Posted HMS Hood.

[colmack 659]

For all you fish heads I hope you all enjoy her

 

[Wrench 9,421]

and I just watched the movie over the weekend!! Perfect timing!!

 

thanks colmack!!

[Fubar512 1,350]

Wrench and I were checking out a fabulously detailed model of the Hood, just the other day..

 

[+Julhelm 266]

I was modelling the Hood myself this very week. Oh the coincidence. Having done the Scharnhorst just before, the Hood doesn't strike me as a good-looking ship. Its pre-Jutland design roots just show a little too much.

[Fubar512 1,350]

I was modelling the Hood myself this very week. Oh the coincidence. Having done the Scharnhorst just before, the Hood doesn't strike me as a good-looking ship. Its pre-Jutland design roots just show a little too much.

I must disagree.  

 

The Hood was very much state of the art when it was laid down.  The raked bow, twin stacks, and armored citadel could have adorned any battle wagon designed or built 20+ years later.  What dates the Hood's appearance, are the tripod masts and the wine-glass stern.  The tripod masts were, again, pretty much standard fare well into the early 1930s.  The stern was meant for sea-keeping in a following sea, and also to help reduce turbulence from her outboard propellers (which the naval architects of the time had known would have reduced the efficiency of her inboard propellers). 

[colmack 659]

  I liked her lines long and lean she was a cross over from earlier designs to the more modern designs and being a Battle cruiser made more for speed not  like a battleship made for pounding it out on the line her Armour was lacking  i was told by an oldsalt friend,  that the Her stern was always awash because of the low freeboard and that caused allot of seakeeping problems.  

 

my favorite Royal Navy battlecruiser is the Tiger 

 

 

[+Julhelm 266]

I must disagree.  

 

The Hood was very much state of the art when it was laid down.  The raked bow, twin stacks, and armored citadel could have adorned any battle wagon designed or built 20+ years later.  What dates the Hood's appearance, are the tripod masts and the wine-glass stern.  The tripod masts were, again, pretty much standard fare well into the early 1930s.  The stern was meant for sea-keeping in a following sea, and also to help reduce turbulence from her outboard propellers (which the naval architects of the time had known would have reduced the efficiency of her inboard propellers). 

Agree on the tripod masts (though they are nothing compared to the drill-tower monstrosities of US standard battleships) but I also think the bridge is more of a mess than it has to be. And the lack of radars.

[Fubar512 1,350]

Agree on the tripod masts (though they are nothing compared to the drill-tower monstrosities of US standard battleships) but I also think the bridge is more of a mess than it has to be. And the lack of radars.

The tripod masts that where fitted to US battleships during the interwar-period where a step up from the cage masts that preceded them.  An interesting fact: The cage masts on US warships where designed to withstand a direct hit from the armor piercing shells of enemy battleships.  The Navy department actually mounted a cage mast on a target barge and shelled it, to little effect! This occurred just before WW I.

[dsawan 613]

This is nice. any plans to do the version with floatplane, pre='32 version?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Hood_(51)

 

 

 

Hood was initially fitted with flying-off platforms mounted on top of 'B' and 'X' turrets, from which Fairey Flycatchers could launch.[33] During her 1929–31 refit, the platform was removed from 'X' turret and a trainable, folding catapult was installed on her quarterdeck, along with a crane to recover a seaplane. She embarked a Fairey IIIF from No. 444 Flight of the Royal Air Force. During the 1932 West Indies cruise, the catapult proved to be difficult to operate in anything but a calm sea, as it was frequently awash in bad weather. The catapult and crane were removed in 1932, along with the flying-off platform on 'B' turret.[34]

Edited November 17, 2013 by dsawan

[KJakker 875]

I was modelling the Hood myself this very week. Oh the coincidence. Having done the Scharnhorst just before, the Hood doesn't strike me as a good-looking ship. Its pre-Jutland design roots just show a little too much.

 

Maybe you could do one of the "What If" refits of the Hood.

 

http://www.hmshood.com/history/construct/repair42.htm

[+Julhelm 266]

Not likely. It's not a mod and I have about a dozen other vessels to build as well.