The Ship Model Forum

I can understand that approach. After all, its your model, so you ultimately decide what colours/details to use. Speaking as a VP of the H.M.S. Hood Association, we are happy to know that folks care enough about Hood to build models of her. Its a form of remembrance. Regardless of accuracy/details/colour, etc., what matters is that she - and by extension her CREW - are remembered.

We only present these details should folks wish to make their models as historically accurate as possible ("warts and all")...but always with the caveat of "this too might change" as we seem to keep uncovering more forgotten details.

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.org.uk

HMS Hood would look rather strange in a field. And you would need a very large field, I may know of one about the right size just outside of York. You would definately have to paint the hull bottom too, grey for sure, but we will let you put some mud splashes on it. Frank, thank you and everyone else involved for posting all this info. I for one am using all of it on my 1/200 build, as well as all the kit correction info and the Pontos set, Eduard sets (selected bits), and anything else the will make the model as accurate as I can. Regards, Pete in RI

Thank you to EJ and Frank for the work on the decks. Would you care to critique this draft?

_________________
James Duff
Sovereign Hobbies Ltd
http://www.sovereignhobbies.co.uk

Current build:
HMS Imperial D09 1/350
http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=167151

- If the corticine below the pompom was still present is unknown (so this is ok).
- If corticine was present in the area around the aft UP is still unknown. Deck shows stripes, but not the same stripes when corticine was present... so it's fine, as we do not know for certain.
- There are small square semtex areas beneath the three aft 4 HA guns
- I doubt these small semtex triangles at the fwd up launcher position would be present if the configuration would be as it is now.
- Frank will no doubt chime in and report that the three RU lockers between the fwd UP's and bridge were not present (chipping them away as I type, repairing gaping holes in the deck).
- The corticine line runs just in front of the RU lockers adjacent to the fwd HA gun. If your drawing is accurate, use a multiple of 6 ft from the ship centreline

Furthermore:
- Barrel ends should be hull colour
- HACS directors missing white stripe on the back (also, wrong HACS director but soit).
- Position of guns and HACS directors pointing forward is as observed most, so, ok

With reference to the small scale half cross-section in James Duff's draft: The same image but understandingly containing considerably more detail, in RN Newton RCNC's "Practical Construction of Warships" shows that the wood cladding of the Forecastle Deck was not "Teak" but "Borneo (Whitewood)." This image is indicative of but not attributed to HMS HOOD, however, DK Brown RCNC, has included it in his "Nelson to Vanguard" and indicates that it does show HOOD. Teak and Borneo are different woods and I seem to understand that the two terms may cover many species of tree. Newton gives information regarding the reasons for Borneo replacing Teak.

Philosophy: We build models for different reasons. Tribute to someone that the maker respects or their memory, aesthetic qualities (good or bad) and HOOD is only one of many, action (combat) record or because of an admiration of ships, among many. If one aspires to make a model of a specific ship most, will do their level best to model it accurately (some will go to very great lengths) but if it means painting a specific area "chocolate brown" then that it the way it has to be. The "fun" (I prefer the word "frustration") is in making something with one's mind, materials and hands, that will stave off going "potty" just a little longer in this shipwreck of a year.

Merry Christmas!!

I love the graphic Jamie! I wish we had something like that on the Hood website. Maybe one day.

I agree with what EJ already posted but have the following additions/clarifications:

1. Layout of Corticene/Semtex- Its important that folks know that the precise layout is still not known to us. What was presented so far is pure conjecture based upon the evidence found to date. In reality, it may have looked somewhat different (and knowing Hood, probably did!).

2. Triangles near the forward UPs- This is a squarish area of deck under the UP. This is one of the locations confirmed to have first received semtex in 1937. Was it retained, unaltered, after this area was modified to accept the UP launcher and shielding? Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure they wouldn't have added corticene back to the area under the launcher because linoleum and rocket exhaust simply do not mix. I suspect semtex continued to be used, but perhaps the shape of the deck area covered was different. The big question is, what shape was the area? Unknown...but it would certainly be within the splinter shield and I also expect it to be in the area of the associated ready use lockers (based on observations of other gun positions).

3. Speaking of ready use lockers, as EJ mentioned, the three small boxes ahead of the forward UPs were not there. I'm not really sure how those came to be in any drawings really...as they aren't on the plans and do not appear in any photos I know of (there is a cable reel that someone may have mistaken for a box). There were lockers, but according to the deck plans and boat deck schematic from the sinking enquiry, they were a bit farther aft...they were near the deck edge between the UP shield and pom pom. Interestingly, the plans show the same thing for the aft UPs (2 lockers...but slightly staggered in that of the two lockers, the aft one was slightly more inboard than the one immediately forward). I have no idea where the idea that each mount had three lockers originated. Looks like 2 small lockers per mount (plus several lockers under the deck in the former side batteries). There were of course a set of three lockers just forward of the aft UP splinter shields, but I don't recall if they too were actually for the UPs. They are deeper than regular Ready Use lockers, but taller than standard UP lockers. They also seemed to have a different style of door. Perhaps they were used for some other purpose. They are not listed as ammo lockers in the enquiry schematic.

4. Antifouling Colours- I would remove the 1939 reference. I think I may have mis-spoken/mistyped that. The last confirmed (in writing) application of grey was in 1938...but she carried that well into 1939 before being repainted. That's what I meant by 1939. Of course, I suspect she possibly kept the same grey if previous usage and the wreck are any indication.

5. Wood Decks- Apparently, according to "Guest" we have conflicting sources (i.e., its listed as teak in the Anatomy of the Ship book). I never had reason to doubt that, but I guess on top of the other recent finds, it would be good to get it right for the more detail-oriented folks among us (as for me, I don't think it matters much either way/it will look largely similar at typical scales, but others will surely disagree). I'll try to peruse the ship's cover to see if that throws any light on the matter (of course, if someone can cite an original official record, that would definitely help save time). That will take some time as its a convoluted document (tons of photos to go through).

Are you interested in some other detail updates? I see a few minor/easily corrected things that can help give you an accurate "as sunk" Hood (right now its a mix of 1940 and as-sunk). These include some changes to the bridge and boat deck shields, boats/rafts and degaussing cable. I can post here, or I can send you some info privately.

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.org.uk

Hi Frank and James, would it be possible to post those additional details here? Awesome graphics James, well done and thank you. Regards, Pete in RI

(Copied from an older Britmodeler post:)
- I have the tip of the guns (main & secondaries) in hull colour in 1940-1941; sometimes there's a bag at the end (main guns) that is a bit lighter.
- HMS Hood's pompoms did not have conical flash suppressors
- Missing shield outline of the UP launcher on B-turret
- Missing double degaussing cable at bow and stern
- Bridge level railing replaced by splinter shield
- Position of all Carley floats not correct (for as sunk)
- HACS: wrong type and missing white stripe on back
- Various see-through errors

- Also, the bridge deck does not indicate that corticine ran upto the conning tower (presumably); this structure is open at the back.

Thank you EJ. I have updated all of that already except the HACS directors so I need to go educate myself. Might as well try to get this right...



Hi Frank,

Thank you very much. I shall work through these and would be delighted to catch-up off the forum to iron out some of these details. It would be great to get this as close to correct as possible. I used John Roberts' The Battlecruiser Hood 1941 drawing is my main reference but it would be great to fix any misinterpretations on my part or other things which changed but not captured in Roberts. I would be delighted to discuss any changes you'd like to have done for a version for the HMS Hood Association website.

_________________
James Duff
Sovereign Hobbies Ltd
http://www.sovereignhobbies.co.uk

Current build:
HMS Imperial D09 1/350
http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=167151

James, the boot topping on these pages was mentioned to be gloss not matte black as written on the chart. Might be worth just double checking that point.

_________________
- @Shipific on IG
my gallery

Thank you Frank, Richard, EJ, Jamie and others researching this topic. All this new research is absolutely fascinating, and a world of new Royal Navy colouring is opening up from the black-and-white past.

Following a very helpful Word document with marked-up revisions from Frank Allen and an equally helpful video chat with EJ Foeth, I have completed Revision 4a. Who knew drawing pictures could be this tough?

This one has lots of minor corrections most probably won't notice but I believe/hope that the aforementioned gentlemen are reasonably comfortable with how she looks, at least to the best of the information currently available.

_________________
James Duff
Sovereign Hobbies Ltd
http://www.sovereignhobbies.co.uk

Current build:
HMS Imperial D09 1/350
http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=167151

Dear Mr Duff,

Re: Very fine rendition of HMS HOOD's colour scheme recently amended.

Please give the ship the dignity of wearing her ensign and.......... remove the stern boom ....... before I SCREAM!

Thank you for your kindness.

Old Sailor

Please would anyone be able to shed any light on a doubt I have about the shield to the side of the admirals bridge please. Drawings seem to indicate stanchions around the back and rear sides of the platform and a couple of photos seem to suggest a canvas screen at these points (or at least on the side) which a suppose could be attached to the stanchions if that’s what was there. Both the Trumpeter 1/200 kit and Pontos set have this as a solid screen. Any ideas or am I imagining things?

Steve

Unfortunately, the last bridge plans are from 1940, but that particular deck was modified again during the 1941 refit. That means we only have a few 1941 photos to use for reference. Based on said photos (particularly the shots of her en route to intercept Bismarck), it does appear that the back end of the Admiral’s Bridge deck was open. The front and sides had metal bulwarks/splinter shields, but the angled “corners” and rear central edge of the deck was railed. Based on the shadows seen, etc., it looks like plain fixed metal railing to me...none too sure that it had canvas at that point in time.

Here’s a photo showing some of the railing: download/file.php?id=131506&mode=view

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.org.uk

Frank thank you for that quick reply and confirmation photo. I just fitted the part to my model yesterday but it’s been nagging away at me but I’ll now go and amend the shield and fit the railing. Thanks again.

Steve

Drachinifel presents a nicely argumented analysis of the HMS Hood explosion, disproving the usual "plunging fire hit."

_________________
- David

Yeah, a good one. Sounds plausible. It still boils down to a lucky shot, that has not been disproven.

Drach released a 2nd part about how it would be upgraded using Vanguard parts if it survived the battle.

Enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vqnk2-n ... rachinifel

_________________
- @Shipific on IG
my gallery

I thoroughly enjoyed this video that was really well made and put the article by Bill Jurens to excellent use (http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_Hood.php).

A number of authors have attributed the loss of Hood to insufficient deck armor, stating in effect that she was lost due to an excessive vulnerability to plunging fire. The results of a recently developed computer program, however, seem to suggest that rather than being too thin to adequately protect her, Hood's deck armor was in fact at or near the thickness that would have granted her maximum protection at normal battleranges.

And then there were the small joys, such as the Prinz put in its place as not an existential threat.

Meanwhile, I discussed the hit below the main belt in a wave trough with the creator of the video, Mr Jurens, and my employer and we're going to try analyzing the wave pattern as a function of ship speed (that is, a simulation based on physics). The admiralty more or less did that already by model tests, but these results are restricted (or lost?). I wanted to do such an analysis anyway to model my future wave pattern, but this video is an excellent opportunity to pursue that right now. We'll start with "simple" calculations. Here we get a good indication if we need to go to methods that capture wave breaking or possibly scale effects that may explain differences between and model-test results and full-scale observations. But, one step at a time.

EJF,

Before starting to examine the possibility of a diving shell penetrating the ship below the belt courtesy of the wave/swell profile it might be advisable to read the book that was published a few years back by an Italian naval officer and gunnery specialist, which also looked at the action in the Denmark Strait. I have never read it but it may contain information that was not available to or taken into account when the oft quoted Jurens article was written.

You might also like to take into account the fact that according to the extract (No 3) in FW Allen's post of 6.01pm 3 November, HMS HOOD was drawing nearly 4 more feet of water than she had been when dry-docked in 1939. If this remained indicative of the ship's condition in May 1941, it may have been enough to permit a 38cm projectile entering the ship over the main side protection and the angle of descent of the projectile, to penetrate the horizontal protection.

Whatever the case, none can argue and I would not, with Mr Jurens' belief, that apparently, a fire was started in the 4inch ammunition spaces, which spread to the after 15inch magazines. This led to the loss of the ship. DK Brown RCNC saw no reason to disagree with Jurens in his "Nelson to Vanguard," commenting additionally that HOOD was a highly stressed ship: witness the comment I once heard from an old sailor in a TV interview, who served in the ship that when she dipped into a very large wave (hit a "milestone" in RN parlance), she would "wobble like a jelly on a plate."