Shipbucket

The much talked about rebuild for Hood never happened due to the outbreak of war and the original sketches have been since long lost to history. Many have speculated that any rebuild would havel followed closely the lines of Renown and so I've used that as a basis while keeping the most likely refit features as described on the HMS Association website.
I can only say that the above is an artists impression but certain items like the catapult, hangars and the 4.5in BD mounts only have finite places they can go due to belowdecks spaces etc. The forward funnel has been moved as the boilers would have been re-arranged and the ship now has bulges. Light AA is for the period, six planned octuple pom-poms and eleven single 20mm. I may do a Pacific 1945 variant just to see how it could turn out.
I haven't increased the freeboard aft becuase she might have been lighter and therefore drier on the qaurterdeck and because cost and deckyard space might have been at a premium to prevent it.

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

This is excellent, a real treat; and sensibly thought out - what more can I say But a 1945 Pacific version, with dazzle camo? This is getting addictive

Superb work.

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).

As the link itself discusses, there's a lot of conjecture as to how Hood would've been rebuilt since Hood was sunk before any real plans could be finalized, so I don't see any invalidity in Hood's depiction of the rebuilt, uh, Hood.

Besides the configuration of the secondaries is about the same for Queen Elizabeth and Renown anyway.

One query Hood (that's Hood the artist ) The hangar for the Walrus appears to be aft of the catapult, right? That's interesting, and entirely feasible, but I'm concerned about height clearance as there doesn't seem to be much to spare.

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

I'm much more concerned that the hangar is facing forward. Even though they're quite far back, they are going to be wet.

_________________
Would you please not eat my gun...

Impressive job!

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....)

HMS Renown and HMS Queen Elizabeth (as well as HMS Valiant) all had 20X4.5" guns (10 twin mountings), so a ship that was bigger will have at least that much. This remark does not, in any way, comes as a criticism of the drawing, which is superbly done.

_________________
Thank you Kim for the crest

"Never fear to try on something new. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and the Ark by an amateur"