just 6 15" guns.  They're Myogi's for all intents.  The Tiger is a Kongo with smaller guns.  Everything before that is just a cruiser with battleship guns for all intents.

 

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,513
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,502 posts
14,121 battles
21 minutes ago, Murotsu said:

Why?  Their battlecruisers all pretty much suck.  Hood is the only decent one.  The Renown's are weakly armored and have just 6 15" guns.  They're Myogi's for all intents.  The Tiger is a Kongo with smaller guns.  Everything before that is just a cruiser with battleship guns for all intents.

 

We have plenty of historically less than successful lines in game, such as German cruisers, Japanese Battleships, French Battleships. I think singling out RN battlecruisers is a little unfair.

I don't think they'd suck either. Renown has as much belt armor as the T6 Dunkerque plus a more distributed scheme to help with in-game angling, and is faster. 6 guns but with 15in overmatch and reasonable accuracy.

The Tiger would trade 0.5in of caliber to Kongo for wildly better HE if you wanted to use it, and as-built was probably otherwise superior to the Kongo. In game a lot would come down to the level of refits. The QM/Lion/Princess Royal have up to 229mm belts, again par with Dunkerque. The T3 if you used Indefatigable would have terrible 152mm armor, but it's T3 who even cares. Hood could be adequate at T7 fairly easily and then there are decent designs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,941
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,390 posts
4,762 battles
1 hour ago, Murotsu said:

Why?  Their battlecruisers all pretty much suck.  Hood is the only decent one.  The Renown's are weakly armored and have just 6 15" guns.  They're Myogi's for all intents.  The Tiger is a Kongo with smaller guns.  Everything before that is just a cruiser with battleship guns for all intents.

 

The British got much better use out of their Battlecruisers than they did out of most of their Dreadnoughts.  Of the Dreadnought classes, only the QE class really delivered.

1 hour ago, mofton said:

We have plenty of historically less than successful lines in game, such as German cruisers, Japanese Battleships, French Battleships. I think singling out RN battlecruisers is a little unfair.

I don't think they'd suck either. Renown has as much belt armor as the T6 Dunkerque plus a more distributed scheme to help with in-game angling, and is faster. 6 guns but with 15in overmatch and reasonable accuracy.

The Tiger would trade 0.5in of caliber to Kongo for wildly better HE if you wanted to use it, and as-built was probably otherwise superior to the Kongo. In game a lot would come down to the level of refits. The QM/Lion/Princess Royal have up to 229mm belts, again par with Dunkerque. The T3 if you used Indefatigable would have terrible 152mm armor, but it's T3 who even cares. Hood could be adequate at T7 fairly easily and then there are decent designs.

Hood is adequate at Tier VII already.  With her upgrade she might even be adequate at Tier VIII, but most certainly would be good at Tier VII.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,941
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,390 posts
4,762 battles
2 hours ago, HeathenForay said:

As far as Hood's stats go, if it's above average it's because only the dedicated few who love her play her. Think about it.... My stats in Hood are above average too, doesn't mean I don't think it needs help. It's a niche ship. Nelson has zombie heal and has 9 ACCURATE 16 inch guns with nasty HE and lovely firing angles. Equal skill players the Nelson should come out on top every time short of some stupid mistake the kiting Hood with crummy DPM and drunk gunners can exploit 

The problem is that Hood can angle against Nelson and Nelson cannot angle against Hood.  Zombie heal doesn't matter when you're getting citadeled constantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,253
[RKLES]
Members
12,222 posts
13,863 battles
On 7/17/2018 at 10:09 PM, Helstrem said:

The British got much better use out of their Battlecruisers than they did out of most of their Dreadnoughts.  Of the Dreadnought classes, only the QE class really delivered.

Hood is adequate at Tier VII already.  With her upgrade she might even be adequate at Tier VIII, but most certainly would be good at Tier VII.

King George V Class did pretty well on the war, Duke of York hunted the Scharnhorst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,941
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,390 posts
4,762 battles
2 hours ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

King George V Class did pretty well on the war, Duke of York hunted the Scharnhorst.

Different war.  I was referring to WWI.  By WWII the Dreadnought and Battlecruiser concept had been merged into the fast battleship, of which Hood can be argued to have been the first.  Certainly the KGVs were fast battleships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,717
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,533 posts
12,810 battles

The biggest problem with British battlecruisers was cordite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,941
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,390 posts
4,762 battles
25 minutes ago, Hurlbut said:

@Heathen3531

@Helstrem

Just a head up, the Hood's AP shell is an inferior shell. If there is going to be an Admiral Class for tech tree, this tree version will get the better AP.

Its krupp is inferior to Warspite's.  Its auto-bounce angles are superior, 67.5 degrees instead of 60 degrees, and its faster fuse can be good or bad depending on what is being hit.

To say it is inferior is a bit simplistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,059 posts
2,528 battles
2 hours ago, Helstrem said:

Its krupp is inferior to Warspite's.  Its auto-bounce angles are superior, 67.5 degrees instead of 60 degrees, and its faster fuse can be good or bad depending on what is being hit.

To say it is inferior is a bit simplistic.

the AP on Hood is suited against cruisers. Shorter fuse mean she can't citadel battleships as much as RN's normal AP can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
6,087 posts
5,320 battles
On 7/2/2018 at 7:53 AM, Super_Dreadnought said:

Tea or riot.

They will have to embrace a new drink - a beverage of the blackest arts: COFFEE!

618307bf-285b-4dea-ac97-086d8c466ebf.png

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
6,087 posts
5,320 battles
On 7/17/2018 at 3:37 PM, Murotsu said:

Why?  Their battlecruisers all pretty much suck.  Hood is the only decent one.  The Renown's are weakly armored and have just 6 15" guns.  They're Myogi's for all intents.  The Tiger is a Kongo with smaller guns.  Everything before that is just a cruiser with battleship guns for all intents.

 

To be fair, the Renown did scare away the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau off the coast of Lofoten in Norway.

Heck!  Renown actually damaged Gneisenau in that engagement, hitting the director tower, forward range finders, and aft turret.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_off_Lofoten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×