Talk:HMS Hood

message: Can someone tidy up the displacement? What are "long tons": have never heard of them? Surely this should be sth like:
"xxxxx tons (xxxxx metric tons)". Thanks, bigpad (talk) 08:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and what kind of tons are your "tons"? Long, short and metric are the three types that I'm familiar with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The same tons that have been used to describe warship displacements for centuries. If you can find an English-language contemporary reference that describes HMS Hood's displacement in anything other than tons, let me know, will you? --Pete (talk) 06:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not real interested in what was used contemporaneously, I need to describe them for the current audience. Beside I can't convert these tons to the other types without knowing how many pounds are in these tons of yours.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My tons? LOL! As I said, the same tons that have always been used. Do have any reference that shows anything else being used? Surely you aren't just making stuff up? --Pete (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

text: The Treaty introduced standard displacement, which was measured without most of the fuel and ammo aboard. There's an appendix somewhere in the treaty to specifies exactly how it's measured. It's been a long time since I wrote this, but since the ship was completed before the Treaty went into effect, the RN may not have been too fussed about computing standard displacement for her.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If I recall "standard displacement" also excluded boiler feed water, under the same logic as fuel in that the RN should not be penalised unfairly with the long distances their ships operated over for defence of the Empire and shipping. Describing the water in the torpedo protection system on British ships as boiler water was neither here nor there obviously.... GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: It says that Hood participated in the destructione of the french fleet in july 1940n only a week after the french surrender to germany, but France surrendered (at Foch's old railway wagon ´from november 1918, at the exact same place, the Compiegne-wood) on june 14th. So eighter the french fleet was destructed 4-5 weeks after the surrender or , the sinking of the french fleet happended in june. I'm no sure wich, but both "sinking of the french fleet" happened in june or it happened more like a month after the surrender. /Malinka70 forgot my password    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.32.226 (talk) 04:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no error: France surrendered officially on 25 June (armistice was signed on 22nd at Compiegne and came into effect three days later). bigpad (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cronological error , summer 1940 

message: There is a photograph available of HMS Hood taken when she arrived in Fremantle in 1924, it would be a PD image as it was taken and published in 1924. Gnangarra 13:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Smoke and fire from the explosion of a battleship's magazine may be vented somewhere else than the origin of the explosion as the magazines ended to be heavily armored. Photographs of the explosion of the USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor show a huge cloud of black smoke from the smoke stack when the explosion was actually in the forward magazine. Naaman Brown (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern theories on the sinking

message: The Modern theories section is enormously confusing because it lists theories that have been discounted by the evidence gained from looking at the wreck. It means that the reader has to spend effort working out which ones are valid and which not, which is crazy. Not going to get in a reversion war (see page history), but the whole section needs revising and the stuff that is years out of date removed or at least clearly distinguished. 212.159.44.170 (talk) 20:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Section badly needs rewrite

message: Just wondered if there should be a mention of the memorial on the side of Loch Eriboll?  --jmb (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Loch Eriboll

message: I have always been confused by this section of the article.
Outward like the walls of a pyramid, or outward like the sides of a shot glass?
Please see my detailed diagrams below.
[Bullet! Yay :) ]> \ <- armor ("shot glass" armor)
[Bullet! Yay :) ]> / <- armor ("pyramid" armor)
I ask because the latter would seem to present the armor at a better angle for penetration as range increases, while the former would seem to leave stuff below it exposed since the bottom is farther from the enemy. Which way was Hood's belt designed?
J.M. Archer (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armor belt angled outward? 

message: *Most Americans don't know that the British "purpose-built" is roughly "special-purpose" in American, so I'd prefer we reword it.  Which battlecruisers were completed after Hood? - Dank (push to talk) 01:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyediting 

message: Currently, the article states:
"When war with Germany was declared in September 1939, Hood was operating in the area around Iceland, protecting convoys from German attack."
Does this mean Hood was operating around Iceland when war was declared and then started defending convoys in that area? Or was war declared and Hood sent out to patrol?
Presumably she wasn't defending convoys at the declaration of war. JJJJS (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hood was already at sea when war was declared, but I've reworded things.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers, it makes more sense now. I wasn't familiar enough with the history to feel comfortable changing it. JJJJS (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outbreak of war 

message: It appears that the photo of Hood exploding was taken from the Bismark.  If this is true, it might be helpful to say so in the photo caption.  Also, in the photo, is that the Prince of Wales in the background? Cla68 (talk) 10:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense. Cla68 (talk) 06:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo of explosion

message: The photo image showing three guns on the POW has been “corrected” to say that it was taken near X turret. Previously the caption implied that it showed a forward turret trained as far aft as possible. I didn’t make the original statement or the correction, but I do think this is the A turret. I think everyone will agree that it can’t be B turret, because that one would only have two guns. Untrimmed versions of this same photo show the fourth gun, elevated to a position out of view in this cropped image, so we can be sure that this shows either A turret or X turret. The editor who changed the caption (stating in his edit summary that if this were A turret then the ship must be steaming away from the Hood) is wrong. While I agree that we can rule out the possibility that POW would be steaming away from Hood, the statement overlooks the possibility that the A turret is simply turned to point as far aft as possible, which it would be in heavy seas prior to actually engaging the enemy. Under such circumstances the X turret would probably be trained dead aft, and these guns seem to be pointing somewhat to port. Also, the very same untrimmed versions of the photo that reveal the fourth gun also reveal a major superstructure object (possibly the base of B turret) that would be in the way of these guns if they were to try to point dead aft. I hope that someone else will look at the untrimmed photo, it is easily available on sites about HMS Hood, and carefully consider the possibility that this is A turret with guns trained as far aft as possible on the port side of the ship.
207.30.62.198 (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be A turret, but only comparing a detailed photo or drawing of the area around either turret to match the ventilators(?) visible beneath the barrels will decide the question.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's A turret. Check the discussion at Battle of the Denmark Strait. Rumiton (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternatively, in the absence of sources declaring where the picture was taken from, just edit the caption to remove reference as to which turret. Average reader is probably satisifed with knowing from which ship it was taken. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need sources to tell us the sun rises in the east, and this situation is just as clear. We can and should be precise. Did you read the discussion at Battle of the Denmark Strait? Rumiton (talk) 14:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: the discussion you refer to makes no mention of sources. Policy says anything " likely to be challenged " should be supported by referencing and that the "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" the purpose being to "improv[e] the credibility of Wikipedia and show[] that the material is not original research." An assertion that it is A turret based on personal observation is OR. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If describing something as obvious when it is obvious is called original research, what shall we call demanding a source to tell us that the obvious is obvious? How about obstructionism and pedantry? Rumiton (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a featured article for which "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources". If this picture has been used in a book (or other work) then presumably it's been discussed or captioned and therefore can be sourced. I'm not suggesting it's not Hood or not the last picture or not from any specific part of PoW - I'm asking that editors don't make their own interpretations. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "last photo" probably shows A turret, not X turret of Prince of Wales 

message: But the article really could use a reference diagram. The wreck section would be so much easier to read with a simple schematic included.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.174.189 (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  It may just be the technical author in me 

message: Something to note: there is going to be a recovery operation to try and retrieve the bell soon. Should probably keep an eye out to see if it needs inclusion in here at some point. Telegraph article. Regards, Woody (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Took them a few years, but they recovered the bell. Parsecboy (talk) 11:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recovery of bell 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:HMS Hood (51) - March 17, 1924.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 24, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-05-24. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:HMS Hood (51) - March 17, 1924.jpg]]

message: I know that there's been some tension between this article and Admiral-class battlecruiser, but it is far from being resolved.  There's redundant and conflicting information out the wazoo.  In particular, the Admiral article lists the main secondary battery as 16 5/50 single mounts.  Yet apparently no ship of the class (ahem!) ever mounted more than 12.  And over time the entire complement was removed.  Neither fact is mentioned in the Admiral, and the first surely should be.  I would be quite happy to gut the Admiral article, removing everything except the justification for the class, the execution of the class (i.e. single ship needing modification), and a reference to this article. Also, there really should be some description here of the refits. Dmforcier (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary armament 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on HMS Hood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080708214655/http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2006/20062616.htm to http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2006/20062616.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on HMS Hood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515050708/http://www.memorials.inportsmouth.co.uk/southsea/naval.htm to http://www.memorials.inportsmouth.co.uk/southsea/naval.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041204195722/http://www.warship.org/no21987.htm to http://www.warship.org/no21987.htm
*Added archive https://archive.is/20131018060342/http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/sitecore/content/home/about-the-royal-navy/organisation/life-in-the-royal-navy/history/historic-ships/hms-hood-1920 to http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/sitecore/content/home/about-the-royal-navy/organisation/life-in-the-royal-navy/history/historic-ships/hms-hood-1920
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Where is the evidence that the Hood was perceived to be invincible? I've heard this idea passed about before, but it seems off to me: it contradicts what I know about inter-war RN thinking, and it sounds a bit too close to the similar myth about the RMS Titanic. 94.4.116.24 (talk) 11:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: A Google search for ""invincible hms hood"" produces only low quality hits on this phrase, i.e. none from reputable military histories. It strikes me as likeliest to originate in propaganda, either British before she was sunk ("we've got an invincible warship") or German after ("we've sunk their 'invincible' warship"). In a similar way the term "pocket battleship" was propaganda that I suspect was most useful in helping Britain spin the destruction of a heavy cruiser as a more material loss to Germany than it really was. Tirailleur (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invincibility 

message: I question whether, as the article asserts, Hood "remained the largest and most powerful warship in the world for 20 years after her commissioning". She wasn't the most powerful warship in the world beyond 1920, when Nagato / Mutsu of the IJN, with their 8 x 16" guns, came along, closely followed by the US Colorados in 1921. Hood wasn't even the most powerful warship in the RN after 1923, when Nelson and Rodney rocked up with 9 x 16" guns. Who actually made this claim? Meanwhile I have edited the text as this claim would appear at best to be unsubstantiated OR or a non-noteworthy opinion. Tirailleur (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You're arguing facts, but I was talking public perceptions, ignorant of the fine details.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then please produce a cite for the claim that the public thought she was invincible. I don't mean a cite that she was, but a cite to a source that authoritatively states that the public thought she was. Tirailleur (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Taylor has a extensive quote from a Portuguese newspaper that begins "The great Hood, the most powerful warship in the world".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: So what? That's a clearly non-noteworthy opinion. I can produce newspaper quotes that describe HMS Belfast as a battleship, and any tracked vehicle as a "tank". Is that the one and only citation? Tirailleur (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It speaks to the public perception and nothing in the quote is factually incorrect, unlike most popular media today.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "Nothing...is factually incorrect"? You mean apart from the central claim that Hood, with 8 x 15-inch guns and 15,360lbs broadside weight, was somehow more powerful than Nagato (1920) with 8 x 16-inch guns and 18,000lbs broadside weight, or Colorado (1921) with 8 x 16-inch guns, or Nelson (1923) with 9 x 16-inch guns and 21,375lbs broadside weight - 40% more than Hood? It's bizarre and wholly false FGS.86.155.93.46 (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the reality, not the public perception. Don't forget that Hood was 5,000 tons bigger, which plays a part in that perception.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Most powerful" 

message: Somewhere since this article reached featured status, the presentation in the infobox of the armament changed. Instead of the more specific type of gun "BL 15 inch Mark 1" - we just now have the link piped down to just its calibre. Is this a case of changing views on how the infobox should be structured, or minor edits along the way changing the format? GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That's me realizing that the precise mark of gun isn't really necessary in the infobox as it supposed to be a summary of the ship's characteristics, not a full and complete listing of them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  There still seems to be some inconsistency - whether it's "15 inch" or "15-inch". GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  change in format 

message: I found a free use Geograph image of Hood’s bell: https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/6641531 Implacable18 (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of Hood’s bell 

message: I have been told about a man called Dennis Edward Collins that was a radio man on the ship, my friends grandad,  can anyone confirm? Been looking and researching for him for hours now 🙄, hope someone can help please 🙂 2A02:C7D:F829:1200:5543:337C:CA7E:493A (talk) 03:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone know ? 

message: There is an inconsistency in the date the Hood was commissioned into the Royal Navy as the 15th of May when official British admiralty documents, list of commission, dockings in the Hood's ship log book which put her 1st recorded commission as the 29th of March 1920
The list of Hood commissions can be found in The Battlecruiser H.M.S HOOD" by Bruce Taylor 150.143.193.154 (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hood Commission date 

message: I dont have a reference here, but I have read that Ballard's observsation of the wreck of the Hood suggest that it is more likely that it was sunk by the Prince Eugen, not the Bismark. I have further read that both the initial reports and ongoing fiction to the contrary are nothing but propaganda - it would not look good to have a battleship like the Hood sunk by a "mere" cruiser. 2001:8003:E40F:9601:9D79:A255:911C:8514 (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an extraordinary claim. It will require extraordinary sources. BusterD (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Hood was sunk by Bismarck thanks to a Golden BB shot below her armour belt which happen to cook off 3 magazines all at the same time 195.213.66.52 (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hood sunk by Prince Eugen, not the Bismark