Hood '42

[lovelacebeer]

Not that anyone here is probably that interested but here are some key extracts from 1939 report about planned refit and modernisation for Hood.
 

Sorry it’s a bit of a long text:

 

NOTES TAKEN AT CONTROLLER'S CONFERENCE ON 7/3/39, CONCERNING RECONSTRUCTION OF "NELSON", "RODNEY" AND "HOOD", ALSO RE-ARMOURING "ROYAL SOVEREIGNS".

(Copies to:-
D.N.C.
MR. SANDERS.
" PENGELLY.
Records).

Present:-

CONTROLLER. D.N.C. D.N.E. D.N.O. D.D.N.O.

"HOOD"

(a). New Machinery. Controller decided that the argument for new machinery in this ship was a strong one on the score of subdivision and safety.

(b). H.A. re-armament. Controller examined the drawings and enquired where the 6 Mark 'M' pom-poms would be. D.N.C. said that only 4 were shown in the drawing, but there appeared no difficulty in providing two more mountings. D.N.O. queried the cost and D.N.C. stated that this would be re-examined and details available for C.N.S.'s meeting on the 9th.

(c). Increased protection. The two schemes, viz, extra deck protection on the upper deck or the main deck, were examined. Controller preferred the former. 

The only other item discussed in some detail was the removal of the conning-tower and the reconstruction of the bridges. D.N.O. would wish to have an armoured director aft, if the present director over the conning-tower were removed.

The impression I received was that Controller thought the laying up of this valuable ship at the present or at any time in the near future on the score of policy.

(d). Extension of forecastle. Controller was not impressed that this was a very desirable alteration, but D.N.E., speaking from his experience, said he thought it was, and that when the ship was going at speed the crest of the wave seemed to come close to the present break.

(initialed)
S.V.G.

8/3/39

- Pages 306-310 -

H.M.S. "HOOD".

D.N.E.,

A mass of papers dealing with work to be done to the above ship when taken in hand this year for refit is herewith. The situation summarised is as follows:-

D.02984/36. Controller called a conference to discuss "HOOD" under two headings:-

(a). What can be done prior to her large refit, and 
(b). What are the proposals for complete reconstruction.

As a result, Yards were informed that 8 single 4" H.A. guns should be fitted at the expense of 2 - 5.5" mountings, that the total number of Mark M's carried was to be 3, and the total number of .5" machine-guns 4; that the submerged torpedo tubes were to be removed and submerged flats subdivided.

In principle the above work has been done, but the magazine stowage is incomplete.

Yards were also informed that during the refit at Portsmouth this year it was intended to fit 8 - 4" guns in 4" twin mountings, replace the upper 5.5" guns, fit H.A. directors, and instal [sic] H.A. calculating positions.

The other papers herewith discuss the following:-

Provision of a new 15" D.C.T. and fire control table and installing power control searchlights. Although the fire control table has been ordered, this work will not now be done this year.

D.01481/37. Herewith is the paper which has been resuscitated from time to time to consider big reconstruction. The latest phase of this situation is that Controller instructed me verbally to consider complete reconstruction. This has been done and a separate report to Controller is herewith, which it is presumed will now be put on record in D.03414/38 and that paper then put away.

(Sd.) S.V. GOODALL
20.1.39 

H.M.S. "HOOD": LARGE REPAIR.

CONTROLLER, 

Submitted.

1. In accordance with your verbal instructions, consideration has been given, without going into great detail, of the work that would be involved if H.M.S. "HOOD" were completely reconstructed to bring her up to date as far as possible, viz.:-

(a). Provision of new main and auxiliary machinery.
(b). Fitting eight twin 5.25" H.A./L.A. mountings in lieu of the existing 5.5" L.A. and 4" H.A. mountings
(c). Short range A.A. armament increased to 6 - M.Mk.VI. pom poms; 0.5" machine guns removed.
(d). Fitting D.III.H. catapult, aircraft and hangars as in "KING GEORGE V" Class."
(e). Removal of above-water torpedo tubes.
(f). Removal of conning tower and reconstruction of bridges.
(g). Modification to underwater protection by removal of tubes from the buoyancy space in the bulge, the oil fuel in the existing wing tanks being transferred to the buoyancy space.
(h). Provision of increased deck protection.
(i). Removal of 5" belt upper-forecastle deck.
(j). Modification of top portion of bulge to provide requisite stability.

2. When reconstructed as above, "HOOD" would possess the following main characteristics:-

I. Armament.

8 - 15" in four twin turrets.
16 - 5.25" H.A./L.A. in eight twin turrets.
6 - M Mk.VI. pom-poms.

The 15" magazines are situated above the shell rooms, instead of below as in all capital ships since "HOOD".

II. Protection.

Alternative arrangements involving approximately equal weight are shown on the attached drawings, D.N.C.1/A 365 and 366. In each arrangement the upper belt (5") is removed and the 2" splinter protection on lower deck is made more extensive. The arrangements differ as follows:-

Arrangement (A). 12" belt extended to upper deck, and the existing upper deck strengthened to provide the equivalent of 2½" over machinery spaces and 4" over magazines.
Arrangement (B). 12" and 7" belts remain as at present and the main deck is increased to 5" over magazines and 4" over machinery.

Arrangement (A) is preferred, as it gives better protection to the lower portions of the barbettes.

Underwater Protection. This remains as capable of withstanding a 500 lbs. charge in contact.

III. Machinery and Speed.

The new machinery spaces will be subdivided as in recent capital ships, which would be a great improvement. With the same power as formerly, estimated speeds are 31½ knots standard and 30¾ knots deep.

3. Time and Cost. It is estimated that the alterations outlined in para 1 above will cost about £4½ millions and take about three years to complete.

(Sd.) S.V. GOODALL
20/1/39

- Pages 180-182 -

ITEMS FOR DECISION IN CONNECTION WITH THE
RECONSTRUCTION OF "HOOD".

(1). Last large repair in 1931.
(2). New machinery.
From D.N.C.'s point of view it would be desirable to save weight by fitting new machinery and to have the machinery compartment smaller with the boiler rooms separating engine rooms.

Cost.
Time.

(3). Protection.
Horizontal protection is not up to present standards.

(a). Should the 12" belt be extended up to the upper deck, the 280 and 200-lb. strakes being removed?

(b). If the above were done it would be proposed to increase the upper deck to the equivalent of [left blank].

(c). An alternative proposal to increase the main deck to the equivalent of [left blank] has been considered, but is not so desirable as it leaves the barbette bases weak.

Time.
Cost.

(4). Underwater protection.
Propose to remove tubes. The weight thereby saved is necessary. Oil fuel would be carried in the tube space. The top of the bulge will require modification for stability reasons.

Time.
Cost.

(5). H.A. Re-armament.
Present approved arrangements are 16 - 5.25", 8 - 4" and 3 Mark "M" pom-poms. Is the above to be altered into a 5.25" HA/LA armament with 6 Mark "M" pom-poms?

Time.
Cost.

(6). Aircraft arrangements.
A D.IV.H. and 2 hangars can be provided if the H.A. rearmament is approved.

(7). Bridge arrangements.
The present bridge is out of date. The conning-tower, which is very heavy and never used, would have to be removed to provide requisite weight saving and stability.

Time.
Cost.

(8). Extension of forecastle.
This is very desirable.

- Pages 112-114 -

CONTROLLER

Reconstruction of "HOOD"

The following notes are submitted:-

Item 1. Last large repair in 1931.
Cost of next large repair about £600,000 (excluding all alterations and additions).

Item 2. New Machinery.
It is desirable to save the weight gained by fitting new machinery and to adopt an arrangement with boiler rooms separating engine rooms.

Cost, about £1,625,000.
Time, not less than 3 years.

Notes. If machinery is to be renewed at all during the ship's life, now is the time. An alternative scheme might be to re-boiler only. (E in C has not been consulted).

Item 3. Protection.
Horizontal protection is not up to present standards. The following schemes are for consideration:-

(a). 12" belt extended up to upper deck, the 7" and 5" tiers being removed. Increase the upper deck to the equivalent of 2½" over machinery and 4" over magazines.

(b). Leave the 7" tier, remove the 5" tier and increase the main deck to the equivalent of 4" over machinery and 5" over magazines. This is not recommended as it leaves the barbette bases weak.

Time, about 2 years.
Cost for scheme (a) about £750,000, including armour.

Item 4. Underwater protection.
Propose to remove tubes as it is necessary to save this weight. Oil fuel would be carried in the tube space. The top of the bulge will require modification for stability reasons.

Time, about 2 years, including about 12 months in dock.
Cost, about £300,000.

Item 5. Rearmament.
The present approved arrangements are 12 - 5.5" [sic] L.A., 8 - 4" H.A., 3 Mark "M" pom-poms, the HA/LA guns proposed would be 12 - 5.25's or 16 - 4.5's , the magazine stowage being a difficulty. If new machinery or new boilers were fitted this difficulty would be less, in the former case we might get in 16 - 5.25", but supply would not be very good (See Item 7 re conning-tower).

Time, about 2 years.
Cost, about £1,000,000 for the 16 - 5.25 scheme.

Item 6. Aircraft arrangements.
A D.III.H. and 2 hangars can be provided, either with the existing secondary and H.A. armament or with the H.A. rearmament suggested.

Cost, about £180,000.
Time: Could be done during a large repair.

Item 7. Bridge arrangements.
The present bridge is out of date. The conning-tower, which is very heavy, would have to be removed to provide the necessary stability.

Time: Could be done during a large repair.
Cost: Depends on rearmament (D.C.T.'s) (Say £150,000).

Item 8. Extension of forecastle.
This is very desirable.

Time: Could be done during a large repair.
Cost: About £30,000.

Summary of Cost.

2. New Machinery	£1,625,000
3. Protection	£750,000
4. Underwater Protection	£300,000
5. Rearmament	£1,000,000
6. Aircraft	£180,000
7. Conning Tower and Bridges	£150,000
8. Extension of Forecastle	£30,000
Total	£4,035,000
Add for defects and the usual alterations and additions	£465,000
Total	£4,500,000

Note. If any of the above items are deleted, the total cost will be more than the above total minus the deleted items.

(Sd.) S.V. GOODALL

24.2.39

- Page 95 -

"NELSON", "RODNEY" and "HOOD" - Large Repairs and/or modernization.

Proposals for large repair and/or modernization of "NELSON", "RODNEY" and "HOOD" have been prepared and I understand that you wish to hold a meeting to discus them. I would propose that D.N.C., E-in-C., D.N.C. and D. of D. should attend from Controller's Departments.

2. In the meantime I attach a few notes which seem to me to present the broader aspects of the question and which can be developed at the meeting.

(Signed) F.T.B. TOWER
for Controller

1st March, 1939.

[Kruzenstern]

2 hours ago, Karkong_the_Impaler said:

Seriously, I'm not aware of any ships which have been sunk with fantasy updates in the game

Bayern?

Also Brandenburg is a Fantasy Bismarck, and Gneisenau ist not historical either but was planned to be that way.

[invicta2012]

45 minutes ago, lovelacebeer said:

Not that anyone here is probably that interested but here are some key extracts from 1939 report about planned refit and modernisation for Hood.

I think it's very interesting, tbh, especially when you consider the plans for revising her armour scheme. 12 inches to the upper deck is a decent enough protection scheme (somewhere between Hawke and Vanguard), and might have been improved, especially if the ship was an Admiral class with proper revisions to her hull form (Hood's design was changed an inordinate number of times but her hull form was never revised. A later member of the class - like Howe - would have had more buoyancy than Hood and be capable of carrying more weight higher up in the ship). 

 

It's also interesting because it shows the Admiralty were very keen on standardising their battleships's weapons and adding all the modern things such as 5.25" turrets. For WoWs it's probably more interesting to look at something which didn't get the 30s rebuild treatment, which is why the second Admiral class ship is a good base. This would have been finished around 1920-21 and would have received a first refit in the 30s, but would have been behind Hood in the queue for a Large Repair / Refit during the 40s and, almost certainly, would have been kept in service during WW2. That means it could have retained its original casemated secondaries and been fitted with whatever AA guns were available rather than being given a full DP modernisation, rather like Warspite. 

[BLUB__BLUB]

2 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

A later member of the class - like Howe - would have had more buoyancy than Hood and be capable of carrying more weight higher up in the ship). 

I'd really prefer if they'd make Anson or Howe, instead of "refit Hood". 

[lovelacebeer]

7 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

I'd really prefer if they'd make Anson or Howe, instead of "refit Hood". 

My guess is WG wouldn’t want to use either of those names in case they do another KGV variant.
 

Mind you the one good thing with the Royal Navy is the vast number of other Admirals names they could choose from.

[BLUB__BLUB]

6 minutes ago, lovelacebeer said:

My guess is WG wouldn’t want to use either of those names in case they do another KGV variant.

They could do a King Charles, and sell it in a package with a DD called.... 

 

Quote

Mind you the one good thing with the Royal Navy is the vast number of other Admirals names they could choose from.

Yes they just should take care to not ruin the naming stuff. But "recycling" is very much not needed.

Spoiler

 

Like we now have the Anhalt, named after a part of the Weimar Republic...

The country that never built any ships and faded without glory into a monetary and political swamp... LMAO.

I do not know who invented that name... it is very unlikely there would ever be a ship with that name, except maybe a banana boat.

 

 

[invicta2012]

2 minutes ago, lovelacebeer said:

Mind you the one good thing with the Royal Navy is the vast number of other Admirals names they could choose from.

It's a shame they couldn't have put the name Collingwood on something decent. That is a poor ship. Benbow would be my choice for a "fictional" Admiral - a splendidly controversial figure and man of action in the great RN tradition, just the thing for giving a crew some swagger!

[BLUB__BLUB]

24 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

It's a shame they couldn't have put the name Collingwood on something decent. That is a poor ship. Benbow would be my choice for a "fictional" Admiral - a splendidly controversial figure and man of action in the great RN tradition, just the thing for giving a crew some swagger!

Id say they can easily make up names as well. 
Why do we not have a ship called the "Horatio Hornblower". 

[lovelacebeer]

33 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

It's a shame they couldn't have put the name Collingwood on something decent. That is a poor ship. Benbow would be my choice for a "fictional" Admiral - a splendidly controversial figure and man of action in the great RN tradition, just the thing for giving a crew some swagger!

Benbow was a fantastic character and certainly would fit the bill, I was going to suggest Edward Pellew. 

[LiveWire___]

On 2/24/2023 at 7:49 AM, Wulf_Ace said:

Let him stay on the bed of the ocean where Bismarck put him.

You mean right next to the Bismarck, where the RN put her in revenge? 

[BLUB__BLUB]

1 hour ago, lovelacebeer said:

Benbow was a fantastic character and certainly would fit the bill, I was going to suggest Edward Pellew. 

It would be good if fantasy ships got fantasy names, to reserve the real ones for the "real" thing. 

Also they could re-use older names. T10 Premium RN, how about HMS Victory?
Eh, and I keep getting confuesed when I see 'Eagle" in game, I always think it is USA. 

[invicta2012]

3 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

It would be good if fantasy ships got fantasy names, to reserve the real ones for the "real" thing. 

Also they could re-use older names. T10 Premium RN, how about HMS Victory?

Nope. That Victory is still in service, you see. 245 years and counting. There are lots of good names still available, though. Devastation, Temeraire, Mars, Centurion, Leviathan, Britannia, Canopus.....

[BLUB__BLUB]

12 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

Nope. That Victory is still in service, you see. 245 years and counting. There are lots of good names still available, though. Devastation, Temeraire, Mars, Centurion, Leviathan, Britannia, Canopus.....

How about T10 "Cyclops", having just one big fat gun and one torpedo, reloading every 10 seconds. 

[lovelacebeer]

1 hour ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

It would be good if fantasy ships got fantasy names, to reserve the real ones for the "real" thing. 

Also they could re-use older names. T10 Premium RN, how about HMS Victory?
Eh, and I keep getting confuesed when I see 'Eagle" in game, I always think it is USA. 

I’m with Invicta2012 that Victory shouldn’t be used but there is such a wealth of alternative names, as well as admirals the RN did like to use classical literature too so Agamemnon etc are options. 
 

Just be glad they don’t add HMS Emerald’s sister HMS Enterprise. That would confuse a lot of people. 

[BLUB__BLUB]

46 minutes ago, lovelacebeer said:

I’m with Invicta2012 that Victory shouldn’t be used but there is such a wealth of alternative names, as well as admirals the RN did like to use classical literature too so Agamemnon etc are options. 
 

Just be glad they don’t add HMS Emerald’s sister HMS Enterprise. That would confuse a lot of people. 

Same as Vampire II. A missed opportunity, really. There were so many DDs. And then you recycle the same name. 

 

 

[KhorneFlake]

On 2/25/2023 at 8:47 AM, BrusilovX said:

British ships are always referred to a she as far as I am aware.  I know the Germans use he though and I presume other countries do also.

Nope. British/us/german navies refer to a she, french refer to he, god only knows why...

Well, they're french after all...

[BLUB__BLUB]

11 minutes ago, KhorneFlake said:

Nope. British/us/german navies refer to a she, french refer to he, god only knows why...

Well, they're french after all...

Because in French 'the ship' is called 'le bateau'. Which is male. 

[Foxhound421a]

I do like the idea of a few extra hypothetical refits of sunk ships or ones that never got the chance. The Nelson's could get 4.5 or 5.25 inch guns, Ark Royal could get sea mosquitoes with high ball ect. Oh and tiger with a renown style refit though I expect that to appear at tier 6 at some point.