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 59224 times)

TCC

  • Guest
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #75 on: February 23, 2009, 01:03:29 am »

The British Navy was not interested in accuracy in WW1, but rapid rate of fire. The theory was you put the other side off it's aim and you might get lucky. To do this the capital ships carried 50% more ammo than designed for, this was fine for the shells but not the bags of Cordite which were stacked every where but not in the magazines, also the Battle Cruisers it has since been found out removed the anti flash doors to thier magazines so as to speed up the movement of cordite and shells. With all the cordite stacked inside the Barbites etc, this is now put forward as the reason for the massive loss of ships at Jutland. But the RN has had a bad reputation for accuracy since the Bombardment of Alexandra (800 odd shells fired and about 6 came close to the mark), Dogger Bank and even the Bismark , poor shooting was recorded, Tovey said to the gunner on KG5 " i can do more damage with throwing my mug than you can". The German accuracy was always good, an had it not been for the intervention of the Navigator on the Norfolk, she would have been hit by a full salvo from the Bismark instead of a close straddle.

It's good to read this as it's confirmed a growing suspicion of mine.

This is why the Germans fired first at Dogger Bank and Jutland and thus Beatty being criticised for 'throwing away' the advantage of his longer guns. He didn't throw it away, he was just following SOP.

It's the same with the magazine lads handling the cordite bags on the INVINCIBLE, QUEEN MARY and INDOMITABLE. They had charges all the way from the turret, the hoists, to the handling spaces and walkways. They weren't being cavilier in their siting of the bags, but knew it to be a requiremnt of feeding the guns ASAP.

The sad part is LION also used to follow this procedure until she had a new gunner who instituted new cordite handling policy just prior to Jutland. His new guideleines laid down that there should NOT be more than 1 reload in the supply chain outside the magazine and the doors should always be shut unless they were in the physical act of passing charges through.

As history bears out, LION was saved even though she had the same calamitous damage as the other ships, but her different handling rules ruled out massive secondary cordite fires.

read up on it here:

http://www.worldwar1.co.uk/grant.htm
Logged

Eric65

  • Guest
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #76 on: March 03, 2009, 11:20:15 am »

Strictly speaking, it is completely wrong to accuse the RN of not being interested in gunnery accuracy during WW1

It was the RN that revolutionised gunnery in the lead up to the war, poineered by Percy Scott who was single handedly responsable for the RN becoming fanatic about gunnery.(and the USN, thanks to Sims in the USN who copied Scotts teachings for their navy, the two men were great friends)  The invention of the Pollen clock and Dreyer system put the RN far ahead of all its rivals, even the Grermans.

Jellicoe trained the Grand Fleet constantly in live fire gunnery up at Scapa Flow, but Beattie was down further south and either unable or unwilling to train so hard. This is why Admiral Hood and this three Battlecruisers were at Scapa Flow and the Queen Elizabeths were with Beattie, Hood was there for intensive gunnery training as Jellicoe was accutly aware of the Battlecruisers deficiancies. (the training Invincble recieved paid off, as she hit Luzow repeatedly and may have been responsable for the damage that sank her)

The loss of the Battlecrisers can be put down to several causes, not one of the due to lack of armour.
1; Old, unstable cordite.
2; Poorly designed cordite, inferior to german type
3; dangerous magazine handeling. (Magazine doors left open, or even removed) and cordite piled up outside the magazines in the rush to suppy the guns.

You are correct about Lion TCC, but it was not SOP to be so careless with the cordite, it was enthusiasm on the part of the crew to feed the guns.

Grant was horriified at this when he joined Lion and took urgent steps to rectify it, even going to the extrem of landing ALL cordite stored in Lion and replacing it with new. (Old cordite as I said becomes unstable, and as the old cordite had at times been put into bags for new cordite he was unable to tell what was old and what was new)

Had the other Battlecruisers been given the same treatment it is quite likely they would not have exploded as they did.

The main reason Beattie did not open fire earlier that the Germans at Dogger bank and Jutland was due to the rangefinders. They were the 9ft barr and Stroud type, excellent upto 10,000 yards (the accepted max range prior to the war) but no good beyond that range, greman equipment was superior. later 15ft rangefiders went a long way to rectiying this.
Logged

TCC

  • Guest
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #77 on: March 04, 2009, 03:22:15 pm »

Strictly speaking, it is completely wrong to accuse the RN of not being interested in gunnery accuracy during WW1
Hi Eric
well I wouldn't put my words in such black and white like that. Of course they aimed the things and took pains to do so.

I read old Naval Review articles http://www.naval-review.org/ and you often come across this hint in them. They wanted max rate of fire, as evidenced by the crew making a trail of cordite from turret to magazine so the captain should not be left waiting for a reload.

I've never read it [that they wet for ROF over accuracy] in black and white with someone saying 'we shotgun the target' but I wonder, even with all the equipment and theories and technology aboard her... if hitting the target 20,000yds away from a rolling platform wasn't just down to pure luck helped along with a good dose of range-taking and direction aiming devices? Especially if wind, temperature and other atmosperic characteristics affect the shells so much... or battle damge throw the fine instruments 'out of whack'? Y'know... they site a couple of 100,000 worth of gear up aloft and then a swell 'throws' the lot!

It was the RN that revolutionised gunnery in the lead up to the war, poineered by Percy Scott who was single handedly responsable for the RN becoming fanatic about gunnery.(and the USN, thanks to Sims in the USN who copied Scotts teachings for their navy, the two men were great friends)  The invention of the Pollen clock and Dreyer system put the RN far ahead of all its rivals, even the Grermans.


Jellicoe trained the Grand Fleet constantly in live fire gunnery up at Scapa Flow, but Beattie was down further south and either unable or unwilling to train so hard. This is why Admiral Hood and this three Battlecruisers were at Scapa Flow and the Queen Elizabeths were with Beattie, Hood was there for intensive gunnery training as Jellicoe was accutly aware of the Battlecruisers deficiancies. (the training Invincble recieved paid off, as she hit Luzow repeatedly and may have been responsable for the damage that sank her)

I think it was the submarine threat that kept the b/cs bottled up in Rosyth or Invergordon.

Why does Baetty get such a bad rap? Cos he was like Mountbattern (Kelly) and in the habit of making 'bad decisions' or being 'unlucky'

The loss of the Battlecrisers can be put down to several causes, not one of the due to lack of armour.
1; Old, unstable cordite.
2; Poorly designed cordite, inferior to german type
3; dangerous magazine handeling. (Magazine doors left open, or even removed) and cordite piled up outside the magazines in the rush to suppy the guns.

We agree.

You are correct about Lion TCC, but it was not SOP to be so careless with the cordite, it was enthusiasm on the part of the crew to feed the guns.
Eric, if we are to believe Grant, befefore he joined LION, it was SOP to site cordite outside the mag in all the handling spaces. You agree with me... is it the term SOP you disagree with?

Well I don't know if they'd be doing that without the Cpt. or Admirals ignorance. Surely one of those MUST have walked by ONCE during their turret drills and training? Surely the Cpt. would have looked over his gunnery officers training regme when either first came abord to see 'what he was made of'?

Grant was horriified at this when he joined Lion and took urgent steps to rectify it, even going to the extrem of landing ALL cordite stored in Lion and replacing it with new. (Old cordite as I said becomes unstable, and as the old cordite had at times been put into bags for new cordite he was unable to tell what was old and what was new)

Had the other Battlecruisers been given the same treatment it is quite likely they would not have exploded as they did.

I agree.

The main reason Beattie did not open fire earlier that the Germans at Dogger bank and Jutland was due to the rangefinders. They were the 9ft barr and Stroud type, excellent upto 10,000 yards (the accepted max range prior to the war) but no good beyond that range, greman equipment was superior. later 15ft rangefiders went a long way to rectiying this.
Have you got a written source for that? I've heard that Chatfield and Beatty didn't agree at what range to take battle on, as Beatty won, I surmise C'field wanted to stay out of german range and Beatty get in 'close' (relatively). I was wondering if lack off deck armour affected Beatty decision? (To avoid plunging fire and to put the broad face of the sides armour to face the germans shells?*) or if it was for gunnery reasons (such as your 'the RF were poor past 10,000yds'

* this is what the Admiral did with HOOD.. or tried to do.. race in close to Bismark and get thru the plunging fire area to the range where the shells had a flatter tradjectory and would hit the side (armour).

I simply haven't read enough on the subject yet to form definite views but I think we could agre on the statment ''they aimed the things with the best technology of the day and then hammered away with the highest ROF they could'' Agree. :-)
Logged

DavieTait

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,132
  • Location: Fraserburgh
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #78 on: March 04, 2009, 03:29:23 pm »

There was a TV program on a couple of years ago with an RN dive team that went to survey the Battlecruisers lost at Jutland. They found hundreds of bags of cordite just lying in every alleyway and stored in unarmoured sections of the ship. They had plenty of space for all of the shells but not enough space for the cordite. Another reason was the very poor anti-flash protection our ships had compared to the system in use by the German Navy ( after WW1 we examined the German fleet in Scapa and modified all of our capital ships ammo handling to copy the German one , look for photos of the SMS Seydlitz which would have had a magazine explosion if she had been one of ours : http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/OnlineLibrary/photos/images/h02000/h02407.jpg )
Logged
Davie Tait,
Scotland

Eric65

  • Guest
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #79 on: March 06, 2009, 03:23:11 pm »

Hi TCC, I've got some excellent sources of info, I can recommend Peter Padfeild's book 'BATTLESHIP' and 'The Grand Fleet' by D.K. Brown.

Jellicoe was unaware of the practice of cordite handeling in the fleet, after Jutland a damming report detailing the magazine errors was written, but Jellice had it quashed and wrote his own version blaming lack of armour protection around the magazines instead!
It is probable that the ships captains knew of the practices but as to whether they instigated them or not, I do not know.

Both books go into great detail regarding development of British gunnery upto WW1, the amazing inovations and astonishing errors of judgment made. (example; Jellicoe was in charge of choosing which director system to fit to the fleet, one by a civillian Arthur Pollen, or his personal freind Fredrick Dreyer and chose the one made by Dreyer. Dreyers system was a poor copy of Pollens, it was unable to work under helm so the ship had to be steered in a straight line to be able to calculate the firing! But Drayer was a pal and his was cheaper, so...)

I am sure about the rangefinders, it was only just before the war started the the fleet extended the fighting range upto 10,000 yards, pror to that it was at about 4,000 yards!
The other factor involved would have been visability, in the north sea low vis is common and at Jutland the british rangefinders were at a disadvantage. British ships were clearly visable to the Germans but were obscured themselves. Mind you, the Germans over estimated the range too and fired well over Beattie initially but corrected much more quickly.
I am afraid that lack of armour protetion or cordite scattered aroud his mags would have been the last thing on Beatties mind, he just wanted to get stuck in!

All Battleships and battlecruisers have what is called a 'Zone Of Immunity' inside of which the trajectory of shells is too flat to stike the armoured deck and at too steep an angle to penetrate the side armour, Hood had just entered her 'Zone' at 20,000 yards when Holland made his turn to bring all guns to bear, Bismarck's shell(s) struck Hood near her mast (no-where near her main mags) and egnited the 4 inch mags or possably the above water torpedoes, a chain reaction almost instantly broke her back and blew the 15inch mags.
Logged

MartinH-K

  • Guest
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #80 on: March 11, 2009, 05:36:30 pm »

Thank you all!!! %% Just to drag you kicking and screaming back to the build. All sections test bolted together last weekend with only ONE sprung seam that's easily fixable. Otherwise holding her water- I know 'cos I left the tarp off when it rained and... it filled with water! :embarrassed: Completed the cockpit splash screen and the forward breakwater. Both forward 15in turrrets in place awaiting guns. :-)) In house builds of 12 x 5.5in guns progressing nicely. Anyone with ANY 1/32 - 1/40 scale figures they don't want, PLEASE let me know. ok2
PS The picture is a couple of weeks old, shows the bow section sitting on the midships section and without the additions quoted above.
PPS All section seams 'glassed'. Will wait until ready to 'scale shape' the hull to Hoods below water dimensions before I glass the whole thing.
Logged

MartinH-K

  • Guest
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #81 on: March 14, 2009, 03:17:16 pm »

I may have mentioned earlier in this thread that I'd come across a table (teak) that was being thrown out... I've now found the piece with the plaque on it. It reads...
"Made by The Hughes Bolckow Shipbreaking Company Ltd, Blyth, Northumberland from TEAK TAKEN FROM HMS Powerful"
Would anyone like to tell us about her? I plan to use it for... the planking. Seems appropriate somehow... :-))
Logged

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11,263
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #82 on: March 14, 2009, 04:23:56 pm »

Quite possibly the old Protected Cruiser: http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/powerful_class.htm
Logged

MartinH-K

  • Guest
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #83 on: March 14, 2009, 05:02:49 pm »

I think the man has just won a cigar! O0
Logged

RickF

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 917
  • Black, white and buff - not grey!
  • Location: Norfolk UK
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #84 on: March 14, 2009, 11:10:10 pm »

The Powerful and Terrible. Despite the later being commanded by my personal hero, Percy Scott, they were probably the two worst cruisers ever constructed for the RN - oversized, underpowered and poorly armed.

Rick
Logged

MartinH-K

  • Guest
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #85 on: March 14, 2009, 11:24:17 pm »

and I will plank my HMS Hood in teak from HMS Poweful... once I can find someone with a fine cut band saw. Whats good for bleaching the wood back to its original colour? I was thing about lemon juice... BTW... it'll be AT LEAST a year before I start that part of the project... O0
Logged

TCC

  • Guest
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #86 on: March 15, 2009, 01:29:25 pm »

I may have mentioned earlier in this thread that I'd come across a table (teak) that was being thrown out... I've now found the piece with the plaque on it. It reads...
"Made by The Hughes Bolckow Shipbreaking Company Ltd, Blyth, Northumberland from TEAK TAKEN FROM HMS Powerful"
Would anyone like to tell us about her? I plan to use it for... the planking. Seems appropriate somehow... :-))
They used the decking from LION to make 'garden furniture' (no doubt, amoung other things)

She was crapped at Blyth as well.
Logged

dreadnought72

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,893
  • Wood butcher with ten thumbs
  • Location: Airdrie, Scotland
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #87 on: March 15, 2009, 04:11:14 pm »

She was crapped at Blyth as well.
{-) May I submit this fine posting to Mayhem's Typo Of The Year competition?  %%

Andy
Logged
Enjoying every minute sailing W9465 Mertensia

TCC

  • Guest
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #88 on: March 16, 2009, 11:29:12 am »

She was crapped at Blyth as well.
{-) May I submit this fine posting to Mayhem's Typo Of The Year competition?  %%

Andy


... only as long as there's a prize and I can choose it myself.  {-)
Logged

MartinH-K

  • Guest
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #89 on: March 19, 2009, 08:21:00 pm »

Ok... here's as I was by nightfall, last night. Since then, the stern super-structure (the funny shaped triangular bit/section) is in place and I've expended a lot of primer, undercoat and gray gloss. She won't stay like that though... once the basic ship is complete, she will then get a coat (or five!) of nitro-celulous varnish and then be delivered tp Auto Bodycraft to receive yet more undercoat and a HARD top coat that is (more or less) matt gray. Then it's in the oven at gas mark 5 for 2 to 3 hours!  %)
That's when the REAL fun begins- the detail! ok2
Logged

MartinH-K

  • Guest
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #90 on: March 19, 2009, 09:35:12 pm »

.... if you look closely at the bridge section, you may notice a fairly significant error!!! Fixable but irritating! I keep saying to myself... "measure twice, cut once!"
My problem is that I'm working from Anatomy of a Warship plans (in a variety of scales) and largely based on Hood when she sank, and a 1/400 scale airfix model that is also circa 1941. Trouble is, I'm building her as she looked ten years earlier in 1931 so I'm having to rely on photo's and 'best guesses'! I may have to put up with some 'comments' when she sails from those who get 'pissy' about detail. Guys, I'm doin' the best I can with little or no money.
Logged

TCC

  • Guest
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #91 on: March 20, 2009, 01:46:07 am »

Martin
try to slow down and think... I draw things out now to get the shapes in my mind.. it' still not perfect yet as I'm still modifying built fittings but I'm getting there. I'd advise you not to 'cut wood' until you are certain that you know how it goes.

But as to others nit picking on detail: just buld for yourself. I'm the worst to give that advice as I'm rooting out details, or trying to, but that's just for me... I want to know how all the areas of her decks looked.

Anyway, on to why I'm writing: are you really, really certain you'll be able to escape from that in the event of difficulty? Is it easy to draw your knees up and stand up and jump out/away? If not...  <:( I wouldn't want to be sitting in that, and you'll be low down in the water don't forget and camouflaged to some extent, and you could be run down by a larger craft. I'd want to be able to stand up and dive away from it.

Failing that, can I be your beneficiary in your will?  :-) First dibs on any powwer tools!  :D
Logged

Arrow5

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,876
  • Location: Scottish Highlands
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #92 on: March 20, 2009, 10:01:10 am »

Martin , nitro-cellulose are you sure ? Not used much these days and it will blister your base coats if they are oil based. Better check or you will have a surface that will look like a rice pudding, if it stays on, it might do a Nitromors job on undercoats. :((
Logged
..well can you land on this?

MartinH-K

  • Guest
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #93 on: March 20, 2009, 11:11:23 am »

Sorry... what I meant was polyurethene clear varnish... I was looking at a tin of nitro when I wrote the thread... {:-{ the surface will then be 'keyed' to accept the VERY hard automotive paint layers that Dorian (my friend with the car spraying business) is going to put on her. :P
Logged

Arrow5

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,876
  • Location: Scottish Highlands
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #94 on: March 20, 2009, 01:53:16 pm »

Whew {-).I think you should have gone with fibreglass and resin from the start. Your "hard paint" might be a bit brittle for wood and thermal changes on a boat. Got a nice spell of weather right now for building......and snow forecast for the weekend up here. >:-o     
Logged
..well can you land on this?

MartinH-K

  • Guest
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #95 on: March 20, 2009, 05:28:53 pm »

To answer...
All the seams are fibre glassed... couldn't afford more than that though. Maybe in a couple of years when she has a 'refit'. O0
Most of the time... the measurements come out ok... most of the time... {:-{
The whole of the top is a 'push off' on hinge deal. The section where I sit (the deck above me) is actually just hardboard though it is treated. I timed myself getting out a few days ago and was out in under 3 seconds! Throughout this biuild, the primary issue has been oine of "am I safe in this?" What can I do to increase my chances? One of the advantages of the design is that each section is a self-contained boat. If one section should get holed, the other two 'should' keep me afloat long enough to get to safety. I will also be wearing a self inflating life vest even though I swim like a fish. Not that I want to be swimming like a fish...
I do want to say a big thank you for the support I'm getting. I might have given up months ago without it.  :-)
Logged

MartinH-K

  • Guest
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #96 on: March 20, 2009, 06:12:28 pm »

I thought some piccies from the end of today's work might be in order... ;)
Logged

Walter Cooper

  • Guest
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #97 on: March 21, 2009, 06:53:22 pm »

WOW,shes comming along really well Martin :-))I may have missed it in the build thread but,what are you going to use for motors?Would you need a certain size speed control if the motors are large?Please bear with my silly questions as I am trying to learn {:-{I do have a couple of RC kits that im going to get to right shortly....of coarse no where as big as this girl lol.Cheers Walter
Logged

MartinH-K

  • Guest
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #98 on: March 21, 2009, 07:52:21 pm »

Hi Walter
I'm vacilating between twin 80lb thrust electric engines or possibly similar (physical) size petrol.

The advantages with electric are;

1) little vibration
2) light weight
3) easily removable
4) little/no risk of fire

Disadvantages are;

1) they cost lots,
2) you need at least two batteries per engine to get any kind of serious ride
3) some risk of electrocution!
4) Little in the way of 'get out of trouble' power.

The advantages of petrol engines are;

1) Plenty of power for your money
2) Easily available second hand and not too expensive

Disadvantages include;

1) some risk of fire/explosions
2) smelly, loud and they vibrate (quite a lot).
    quite heavy to transport.

So... you can see I'm struggling at the moment. I plan to try one outboard petrol when I launch to see how it goes. I'll let you know.
Logged

MartinH-K

  • Guest
Re: HMS Hood
« Reply #99 on: March 21, 2009, 07:54:25 pm »

Without further ado... now the sun has gone down... today's pictures! :}
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9   Go Up