The sub war

[Philippe]

I believe the Hood was a bit more modern than WW I era. For many years it had been touted as one of the RN's finest, and the psychological effect of the loss was significant.

And for two extra points -- does anyone remember what was playing on the Bismark's loudspeakers while they were repairing the damage they took while sinking the Hood?

[xwormwood]

Yellow Submarine?

[Philippe]

Not exactly. But let's just say it was a song that many are familiar with because of a movie about submarines.

[Hubert Cater]

Tipperary?

[Minty]

Hood wasn't a battleship, It was the ultimate in Fisher's Battlecruiser idea. It was laid down during WW1. It was obsolete by the time it was built but it looked pretty, was fast, big and had big gun. But it massively sacrificed armour for speed. By WW2 engines were such that this sacrififce wasn't needed, Bismarck class and King George V could achieve similar speeds but really fight.

If HMS Hood was in the game it should be a cruiser. Scharnhorst class cruisers were classed as battleships by the germans but as cruisers by the british as they were undergunned.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

Lars, there is no percentage applied, rather it is as ebitt stated whatever is in range is spotted.

Note, spotting is not available during bad weather as your air units are grounded until the weather clears... perhaps this was the confusion?

Really? Thought it was a function of both. Seems more realistic that % would go down at a distance. Planes can't spend all day at the end of their search range.

Btw, the sub war is not broken. The US can jump to ASW 5 and build a nice little fleet of destroyers anytime it wishes. You bump into a low tech Sub with a Level 5 Destroyer, it goes to the bottom, not the Destroyer.

And as Timskorn said, never go to sea alone.

[ November 26, 2007, 06:25 AM: Message edited by: Lars ]

[pzgndr]

I interrupt this sub war discussion with the following humor:

Moby Dick versus Das Boot

That is all. Carry on...

[Philippe]

Tipperary is really close, but not quite a cigar. Right movie though.

[Liam]

I think the fact a BB never should go out alone without CAs and Destroyers is fact

you don't send an Army alone into the USSR without a few corps cover it's ass

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Minty:

Hood wasn't a battleship, It was the ultimate in Fisher's Battlecruiser idea. It was laid down during WW1. It was obsolete by the time it was built but it looked pretty, was fast, big and had big gun. But it massively sacrificed armour for speed. By WW2 engines were such that this sacrififce wasn't needed, Bismarck class and King George V could achieve similar speeds but really fight.

Hood was better protected than the Queen Elizabeth class battleships. Her main belt was 12" - QE's was 11". Hood's extensions were 5-6", QE's were 4-6". Hood had a mid belt of 7" lacking in the QE's, and their various armoured decks (each had 3) were virtually identical in simple terms with 1-2" +/- in the top 2 and up to 3" in the lower one. Turret face armour was 15" each, Hood had lighter side armour (11" to 13") but slightly heavier turret roof armour (5" to 4.25")

"WW1 engines" is a crock.....the KGV class was 4 knots slower nominally (28 vs 32) on 19,000 less HP - 125,000 to 144,000, but also weighed in at 6000 tons less (42,000 tons vs 48,000).

By comparison Iowa's got 33 kts from 58,000 tons full load (ie as a measure of size, they probably didn't get that speed when they were at 58,000 tons!) but took 215,000 hp to do it even with vastly superior hull designs.

Hood was fast because she was designed long and slim - the classic shape for a fast ship - and had plenty of hp.

All in all Hood was pretty much the ultimate in WW1 era battleships....but that was her trouble - she was a WW1 battleship........any WW1 battleship might have blown up if hit as Hood was....it is unfortunate that it was Hood with its inter-war myth of invincibility that did so.....the myths have all come together in another one...that she blew up because she was a battlecruiser and all battlectruisers were inadequately protected compared to all battleships.

I hope I have shown at least partially that this was not the case....the truth is that all WW1 designs, be they BB or BC, were inadequately protected compared to all WW2 designs, because the nature of the threat had changed and skill of the designers had improved in the mean time.

[ November 26, 2007, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organist ]

[Liam]

From what I heard on the Discovery channel about the Hood Design is that the Deck was not thick enough because in WW1 physics didn't take into account the way a shell would land and where most of the armor should be... For it's time a great Ship but good by both WW1 and WW2 standards as you said.....merely vulnerable to Science. Therefore The Hood was doomed if hit by the wrong type of Salvo

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Minty:

Hood wasn't a battleship, It was the ultimate in Fisher's Battlecruiser idea. It was laid down during WW1. It was obsolete by the time it was built but it looked pretty, was fast, big and had big gun. But it massively sacrificed armour for speed. By WW2 engines were such that this sacrififce wasn't needed, Bismarck class and King George V could achieve similar speeds but really fight.

Hood was better protected than the Queen Elizabeth class battleships. Her main belt was 12" - QE's was 11". Hood's extensions were 5-6", QE's were 4-6". Hood had a mid belt of 7" lacking in the QE's, and their various armoured decks (each had 3) were virtually identical in simple terms with 1-2" +/- in the top 2 and up to 3" in the lower one. Turret face armour was 15" each, Hood had lighter side armour (11" to 13") but slightly heavier turret roof armour (5" to 4.25")

"WW1 engines" is a crock.....the KGV class was 4 knots slower nominally (28 vs 32) on 19,000 less HP - 125,000 to 144,000, but also weighed in at 6000 tons less (42,000 tons vs 48,000).

By comparison Iowa's got 33 kts from 58,000 tons full load (ie as a measure of size, they probably didn't get that speed when they were at 58,000 tons!) but took 215,000 hp to do it even with vastly superior hull designs.

Hood was fast because she was designed long and slim - the classic shape for a fast ship - and had plenty of hp.

All in all Hood was pretty much the ultimate in WW1 era battleships....but that was her trouble - she was a WW1 battleship........any WW1 battleship might have blown up if hit as Hood was....it is unfortunate that it was Hood with its inter-war myth of invincibility that did so.....the myths have all come together in another one...that she blew up because she was a battlecruiser and all battlectruisers were inadequately protected compared to all battleships.

I hope I have shown at least partially that this was not the case....the truth is that all WW1 designs, be they BB or BC, were inadequately protected compared to all WW2 designs, because the nature of the threat had changed and skill of the designers had improved in the mean time. </font>

[Minty]

stalin's organist. I was wrong about the engines , they are more powerful than (and heavier than) later engines.

However your choice of comparision is poor or deliberattely misleading. You compare the Hood class with another WW1 battleship class QE to say that Hood was also a battleship by havig the same armour. The Hood was nearly 20,000 tonnnes bigger than the QE battleships ( a class that was all sunk or put out of front line action in WW2). As a proportion of her weight she did sacrifice armour for speed.

If you compare her with armour RN battleships of the same weight (KGV) class as you do the engines ( a more fair comparision although the Hood was still heavier) then the armour is massively sacrificed to keep that big engine in there.

You are absolutely right that the threat had changed. I'm not sure the RN desigsn were much of an improevement over the interwar years, the N3s fro 1918 design would have been the equal of the bismarck. It's just that we stuck to the naval agreements, and the Germans didn't. Hence the Tirpitz and Bismarck were so far ahead of their contemporaries

[Guest Mike]

IMO it's not "fair" to compare her to later BB's - 20 years of design advances exist between Hood and the KGV's.

The N3's were going to be 60 feet shorter than Hood, and 2 feet wider, with only 80,000 hp....of course they would be better protected.

hoods armour was 32.8% of her final weight ( here) ....Bismark was 40%, Yamato 33.9% ( both from here) - the Alaka's only got 16%

I'm not arguing that Hood wasn't as well protected as many battleships - I'm arguing that she was as well protected as some, and so trying to class her as some sort of super-heavy cruiser its wrong - she was a fast battleship by teh standards of the day.

there's a really good article comparing the armour of pretty much all of the late pre-WW2 battleships here ...apparently they were actually pretty much all as vulnerable as Hood!

[Liam]

I have always heard that the Hood was a BattleCruiser, Admiral Class. However I always hear the statement, BattleCruiser to me strikes me as a big ship with big guns... So to class her as a Battleship when almost every resource classes her as less, seems a bit weird. BUT, she had a MASSIVE escort fleet in tow, which meant she was probably operating much like a BB, so SC reference to her as a BB is no real issue. Any other tactical game would likely make her a BC, but the term doesn't exist in SC2 so they pick what she's closest to.

Though by the way, her Admiral had a good plan to approach the Bismark and Eugen frontally, with 50 Knots closing, so that her vulnerable deck couldn't be fired on by Bismark...Also to engage Bismark at Night which favored British tactics. Also when the Fighting came down to it, the Prince of Wales should've lead the charge rather than the Hood, with a better armored Deck to take on most of the Fire...

[Minty]

I'm no expert but that plan didn't work too well did it?

[Liam]

There were mistakes. Otherwise the story might very well have been different. The Rest of the fleet didn't do as they were supposed to do

Originally posted by Minty:

I'm no expert but that plan didn't work too well did it?

[Guest Mike]

Hood didn't have a massive escort fleet - they had started with 6 destroyers, but 2 of them were short of fuel and turned back early, leaving just 4 for the 2 big ships.

[ November 28, 2007, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organist ]

[Konigs]

Same thing for force Z near Singapore. 3 Destroyers and one old destroyer. Interesting note, it was sub that spotted them and tracked the force. Of course the Planes did all the dirty work.

[Guest Mike]

Yep - they took what they could get....and the RN was normally short on resources.....

[Liam]

The British were divided up between the Atlantic, protecting the Home Island, The Mediterranean Ocean and what little it could do in the Pacific. The Germans were actually using their Resources worse. Bismark had no practical use. A big ship is a big target... All the Great Big ships and Legendary Ones were pretty much obsolete by WW2's end as we know Taranto and Pearl changed the whole game. 1 tiny little Aircraft can do what 500 salvos can do and with little effort

[SixthArmy]

The BBs were too fast for subs. Also u can see the examples of a heavy ship getting hit but she just shrugs it off.

I'd like to see subs have a strong port attack.

Watching Barham go down is remarkable isn't it? wow. It always makes me sad watching ships sink.