Comments by "" (@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684) on "HMS Hood & USS Iowa - Battlecruisers or Fast Battleships?" video.

  1. By your definition HMS Hood was a battleship.
    3
  2. Apart from the battlecruisers that didn't.
    3
  3. Meanwhile forgetting to mention that Hood's original design as a lightly armoured battlecruiser was changed mid-build to incorporate thousands of tons more armour with the result that she became what was in effect a variant of the Queen Elizabeth battleships.... equal in armour and firepower but 6-7 knots faster.
    3
  4. HMS Warspite 8x15in guns 12 inch belt armour 3 in deck armour speed 24 knots ........... battleship HMS Hood 8x15in guns 12 inch belt armour 3 in deck armour speed 32 knots .......... FAST battleship.
    3
  5.  @arunta5  I agree with most of your second post, I just don't agree with your non sequitur "The Hood was a Battlecruiser built at the end of WW1. Three battlecruisers were lost at Jutland." That implies an incorrect assuption as to the specifications of HMS Hood.
    3
  6.  @arunta5  Are you aware that Hood as originally conceived was an improvement on the earlier Lion, Indefatigable & Tiger class battlecruisers that you allude to in your OP, but as a result of the events at Jutland in 1916 she was FURTHER redesigned while still being constructed to include an extra 5000 tons of armour, which resulted in her armour levels being on a par with contemporary WW1 battleships, while STILL being 7-8 knots faster? The earlier battlecruisers had belt thicknesses of 4 - 6in and decks in the region of 1 - 2 in. Hood sported an angled belt of 12in (effectively 13 inches due to the angling) and a main 3 inch armoured deck which was sufficiently thick to protect her from gunnery of the WW1 period, but due to improvements in range finding and gun technology throughout the 1920s and 30s, longer range gunnery with steeper plunging fire angles at those longer ranges meant that Hood's deck armour was rendered less and less effective. She did receive a number of refits during her 20 year career, but due to the demans placed on her during the interwar years, she was the last of the battlecruisers to receive a major redesign of her armour, which had been scheduled to tke place in 1942, had not WW2 & Bismarck intervened.
    3
  7.  @wesleyjarboe9571  Likening HMS Hood to the "Invincible" and "indefatigable" class battlecruisers that took part in Jutland is akin to suggesting a Keonigsegg Gemera is the same as a Honda S2000. Yes, both are considered "super cars" but their handling & performance and specifications are leagues apart. I realise Arizona was hit by more than 1 bomb, but it had shrugged off the others, just as Hood had shrugged of a number of previous hits in Denmark Strait, but like Hood its sinking was not attributable to progressive damage from multiple hits, but directly as the result of catastrophic damage from one single hit on Arizona's forward magazine. I illustrate the "million to one" shot with the following explanation & analogy of long range naval gunnery. A full salvo of main gun fire from a battleship is analogous to a scatter of lead shot from a shotgun. During the battle of Denmark Strait, the Bismarck aimed at Hood from 8-9 nautical miles (Approx 17-18,000 yards) away. The German's own naval gunnery data tables provided by their AVKS ("Artillerie Versuchs Kommando für Schiff" or naval artillery evaluation command) show that at that range of 18000 yards the 38 cm SK C/34 (Bismarck's main armament) had a CEP (circular error probability - effectively the RADIUS of a circle within which 50% of its shots would be expected to fall) of 100m. That means that if 8 of Bismarck's 15in guns fired at a single point 8-9 nm away, 4 of her shells would be expected to land (with completely random distribution) within an ellipse (think of it as a stretched circle, due to the angle of fall of the shells) measuring approximately 200m (660ft) wide, (or to put it another way 76% of HMS Hood's 860ft length), by more than two thousand feet long. The other 4 shots would probably land even FURTHER away from the aiming point. That being the case, how can an individual shell be aimed specifically at a tiny part of HMS Hood's structure, namely the 4in HA magazine, that its believed triggered off the "domino effect" of Hood's detonation? I'll give you a hint, there's a little clue in my paragraph above....where it says "completely random distribution". A simplified analogy is that if you prop a dartboard up 50 yards away and can consistently knock it over with a shotgun at that range then that is pretty good shooting, just as Bismarck / PE achieved during the Denmark Strait encounter. Now you can "knock the dartboard over" with the shotgun all day long and STILL NOT hit the bullseye (magazine) with an individual pellet. As opposed to being a skillful shot by knocking over the dartboard, whether you hit the bullseye with an individual pellet is complete "million to one" luck.
    3
  8. What did USS Arizona act like?
    2
  9. Hood had "no armour" (12 inch belt, and 3 in deck) and was large for no reason? What do you think drove her 45000 tons at nearly 32 knots? Don't you think her size was something to do with being powered by 4 large steam turbines fed by 24 boilers?
    2
  10. Heavily gunned heavy cruisers.
    2
  11. At the time of her completion in 1920 contemporary battleships could "only" steam at 22-23 knots, for a 45,000 ton warship to achieve 32 knots in 1920 was STAGGERING.
    2
  12. Graf Spee a battlecruiser? Hahaha.
    2
  13. Not so much "not very good" but more a case of it being the "original fast battleship" that was not modernised enough throughout its 21 year career to keep it abreast of naval developments.
    2
  14. Hood was an evolution of battlecruiser theory. Post Jutland her uparmoured redesign took her into the new realm of the fast battleship. a THIRD of her 46000 displacement was armour, she was as well armoured as the Queen Elizabeth class battleships, such as HMS Warspite that had survived everything the Kaiser's navy could throw at her when at Jutland her steering motors overheated and she circled alone twice in front of the entire WW1 German battle fleet, and then went on into WW2 surviving encounters with Italian battleships and nazi glider bombs. Hood was as far removed from the likes of the WW1 Tiger and Indefatigable class battlecruisers as I am from a ballet dancer (and thats a VERY long way). The RN's nomenclature for Hood as a "battlecruiser" was entirely down to her speed, which outstripped all her WW1 battleship cohort by a factor of 7-8 knots, and not based on her being "lightly armoured". Bismarck belt armour = 12.6 inches Hood belt armour = 12 inches (Though angled so as to give 13 inches of protection). Bismarck deck armour = 4 inches Hood deck armour = 3 inches Hood's vertical armour was well upto the standard of contemporary battleships, her weakest aspect was her horizontal deck armour, but V/Adm Holland had raced to close on Bismarck and had escaped the "danger zone" of plunging fire, only to be then hit by a million to one shot that found an obscure "achilles heel" in her vertical armour.
    2
  15. HMS Hood WAS originally conceived and designed as a lightly armoured "battlecruiser". Just after her keel was laid in John Brown's Shipyard on the River Clude in Glasgow the battle of Jutland took place with the result of 3 of Admiral Beatty's battlecrusiers blowing up. Building of Hood was then postponed while D’Eyncourt and his team redesigned Hood to incorporate 3500 tons of extra armour, with the result that when launched she had the same degree of armour protection as the Royal Navy's then premier battleships the "Queen Elizabeth" class, BUT was 7-8 knots faster than the "QEs". When a ship has A. Battleship firepower B. Battleship armour and C. 7-8 knots faster than all contemporary battleships, I don;t care whether it was originally designed and named as a "battlecruiser", what you have is the world's first "FAST battleship". As Shakespeare's Juliet said..."What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet".
    2
  16. What was "meaningless" about "full HD"? It was the sales jargon for the non-technical consumer that specifically related to the 1080p screen resolution, "ordinary" HD being the lower 720p screen resolution.
    2
  17. neither of which were at sea when Hood and Bismarck were.
    2
  18. In that case Bismarck must be one as well.
    2
  19. But it WASN'T built as it was designed.
    2
  20. Hood was a battlecruiser 15 years before Bismarck slid down the slipway. You think the British admiralty was concerned with German self regard?
    2
  21. Let me illustrate the flawed logic of your "Hood was a battlecruiser just like the 3 battlecruisers lost at Jutland. Ballet dancers have 2 arms 2 legs and a head. I also have two arms, two legs and a head. Therefore I am a ballet dancer. (You REALLY wouldn't want to see me in a tutu). "Bismarck was a state of the art battleship"... was she? She had most of the same major design features as the Hood, twin gunned main turrets, incremental armour scheme, needlessly duplicated secondary armament. Hood had the excuse of being built during WW1, Bismarck didn't. Bismarck was mauled, declawed and beheaded by an RN battleship that was 13 years older than her, and which sported superior armour and firepower in a package that weighted 30% less.
    2
  22.  @arunta5  Aye there are lots of relatively unknown facts regarding pivotal figures during WW2. Neville Chamberlain, British prime minister known for his attempts to avert WW2, and his failed appeasement policies, died in November 1940 crushed by his failure to avoid a second apocalyptic blood letting, and with Britain at its lowest point at the time of his death. Trafford Leigh-Mallory one of the commanders during the "battle of Britain" died in the French Alps in 1944 in a plane crash whilst on his way to take up his new post as Air Commander-in-Chief of South East Asia Command. Personally speaking I find the death of Chamberlain from stomach cancer in Nov 1940 as a tragedy for an honourable man who had worked tirelessly to prevent bloodshed and who passed at a time when it appeared that the UK was on the verge of being conquered by nazi Germany. Anyhow, all the best to you Arunta.
    2
  23. In what way was Hood's firepower "not enough". 8 x 15in guns served battleships of all the major navies admirably during WW1 & 2. Also Hood's armour as she was launched was top class, largely equal to the contemporary Queen Elizabeths, which again gave excellent, robust service during WW1 & 2.
    1
  24. Ignoring the fact that when Hood was completed she had the same armour protection as a contemporary "Queen Elizabeth" battleship, but was 8 knots faster.
    1
  25. Much like USS Arizona.
    1
  26. Hood as she was designed was indeed a battlecruiser with lighter armour for increased speed. The poor performance of British battlecruisers at the battle of Jutland shortly before her keel was laid down forced the British admiralty to revise her design to incorporate a LOT more armour. When she was completed in 1920 she sported the same armour protection as the contemporary RN "Queen Elizabeth" class battleships, but could travel 8 knots faster than them.
    1
  27. Hood was classified by the British Admiralty as a "battlecruiser" but in reality had all the attributes of a pioneering "fast battleship".... 22 years BEFORE Iowa's keel was even laid down.
    1
  28. 1920.... HMS Warspite 8x15in guns, 12 inch belt armour, 3 in deck armour, speed 24 knots, battleship HMS Hood 8x15in guns, 12 inch belt armour, 3 in deck armour, speed 32 knots, FAST battleship. HMS Hood was completed as WW1 ended and it became internationally obvious that a naval treaty (restricting amongst other things battleship numbers and displacements) was necessary to stop an unaffordable international arms race from developing. What better way to increase your naval dominance by insisting that your latest fast battleship is a "battlecruiser" which is what HMS Hood was originally conceived & designed as, even though she was subsequently upgraded during her construction to become the original fast battleship that she finally was. "A Rose by any other name".......
    1
  29. By which definition HMS Hood was NOT a battlecruiser, having both battleship guns AND battleship armour as well as being able to move at >30knots when most other capital ships of the world could only manage 23/24 knots.
    1
  30.  @dwightlooi  Even just a cursory glance at wikipedia will show the differences between Hood and her battlecruiser "stablemates". The Renown class BCs for instance had 25% less firepower and upto 50% less armour than Hood, though they were more thoroughly updated through the 1930s than Hood was. Then you have the REALLY uninformed who associate Hood with the earlier generation "Invincible" & "Indefatigable" class BCs.
    1
  31. The "plunging shot through the deck armour" theory has been discounted for many years. At the range of the fatal hit, that is approx 8-9 miles, and using the German's own AVSK gunnery data for the 38 cm SK C/34 at that range gives an angle of fall somewhere in the region of 10-13 dgrees from the horizontal, which was wholly incapable of penetrating even Hood's 3 inch deck armour at the given range. Hood had the same armour scheme as the "Queen Elizabeth" battleships such as HMS Warspite, a ship that as well and taking everything that the German High Seas Fleet could throw at her in WW1, also happily exchanged blows with Italian battleships and nazi glider bombs in the Med in WW2 and sailed through it all. The fact is that a million to one shot from Bismarck found an obscure "Achilles heel" in Hood's vertical armour which almost certainly triggered off a domino effect magazine explosion.
    1
  32. Well in HMS Hood's case, speed and 15000 tons of armour plate.
    1
  33. The "flying off" platform on her "B" turret means that this photo was taken pre 1932 when Hood had her Aircraft (Fairey Flycatchers... no honestly!!!), cranes and flying off platforms on "B" and "X" turrests removed.
    1
  34. Hood had battleship guns, battleship armour and could reach 32 knots when all other battleships could only reach 23 knots.
    1
  35. Do you see that as the line of progression? Dreadnought > Hood > Invincible > QE ? Strange.
    1
  36. Learning is great isn't it? Stick with it.
    1
  37. "Cruiser hull"? Nonsense. Bismarck belt armour = 12.6 inches Hood belt armour = 12 inches (Though angled so as to give 13 inches of protection). Bismarck armoured deck = 3.75 inches Hood armoured deck = 3 inches Some "cruiser".
    1
  38. If I throw a lighted match into a burning building, am I the arsonist?
    1
  39. Just as Hood in reality was as well.... albeit an unlucky one.
    1
  40. Like Jutland while the British suffered a far heavier loss at Denmark Strait, they achieved their main goal of preventing the breakout of the German task force into the Atlantic convoy lanes. After HMS PoW's 3 hits on Bismarck, Adm Lütjens was forces to call of "exercise Rhine" and run for France. Mission killed.
    1
  41. Name me a cruiser with 8 x 15" guns and 13 inch thick belt armour?
    1
  42. USS Arizona blew up because of a single Japanese bomb that hit it ? Does tha make her a "battlecruiser" too?
    1
  43. Why compare Hood to the Tiger and indefatigables? They were in a complete different league !!! "Tiger" 4 x 13.5in guns, 9in main belt armour, 3in deck armour, 28 knots. "Indefatigable" 4 x 12in guns, 6in main belt armour, 3in deck armour, 25 knots. "Hood" 8 x 15in guns, 12in main belt armour (which was angled to provide 13in armour thickness), 3in deck armour, 32 knots.
    1
  44. It's be a sad show if Iowa wasn't more technically advanced than a ship built 23 years before it.
    1
  45.  @serialman1  So the British admiralty decided to designate HMS Hood as a "battlecruiser" in 1916, to deny the nazis the acclaim of sinking a battleship in 1941? Interesting concept.... Sounds like the basis of a science fiction movie.
    1
  46. The "little steamer" is the Turbinia. It's still in existence at the "Discovery museum" in Newcastle, UK. The "Spithead (fleet) review" is (was) an intermittently held parade of the world's largest navy (the RN) for the British monarch as it sailed past the "bottom of Queen Victoria's garden" at Osbourne House on the Isle of Wight. To get a flavour of the scale of the spectacle, and to also see the "Turbinia" sprinting past the mighty RN fleet, have a look at this image by Eduardo de Martino from 1898. https://www.rct.uk/sites/default/files/collection-online/9/6/865475-1550233451.jpg Nowadays the Royal Navy can easily be paraded in a medium sized child's paddling pool. Whereas the RN once policed the world's largest empire and guarded the world's oceans, they are now unable to stop small inflatable boats from crossing the English Channel.... Though they are an "equal opportunities employer" so it's not all bad.
    1
  47. Which is why Hood was effectively the world's first fast battleship.
    1
  48. If I call a "banana" an "apple" does that make it so?
    1
  49.  @wesleyjarboe9571  Indeed the British Admiralty classified Hood as a battlecruiser, and as she was originally conceived she was a fast, lightly armoured "cruiser killer".... but as the events at Jutland illustrated the shortcomings of the battlecruiser concept, Hood's redesign on the stocks meant she came off the slipway as a battlecruiser in name only. Bismarck belt armour = 12.6 inches Hood belt armour = 12 inches (Though angled so as to give 13 inches of protection). Bismarck armoured deck = 4 inches Hood armoured deck = 3 inches Hood's vertical armour was well upto the average standard of contemporary battleships, her weakest aspect was her horizontal deck armour, but Holland being fully aware of this relative weakness had raced to close on Bismarck and had escaped the "danger zone" of plunging fire, only to be then hit by a million to one shot that found an obscure "achilles heel" in her vertical armour.
    1
  50.  @wesleyjarboe9571  A million to one shot that in all likelihood landed short and pentrated below her main belt armour. Do million to one shots negate the whole raison d-etre of a ship? Does the fact that a single Japanese bomb sank the USS Arizona mean she was an inadequate laughing stock of a battleship? Yes indeed the German designers by placing Bismarck's main armour deck one level lower than most other battleships did indeed make her harder to sink.... but it also meant that many of her vital systems were unable to be fitted within the reduced volume beneath that armoured deck hence why she was very quickly reduced to an ineffectual floating target for the Royal Navy to play Piñata with.
    1
  51.  @wesleyjarboe9571  Yes, admittedly my comparison of Hood to Arizona is somewhat comparing "apples with oranges", considering the 5 inches of thick faced MNC armour that Arizona had over her magazines... which proved incapable of preventing the penetration of that single Japanese bomb. Also USS Arizona sounded "General Quarters" at least FIVE minutes before the commencement of the air attacks, AMPLE time for her crew to "batten down the hatches". What, in your expert capacity as one who has received US Navy damage control training, do you suggest sank USS Arizona? Distributed systems damage, localised fires and possibly some minor flooding? or the catastrophic detonation of possibly as much as 100 tons of SPCG flashless propellant in Arizona's turret II magazine https://youtu.be/ujquq7IU0uY, caused by a single 16in Japanese naval shell converted into an airborne bomb? I know what MY money is on. You speculation as to the structural integrity of Arizona's forward deck armour just prior to her detonation is just that, speculation, and not of the particularly well informed variety either, as is your appraisal of Hood's value as a warship. The point remains.... Was USS Arizona a worthless laughing stock due to the relatively easy nature of her destruction? P.S I'm probably older than you are, and the last time I played a naval game was with paper and pencil. Save your condescension for the video game generation, lad.
    1
  52.  @wesleyjarboe9571  YT does have a habit of not notiying me of responses lately. Please don't talk nonsense about "FBI" and "classified information". The details are available in multiple publications that have been in print for many years. Well dodged with regard to my question regarding what caused the sinking or Arizona. Do you honestly think, as a highly trained "USN damage control operative" that whether a ship was at "battle stations" or not is going to make the SLIGHTEST amount of difference to its survival when a main magazine detonates? We were discussing the effectiveness of the armouring of the two respective ships. Whether Arizona was buttoned up or not, that 16in shell/bomb was going to penetrate her deck armour and down to her 2nd magazine, so I repeat does that invalidate Arizona of being worthy of the classification of a "battleship"?
    1
  53.  @wesleyjarboe9571  SO much useless verbiage in your posts Wesley. "IF the bomb went off in the magazine" https://youtu.be/ujquq7IU0uY IF the bomb had NOT pierced the armour plating over her magazines do you not understand that the 50lbs of HE that you correctly detail would not have penetrated through that deck armour? Eye witnesses stated that the detonation happened within SECONDS of the bomb impact.... not a matter of a minute or more after the impact but seconds. A delay between the hit and the detonation would have suggested that fire spread uncontained by the ship being in a non prepared state subsequently reached the magazine. The bomb impact penetrated the deck armour there is NO question about that, as would be expected of a 16in shell impacting at a high angle. But all this is academic, and we have wandered far from the original point of Hood's classification. To head back to it, I'll keep it simple, if a ship has battleship armour and has battleship firepower, and travels at 8-9 knots faster than the rest of her battleship cohort, then I don't care if the British Admiralty called it a "motor torpedo boat"..... it's a "fast battleship". I do not have a rationale for why Hood's designation was not changed after its re-design, possibly to avoid any postwar stipulations within naval treaties that the combattants knew were inevitably going to take place after WW1. Navies always have political considerations to be taken into account (as did all govt depts), such as when the British 1970s "Invincible class" light aircraft carriers were designated as "Through Deck Cruisers" by the RN to avoid government questioning for why such profligate expenditure by the RN was needed. Remember if swims and quacks like a duck, has webbed feet & feathers like a duck... it's a duck.... not a chicken.
    1
  54. Don't mistake a "million to one shot" for a "glass jaw".
    1
  55. Easier to hit a ship thats determined to fight, rather than one such as Bismarck which spent the entirety of its short life running at top speed away from the enemy.
    1
  56. Hence why HMS Hood was THE proto fast battleship.
    1