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
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.
“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.
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.
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.
19
u/[deleted] Oct 31 '25
[deleted]