Was the H.M.S Hood the most powerful ship for 20 years?

General naval discussions that don't fit within any specific time period or cover several issues.
Navyhistorynoob
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2019 10:39 am

Was the H.M.S Hood the most powerful ship for 20 years?

Post by Navyhistorynoob »

I’ve seen it mentioned that the Hood was the most powerful ship from the time she was built until close to WW2.

Is there any truth to this, or is it mainly British propaganda from the time period. I’ve seen the Nagato mentioned as being its equal on occasion but was wondering if there are any others?
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Was the H.M.S Hood the most powerful ship for 20 years?

Post by Dave Saxton »

It would depend on how powerful is measured. In terms of firepower there were several capital ships with more powerful main batteries. The Nagato, Maryland, and Nelson classes carried 16-inch guns. The Hood carried eight 15"/42 guns.

However, expanding our analysis to include other factors such as protection and speed, the Hood compares well. The Hood was much faster than any classes which carried equal or more powerful main batteries. The Hood also had the best un-refueled range of the contemporary British capital ships.

Although the Hood was labeled a battlecruiser, it's amour protection compared well with its contemporaries. I would say that its protection was as good as any contemporary generation "battleship"- even reconstructed. This would include deck armour. For example, the Maryland class's main armoured deck was only 1.5-inches STS laid directly on 1.5-inches of mild steel. The Nelsons heavy deck armour only covered the magazine area. The protection over the machinery may have been inferior to the Hood's. And remember the Nelsons were slow. Nagato and Mutsu may of had protection up to or slightly superior to the Hood's as reconstructed, but they remained at least 5 knots slower.

The Hood was completed by 1920. Other capital ships with superior protection and speed completed prior to 1940 carried significantly smaller main batteries.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
User avatar
hans zurbriggen
Senior Member
Posts: 421
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:15 am

Re: Was the H.M.S Hood the most powerful ship for 20 years?

Post by hans zurbriggen »

Hello Mr.Saxton,
according to John Roberts (British warships WWII) the Nelson class deck was armor grade steel while Hood was not.

hans
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Was the H.M.S Hood the most powerful ship for 20 years?

Post by Dave Saxton »

Yes, that is correct.

It is difficult to quantify the effective thickness of Hood's deck protection compared to Nelson's effective thickness. The Hood used multiple relatively thin protected decks combined with an earlier standard of protective plating. The Nelson, used a single main armoured deck consisting of a single plate of armour grade steel laid over top a thin structural deck of construction steel. Obviously, Nelson's deck protection over the magazines was far superior. However, over the machinery it was not that thick. The total of the laminate over the machinery was only 3.25-inches.

With the exception of the Nelson's deck protection over the magazines, most other capital ships of the period used deck protection systems and materials similar to that of the Hood only of lesser sum thickness. The contemporary American main armoured deck of mild steel and special treatment steel (armour grade) totaling only 3-inches does not calculate to an impressive effective thickness. In reconstructed ships, simply stacking more plates on top of the existing main protective deck doesn't improve the effective thickness significantly.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
wmh829386
Member
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2021 5:43 pm

Re: Was the H.M.S Hood the most powerful ship for 20 years?

Post by wmh829386 »

Well... No. In many ways it should be, but design issues really drag it down.

The armour scheme and the torpedo protection system are deeply flawed.

Armor scheme: Although the distributed armour scheme is heavily criticised, the biggest problem lies on the the 2" armour slope that joins the bottom of main armour belt and main deck, which is on the top of the 12" belt.

The arrangement opens a path for shell to pass through 7" belt, then through the 2" armour (HT) slope into engineering spaces or near the magazine. Although the magazine has additional 2" crown shell could detonate next to rear magazine group in the rear engine room.

You can learn more about it here:
http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/HO ... 0Tests.pdf

The only saving grace is that hard cap APC isn't too wide spread until 1930s, giving the face-hard belt a significant chance of shattering shell from more oblique angle.

The TDS is also flawed. The forwad engine room do not have any bulkheads behing the armoured 1.5" holding bulkheads, which is also connected directly to the belt and armour slope. That means the forward engine room and possibly adjacent room will most likely be flooded if a torpedo hits near it and the power to outer shafts. The two other engine rooms are only marginally better.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/no21 ... Layout.jpg

You can clearly see the lack in subdivision in the engine rooms and the lack of depth of the TDS.
The widely circulated cross-section of the Hood along the boiler rooms have a much more effective TDS because it is backed by oil tanks.

The Fire control, guns, and speed are excellent, it is a shame that the protection design falls apart so badly given the tonnage and effort went into it. The worst part is that the vertical armour scheme and TDS design are very sound in principle, but the horizon armour arrangement and poor ER subdivision undone all the good.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Was the H.M.S Hood the most powerful ship for 20 years?

Post by RF »

I agree with Dave Saxton's comments.

One other consideration was if Hood had received the deck armour protection planned in the late 1930's then it would have been a very formidable vessel at the start of WW2.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
hans zurbriggen
Senior Member
Posts: 421
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:15 am

Re: Was the H.M.S Hood the most powerful ship for 20 years?

Post by hans zurbriggen »

Hello all,
I agree with Mr.Saxton: "In reconstructed ships, simply stacking more plates on top of the existing main protective deck doesn't improve the effective thickness significantly.". I guess Hood reconstruction would have been planned as for QE's: adding plates over plates, thus not achieving great improvement.

However, the addition of flat 3" protective deck over the scarp at machinery level (like over magazines), would have (possibly) prevented at least one of the most probable causes of her explosion (shell entering 7" upper belt, 2" scarp, and aft bulkhead in stb machine room, initially igniting a.a. armament magazine, as Mr. wmh829386 correctly said).

Reconstructed Hood would have been better than actual one, but not good enough compared to a modern battleship. Her immunity was already gone (just after the 20° turn ordered at 06:00, even for her 12" main belt, at that distance), while PoW and Bismarck could still have been safe for a while.

hans
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Was the H.M.S Hood the most powerful ship for 20 years?

Post by paul.mercer »

Gentlemen,
While it pains me to denigrate a fine ship like Hood, I cannot help but to wonder if she was 'over hyped' by the RN as the most powerful ship which could take on anything else in the world - perhaps at the time of building that was correct. Yes, she was fast and powerfully armed and made a great sight when she went on overseas visits to boost Great Britain, but her lack of armour and suitability to engage a similarly armed but heavier armoured ship became apparent she met up against a true battleship. I also wonder how she would have coped against some of the heavily armed US ships.
I'm not sure if I would like to have been on Hood going up against a Nelson, but that's one for the Hypothetical section!
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1655
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Was the H.M.S Hood the most powerful ship for 20 years?

Post by Byron Angel »

paul.mercer wrote: Sat Feb 26, 2022 9:41 am Gentlemen,
While it pains me to denigrate a fine ship like Hood, I cannot help but to wonder if she was 'over hyped' by the RN as the most powerful ship which could take on anything else in the world - perhaps at the time of building that was correct. Yes, she was fast and powerfully armed and made a great sight when she went on overseas visits to boost Great Britain, but her lack of armour and suitability to engage a similarly armed but heavier armoured ship became apparent she met up against a true battleship. I also wonder how she would have coped against some of the heavily armed US ships.
I'm not sure if I would like to have been on Hood going up against a Nelson, but that's one for the Hypothetical section!

A similar argument could reasonably be leveled against any warship design a quarter-century old. Technology moves fast.

Byron
Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Was the H.M.S Hood the most powerful ship for 20 years?

Post by Bill Jurens »

Regarding the 'hyping' of HMS Hood, one must remember that, at least to the best of my knowledge, she was for a long time physically the largest warship afloat, and a good deal of the 'hyping' probably stemmed from the British (and sometimes foreign) press, etc. This is somewhat like the situation with dinosaurs -- T-Rex, while not even the biggest any more, still gets half the press coverage, and in the Oscars, where there is (or was) for many years 'Best Picture', and with the possible exception of 'Best Actor' and ' Best Actress', it was more-or-less 'Who Cares'?

A lot of writers equate 'biggest' with 'most powerful', and have little real grasp of the technology behind what they are talking about, so we still see any reasonably large warship often referred to as a 'battleship' in print.

I suspect that inside the RN, although they were happy enough to go along for the ride, many -- and probably even most -- tended to view HOOD in a much more reasonable and balanced manner, with most of the 'hype' coming from the press, etc.

Bill Jurens
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Was the H.M.S Hood the most powerful ship for 20 years?

Post by wadinga »

Hello All,

"Powerful" is a very vague term. One of the methods of projecting power is to be faster and therefore tactically and strategically more agile than an opponent. There were contemporaries with bigger guns and/or better armouring, but Hood was considerably faster than them all. Thus she might arrive, complete a mission and be gone before a more rugged, but more sluggish, opponent even reached the scene.

Although it has been said, many, many times the advance of marine engineering over 20 plus years meant than much newer ships could be stronger on all three axes of the armament/armour/speed triangle.
Technology moves fast
Succinctly put Byron :ok:

It is surely a function of that "lucky" hit that Hood is perhaps unfairly regarded as being so fragile, Kirishima, a near contemporary with lighter armouring took much more punishment before sinking. There were many places Bismarck could have scored hits without causing Hood's instant demise.

If Hood were the victim of her own reputation in the inter-war years, it was that the reconstruction programme did not commence by further enhancing her, rather than Renown, an older, smaller, weaker hull with less upgrade potential. But then hindsight is 20/20 vision.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
HMSVF
Senior Member
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: Was the H.M.S Hood the most powerful ship for 20 years?

Post by HMSVF »

wadinga wrote: Wed Mar 02, 2022 5:46 pm Hello All,

"Powerful" is a very vague term. One of the methods of projecting power is to be faster and therefore tactically and strategically more agile than an opponent. There were contemporaries with bigger guns and/or better armouring, but Hood was considerably faster than them all. Thus she might arrive, complete a mission and be gone before a more rugged, but more sluggish, opponent even reached the scene.

Although it has been said, many, many times the advance of marine engineering over 20 plus years meant than much newer ships could be stronger on all three axes of the armament/armour/speed triangle.
Technology moves fast
Succinctly put Byron :ok:

It is surely a function of that "lucky" hit that Hood is perhaps unfairly regarded as being so fragile, Kirishima, a near contemporary with lighter armouring took much more punishment before sinking. There were many places Bismarck could have scored hits without causing Hood's instant demise.

If Hood were the victim of her own reputation in the inter-war years, it was that the reconstruction programme did not commence by further enhancing her, rather than Renown, an older, smaller, weaker hull with less upgrade potential. But then hindsight is 20/20 vision.

All the best

wadinga

That's the problem (victim of her own reputation).She had taken on a far bigger role than being an RN warship. She was the poster child of the RN and Empire. She was also a beautiful warship,fast and just looked "right".

The public weren't to know that she was shagged out by 1939 and and very nearly ended up being towed back to port when she was near missed during a bombing attack (Sawdust.Genius solution). Your right,"Lighter" and older ships such as the Kirishima took far more of a battering. The problem when you mention British ships (especially battlecruisers) is that everybody remembers HMS Indefatigable, Invincible and Queen Mary. They dont mention that HMS Tiger received 18 odd direct hits and didn't blow up. Luck? Better handling? Bit of both?
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1655
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Was the H.M.S Hood the most powerful ship for 20 years?

Post by Byron Angel »

HMS Tiger indeed suffered a number of hits - fifteen 11-inch hits alone, according to Campbell, including:

Hit 4 - non penetrating hit upon A Barbette, driving in lower edge of 8-in plate by 6 inches and filled handing room with smoke and gas.

Hit 9 - burst on roof of Q Turret, making a hole 3ft 3in x 4ft 8in; machinery of both guns damaged and Q turret fired only 32 rounds in the battle.

Hit 10 - holed 6-in side armor and burst 8-ft from secondary 6-inch ammunition hoist; two 6-inch charges set afire, but no flash down the hoist. After 6-inch magazine nevertheless flooded.

Hit 13 - Holed X Barbette breaking off a 27x16-inch piece of the armor; projectile entered turret but failed to explode properly.


All the above hits were suffered within the first seven minutes of the battle. LUCKY SHIP, in my opinion.


Byron
HMSVF
Senior Member
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: Was the H.M.S Hood the most powerful ship for 20 years?

Post by HMSVF »

Byron Angel wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 7:18 pm HMS Tiger indeed suffered a number of hits - fifteen 11-inch hits alone, according to Campbell, including:

Hit 4 - non penetrating hit upon A Barbette, driving in lower edge of 8-in plate by 6 inches and filled handing room with smoke and gas.

Hit 9 - burst on roof of Q Turret, making a hole 3ft 3in x 4ft 8in; machinery of both guns damaged and Q turret fired only 32 rounds in the battle.

Hit 10 - holed 6-in side armor and burst 8-ft from secondary 6-inch ammunition hoist; two 6-inch charges set afire, but no flash down the hoist. After 6-inch magazine nevertheless flooded.

Hit 13 - Holed X Barbette breaking off a 27x16-inch piece of the armor; projectile entered turret but failed to explode properly.


All the above hits were suffered within the first seven minutes of the battle. LUCKY SHIP, in my opinion.


Byron

Probably! Mind you HMS Lion also took a fair amount of damage as well and lived to tell the tail. How much in both cases was due to Beatty's cack handed approach to target acquisition and the advantage of the stereotactic system that the Germans used ?? (I was under the impression that the Germans were able to find the range quickly but the British system worked better in the long run ? Eye strain??).

In regards to HMS Hood...


Would I have wanted to be on her in a face off against USS Colorado ? No, but I would be comforted by the fact that as long as her machinery was intact she could escape forth with. Against Nagato? I'd fancy her chances. Anything older and I would give HMS Hood the benefit of doubt (if 1920 -1930). By 1939 I don't think I would want to put her against anything giving her poor material state. I was shocked by accounts by Le Bailey that her after turret roller gear was seized and the turret had to be forced into position.
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Was the H.M.S Hood the most powerful ship for 20 years?

Post by paul.mercer »

Gentlemen,
An interesting discussion, I agree that 'most powerful' is perhaps going a a bit far. However, if one concludes that a combination of both speed and armament make Hood the most powerful ship of her time then that is a good point to make But,although they were still very slow the three modernized QE's or the two Nelsons could easily become candidates for the most 'powerful' class - although I would not like to be in Hood - or the others in a straight one on one fight. Would Hood be able to withstand 15" and 16" shells?
Post Reply