Posted on 10/06/2008 6:10:48 AM PDT by Vanders9
“It’s also worth considering that WW1 dreadnoughts (and Hood was a WW1-design BattleCruiser), did not take into account the “plunging fire” that it would encounter from a WW2 Battleship like Bismark. Hood had very thin deck armor as originally constructed.”
That’s the whole point. Hood had very thin deck armor because there was very little plunging fire in WWI when she was designed. At the ranges that you could expect to score any hits, almost all fire would be coming onto the side. With the advent of radar direction, and improved rangefinders, and greater elevation on guns, suddenly you could engage at much greater ranges, and hence the shells are coming down at a different angle. At the same time, the improved accuracy of gunfire did away with the main advantage of Battlecruisers, the idea that speed equalled protection. Suddenly that was no longer true. Basically Hood was designed for a different war and never received the comprehensive refit that would have set her up for WW2.
I remember that interview. Yes it was briggs.
I dont think thats really fair. Hood would have required a very, very extensive refit indeed, and she wasnt the only one that needed modernising. Valiant and Warspite were both extensively modernised in the late thirties, probably because they needed less work than Hood and so would have gotten priority. Besides, it was becoming obvious that war was coming and every ship was required. Britain was heavily re-arming as well and a lot of dock facilities were being taken up with the KGV battleships and the armoured hanger carriers.
I didn’t mean to speak unfairly of the Hood. The US had more iron ore, more steel mills and more shipyards.
I didnt think you were doing friend :) I was just pointing out that there was a lot of demand on the shipbuilding facilities at that time (Britain started rearming before the US as well) and the Hood, as the good looking flagship was in some demand for “goodwill” tours and so on. They just never seemed to get the time to do the upgrade. I suppose if they had then one of the others, Valiant or Warspite or Renown, would have been unmodified instead...
My father was on the USS Franklin in WWII, great story, it kept getting hit, the Japanese kept reporting it sunk, but she kept on going.
Let’s get this video out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8QcpdUtxNQ
How about Obama openly campaigning for his communist cousin Odinga who signed a pact with Muslims to enact Sharia Law if elected and started riots when he lost. Obama campaigned for an openly Anti-American candidate in a foreign country in 2006 at taxpayer expense.
I should also point out that while Hood carried some 11" or 12" thick armor, it was a relatively narrow belt. Unlike American designs, which were on the "all or nothing" principle, British dreadnoughts of all classes before the third generation placed a little armor in a lot of places, so the maximum thickness given really didn't protect much, where the American dreadnoughts from the beginning of the second generation protected the vitals with a very thick belt.
They're all design trade offs - American dreadnoughts were heavily protected and well-armed, but slow (until the 3rd generation), though designed to be comfortable at sea for long periods, British dreadnoughts were well-armed, fairly fast, but not as well protected. They were usually good sea boats and comfortable. German dreadnoughts were exceptionally well-protected, but typically had lighter armament than their equivalent British counterparts, and were not designed to be kept at sea for long periods.
Thanks!
Always enjoyed listening to interviews with him. May he have a happy reunion with his shipmates who were not so lucky.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.