THE MIGHTY ‘OOD — OFF-LINE
January 2nd, 2009 From
>X-Sender: msmall@roanoke.infi.net
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
>Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 11:42:14 -0400
>To: fostergh@ix.netcom.com
>From: Marc James Small
>Subject: THE MIGHTY ‘OOD — OFF-LINE
>Cc: mahan@microwrks.com
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>Your query concerning Hood was reposted to the Mahan List.
>
>Hood was one of a class of four battlecruisers which were redesigned in
>light of the British experience at Jutland. Following the end of the War,
>the other three were cancelled. She was launched 22nd August 1918 and
>completed 3rd March 1920, so she didn’t come, directly, under the
>Washington Treaty provisions save as part of the overall RN limit of 12
>battleships (five R’s, five QE’s, Nelson and Rodney) and three
>battlecruisers (Repulse, Renown, and Hood).
>
>She was a superb ship, a magnificent example of what the British are
>capable of when they think before they build. She could make more than 30
>knots (31.07 on trials), and her bulk, at speed, was an inspirational
>delight to a generation of Imperial subjects, to whom she came to represent
>the Empire and British might.
>
>She was due for a rebuild in the late 1930’s — the British had updated
>Queen Elizabeth, Valiant, Warspite, and Renown, and had similar overhauls
>scheduled for their remaining ships. But so vital was Hood that the
>British never were able to spare her during those days of crises, and so
>the modernization never took place. Had it done so, she would have had
>substantially increased deck armor and a much improved power plant, as well
>as a ‘tower’ bridge, along with an updated secondary armament.
>
>Hood was of a design dating from a time when battle ranges were anticipated
>to be relatively close, 10,000 yards or so. After the First War — where
>Jutland did little to change this, as it was a close-range action due to
>the weather — it became apparent that battle ranges were opening out to
>20,000 yards or more (Warspite hit an Italian BB at 25,000 yards at one
>point during the Second War). The result of this increase in range was to
>change the anticipated point at which the shells would hit the ship: close
>range actions mean flat trajectories, with the shells striking side armour,
>while longer ranges mean plunging fire which hits the deck. Thus, Hood had
>deck armour more than adequate for a Jutland engagement but inadequate for
>action at longer ranges. Bismarck engaged Hood at, I recall, 14,000 yards,
>and her shells thus hit the relatively light deck armour, with a total
>thickness of 8″ or so in several layers. (There are alternate theories but
>plunging fire from Bismarck striking through the armoured decks and hitting
>a magazine seems the likeliest cause of Hood’s demise. This was ONE lucky
>hit!)
>
>The causes of Hood’s explosion are not closely akin to that which led to
>the loss of the three RN BC’s at Jutland. They were lost through unstable
>ammunition, poorly shielded ammunition hoists, and weak side armour.
>
>I have a good friend who was a King’s Messenger for VADM Sir Lancelot
>Holland, the TF commander. When Hood refuelled at Scapa on her last
>voyage, Holland ordered my friend ashore for a spot of leave, telling him,
>”I don’t believe I’ll be needing a confidential messenger on this run!” It
>saved Tim’s life!
>
>Marc
>
>
>msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315
>Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!