• If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread
  • Check out Tickling.com - the most innovative tickling site of the year.
  • The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us.
  • >>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
    Don't forget to include your username

Hey You Brits ...

Great......

...thanks for that Tronny, if only we had spent the money to have those decks armour plated, if only...sigh.....it would probably be a bigger tourist attraction than the "Victory" ever has been.
 
The Hood...

Was a marvelous warship, in my opinion maybe the lovliest Battleship/Battlecruiser type ever built, although the HMS Tiger original appearance might be a bit more graceful.

If I recall correctly (I'm still looking through my books), money wasn't the underlying issue as to why the Hood was never modernized. Mostly it has to do with the Washington and London Naval treaties, which set limits on how many capital ships a country could possess and more importantly set limits as to when they could be upgraded. For instance I believe the Hood couldn't have been upgraded until 1938 at the earliest, because that was 20 years after her original commissioning date. Also the Brits were limited to 15 Capital Ships. They had the 5 Queen Elizabeths, 5 R Class BBs, 2 Nelsons, 2 Renown class BCs and of course the Hood. They had to have a certain amount available at one time, and of all these ships (excepting the Nelsons) the Hood was the newest. They had to modernize and rearmor the REnowns because their armor was clearly inadequate by any standard. The Hood was considered marginal. The R Class were going to be replaced anyways by the KGV Class. And the Nelsons didn't need modernization. The Brits considered the Class of their battleline to be the QEs , the Hood and the Nelsons. Since the QEs were the eldest they felt they needed modernized prior to the Hood. They'd already modernized the Valiant, the QE, The Warspite, and the Renown, with a minimal armor upgrade to the Repulse. The hood was due in either '38 or '39. Maybe as late as '40. The money was there, but of course Hitler started WW2 and they couldn't afford to take the Hood out of service for 2 years for the upgrades. She would have come out looking very similar to the Renown. Her good looks would have been gone because the Hood was to receive a Tower Superstructure, much like the one on the Nelsons, the KGVs, the Renown and the Vanguard. So her grace and elegance would have been gone.

The Bismarck shot was a freak shot. i'm not sure if a deck armor upgrade would have made a huge difference. Remember after this upgrade the Hood might not have been able to even catch the Bismarck. By 1941 her speed was already marginal in that regard. It should also be recognized the Hood would have been a modernized warship, VICE a modern one, and there is a difference. No matter what they did she would have had an incremental armor scheme, vice a modern one. Also, no pre 1935 ever fought a post 1935 battleship and ended up winning. While a very over rated design, the Bismarck was still a tough nut to crack.

Personally I've always been befuddled as to why the Brits didn't save the Warspite. She had a marvelous record, in two World wars and may have been the most decorated warship in history.

Tron
 
Mind you.......

......those armour plated carrier decks were worth every penny when we deployed in the pacific to give your lads a bit of a helping hand.

BTW any news on my "sailing to windward" inquiry?
 
Right Now..

I've been rather busy trying to teach some individuals a bit about propulsion Engineering over the internet. So I haven't been able to do any serious research on sailing into the wind. What I DO know is it was developed by the brits as a Naval Tactic.

AS for Armoured decks. They have their downsides. The Armoured deck was a hell of an idea, BUT seriously degraded the ability of the Brits to upgrade their carriers post WW2. The reason being the new types of planes couldn't fit into the hangars because they were too tall. The hangar size had to be limited due to having armour high up in the ship. This also limited their air groups, thus their strategic flexibility. Another chronic problem with Brit ships was their low tactical radius (outside the cruisers of course). The Brit carriers were developed for fleet protection, vice power projection. So they were a bit at a disadvantage in the Pacific and in many cases were a burden to the US Fleet. That's not knocking the ships at all, they weren't designed for the Pacific and when a ship is operated outside it's design then it won't be as effective. I know of one case where the Armoured deck actually hurt a ship. One of the Brit Carriers (I'm thinking it was either the Victorious or the Illustrious) was hit by a Kamikaze, that didn't penetrate the armour, but managed to twist it, this twisted the frame and the ship suffered from Vibration problems the rest of it's life.
It's odd you brought up the Brit Carriers because I just happened to have obtained two very rare books about the Fleet Air Arm. Both came from Britain.
One is British Carrier Aviation, the other American And British Aircraft Carrier Developement 1919-1941. Both are by Norman Friedman a VERY good historian and writer on Warship Design. The sad part of the Fleet Air Arm was how it allowed itself to be emasculated by the Royal Air Force between World Wars. The Brit navy suffered from it. ALTHOUGH I'll state for the record, the Swordfish pound for pound WAS the most effective weapon in WW2.

Here's a good website

http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/

Tron
 
What's New

2/28/2025
Check out Clips4Sale for the webs largest fetish clip selection!
Door 44
Live Camgirls!
Live Camgirls
Streaming Videos
Pic of the Week
Pic of the Week
Congratulations to
*** brad1701 ***
The winner of our weekly Trivia, held every Sunday night at 11PM EST in our Chat Room
Back
Top