Matrix Games Forums

The bell from HMS Hood has been recovered [:)]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... onnel.html

The most beautiful battlecruiser ever built.



Her crew in 1939. How many were aboard two years later I wonder?....[:(]

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.
.

"the most beautiful battlecruiser ever built"...in the eye of the beholder perhaps. Personally I like the look of the Alaska class better.

"Battlecruiser" being the key word here, because there were some awesome looking "cruisers" (Germany, Japan and US).

Did they ever show some photos or video of the wreck?

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

"the most beautiful battlecruiser ever built"...in the eye of the beholder perhaps. Personally I like the look of the Alaska class better.

"Battlecruiser" being the key word here, because there were some awesome looking "cruisers" (Germany, Japan and US).

Did they ever show some photos or video of the wreck?

http://www.hmshood.com/hoodtoday/2001ex ... ebris1.htm

Also see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... under.html

Wow! Its more intact than I though it would be!

You can't compare the Hood (a battlecruiser) with the Alaska (not a battlecruiser).

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

Wow! Its more intact than I though it would be!

Not really. Look through the pics from the first link. The hull is in three pieces.

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

Here's a picture of the Missouri (top) and Alaska (bottom.)

The official navy magazine All Hands said "The Guam and her sister ship Alaska are the first American battle cruisers ever to be completed as such."

Nice pic...I wonder what the carrier is in the bottom left of the photo? Smaller than Essex Class?

[&o]

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

Nice pic...I wonder what the carrier is in the bottom left of the photo? Smaller than Essex Class?

I'm thinking it's the USS Cowpens, a CVL.

Ah yes, #25 on the bow flight deck...

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

Wow! Its more intact than I though it would be!

warspite1

Out of curiosity, what were you looking at to make that deduction? More intact? She's a broken mass of twisted metal spread over a large area - as you would expect from a ship that was blown apart [&:]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

Wow! Its more intact than I though it would be!

warspite1

Out of curiosity, what were you looking at to make that deduction? More intact? She's a broken mass of twisted metal spread over a large area - as you would expect from a ship that was blown apart [&:]

See the pic in Zorch's post

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.

Pocket Battleship meets battleship and battlecruiser.

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

"the most beautiful battlecruiser ever built"...in the eye of the beholder perhaps. Personally I like the look of the Alaska class better.

warspite1

Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that comment is nothing more than my personal opinion. As you mentioned it, yes, even if you include the Alaskas as BC's there is still no contest in my opinion.

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

Wow! Its more intact than I though it would be!

warspite1

Out of curiosity, what were you looking at to make that deduction? More intact? She's a broken mass of twisted metal spread over a large area - as you would expect from a ship that was blown apart [&:]

See the pic in Zorch's post

warspite1

Oh okay.....

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Pocket Battleship meets battleship and battlecruiser.

warspite1

The small size of the R-class really hits home when you see this picture.