Welcome To the Hood Community where brother Makes a Actual hood

I would like to point out that you often call the white line on the ship diagram the "balance point" and treat it as if it were the hull's center of mass. In fact, this marker changes as you build the ship, and reflects the current balance point with armor and guns. You need to line this up with the "center" of the hull, as a forward point means a fore weight offset.

@BrotherMunro

Жыл бұрын

Would be nice to have the CoM and centre of the ship as separate lines so you can line them up visually

RN Shells were normally heavier than other equivalent caliber shells (apart from the 16s on Nelson) so going for heavier shells would have given you the appropriate penetration while got having to make ridiculously large guns for example the 18-inch gun from WW1 fired a 1510kg shell while the 18.1-inch guns on Yamato only fired a 1460kg shell similar things could be seen with other RN guns as the 15 -inch shell on RN ships was 879kg while the shells from the German 15-inch guns used on Bayern etc were only 750kg this was also true with the 14-inch guns on KGV firing a 720 kg shell while the US 14 inch guns on the Standards only fired a 680kg Mk 16 shell or a 636kg Mark 8. even the RN 13.5 -inch gun fired a 635kg shell. even at 12-inch caliber, the RN shells used on the first generation of Dreadnaughts were heavier at 390kg compared to the 250kg used on the German 12-inch guns of the Kaiser class. The RN never developed what they would call a super heavy shell like the USN as the standard RN shell was heavier than contemporary shells with the exception of Rodney and Nelson were after a set of erroneous gunnery exercises using ships that used to belong to the HSF in the 1920s they briefly thought the German style lighter shells would be better. If the Lion class had been completed they were also wanting a new 16-inch shell and the designs they were looking at were between 1200 and 1300 kg which depending on which design they chose would have been either slightly lighter or 75kg heavier than the US super heavies used on the Iowa class.

When KZread subtitles changes DRACHINIFEL to DR KENNETH 😆

@BrotherMunro

Жыл бұрын

🤣

@danhaas9730

Жыл бұрын

@@BrotherMunro I shall now only refer to Drach as "Dr. Kenneth".

@Extracord

4 ай бұрын

It also changes "dreadnoughts" to "drug knots"

I pitted Hood against Bismarck (with reference to the 2 ships design videos) and Bismarck won all engagements...

Sorry, gents, I must disagree with the choice of Geared II turbines (which I think equates to double-reduction gearing?) Based on her build date and all I've read, she had single-reduction gearing. Had she survived Denmark Strait, or the RN changed their priorities a bit in the 1930s, her major refit would have replaced her entire original powerplant with lighter boilers and double-reduction geared turbines.

My favorite warship of all time, it’s time

I love my twin barrel setups. Especially with 20 inch guns. Accurate, long-ranging and extremely effective due to rate of fire compared to triple or quad gun systems. Also, it lets practitioners of the ork doctrine to put as many small guns on as humanly possible

I think that, on the previous ships, you aimed for 2x the real armour penetration figures to work out the barrel length. Here you were aiming for 2.4x, which makes the mighty 15/42 gun a little too, um... mighty!

34:59 Plunging fire going through decks was honestly not even that significant in ww2. Even the horizontal protection you see on battleships of that era was mostly to protect from bombs as far as I can tell. UAD seriously exaggerates deck penetration for gameplay purposes, which seems a little bit questionable, considering that most people who play this game probably enjoy the relevant history and might want to build historically inspired ships lol

I would like to see a Cruiser division after all the battleships duke it out.

@toddwebb7521

Жыл бұрын

Pretty sure Deutschland class does well unless you put Alaska and/or Des Moines class in

I can only assume that you will have something that, if hit exactly right, Hood will go up like a Roman Candle.

Just saying this to back up your decision to ignore historical barrel length stats/muzzle velocities in favour of penetration statistics: Doing that actually seems to bring belt and deck pen much more inline with historical figures. If you use realistic muzzle velocities, ships have truly comical deck penetration compared to real life. Deck penetration will still always be excessive no matter what you do, but a least it's not at the point of being equal to belt pen at like 8km lol. Irl, even the slowest big-gun shells needed to reach out to 30km+ to get equivalent belt and deck penetration

G'day. With respect to the difference in volatility between Petrol and desiel (Aside from the Flash Point). You can extinguish a lit match in both fuels! The only difference with Petrol is the action of plunging thr match into the liquid has to be fast. If you do it slowly, you run into hitting the right (Air to Vapour ) Ratio for ignition.

I like how he called hood a "Citadel 3 star ship" and Drachinifel didn't say anything

ships didin't have auxiliary engines historically did they

@BrotherMunro

9 ай бұрын

They were more for providing electrical power in case the main alternator/engines were out of action rather than anything fancy like a CODAS, they could also run the pumps as I understand it

Why are you going for 2.5 times the penetration that it had in reality? Currently building my historical ships and I go for 1 to 1 at 20km. Is there some benefir in doing so (other than the obvious) as in are the ranges compressed or something like that?

@BrotherMunro

11 ай бұрын

We maybe skipped the conversation in this one but the historical penetration figures are given against contemporary plate armour. The penetration figures on the guns in game are against just sheet steel (I think) so you need to use the armour quality to convert those into thickness of actual armour. I actually have a whole video explaining the pen mechanics, I’ll find the link for you :)

@BrotherMunro

11 ай бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/q2SaxNuTpN3NfJs.html there you go :)

@BlitzFromBehind

11 ай бұрын

@@BrotherMunro thank you!

Imagine a 10 gun hoodson

@danhaas9730

Жыл бұрын

In my first British campaign, I used that layout as my main BC, called the Black Prince class.

I like Hood as much as the next person, but what is she doing in div 2? Her armament was equal to that of a Queen Elizabeth class but her armour was barely equal and only in some places, and she had next to non secondaries. Her speed is maybe greater, but in these 1v1 situations I don't see that something that would greatly benefit her.

bestest girl

It's a bit unfair to build Hood as she was before her untimely demise, yet Richelieu is represented as she was post-1943 refit. I'd have gone with a theoretical Hood refit.

@BrotherMunro

Жыл бұрын

We might do that later on along with a few other ‘what if’ ships

@jeremielarin1979

Жыл бұрын

Same could apply to Bismarck.

@mxlny

Жыл бұрын

@@BrotherMunro Montana-class? A-150s? Tillmans?

@glauberglousger6643

Жыл бұрын

@@BrotherMunro run-ups too? Also, Hood is slightly less than a Queen Elizabeth so... she barely fits here She’s also ancient, so... welp

@silverhost9782

Жыл бұрын

@@jeremielarin1979 Execept Bismarck was launched almost 20 years later than Hood, so they aren't comparable at all lmao

HMS Blowup ... :(

the biggest submarine in the royal navy

Yes, no more of that false hood nonsense.