HMS Hood Rebuild

While I think it likely that more than 16 barrels could have been shipped, to suggest that some simple barrel-per-ton ratio will always be applicable (especially in a refit environment!) is profoundly unsophisticated.

Very nice work!

-Matt

_________________
[ img ]

MS State Guard - 08 March 2014 - 28 January 2023

The Official IJN Ships & Planes List

#FJB

Colombamike,

I have closely based what I've drawn on the comments from that site you link to.

Quote:

"5.25" or 4.5" Secondary Battery– Though the 5.25" were preferred, there were availability issues with the guns. Instead, the widely available 4.5" guns seem a more likely choice for Hood. It was also a more standard round (Queen Elizabeth class, Renown, carriers, etc.). Although a typical arrangement for large ships of that time was 20 guns (ten twin barreled turrets situated on the starboard and port sides in clusters of three forward and two aft), this would not have been the case for Hood. Due to her internal arrangements, she would likely have been outfitted with just 16 guns in four turrets. The exact location of these guns would depend on the extent of modifications being carried out and available space for gun machinery and magazine stowage.

In the case of Hood, we feel that it was unlikely for guns to have been installed in typical fore and aft clusters. This is because they would have obstructed the senior officer's cabins and baths if installed in standard fashion. If installed aft, they would either have to be individually situated and staggered (like Hood's actual final 4" guns were) or located somewhere else on the ship. If this were the case, the most likely place would be in banks of four per side on the forward Shelter Deck abreast the funnels and bridge.

I've outlined in bold the points made, most of those impressive looking artworks on that site are just that, artworks. Some are more plausible than others. When you consider the actual constraints posed its obvious that even a rebuild has its issues. I could put the hangar forwards but then it would seriously encroach on the space of the 4.5in turrets and as we have seen mounting them aft seems unlikely. There is not much room for a hangar anywhere else, it might be possible to squeeze one each side of the funnels but beam is tight and the rearward arcs of the 4.5in guns are blocked. Anyway post refit its unlikely Hood would have carried aircraft for long, perhaps a year.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft

Now all we need is an updated Admiral class, from your other thread

_________________
Would you please not eat my gun...
[ img ]

Colombamike wrote:

MihoshiK wrote:

Colombamike wrote:

Hmmm, a bad position for the 4.5" turrets

Some ideas here
My favorite one is made by Monty Mills (on each side, three 4.5" turrets forward and two 4.5" turrets aft...)
On a 40 000+ tons, 260 meters battlecruiser, better to add twenty 4.5" guns in 10 turrets......(or 16 5.25" guns).

The very first hypothetical in that link is amazingly close to what Hood drew up. They're calling it the most likely conversion. So maybe your complaints are slightly unfounded

LOL
The problem is that YOU ONLY WATCH THE WEBSITE,.....you do not think .......

In event of a full "Hood modernisation" (likely by 1936-1942), it is very likely that his secondary armament is +/- similar to the British current (1939-1942) battleships/battlecruisers "upgraded" designs (Renown/Queen-Elizabeth/king George-V......)...

You must think: Twenty 4.5" mounts (10 X 2) or Sixteen 5.25" mounts (8 X 2)

My opinion is that the British would have followed the "Renown/Queen-Elizabeth's" FULL MODERNISATION (1936/1940)...

(ie. 10 X 2 4.5" guns = better suited for Dual Purpose Use....)

Maybe it's the language barrier but you come off as quite a dick here. Perhaps the use of the eye-rolling emoticon is what does it for me.

This is really great work. I'd love to see an edition with a hilarious Admiralty camouflage scheme a la Nelson or Prince of Wales.

MihoshiK wrote:

Now all we need is an updated Admiral class, from your other thread

I agree 110%!

_________________
Fan of Dreadnaughts, Super-Dreadnaughts, Fast Battleships and Battlecruisers.

I like this drawing and I like this ship. Well done, indeed.
But, hmm... what's happened with this wire that goes from the formast over the bridge and ended between the gun barrels
of the first main gun??

Nice refit of the Hood.

_________________
"There was nothing wrong with Titanic when she left the Shipyard" Tim McGarry Belfast Comedian

I would concur about the Hanger height but is it long enough as well?
And forward wire antenna will be destroyed by any movement of the "A" Turret.

_________________
"There was nothing wrong with Titanic when she left the Shipyard" Tim McGarry Belfast Comedian

Shipbucket

Who is online