Page 2 of 3
RE: HMS Hood
Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2015 3:43 am
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: Joe 98
I recall reading there were 3 survivors of the Hood and one migrated to Australia well after the war.
Back in the year 2000, I was visiting the UK and went to the Imperial War Museum.
I was looking at a small display and another man was looking at it too. I do not recall the details of that display.
I made a comment and the man said “Are you from Australia?”.
“Yes” I said.
“My brother was one of the survivors of the Hood and migrated to Melbourne” he said.
“Wow” I said, lost for words.
.
warspite1
I don't suppose he said which one? As far as I can tell none of the three emigrated - and all lived and died in the UK. Ted Briggs had relatives in Australia but I cannot see he moved there.
RE: HMS Hood
Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2015 1:53 pm
by Zorch
ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: Aurelian
Pocket Battleship meets battleship and battlecruiser.
warspite1
The small size of the R-class really hits home when you see this picture.
But they did have more armor than most of their peers.
RE: HMS Hood
Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2015 4:13 pm
by DuckofTindalos
ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14
I knew I would get something like this response! Yes, you are correct, the US called this class "Large Cruiser". Technically, after WWI I believe only the UK had true "Battle Cruisers" since they are the ones who coined the term and developed that class...other countries simply called them battleships...or the Brits calling the German lighter battleships "pocket battleships". Maybe you could name me some non-UK post WWI true "Battlecruiser" classes? In the following stats tons stands out, but taking that alone would compare more to a BB. I think the Alaska class is the closest thing to a "Battlecruiser" than anything produced post WWI...perhaps the Japs produced something?
Tons:
Hood 46,680
Alaska 29,779
Length:
Hood 860
Alaska 808
Beam:
Hood 104
Alaska 91
SHP:
Hood 144,000
Alaska 153,000
Speed:
Hood 28-31
Alaska 33
Range:
Hood 5,332
Alaska 12,000
Crew:
Hood 1,325
Alaska 1,517
warspite1
You mention "after WW1" - but
my personal opinion covers all battlecruisers - inc WWI.
There were a few ship classes that were invariably known by more than one type:
- The Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were the very opposite of battlecruisers (heavily armoured and lightly armed) but are frequently termed as either battleships or battlecruisers
- The Dunkerque and Strasbourg are known as either fast battleships or battlecruisers
- The Japanese Kongos were built as battlecruisers but were re-classified (by the Japanese) as battleships in the inter-war period.
- The Alaskas are another class of ship that are frequently given one of two different designations - depending upon whose book one is reading. Sometimes referred to as battlecruisers, officially these were heavy cruisers - and were a logical extension of cruiser design and where such would have ended up had the various inter-war naval treaties not limited their size.
- To be clear, the Deutschland-class were nothing more than heavy cruisers - and were indeed re-classified as such during the war. The pocket-battleship term was coined by the British and for propaganda purposes the Germans were quite happy to go along with that misnomer.
The Alaskas were upscaled Baltimores, and called "large cruisers". Same general layout, same armour problems (no underwater protection to speak of). Waste of money.
If we go back to the question of aesthetics, the French and Italians have that market cornered, in my view.
RE: HMS Hood
Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2015 4:33 pm
by Capt. Harlock
- The Alaskas are another class of ship that are frequently given one of two different designations - depending upon whose book one is reading. Sometimes referred to as battlecruisers, officially these were heavy cruisers - and were a logical extension of cruiser design and where such would have ended up had the various inter-war naval treaties not limited their size.
Whatever the U.S. Navy may have titled them, the
Alaskas were battlecruisers by any reasonable definition of the term. They had the speed, they had the size, they had the firepower (especially when you consider the high-capacity shells), and they had light armor.
I'm something of an
Alaska-class fanboy; when I'm playing a Pacific wargame I would rather have an extra unit of that class than another
Indiana class. (speed really helps, as the R.N. found when the "R" class turned out to be less useful than the
Queen Elizabeth class.) That said, I would agree that the
Hood was even more beautiful. Now that I'm on the wrong side of the half-century mark, I've become more of a traditionalist.
RE: HMS Hood
Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2015 4:58 pm
by DuckofTindalos
Not battlecruisers by role. Not what they were designed for, not what they were used for. Nobody had designed a battlecruiser for many years by the time the Alaska were put on the drawing board.
RE: HMS Hood
Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2015 1:37 am
by Capt. Harlock
Nobody had designed a battlecruiser for many years by the time the Alaska were put on the drawing board.
If you actually meant "built", I might accept that, although the French
Dunkerque class could be termed battle cruisers. (They were meant as pocket-battleship killers rather than battle line units.) But if you're actually thinking "designed", that's not correct. The Germans, the Russians, the Japanese, and believe it or not, the Dutch, had all drawn up serious plans, and some hulls were even laid down before being cancelled.
RE: HMS Hood
Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2015 12:02 pm
by HudsonGame
[:)]warspite1 - I agree about Hood being very beautiful. Britain tended to make some very handsome warships, most especially her Battlecruisers (Hood being a prime example). Another British Battlecruiser I very much admire is HMS Tiger. She did not quite make it to World War II (Decommissioned in 1931 due to treaty obligations).
HMS Tiger
RE: HMS Hood
Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2015 9:37 pm
by Zorch
ORIGINAL: HudsonGame
[:)]warspite1 - I agree about Hood being very beautiful. Britain tended to make some very handsome warships, most especially her Battlecruisers (Hood being a prime example). Another British Battlecruiser I very much admire is HMS Tiger. Though she did not quite make it to World War II (Decommissioned in 1931 due to treaty obligations), I have requested in the past that she be added to the database.
HMS Tiger
I don't like how close together Tiger's A and B turrets appear to be. Are they closer than on other ships with superimposed turrets?
RE: HMS Hood
Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 2:10 am
by rhondabrwn
Ah, that picture is actually of the sunken Bismarck though hosted on the Hood Association Website at
http://www.hmshood.com/hoodtoday/2001ex ... ncrypt.htm
RE: HMS Hood
Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 2:12 am
by rhondabrwn
ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14
Wow! Its more intact than I though it would be!
That's actually a picture of the Bismarck
http://www.hmshood.com/hoodtoday/2001ex ... ncrypt.htm
RE: HMS Hood
Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 4:35 am
by HudsonGame
ORIGINAL: Zorch
ORIGINAL: HudsonGame
[:)]warspite1 - I agree about Hood being very beautiful. Britain tended to make some very handsome warships, most especially her Battlecruisers (Hood being a prime example). Another British Battlecruiser I very much admire is HMS Tiger. Though she did not quite make it to World War II (Decommissioned in 1931 due to treaty obligations), I have requested in the past that she be added to the database.
HMS Tiger
I don't like how close together Tiger's A and B turrets appear to be. Are they closer than on other ships with superimposed turrets?
Took a look at a couple of British Battlecruisers from that period (Hood and Lion) and do not see any meaningful difference in the distance of their A and B turrets as compared to Tiger. To me the arrangement looks good and I have never read anything to suggest there was ever any question of Tiger's gunnery performance as a result of Tiger's Turret setup.[;)]
RE: HMS Hood
Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 1:28 pm
by Jagdtiger14
Ah, no wonder that photo of the Hood looked so intact. I can see that it is the Bismarck now.
RE: HMS Hood
Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 5:17 pm
by Zorch
Sorry...I sit corrected.
Thank you for pointing this out.
RE: HMS Hood
Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 5:27 pm
by rhondabrwn
Actually, I briefly entertained the notion that it was the USS Arizona. The Arizona was never raised, but they did remove all the gun turrets to salvage the guns. Not sure how the Bismarck lost its turrets. Magazine explosion that blew them off? Anyone have an explanation?
RE: HMS Hood
Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 5:32 pm
by Zorch
ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn
Actually, I briefly entertained the notion that it was the USS Arizona. The Arizona was never raised, but they did remove all the gun turrets to salvage the guns. Not sure how the Bismarck lost its turrets. Magazine explosion that blew them off? Anyone have an explanation?
They fell off during its long journey to the sea bed. Only gravity holds them on - the ship must gave rolled over while it fell.
RE: HMS Hood
Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 5:50 pm
by rhondabrwn
ORIGINAL: Zorch
ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn
Actually, I briefly entertained the notion that it was the USS Arizona. The Arizona was never raised, but they did remove all the gun turrets to salvage the guns. Not sure how the Bismarck lost its turrets. Magazine explosion that blew them off? Anyone have an explanation?
They fell off during its long journey to the sea bed. Only gravity holds them on - the ship must gave rolled over while it fell.
I did not know that! Thanks
RE: HMS Hood
Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 6:59 am
by Pvt_Grunt
ORIGINAL: warspite1
- The Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were the very opposite of battlecruisers (heavily armoured and lightly armed) but are frequently termed as either battleships or battlecruisers
Battlecruiser is a compound word from Battleship and Cruiser.
Traditionally it meant a ship with heavy guns and light armour (Hood being the best example)
But I see nothing wrong with the German sisters getting classed as well, even though they had battleship armour and cruiser gunnery.
Also they were particularly fine looking ships.............
RE: HMS Hood
Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 10:49 am
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: Pvt_Grunt
ORIGINAL: warspite1
- The Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were the very opposite of battlecruisers (heavily armoured and lightly armed) but are frequently termed as either battleships or battlecruisers
Battlecruiser is a compound word from Battleship and Cruiser.
Traditionally it meant a ship with heavy guns and light armour (Hood being the best example)
But I see nothing wrong with the German sisters getting classed as well, even though they had battleship armour and cruiser gunnery.
Also they were particularly fine looking ships.............
warspite1
Well this is what I knew them as as a kid and I am continuing with battlecruiser in the Naval Day-to-Day thread [:)].
RE: HMS Hood
Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 12:05 pm
by Aurelian
The West considers this a battlecruiser too
RE: HMS Hood
Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 12:08 pm
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: Aurelian
The West considers this a battlecruiser too
warspite1
They've forgotten the guns!!!! [:D]
