Model Boat Mayhem

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9   Go Down

Author Topic: HMS Hood  (Read 59235 times)

MartinH-K

  • Guest
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #100 on: March 21, 2009, 08:57:58 pm »

Please forgive me if I keep 'banging on' about this but what I'm building is a boat (actually three boats that connect together) that happens to look like HMS Hood. At this size, I have to be able to manouver as well as a near 30ft boat does. Once I have the engines in, I will calculate true scale speed and mark the throttle accordingly- be a bit silly moving this thing at a speed where water skiing becomes possible! At scale, that would be about 100kts+!!! :o Beyond the 'scale mark' is my insurance margin. My 'get out of trouble' speed. I plan to ballast her so that, at scale speed her quarterdeck digs in (though NOT as much) as the real Hood's did. At full speed (not scale) and in emergency only, I still want the quarterdeck to stay relatively dry.  :-))
Logged

TCC

  • Guest
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #101 on: March 22, 2009, 03:18:27 pm »

Jeez Martin, you'e crazy!  %%

What do the neighbours think?  :-)

If I was making that, I'd have done like you've done so far but given it a coat or two or glass resin and got some sheets of cloth and laid that on... and in. Someone much earlier mentioned a credit card.. yes, that's the technique. Then you're outer skin of fibre-cloth would help support the weight. And while I was at the resin stage, I'd mix the resin with a powder, (Talc for instance) and I'd use that as 'filler' and flair in any curves and striaghten any wrongs. The good point to resin/talc filler is it's cheap and the more ratio of talc, the easier to sand.

But in saying I'd use 'cloth' above, I'm saying that in case you're skint. I'd go with chopped strand mat for this as it'd be a bad show to 'loose the battle for want of a nail'. I don't think you can make this hull strong enough!! Those joins will also have to be belt & braces... have you supported bow and stern and sat in it yet? Am I wrong in thinking that would be 'The Way' to test her?

Engines? Deffo electric... any leaks and you'll gas yourself. Have you put me down as a beneficary yet?  {-)

The motive power will choose itself as money will be the chooser.. it's all well & good wanting 4 lift motors with the neccessary 'thisses' and a 'thats' and 4 of 'the others' but if all you have in the budget is for one lawn mower engine... well you'll be seeing mower parts in your future. What are you going to do Re: a propellor shaft(s)?

I'd love to be there on launching day! Where do you live?
Logged

MartinH-K

  • Guest
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #102 on: March 22, 2009, 05:09:59 pm »

I never said ANYTHING about being sane. My wife thinks I'm nuts but then... she also admits it looks like a boat now.
Some of the early pictures will show the cloth and resin method that I've used on the base. I have sat in her just supported at bow and stern- popped a seam but that was all and easily fixed- that's why the sides of the center section are as yet unpainted. I'm leaning more and more toward electric engines- vibration issues as the main motive though I will probably use a single petrol outboard (inside) for her first wet test in May. No... I have NOT put you down as a beneficiary but, nice try.
I live in Bristol. %)
Logged

TCC

  • Guest
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #103 on: March 23, 2009, 04:34:53 pm »

Hi martin
glad there's a bit of resin impregnated cloth along her bottom. I'd have built her different than you... I'd have just used a rough play/hardboard skin as a base for several layers of fibre-glass and treat it like a big canoe wiith frames and a structure atop. Matter of fact, our kids canoe is a dead ringer for a bismarck/tirpitz hull!

When considering motive power, I hadn't given any thought to the fuel and saftey of the fuel, I think you'll HAVE to go with electrics. [petrol? enclosed space? other electrics inside her?]

When you install the outboard, is that going in the rear section? Would you make that 3rd 'aft' section sealed off completely from the 'crew space'? I would...

... and if I had to use petrol as a motiv power, I'd fix a CO2 fire extinguisher next to the aft bulkhead of the crew section with the nozzle pointing into the engine/fuel tank bay and seal it off completely. Then if there's a fire back there, I'd simply set it off and allow it to fill back there with CO2. But, as goes without saying, you'd have t be careful with these things.. or I could get my power tool. :-)

Won't you have to balnce the propellor on the outboard? Won't a uneven propellor shake the boat apart? It'll definitely be too noisy in there for a human to sail comfortably. You'd have to have rubber-dampened fittings and sound-proofing stapled to the insides

I think eventually, you'll have to get hold of one of those granny schooters that wizz round shopping ceentres, voila, a mated battery->speed control->'on/off' switch->motor all in the one. Just get a used one.

Will you turn the turrets by hand?  I would, I'd split them into 2 natural groups of A & B and X & Y. I'd then link them so as you turned b, it moved a. I'd then make a lever to move them from the 'crew space'. [AKA 'the seat' :-)] That way, you control both fore and aft groups independantly as this is hard to do for anything other than 90 abeam.

Have you a crew of helpers? How do you man-handle her when you aim to go sailing? I'd have thought operating her would need at least 2... and sailing her will be a quite an intensive affair.

Have you got someone to film that initial launch? Priceless... you HAVE to show that on here.

I think your certifyable myself. :-))
Logged

MartinH-K

  • Guest
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #104 on: March 23, 2009, 07:19:36 pm »

You are REALLY after those power tools, aren't you!!! ok2
As I said I'm leaning more and more toward electric as time rolls on but to take the other points... the granny wagon idea is mega!!! :o I'll look into that.
Indeed, the engine compartment IS in the stern with strengthened bulkheads that are three times the thickness of those I've used in any other section.
I AM going for the mechanical hand turning method of turret control though I hadn't thought about slaving one to another...
As she comes in three parts, loading is easier than it might be. When I designed her, I thought a lot about eventual 'all up' weight which is why I uesed braced plywood. I didn't go for fibreglass for two reasons... expensive and I knew "xxxxx" all about applying it. <:( What it comes down to is that it only takes two people to lift each section on and off a racked trailer. The same two people who will crew her. %% Another issue that I considered quite early in the build concerned the Hood's super-structure layout. Looking at it and the cockpit position, seeing out (especially forward!) might be a bit of a problem. Eventually, I will have up to six camera's for cctv but until I can get that sorted (some time next year), I will have a periscope that looks out through the bridge windows. Port and starboard views including P and S quarters is not a problem as I can see through the 5.5in gun positions. If I'd built her for her 1941 configuration, this wouldn't have been possible. The 'rear gunner' face astern and will have similar views and similar solution. You won't be able to see the periscopes as they will rise through the bridges but no further. :}
Currently, I have no one to film the launch. :((
Logged

Hagar

  • Guest
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #105 on: March 24, 2009, 06:55:35 pm »

If you need some one to film the maiden voyage, why not try the local TV, whats that BBC Bristol? Also I'm sure there will be quite a crowd of guy from the forum.
How far off is the launch date?
Logged

MartinH-K

  • Guest
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #106 on: March 24, 2009, 09:20:43 pm »

Strange you should say that... I'm in touch with Points West abou it as we speak... launch is schedules for 16 May. %%
Logged

Walter Cooper

  • Guest
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #107 on: March 26, 2009, 04:21:31 am »

Hello Martin,your moving right along,looking great.Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the motors. :-) Not trying to hijack your thread, <*<  but did you guys ever see this 30 footer? After all,you may meet him on the high seas LOL  %%  Cheers Walter http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1902169/posts
Logged

MartinH-K

  • Guest
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #108 on: March 30, 2009, 08:20:31 pm »

From this weekend's work...
'Railings 3' was NOT an outstanding success but... it's fixable.
They are made with soft iron nails. I have tapped the shaft and made three groves. I then used craft wire... I cut myself! <:(
As they are nails, they have no groove so... I inserted the head end into my drill and slowly screwed them in that way. %%
I put the wire on afterwards! The effect is quite pleasing I think...
Logged

TCC

  • Guest
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #109 on: March 31, 2009, 03:11:34 pm »

Hiya martin
You should spend 50 at Tiranti on some RV 101 rubber, white metal and resin and learn how to cast. Do it now at the start as the earlier you learn, the sooner you'll be able to knock out these repetetive parts and do it quickly and easily... plus if you're a good modellor, they'll be true replicas of the original bits.

FYI, the ships rails went through each stanction, not wrapped around.

Marty, it's not the end of the world and the size of the thing will still impress people but I think you could have made it so much better. And if you get into the white metal casting, you can substitute lead and resin for WM for costs basis.

Don't forget, you've all the secondary armaments to make, the bollards, fairleads, deck hatches, davits, anchors, vents, searchlight, armament, etc, etc. If you learn to make moulds, you can easily cast these repetetive fittings.

WM and resin casting is not that difficult. Let us know if I can help with advice.

cheers

p.s your volunteers is getting along with your big ensign as we speak. ;-) I did see the hand-painted versions and they were like my little versions, you can see the places where she'd used a freshly charged brush ad the lines weren't stright. I've told her, use a big roller over the paper and cut the paper up lke a stencil.

p.p.s. I've got the clips out and will take a pic later and send it on.

Logged

MartinH-K

  • Guest
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #110 on: March 31, 2009, 07:03:06 pm »

Thanks for that... If money hadn't become an issue, I would do exactly what you suggest but... I'm running out of both funds and time and I still have to buy the engines! Really looking forward to seeing the ensigns. It's entirely possible that the secondary armarment will be mocked up for the time being and be made properly next winter. %)
Logged

Edward Pinniger

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 531
  • Location: Berkshire, UK
    • Plastic Ship Kit Previews
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #111 on: April 01, 2009, 10:18:41 am »

This is just my personal opinion, based on my own experience with (much smaller and non-crewed!) R/C models.  But If I were you I'd concentrate on getting the working and technical side of the build sorted out - including the engines/motors, ballast, crew space, etc. - before starting work on fine details like handrails. I've found this is a good idea with any size of powered model, but with a crewed model designed to dismantle into 3 sections it's particularly important. Smaller parts are very easily damaged when doing work like this and in particular you might well end up needing to remove or cut through previously built details and superstructure in order to install components or get at the interior of the hull.

I have to say I agree with TCC about the railings - a working model of HMS Hood in this scale has the potential to be awe-inspiring and it's a shame to compromise on a highly visible area like this. Buying ready-made brass stanchions would be prohibitively expensive (there are literally hundreds needed), what I'd probably try is casting copies of turned brass stanchions in white metal. White metal stanchions in smaller scales can be easily damaged, but in 1/35 scale they're probably OK. The metal for casting isn't too expensive, the mould rubber is fairly pricey (about 25 for a largeish tin) but the moulds can be reused indefinitely (unlike resin casting moulds). Like TCC I'd recommend the same method for making the fittings (cast copies of a master scratchbuilt in styrene, wood etc.)

It looks like you're making very good progress with the superstructure and turrets, though! (What materials have you used - in particular, how did you form the turrets and 4" gun shields?). But again, unless everything's designed to be easily removable, I'd wait until the hull and working parts have been sorted out before doing much more!
Logged

MartinH-K

  • Guest
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #112 on: April 01, 2009, 10:35:21 am »

All VERY good points and most of which I have (or will) be able to run with. My plan is to have her in the water in about 6-7 weeks time to test handling with the engines etc. I anticipate about another TWO years before I get the fine detail on so this is not a rush job from that perspective and I will use the mould idea as I need it. For the moment only, I'm sticking with the railing method I have simply because I can do it quickly and its VERY cheap. Making stanchions and other fittings is a job for next winter in front of the telly! :D The comments and suggestions are really useful so keep them coming.
Logged

TCC

  • Guest
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #113 on: April 01, 2009, 04:00:38 pm »

Hiya Martin
I agree with Edward about the timing on the railings, these have always been the last thing I've put on a ship as they're ther most prominent and easily bent. Maybe it's different in your big scale?

I see what you're going after now, it's what they call in the competitions 'semi-scale'. i.e it's not an exact replice rivet for rivet. [I'll stop there before I give you a back-handed compliment. :-) ]

Edward, FYI, I've just ordered from Tiranti.

1kg of 101 rubber is 17-odd
WM was from 9 to 12 a KG,
and the 'multi-purpose' resin was under 7 a KG.
The catalyst for the resin was 1.60
.. but you have to pay courrier delivery as the latter chemical can't be sent through post and add VAT to that.

But for martins scale, 1KG orders will go nowhere. So I'd use resin for moulds where I could, I'd also use inch of rubber around each master and use resin as a base for that. I'd use resin castings a lot in lieu of white metal and I'd alsoc ast lead... I'd even think about casting lead rich WM as a way to make it go further. [is there any benefit to that?] Lastly, I'd bulk the resin up with a non-dangerous filler such as talc when casting solid 'blockish' obects.

... and I'd also try to use clay to cast in, just ordinary potters clay. I'd just press the master into the clay, extract carefully, and pour in WM or resin. Thinking about it, you could also use plaster to make moulds. I'd try to be as inventive as I could.
Logged

Edward Pinniger

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 531
  • Location: Berkshire, UK
    • Plastic Ship Kit Previews
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #114 on: April 01, 2009, 04:34:31 pm »

2-3 kilos of RTV rubber should be enough for most of the basic deck fittings etc., most aren't individually very big even in 1/35.
Again just my personal opinion, but I would avoid using lead for the castings, lead parts on models are notorious for corroding and deteriorating over time, eventually ending up as piles of grey powder (not always; some lead parts can last for decades, others develop "lead disease" in a matter of years). The general consensus among ship modellers is that lead parts (not including white metal, pewter, Britannia metal etc.) should be avoided at all costs.
An alternative cheap source of casting metal is old pewter tankards/pots which can easily be found in charity shops, at car boot sales etc. for a pound or two. This is very high quality metal but isn't as good for modelling purposes as Tiranti's white metal (it doesn't flow as readily into fine detail). But for simple parts like bollards/fairleads and mushroom vents (not sure about railing stanchions; thin parts may be difficult to cast reliably in pewter) in 1/35 scale it should be fine!
Logged

MartinH-K

  • Guest
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #115 on: April 01, 2009, 05:47:28 pm »

The other issue is that it will be regularly exposed to probably large amounts of salt water! You're right with the semi-scale. Below waterline she will be a 'boat', above accuracy will increase as the years roll forward.  :D I have even included a hidden 'splash' board like the old double kayaks used to have before commercial splash sheets were readily available to minimise the amount of water coming in when at full 'welly'.
Logged

fooman2008

  • Guest
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #116 on: April 02, 2009, 03:30:33 pm »

Martin,
In case you haven't heard I am working on a 1/35th scale ship also.  The U.S.S. Idaho (BB-42 of the New Mexico class).  I very rarely get on this board (as you can see I am a yank) but I am glad to see you making some progress.  My own personal build will be a one piece hull (planked and fiber glassed) for both strength and ease of storage (Idaho winters can get pretty bad, it is the 2nd of April and snowing here high temps. today are supposed to be in the low 30's f.).
Reading through your thread I have a couple of comments;
The German's had an entirely different design for the flash-proof doors going to their magazine and powder hoists in WWI (they had had a catastrophic fire(s) before the war.).
If I recall correctly the German battlecruisers had their main gun director mounted one deck higher than the equivalent British ships (the big cats, and Queens), thus giving them the ability to range further (distance to the horizon).
There has been more than a little conjecture (especially in the United States) that it was in fact Prinz Eugen that hit Hood and not Bismark (for even more of a plunging shot).  During the night before the battle Admiral Lutjens rearranged his task group and placed Eugen in the front.  When Hood opened fire she mistook the cruiser for Bismark (not hard to do the German heavy cruiser bore more than a passing resemblance the battleships).  It was only after two salvos and a fevered light message from Prince of Wales (the second one partial due to a turret breakdown) that Hood found the proper target.  I have read that at least one 8 inch hit Prince of Wales, so apparently Prinz Eugen had found the range fairly quickly with her smaller guns, after Hood was sunk.  if she was fast enough to range the second British capital ship it would stand to reason that she had also Hood.
If the Germans had continued West instead of turning south (admittedly more dangerous due to to ice) they would have run into a pair of USN battleships and their escorts on 'neutrality patrol' off of Iceland.  Since FDR made sure that the location of the patrol(s) were well known to all the active combatants and Lutjens orders were to avoid contact with superior enemy forces he chose to move south.  There has been some evidence that the Germans knew that at least Prince of Wales was out there (described as being partially ready for combat), but the Germans were surprised that Hood would be ranged against her. Bismark's first salvo was either very badly aimed (being closer to Wales than Hood) or Lutjens was surprised that Hood was there.  The Germans very rapidly solved that problem and one account I read reported that Germans fourth salvo at Hood was a straddle, not bad shooting!
I am reputed to be a bit of rivet counter, and if this offends I am very sorry.
Foo
Logged

MartinH-K

  • Guest
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #117 on: April 02, 2009, 05:43:44 pm »

Why on Earth would it offend me Foo? I just finished watching the National Geographic- "The Battle between Hood and Bismark". According to that (and I'm making NO judgement at all!), Bismarks 5th shot hit the low explosive cordite. The flash travelled the length of the ship below decks and ignited the 4" magazine and blew the ship up. She ended up in 3 pieces, 3000m below the surface. According to the Germans and film shot from Prinz Eugen, it was the Bismark who sank the Hood and later, when the Bismark was cornered, according to the Germans, she was scuttled.
Have you got any piccies of your build? I'd love to see them. Is she scale or semi-scale? Come on, let me see. ;)
Logged

fooman2008

  • Guest
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #118 on: April 02, 2009, 08:58:11 pm »

Martin,
Still working out getting things set where in the beast I want to put it and what I am going to use for motors etc.  The best plans I could find (could afford) were only 1/196 so I am having to have them blown up  by 548%! The newest problem I have it that this results in the hulls lines becoming something over 1/8th inch thick.  That's the bad news, the good is that I live within five miles of two high schools and the college @ Brigham Young University at Idaho campus so I might see if I can get someone from a drafting class to redraw them for not an exorbitant cost.  I am fortunate to live in potato processing country and there are lots of places that have a large variety of electric motors and batteries of all sizes available.  The reason for the electric motive is that at least one local lake does not allow internal combustion during the summer (when it is warm enough to swim).  Got the plans from floating drydock in Florida, and interesting they were drawn some ten feet 'scale' over their intended dimension(s) for beam dimension.  Since I was actually thinking of widening the beam slightly it was a moot point so she will be a a little wider than she would be for 'true scale.
Idaho was built with four shafts and one very large rudder although I will probably choose to use a pair of large electric motors and shafts with blade type rudders behind them.
I am trying to solve questions about stuffing boxes (diameter of the shafts, need for extra support(s) for them, use roller bearings instead of bushings, etc.) before I go too crazy getting things started.
Plans are for a keel laminated out of 2 pieces of 3/4 ply with ribs from a single layer planked with either luan ply in strips or the thin stripping from plaster and lathe.  Both are available from build it center around here.  The entire hull will then be fiber glassed for strength and weatherproofing.
Mostly the problems are time (I actually have too much to think), and money (I am an unemployed carpenter thus have no money).  I am hoping with the spring weather and our new president trying to spend my great great granddaughter's taxes someone will be hiring and things will relax a little.  If that doesn't work I am contemplating writing letters to various local businesses and government agencies to offset costs for materials and services (notably printing, one copy of the hull forms is $2.40! and I need 32 of them some 44 inches wide and 24 inches tall).
My intention is transport on a trailer so I can display for a parade float (that type of thing) and partially offset the emotional cost from the wife.
Foo
P.S. I had seen a very early picture of you Hood (just the center section in the backyard) and was hoping that it would not 'just wither on the vine', I am very glad to see you have made so much progress.
I will start my own thread when i actually get something done other than conceptualizing.
Logged

MartinH-K

  • Guest
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #119 on: April 02, 2009, 11:45:18 pm »

Hi Foo
I have a couple of suggestions...
Firstly, the hull coming to 1/8 is okay! It will give strength to your fibraglassing AND ply comes in that thickness. It bends easy AND you can use builders ply (which is cheaper) 'cos you are not worried about open spots in the core. :-))
Secondly, check out your local 'motability' centre- that's what we call them here but they provide electric sit-on scooters for the aged and infirm. They often have ex-models that they take in part exchange that are no good for resale. I sourced two high torque electric engines for 15! (About $25?) Believe me, you will get them cheaper on your side of the pond. The other alternative is to go to a truck wreckers and get a couple of truck starter motors or something similar. If you then gear them (large gear on the motor, small gear on the prop shaft) using old bicycle parts, you will get some serious power out of them and you could use 24volt truck batteries to run them.
Ballast is going to be an issue. Think about installing large, empty water containers early in the build. You will be able to ballast it down to something approaching its plimsol line with relative ease. When you need to transport, you simply pump out the water in the containers using the bilge pump you will (should) have installed. I suggest this for several reasons... I realised quite early that I'm building a boat first and a representation of the Hood second. Secondly, I may seem to have thought a bit ahead but the reality is that I discovered stuff I should have thought about earlier and am now paying for it both literally and figuratively.  :((
You need to be thinking... strength but lightness... you can always add weight later. It's hard taking it away though. Think about 'stressed' members- the structure pushing outward rather than balancing on a keel alone. There are absolutely SUPERB modellers on this forum. The operative word in that sentence is modellers. This is NOT what we are really doing. We are boat builders who are dressing our boats to resemble larger ships. There is an argument that, the larger you get, the more detail you can put on. True BUT... the easier it is for bits to get lost or broken. It is one of those scenarios where 'less is more'. I'm sure you are factoring this in but think about 'escape'. You are going to be sitting in this thing. Can you get out easily? Think, worst case scenario. I've got loads more suggestions but will keep them back for now... You haven't asked for my advice and I can only tell you where I've messed up anyway! :embarrassed:
The main reasons I'm building in three parts is because of storage and transportation and also... if I hole one section, the other two will keep me afloat- they are discreet hulls in their own right- three boats in one.  :-))
Logged

fooman2008

  • Guest
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #120 on: April 03, 2009, 12:28:50 am »

Martin,
Thank you for the advice, very early on I did indeed also realize that we are both building boats (full scale) that just happen to resemble our chosen subjects.  I always can use advise (I may not always listen to it but I can always use it).  The mobility store idea has merit and along that line there is a place in neighboring city that sells golf carts (and rebuilds them), but that might be overkill both from weight and need for power.  Fortunately during one summer break from school I worked at boat yard and then part time for the Marina on the base (USN dependent as a boy, then joined the Navy. Got a chance to do a NATO cruise around Northern Europe in 81'), so I have some experience in both fabricating and maintaining fulls scale craft.

Here is a question that will undoubtedly draw a flame or two but a battlecruiser thread seems to be the place to ask it.  Supposedly Lord Fisher, during Jutland, wanting to inspire his sailors decided to fly Nelson's message to the sailors "England expects every man to do his duty for god and country" (probably a misquote).  My question is this; i had read that the code book(s) had changed and that the signal now meant "turn 9 (90 degrees) towards the enemy and advance at flank speed" thus the battle cruiser got shot to pieces.  Is that the truth or what?
Foo
Logged

MartinH-K

  • Guest
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #121 on: April 03, 2009, 10:14:22 am »

Hi Foo
Excuse me for being dense (I'm ex-RAF, not navy). Who was Lord Fisher? It was Jellicoe and Beatey at Jutland or... did I miss something? {:-{
Logged

Arrow5

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,876
  • Location: Scottish Highlands
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #122 on: April 03, 2009, 10:24:29 am »

....and why did Nelson single out "England" ?   What an insult to the rest of his country. <:(
Logged
..well can you land on this?

dreadnought72

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,893
  • Wood butcher with ten thumbs
  • Location: Airdrie, Scotland
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #123 on: April 03, 2009, 11:29:00 am »

Here is a question that will undoubtedly draw a flame or two but a battlecruiser thread seems to be the place to ask it.  Supposedly Lord Fisher, during Jutland, wanting to inspire his sailors decided to fly Nelson's message to the sailors "England expects every man to do his duty for god and country" (probably a misquote).  My question is this; i had read that the code book(s) had changed and that the signal now meant "turn 9 (90 degrees) towards the enemy and advance at flank speed" thus the battle cruiser got shot to pieces.  Is that the truth or what?
Nope.

Andy

Logged
Enjoying every minute sailing W9465 Mertensia

RickF

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 917
  • Black, white and buff - not grey!
  • Location: Norfolk UK
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #124 on: April 03, 2009, 11:51:19 am »

Arrow5 - as you probably know, the RN is totally tradition-bound and doesn't recognise anything that's less than 100 years old. And of course, Nelson came from Norfolk. Combine the two and you can understand why the Acts of Union of 1707 and 1800 had completely passed him by.

Rick (Ex-RAF and a Norfolk resident for 30 years)
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9   Go Up