DBWI - A visit to HMS Hood

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
OOC: Ignore him. Richter appears to have an inexplicable compulsion to turn every WWII DBWI into a Nazi victory, even when it contradicts the scenario laid out by previous posters.

OOC: thanks for feeling this way also, was almost ready to stop posting here because of that.

Here is the classic problem of DBWI. Nothing he posted is outside the lines of what was ACTUALLY posted.

Yes it was outside of what everyone else assumed, but not one of the previous posts SAYS that the Allies won, at least not as happened IOTL.

Maybe they won in 1955 or 1965.

DBWI are massive cooperations, anyone who does not directly contradict a previous poster IS setting the course from that point forward.
 
Here is the classic problem of DBWI. Nothing he posted is outside the lines of what was ACTUALLY posted.

Yes it was outside of what everyone else assumed, but not one of the previous posts SAYS that the Allies won, at least not as happened IOTL.

Maybe they won in 1955 or 1965.

DBWI are massive cooperations, anyone who does not directly contradict a previous poster IS setting the course from that point forward.

OOC: thus you say because a German ships is sunk instead of a English ship, the Germans could have won the war because i did not make it clear that the Allies won the war, now i find it strange that the Germans really did not win the war by managing to sink the Hood in OTL.
 
Getting back on topic, is the planned voyage to New York still going ahead? I know it was going to be back in 2013, but with the trouble with the boilers has been fixed hasn't it?
 
Trip to Portsmouth

Yes, my brother and I went with our families to the National Navy Museum just after Easter. The Hood is magnificent though oddly enough I preferred HMS Victory.

The boys loved the Hood but we lost the youngest - fortunately one of the guides found him on the lower decks and brought him back !!

The girls went over to Hood Walk to visit the shops while we went on to the
nearby Prince of Wales Cruise Terminal where I suppose the successors of the Hood can be found - not ships of war but the new mega-cruise liners for which they had to create the new deepwater channel which kept Portsmouth for the big ships and Southampton for the smaller ones.

The American ships Rapture of the Seas and Enterprise of the Seas looked wonderful but who couldn't be impressed by the King George VII, the new Peninsular and Oriental vessel. Apparently it can take 7,000 passengers and 4,000 crew and does the Tranatlantic run in four days.
 
Yes, my brother and I went with our families to the National Navy Museum just after Easter. The Hood is magnificent though oddly enough I preferred HMS Victory.

The boys loved the Hood but we lost the youngest - fortunately one of the guides found him on the lower decks and brought him back !!

The girls went over to Hood Walk to visit the shops while we went on to the
nearby Prince of Wales Cruise Terminal where I suppose the successors of the Hood can be found - not ships of war but the new mega-cruise liners for which they had to create the new deepwater channel which kept Portsmouth for the big ships and Southampton for the smaller ones.

The American ships Rapture of the Seas and Enterprise of the Seas looked wonderful but who couldn't be impressed by the King George VII, the new Peninsular and Oriental vessel. Apparently it can take 7,000 passengers and 4,000 crew and does the Tranatlantic run in four days.

To bad when i visited HMS Hood the Princes of Wales had just left, she together with the Prince of wales are the King George VII predecessor but still can take more than, 6,000 people on board.
 
But if someone feels offended by changing course one can just ignore my post and go on with his idea...

ONe thing I just want to say:

Butterflies tend to fly in strange ways.

Yes a battle that originally was WON in the original timeline led to a DEFEAT in OTL

But the reasoning is that losing this battle leads to a change in overall strategy.

a few key events/decisions

May 23th Bismarck sinks at the battle of Denmark strait
June 1st decision to recall the Africakorps
June 4th decision to reduce U-boat production and build additional tanks and planes instead (a type VII boat displace around 770 tonnes a panzer IV had 25t a Bf 109 2,5t - Sub Production 1942 was 244. Assume that number is halfed thats 122 x 770t free for tank and plane production. Assume only half of the mass of a sub is useful for producing a tank or plane that 770/2/25=15 tanks per sub or 150 planes per sub: thats roughly 900 more tanks and 9000 more planes (=Fighters) - or in number of divisions - 6 More Panzerdivisionen at 150 tanks per division... A Jagdgeschwader (wing) was at around 100 planes - thats 90 more wings for the 1942 sob production!

1941 June 22th Operation Barbarossa

OTL - only to show significance
January 1943 - 6th Army surrenders at Stalingrad 91.000 axis personnel is captured
January 1943 - Panzerarmee Africa surrenders (275.000 axis personnel is captured) - a lot of personnel saved for teh defence of Europe...

With the additional tanks and planes built Germany probably can equip a few more divisions (tank and air) and probably add some tanks to its allies

As it is a possible Russian Operation Uranus is probably much less sucessful - I assume by the end of 1942 teh changes will have led to the capture of Stalingrad and the Caucasus. BY end of 1943 the red army is in full retreat and the Germans take Moscow in May 1944...

By halfing the number of subs built I reduce the threat to the shipping lines, but I do not completely abandon it.
 
But if someone feels offended by changing course one can just ignore my post and go on with his idea...

ONe thing I just want to say:

Butterflies tend to fly in strange ways.

Yes a battle that originally was WON in the original timeline led to a DEFEAT in OTL

But the reasoning is that losing this battle leads to a change in overall strategy.

a few key events/decisions

May 23th Bismarck sinks at the battle of Denmark strait
June 1st decision to recall the Africakorps
June 4th decision to reduce U-boat production and build additional tanks and planes instead (a type VII boat displace around 770 tonnes a panzer IV had 25t a Bf 109 2,5t - Sub Production 1942 was 244. Assume that number is halfed thats 122 x 770t free for tank and plane production. Assume only half of the mass of a sub is useful for producing a tank or plane that 770/2/25=15 tanks per sub or 150 planes per sub: thats roughly 900 more tanks and 9000 more planes (=Fighters) - or in number of divisions - 6 More Panzerdivisionen at 150 tanks per division... A Jagdgeschwader (wing) was at around 100 planes - thats 90 more wings for the 1942 sob production!

1941 June 22th Operation Barbarossa

OTL - only to show significance
January 1943 - 6th Army surrenders at Stalingrad 91.000 axis personnel is captured
January 1943 - Panzerarmee Africa surrenders (275.000 axis personnel is captured) - a lot of personnel saved for teh defence of Europe...

With the additional tanks and planes built Germany probably can equip a few more divisions (tank and air) and probably add some tanks to its allies

As it is a possible Russian Operation Uranus is probably much less sucessful - I assume by the end of 1942 teh changes will have led to the capture of Stalingrad and the Caucasus. BY end of 1943 the red army is in full retreat and the Germans take Moscow in May 1944...

By halfing the number of subs built I reduce the threat to the shipping lines, but I do not completely abandon it.

OOC: by reducing the number of U-boats allows in the period from 1941 onward more ships to arrive to both the UK and the Soviet Union, thereby also strengthening them.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
OOC: thus you say because a German ships is sunk instead of a English ship, the Germans could have won the war because i did not make it clear that the Allies won the war, now i find it strange that the Germans really did not win the war by managing to sink the Hood in OTL.

Not at ALL what I said. You have to treat it just like any other post.

As an example: That isn't why the Allied took the truce in 1945, it was vastly more complex than that.
 
The fact the ammunition magazine on the Bismarck exploded explains why the US Navy quickly mothballed their Iowa class battleships after World War II out of fear of a lucky hit blowing up the ship's magazine, though they realized by the late 1970's the Iowa class ships were excellent weapon platforms and got refurbished with a lot of new weapon systems.

The crew of the HMS Hood got really lucky, because when the battlecruiser was returned to John Brown & Company's drydock for repair and retrofit, structural engineers said one more hit from the Bismarck's guns would have doomed the Hood. The ship had extensive changes done to the armor, and a brand-new fire-control system using a somewhat old centimetric radar was installed. Besides sinking the Kongou (though with a really lucky shot that blew up that ship's ammunition magazine), the Hood severely damaged the Ise and just missed hitting the Musashi.

There had been thoughts about really modernizing Hood after the war, but the engineers at John Brown & Company determined it would cost way too much money, so Hood was officially retired in 1948 and is now a museum ship at Portsmouth. By the way, the lead ship of a new cruiser class for the Royal Navy--which looks like a "writ large" version of the US Navy's Zumwalt class destroyer--will become the second ship to be named Hood and is currently undergoing sea trials before commissioning late in 2016.
 
The fact the ammunition magazine on the Bismarck exploded explains why the US Navy quickly mothballed their Iowa class battleships after World War II out of fear of a lucky hit blowing up the ship's magazine, though they realized by the late 1970's the Iowa class ships were excellent weapon platforms and got refurbished with a lot of new weapon systems.

That fear was totally unfounded, seeing as how the Iowa class had much better armor than the Ersatz Yorck-sorry, Bismarck class.

The crew of the HMS Hood got really lucky, because when the battlecruiser was returned to John Brown & Company's drydock for repair and retrofit, structural engineers said one more hit from the Bismarck's guns would have doomed the Hood. The ship had extensive changes done to the armor, and a brand-new fire-control system using a somewhat old centimetric radar was installed. Besides sinking the Kongou (though with a really lucky shot that blew up that ship's ammunition magazine), the Hood severely damaged the Ise and just missed hitting the Musashi.

Since when does a hit on bridge qualify as "just missing?"

OOC: Seriously, can we keep the "lucky shots" to a minimum please? The Kongou class may have had subpar protection for a fast battleship, but this is ridiculous.
 
May 23th Bismarck sinks at the battle of Denmark strait
June 1st decision to recall the Africakorps
June 4th decision to reduce U-boat production and build additional tanks and planes instead (a type VII boat displace around 770 tonnes a panzer IV had 25t a Bf 109 2,5t - Sub Production 1942 was 244. Assume that number is halfed thats 122 x 770t free for tank and plane production. Assume only half of the mass of a sub is useful for producing a tank or plane that 770/2/25=15 tanks per sub or 150 planes per sub: thats roughly 900 more tanks and 9000 more planes (=Fighters) - or in number of divisions - 6 More Panzerdivisionen at 150 tanks per division... A Jagdgeschwader (wing) was at around 100 planes - thats 90 more wings for the 1942 sob production!

Building fewer subs doesn't increase the capacity of aircraft and tank factories nor the industries that feed them (ie, the factories that produce engines, machine guns, aircraft cannon, tank guns etc). Ship yards can't build tanks or aircraft, just as the Focke Wulf factory couldn't turn out battleships.

Cutting the number of subs built gives you a pile of extra steel, not a load of new Panzer divisions.
 
Building fewer subs doesn't increase the capacity of aircraft and tank factories nor the industries that feed them (ie, the factories that produce engines, machine guns, aircraft cannon, tank guns etc). Ship yards can't build tanks or aircraft, just as the Focke Wulf factory couldn't turn out battleships.

Cutting the number of subs built gives you a pile of extra steel, not a load of new Panzer divisions.

OOC: Yes and the allies extra transport ships filled who mange to enter into port with out being sunk.
 
OOC: Yes and the allies extra transport ships filled who mange to enter into port with out being sunk.

True enough - also the displacement of the subs aren't solid steel (otherwise they'd sink) so he's vastly overestimating how much steel you'd get from not building the u-boats. Plus periscopes and torpedo launching equipment aren't generally very useful on Panzers...
 
True enough - also the displacement of the subs aren't solid steel (otherwise they'd sink) so he's vastly overestimating how much steel you'd get from not building the u-boats. Plus periscopes and torpedo launching equipment aren't generally very useful on Panzers...

OOC: Land submarines, that would work, just put tracks under the submarine and place turrets on top of them instead of torpedo tubs.
 
I went to the Hood last year, it was a great day out, but my feet ached afterwards. Me and my Dad also took the time to go on the Warrior and Victory. As the OP said, its well worth a trip, just go early, you need time. The Hood is BIG.
 
I went to the Hood last year, it was a great day out, but my feet ached afterwards. Me and my Dad also took the time to go on the Warrior and Victory. As the OP said, its well worth a trip, just go early, you need time. The Hood is BIG.

Did you also see the giant panting they made of HMS Hood in Tokoy Bay during the surrendering ceremony on the USS Montana on January 15th 1946.
 
Did you also see the giant panting they made of HMS Hood in Tokoy Bay during the surrendering ceremony on the USS Montana on January 15th 1946.

I didn't, they were refurbishing that part of the musium and I could not see it, got a postcard though :)
 
I didn't, they were refurbishing that part of the musium and I could not see it, got a postcard though :)

You could tell it was endorsed by MacArthur, it's huge and flashy and not very well loved as much as the touching Algerian Vichy French navy surrender painting on the Ark Royal.
 
Top