stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832 
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jan 22, 2020 18:30:09 GMT
With four major fleet units in Brest You are right that Bomber Command would give Brest a lot of attention. I would expect the Germans to be much more aggressive with them. The 4 ships could leave at the same time and spread out in the north Atlantic coordinated with U boats they would be able to dish out some serious hurt on convoys. Operating independently it would take the combined efforts of the home fleet and Force H to track them down. They could end their cruise in various ports in Norway
If they were all available at the same time, given issues with operational status/damage I think they might at least start out together. That's because Britain, in response to the threat of surface raiders, where it could anyway, tried to have the important colonies accompanied by one of the slow old BBs - generally one of the old R class or Nelson/Rodney. With the twins this generally worked as the raiders were ordered to avoid risk of damage but against a combined forces, at least for the R's they might well have risked it and would probably have quickly overwhelmed the defenders probably without noticeable damage. Possibly splitting up later when fuel or other considerations prompt it.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 4, 2020 19:06:17 GMT
I was thinking, what if a carrier had joined Hood.
|
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Feb 5, 2020 17:27:05 GMT
Coming from Avalanche Press comes the nice article called, Rebuilding HoodHMS Hood, 2 what if scenarios Scenario I, The Mighty HoodThe first scenario presumes Hood is massively reconstructed in the late 1930s, along the lines of the reconstructions given Valiant and Queen Elizabeth — at least partly as a result of studies done for new battleships. Going into the yards at Chatham in early 1937, she would have completed in late 1940, probably having to be moved to Rosyth or Devonport as was Queen Elizabeth. By March of 1940, then, Hood is with the Battle Cruiser Squadron of the Home Fleet. Hood will now have the classic "castle" bridge structure of reconstructed British heavy ships — Queen Elizabeth, Valiant, Malaya, and Renown — with nearly as much room as the new-construction King George V. Her fourteen 4"/ 45-calibre Quick Fire HA Mk.XVI dual-purpose secondary rifles are replaced by twenty dual-purpose 4.5"/45-calibre QF Mk.I /III rifles in ten Mk.II BD twin-rifle mounts, fitted as in Renown. Her main battery has also been replaced, the eight 15"/42-calibre BL Mk.I main battery rifles in four Mk.II twin-rifle mounts, with nine 15"/45-calibre BL Mk.II rifles in three triple mounts. The new-design 15-inch rifles are all-steel designs, thus lighter than the Great War-era Mk.Is, and they wear better when firing heavy APC at high velocities. Even with three triple turrets, Hood's top weight is reduced, while the rifles themselves are superior to every other British capital ship weapon except the untried 16-inch rifles intended for Lion. Indeed, Hood's new 15-inch Mk.II rifles were considered for both the King George V and Lion classes, but the need to conform to Treaty limits in the former, and desire for a heavier shell in the latter, made these weapons surplus and thus eminently suited to Hood. The triple-mount Mk.II turret has more reliable anti-flash protection than the troublesome 14-Inch Mk.III quadruple-mount turret of King George V, and with only three mounts as against four, tolerances are eased enough that Hood's rifles will perform more reliably in action: no more rifles jammed in the loading position, or whole turrets motionless for minutes at a time. The aft superfiring turret and its barbette are deleted, the aft superstructure being extended over most of that deck space, thereby making room for another octuple Pom-Pom in a Mk.VIA* mount. This new Pom-Pom adds to the three existing mounts to improve her close-in anti-aircraft firepower, permitting three Pom-Poms to bear to either beam fore and aft, two dead ahead, and one dead aft. The latest high-rpm turbine technology is coupled with very-high-pressure steam generators to produce the 130,000 shaft horsepower (shp) Hood will need to push her 50,000+ tons Deep Load displacement through the water at 30+ knots. Her bunkerage is reduced to that of her design, from 4,615 tons of fuel oil down to 4,000 tons, but endurance is unaffected thanks to the improved machinery, and her new hull form, including a sheered bow. Although she does not have a transom stern, she is given the most modern anti-torpedo system that can be backfit, with voids, fills, and armoured bulkheads and extensive bulging to keep her belt above the waterline. The belt itself is not changed, nor are the armoured transverse bulkheads altered, but her internal armour scheme is significantly altered. By moving crew accommodation and deleting the aft magazine serving the deleted 'X' turret, and by reducing her conning tower armour to 3"-2" from 11"-9", her armour deck is dramatically improved, from 3" over the magazines and 1.5" over the machinery spaces, it is increased to 5" over the magazines and 3.5" over the machinery spaces. Nothing can be done about its location at this late date; like many of her Great War contemporaries, her armour deck is too low in the ship to protect communications and control spaces. But a new armour deck is laid, adding 1.5" over the magazines and 0.50" over the machinery spaces. Not as strong as single deck, the two decks may just be enough of a margin under air attack, or should an enemy ship score a hit at long range. The torpedo fittings are finally removed, and their warheads, magazine, and fire controls also. This weight saved is put into a new athwartships catapult and hanger accommodation, built on the foreward end of the aft superstructure, permitting her to operate spotter floatplanes (or the Walrus seaplane). Finally, Type 279 Air Warning RDF is fit. Refit again in January of 1941, she receives Type 282 Air Warning RDF, Type 273 Surface Warning RDF, a Type 284 Main Battery RDF for each of her three main battery DCTs, and the new Type 243 Aircraft IFF set. Her masts and superstructures are readied to take additional RDF fits and accommodate new technology as it enters the fleet. She receives her first fit of 20mm Oerlikons, eight weapons in single mounts. By the time she joins the Eastern Fleet, Hood is equipped with Type 282 Air Warning RDF, Type 273 Surface Warning RDF, a Type 274 Main Battery Blind-Fire RDF for each of her three main battery DCTs, a Type 275 Secondary Battery Blind-Fire RDF for each of her DP DCTs, and the Type 253 Aircraft IFF set. Removal of a barbette is an enormous job! The RN might be better off just building the J3 battlecruiser design  and sliding it under Hood's bell! The barbette is an integral part of the ship's strength deck. Removing one would leave a hole in that deck. I am not certain that any amount of reinforcing can replace that strength. In addition, unless the rebuild is going to go with three guns in a single cradle, triple turrets on the twin barbettes are going to be very crowded. If the twin barbettes are to be replaced with larger barbettes to fit a triple 15in turret, we're back to cutting into the ship's strength deck, adding loads the ship was not designed for. With her Mark II turrets, Hood could already elevate her guns to 30 degrees; her turrets do not need to be modified as those of Warspite, Renown, QE and Valiant were. We had some fun with a US rebuild for Hood several years ago on the BC forum www.tapatalk.com/groups/alltheworldsbattlecruisers/what-ship-is-that-t8505.htmlI do think significant battle damage would be a good way to get Hood into the yards for a rebuild. Some prospective layouts for Hood post-rebuild can be seen on the HMS Hood site, here: www.hmshood.com/history/construct/repair42.htmSeveral years ago, I transcribed some Admiralty document from photos David Chessum had taken. They revealed Hood was actually behind Nelson and Rodney in the rebuild schedule, as both battleships' electrical systems were in a very poor state by the late 1930s. With the deteriorating international situation of that time, all three were in demand, and none ever entered the yard for the necessary modifications. Nelson came closest to getting what was needed due the damage from a torpedo putting her in the yard for a while. Sounds like the start of an interesting alternate timeline.... Regards, |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Feb 5, 2020 18:57:50 GMT
I was thinking, what if a carrier had joined Hood.
I think it would have depended on the weather conditions. The Victorious was involved shortly later and possibly it or another CV could have been in attendance with Holland's ships, although it would be kept back some way, presumably with an escort to protect against subs and the like. If the weather was good then it might enable Holland's ships to have a more accurate knowledge of where Bismarck was, in which case they could well cross the German T rather than effectively have their own T crossed. Also if they detected that Prince Eugen was leading Bismarck that might avoid the way the two RN ships initially attacked Prince Eugen 1st. This gives a much better chance to seriously damage the Bismarck before it could do much to the Hood.
Of course the sight of carrier based a/c or possibly even an attack from them might persuade Lütjens to call off his attempt to break out into the Atlantic which could mean everybody survives, at least until the Germans make another attempt. Although with Barbarossa starting not too long afterwards and then British aid to the Soviets its possible that Bismarck, like Tirpitz, is kept back in Norway to attack the Murmansk convoys. It would be very difficult for the RN to escort such missions if both Bismarck class BBs and some supporting ships were combined in an attack against them.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 5, 2020 19:26:36 GMT
Whatever the reason, Bismarck will sortie, and Hood will have her revenge. . . .Sounds like the start of an interesting alternate timeline.... Thanks for the link 1bigrich , Also even with a Hood refit, a successful battle with the Bismarck still depends on many factors. |
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Feb 5, 2020 19:53:57 GMT
I was thinking, what if a carrier had joined Hood. I think it would have depended on the weather conditions. The Victorious was involved shortly later and possibly it or another CV could have been in attendance with Holland's ships, although it would be kept back some way, presumably with an escort to protect against subs and the like. If the weather was good then it might enable Holland's ships to have a more accurate knowledge of where Bismarck was, in which case they could well cross the German T rather than effectively have their own T crossed. Also if they detected that Prince Eugen was leading Bismarck that might avoid the way the two RN ships initially attacked Prince Eugen 1st. This gives a much better chance to seriously damage the Bismarck before it could do much to the Hood. When the German ships passed north of Iceland they were hidden in a snow squall (source; Whitley's German Capital Ships). The weather improved as they moved into the strait, but the Germans had Greenland's icepack off to starboard; they were committed to their course. They couldn't maneuver other than turning into Holland's ships. With the cruisers sighting them, I'm not sure carrier recon would have helped. Remember Holland was unsure where the Germans were even with Norfolk and Suffolk present. He had dispatched his 5 escorting destroyers off to the north to look for Lutjens, hence Hood and Prince of Wales were unescorted when the battle was joined. [/div] With a carrier in company, it's likely Holland would have tasked his destroyers to stay with the carrier while the capital ships engaged. If the carrier could get some aircraft airborne (I have no idea the direction of the prevailing wind), it could have been an ideal time for a torpedo plane attack. With the ice pack off to starboard, the Germans would be limited in avoidance maneuvers. Of course, Bismarck was a very handy ship; it was reported she would answer even the slightest changes in helm (5 degrees). Her twin rudders were placed between the races of her three props, so any movement of the help moved both rudders into all three races. If Lutjens did withdraw, he might attempt another break out later, keeping to the Arctic or dispatching Prinz Eugen to Norway to fuel again. But having both Bismarck and Tirpitz in the north might mean a very different 1942, especially as disasterous as the last quarter of 1941 was for the RN: Ark Royal lost 14 November, Barham lost 25 November, Prince of Wales and Repulse lost 10 December, Queen Elizabeth and Valiant mined 19 December. Also subtracted, Indomitable aground 3 November, 15 December Illustrious and Formidable collide returning from repairs in the US. My thoughts, |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 6, 2020 21:32:59 GMT
Removal of a barbette is an enormous job! The RN might be better off just building the J3 battlecruiser design Why is it cheaper and faster to build a new battlecruiser than to refit the Hood. |
|
markp
Petty Officer 1st Class
Posts: 51
Likes: 11
|
Post by markp on Feb 7, 2020 0:24:57 GMT
A major reconstruction requires a lot of demolition and the improvements have to be worked around the existing systems that are to remain. Also there are more compromises made due to the basic limitations of the original hull. New construction would allow for more efficient construction and could optimize new technologies better since they would be built into the original design. The treaties put limitations on the replacement of ships making large scale modernizations more acceptable.
Mark
|
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Feb 7, 2020 14:23:02 GMT
Removal of a barbette is an enormous job! The RN might be better off just building the J3 battlecruiser design Why is it cheaper and faster to build a new battlecruiser than to refit the Hood. To take her from 8 x 15in in four twins to 9 x 15in in three triples would be a massive undertaking. In addition, removal of a barbette seriously compromises the strength of the hull. Plus the triples would have to fit existing barbettes, or have new barbettes installed. Again, compromising the strength of the hull. I have serious doubt to it being possible, let alone worth the effort. Hence my advocating J3 instead.... My thoughts, |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 7, 2020 14:44:23 GMT
Why is it cheaper and faster to build a new battlecruiser than to refit the Hood. To take her from 8 x 15in in four twins to 9 x 15in in three triples would be a massive undertaking. In addition, removal of a barbette seriously compromises the strength of the hull. Plus the triples would have to fit existing barbettes, or have new barbettes installed. Again, compromising the strength of the hull. I have serious doubt to it being possible, let alone worth the effort. Hence my advocating J3 instead.... My thoughts, What year would the J3 being build then. |
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Feb 7, 2020 15:37:05 GMT
I've always thought J3 was a chance to do Hood 'right', and more realistic than some of the giants like K2 or K3, or L2/L3. But she was a 1921 design. By the time she would be built as a Hood replacement, technology would have advanced and the ship would be very different.
I think if there is no treaty regime, and the RN decides to standardize on the 15in gun, the early 20s would be the best time for a J3 class to enter the fleet.
Within a treaty regime, we might see something like 15A/35 if there is no Second London.
My somewhat disjointed thoughts,
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 7, 2020 15:47:45 GMT
I've always thought J3 was a chance to do Hood 'right', and more realistic than some of the giants like K2 or K3, or L2/L3. But she was a 1921 design. By the time she would be built as a Hood replacement, technology would have advanced and the ship would be very different. I think if there is no treaty regime, and the RN decides to standardize on the 15in gun, the early 20s would be the best time for a J3 class to enter the fleet. Within a treaty regime, we might see something like 15A/35 if there is no Second London. My somewhat disjointed thoughts, But why did the British had a soft spot for Hood, would scrapping Hood be a good thing. |
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Feb 7, 2020 16:33:10 GMT
But why did the British had a soft spot for Hood, would scrapping Hood be a good thing. was the face of British seapower in the interwar era. As the largest warship in the world, and very fast compared to the bulk of the world's capital ships, she was unmatched for most of her life. She was a flawed beauty, and a full rebuild would have done her good. But as such a powerful unit, she was in demand, as were Nelson and Rodney. As I said above, none ever got fully what they needed. Her loss cemented her in the British public's memory. Had she survived the war, I think she would have been sent to the breakers with the rest of the battle fleet. If she were replaced with new construction, I don't think she would have had such a solid place in the public's psyche. My thoughts, |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 7, 2020 20:17:50 GMT
But why did the British had a soft spot for Hood, would scrapping Hood be a good thing. was the face of British seapower in the interwar era. As the largest warship in the world, and very fast compared to the bulk of the world's capital ships, she was unmatched for most of her life. She was a flawed beauty, and a full rebuild would have done her good. But as such a powerful unit, she was in demand, as were Nelson and Rodney. As I said above, none ever got fully what they needed. Her loss cemented her in the British public's memory. Had she survived the war, I think she would have been sent to the breakers with the rest of the battle fleet. If she were replaced with new construction, I don't think she would have had such a solid place in the public's psyche. My thoughts, But could Hood be scrapped and a new battlecruiser be build in here place, even if there was the Washington naval treaty in effect. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Feb 8, 2020 10:33:09 GMT
Hood was the face of British seapower in the interwar era. As the largest warship in the world, and very fast compared to the bulk of the world's capital ships, she was unmatched for most of her life. She was a flawed beauty, and a full rebuild would have done her good. But as such a powerful unit, she was in demand, as were Nelson and Rodney. As I said above, none ever got fully what they needed. Her loss cemented her in the British public's memory. Had she survived the war, I think she would have been sent to the breakers with the rest of the battle fleet. If she were replaced with new construction, I don't think she would have had such a solid place in the public's psyche. My thoughts, But could Hood be scrapped and a new battlecruiser be build in here place, even if there was the Washington naval treaty in effect.
For most of the time there was an absolute ban on new construction and when that lapsed new construction was limited to 35ktons maximum size which would mean a smaller ship. Given that while she had flaws she was still more powerful than virtually the entire existing RN battle fleet it would be pointless given the limited resources to try and replace her. 1bigrich, is right that trying to convert her into a 3x3 turret set-up would be ruinously expensive but a different reconstruction, maintaining the 4x2 set up would have been a bit more practical. Unfortunately as the newest and largest fast ship she was deemed too important to be spared for 2-3 years while such a reconstruction took place. In hindsight it would have been better doing so but the people at the time didn't realise that.  |
|
