The sinking of HMS HOOD - on TV now

[VO5]

My late father-in-law came off the Hood, not long before this action. He went to be commissioned and so survived. He had seen action on the Hood, however, in the effort to stop the French warships falling into German hands.

Arethusa was also in this action sinking the french fleet at Oran, Arethusa was straddled by the shore batteries, My Father who was in action in F turret apparently stuck his head out and asked a guy who was watching through bino's 'Hows our fall of shot'? he replied 'Dunno im watching there's'!

Luv it - very funny.

 

[Latestarter1]

As a result of this thread re read Hood stuff.

All makes salutory reading, despite constant changes Hood was completed in a timely manner, 99.9% of her equipment was produced in Great Britain.

On sea trails she made 151,000 hp and exceeded contract speed by almost 1 knot. Amazingly ZERO faults were recorded a tribute to project management by Directorate of Naval Construction as well as builders skills and workmanship.

Compare and contrast with the Astute class debacle.........

 

[Grumpybear]

As a result of this thread re read Hood stuff.

All makes salutory reading, despite constant changes Hood was completed in a timely manner, 99.9% of her equipment was produced in Great Britain.

On sea trails she made 151,000 hp and exceeded contract speed by almost 1 knot. Amazingly ZERO faults were recorded a tribute to project management by Directorate of Naval Construction as well as builders skills and workmanship.

Compare and contrast with the Astute class debacle.........

True enough, but the only novelty about her was the size, and even that was incremental: in many ways she was a development of the QE battleships for greater speed but less armour to save weight (so critical that her secondary armament was 5.5 inch guns (a calibre developed as a private venture for two light cruisers for Turkey- bought in as Birkenhead and Chester) because 6 inch were too heavy). Otherwise armament, machinery etc was all RN standard kit in use for several years. Construction techniques were conservative and so on. She damned well should have gone together OK!

The flaw that emerged almost at once was the loss of freeboard due to the armour added in build - the C4 clips clearly showed her quarterdeck awash at speed.

BTW, her horsepower as the same as the 1940s postwar vintage Eagle and Ark Royal, and the machinery not much more advanced apart from fewer larger boilers. Engineering was probably the RN's least advanced feature in the 20th century, although it was quite reliable.

 

[Latestarter1]

OK! The flaw that emerged almost at once was the loss of freeboard due to the armour added in build - the C4 clips clearly showed her quarterdeck awash at speed.

Did that matter? There were only snotties under quarterdeck..

Agree that power output was similar to Ark Royal and Eagle, however Hood had Brown Curtis turbines which had only been invented 16 years before she was laid down. BAE systems are pretty hopeless at project management can you imagine them putting the Hood together today!

 

[Grumpybear]

Did that matter? There were only snotties under quarterdeck..

Agree that power output was similar to Ark Royal and Eagle, however Hood had Brown Curtis turbines which had only been invented 16 years before she was laid down. BAE systems are pretty hopeless at project management can you imagine them putting the Hood together today!

The last government felt the same, hence Thales as PMs.....

Don't think Hood was first RN ship with BC turbines. The whole Dreadnoujt thing was old hat, but barely ten years old when Hood was launched.

Seas swilling over HOOD's QD caused problems with turret training gear and leaks into shell handling areas, more serious than in fwd turrets or in other ships.

 

[Deleted member 36384]

... It's a very interesting subject that applies to a much broader range of situations, and makes for some excellent lessons that can be passed into business as well.. ....

What serendipity this turned out to be. I read this thread at lunch time and mulled over the discussion about control and denial.

Today my employer's Contracting and Procurement (CP) department was introduced to the concept of the company estimate when evaluating tenders, CP don't use a company estimate but focus on lowest cost. The concept that a Contractor would use a very low price, even at a loss, to eliminate a competitor or buy the contract and force price increases and or increase market share later was a difficult concept for them to see: control and denial.

 

[maxi77]

What serendipity this turned out to be. I read this thread at lunch time and mulled over the discussion about control and denial.

Today my employer's Contracting and Procurement (CP) department was introduced to the concept of the company estimate when evaluating tenders, CP don't use a company estimate but focus on lowest cost. The concept that a Contractor would use a very low price, even at a loss, to eliminate a competitor or buy the contract and force price increases and or increase market share later was a difficult concept for them to see: control and denial.

In a passing slip of sense the company I used to work for inyegrated the procurement staff into significant contracts project teams, it made a real difference