|
Post by wlbjork on Dec 25, 2020 2:18:17 GMT -6
In the game, for battleships (not Pre-Dreadnought in the 1900s), the superstructure hit caused Fire and Fire spreads. I have burned a lot of battleships to death with small caliber ammunition. This is so strange, what is burning? Is the cannonball burning? Is the steel burning? Is this the magic flame of World of Warships game? And it’s also strange that the buoyancy is vented without being penetrated in the core area. Even the modern warships of today have quite a bit of flammables onboard. Crew quarters, electrical equipment, hydraulics, high-pressure air systems, lockers full of mops and cleaning supplies... even the painted hull can burn under the right conditions. Despite our best efforts, fire continues to be a significant threat. Just look at what happened to the USS Bon Homme Richard or the USS Miami. I'll add the loss of the Type 42 destroyer, HMS Sheffield, to that list as well. This was a combat engagement, and it was again a 'golden BB'-type hit that crippled the fire-suppression system which contributed to the speed of destruction.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 25, 2020 13:59:05 GMT -6
Just for fun, I developed a Springsharp design of Hood after some of her interwar refits. It's pretty close, I believe. Now, I went forward and assumed she survived the Bismarck as the You tube video estimates and goes in for her complete refit.
The problem is that its a little difficult to follow the Admiralty request of 1939 which I have. So, I did my best. I locked the engine power to be accurate as to how much speed the extra weight would cost her.
My first modification was to remove the lower freeboard on the quarterdeck and make it a flush deck ship. This did improve her sea keeping and now she is not wet forward.
My next modification was to remove the five inch belt. I increased the armored deck to 5 inches all the way from the forecastle to the quarterdeck.
The weight gain from these modifications was over 6000 lbs. I will get the actual change but 6000 is close. With the same power rating, she looses 3 knots of speed.
I need to read the Admiralty report and research in my books what other modifications I can do. I know they modified the bridge structure and removed some of the upper works. They were also going to add 40mm Bofor's guns, I just have to figure out where they were going to put them.
They were also going to install a catapult, however, by the time she would have gone in for the updates, she would have gotten better radar and most catapults were being removed. I will not pursue this change.
They were, according to the Admiralty Report going to remove the armored conning tower and 5 "side armor". I've done this, and extended the bulge over the 7 inch.
There are many other changes that I have made but I will not bore you. Here is the finished product:
I have revised the refit specifications to reflect what is believed to be realistic. It now has more AA guns, 5.2 inch secondaries, dual purpose, the 7 inch belt is gone, replaced by the extended 12 in belt. Armored deck is now 5 inch. Speed is now 29.96 knots.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 25, 2020 21:03:51 GMT -6
Well, I think I've bored all of you so I will end this by saying that I do not feel the Royal Navy and the British government would have spent the money to rebuild Hood. They did not have the funding, the resources like shipyard and dock space and it would have been a two to three year effort for a worn-out battlecruiser. The primary threats were not battleships but aircraft and submarines. Hood would have been repaired and possibly sent out as a carrier escort ship or a convoy escort possibly also as a shore bombardment ship. My thoughts of course.
|
|
alant
Full Member
Posts: 125
|
Post by alant on Dec 25, 2020 21:14:19 GMT -6
An AA suite upgrade seems likely, but adding 6,000 tons (not pounds), no, I agree that was unlikely.
Perhaps she would have been sent to deter the Japanese, and have been sunk with Prince of Wales. But it seems more likely she would remain with the Home Fleet to hunt the big German battlecruisers and Tirpitz. She was still the biggest capitol ship in the RN.
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Dec 26, 2020 1:28:39 GMT -6
Well, I think I've bored all of you so I will end this by saying that I do not feel the Royal Navy and the British government would have spent the money to rebuild Hood. They did not have the funding, the resources like shipyard and dock space and it would have been a two to three year effort for a worn-out battlecruiser. The primary threats were not battleships but aircraft and submarines. Hood would have been repaired and possibly sent out as a carrier escort ship or a convoy escort possibly also as a shore bombardment ship. My thoughts of course. Maybe, but I'm not sure that the end of the big gun capital ship had quite been acknowledged at this point - after all, HMS Vanguard was constructed due to the loss of HMS Royal Oak and HMS Hood. On the other hand, an extensive a refit as you propose would have certainly been contra-indicated. Also, I'm curious about the 5.2" BL guns of 1916 that you have equipped HMS Hood with. She originally carried a dozen 5.5" BL guns, which look to be about 0.75t lighter than similar 6" guns, although these had been removed by 1940 in favour of 7 sets of twin mounted 4" DP guns. I suppose they could have been swapped out for 5.25" DP guns but 20 seems excessive.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Dec 26, 2020 4:42:51 GMT -6
It is a little pity, that they do not choose Hood for refit instead one of QE. She would be much more useful in the Mediterranean hunting Italian battleships and Italian battleships would have much tougher time knowing that Royal Navy has ship which is at least as fast as their modern battleships.
|
|
|
Post by director on Dec 26, 2020 5:43:28 GMT -6
The plan, of course, was to delay the refit to 'Hood' because she was a newer ship than the QE's and the R class battlecruisers. Her refit was delayed because war was immanent and then war broke out before they could get to it...
Any refit of 'Hood' depends on how damaged she was at Denmark Strait. If she'd gotten superficial damage, a year would have sufficed to make an update to her AA suite and electronics and she could have soldiered on with her old power-plant for a few more years. But serious damage might have meant anything from a hasty patch job to placement in reserve. 'Hood' might have been rebuilt in peacetime with the naval treaties in force, but she was worth less than a 'King George V'. 'Lion' or 'Vanguard' with every passing year... and the Royal Navy had enough battleships as of 1943.
I would speculate they might have built a second 'Vanguard' around 'Hood's main battery... it wouldn't have cost a lot more or taken much longer, and the resulting ship would have been worth just as little in the jet age.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 26, 2020 7:58:18 GMT -6
Well, I think I've bored all of you so I will end this by saying that I do not feel the Royal Navy and the British government would have spent the money to rebuild Hood. They did not have the funding, the resources like shipyard and dock space and it would have been a two to three year effort for a worn-out battlecruiser. The primary threats were not battleships but aircraft and submarines. Hood would have been repaired and possibly sent out as a carrier escort ship or a convoy escort possibly also as a shore bombardment ship. My thoughts of course. Maybe, but I'm not sure that the end of the big gun capital ship had quite been acknowledged at this point - after all, HMS Vanguard was constructed due to the loss of HMS Royal Oak and HMS Hood. On the other hand, an extensive a refit as you propose would have certainly been contra-indicated. Also, I'm curious about the 5.2" BL guns of 1916 that you have equipped HMS Hood with. She originally carried a dozen 5.5" BL guns, which look to be about 0.75t lighter than similar 6" guns, although these had been removed by 1940 in favour of 7 sets of twin mounted 4" DP guns. I suppose they could have been swapped out for 5.25" DP guns but 20 seems excessive. The 5.2 inch was a dual purpose, quick firing gun which the Admiralty preferred. Here is the link to the specs - www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_525-50_mk1.phpI honestly don't know if the Admiralty would have done any extensive refit on Hood for all the reasons we can think of. I agree that the capital ship, specifically battleships had not be thought, obsolete but the building of Vanguard does not mean that they believed they were still useful. They actually were useful as carrier task force escorts in case the carrier force was attacked by other capital ships, escorts for convoy's and shore bombardment support. These were useful and important tasks. It's really hard to know, its all 20-20 hindsight. Now, I don't know if I or someone else posted this but here it is. This is ADM 229/20: DNC's(Director of Naval Construction) Report dated about 1938-1939 concerning reconstruction of Nelson, Rodney and Hood plus re-arming "Royal Sovereigns". This is probably all we have to use in speculation about a possible refit. There might be letters and messages between the participants that are available, but I haven't seen them. www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/official/adm229/adm229-20.htm
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 26, 2020 13:09:39 GMT -6
Check out the post with the Springsharp design for refit. I revised it. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Dec 27, 2020 1:52:56 GMT -6
Check out the post with the Springsharp design for refit. I revised it. Thanks Good work. I've just reminded myself that there were shortages of the 5.25" DP gun proposed in the refits, so although this looks to be the preferred armament, it is unlikely that such a change would have been achieved, in turn suggesting the 4.5" secondary armament may have wound up being the refit actually carried out. Quick note: 5.25"/L45 - dual purpose gun introduced shortly before WW2, fitted as secondary armament to King George V class BB and as primary armament to Dido class CLAA 5.20"/L42 - LA gun, fitted to HMS X1, a submarine cruiser built in the 1920s
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 27, 2020 8:14:32 GMT -6
Check out the post with the Springsharp design for refit. I revised it. Thanks Good work. I've just reminded myself that there were shortages of the 5.25" DP gun proposed in the refits, so although this looks to be the preferred armament, it is unlikely that such a change would have been achieved, in turn suggesting the 4.5" secondary armament may have wound up being the refit actually carried out. Quick note: 5.25"/L45 - dual purpose gun introduced shortly before WW2, fitted as secondary armament to King George V class BB and as primary armament to Dido class CLAA 5.20"/L42 - LA gun, fitted to HMS X1, a submarine cruiser built in the 1920s First of all, thanks for the reading the design, most people don't but it is my one way of thoroughly understanding how warships are designed and built. Appreciated. Many of the books and the video do state that they probably would have had to use the 5.2 inch guns designated for the Vanguard to finish the outfitting of the Hood. I will research that more. Glad you like the design, I have to work within the confines of Springsharp. It isn't easy but it is fun.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 27, 2020 12:35:18 GMT -6
I took the original Springsharp design and decided to simulate the design with AON. It did not change much except armor weight. One extra change was that the original Hood design had a round stern, not a large transom.
|
|
|
Post by charlottep51 on Dec 28, 2020 4:38:18 GMT -6
In the game, for battleships (not Pre-Dreadnought in the 1900s), the superstructure hit caused Fire and Fire spreads. I have burned a lot of battleships to death with small caliber ammunition. This is so strange, what is burning? Is the cannonball burning? Is the steel burning? Is this the magic flame of World of Warships game? And it’s also strange that the buoyancy is vented without being penetrated in the core area. Even the modern warships of today have quite a bit of flammables onboard. Crew quarters, electrical equipment, hydraulics, high-pressure air systems, lockers full of mops and cleaning supplies... even the painted hull can burn under the right conditions. Despite our best efforts, fire continues to be a significant threat. Just look at what happened to the USS Bon Homme Richard or the USS Miami. As for flotation loss due to hits outside the citadel, those parts outside the citadel still contribute to the ship's buoyancy and reserve buoyancy. Blow a hole in it, and the ship will still take on tons of seawater, affecting how it floats and reducing your reserve buoyancy. If that causes a list, then counter-flooding is needed, further reducing your reserve buoyancy. Throw in spread of flooding through hatches, ventilation shafts, etc. and it is not only possible but quite plausible for a ship's survival to be threatened by sufficient damage outside the citadel. My only complaint about the damage model is that it doesn't model the restoration of reserve buoyancy by pumping. IRL unless the flooding forced abandoning the affected compartment, repair crews would eventually be able to stop the flooding and pump the water out. Right now, any lost reserve buoyancy is gone for good. Despite my minor complaint, this damage model remains the most accurate I have seen in a game. Here's an interesting read: www.navweaps.com/index_lundgren/Kirishima_Damage_Analysis.pdfAlthough the Kirishima does NOT have AoN armor and was struck primarily by large-caliber shells, this report does have several good examples of how damaging hits in non-critical areas could spread fires and flooding into critical areas despite protective features. That, I think, is something that most people do not really understand about the dreadnought era. Even the largest and most heavily armored ship cannot be made totally immune to shellfire. Thank you also for your answer, maybe yours is right. I was told by navy fans that at a reasonable distance, the new-type battleship of World War II is completely immune to 8 inches and below (at a reasonable engagement distance), and her side and deck are all designed as immune zones. The superstructure also has a lower degree of protection. According to them, the equipment that may be ignite is consciously protected by armor, and it is impossible to have a fire without being penetrated. An 8-inch CA cost all the ammunition and 100% hit , Can't cause any major damage. In contrast, a CA/low tonnage BC only has protection in key areas, and the compartment armor is thin, so a small amount of ammunition can be fatal. (No offense) This statement contradicts yours, I don’t know which one is right, I just talk about my understanding
|
|
|
Post by charlottep51 on Dec 28, 2020 4:39:18 GMT -6
300-400 hits by 8" and 6" shells would be devastating to any capital ship, no matter if AON design or not. An AON design does *not* make a ship immune to fires or secondary damage, or the possibility of eventual loss from such damage, especially fire. Thank you also for your answer, maybe yours is right. I was told by navy fans that at a reasonable distance, the new-type battleship of World War II is completely immune to 8 inches and below (at a reasonable engagement distance), and her side and deck are all designed as immune zones. The superstructure also has a lower degree of protection. According to them, the equipment that may be ignite is consciously protected by armor, and it is impossible to have a fire without being penetrated. An 8-inch CA cost all the ammunition and 100% hit , Can't cause any major damage. In contrast, a CA/low tonnage BC only has protection in key areas, and the compartment armor is thin, so a small amount of ammunition can be fatal. (No offense) This statement contradicts yours, I don’t know which one is right, I just talk about my understanding
|
|
|
Post by charlottep51 on Dec 28, 2020 4:54:00 GMT -6
In the game, for battleships (not Pre-Dreadnought in the 1900s), the superstructure hit caused Fire and Fire spreads. I have burned a lot of battleships to death with small caliber ammunition. This is so strange, what is burning? Is the cannonball burning? Is the steel burning? Is this the magic flame of World of Warships game? And it’s also strange that the buoyancy is vented without being penetrated in the core area. Paint was a huge culprit. I recall an account of the Solomons campaign that related how, after some of the early actions of the campaign, US crews spent a good long time stripping paint, as it had proven so flammable in combat. In a short-range night or bad weather action, small caliber guns still can devastate a battleship. Look at the case of Hiei at first Guadalcanal. She was crippled so badly as to be unable to leave the area before dawn, which left her a sitting duck for air attack. But none of the ships she faced had guns heavier than 8". Hello, about Hiei, I recalled my memory, I don’t know if it’s right, Hiei is an old ship of World War I that has been modernized, but the armor is still quite weak, and it is actually a late-WWI battle cruiser. At that night , She was attacked by three destroyers with 5-inch guns at close range and lost some crew. The destroyer fired torpedo but did not explode. The attack of the 5-inch gun only caused a certain ignition, but there was no substantial damage. She suffered Real damage from the San Francisco. Within 3000 meters, One San Francisco’s 8-inch gun hit her waterline, and this hit , one of the steering gears was severely damaged. It is said that she was hit with about 20 rounds of 8-inch guns and 60 rounds of 5-inch guns. If there was no air force attack at this time, the Hiei could return. In fact, after a night of emergency repairs, the Hiei was close to regaining power control. At dawn, she couldn't get out of the bomb-range of the US land-based-bombers, and were fatally attacked by the aviation forces and could only sink.The air attack was the reason for her sinking.
|
|