Jump to content
SmartassNoob

Mutsu vs. Hood

54 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
723 posts
5,774 battles

Don't act like you don't see the resemblance:

  • Both have 4 main turrets with 2 guns each.
  • Both have 4 single torpedo launchers, 2 per side. (The real ships had twice as many (when they were new) and the game Hood info is still not all known, so this may differ.)
  • Both have relatively few armor. One due to being obsolete and the other due to being a battlecruiser.
  • Both in reality got detonated through the rear main magazine under controversial circumstances.
  • Both are premium ships.
  • Mutsu was completed only a year after Hood.

Differences:

  • Mutsu is tier 6 and Hood is tier 7.
  • Mutsu has bigger guns.
  • Mutsu has a plane.
  • Hood is a bit faster.
  • Hood had a strange AA rocket system that only contributed to the ships loss: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrotated_projectile

 

Which would you speculate is better?

 

original_kanmusu_request__hms_hood_by_re

b66f5b9a83c07e42cd0d91c1db5208b414100342

Edited to update about Hood torpedoes.

Edited by SmartassNoob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SPUDS]
[SPUDS]
Beta Tester
4,481 posts
12,943 battles

In other words Nagato.

 

modernized Mutsu is weaker than Nagato 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
[NWP]
Players
8,117 posts
11,654 battles

Isn't Hood absolutely HUGE in comparison?

 

I'm not that big a naval buff but why on earth did Hood displace so much? Isn't it something like 15,000+ tonnes more than the Warspite for essentially the same firepower and about 7 knots more in top speed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
474 posts
9,248 battles

Top end speed is expensive, ask the Iowa's. Especially in 1920.

 

Hood'll take Mutsu up close no problem at all!

 

 

Edited by BuccaneerBill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
[NWP]
Players
8,117 posts
11,654 battles

Top end speed is expensive, ask the Iowa's. Especially in 1920.

 

Hood'll take Mutsu up close no problem at all!

 

 

 

Hmm true, I think I read something about the Iowa needing a crazy amount of HP just to go a few extra knots...

 

It's probably the limit of how fast a huge capital ship can go through the water as even modern large warships don't go more than about 30 knots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
474 posts
9,248 battles

Yep and they need a high length to beam ratio leads to a lot of excess weight, if you want to keep the same firepower and armour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
242 posts
12,824 battles

In essence Iowa is South Dakota 10.000 tons heavier with slight improvments in armament. That extra wieght was a great cost for those 6 extra knots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOME]
Beta Tester
1,818 posts
6,887 battles

 

Which would you speculate is better?

 

 

Hood is clearly better, the early version of the 16.1" guns on Mutsu are pretty bad plus the Hood we get has upgraded armor. Now If you say Nagato vs. Hood then its a completely different story.
Edited by Affeks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,929 posts
7,756 battles

 

Hmm true, I think I read something about the Iowa needing a crazy amount of HP just to go a few extra knots...

 

It's probably the limit of how fast a huge capital ship can go through the water as even modern large warships don't go more than about 30 knots.

 

Also Ekin = M * V2 * 0.5

If we assume zero energy loss though friction and 100% engine efficiency then if a ship have to go from 28kts to 33kts or an increase in velocity of 5kts it will have to use 39% more energy for those last 5 kts or from 30kts to 33kts the increase in energy required is 21% or from 33kts to 35kts it will be 12.5% more energy making it exponentially energy expesive to attain higher and higher velocities to the point where fuel consumption and ship weight allocated to fuel, engines and burners will be so high that the endurance will so limited that the ship will be useless even with high efficency engines and burners.

Edited by atomskytten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
248 posts
5,149 battles

"Ara ara how you dare to compare a Big seven with a stupid battlecruiser"

the difference?

Mutsu is a self made firework.

Hood have something german inside her.(hem lesbians ehm ehm)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
587 posts
5,313 battles

Isn't Hood absolutely HUGE in comparison?

 

I'm not that big a naval buff but why on earth did Hood displace so much? Isn't it something like 15,000+ tonnes more than the Warspite for essentially the same firepower and about 7 knots more in top speed?

 

Yeah - just like Iowa was 10k tonnes more than NC/SD for about 10 knots in top speed. (OK, slightly longer guns too, I think).

There's a quote from some American admiral grouching about it.

 

There might be some other considerations specific to Nelson & Hood (they were rather different in armour schemes, for example), but a big reason is in naval architecture and hydrodynamics. As a ship moves through the water she creates waves at her bow and stern. As you make a ship go faster and faster, you are trying to drive her uphill, up her own bow wave. You *can* go faster, but you have to put exponentially more power in to do that. And that requires more space, and weighs more, and you have to expand the ship to provide room and buoyancy.

Altenatively, you can make the ship longer. This changes the shape of the bow wave and allows you to go faster with the same power. Except that you also increased the ship's weight by making her longer...

 

Either way ends up in complicated feedbacks, but the upshot is that since battleships tended to have tight weight budgets (if the engines are heavier, you can't have as much armour) and to be built to the state of the art in terms of how much power you can fit into a given size engine room[1], if you want to go faster you have to be longer.

 

IIRC a lot of the British battlecruiser designs were really long.

 

[1] AIUI the main reason the South Dakota class (Alabama) could be shorter than the earlier North Carolinas was that improved technology allowed more powerful propulsion (to cope with forcing the shorter ship through the water) to be fitted into a smaller space (because smaller ship = less space available)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[H_FAN]
Players
1,943 posts
22,536 battles

 

Yeah - just like Iowa was 10k tonnes more than NC/SD for about 10 knots in top speed. (OK, slightly longer guns too, I think).

There's a quote from some American admiral grouching about it.

 

There might be some other considerations specific to Nelson & Hood (they were rather different in armour schemes, for example), but a big reason is in naval architecture and hydrodynamics. As a ship moves through the water she creates waves at her bow and stern. As you make a ship go faster and faster, you are trying to drive her uphill, up her own bow wave. You *can* go faster, but you have to put exponentially more power in to do that. And that requires more space, and weighs more, and you have to expand the ship to provide room and buoyancy.

Altenatively, you can make the ship longer. This changes the shape of the bow wave and allows you to go faster with the same power. Except that you also increased the ship's weight by making her longer...

 

Either way ends up in complicated feedbacks, but the upshot is that since battleships tended to have tight weight budgets (if the engines are heavier, you can't have as much armour) and to be built to the state of the art in terms of how much power you can fit into a given size engine room[1], if you want to go faster you have to be longer.

 

IIRC a lot of the British battlecruiser designs were really long.

 

[1] AIUI the main reason the South Dakota class (Alabama) could be shorter than the earlier North Carolinas was that improved technology allowed more powerful propulsion (to cope with forcing the shorter ship through the water) to be fitted into a smaller space (because smaller ship = less space available)

 

 

Yes and Yamato had for its dimensions and weight very good speed with her Engine Power due to the bulbous bow f.e. so hullform is also important when considering how much hp you need.

 

 

IJN Heavy cruisers were very long and narrow to reach their high speeds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
723 posts
5,774 battles

Some rumors for Hood at the time of writing:

  • No torps.
  • No rocket-parachute-mine animations. (The "UP" AA weapons.)
  • Terrible turning circle for a relatively long ship.
  • Poor turret turn time.

 

Seems to me like Mutsu is superior in each and every way. Being a tier higher, Hood could still produce more XP and credits, but none of us are playing the game for that. Or at least I'm not.

 

Time will tell which of the rumors are true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CHATS]
WoWs Wiki Team
12,082 posts
7,662 battles

Seems to me like Mutsu is superior in each and every way.

 

Damn it! Double damn it! :sceptic:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ST-EU]
Supertester
2,835 posts
4,190 battles

 

Seems to me like Mutsu is superior in each and every way. 

 

Apart from less HP, worse armour, much worse AA, being way slower and firing worse shells. Not like all those things are important anyway...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×