Comments by "" (@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684) on "HMS Hood - Guide 009 (Human Voice)" video.

  1. Unfortunately you're mistaken. HMS Hood DID dock at Hvalfjord on 23rd April 1941 for the purposes of refuelling after sailing from Scapa Flow in response to an erroneous report of Bismarck sortieing 2 days earlier. With regard to the actual sinking of Hood, HMS Hood had sailed from Scapa Flow in the Orkney islands late in the evening of 21st May, with orders to head to Hvalfjord to refuel, and then to patrol the Denmark Strait, but due to the British cruisers who were already patrolling the Denmark Strait spotting Bismarck / PE while Hood & her companions were still en route, they instead headed directly to intercept the German task force WITHOUT docking in Iceland prior to the engagement and Hood's tragic sinking.
    4
  2. None of that shit here.
    3
  3. Please concisely explain why she was NOT a fast battleship. She was a without doubt a pioneering fast battleship. At completion her armour and firepower was equal to contemporary battleship design, as well as being 8-9 knots faster. the very definition of a "fast battleship". Granted she was in need of modernisation before 1941, but it doesn't negate the fact that she was still a fast battleship though a dated one. Is a sports car designed in the 2000s NOT a sports car in the 2020s?
    3
  4.  @jonathanjones3623  You do realise that the incremental armour you allude to when defining Hood's status as a battlecruiser is exactly the SAME principle that was used to armour the Bismarck itself. Does that mean Bismarck was a battlecruiser? As for your definition of "dead short of adequate armor distribution and reliability of protection" that is a VERY wide net you're using to entangle Hood, such a net would also entangle the "American Battlecruiser" USS Arizona. It appears you erroneously consider Hood an equal of her naval contemporaries HMS Repulse and Renown (and indeed her predecessors Indefatigable, Invincible & Queen Mary). The belief that Hood was "vulnerable to plunging fire" at the range that was involved at the time of her destruction (17000 yards) does not stand scrutiny. Gunnery data both from the pre war German testing and that of the post war US navy concur that Bismarck's 38cm SK C/34 main weapons being of higher velocity had at the range of Hood's destruction an "angle of fall" of approximately 11-13 degrees from the horizontal, therefore the old belief of mortar-like "plunging fire" holds no water at all. Pair this data with the fact that prewar testing of Hood's horizontal armouring showed that it was impervious to 15in shellfire at angles of fall anwhere below 20 degrees. As for Hood's original designation as a "battlecruiser", I refer you to Shakespeare's line from Romeo and Juliet "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet", or in our case if a ship possesses battleship weapons, battleship armour and is a lot faster than other contemporary battleships then it is a "fast battleship".
    2
  5.  @jonathanjones3623  I've never seen so many words actually say so little. Well done. Why use 5 words when 500 will suffice? A chunk of Shakespeare that fits your diatribe very well is "A poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more: It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
    2
  6. Any such story was complete nonsense.
    2
  7. HMS Hood berthed at Liverpool from 28th May 1940 until 12th June 1940 where she was drydocked for maintenance to her hull and propellers.
    1
  8. Must've designed USS Arizona as well !!!
    1
  9. More "British colonialist" BS. What about the expoitative colonies of ALL the other major European powers? Please tell us about THEIR heinous crimes.
    1
  10. Hopefully he'll take you away again. Goodbye.
    1