From: Stephen Harker <phs172m@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>
Subject: Re:  Re: Alaska Class Cruisers
Organization: Physics Department
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:33:28 GMT


From Stephen Harker <phs172m@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>

In article <Bz06Eq.E8M@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>,     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil> writes:
> 
> From     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
> 
> Charles Meo writes:
> #>From     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
> #>Be that as it may, the "same main battery" is not true. Rather it's only
> #>true for HOOD. RENOWN and REPULSE had only 6 15 inch guns each, when
> #
> #Umm, HOOD had 8 x 15 if I remember my Airfix model correctly..
> 
> I never said she didn't. HMS HOOD has 8 x 15, the same as contemporary
> British battleships. RENOWN and REPULSE had 6 x15.
> 
> #Much armour was sacrificed, but put back later, with the exception of the
> #decks, which was of course how she was lost. Consequently HOOD was rather
> #slow for a BC at 28 knots because of the extra weight (tacked on after
> #Jutland while HOOD was abuilding).
> 
> HOOD was laid down on either 31 May or 1 June 1916, I forget which, but
> it was at the same time of the battle. Consequently she was a better
> candidate for design upgrade than RENOWN/REPULSE. She was probably as
> thin-skinned originally as they were.

	Our news service has been pretty slow recently so I apologise if
the following have been raised by anyone else.  These comments come mainly
Maurice Northcott's book details of which are given later. To address one
point raised by Charles Meo:  the maximum speed developed by the HOOD on
trials was 32.07 knots, the value quoted of 28 knots was I think
appropriate just pre WW2 when a lot extra weight was being carried.  I have
seen references that give 29.5 knots after her last refit in 1941 in which
the old secondary armament was replaced with a HA battery and some splinter
armour removed.

	Ed is pretty correct on the early design of HOOD, though TIGER is a
better comparison as the RENOWN/REPULSE were even worse in armour design
than both TIGER and HOOD.  The following table taken from Northcott's book
might be interesting as a comparison of battlecruiser armour designs. 
The figures are in tons for the final ship design (as launched).

		   Seydlitz   Inflexible   Princess Royal   Tiger   Hood
Armour		    5,200      2,020          3,900         4,750   6,750
Protective Plate    2,400      1,200          2,300         2,300   7,500
Total		    7,600      3,220          6,200         7,050  14,250

This I think illustrates a design factor in the intended use of the ships. 
As Ed said in a much earlier post the British did not intend their
Battlecruisers to fight other capital ships.  In practice they did so and
their lighter armour caused problems.  HOOD was rapidly upgraded in armour
until in the end she had about the same amount of armour and protective
plate as the QUEEN ELIZABETH class, though on a much larger hull.  Again
Northcott give a good account of this process, unfortunately the final
design was not sufficient and that is why her sisters were cancelled.

	With this in mind it explains the British problems at the start of
WW2 as their governments had put off modernisation of the battlefleet.  At
the start of the war they only had RODNEY and NELSON as modern designs
(though some there were some intended improvements for them) and WARSPITE
that had finished modernisation.  QUEEN ELIZABETH and VALIANT finished
modernisation during the war.  Of the battlecruisers RENOWN had had an
extensive modernisation and REPULSE a less extensive one.  This is a far
cry from the US let alone the Japanese situation.  Furthermore they had
obsolescent naval aircraft by any standards, however the Italians and
Germans were worse off in this regard and had poor airforce/naval
cooperation at first so the British came out well.

	It is just as well that most airforces believed that high altitude
level bombers were of use against battleships like Mitchell. If the Germans
and Italians had entered the war with good torpedo carrying aircraft the
British would have had much greater problems.  However they suffered from
the same problems with the RAF control of the naval aircraft design during
the interwar years, nor did coastal command have effective torpedo
aircraft for some time either.

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------

	Hood, Man O' War 6, Maurice Northcott
	Arms & Armour Press (Originally Bivouac Books 1975)

-- 
Stephen Harker			phs172m@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Monash University		Baloney baffles brains: Eric Frank Russell

Newsgroups: sci.military