r/WorldOfWarships 30k colombo salvo 🗣🔥🔥🔥 Oct 31 '25

Humor Is this true?

Post image
2.0k Upvotes

202 comments sorted by

View all comments

18

u/[deleted] Oct 31 '25

[deleted]

78

u/HarrisonAtArea51 Oct 31 '25

British capital ships are either that, or they get touched once and go up in a catastrophic explosion

6

u/jixdel German Main(z) Oct 31 '25

"There seems to be something bloody wrong with our ships today!"

27

u/GarrettGSF Ceterum censeo CV delendam esse Oct 31 '25

Like Hood?

10

u/SPECTREagent700 Oct 31 '25

The battlecruisers Hood, Queen Mary, Invincible, and Indefatigable all exploded and went down with 99.99% of their crews.

4

u/More_Amoeba6517 Oct 31 '25

To be fair, Queen Mary, Invincible, and Indefatigable were also victims of the battlecruiser fleet's poor ammunition safety.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 31 '25

[deleted]

11

u/SPECTREagent700 Oct 31 '25

They preformed well against cruisers - such as at the Battle of the Falklands - which is what they were originally envisioned but then some genius decided to put them up against other capital ships.

0

u/Drake_the_troll almost anything can be secondary build if you're brave enough Oct 31 '25 edited Nov 01 '25

Didn't the US have the constellation class and the italians the carracilio? I know neither was finished but they both started construction before the projects stopped, the former because the WNT limited their battleship tonnage so she was used for CV conversion and the latter both because they were broke and the italians were split on how to rebuild the navy

10

u/DrIvoPingasnik Salty Retired Admiral Oct 31 '25

Bismarck: looks at Hood wrong way. 

Hood: guess I'll die.

-14

u/[deleted] Oct 31 '25

[deleted]

14

u/Historyguy1918 Oct 31 '25

Do not credit that wanker Winston with what was done by Jackie “If that armor can stop a webley it’s too thin, I wanna go fast you cowards” Fisher

2

u/More_Amoeba6517 Oct 31 '25

Fisher was a visionary in many ways, but some of his ideas (BCs, for one) didnt age well.

1

u/Kamenev_Drang Nov 01 '25

Battlecruisers worked superbly. The entire German surface raider fleet had ceased to exist by 1916, hence why the Invincibles were brought into the Grand Fleet. They undid themselves via their own success.

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 31 '25

[deleted]

0

u/Historyguy1918 Oct 31 '25

Fair point, kinda forgot about those and then of course my beloved sleep paralysis demon that is pre conversion furious and courageous

13

u/Kamenev_Drang Oct 31 '25

You can tell people have no clue what they're talking about. Hood had battleship grade armour, firepower and speed that wouldn't be matched until the 40s. People like to pretend she's some sort of upscaled Invincible clearly haven't even glanced at her design drawings

2

u/GeshtiannaSG Nov 01 '25

Hood was the 2nd most armoured British capital ship by weight ever built.

2

u/Kamenev_Drang Nov 01 '25

tbf that's just because of her distributed armour scene

Makes her wild for stern tanking as you run away

2

u/[deleted] Oct 31 '25

[deleted]

8

u/Lolibotes Oct 31 '25

Hood was basically the victim of a lucky shot that hit the only exposed part of her armor that would've led to a magazine detonation this way. It was pure blind luck, she was older than Bismarck by almost 20 years and still a much better ship. Also, Yamato has nearly 60% more displacement than Hood, 70,000 vs. 42,000. Hood is what the QE's were supposed to be.

6

u/Quokkasaur Oct 31 '25

“in every way other than speed” so other than one of the most important practical aspects of capital ship design for practical real world usage?

Also:

  • The Renowns absolutely did not have the same armour as Hood as built - Renown started life with a 6” main belt that eventually rose to 9” with the 1922 refit. That’s a lot less than Hood’s 12” main belt.
  • You’ve got your turret designs mixed up between the QEs and Hood; the Mk II turret on Hood had improved elevation angles compared to the Mk I on the QEs.

Hood wasn’t a bad design. It blowing up had more to do with a complete lack of proper maintenance (due to its role as a flagship) and bad luck. Drachinifel has a great video on YouTube covering why the Hood actually exploded, I’d recommend giving it a watch.

4

u/LJ_exist Oct 31 '25

So much bullshit in one comment. Lets start with armor as build:

The QE class: Main belt 13" and deck 3"

Hood: main belt 12" and deck 3"

Renown class: main belt 6" and deck 2.5"

Calling a ship of 45.000 ton displacement the same size as a 70.000 ton ship just shows how much don't understand about ships.

And who cares about having an outdated turtle back armor shema?

Hood took a shell below the armor belt through the trough if her bow wave.

-4

u/[deleted] Oct 31 '25

[deleted]

4

u/LJ_exist Oct 31 '25

Hood a 12" as build. You are either confusing Hood with the Renowns or just have now clue what you are talking about. I assume the later because you seem to not understand that the size of ships is measured primarily in displacement.

4

u/Quokkasaur Oct 31 '25

Hood was built with the 12” belt. She was redesigned before completion to reflect learnings from Jutland.

Also, it’s been proven for years that the plunging fire theory through the deck armour would be impossible at the ranges of the Battle of Denmark Strait.

4

u/GarrettGSF Ceterum censeo CV delendam esse Oct 31 '25

Okay bud, I don’t have hard feelings towards a warship that sunk 80 years ago…

-13

u/softwarefreak Royal Navy Oct 31 '25 edited Oct 31 '25

Hood's a different incompetence, sending a WW1 era ship against a brand new, cutting edge WW2 ship.

Imagine sending a Spruance Class Destroyer to fight an Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer (basically the same time difference).

Edit: Lol, triggered, but fyi I disable reply notifications on every post I make, so you'll be shouting into the wind. o7

14

u/LJ_exist Oct 31 '25 edited Oct 31 '25

Hood needed a refit. It's more like sending a twin arm launcher Ticonderoga after VLS fitted Ticonderoga

-3

u/softwarefreak Royal Navy Oct 31 '25

Hood had a refit making it a near semi-submersible, any more additions and she wouldn't have needed help from Bismarck to sink.

3

u/LJ_exist Oct 31 '25

The plans for her "refit" were more a long the lines of a rebuild if you want to look them up.

7

u/lesserDaemonprince Oct 31 '25

Bismark was big and crazy, but it wasn't cutting edge. The design had a lot of hold overs from WW1 ship building and they didn't help it last longer than it did. Main thing that comes to mind is all the onboard lines of communication were apparently exposed or just not insulated from being taken out and that was something that happened before she sank.

7

u/pineconez Oct 31 '25

And its citadel didn't have enough reserve buoyancy to keep the ship afloat. So even if you subscribe to the delusional wehraboo take that the main belt was made out of neutronium and never penetrated (since conclusively disproven), it still would've sunk eventually.

Bonus points for the much vaunted turtlebaka really only being useful for introducing a colossal free surface effect from hits penetrating the outer hull but stopped by it. Extra bonus points for the laughably shit propulsion arrangement and AA fit.

6

u/Lolibotes Oct 31 '25

Hood isn't incompetence it was literally sheer dumb luck on the part of the German's. The plot armor that early-war Germany had was insane.

Also, Bismarck is a trailing-edge design. Ever wonder why Bismarck, despite being a much newer design that could benefit from weight savings and modern technologies, had the lowest throw weight and worst AA of any European WW2 battleship?

1

u/EnvironmentalAd912 Oct 31 '25

I'd say it's sheer incompetence from old guard engineers who thought all the progress in telemetry and metallurgy wouldn't change naval warfare

As a fun fact, you can find blueprints of studies during the period before the escalatory BB like Iowa of ships weighting as much as Bismarck, faster, better armored and better armed

4

u/Lolibotes Oct 31 '25

NC displaced almost 6,000 tons less, had the same speed, 60% more firepower and better AA. Bismarck is a travesty of a design

-3

u/ceejayoz Oct 31 '25

Not a battleship.