Interesting! Yours is the first model making channel that I've run across in this frenzy of the last couple of weeks. You're almost there as am I. Proud to offer my support and would be happy to have yours as well.
I found that as well. Most channels seem to be copying each other... He's got something original going and looks like he's only been on a year? Hope he makes it..
Hood did indeed at one point have aircraft, she had a flying off platform atop B turret and a catapult on her stern, these were however removed before she was lost.
Hood was a Terrible Loss. A hit exploded her aft magazine. Her Armour was too light aft for plunging fire. Bismarck was lost soon after in another altercation. I find it very interesting that quickly In the Pacific Campaign, Battleship warefare was quickly becoming obsolete and aircraft carrier and Naval aviation tactics won over. The era of the Batteship will always be a fascinating era for me going back to my childhood. Before I could afford a lovely plastic model, I would make cardboard Battleships to play with.
@@kg6qzx please do some research on the Hood before making stupid comments about the Hood's armour being too light, that is just not the case she was armour on par and in places better than ships like the QE class and Bismarck for one her belt armour alone was 12 inches thick compared to the QE class that had a 13 inch armour belt and compared to a true Battlecruiser the Renown with a 6 inch bet armour. About 33% the total weight of a QE class was armour compared to Hoods being about 32% total weight being armour. Hood's deck was up to 7-8 inches thick compared to the QE class that only had 5 inch thick decks whats more Hood was not penned through the deck she was too close for plunging fire to take effect but instead most likely through the upper belt armour into an extended 4 inch magazine that had been extended beyond the protective zone of the magazine, this ignited and spread to the after main guns 15 inch magazine causing the explosion that destroyed her, as a side not the shell was originally a miss, the Bismarck was not very accurate and as Hood turned to bring all her guns to bear she turned into the shell correcting the bad accuracy of the Bismarck causing the shell to go from a miss to a hit had Hood turned later it most likely would not have it also if she was in her 1938 config before the refit that extended the 4 inch magazine it is likely she would have survived, had she fired at the Bismarck at the beginning of the engagement instead of the Prinz Eugen things could have maybe played out differently, I suggest using the Hood Association's web site at - www.hmshood.com and the Facebook group Battleships and Battlecruisers both have experts on them and the correct information about her, these are the main areas I gained this knowledge, never use sites like Wiki.
You are an A hole. Don’t call someone stupid you know nothing about. I don’t use Wiki.... I’m an Engineer. Are you? No. You should learn some manners when you speak to someone much older then yourself. Obviously they were going to refit the deck armour. That’s a well known fact. You could’ve politely made your point without being insulting but you don’t have that kind of class. The most important fact was that there was a terrible loss of life and Hood was an amazing vessel and it was a shock when she was lost. Even survivors had said she was thought to be “unsinkable”.
@@kg6qzx 1 you don't know me so you don't know if im older or younger than you do that point is pointless, if you done research you would know Hood's deck armour was fine and in no need for it to be refitted and that it was never penned, yes she was a terrible loss i won't deny that,. Being an engineer has nothing to do with if you know your history and fact again you don't know me so you don't know if I'm an engineer or not but the point still stands you are saying the about plunging fire which has been disproved for decades, and I'm sorry if you feel like I was being an A hole that was not my intent it is just I personally have a strong passion for the Hood's history and history in general and I just get a little bit annoyed when the same old disproven rubbish gets said over and over again, and for than I am sorry, and yes I could have stated the facts in a more civil manner and I should have, the thing is the truth and accurate facts about Hood are shrouded in way too many awful sources and documentaries that don't do the research and say the load of rubbish. So here I will state the facts in a more civil manner this time: At the time of Hood's loss she was one of the most well protected ships in the fleet her armour was of similar thickness to that of the Queen Elizabeth class - as rebuilt (and lets face it they were pretty tough ships) in fact Hoods belt armour was only 1 inch thinner than the QE class also Hood's deck was ticker all her armoured decks added to 7-8 inches of thickness compared to the QE class about 5 inch but that fact doesn't matter when talking about Hood's loss as she was way too close to the Bismarck to have plunging fire occur, in fact it was more likely a penetration through her upper 7 inch belt armour into an extended 4 inch magazine which was very close to the aft 15 inch magazine (the 4 inch magazine was extended around 1938 and it caused it to be extended beyond the protective zone of the magazine meaning shells were not protected by it essentially creating an Achilles Heel which did not exist before this refit) the magazine ignited and spread to the aft 15 inch magazine causing the explosion that destroyed the Mighty Hood, Hood was basically a Battleship from the moment she was commissioned she had Battleship guns and armour but was fast and at the time the RN class any capital ship that was faster than 30 knots (Hood went 23.04 knots) as a Battlecruiser and so the Hood was classed a Battlecruiser - but that is the only factor that lead to that classification everything else just screamed Battleship the armour to weight ratio of 33% was proof enough of that (the QE class had and armour to weight ratio of about 34% after rebuild) in fact Hood was actually in places better armoured than ships like the QE class and even the Bismarck, the chance of Bismarck hitting Hood in that Achilles Heel was next to impossible simply put Bismarck got lucky nothing more nothing less, Hood was also the most logical choice to sent she was one of the most well armed ships in the fleet along with being one of the best protected ships in the fleet with the added bonus she was fast not the fasted capital ship in the fleet that title was given to HMS Renown (a true Battlecruiser in every sense of the word much unlike Hood) Renown had a top speed of 32.58 knots, but back to the Hood, many sources will claim she was in desperate need of a refit this simply isn't true if she was in such need she would not have been sent, Hood was actually one of the best conditioned ships in the fleet she was essentially top class condition, and the reason she didn't have a major rebuild like the QE, Warspite and Renown was due to the fact she simply didn't need on that bad she was in such good condition and with some of the best armour protection in the fleet when there were other ships in need of such refit way way more, as a side note the Hood had one of the best AA suits in the fleet even after the introduction of the King George V class of the late 1930s, anyway I can't think of anything else relevant to add and I've taken enough of your time up so I'll bring this to a close here. And again I am genuinely sorry for coming across as an A hole not my intent.
No problem. You are clearly passionate about the topic and that’s a good thing. I have been on TH-cam for more than a decade and would rarely comment because I saw such negativity and how people would “argue” endlessly. You know more about Hoods history...so thanks for clearing up some information and thanks for being gracious and kind. It was a glorious time for great ships....and the end of an era....but not forgotten for sure my friend. Thanks for sharing all this info. Some day I will actually buy this kit (and of course an extensive PE kit for it as well) and build her. Until then....Kind Regards and I wish you well.
Great ship! I have the Trumpeter 1/200 but have not started work on it because I've heard many debates mainly referring to two issues. First, is about the funnels' sizes. Did HMS Hood have two identical funnels or was the aft funnel slightly smaller in the horizontal/longitudinal dimension? Second, does the kit reproduce the same number of portholes as those on the real ship? Debates over this matter mainly concentrate on the forward section portholes port and starboard. Any comments on these matters? Thanks for any orientations.
Emergency785 Before I build I do a lot of research into the objects I’m building. I do have a lot of books on the HOOD. Once I have more of an answer for you I will address it better as the build goes on. At least as best I can? With saying that it will pertain to the 1/350 model. The ship did undergo a few refits in her time, other than the deck. Sadly! So you will have to take that into consideration when looking at your model?
Wow...!in fact a real challenge....too much for me....!! good enough with railings and ladders PE parts, replace almost all parts have no sense for me...unless you are a high skill veteran modeller...!!
It can get a little daunting with all the little parts that's for sure! The model right out of the box can still look really nice. Build for fun and to your level, otherwise you may get to overwhelmed?
Interesting! Yours is the first model making channel that I've run across in this frenzy of the last couple of weeks. You're almost there as am I. Proud to offer my support and would be happy to have yours as well.
CoriolisAffectment Thank you. Hope we all make it!
I found that as well. Most channels seem to be copying each other... He's got something original going and looks like he's only been on a year? Hope he makes it..
jim rivers Thank you for that.
I'm sure you wont need all of the extra parts. Sometimes less is more in some ways. The wood deck is an absolute must!
jim rivers I agree. Take what you want and need. Sometimes these sets can be intimidating.
I would buy that kit !
😎
Here is the link. Shoot me an offer. www.ebay.ca/itm/143217751886
Hood did indeed at one point have aircraft, she had a flying off platform atop B turret and a catapult on her stern, these were however removed before she was lost.
Hood was a Terrible Loss. A hit exploded her aft magazine. Her Armour was too light aft for plunging fire. Bismarck was lost soon after in another altercation. I find it very interesting that quickly In the Pacific Campaign, Battleship warefare was quickly becoming obsolete and aircraft carrier and Naval aviation tactics won over. The era of the Batteship will always be a fascinating era for me going back to my childhood. Before I could afford a lovely plastic model, I would make cardboard Battleships to play with.
@@kg6qzx please do some research on the Hood before making stupid comments about the Hood's armour being too light, that is just not the case she was armour on par and in places better than ships like the QE class and Bismarck for one her belt armour alone was 12 inches thick compared to the QE class that had a 13 inch armour belt and compared to a true Battlecruiser the Renown with a 6 inch bet armour. About 33% the total weight of a QE class was armour compared to Hoods being about 32% total weight being armour. Hood's deck was up to 7-8 inches thick compared to the QE class that only had 5 inch thick decks whats more Hood was not penned through the deck she was too close for plunging fire to take effect but instead most likely through the upper belt armour into an extended 4 inch magazine that had been extended beyond the protective zone of the magazine, this ignited and spread to the after main guns 15 inch magazine causing the explosion that destroyed her, as a side not the shell was originally a miss, the Bismarck was not very accurate and as Hood turned to bring all her guns to bear she turned into the shell correcting the bad accuracy of the Bismarck causing the shell to go from a miss to a hit had Hood turned later it most likely would not have it also if she was in her 1938 config before the refit that extended the 4 inch magazine it is likely she would have survived, had she fired at the Bismarck at the beginning of the engagement instead of the Prinz Eugen things could have maybe played out differently, I suggest using the Hood Association's web site at - www.hmshood.com and the Facebook group Battleships and Battlecruisers both have experts on them and the correct information about her, these are the main areas I gained this knowledge, never use sites like Wiki.
You are an A hole. Don’t call someone stupid you know nothing about.
I don’t use Wiki.... I’m an Engineer. Are you? No. You should learn some manners when you speak to someone much older then yourself. Obviously they were going to refit the deck armour. That’s a well known fact. You could’ve politely made your point without being insulting but you don’t have that kind of class.
The most important fact was that there was a terrible loss of life and Hood was an amazing vessel and it was a shock when she was lost. Even survivors had said she was thought to be “unsinkable”.
@@kg6qzx 1 you don't know me so you don't know if im older or younger than you do that point is pointless, if you done research you would know Hood's deck armour was fine and in no need for it to be refitted and that it was never penned, yes she was a terrible loss i won't deny that,. Being an engineer has nothing to do with if you know your history and fact again you don't know me so you don't know if I'm an engineer or not but the point still stands you are saying the about plunging fire which has been disproved for decades, and I'm sorry if you feel like I was being an A hole that was not my intent it is just I personally have a strong passion for the Hood's history and history in general and I just get a little bit annoyed when the same old disproven rubbish gets said over and over again, and for than I am sorry, and yes I could have stated the facts in a more civil manner and I should have, the thing is the truth and accurate facts about Hood are shrouded in way too many awful sources and documentaries that don't do the research and say the load of rubbish. So here I will state the facts in a more civil manner this time:
At the time of Hood's loss she was one of the most well protected ships in the fleet her armour was of similar thickness to that of the Queen Elizabeth class - as rebuilt (and lets face it they were pretty tough ships) in fact Hoods belt armour was only 1 inch thinner than the QE class also Hood's deck was ticker all her armoured decks added to 7-8 inches of thickness compared to the QE class about 5 inch but that fact doesn't matter when talking about Hood's loss as she was way too close to the Bismarck to have plunging fire occur, in fact it was more likely a penetration through her upper 7 inch belt armour into an extended 4 inch magazine which was very close to the aft 15 inch magazine (the 4 inch magazine was extended around 1938 and it caused it to be extended beyond the protective zone of the magazine meaning shells were not protected by it essentially creating an Achilles Heel which did not exist before this refit) the magazine ignited and spread to the aft 15 inch magazine causing the explosion that destroyed the Mighty Hood, Hood was basically a Battleship from the moment she was commissioned she had Battleship guns and armour but was fast and at the time the RN class any capital ship that was faster than 30 knots (Hood went 23.04 knots) as a Battlecruiser and so the Hood was classed a Battlecruiser - but that is the only factor that lead to that classification everything else just screamed Battleship the armour to weight ratio of 33% was proof enough of that (the QE class had and armour to weight ratio of about 34% after rebuild) in fact Hood was actually in places better armoured than ships like the QE class and even the Bismarck, the chance of Bismarck hitting Hood in that Achilles Heel was next to impossible simply put Bismarck got lucky nothing more nothing less, Hood was also the most logical choice to sent she was one of the most well armed ships in the fleet along with being one of the best protected ships in the fleet with the added bonus she was fast not the fasted capital ship in the fleet that title was given to HMS Renown (a true Battlecruiser in every sense of the word much unlike Hood) Renown had a top speed of 32.58 knots, but back to the Hood, many sources will claim she was in desperate need of a refit this simply isn't true if she was in such need she would not have been sent, Hood was actually one of the best conditioned ships in the fleet she was essentially top class condition, and the reason she didn't have a major rebuild like the QE, Warspite and Renown was due to the fact she simply didn't need on that bad she was in such good condition and with some of the best armour protection in the fleet when there were other ships in need of such refit way way more, as a side note the Hood had one of the best AA suits in the fleet even after the introduction of the King George V class of the late 1930s, anyway I can't think of anything else relevant to add and I've taken enough of your time up so I'll bring this to a close here. And again I am genuinely sorry for coming across as an A hole not my intent.
No problem. You are clearly passionate about the topic and that’s a good thing.
I have been on TH-cam for more than a decade and would rarely comment because I saw such negativity and how people would “argue” endlessly.
You know more about Hoods history...so thanks for clearing up some information and thanks for being gracious and kind.
It was a glorious time for great ships....and the end of an era....but not forgotten for sure my friend. Thanks for sharing all this info.
Some day I will actually buy this kit (and of course an extensive PE kit for it as well) and build her.
Until then....Kind Regards and I wish you well.
Nice review.. I like the steel photo etch. not as wimpy as brass.
WEST COAST MODEL BATTLESHIPS Me to! So it’s steel then?
I believe its stainless steel but quote dont me on that.
did you ever finish hms hood 1/350?
i have commission builds right now that are taking priority..
Nothing on the 15" turret replacement. Biggest inaccuracy of the kit. If you are going to replace something then the turrets are a must.
I will have to look into that..
Great ship! I have the Trumpeter 1/200 but have not started work on it because I've heard many debates mainly referring to two issues. First, is about the funnels' sizes. Did HMS Hood have two identical funnels or was the aft funnel slightly smaller in the horizontal/longitudinal dimension? Second, does the kit reproduce the same number of portholes as those on the real ship? Debates over this matter mainly concentrate on the forward section portholes port and starboard. Any comments on these matters? Thanks for any orientations.
Emergency785 Before I build I do a lot of research into the objects I’m building. I do have a lot of books on the HOOD. Once I have more of an answer for you I will address it better as the build goes on. At least as best I can? With saying that it will pertain to the 1/350 model. The ship did undergo a few refits in her time, other than the deck. Sadly! So you will have to take that into consideration when looking at your model?
Hms hood association web page points out the errors in the model including errors in scuttles (portholes in merchant marine). Www.hmshood.com
are you going to build this kit?
You bet. I just have to clear up some other projects first.
Wow...!in fact a real challenge....too much for me....!! good enough with railings and ladders PE parts, replace almost all parts have no sense for me...unless you are a high skill veteran modeller...!!
It can get a little daunting with all the little parts that's for sure! The model right out of the box can still look really nice. Build for fun and to your level, otherwise you may get to overwhelmed?
Why is it special?
GameJunk Are You Special ?