[CHATS] Webley_Mark WoWs Wiki Team 12,258 posts 9,688 battles Report post #76 Posted February 26, 2017 Well, if there is a logic behind the number.. maybe, the 7 in the 507 stand for the tier... So, maybe, I said maybe, the Hood is a T7 premium ship. But, yes, it would definitivly make sense if she was a Tier 7 ship. Well... Wait and see now... Wait and see... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SmartassNoob Players 723 posts 5,774 battles Report post #77 Posted February 26, 2017 I found proof that this is a tier 7 ship! Quote wikipedia. The Hood was launched in 1918 and finished in 1920 and this is in the armor section: "The scale of Hood's protection, though adequate for the Jutland era, was at best marginal against the new generation of 16-inch (406 mm) gunned capital ships that emerged soon after her completion in 1920, typified by the American Colorado-class and the Japanese Nagato-class battleships. The Royal Navy were fully aware that the ship's protection flaws still remained, even in her revised design, so Hood was intended for the duties of a battlecruiser and she served in the battlecruiser squadrons through most of her career. Late in her career, Hood was outclassed by the armour and protective arrangement of World War II-era fast battleships, but few available "big gun" vessels could match Bismarck's speed, and in 1941 the Admiralty included Hood among the ships sent to engage the German battleship." So there. A tier 7 battlecruiser. It even acknowledges that the Bismark is of a higher tier. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[CHATS] Webley_Mark WoWs Wiki Team 12,258 posts 9,688 battles Report post #78 Posted February 26, 2017 Okay, so we have a Tier 7 Hood premium. That's nice. Now, the only things missing, it's her configuration... I bet WG will make her historical, so we can bet on the 1941 configuration. Even if I don't really like the UP on the 2nd turret and the missing ancor. But, the ship is still a beauty, in my opinion. So, if the Hood is there, that can mean that the "new armement" can be the UP. Which is making quite sense. Or maybe WG will not add rockets, so we'll have a complete revisited Hood version... Mhmmm.... I don't know, let's wait and see, shall we. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SmartassNoob Players 723 posts 5,774 battles Report post #79 Posted February 26, 2017 Actually, the 1941 configuration is a thing of fiction. Quote wikipedia: "Hood was given a major refit from 1 May 1929 to 10 March 1931, and afterwards resumed her role as flagship of the Battlecruiser Squadron under the command of Captain Julian Patterson. Later that year, her crew participated in the Invergordon Mutiny over pay cuts for the sailors. It ended peacefully and Hood returned to her home port afterwards. The Battlecruiser Squadron made a Caribbean cruise in early 1932, and Hood was given another brief refit between 31 March and 10 May at Portsmouth. Captain Thomas Binney assumed command on 15 August 1932 and the ship resumed her previous practice of a winter cruise in the Mediterranean the next year. Captain Thomas Tower replaced Captain Binney on 30 August 1933. Her secondary and anti-aircraft fire-control directors were rearranged during another quick refit between 1 August and 5 September 1934. ... Hood was refitted at Malta in November and December 1937 and had her submerged torpedo tubes removed. Captain Pridham was relieved by Captain Harold Walker on 20 May 1938 and he in turn was relieved when the ship returned to Portsmouth in January 1939 for an overhaul that lasted until 12 August. Hood was due to be modernised in 1941 to bring her up to a standard similar to that of other modernised World War I-era capital ships. She would have received new, lighter turbines and boilers, a secondary armament of eight twin 5.25-inch gun turrets and six octuple 2-pounder pom-poms. Her 5-inch upper armour strake would have been removed and her deck armour reinforced. A catapult would have been fitted across the deck and the remaining torpedo tubes removed. In addition the conning tower would have been removed and her bridge rebuilt. The ship's near-constant active service, resulting from her status as the Royal Navy's most battle-worthy fast capital ship, meant that her material condition gradually deteriorated, and by the mid-1930s she was in need of a lengthy overhaul. The outbreak of World War II made it impossible to remove her from service, and as a consequence she never received the scheduled modernisation afforded to other capital ships such as the battlecruiser Renown and several of the Queen Elizabeth-class battleships. The ship's condensers were in such bad condition by this time that much of the output from the fresh-water evaporators was required to replenish the boiler feed water and could not be used by the crew to wash and bathe or even to heat the mess decks during cold weather as the steam pipes were too leaky. These problems also reduced her steam output so that she was unable to attain her designed speed." So basically they took a few months to fix a few things in 1939, but there was never a modernization near the start of the war and the ship was in fact still in a really poor condition of dis-repair. The last configuration was the 1937 one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VC381 Players 2,928 posts 6,549 battles Report post #80 Posted February 26, 2017 Between 1937 and 1941 Hood went through a number of small refits that included changing out her 5.5" secondaries for 4" AA, an additional octuple pom-pom, a new platform on the bridge, changes to some of the directors and some basic radar. I think when people say "1941 fit" they just mean final AA etc. Yes the ship underneath didn't change much, but then really it didn't change much since she was built either. "Refit" doesn't just mean major structural change, ships have refits all the time with nothing changing, it's often just a period of slightly heavier maintenance especially in the engine area. Hood was in desperate need of one of these in May 1941 but it didn't mean she didn't have one (or several) since 1937, or that other small modifications weren't made (as I said there were quite a few, but none drastically altering appearance). 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[CHATS] Webley_Mark WoWs Wiki Team 12,258 posts 9,688 battles Report post #81 Posted February 26, 2017 (edited) Well, now we wait to see wich one WG will give us. The 1937, the one as sink, or another one... Here is the great question. I also wonder which speed the ship will be abble to reach. Any ideas? We know that in 1941, she was having troubles reaching 28 knots, but she was abble to reach 32 knots in her youth... So... Which one will WG choose? And also, what is going to be her little feature... Maybe the AA boost. I just want to see this consumables on a BB to see CV cry. And no, exploding isn't a feature. Edited February 26, 2017 by Webley_Mark Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[ST-EU] Trainspite Supertester, Players, Sailing Hamster 1,920 posts 4,621 battles Report post #82 Posted February 26, 2017 *mild annoyance at Hood being listed as a premium intensifies* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VC381 Players 2,928 posts 6,549 battles Report post #83 Posted February 26, 2017 Premium BBs don't all have a "little feature", in fact it's more common that they don't other than just being unique ships in some way. I think fancy consumable tricks are really more a premium cruiser thing. I wouldn't expect anything there. A 1920s or 1937 fit could even work at T6 depending on other things (see Mutsu), but we all know Hood is most famous for one tragic day out of her 23 year career so I highly doubt WG would do anything other than as sunk. Besides, drawings of her final fit are very widely available, moreso than of earlier incarnations. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[CHATS] Webley_Mark WoWs Wiki Team 12,258 posts 9,688 battles Report post #84 Posted February 26, 2017 (edited) *mild annoyance at Hood being listed as a premium intensifies* Well, it's not an official annoucement. So there is still hope. Maybe it's a mistake... But, I doubt that they added a ship to the list by mistake. Or they want me to do a cardiac arrest. Premium BBs don't all have a "little feature", in fact it's more common that they don't other than just being unique ships in some way. I think fancy consumable tricks are really more a premium cruiser thing. I wouldn't expect anything there. Sure. I guess having the UP will be enough feature for her. Edited February 26, 2017 by Webley_Mark Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SmartassNoob Players 723 posts 5,774 battles Report post #85 Posted February 26, 2017 Oh, you mean the same UP feature that in reality got hit from Prince Eugen once and then turned into a massive fire in the middle of the ship? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[ST-EU] Trainspite Supertester, Players, Sailing Hamster 1,920 posts 4,621 battles Report post #86 Posted February 26, 2017 Well, it's not an official annoucement. So there is still hope. Maybe it's a mistake... But, I doubt that they added a ship to the list by mistake. Or they want me to do a cardiac arrest. I can always try and forward long and meandering strongly worded letters to the devs I guess. Or just repeated mutterings in the background if she arrives. Usually the stuff in the files is right though, there was apparently Alabama & Alabama ST in the files at the same time when originally added etc. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[CHATS] Webley_Mark WoWs Wiki Team 12,258 posts 9,688 battles Report post #87 Posted February 26, 2017 Oh, you mean the same UP feature that in reality got hit from Prince Eugen once and then turned into a massive fire in the middle of the ship? Shtttt... The UPs aren't dangerous... Proof is that they all got removed after the Hood detonation. And it was just a coincidence. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VC381 Players 2,928 posts 6,549 battles Report post #88 Posted February 26, 2017 (edited) Shtttt... The UPs aren't dangerous... Proof is that they all got removed after the Hood detonation. And it was just a coincidence. wasn't the fire in the 4" AA ammo anyway? Edited February 26, 2017 by VC381 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[CHATS] Webley_Mark WoWs Wiki Team 12,258 posts 9,688 battles Report post #89 Posted February 26, 2017 (edited) wasn't the fire in the 4" AA ammo anyway? Well, I don't remember in fact... But I know all UP mounting where demounted after the Hood detonation. But, the cause of the detonation are various, some even said it was the torpedoes... Edited February 26, 2017 by Webley_Mark Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VC381 Players 2,928 posts 6,549 battles Report post #90 Posted February 26, 2017 Well, I don't remember in fact... But I know all UP mounting where demounted after the Hood detonation. But, the cause of the detonation are various, some even said it was the torpedoes... Convenient coincidence aside, isn't that just because they were completely useless at their intended task? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[CHATS] Webley_Mark WoWs Wiki Team 12,258 posts 9,688 battles Report post #91 Posted February 26, 2017 Convenient coincidence aside, isn't that just because they were completely useless at their intended task? I don't know, maybe it's just a coincidence. But, yes, that's right, they were useless as AA gun. Like a lot of British AA guns... Yeah, I'm looking at you Pom-Pom. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SmartassNoob Players 723 posts 5,774 battles Report post #92 Posted February 26, 2017 Quote from wikipedia: "Prinz Eugen was probably the first ship to score when a shell hit Hood's boat deck, between her funnels, and started a large fire among the ready-use ammunition for the anti-aircraft guns and rockets of the UP mounts." Strange that I'm one of the people least excited about the ship, but I'm the only one who's done any homework. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[BLOBS] Spellfire40 Beta Tester 5,330 posts 13,776 battles Report post #93 Posted February 26, 2017 Maybe a small hypothetical WW2 "what if" upgrade so it can sit higher up in the tiers. Although that might enrage the purists/history buffs. If that upgrade includes the blocky bridge stucture found on Renown Warspite and co no. rather have her as a prem then. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
creamgravy Players 2,780 posts 17,292 battles Report post #94 Posted February 26, 2017 Unfortunately they aren't as good as the German 105mm. Still, they should be quite annoying for close range attackers. 7 x 2 9.5 @ 5.0km 3 x 8 20 @ 2.5km 4 x 4 2 @ 1.2km Unfortunately the AA still ends up worse than Warspite because of how shafted the quad Vickers is. With the values from RN CLs here's Hoods AA at tier 7, not including UP (1941) Hood (41) Range (km) Mounts DPS Max range Max DPS Vickers 12.7 mm Mk III 1.2 5 11 1.7 15 Vickers 40 mm 2-pdr. Mk VIII 3 3 59 4.3 78 102 mm/45 QF Mk XIX* 5 7 105 7.2 277 Total 175 370 Note: This uses Fiji 4" Mk XIX* guns (15 DPS per mount) and T7 Pom-Poms (3km range vs 2.5km at tier 6) Tier 7 comparison. Hood has decent long range AA but she's not covered in small mounts (good protection agasint HE spam) Nagato (B-Hull) Range (km) Mounts DPS Max range Max DPS 25mm Type 96 3.1 50 188 4.5 248 127 mm/40 Type89 A1 5 4 40 7.2 106 Total 228 354 Gneisenau (B-hull) Range (km) Mounts DPS Max range Max DPS 20mm 2 19 92 2.9 121 37mm Flak 3.5 6 62 5.0 82 128 mm L/61 SK C/42 5.2 11 136 7.5 359 Total 290 562 Colorado (C-hull) Range (km) Mounts DPS Max range Max DPS 20mm Oerlikon 2 37 133 2.9 176 40mm Bofors 3.5 11 161 5.0 213 128mm Mk 19 4.2 8 58 6.0 153 Total 352 541 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr3awsome Alpha Tester 3,769 posts 58 battles Report post #95 Posted February 27, 2017 With the values from RN CLs here's Hoods AA at tier 7, not including UP (1941) Hood (41) Range (km) Mounts DPS Max range Max DPS Vickers 12.7 mm Mk III 1.2 5 11 1.7 15 Vickers 40 mm 2-pdr. Mk VIII 3 3 59 4.3 78 102 mm/45 QF Mk XIX* 5 7 105 7.2 277 Total 175 370 Note: This uses Fiji 4" Mk XIX* guns (15 DPS per mount) and T7 Pom-Poms (3km range vs 2.5km at tier 6) Unfortunately for Hood, the 4" mounts are simple Mk XIXs (9.5) rather than one of the ones with RPC (15dps) Also, all the pom-poms have 2.5km range. Tier VII is no exception. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[CHATS] Webley_Mark WoWs Wiki Team 12,258 posts 9,688 battles Report post #96 Posted February 27, 2017 Strange that I'm one of the people least excited about the ship, but I'm the only one who's done any homework. Yeah... I'm a bad student, I know. I know. With the values from RN CLs here's Hoods AA at tier 7, not including UP (1941) Hood (41) Range (km) Mounts DPS Max range Max DPS Vickers 12.7 mm Mk III 1.2 5 11 1.7 15 Vickers 40 mm 2-pdr. Mk VIII 3 3 59 4.3 78 102 mm/45 QF Mk XIX* 5 7 105 7.2 277 Total 175 370 Note: This uses Fiji 4" Mk XIX* guns (15 DPS per mount) and T7 Pom-Poms (3km range vs 2.5km at tier 6) Tier 7 comparison. Hood has decent long range AA but she's not covered in small mounts (good protection agasint HE spam) Nagato (B-Hull) Range (km) Mounts DPS Max range Max DPS 25mm Type 96 3.1 50 188 4.5 248 127 mm/40 Type89 A1 5 4 40 7.2 106 Total 228 354 Gneisenau (B-hull) Range (km) Mounts DPS Max range Max DPS 20mm 2 19 92 2.9 121 37mm Flak 3.5 6 62 5.0 82 128 mm L/61 SK C/42 5.2 11 136 7.5 359 Total 290 562 Colorado (C-hull) Range (km) Mounts DPS Max range Max DPS 20mm Oerlikon 2 37 133 2.9 176 40mm Bofors 3.5 11 161 5.0 213 128mm Mk 19 4.2 8 58 6.0 153 Total 352 541 Well, sure we have a decent AA I guess... If upgrades of course. But, it's stil not as good as some other ships. Unfortunately for Hood, the 4" mounts are simple Mk XIXs (9.5) rather than one of the ones with RPC (15dps) Also, all the pom-poms have 2.5km range. Tier VII is no exception. He is right... The pom-pom have 2.5km range... Even at tier 7. We can still hope for some WG balance, but I won't count and that. Plus, we don't know the range and DPS of UP mounts, if added, that can help the ship. Even if IRL they were shitty. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
creamgravy Players 2,780 posts 17,292 battles Report post #97 Posted February 27, 2017 Unfortunately for Hood, the 4" mounts are simple Mk XIXs (9.5) rather than one of the ones with RPC (15dps) Also, all the pom-poms have 2.5km range. Tier VII is no exception. Your right about the pom poms, I was looking at the Black Swan and Emerald. Same mounts, different values! Are XIX* mounts RP conversions? They've left it open enough to mean anything. Historically Hood should have less accurate 4" AA than Warspite as she never received type 285 radar, WG could make it complete garbage. Facing tier 8-9 carriers with limited AA in a big ship like that won't be fun. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[CHATS] Webley_Mark WoWs Wiki Team 12,258 posts 9,688 battles Report post #98 Posted February 27, 2017 Well... Let us hope that WG didn't make the AA of the Hood complete garbage... Or at least, not as bad as the Warspite... Or we are going to have fun when facing a CV. I mean, it's already hard with the Warspite to shoot plane, imagine something worst... With one more tier. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VC381 Players 2,928 posts 6,549 battles Report post #99 Posted February 27, 2017 Do you think she'll get the torpedoes? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[CHATS] Webley_Mark WoWs Wiki Team 12,258 posts 9,688 battles Report post #100 Posted February 27, 2017 I don't think so. They were submerged... So, just like the Warspite's one, we can guess that it's going to be a "No" from WG. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
