What would the most efficient gun and turret layout for a capital ship? 9 triples in 2fore, 1aft and 4 twins 2fore 2aft? And also when will be the next battle video, complete with voice acting and stuff?
How were the German parachute-dropped mines (The Luftmine A and B) intended to be used? wouldn't a mine free to drift with the wind when dropped (and possibly with the currents afterwards sounds) be just as much a threat to their own ships and U-boats as the intended target?
@@AelxiThe most efficient would have been to use quad turrets with all placed forward of the superstructure. Like Richelieu. If an extra turret was needed you could place all 3 forward like Nelson for a 12 gun broadside.
While both utterly outclassed by the 5"/38, which Axis heavy AA gun was better at deterring/destroying enemy aircraft, the Japanese 127mm Type 89 or the German 105mm SK C/33?
True, but that was only after they stopped construction and modified the design to incorporate the perceived lessons of Jutland. These additions were more than the hull was designed to handle, and they would have had to start over with a fresh design if they wanted the original freeboard.
@bluemarlin8138 they suffered from the same problems as the Imperial Russian/Soviet Battleships too many changes over a long relative time, having read the Admiralty reports into lessons learnt from Jutland and their impacts on ship design, I can see how it happened you had one group saying more speed was needed, one saying better guns and gunnery another saying it was just a lack desire to seek battle and get the Trafalgar type decisive battle. Writing a disso on this kind've stuff is brain melting
@madkoala2130 kinda I heard it from him then a few years later actually read in some Admiralty report at the NA please don't ask me to give you the full NA code
The more I learn about Jellicoe, the more impressed I am. Had it not been for Beatty's political and high society shenanigans I believe we would speak of Fisher and Jellicoe in the same breath, and that we'd have seen capital ships named for him, possibly even an SSBN in the Cold War era. Jellicoe was ace and absolutely knew what he was doing.
Jellico wasn't perfect! He was responsible for the terrible positioning of the control top in the smoke plume on the Dreadnought. ( and a couple of other ships as well) He was also responsible for the open sighting hoods on the top of turrets which prevented the use of superfiring turrets! I think he was a better fleet commander than ship designer.
@mahbriggs to be fair British had been building ships that they later scrapped without seeing combat, it's easy to see how complaints about boat handling get a higher priority
@@mahbriggs didn't say he was perfect. Didn't say he was a designer. Said he knew his job which was fleet commander, as you admit. And a fleet commander should know what features he wants. The mast placement was a horrible compromise forced by many other factors, including time.
@JevansUK It resulted in the expensive rebuilding of a couple of ships, and that leaves out the idiocy of open sighting hoods on the top of the turrets! The problems with the control tops had been discovered in the Dreadnought and corrected in subsequent ships only to be reintroduced by Jellicoe. The U.S. Navy got it right from the beginning! In line, superfiring turrets capable of axial fire! It wasn't until the Hood was laid down that open sighting hoods on top of turrets were eliminated, enabling the superfiring turrets to axial fire! As I said, a better fleet commander than ship designer!
@lukedogwalker Allowing for the stupid position of the control tops in the smoke plume of the funnels, what of his insistence on open sighting hoods on the turret tops? As I point out, the Americans figured it put from the beginning that it was a terrible idea. I believe the Hood was the first British ship capable of axial firing of her super imposed turrets!
To be fair with the intel guys about the odd caliber guns. German nominally 11 inch guns were actually 283 mm which weren't rounded in neither metric nor imperial.
Another thing to note is that the caliber of a gun can be stated as the diameter of the lands of the rifling the grooves of the rifling or the projectile diameter. None of these are the same number and all can be said to be the caliber of the gun. Even to this day whichever one is used is almost never stated and there is mostly no convention as to what should be used. This could be made easier.
@@TheSlaughtermatic In small arms, the measurement is to the rifling grooves/ projectile diameter. In naming cartridges the rule isn't always followed, usually to avoid confusion with other ammo.
Fortunately for himself my father was at the furthest end of the queue for those being drafted onto the Hood. If I remember back some 60 plus years I think he said he was just a few places back from those poor chaps who made up her final wartime complement. 👍🏻🏴
"The crews are complaining about low freeboard on our battleships. What should we do?" "Obviously the solution is to build a battlecruiser with even less freeboard so they can feel lucky by comparison."
I live in Victoria , Canada. Just west of Victoria is the military harbour in Esquimalt which has a huge graving dock. When it was built in 1924 it was designed to be able to fit the Hood. It never did hold it but in 1942 it held the Queen Elizabeth when it was being converted to a troop ship. I found a reference to this in a book as being one of the best kept secrets of the war. I showed this to my dad who laughed and said the line ups of people driving out to see the QE clogged all the bridges leading to Esquimalt.
The Golden BB. Yah, Bismarck had a certain amount of luck on her side. But Bismarck also had very good fire control and shooting. She also had her share of bad luck. A torpedo hit in just the right spot is what prevented her from reaching port in France. Imagine Bismarck sitting in Brest or another French Atlantic port. Just how much would that have complicated running convoys to the UK.
@@mpetersen6 alright my bad sorry about that I think I'm gonna agree with you. iirc Bismarck's 5th salvo got Hood so it's fair to call her shooting good.
I agree, although I am biased as I found D.K.Brown books before I found Drachinfel's channel. In fact it was Brown's books that led me to find Drach's channel as well as Dr. Clarke's.
As a fifth generation shipbuilder from Clydebank, I'd like to thank you for putting this together and highlighting the incredible work in Hood's design and construction.
@@Cailus3542 Not quite, because the real problem was that engagement ranges between fleets had become extended massively due to the presence of carriers on one (and, in the Pacific, both) side of the engagement, which big guns just couldn’t handle. And that was a problem with ANY ship armed with a capital ship’s main battery regardless of how fast it was. Before you say “AA carrier escort”, you don’t need capital ship-grade main guns for that.
@@bkjeong4302 You're assuming that the carriers are omniscient, always present, always have enough striking power to sink any enemy force and the engagement is happening in the day. Adjust any of those variables and a thirty year old 30+ knot battlecruiser is suddenly gold dust.
@@Cailus3542 The fact carriers aren’t able to attack the enemy 24/7 does not automatically translate to carriers being vulnerable to surface ships outside of extremely specific circumstances.
The carrier might not be vulnerable to surface attack, yes, but in any circumstance where all the ducks aren't in a row, the carrier will be of little use in doing anything. The battle cruiser, on the other hand, will be capable of many things.
As a dedictaed fan of Hood (my uncle was a stocker on her and went down with her in 1941). I was amazed by the amount of detail you were able to give on these proposed battleships and the Admirals. I am amazed at what the designers were able to do without CAD or a speadsheet. Calculating the weight and speed etc.
Imagine, there are people out there with no interest in naval warfare. I tell you it is true! I am very gratefull that Drachnifel is there for all the rest of us
I’m not particularly interested in it, but I love military history in general. And Drach is the perfect antidote to most “history” videos on youtube (because most of them are garbage).
In todays world of overhanded back office politics making decisions without consulting those who would be affected, I love how Jellicoe was consulted and immediately threw out 90% of the design they’d just spent over a year working on because half of what they were trying to implement did not meet the needs of the navy at that point. Then proceeds to on the spot lay out design parameters for what would become the greatest battlecruiser design, and what would be in a lot of ways the grandfather of the fast battleship.
My Grandad worked as an electrician for John Browns and his work on new radar on the Hood finished the night before she left for sea. Any later and he would have been kept onboard and always thought he would have died when she went down.
Wonderful video on Hood. I lived near Mt Hood my whole life and worked on the Mt Hood Railroad along the Hood River (river) In the town of Hood River, within Hood River County of Oregon state. Admittedly hearing the word “hood” really gets my attention and has brought me great interest in HMS Hood. All that said, it’s sorta funny the US ship “Mount Hood” is named after a mountain that itself is named after a British Admiral. Thanks again Drach for the content
This is the exact type of video I enjoy most on your channel. This and the 5 minute guides. The process of designing and commissioning a ship, and the military and political factors that informed it is infinitely interesting
My Grandfather served on HMS HOOD in 1929 transferred when she went in for a refit and sunk by Bismarck, he new many that went down with her may their souls rest in peace
To be fair by the time the hood was sailing to do battle with the Bismarck she was in dire need of overhaul and repair it's amazing she didn't just sink on the way they're given how neglected ship them by the Royal Navy
Hi Drachinifel, I have a very large family connection to Hood, not that I have family who served upon Hood or were lost on Hood but my grandfather was a Foreman on her build, not an important foreman but a foreman none the less. I have several copies of her builders photographs taken off the original plates from the University Of Glasgow Industrial Archives. I have also had the honour of seeing her blueprints and taking a copy of which I no longer have due to moving home. Ventus Secundus
Probably worth a visit to Fairfield Heritage Centre, Govan, if you're ever in Glasgow. They've obviously amassed more primary sources than they could ever possibly display in a museum dedicated to shipbuilding.
@@waverleyjournalise5757 Perhaps because the change to AoN from incremental had not yet been made when the last WW1 RN battleships were laid down? The first AoN battleships, the Nevadas, were only laid down in late 1912.
@@waverleyjournalise5757Hood going down was pretty much just because the Bismarck rolled nat 20's on that specific salvo. In any normal condition it wouldn't have gone down but (for once) luck was on the Bismarck's side.
My Dad was always obsessed with the Hood. His favourite movie as a kid was the Sink the Bismarck!, so I love all of this. Also interesting note, Admiral Horace Hood, a descendent of the Admiral Hood that the ship was named after, died at Jutland.
Drach, I kinda doubt anyone else has expressed interest, but I'd love videos on the First World War UC I, UC II, and UC III class minelayer submarines. You know, in your spare time. :-)
Thanks Drach HMS Hood was the largest warship for decades and certainly one of the most beautiful ships ever built. It is a tragedy she never got the reconstruction she deserved, if she had I think Bismarck's voyage would have ended in much sooner
At least there would have been a chance for Hood. Lutjens knew exactly what to do once he understood who his opponent was because they too knew the armor upgrade wasn't done.
I wonder if the rebuild would have put special emphasis on deepening the side armour downwards? Since a chance hit below the side belt was the probable culprit, like drachs previous video suggests. If not, the rebuild would not have had direct impact on the outcome. But it always is a lot of if:s, impossible to tell all the different factors being altered.
ironically the reason her place on the refit list was so late was just because she was seen as the most powerful of them all.... if she was refitted, then we might not even have seen vanguard. that's an interesting thing to think about!
Thank you for this. Until now I never understood the history of the development of HMS Hood, as it was very involved. The photos are the icing on the cake. Watching them build it at keel level. The pic. of them lowering what appeared to be the lower turbine housing of one of the main engines into place was very interesting at least to me. Thank you again for saving and making accessible these almost forgotten images for us, I know it's not easy.. Bravo! On my way now to watch your sinking of HMS Hood video again....
The way Drach narrates this video on how this ship came to be is awesome. However hearing how the powers to be came to the design and construction has to be the most British thing i have ever heard. But interesting none the less.
Thanks for doing a video on explaining how the Hood was developed. Most historians miss this in their works. Watching this video was such a blast, and it utterly obliterated any Hood related knowledge gaps.
It would have been interesting to have asked Admiral Jellicoe what his impressions of an Iowa would have been. What he liked and perhaps what he might not have liked about her.
283mm is a fractional inch size: 11-9/64" Mind you, I've never heard of a previous naval gun intentionally made to 64ths, but when working with smaller mechanical objects, these fractional sizes are not unheard-of. A very comprehensive modern set of drill bits or collets for example, might have 64th sizes.
Very interesting research! What amazes me about battleship design. Is that once the all big gun battleship was built. Thinking about them became as thick as the ships main side armor. Also as swift as the ponderous pace of the machinery used to train the massive guns! Super dreadnoughts were big slow moving targets. Making them rather easy to hit. Armor was supposed to provide protection. Only the ship has to float, so the weight of armor is strictly limited. Meaning that the armor has to be carefully placed on the ship. So the destruction of HMS Hood was a classic example of why she was already obsolete when her hull was launched. The reason for this was simple enough. Big slow moving easy to hit targets. The speed of Hood, and similar fast battleships was an attempt to adress the issue. But with the large 40,000 ton displacement hull, Hood was the largest target to date. These ships were just too big. The fact was well demonstrated when hits from Prinze Eugen and Bismarck hit Hood's deck above the armor protection. Hood exploded rather violently. Hood's destruction was shortly followed by that of Bismarck. Leaving Prinze Eugen to return to port alone. Heavy Cruisers thus became the defacto battleships serving on the front lines. So the big vulnerable battleships could be saved from destruction. Only the front lines was what a battleship was built to excel in battle. The big guns and heavy armor providing an expected advantage. One that failed to materialize. As the twentieth century marched on. The operating speed of warships kept increasing. Making big slow super dreadnoughts unable to keep up. The giant guns were powerful, capable of inflicting massive damage. If they hit the target. Only the low rate of fire coupled with the ponderous pace of train. Made hitting small, fast agile targets rather difficult. The lighter guns used in the cruisers were better suited for battle. Even if many 8" guns didn't shoot much faster. They could be trained on target more quickly. Moreover cruisers were faster to build and far less expensive to replace. Big battleship guns got most of their use bombarding shore targets. Most naval battles involved small fast targets like aircraft. It's often been said that the aircraft carrier that made battleships obsolete. Only battleships had already been obsolete. Once the accuracy of naval gunfire substantially improved and the speed of most warships became greater than 30 knots. Allowing for numerous hits on any big slow moving target. As the loss of Hood demonstrated. Hits where there is no armor, can quickly be catastrophic.
The previous Hood videos are up there with my all time favorite Drac content. Keeping all that in mind makes the design & construction of Hood fascinating. 👍
IMO Adm. Jellicoe's reputation was unfairly besmirched as a result of the battle of Jutland with that glory-hound Adm. Beatty getting credit he didn't deserve.
The numbet of well-considered objections or changes that Adm Jellicoe asked for gives a lot of insight into how technically in tune he was with ship design and battle dynamics. Knowing little about him, he just became very impressive in my mind!!!
Drachinfel, in your opinion, might having the build revised to put the magazines below the shell rooms, have prevented the sinking of HMS Hood or at least slowed it down.
I like how they started the design with the idea to make a ship that wouldn't cover it's crew in water, and ended up making Hood, a ship often called "The Royal Navy's Largest Submarine" due to how wet her crew was.
The 'R' class had been laid down before the war. Three had been commissioned by the time of Jutland. The 'Admiral' class were only laid down in September - November, 1916.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 Even in that case, I still think that the RN should have predicted the design direction of the world's navies following the QE Class, instead of taking a step backwards by choosing the Revenges. With hindsight it's obvious to see that speed was going to be the way forward, with the proof of the pudding being how Repulse and Renown performed.
@@waverleyjournalise5757 The 'R' class were part of the Anglo-German naval race. They were built as a development of the 'Iron Dukes' effectively as cheaper, coal fired, versions of the QEs, with the 21 knots of speed enabling them to form part of the battlefleet. They were converted to oil firing during construction, but were superior to any German capital ship, except arguably the Badens, which never saw action. Why was 'speed the way forward?' The US Navy & the French Navy didn't seem to think so, with their fastest capital ships being 21 knots and 20 knots respectively for the next 20 years. What do you think Renown & Repulse proved?
Excellent, thank you. What this video shows is how Dreadnought design and development was still in its infancy in 1914, and there was no concensus about the way forward.
Jellicoe was much more concerned about the Battlecruiser force-and that was just the admiral in charge of them. Also ah yes another intel report dramatically overstating the power of the opponents causing something quite a ot nastier than what was going to be built(although the Mackensen was pretty nasty on paper as it was pretty much a German Kongo class).
As Ted Briggs said. "A beautiful shop with a glass jaw." I think Drach's analysis from a couple of years ago makes sense. Hood got hit by a shell that penetrated below the belt.
@@mpetersen6 I wouldn't call a shot below the belt a glass jaw, it was such an unforeseen scenario in WW1 and yet happened 3 times at the Denmark Strait - first prize to Hood, but one of Bismarck's shells got stuck in Prince of Wales's keel and Wales's return flooded one of Bismarck's turbogenerator rooms. The Japanese even for a time carried out tests on 'diving shells' designed to fly underwater and strike ships below the belt. Glass jaw is Courageous-levels of armour in my book.
Q turrets were a somewhat dubious endowment anyway... statistically as they were generally near dead centre and the enemy salvo was targeted at dead centre Q turrets would be more likely on broadsides to take roof hits.. and in practice this happened .. again and again..
The bigger issue was having an extra magazine amidships. You could make the turret face and roof thicker without too much of a weight penalty, but not the belt.
Or wing turrets. Twice the vulnerability, less than half the useability because firing the turret on the far side meant concussing your own deck, nearby superstructure, lifeboats and maybe the crew in the other turret (edit: if the barrels are pointed a bit fore or aft towards the other turret which is also facing fore or aft towards the enemy). Imagine trying to use the sights mounted on the turret while getting gun blasted every 40 seconds! What I've read is that SOP in the RN was to not use the far turret but to turn it towards the enemy because of the thicker armour on the front. How useless is that?
Those constant changes to Hood's design during construction must have driven the shipyard engineers and workers crazy! Do you have any information on how much the changes delayed her completion and her cost?
I play world of warships legends and have been for 4 years strong , I own the hood ,Nelson, vanguard ,warspite, Cossack , late war Belfast ,London, Cheshire,Exeter just to name a few 😊
This was the first rum ration that I have finished. I enjoy this sort of history without so much time in the library. I have been a fan of "Hood" and the Nelrods since I was in high school in the late 60s. Question: What effect would the fifteen-inch guns of the "Vanguard" meant to the Royal Marines and Commandos in the Falkland's, had she still been available?
Absolutely brilliant video on Hood. I am a big fan of Naval Battles myself and it all started of me getting interested in the Denmark Strait. Brilliant video just like the vid where you showed a theory on Hood's final voyage
@@AmosDohms in Scotland it is be pronounced more like Guh-van but without separation into two distinct syllables. The "o" is pronounced like "Government" rather than "Go". The "a" would be very soft as well, sounding closer to lower case "i" for some accents. It would not sound like Guv-Ann like the typically female name, and more like somewhere between Guhvin and Guvan. It actually does not sound unlike "Govern", if govern was pronounced lazily without care to distinguish the "r" sound.
I had heard stories as child of Hoods literal rock star status. She was apparently adored over here in America and would always be a big thing when she made a port call here. If I remember correctly it was quite common for headlines to read something along the lines of "America surrenders to HMS Hood..."
I wonder if the HMS Hood would even be revered above her peers today if it wasn't sunk by the Bismarck? The HMS Warspite for instance is well known in historical circles, but not the wider public like the HMS Hood and Bismarck are known. The same could be said for the USS Enterprise, how many people would even know of the ship if it wasn't for programs like 'Enterprise: Battle 360' for instance, the ships involved in the Battle off Samar being another example.
The first nuclear super carrier was christened Enterprise. And it was no accident that Gene Roddenberry chose Enterprise as the name for the hero ship in the original Star Trek. There’s a lot of institutional memory here.
Just imagine what she would have been like with 8 18inch guns. Would have been a better match for Bismarck, though she/he would also have been 18 inch guns.
Sure, they know what they want - today. Tomorrow they want "just a little change", and next week they want you to stop work while the new boss rethinks the whole thing.
@@gregorywright4918And then a program management change due to upper management worrying that the program was going to possibly run over budget according to the money grubbing bean counters wanting immediate profits and the program objectives are completely overhauled and some program personnel cuts to make a profit this quarter at the cost of long term 'goals'.
Hi Drachinifel. Love your stuff and wish I had time to watch it. This episode reminded me that I’d love to know why there was so much obsession with fitting torpedo tubes on Battleships? This puzzled me for years and it would be great to hear why they wanted to potentially compromise safety by having extra holes in the hill or extra explosives on deck, for a weapon we rarely if ever hear of battleships actually using. Maybe one for a q&a episode, or an episode on battleship auxiliary systems?
After Drach's excellent video of quite a while ago discussing how The Mighty Hood met her end, and now this design commentary; at long last I think I can no longer claim that it is too soon to discuss her sinking... In true British stereotypical fashion and keeping Royal Navy fandom alive, it still hurts though!
Sunk cost 'fallacy' would be my best guess in that Hood was substantially built by the time Jutland happened and then the further tests and trials revealed further changes had to be made. As it was they got what looked like a very good ship out of it... and as Drach has gone over extensively Hood might've been a good ship with Bismarck just scoring a golden bb or her armor was compromised / weaker than thought and Bismarck just exposed that weakness... neither conclusion can be definitely proven. edit: This was posted before coffee, so my bad on messing up the timeline.
@bkjeong4302 commonly reported but according to Ian Johnston, records of John Brown don't support it. John Roberts states the 31st may date only exists in one Admiralty document. So it could be a missed target date. Seems John Brown got go ahead in June and that's when a yard number was assigned.
Ironically, USS Mount Hood is named after an active volcano in Oregon named after Samuel Hood, also blew up with similar destruction and huge loss of life as HMS Hood.
Great video. I know you don't usually talk about sail, BUT, I have never been able to locate much of anything related to the First HMS Victory. The wreck was located a few years ago or I would not even heard of it at all. Would you consider a Video about her? Thanks
Pinned post for Q&A :)
If Hood had been built a decade earlier, how much of an impact would she have had on WWI?
What would the most efficient gun and turret layout for a capital ship? 9 triples in 2fore, 1aft and 4 twins 2fore 2aft?
And also when will be the next battle video, complete with voice acting and stuff?
How were the German parachute-dropped mines (The Luftmine A and B) intended to be used? wouldn't a mine free to drift with the wind when dropped (and possibly with the currents afterwards sounds) be just as much a threat to their own ships and U-boats as the intended target?
@@AelxiThe most efficient would have been to use quad turrets with all placed forward of the superstructure. Like Richelieu. If an extra turret was needed you could place all 3 forward like Nelson for a 12 gun broadside.
While both utterly outclassed by the 5"/38, which Axis heavy AA gun was better at deterring/destroying enemy aircraft, the Japanese 127mm Type 89 or the German 105mm SK C/33?
The British Navy: Our ships need more freeboard!
*Builds Hood, with the freeboard of a kayak*
"Worlds biggest Submarine" -Unknown RN Sailor
True, but that was only after they stopped construction and modified the design to incorporate the perceived lessons of Jutland. These additions were more than the hull was designed to handle, and they would have had to start over with a fresh design if they wanted the original freeboard.
@bluemarlin8138 they suffered from the same problems as the Imperial Russian/Soviet Battleships too many changes over a long relative time, having read the Admiralty reports into lessons learnt from Jutland and their impacts on ship design, I can see how it happened you had one group saying more speed was needed, one saying better guns and gunnery another saying it was just a lack desire to seek battle and get the Trafalgar type decisive battle. Writing a disso on this kind've stuff is brain melting
@@Renaissance_Kamikaze Mighty Jingles?
@madkoala2130 kinda I heard it from him then a few years later actually read in some Admiralty report at the NA please don't ask me to give you the full NA code
Good to see Drach is finally covering such an unknown ship. 🙂
I concur.
About time too.
Yes, we are all tired of hearing about Finnish coastal defense ships and ironclads from Peru. We want to know more about a more obscure naval power.
It's the design path that got me.
Lovely looking warship, when I saw a model I stopped listening to my surroundings.
I’m appreciating your mild sarcasm, but I still learned something.
The more I learn about Jellicoe, the more impressed I am. Had it not been for Beatty's political and high society shenanigans I believe we would speak of Fisher and Jellicoe in the same breath, and that we'd have seen capital ships named for him, possibly even an SSBN in the Cold War era. Jellicoe was ace and absolutely knew what he was doing.
Jellico wasn't perfect! He was responsible for the terrible positioning of the control top in the smoke plume on the Dreadnought. ( and a couple of other ships as well) He was also responsible for the open sighting hoods on the top of turrets which prevented the use of superfiring turrets!
I think he was a better fleet commander than ship designer.
@mahbriggs to be fair British had been building ships that they later scrapped without seeing combat, it's easy to see how complaints about boat handling get a higher priority
@@mahbriggs didn't say he was perfect. Didn't say he was a designer. Said he knew his job which was fleet commander, as you admit. And a fleet commander should know what features he wants. The mast placement was a horrible compromise forced by many other factors, including time.
@JevansUK
It resulted in the expensive rebuilding of a couple of ships, and that leaves out the idiocy of open sighting hoods on the top of the turrets!
The problems with the control tops had been discovered in the Dreadnought and corrected in subsequent ships only to be reintroduced by Jellicoe.
The U.S. Navy got it right from the beginning! In line, superfiring turrets capable of axial fire! It wasn't until the Hood was laid down that open sighting hoods on top of turrets were eliminated, enabling the superfiring turrets to axial fire!
As I said, a better fleet commander than ship designer!
@lukedogwalker
Allowing for the stupid position of the control tops in the smoke plume of the funnels, what of his insistence on open sighting hoods on the turret tops?
As I point out, the Americans figured it put from the beginning that it was a terrible idea.
I believe the Hood was the first British ship capable of axial firing of her super imposed turrets!
To be fair with the intel guys about the odd caliber guns. German nominally 11 inch guns were actually 283 mm which weren't rounded in neither metric nor imperial.
explains a lot. 280 mm seems to be fair, 383mm is a kind kind of overkill!
And dear god does it annoy me.
Another thing to note is that the caliber of a gun can be stated as the diameter of the lands of the rifling the grooves of the rifling or the projectile diameter. None of these are the same number and all can be said to be the caliber of the gun. Even to this day whichever one is used is almost never stated and there is mostly no convention as to what should be used. This could be made easier.
@@TheSlaughtermatic In small arms, the measurement is to the rifling grooves/ projectile diameter. In naming cartridges the rule isn't always followed, usually to avoid confusion with other ammo.
Fortunately for himself my father was at the furthest end of the queue for those being drafted onto the Hood. If I remember back some 60 plus years I think he said he was just a few places back from those poor chaps who made up her final wartime complement.
👍🏻🏴
Fortunate for yourself as well 😂
Sometimes it is very curious, to what bits of luck one owes his very existence. Congrats to existing🍾!
Unfortunately my distant cousin was not so lucky a ships boy first class, just sixteen years old when he went down with the Hood.
@@orwellboy1958my great grandfather petty officer Harry cecil alland died on the ship he was 32
"The crews are complaining about low freeboard on our battleships. What should we do?"
"Obviously the solution is to build a battlecruiser with even less freeboard so they can feel lucky by comparison."
Being in the military, this Is immaculate military leadership thinking.
Most upperclass of british sensebility.
LMAO!!!
I live in Victoria , Canada. Just west of Victoria is the military harbour in Esquimalt which has a huge graving dock. When it was built in 1924 it was designed to be able to fit the Hood. It never did hold it but in 1942 it held the Queen Elizabeth when it was being converted to a troop ship. I found a reference to this in a book as being one of the best kept secrets of the war. I showed this to my dad who laughed and said the line ups of people driving out to see the QE clogged all the bridges leading to Esquimalt.
How did QE get to Victoria from New York? Amazing, I never knew about this, having myself lived in Victoria for a while.
@@awuma Sailed around Cape Horn because it was too big for the Panama Canal.
"It turns out Military intelligence got it wrong"
everyone who has been in the military: "wow, what a truly unexpected Turn Of Events"
In Hood's defense, her demise at Denmark Strait wasn't just due to her design, Bismarck also had some luck on her side.
The Golden BB. Yah, Bismarck had a certain amount of luck on her side. But Bismarck also had very good fire control and shooting. She also had her share of bad luck. A torpedo hit in just the right spot is what prevented her from reaching port in France. Imagine Bismarck sitting in Brest or another French Atlantic port. Just how much would that have complicated running convoys to the UK.
@@mpetersen6 don't think good FCS systems usually got knocked out by the ship's own guns though.....
@@Aelxi
That was her radar. Not her optical range finders.
@@mpetersen6 alright my bad sorry about that
I think I'm gonna agree with you. iirc Bismarck's 5th salvo got Hood so it's fair to call her shooting good.
Bismarck had a plan.
Bismarck always had a plan!
DK Brown would be proud of you Drach! A very thorough assessment of the trials and tribulations of developing the Hood.
I agree, although I am biased as I found D.K.Brown books before I found Drachinfel's channel. In fact it was Brown's books that led me to find Drach's channel as well as Dr. Clarke's.
@@mahbriggs Likewise!!
Yes, I agree.
As a fifth generation shipbuilder from Clydebank, I'd like to thank you for putting this together and highlighting the incredible work in Hood's design and construction.
To the men and boys of Hood who did not return. #wewillrememberthem
One of most beautiful ships ever made.
Every superhero needs an origin story, and this is Hood's.
Thanks Drach. :)
Renown and Repulse were probably much more useful than an extra pair of R class even if the resistance class would have been an improved design.
No question. When WW2 came along, lightly armoured 30 knot battlecruisers were much more useful than 20 knot heavily armoured battleships.
@@Cailus3542
Not quite, because the real problem was that engagement ranges between fleets had become extended massively due to the presence of carriers on one (and, in the Pacific, both) side of the engagement, which big guns just couldn’t handle. And that was a problem with ANY ship armed with a capital ship’s main battery regardless of how fast it was.
Before you say “AA carrier escort”, you don’t need capital ship-grade main guns for that.
@@bkjeong4302 You're assuming that the carriers are omniscient, always present, always have enough striking power to sink any enemy force and the engagement is happening in the day. Adjust any of those variables and a thirty year old 30+ knot battlecruiser is suddenly gold dust.
@@Cailus3542
The fact carriers aren’t able to attack the enemy 24/7 does not automatically translate to carriers being vulnerable to surface ships outside of extremely specific circumstances.
The carrier might not be vulnerable to surface attack, yes, but in any circumstance where all the ducks aren't in a row, the carrier will be of little use in doing anything. The battle cruiser, on the other hand, will be capable of many things.
As a dedictaed fan of Hood (my uncle was a stocker on her and went down with her in 1941). I was amazed by the amount of detail you were able to give on these proposed battleships and the Admirals.
I am amazed at what the designers were able to do without CAD or a speadsheet. Calculating the weight and speed etc.
Imagine, there are people out there with no interest in naval warfare. I tell you it is true! I am very gratefull that Drachnifel is there for all the rest of us
I’m not particularly interested in it, but I love military history in general. And Drach is the perfect antidote to most “history” videos on youtube (because most of them are garbage).
In todays world of overhanded back office politics making decisions without consulting those who would be affected, I love how Jellicoe was consulted and immediately threw out 90% of the design they’d just spent over a year working on because half of what they were trying to implement did not meet the needs of the navy at that point. Then proceeds to on the spot lay out design parameters for what would become the greatest battlecruiser design, and what would be in a lot of ways the grandfather of the fast battleship.
The Zumwalt, Ford, and LCS programs all needed a Jellicoe....😂
More like the first proper fast battleship and the only one that wasn’t obsolete upon launch courtesy of aviation.
Unless you count the QEs of course.
My Grandad worked as an electrician for John Browns and his work on new radar on the Hood finished the night before she left for sea. Any later and he would have been kept onboard and always thought he would have died when she went down.
Hood is my favourite ship. Even more so than Warspite. Understandably, you've made my day 🎉
"Even more so than Warspite."
Heretic! Burn the heretic! 😂
@@Nick-rs5if Yes, but does he float like a duck? And if he does, what else floats like a duck?
@@marckyle5895Wood?
@@grahamstrouse1165 (nods) And therefore?
@@marckyle5895 A WITCH!!!
Wonderful video on Hood.
I lived near Mt Hood my whole life and worked on the Mt Hood Railroad along the Hood River (river)
In the town of Hood River, within Hood River County of Oregon state.
Admittedly hearing the word “hood” really gets my attention and has brought me great interest in HMS Hood.
All that said, it’s sorta funny the US ship “Mount Hood” is named after a mountain that itself is named after a British Admiral.
Thanks again Drach for the content
How many pairs of binoculars did Hood stock for her resident admirals to throw overboard?
😆
Wrong navy. That was the Russian navy who only passed through the North Sea on the way to its doom against the Japanese.
@@bigblue6917 Pretty sure OP knows about the 3rd pacific squadron
That's interesting.
I wonder what USS Washington have to say about that ;)
Enough to ensure a encounter with the Kamchatka could be managed effectively
This is the exact type of video I enjoy most on your channel. This and the 5 minute guides.
The process of designing and commissioning a ship, and the military and political factors that informed it is infinitely interesting
My Grandfather served on HMS HOOD in 1929 transferred when she went in for a refit and sunk by Bismarck, he new many that went down with her may their souls rest in peace
With all the revisions and changes over time, I'm amazed she put to sea at all, or could even float with all that paperwork that went into it.
They had to keep the paperwork on shore. She'd be swamped for sure if they'd kept it aboard
To be fair by the time the hood was sailing to do battle with the Bismarck she was in dire need of overhaul and repair it's amazing she didn't just sink on the way they're given how neglected ship them by the Royal Navy
Hi Drachinifel, I have a very large family connection to Hood, not that I have family who served upon Hood or were lost on Hood but my grandfather was a Foreman on her build, not an important foreman but a foreman none the less. I have several copies of her builders photographs taken off the original plates from the University Of Glasgow Industrial Archives. I have also had the honour of seeing her blueprints and taking a copy of which I no longer have due to moving home. Ventus Secundus
Flawed she may have been, but HMS Hood was a handsome ship.
Every ship has flaws, good example USS Arizona, it was just a lucky shot by the Bismarck.🇺🇸
And yes it was a handsome ship.
Absolutely gorgeous no doubt.
Probably worth a visit to Fairfield Heritage Centre, Govan, if you're ever in Glasgow. They've obviously amassed more primary sources than they could ever possibly display in a museum dedicated to shipbuilding.
I really enjoyed this one. HMS Hood needed an in depth dive of her design history; fascinating.
HMS Hood is the JFK of warships. Everyone knows there was a second Bismark on the Icy Knoll.
Every British capital ship built before Hood had near identical flaws in their armour. WW1 armour schemes simply don't work in WW2.
@@waverleyjournalise5757 Perhaps because the change to AoN from incremental had not yet been made when the last WW1 RN battleships were laid down?
The first AoN battleships, the Nevadas, were only laid down in late 1912.
@@waverleyjournalise5757Hood going down was pretty much just because the Bismarck rolled nat 20's on that specific salvo. In any normal condition it wouldn't have gone down but (for once) luck was on the Bismarck's side.
My Dad was always obsessed with the Hood. His favourite movie as a kid was the Sink the Bismarck!, so I love all of this. Also interesting note, Admiral Horace Hood, a descendent of the Admiral Hood that the ship was named after, died at Jutland.
On a ship named "Invincible" yeah the world doesn't let these names survive for long
Drach, I kinda doubt anyone else has expressed interest, but I'd love videos on the First World War UC I, UC II, and UC III class minelayer submarines. You know, in your spare time. :-)
I love how the ship was so long that it jutted into the town
Thanks Drach
HMS Hood was the largest warship for decades and certainly one of the most beautiful ships ever built.
It is a tragedy she never got the reconstruction she deserved, if she had I think Bismarck's voyage would have ended in much sooner
At least there would have been a chance for Hood. Lutjens knew exactly what to do once he understood who his opponent was because they too knew the armor upgrade wasn't done.
I wonder if the rebuild would have put special emphasis on deepening the side armour downwards? Since a chance hit below the side belt was the probable culprit, like drachs previous video suggests. If not, the rebuild would not have had direct impact on the outcome. But it always is a lot of if:s, impossible to tell all the different factors being altered.
ironically the reason her place on the refit list was so late was just because she was seen as the most powerful of them all....
if she was refitted, then we might not even have seen vanguard. that's an interesting thing to think about!
Thank you for this. Until now I never understood the history of the development of HMS Hood, as it was very involved. The photos are the icing on the cake. Watching them build it at keel level. The pic. of them lowering what appeared to be the lower turbine housing of one of the main engines into place was very interesting at least to me. Thank you again for saving and making accessible these almost forgotten images for us, I know it's not easy.. Bravo! On my way now to watch your sinking of HMS Hood video again....
The model in "The Clyde Room" at Glasgow Museum of Transport, is the largest there, it's enormous.
Design A: exists
Jellicoe: I'm about to end this man's whole career
Aka “How the sausage is made”. Was really into this question, and this video answered it!
The way Drach narrates this video on how this ship came to be is awesome.
However hearing how the powers to be came to the design and construction has to be the most British thing i have ever heard.
But interesting none the less.
Yeah ... I look at such a big, powerful ship - and it's so hard to believe it was utterly destroyed.
.
It must have got the John Brown ("joan broon") men annoyed.
I used to say the same thing about the space shuttle.
Thanks for doing a video on explaining how the Hood was developed. Most historians miss this in their works.
Watching this video was such a blast, and it utterly obliterated any Hood related knowledge gaps.
It would have been interesting to have asked Admiral Jellicoe what his impressions of an Iowa would have been. What he liked and perhaps what he might not have liked about her.
Probably one of the best looking warships of that era. Great video, thanks Drachinifel
She was one of a kind 😊
Excellent work Drach - I’ve always had a soft spot for Hood.
283mm is a fractional inch size: 11-9/64"
Mind you, I've never heard of a previous naval gun intentionally made to 64ths, but when working with smaller mechanical objects, these fractional sizes are not unheard-of. A very comprehensive modern set of drill bits or collets for example, might have 64th sizes.
Very interesting research! What amazes me about battleship design. Is that once the all big gun battleship was built. Thinking about them became as thick as the ships main side armor. Also as swift as the ponderous pace of the machinery used to train the massive guns! Super dreadnoughts were big slow moving targets. Making them rather easy to hit. Armor was supposed to provide protection. Only the ship has to float, so the weight of armor is strictly limited. Meaning that the armor has to be carefully placed on the ship. So the destruction of HMS Hood was a classic example of why she was already obsolete when her hull was launched. The reason for this was simple enough. Big slow moving easy to hit targets. The speed of Hood, and similar fast battleships was an attempt to adress the issue. But with the large 40,000 ton displacement hull, Hood was the largest target to date. These ships were just too big. The fact was well demonstrated when hits from Prinze Eugen and Bismarck hit Hood's deck above the armor protection. Hood exploded rather violently. Hood's destruction was shortly followed by that of Bismarck. Leaving Prinze Eugen to return to port alone.
Heavy Cruisers thus became the defacto battleships serving on the front lines. So the big vulnerable battleships could be saved from destruction. Only the front lines was what a battleship was built to excel in battle. The big guns and heavy armor providing an expected advantage. One that failed to materialize.
As the twentieth century marched on. The operating speed of warships kept increasing. Making big slow super dreadnoughts unable to keep up. The giant guns were powerful, capable of inflicting massive damage. If they hit the target. Only the low rate of fire coupled with the ponderous pace of train. Made hitting small, fast agile targets rather difficult. The lighter guns used in the cruisers were better suited for battle. Even if many 8" guns didn't shoot much faster. They could be trained on target more quickly. Moreover cruisers were faster to build and far less expensive to replace. Big battleship guns got most of their use bombarding shore targets. Most naval battles involved small fast targets like aircraft. It's often been said that the aircraft carrier that made battleships obsolete. Only battleships had already been obsolete. Once the accuracy of naval gunfire substantially improved and the speed of most warships became greater than 30 knots. Allowing for numerous hits on any big slow moving target. As the loss of Hood demonstrated. Hits where there is no armor, can quickly be catastrophic.
The previous Hood videos are up there with my all time favorite Drac content. Keeping all that in mind makes the design & construction of Hood fascinating. 👍
*"Elegance isn't just for show"*
You have brought me here 11 months later
I've never heard any mention in any forum of HMS Hood's namesake, Admiral Samuel Hood.
IMO Adm. Jellicoe's reputation was unfairly besmirched as a result of the battle of Jutland with that glory-hound Adm. Beatty getting credit he didn't deserve.
The numbet of well-considered objections or changes that Adm Jellicoe asked for gives a lot of insight into how technically in tune he was with ship design and battle dynamics. Knowing little about him, he just became very impressive in my mind!!!
Alaska, Hood, where is our next Deep Draughtsman's Guide?
Drachinfel, in your opinion, might having the build revised to put the magazines below the shell rooms, have prevented the sinking of HMS Hood or at least slowed it down.
Superb set of photos there, thank you.
I like how they started the design with the idea to make a ship that wouldn't cover it's crew in water, and ended up making Hood, a ship often called "The Royal Navy's Largest Submarine" due to how wet her crew was.
Hood wasn't commissioned as a class of one, but as a class of her own.
The quick-sink class?
@@Paciat:
A few thousand tons of additional armour and better firing accuracy undoubtedly would have helped.
@@MonsieurPhilippe1 Yes, a better everything would be better.
I still think the Royal Navy would have done better to build all 4 of Admiral-class than bother with the Revenges.
Hindsight being 20-20, and fudging some years, the royal navy would be in a bit better spot for ww2.
The 'R' class had been laid down before the war. Three had been commissioned by the time of Jutland.
The 'Admiral' class were only laid down in September - November, 1916.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 Even in that case, I still think that the RN should have predicted the design direction of the world's navies following the QE Class, instead of taking a step backwards by choosing the Revenges. With hindsight it's obvious to see that speed was going to be the way forward, with the proof of the pudding being how Repulse and Renown performed.
@@waverleyjournalise5757 The 'R' class were part of the Anglo-German naval race. They were built as a development of the 'Iron Dukes' effectively as cheaper, coal fired, versions of the QEs, with the 21 knots of speed enabling them to form part of the battlefleet. They were converted to oil firing during construction, but were superior to any German capital ship, except arguably the Badens, which never saw action.
Why was 'speed the way forward?' The US Navy & the French Navy didn't seem to think so, with their fastest capital ships being 21 knots and 20 knots respectively for the next 20 years.
What do you think Renown & Repulse proved?
Wonderful piece as usual Drach. Thanks from Australia, sorry I didn't catch you down under (no pun intended).
Excellent, thank you. What this video shows is how Dreadnought design and development was still in its infancy in 1914, and there was no concensus about the way forward.
Jellicoe was much more concerned about the Battlecruiser force-and that was just the admiral in charge of them. Also ah yes another intel report dramatically overstating the power of the opponents causing something quite a ot nastier than what was going to be built(although the Mackensen was pretty nasty on paper as it was pretty much a German Kongo class).
with better armour than a Kongo
A beautiful ship sadly lost in battle
and also a beautiful shipfu. 10/10 Best tea drinker
Drach's best girl.
@@ph89787
He could do much, much worse. One of my favourites as well (both IRL and in-game).
@@ph89787 AL Hood has the Drach seal of approval
As Ted Briggs said. "A beautiful shop with a glass jaw." I think Drach's analysis from a couple of years ago makes sense. Hood got hit by a shell that penetrated below the belt.
@@mpetersen6 I wouldn't call a shot below the belt a glass jaw, it was such an unforeseen scenario in WW1 and yet happened 3 times at the Denmark Strait - first prize to Hood, but one of Bismarck's shells got stuck in Prince of Wales's keel and Wales's return flooded one of Bismarck's turbogenerator rooms. The Japanese even for a time carried out tests on 'diving shells' designed to fly underwater and strike ships below the belt.
Glass jaw is Courageous-levels of armour in my book.
The Hood was such a nice ship, shame about the design flaw of not taking bow wave dip into account when locating ammunition.
Q turrets were a somewhat dubious endowment anyway... statistically as they were generally near dead centre and the enemy salvo was targeted at dead centre Q turrets would be more likely on broadsides to take roof hits.. and in practice this happened .. again and again..
So..... You make the roof thicker on Q turrets, ALL Q turrets, then? (My ship has a bad case of Turrets?)
The bigger issue was having an extra magazine amidships. You could make the turret face and roof thicker without too much of a weight penalty, but not the belt.
Or wing turrets. Twice the vulnerability, less than half the useability because firing the turret on the far side meant concussing your own deck, nearby superstructure, lifeboats and maybe the crew in the other turret (edit: if the barrels are pointed a bit fore or aft towards the other turret which is also facing fore or aft towards the enemy). Imagine trying to use the sights mounted on the turret while getting gun blasted every 40 seconds! What I've read is that SOP in the RN was to not use the far turret but to turn it towards the enemy because of the thicker armour on the front. How useless is that?
@@scottgiles7546 The Agincourt has the worst case of Turrets I've ever seen!
Very interesting insights into the design process. The actual build process still fascinates.
Those constant changes to Hood's design during construction must have driven the shipyard engineers and workers crazy! Do you have any information on how much the changes delayed her completion and her cost?
Jellicoe is the hero here.
It is very interesting to see it in dock under construction, absulutely massive it was. Such a beauty too.
Thank you for these great construction pictures
I need to find more videos about this wonderful ship. I’ve never heard of her before but she sounds pretty cool.😂
Nice to see Hood covered. Honestly, all I ever knew about Hood was she was sunk by Bismarck.
I play world of warships legends and have been for 4 years strong , I own the hood ,Nelson, vanguard ,warspite, Cossack , late war Belfast ,London, Cheshire,Exeter just to name a few 😊
Utterly fascinating, thank you!
Thank you, Drachinifel.
Drach, thank you for this video.
I would like to see a video on the various types of sterns. Was there a reason that some ships had curved sterns, pointed sterns and flat sterns?
This was the first rum ration that I have finished. I enjoy this sort of history without so much time in the library. I have been a fan of "Hood" and the Nelrods since I was in high school in the late 60s. Question: What effect would the fifteen-inch guns of the "Vanguard" meant to the Royal Marines and Commandos in the Falkland's, had she still been available?
Absolutely brilliant video on Hood. I am a big fan of Naval Battles myself and it all started of me getting interested in the Denmark Strait. Brilliant video just like the vid where you showed a theory on Hood's final voyage
Fantastic video as always Drach! Please keep it up!
What an awesome video! Thank you so much.
He pronounced Govan correct! With only a minor pause for thought! Well done Drach!
Now I'm curious, how else would one pronounce it? Drach's way seems obvious to me. Go-van?
But can he do Milngavie?
@@AmosDohms in Scotland it is be pronounced more like Guh-van but without separation into two distinct syllables. The "o" is pronounced like "Government" rather than "Go". The "a" would be very soft as well, sounding closer to lower case "i" for some accents. It would not sound like Guv-Ann like the typically female name, and more like somewhere between Guhvin and Guvan. It actually does not sound unlike "Govern", if govern was pronounced lazily without care to distinguish the "r" sound.
Maybe some day he'll pronounce German stuff correctly too. I'll make my day.
@@AmosDohms oven but with a G in front.
I live across the river, 5 minutes from the god forsaken place! 😂
_"If any subordinate opposes me I will make his wife a widow, his children fatherless and his home a dunghill."_ *Lord Fisher*
I have no idea what I’m about to watch but I’m sufficiently hyped by the title.
Collage level expert dissertations. TY. Consistently authoritative and excellent presentations.
I had heard stories as child of Hoods literal rock star status. She was apparently adored over here in America and would always be a big thing when she made a port call here. If I remember correctly it was quite common for headlines to read something along the lines of "America surrenders to HMS Hood..."
Arizona vs Hood. Which blows up first? That bomb was made using a 16" armour piercing shell.
Absolutely! He’s usually deep diving into Excelsior class Star ships.
Very informative. Sad ending to a magnificent ship.
I like this add of the design process and additional construction documentation.
I wonder if the HMS Hood would even be revered above her peers today if it wasn't sunk by the Bismarck? The HMS Warspite for instance is well known in historical circles, but not the wider public like the HMS Hood and Bismarck are known. The same could be said for the USS Enterprise, how many people would even know of the ship if it wasn't for programs like 'Enterprise: Battle 360' for instance, the ships involved in the Battle off Samar being another example.
The first nuclear super carrier was christened Enterprise. And it was no accident that Gene Roddenberry chose Enterprise as the name for the hero ship in the original Star Trek. There’s a lot of institutional memory here.
Growing up as a landlocked boy in the Midwest, I knew about the Enterprise, long before the one in Star Trek.
Currently on vacation on the North Sea coast, just woke up and there is the right video from Drach ✌️
Next video: HMS Warspite-The Only True Legend 😂
I would have called it: HMS Warspite - Kicking Arse for Fun and Profit (But Mostly Fun)
Wasn't she relatively prominent in the "queen Elizabeth class battle damage history" video?
Just imagine what she would have been like with 8 18inch guns. Would have been a better match for Bismarck, though she/he would also have been 18 inch guns.
Turns out ship design is a lot like software development...the customer never knows what they want :P.
Sure, they know what they want - today. Tomorrow they want "just a little change", and next week they want you to stop work while the new boss rethinks the whole thing.
@@gregorywright4918And then a program management change due to upper management worrying that the program was going to possibly run over budget according to the money grubbing bean counters wanting immediate profits and the program objectives are completely overhauled and some program personnel cuts to make a profit this quarter at the cost of long term 'goals'.
There are HMS Hood designs on deviantart which are very interesting in their own right.
Hi Drachinifel. Love your stuff and wish I had time to watch it. This episode reminded me that I’d love to know why there was so much obsession with fitting torpedo tubes on Battleships? This puzzled me for years and it would be great to hear why they wanted to potentially compromise safety by having extra holes in the hill or extra explosives on deck, for a weapon we rarely if ever hear of battleships actually using. Maybe one for a q&a episode, or an episode on battleship auxiliary systems?
After Drach's excellent video of quite a while ago discussing how The Mighty Hood met her end, and now this design commentary; at long last I think I can no longer claim that it is too soon to discuss her sinking...
In true British stereotypical fashion and keeping Royal Navy fandom alive, it still hurts though!
Sunk cost 'fallacy' would be my best guess in that Hood was substantially built by the time Jutland happened and then the further tests and trials revealed further changes had to be made. As it was they got what looked like a very good ship out of it... and as Drach has gone over extensively Hood might've been a good ship with Bismarck just scoring a golden bb or her armor was compromised / weaker than thought and Bismarck just exposed that weakness... neither conclusion can be definitely proven.
edit: This was posted before coffee, so my bad on messing up the timeline.
It hadn't even been laid down when jutland happened
@@JevansUK
She was actually laid down ON THE DAY of Jutland.
Fighting an opponent 20 years newer than you with luck on her side... It was the worst coincidence.
@bkjeong4302 commonly reported but according to Ian Johnston, records of John Brown don't support it. John Roberts states the 31st may date only exists in one Admiralty document. So it could be a missed target date. Seems John Brown got go ahead in June and that's when a yard number was assigned.
@@bkjeong4302 Actually, no. She was laid down on 1 September, 1916.
Ironically, USS Mount Hood is named after an active volcano in Oregon named after Samuel Hood, also blew up with similar destruction and huge loss of life as HMS Hood.
Great video. I know you don't usually talk about sail, BUT, I have never been able to locate much of anything related to the First HMS Victory. The wreck was located a few years ago or I would not even heard of it at all. Would you consider a Video about her? Thanks