Hood gets a proper refit - now what?

[alpha3]

Scenario is this - as dark as the clouds of war may have appeared in the days leading to WWII, instead of pulling HMS Renown in for the exhaustive refit she got in 1936, the Brits take a different route and drydock HMS Hood instead.

They expend the same amount of material, effort and energy on Hood, instead of Renown. This isn't intended to re-hash the many valid reasons the Brits couldn't, or were loathe to have Hood unavailable at the time. The point of this is - that they DO roll the dice.
Instead of keeping her at sea, the Admiralty decides to address Hood's shortcomings. To properly update Hood extensively, instead of Renown, during that same time frame. Maybe Renown still gets a bit of minor spiffing up, but Hood is the one that goes under the knife for the kind of updating everyone generally agrees was sorely needed. Different armor, updated targeting and fire control, new superstructure/compartments to better handle punishment from naval gunfire of the era.

In the 1936 refit, Renown was changed a lot. She got the updated fire control, a mostly new superstructure, funnels, guns, masts, some added armor. I'm not saying this would have guaranteed a different outcome for Hood necessarily, but it certainly begs the question. I'm betting she doesn't sink at the Denmark Strait. Instead of blowing to bits in the first few minutes, I think Admiral Holland gets the turn to port accomplished that he had begun, brings Hood's rear turrets to bear, and lets fly with some 15'' salvos. If Prinz Eugen gets hit by one or two of these big shells, does Lutjens move to break off right away? An undamaged or slightly damaged Bismarck can still keep the wolves away from an injured Prinz. Besides Hood, Lutjens knows he still has Prince of Wales to contend with. Quirky turret problems or not, she's still not toothless. A damaged Hood may be retreating behind the stouter POW to lick her wounds, but she's still angrily shooting at the German ships.

I think Hood needs help, though; Holland sends Hood away, with an escort perhaps, but out of the fight. Transfers his flag to POW, and shadows the Germans until Tovey can get close or the Germans make good their escape, more likely.

[alecsandros]

At 16-18km range, every part of Hood's belt was vulnerable to 38cm fire, at most conceivable obliquities.
Unless your thoretical upgrade would also have changed the side belt(s), Hood would still be sunk, provided the battle follows the same steps as the historycal DS did.

PoW scored hits on Bismarck only while the German BB fired on Hood. As soon as the 38cm guns were directed towards PoW, no more hits were obtained.

[RobertsonN]

Offord's testimony in the 2nd inquiry, was that a 1600 lb 15 in shell with an MV of 2721 ft/s could penetrate 10.5 in of armor with the Bismarck 40 deg ahead of Hood's beam at 16500 yds. The actual 1760 lb 2690 fps shell would have achieved rather more, about 11.3 in IIRC. As for the 7 in belt, Okun's analysis for 20000 yds and 37 deg predicted that the shell would turn towards the normal to such an extent that it would end up travelling 2 deg upwards, and thus away from the protective deck. Something similar would probably be the case at 16500 yds, where the angle of fall was less. So, IMHO, the Hood had a weak immune zone from about 16000 yds to 23000 yds (with the enemy at least 40 deg before or aft the beam), the latter where the aof exceeds 20 deg and thus a richochet is no longer likely. The Hood's turrets had 300 deg fields of fire, so 40 deg was not restricting her offensive capabilities. However, the POW had only 270 deg fof, and that was a disadvantage of employing such disparate ships together. That 40 deg was an important caveat in Offord's evidence: it seems unlikely that the RN would offer a ship for combat that they believed was vulnerable at virtually all ranges and target angles.
Even in the optimistic RN assessment for a KGV against Tirpitz in 1942, it was advised to keep the enemy either at least 30 deg forward or aft of the beam, to guard against 'super penetration of the German shell'.
The Renown's horizontal protection did not benefit much from her last major refit: the protection was increased over the secondary mags (to 4.5 in) and both forward and aft IIRC. On the other hand, it was considerably improved in the 1925/6 refit. Unless the Hood retained 14-4 in, she too would not have had much greater deck thicknesses due to the large area to be armored. Modern machinery would have saved perhaps up to 2000 tons, but improved AA, fire control and auxiliary machinery (the weight of the latter was much higher in WWII ships than for those of the Hood era) would have accounted for some of this.

[alecsandros]

Not to mention Hood's armored belt quality was of WW1 vintage, with at least 10-15% less resistance to perforation than contemporary WW2 BB armor, AND the fact the 38cm shells performed very well in various obliquities.
Moreover, the D/T ratio favored the 38cm shell, and only a narrow band of Hood's armored belt was 12" thick.

At 0* target angle (perfect parallel courses), the 38cm guns had, theoretically, the capability of perforating Hood's maximum armor belt at up to 30km.

[RobertsonN]

The Hood had less potential to benefit from the kind of refit Renown received because it already had small tube boilers and geared turbines whereas Renown originally had large tube boilers and direct drive turbines. Additionnally, in Hood the emphasis was on vertical protection, whereas in Renown (and even Repulse) there was a closer balance between vertical and horizontal protection.
Refitted or not, the Hood could not have engaged the Bismarck anywhere near on the beam, but 40 deg before or aft the beam appeared to offer a fair margin of safety. This was a not very satisfactory situation but in May 1941 the UK possessed only two battleships with the speed and protection to engage the Bismarck, and a cessation of Atlantic convoys, however temporary, would have weakened Britain's overall strategic position.

[19kilo]

Converting Hood to an aircraft carrier while still under construction would have been interesting.

[paulcadogan]

Dunmunro had found and posted (in the Hood forum some time back) these drawings of two proposed reconstruction armour schemes for Hood (he said he found them in "Ensign 7". Would a shell be able to penetrate 12-inches of armour and have enough energy to punch through the other layers to reach the magazine without exploding first? How does each scheme measure up?



On another note, many seem to look a Hood purely from the defensive standpoint. A reconstructed Hood would have been much more potent offensively with an Admiralty FC table, and similar optical equipment to PoW. Better equipment ( including a good DCT rather than a vibrating, wind-swept spotting top) and maybe the target error might not have been made and her gunnery, which was historically better than PoW's at the very outset and with her Dreyer table limitations out of the picture, might have made things very uncomfortable for Bismarck.

Less British concern about closing the range rapidly to protect the decks, might have meant opening fire with the A-arcs open (still inclined and closing at a slower rate) - again, more dangerous for Bismarck.

Improve Hood's characteristics and you could very well change the possible outcome - as the laws of probability dictate.

[RobertsonN]

The only point that might cast doubt on the authenticity of these drawings is the fact that the original broad forward engine room is shown and any refit would likely have included new, more compact, machinery and more compartmention. On the other hand, they do show new broader and higher bulges as expected. It is not clear if the thicknesses of the main armor deck given refer to armor thickness or armor + backing plate thickness.
One problem with both schemes is that they leave the forward barbettes more vulnerable because of the removal of the 5 in upper armor belt. If this were retained and the main armored deck reduced 1 in to balance weights, then Scheme B could be modified to have 3 in (mach.)/4 in (mag.) on the flat with 4 in (mach.)/5 in (mag.) on the scarps (with 1 in on the flat above it). This arrangement would be not unlike that of the Bismarck and might have a broader immune zone, through the inner edge coming in more than the outer edge, than either of the schemes shown here. The 5 in belt was not without function. It would decap shells and, provided the enemy was a fair amount fore or aft of the beam, reduce the angle of fall, thus making a richochet on the deck more likely.

[RF]

Scenario is this - as dark as the clouds of war may have appeared in the days leading to WWII, instead of pulling HMS Renown in for the exhaustive refit she got in 1936, the Brits take a different route and drydock HMS Hood instead.

I think Hood needs help, though; Holland sends Hood away, with an escort perhaps, but out of the fight. Transfers his flag to POW, and shadows the Germans until Tovey can get close or the Germans make good their escape, more likely.

Basically we are looking at the discussion in the thread ''What if Hodd hadn't blown up'' which I started some five years ago.....

If the Hood didn't blow up then the whole dynamics of the battle changes, and the longer it lasts the longer the Bismarck is exposed to battle damage.

If the Prinz Eugen is severly damaged or immobilised, then I think Lutjens has to abandon that ship because if Bismarck tries to shepherd Prinz Eugen at reduced speed then Bismarck faces attack from POW, Hood, Norfolk, Suffolk and up to six destroyers. Bismarck has to keep fully mobile.

[RobertsonN]

Yes, I agree. The longer the battle lasts, the more damage there will be all round, which is much more of a disadvantage to the Germans, because of the greater distance to their bases and the more reinforcements that the British can bring up.
A fully refitted Hood, irrespective of the details, would have increased the probability of a long action through (1) more armor, therefore less likely to blow up; (2) better F/C, therefore more likely to hit the enemy.

[RF]

A fully refitted Hood, irrespective of the details, would have increased the probability of a long action through (1) more armor, therefore less likely to blow up; (2) better F/C, therefore more likely to hit the enemy.

I fully concur.

One aspect not raised so far, but again I think is relevant to this thread, is the fact that it would be helpful to the Hood if Holland had correctly identified his target initially and Hood opened fire on Bismarck and not Prinz Eugen.
At the start of the action the goal has to be to land hits on Bismarck to degrade its fighting capacity. However well refitted the Hood is, that is the best strategy for Holland. Firing on Prinz Eugen at that point was a distraction. Later on perhaps some fire can be switched to the German cruiser, for example the secondary batteries if in range, but that would be to slow the Prinz down so that it can be tackled by Norfolk/Suffolk.

[paulcadogan]

One aspect not raised so far, but again I think is relevant to this thread, is the fact that it would be helpful to the Hood if Holland had correctly identified his target initially and Hood opened fire on Bismarck and not Prinz Eugen.

It WAS raised...

On another note, many seem to look a Hood purely from the defensive standpoint. A reconstructed Hood would have been much more potent offensively with an Admiralty FC table, and similar optical equipment to PoW. Better equipment ( including a good DCT rather than a vibrating, wind-swept spotting top) and maybe the target error might not have been made and her gunnery, which was historically better than PoW's at the very outset and with her Dreyer table limitations out of the picture, might have made things very uncomfortable for Bismarck.

Anyway, no worries...here's what Hood might have looked like with a KGV-type bridge (like Valiant and QE), but with sixteen 5.25's as secondaries, which combined with PoW's might have been quite a nuisance to Prinz Eugen had the battle progressed:

[RF]

It WAS raised...

Better equipment ( including a good DCT rather than a vibrating, wind-swept spotting top) and maybe the target error might not have been made and her gunnery,

With respect I believe the target mis-identification was made by Holland himself on the basis of Suffolk's reports stating that Bismarck was lead ship, reports made prior to the Eugen being placed ahead of Bismarck.

Whilst we don't know what Hoods' spotting top reported I hadn't taken the target mis-identification down to any deficiency in Hood itself, or assumed that a better equipped Hood would have confirmed the real Bismarck prior to fire being opened. Particulary as both German ships also initially mis-identified their targets as cruisers, to my mind an even bigger error given the disparity in size between cruisers and battleships.

[paulcadogan]

With respect I believe the target mis-identification was made by Holland himself on the basis of Suffolk's reports stating that Bismarck was lead ship, reports made prior to the Eugen being placed ahead of Bismarck.Whilst we don't know what Hoods' spotting top reported I hadn't taken the target mis-identification down to any deficiency in Hood itself, or assumed that a better equipped Hood would have confirmed the real Bismarck prior to fire being opened. Particulary as both German ships also initially mis-identified their targets as cruisers, to my mind an even bigger error given the disparity in size between cruisers and battleships.

According to Ted Brigg's account, the target misidentification was recognized by the spotting top personnel:

Suddenly, a report from the spotting top made Holland realize he had blundered. "We're shooting at the wrong ship. Bismarck is on the right, not the left."

I certainly don't know how significant were the differences in optical capability between Hood & PoW, except that PoW made the correct identification much earlier and her G.O. McMullen (who had been Hood's G.O. and had just transferred to PoW, so should know) in his letter comments on it;

I remember Skipwith and I discussing the leading ship, and either he or I said "Looks like Strasburg" in other word"Prince Eugen" looked like a "big ship" but "Bismarck" even at that range looked much bigger, hence our disregard of Hood's original concentration signal to engage the "left hand ship".

On this point, Hood had an old fashioned open spotting top with the wind probably roaring through it whereas we had a modern enclosed Director Control Tower with the most modern large optical instruments."

http://www.hmshood.com/history/denmarks ... letter.htm

So I'm not disputing the source of the error, just that maybe the error might have been picked up well before fire was opened had Hood been better equipped.

On the matter of the German misidentification - thanks to erroneous German intelligence reports, Lutjens was under the misconception that the heavy units of the Home Fleet were still at Scapa - or at least a long way off. That, combined with the high speed of the British approach and the fact that cruisers had already been encountered, was a strong suggestion for cruisers. Just goes to show how confused things can get!

[RF]

Two points come to my mind reading your above post Paul.
Firstly with respect to POW Kennedy comments that initially the two German ships were thought to be Bismarck and Tirpitz, followed by a debate on Hoods' signal about firing on the lead ship as Captain Leach was sure Bismarck was on the right. The key point seems that the bridge officers couldn't view both ships together with binoculars because they were to far apart. With respect to Hoods' spotting top report quoted I note the present tense used which suggests to me it was made after Hood opened fire - if so at what point did the spotting top make the identification, at that point or before, and if before why was no report made?

Coming back to the Germans I would add that for several hours before Hollands' force was sighted the Prinz Eugens' sonar had been picking up the noise of the screws of heavy ships approaching. This was reported to Bismarck, so Lutjens would have had some inkling that the Luftwaffe reports could be wrong or out of date. It isn't clear whether the sonar detectors on Bismarck were also picking up this noise.