Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 2, 2018 15:38:38 GMT -6
Well, not according this document; ADM 229/20: DNC's Reports (1938-1939) which says "(c). Increased protection. The two schemes, viz, extra deck protection on the upper deck or the main deck, were examined. Controller preferred the former.
The only other item discussed in some detail was the removal of the conning-tower and the reconstruction of the bridges. D.N.O. would wish to have an armoured director aft, if the present director over the conning-tower were removed.
The impression I received was that Controller thought the laying up of this valuable ship at the present or at any time in the near future on the score of policy."
The problem was the timing, they did not feel they could take her out of service to perform the necessary refittings at this time or in the future - www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/official/adm229/adm229-20.htm
However, that aside, it has always been my contention that there wasn't "something wrong with our bloody ships" but the "bloody commanders" who, at Jutland and Denmark Straits did not seem to understand the strengths and weaknesses of their ships or they would not have "ridden to the sounds of the guns" only to be blown into the next time zone by those same guns. Ships and all weapons have limitations and you have to know and understand what those limitation are before heading into combat. Apparently too many British admirals had the "Nelson" mentality only to forget that even Nelson did not survive Trafalgar. All militaries like the blame the equipment, instead of the men commanding that equipment.
If I were going to update the Hood, why not improve her top with better sighting for accuracy along with the most important upgrade; the engines. During test in the 1930's she could no longer do 32 knots but just about 29. If they had just updated and replaced the engines to get her back to 31 knots, how would that have improved her speed at the Denmark Straits. Could an extra 3 knots have saved her? We will never know, maybe.