JohnFrench:
The one thing that has always struck me about Hood is that she was an awful lot of ship to just carry eight 15-inch guns at 32 knots. This impression has only been reinforced as I got more and more familiar with the design of Renown and the wider design debate.
Going by Eustace d’Eyncourt’s initial calculations, 28 December 1914, Renown was estimated to be a 25,750 ton design, of 750ft length between particulars and 90 ft beam, 6-inch belt, which carried six 15-inch guns at 32 knots. To carry eight 15-inch guns, d’Eyncourt estimated required 29,100 tons, of 780ft length between particulars and 92ft beam, with speed reduced to 31 knots. That is an additional 3,350 tons for the extra turret and increased size of both citadel and hull.
Due to a couple of, in my opinion, indefensible reasons, Renown’s boilers were of the inefficient large tube type which were heavier and occupied far more space than the equivalent power rating of the small tube boilers that were available. By duplicating, with additional boilers, the machinery layout of the light cruiser Calliope with her small tube boilers and geared turbines (rather than the large tube boilers and direct drive of Tiger), There appears to have been the scope to fit the fourth turret within the length of the existing citadel of the 25,750 ton design. With the weight saved by using a reduced number of the more powerful small tube boilers, it seems that there might have been no need to increase the beam much more than 6-inchs as this small increase, along with lengthening the hull 780 feet, should have provided the buoyancy to carry the estimated 1,000 additional tons while maintaining the 32 knots.
Hood’s estimated design stats were 36,300 tons, of 810ft length between particulars and beam of 104ft, 8-inch belt, and carried eight 15-inch guns at 32 knots. Hood required a whopping additional 7,200 tons to basically achieve what the 29,100 ton version of Renown (and about 9,000 tons more than a small tube boiler Renown) did to the betterment of a measly 1 knot. Granted the Hood preliminary design is better protected with more extensive vertical coverage, but still, the armour is only eight inches at its thickest the vertical extensions beyond what Renown carried being of only 5 and 3 inches. Hood’s barbettes and gun houses were certainly heavier; 9-inch vs 7-inch and 11-inch vs 8-inch. Also, Hood’s more extensive torpedo defence system would have consumed far more weight than Renown’s more modest effort. However, the extra 7,000 to 9,000 tons required still seems excessive, especially since Hood had the weight and space saving benefits of small tube boilers denied Renown.
A second thing that has always struck me about Hood is the huge volume of wasted space within her citadel. While her engineers undoubtedly luxuriated within engineering areas more spacious than any other design that I have studied, it is a very inefficient use of space and it appears that Hood’s citadel could have shortened considerably for substantial weight savings. Hood shows clear evidence of being a very inefficient design, both size and displacement wise, and it appears that no-one has ever asked why.
I believe that the answer lies in Hood’s secretive origins as a 30,000 ton battle cruiser, of 760ft length between particulars and 102ft beam, which carried six 18-inch guns at 30 knots. This was an “off the books” design d’Eyncourt was doing secretly for Fisher which is why it never appeared in any official Admiralty documentation. After Fisher left the Admiralty in May 1915, d’Eyncourt continued to develop it. I understand that the model d’Eyncourt made of it in early 1916 may be on display at Kilverstone Hall.
The official Admiralty designs that were being worked on at this time was the series of 25 to 27 knot battleships, all carrying 8x15-inch guns, which, when shown to Jellicoe, were promptly rejected with a demand for 30 knot battle cruisers: Yesterday! The only 30 knot battle cruiser design available was the one being quietly worked on for Fisher and it is clear that this was the basis for the design’s d’Eyncourt rapidly produced for the Admiralty out of nowhere; and why so many of them had 18-inch guns despite the Admiralty having no interest in 18-inch guns They hadn’t even asked for any 18-inch gun designs.
This is the only incidence that I know off were a design had to be adapted to take a lighter armament (it is usually the other way around), and the lack of experience in doing so, combined with the rushed nature of the project, is probably the cause of the inefficiency’s in Hood’s design. Even after the up-armouring of the design occurred following Jutland, d’Eyncourt did mention that with some additional modifications to the design, Hood could have carried four triple 15-inch gun turrets; a frank admission on how inefficient the design was and also on how under-gunned Hood was.
To summarise: I believe that Hood is either a 6x18-inch or a 8x18-inch design poorly adapted to carry 8x15-inch guns.
With that lengthy spiel out of the way, let’s look at the questions:
How would HMS Hood affect the Washington Naval Treaty if were to be built to one of the 18" armed designs preferably the 3x2 or 4x2 versions?
I would guess that the effect would be near zero. With the development of the new 15-inch AP shells in 1917, Hood became obsolete. Tests against a mock-up of her armour scheme showed that she was basically defenceless against them (and we ae only talking about 15-inch shells here, not 16-inch). With hindsight it is clear that she should have been scrapped immediately. However, from the perspective of 1917, the war looked like it would go on for several more years and Hood and her sisters were expected to complete in time to participate. Against the shells the German Navy was using, Hood’s armour scheme was more than adequate. However, the war ended quite abruptly, and unexpectedly, in late 1918 and the Navy found itself in possession of a white elephant. The enemy against which she had been designed to fight was no more and with the allied developments of AP technology, Hood was one trick pony unable to be adopted to face the navies of either the USA or Japan. I don’t know about the Japanese, but the Americans certainly were aware of this and knew that Hood was more of a liability than an asset in the post war world. Her excessive tonnage alone gave the US political leverage to whittle down Britain’s fleet size. Pushing it by humming and hawing over her gun calibre could very easily have derailed the conference which was not in the USA’s interest. From Baron Kato’s remarks in the conferences minutes, it seems that Japan would also not have been bothered at all about Britain keeping an 18-inch gunned Hood as they fully supported Britain’s stated desire to build two G3’s. As for France and Italy, their views mattered not at all to the big 3 (and Austria-Hungry no longer existed with the separate rump states having neither coastline nor navy).
Would she be scrapped imminently after the Conference?
Certainly not. She cost the British taxpayer something like £6-7 million pounds and to the British Public she was brand new and the epitome of British sea-power. Even a suggestion to convert her to an aircraft carrier would have likely seen a political backlash the like of which no politician ever wants to face. I believe that the American’s would have understood that this re-line existed for the British side and pushing that boundary, as they possibly would have if they chose to make her guns a major issue, was not in their interests. Due to British public perception, Hood was politically untouchable.
Would she be re-gunned to the 15" or maybe 16" guns? (With possibly the RN keeping the guns and turrets for a possible war to re-equip her to the original 18" weapons? )
No, as I mentioned in the previous answer, Hood was politically untouchable. Being the only 18-inch gunned warship in the world, especially after the conference basically gutted British sea power, would only make her more so. White elephant she may have been to those in the know, but to everyone else she was the symbol of the power and prestige of the British Empire. Replacing her guns would be the equivalent of demanding that the Americans demolish the west wing of the White House.
What would happen with the Nelsons?
They would still be built, but possibly with 15-inch instead of 16-inch guns. I reckon that this is as far as the Americans could have pushed the gun calibre issue. While the issue of Britain having 16-inch gunned ships to match American and Japanese 16-inch gunned ships was the public face of Britain’s argument for building two new ships, of more concern was having at least two ships with proper protection both against the new shells and torpedoes. Also, British politicians weren’t quite ready to shut down their armament industry and throw even more people out of work than they already had, which is what would happen if all building stopped. Whether they knew it or not, building the Nelson’s with 15-inch guns would have been a far wiser move for Britain rather than introduce a non-standard calibre and the limitations the greater size and weight of 16-inch guns would place on the now tonnage restricted final design.
How would this effect the hunt of the Bismarck and the following battle?
As Hood failed to score any hits prior to her destruction, I don’t see an 18-inch gunned Hood having any effect on this naval episode. If you are asking what would the effect be of Hood scoring 18-inch hits on Bismarck, then the results would have been devastating. Bismarck’s combat systems proved extremely fragile in the face of a handful of 16-inch hits. Against 18-inch hits, well, she can’t take them at all. 1-3 18-inch hits and I can’t see Bismarck’s fire-control still being operative and without that she is defenceless. Also, at the ranges Denmark Straits opened at, Bismarck’s engineering spaces and magazines are virtually unprotected against plunging 3,300lb 18-inch shells. However, as history demonstrated, Hood was not any more resilient to Bismarck’s 15-inch shells. The battle would go to whoever hit first.
Regards, John.
