HMS Hood and Admiral class Battlecruisers.

[DarrenP]

The Battlecruiser was discredited in WW1 but Britain had 4 of the Admiral class on stocks or in planning. HMS Hood was completed and was lost in world war 2 when her short commings were exposed.
I do wonder if the whole class had been completed as Battlecruisers applying the lessons of Jutland how effective they would have been. Or if Britain had applied what other nations did with their Battlecruiser programs converting some to aircraft carriers. Would this have been feasible if Britain had the money to do it . And what sort of ships could they have been?

[Old Wombat]

Battlecruiser or Fast Battleship

Although the Royal Navy always designated Hood as a battlecruiser, some modern writers such as Anthony Preston have classified her as a fast battleship, since Hood appeared to have improvements over the fast Queen Elizabeth-class battleships. On paper, Hood retained the same armament and level of protection, while being significantly faster.[36][37] Around 1918, American commanders, including Vice-Admiral William Sims, commander of US naval forces in Europe, and Admiral Henry T. Mayo, commander of the Atlantic Fleet, became extremely impressed by Hood which they described as a "fast battleship", and they advocated that the US Navy develop a fast battleship of its own.[38] However, the US continued with their established design direction, the slower but well-protected South Dakota-class battleship and the fast and lightly armoured Lexington-class battlecruiser, both of which were later cancelled in accordance with the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922.[39] Influences from Hood showed on subsequent Lexington designs, with the reduction of the main armour belt, the change to "sloped armour", and the addition of four above-water torpedo tubes to the four underwater tubes of the original design.[40] To add to the confusion, Royal Navy documents of the period often describe any battleship with a maximum speed over 24 knots (44 km/h; 28 mph) as a battlecruiser, regardless of the amount of protective armour. For instance, the never-built G3 battlecruiser was classified as such, although it would have been more of a fast battleship than Hood.[41]

On the other hand, the scale of Hood's protection, though adequate for the Jutland era, was at best marginal against the new generation of 16-inch (406 mm) gunned capital ships that emerged soon after her completion in 1920, typified by the US Colorado-class and the Japanese Nagato-class battleships. The Royal Navy were fully aware that the ship's protection flaws still remained, even in her revised design, so Hood was intended for the duties of a battlecruiser and she served in the battlecruiser squadrons through most of her career. Late in her career, Hood was clearly outclassed by the armour and protective arrangement of World War II-era fast battleships. Nevertheless, the Admiralty included Hood among the ships sent to engage the modern German battleship Bismarck in 1941, since few available "big gun" vessels could match Bismarck's speed, and probably also because of the reputation and legend of the "Mighty Hood".[36]

......................[snip]......................

Hood was due to be modernised in 1941 to bring her up to a standard similar to that of other modernised World War I-era capital ships. She would have received new, lighter turbines and boilers, a secondary armament of eight twin 5.25-inch gun turrets and six octuple 2-pounder pom-poms. Her 5-inch upper armour strake would have been removed and her deck armour reinforced. A catapult would have been fitted across the deck and the remaining torpedo tubes removed. In addition the conning tower would have been removed and her bridge rebuilt.[58] The ship's near-constant active service, resulting from her status as the Royal Navy's most battle-worthy fast capital ship, meant that her material condition gradually deteriorated, and by the mid-1930s she was in need of a lengthy overhaul. The outbreak of World War II made it impossible to remove her from service, and as a consequence she never received the scheduled modernisation afforded to other capital ships such as the battlecruiser HMS Renown and several of the Queen Elizabeth-class battleships.[59] The ship's condensers were in such bad shape by this time that much of the output from the fresh-water evaporators was required to replenish the boiler feed water and could not be used by the crew to wash and bathe or even to heat the mess decks during cold weather as the steam pipes were too leaky. These problems also reduced her steam output so that she was unable to attain her designed speed.[60]

Remember, Hood was an old ship which failed to be given a desperately needed upgrade. In this battle she was, unfortunately, outclassed & unlucky.

If she had received the upgrade, who knows what the outcome may have been?

Also, the weaknesses of battlecruisers tended to be exposed during fleet engagements; a high-speed pursuit, like the hunt for the Bismark, was where a battlecruiser could have come into her own!

[rickshaw]

Also, it appears the RN had not learnt the lessons of Jutland about the dangers of Flash, when HOOD was sent after the Bismark.  While her armour protection was inadequate, it was the lack of sealing internally which spelt her ultimate doom.   

[sideshowbob9]

The Battlecruiser was discredited in WW1

Not entirely true. They proved to be a great success when used as originally intended, as cruiser-killers, such as the Battle of the Falkland Islands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Falkland_Islands

Much like a cheetah has no business engaging a lion, a battlecruiser has no place on a battle line! 

[Thorvic]

Actually the Battlecruisers were not discredited, it was the Washington treaty that put a stop to them as the UK had the N class deign to gop with the G battleship, the US had its Lexington class and the Japanese the Amagi class. It was the treaty in 1922 that capped the size of the fleet that prompted the battlecruisers to be converted to Aircraft carriers so the big guns could be focused on retaining the late WW1 battleships which had the better armament and protection.

Renown should give a fair indication of what Hood would have looked like had she been able to get her planned rebuild which was sheduled about the time the war broke out

[ysi_maniac]

And what if HMS Hood were upgunned in USA? 


Based upon an original image by Thomas Schmid

[eatthis]

The Battlecruiser was discredited in WW1

Not entirely true. They proved to be a great success when used as originally intended, as cruiser-killers, such as the Battle of the Falkland Islands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Falkland_Islands

Much like a cheetah has no business engaging a lion, a battlecruiser has no place on a battle line! 

this times 1 million
if uses as intended then battlecruisers (and battleships) are extremely effective.
if you do what beaty did and charge a full batleship fleet then it wont end well (poor ammo storage aside)

[pyro-manic]

To answer DarrenP's original question: The Admiral class were cancelled because the experience of Jutland demonstrated that their design (particularly armour scheme) was flawed. The follow-on ships were the "G"-class monsters, which were cancelled at the signing of the Washington Treaty as Thorvic has already mentioned.

The poor handling of the Battlecruiser squadron at Jutland by Admiral Beatty is entirely to blame for the so-called "discrediting" of the concept. When used as intended (as cruiser-killers) they performed very, very well. The ultimate battlecruiser was later designed along the same lines and for the same purpose by the US - see the Alaska-class.

[DarrenP]

I still wonder if the Admiral class had followed the same way as the Americans and the Japanese to be converted to aircraft carriers what they would have been like?

[Martin H]

I still wonder if the Admiral class had followed the same way as the Americans and the Japanese to be converted to aircraft carriers what they would have been like?

if they were converted into carriers around the about same time frame, then Im betting they would look very much like Glorious and Courageous did.

[Thorvic]

I still wonder if the Admiral class had followed the same way as the Americans and the Japanese to be converted to aircraft carriers what they would have been like?

if they were converted into carriers around the about same time frame, then Im betting they would look very much like Glorious and Courageous did.

They probably would be the Carriers in place of Glorious and Courageous with the other two of the class retained as Battlecruisers so one of those would likely to have been modernised before the War

[ysi_maniac]

What if HMS Hood was deeply upgraded in early '30s with bits from HMS Nelson class. For instance, full artillery suite: main, secundary, AAA, etc.
Would this violate Washington treaty?

Another posibility, breaking treaty, is another class based in Hood's hull.

Your comments, please.

[pyro-manic]

Wouldn't work - Hood had 2x15" turrets. The much bigger 3x16" from the Nelsons wouldn't fit on the barbettes. In any case, the 16"/45 was not a terribly successful design.

A rebuild along the lines you suggest would be more expensive than just building a new ship, and would yield a less useful end product. As has been mentioned, the Admiral-class design was flawed, which is why they were cancelled. As has also been mentioned, Hood was due to get a rebuild, but the war got in the way. It's plausible that she could have been rebuilt in the late 30s instead of Renown.

This page has images that depict what Hood would likely have looked like after a rebuild: http://www.hmshood.com/history/construct/repair42.htm

Quite a handsome ship, but not as beautiful as the original configuration IMO.

Washington Naval Treaty info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty
Treaty text here: http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pre-war/1922/nav_lim.html

[aston]

I'm in the process of tootling around with an HMS Hood at the moment. It's a tragic story imo- something of a scandal given her armour and the state she was in when sent after the Bismarck. Those Admiral battle-cruisers were so long ..... 200ft longer than Warspite?.... that they might well have spelt Floating Runway - and for the time fast .... 32 knots? What was the take off speed of a Bristol Fighter?? I'm planning to equip mine with dive bombing Sea SE5as ....   

Reading up on the Admirals ... apparently there was a plan to convert to aircraft carrier use with a funnel and superstructure either side of the flight deck, a joining bridge overhead and aircraft landing between them.

By the way .... why are aircraft carrier islands always on the starboard side ??

[eatthis]

Reading up on the Admirals ... apparently there was a plan to convert to aircraft carrier use with a funnel and superstructure either side of the flight deck, a joining bridge overhead and aircraft landing between them.

go arounds sound fun lol