Talk:HMS Hood

Infobox
Can someone tidy up the displacement? What are "long tons": have never heard of them? Surely this should be sth like: "xxxxx tons (xxxxx metric tons)". Thanks, bigpad (talk) 08:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

While I have no objection whatsoever to changing the article to refer to tons instead of long tons, displacement (ship) is typically measured in long tons. For a long time I wondered why the displacement in metric tons is a larger number than its displacement in tons, as I assumed short tons were being used. WeeWillieWiki (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Royal Navy ships aren't measured in "long tons", they are measured in tons. Americans may think that they are the same thing, but what on earth were you thinking? This is like saying Jane Sixsmith plays field hockey. Sheesh! --Pete (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and what kind of tons are your "tons"? Long, short and metric are the three types that I'm familiar with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The same tons that have been used to describe warship displacements for centuries. If you can find an English-language contemporary reference that describes HMS Hood's displacement in anything other than tons, let me know, will you? --Pete (talk) 06:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not real interested in what was used contemporaneously, I need to describe them for the current audience. Beside I can't convert these tons to the other types without knowing how many pounds are in these tons of yours.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My tons? LOL! As I said, the same tons that have always been used. Do have any reference that shows anything else being used? Surely you aren't just making stuff up? --Pete (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This cropped up in a very annoying thread on the convert template talk page, so let me sum things up for everyone. Now Pete seems to think the use of the world "ton" is important, but I tend to believe that the real issue is accuracy and clarity. Hence, if you want to use the imperial ton, you should call it either "imperial ton" or "long ton", or Americans will confuse it with the short ton they are familiar with. Alternatively you can use "tonne" for everything and be done with it.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Unbeknowst to many people, there are a number of different types of "ton" in use in the world.
 * The 2240 pound ton was standard in the U.K and is known as the "imperial ton", or "long ton".
 * The 2000 pound ton is standard in the U.S. and is commonly known as the "short ton".
 * The 1000 kilogram ton is standard in the rest of the world, and is known as the "tonne" in the Commonwealth and the "metric ton" in the U.S.
 * While the short ton is the most common one used in the U.S., Americans also commonly use the long ton in shipping and for measuring some commodities,
 * Historically the Royal Navy used the "imperial ton" or "long ton" to measure the displacement of its ships, it called them "tons" because that is the size most commonly used in the U.K.
 * The U.K. is at least nominally converted to metric after joining the EU, so the Royal Navy now measures the displacement of its ships in "tonnes".
 * The difference is somewhat academic because the tonne is only 1.6% smaller than the long ton.
 * The Hood increased substantially in displacement during its lifetime, so the difference is even less consequential.

It's quite a trivial point, but looked up the Washington Naval Treaty article for a totally unrelated bit of research. it appears that 41,200 tons is the displacement listed in the treaty. http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pre-war/1922/nav_lim.html Why is that do you suppose?Terry Thorgaard (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The Treaty introduced standard displacement, which was measured without most of the fuel and ammo aboard. There's an appendix somewhere in the treaty to specifies exactly how it's measured. It's been a long time since I wrote this, but since the ship was completed before the Treaty went into effect, the RN may not have been too fussed about computing standard displacement for her.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If I recall "standard displacement" also excluded boiler feed water, under the same logic as fuel in that the RN should not be penalised unfairly with the long distances their ships operated over for defence of the Empire and shipping. Describing the water in the torpedo protection system on British ships as boiler water was neither here nor there obviously.... GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Cronological error, summer 1940
It says that Hood participated in the destructione of the french fleet in july 1940n only a week after the french surrender to germany, but France surrendered (at Foch's old railway wagon ´from november 1918, at the exact same place, the Compiegne-wood) on june 14th. So eighter the french fleet was destructed 4-5 weeks after the surrender or, the sinking of the french fleet happended in june. I'm no sure wich, but both "sinking of the french fleet" happened in june or it happened more like a month after the surrender. /Malinka70 forgot my password   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.32.226 (talk) 04:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no error: France surrendered officially on 25 June (armistice was signed on 22nd at Compiegne and came into effect three days later). bigpad (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Image
There is a photograph available of HMS Hood taken when she arrived in Fremantle in 1924, it would be a PD image as it was taken and published in 1924. Gnangarra 13:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Modern theories on the sinking
Smoke and fire from the explosion of a battleship's magazine may be vented somewhere else than the origin of the explosion as the magazines ended to be heavily armored. Photographs of the explosion of the USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor show a huge cloud of black smoke from the smoke stack when the explosion was actually in the forward magazine. Naaman Brown (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

hi im zoe My grandads brother and cousin was on that ship when it was hit and sunk by the bismark and both died —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.199.80 (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

When Bismarck was sunk a few days later even more sailors died. But those lives where of course german... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.35.216 (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Facts Bismarck was brand new, Hoods basic construction from 1916. Although heavier and larger artillery Hood was a)less protected b)Bismarck had better targeting  c)Holland underestimated their enemy or overestimated Hood. It took only 22 seconds to reload the artillery of Bismarck, and it would not explode by a single hit from Hood.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.35.216 (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sigh* this isn't the place for that kind of discussion. As to the point of this: I've added an edit to the modern theroies section. I don't know how to add a referance however, if somone could oblige me by adding it i;d much appreciate it.. My source is the book: Hood and BIsmark, P206. It was written by David Mearns and Rob White who where both involved in the discovery of the wreak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.48.48 (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Section badly needs rewrite
The Modern theories section is enormously confusing because it lists theories that have been discounted by the evidence gained from looking at the wreck. It means that the reader has to spend effort working out which ones are valid and which not, which is crazy. Not going to get in a reversion war (see page history), but the whole section needs revising and the stuff that is years out of date removed or at least clearly distinguished. 212.159.44.170 (talk) 20:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hood was almost certainly penetrated through the belt armour; probably the upper 7-inch or 5-inch belts rather than the main 12-inch belt. By comparison, it's of any interest, a shot from HMS Rodney's main 16-inch armament -- a one-ton missile arriving at near Mach 2 with a force of 30,000 foot tons -- could penetrate Bismarck's belt armour at any range from point blank to 23km. (Bismarck would only stop the shot if she were sufficiently bow- or stern-on and presenting a glancing angle.) And a distant plunging shot from Rodney would penetrate Bismarck's deck armour at any range from 26km out to 30km-plus. Bismarck's immunity zone against Rodney was only 3km wide, and not at any likely battle range. Hood's internal design may have been at fault -- the magazine should have been better shielded against a Bismarck 15-inch shell going at half speed after penetrating the belt -- but her external armour really wasn't that bad, even compared to a super-modern battleship like Bismarck. Hood's problem in the Battle of the Denmark Strait was mostly her gunnery. She targeted the wrong ship, apparently even after Adm Holland called for a switch from the Prinz to Bismarck, and she didn't land one salvo on target. A single good hit from Hood's guns could have turned the battle, just as Rodney's historic 09.02 hit on Bismarck disabled Anton and Bruno turrets and killed Lutjens and Lindemann and most if not all of the bridge crew. If Hood had had a proper refit in 1938-9, with more modern gunnery direction, things might have been different. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Loch Eriboll
Just wondered if there should be a mention of the memorial on the side of Loch Eriboll? --jmb (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Armor belt angled outward?
I have always been confused by this section of the article.

Outward like the walls of a pyramid, or outward like the sides of a shot glass?

Please see my detailed diagrams below.

[Bullet! Yay :) ]> \ <- armor ("shot glass" armor)

[Bullet! Yay :) ]> / <- armor ("pyramid" armor)

I ask because the latter would seem to present the armor at a better angle for penetration as range increases, while the former would seem to leave stuff below it exposed since the bottom is farther from the enemy. Which way was Hood's belt designed?

J.M. Archer (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC) (aka ignorant battleship buff)

>>>The belt was angled so that the top was further outboard then the bottom (shot glass). Which is the opposite of tank design. Bottom of the belt is below the waterline. The deck armour has a slope from deck level which is level to the top of the belt to the bottom. Cross section at http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/no21987-Midship.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.101.80 (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC) The risk of shells skimming the angle of the belt when striking at long range and ending up inside the torpedo defence lead to a return to vertical armour in the KGV, Lion and Vanguard designs

Sunset
The article claims that "Hood would have met the German squadron just after sunset (roughly 02:00 so far north in May)". I don't care how far North you go, you won't get sunset after Midnight. Indeed, running it through a spectral calculator for that date gives a sunset hours earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.171.211 (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Good question - that also arises on the Battle of Denmark Strait page; here is my comment copied from there. Kennedy, 1974, states in Chapter 6 that - for the British fleet - 'ship's clocks were four hours ahead of local time' at the point when Victorious was preparing to launch the first Swordfish attack on Bismark. As these events take place in the longitude range 30-37 degrees West (corresponding to 2 hours behind Greenwich), the implication is that the British fleet was indeed operating on Double Summer Time. Clearly operational coherence requires all units in a given command work to the same clock; immense confusion would result if each ship adjusted to its own longitude! Later in this chapter Kennedy remarks that the USCG cutter Modoc had its clock set one hour behind local time, therefore 5 hours behind the British fleet. I have added Kennedy's statement to the article, but not my OR about double summer time. Changes of course brought the engagement later than first envisaged, to dawn, in fact; early in Chapter 4 Kennedy states: '..in that cold, pale dawn, with the eastern sky pink and violet on the low cirrus and a hazy blue above..'  John M Brear (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To add a little...time zones at high latitude are always problematic. Far enough north and ships 100 miles east-west of each other might theoretically be several hours apart in time. With a dispersed fleet, the answer to "What time is it?" is basically "It is whatever time the fleet commander says it is." Rumiton (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Britain operated on permanent Double British Summer Time throughout the Second World War, that is, 2 hours ahead of GMT. The latter (GMT) however would be used for navigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.220.13 (talk)

Copyediting

 * Most Americans don't know that the British "purpose-built" is roughly "special-purpose" in American, so I'd prefer we reword it. Which battlecruisers were completed after Hood? - Dank (push to talk) 01:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * She was the last one completed so I've deleted the phrase. Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't like the "For this reason" sentence, but I don't have a quick fix. I'll come back to it after the article passes GAN. - Dank (push to talk) 14:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Also the "At this point in her service" sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ugh. It's an important article, but I'm going to put this one aside for a couple of months and come back later; there are a lot of judgment calls to make and I'd really like to bring in more editors and copyeditors on this one. - Dank (push to talk) 15:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In the first section, does "as completed" mean as opposed to the design specs or as opposed to later, after refits? - Dank (push to talk) 18:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Mostly the former, but some of the latter.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Outbreak of war
Currently, the article states:

"When war with Germany was declared in September 1939, Hood was operating in the area around Iceland, protecting convoys from German attack."

Does this mean Hood was operating around Iceland when war was declared and then started defending convoys in that area? Or was war declared and Hood sent out to patrol?

Presumably she wasn't defending convoys at the declaration of war. JJJJS (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hood was already at sea when war was declared, but I've reworded things.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Cheers, it makes more sense now. I wasn't familiar enough with the history to feel comfortable changing it. JJJJS (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Photo of explosion
It appears that the photo of Hood exploding was taken from the Bismark. If this is true, it might be helpful to say so in the photo caption. Also, in the photo, is that the Prince of Wales in the background? Cla68 (talk) 10:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of the origin of that picture, yet it seems very improbable that any pictures taken from Bismark survived her sinking and that one of the handful of survivors would think to take a roll of film with him. Even if that had happened, the British would have surely taken the film from the man and it would have gone into a British archive.

It's more likely the picture was taken from the Prince Euigen and handed over to the German naval authorities on her return for use in intelligence, propaganda or documentation. This would account for a copy being in the Bundesarchiv. Catsmeat (talk) 07:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Cla68 (talk) 06:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The "last photo" probably shows A turret, not X turret of Prince of Wales
The photo image showing three guns on the POW has been “corrected” to say that it was taken near X turret. Previously the caption implied that it showed a forward turret trained as far aft as possible. I didn’t make the original statement or the correction, but I do think this is the A turret. I think everyone will agree that it can’t be B turret, because that one would only have two guns. Untrimmed versions of this same photo show the fourth gun, elevated to a position out of view in this cropped image, so we can be sure that this shows either A turret or X turret. The editor who changed the caption (stating in his edit summary that if this were A turret then the ship must be steaming away from the Hood) is wrong. While I agree that we can rule out the possibility that POW would be steaming away from Hood, the statement overlooks the possibility that the A turret is simply turned to point as far aft as possible, which it would be in heavy seas prior to actually engaging the enemy. Under such circumstances the X turret would probably be trained dead aft, and these guns seem to be pointing somewhat to port. Also, the very same untrimmed versions of the photo that reveal the fourth gun also reveal a major superstructure object (possibly the base of B turret) that would be in the way of these guns if they were to try to point dead aft. I hope that someone else will look at the untrimmed photo, it is easily available on sites about HMS Hood, and carefully consider the possibility that this is A turret with guns trained as far aft as possible on the port side of the ship. 207.30.62.198 (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It could be A turret, but only comparing a detailed photo or drawing of the area around either turret to match the ventilators(?) visible beneath the barrels will decide the question.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's A turret. Check the discussion at Battle of the Denmark Strait. Rumiton (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, in the absence of sources declaring where the picture was taken from, just edit the caption to remove reference as to which turret. Average reader is probably satisifed with knowing from which ship it was taken. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't need sources to tell us the sun rises in the east, and this situation is just as clear. We can and should be precise. Did you read the discussion at Battle of the Denmark Strait? Rumiton (talk) 14:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * the discussion you refer to makes no mention of sources. Policy says anything " likely to be challenged " should be supported by referencing and that the "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" the purpose being to "improv[e] the credibility of Wikipedia and show[] that the material is not original research." An assertion that it is A turret based on personal observation is OR. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If describing something as obvious when it is obvious is called original research, what shall we call demanding a source to tell us that the obvious is obvious? How about obstructionism and pedantry? Rumiton (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a featured article for which "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources". If this picture has been used in a book (or other work) then presumably it's been discussed or captioned and therefore can be sourced. I'm not suggesting it's not Hood or not the last picture or not from any specific part of PoW - I'm asking that editors don't make their own interpretations. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

One reason why there should be at least some explanation for the objects seen in the foreground is that even a casual viewer is likely wonder why he is seeing what appear to be guns from a triple turret when POW had only quads and a twin. That point, at least, needs to be addressed. I am also wondering why there was no demand for citation during all of the very long time that the caption stated that the view was from “X” turret. 207.30.62.198 (talk) 01:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a site about Loss of HMS Hood that has the same photo, untrimmed, and it has as the caption these words: "Probably one of the last photographs ever taken of H.M.S. Hood. A photogrammetric analysis of this photo shows Hood is bearing about 341 degrees from Prince of Wales, range 975 meters (1,070 yards).  "A" turret guns of the Prince of Wales are trained on the port quarter."

I hope this can count as a citation 207.30.62.198 (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

And, by the way, the aft most quad turret on PoW was the "Y" turret, not the "X" turret 207.30.62.198 (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It may just be the technical author in me
But the article really could use a reference diagram. The wreck section would be so much easier to read with a simple schematic included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.174.189 (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Recovery of bell
Something to note: there is going to be a recovery operation to try and retrieve the bell soon. Should probably keep an eye out to see if it needs inclusion in here at some point. Telegraph article. Regards, Woody (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Took them a few years, but they recovered the bell. Parsecboy (talk) 11:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Wreck-final salvo vs flame
Many have heard the "final salvo" story, but it doesn't appear in the article prior to Wreck para 4 "Other researchers have...time." Without some setup, this doesn't make much sense, does it? Should the final salvo be mentioned in Denmark Strait, or be explained more in Wreck?Sammy D III (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that it gets as much coverage as it deserves. Its unprovable either way and thus a non-issue, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? No references here now, but wasn’t the “last salvo” story reported at the time? It became part of the Hood myth, didn’t it? And an explosion makes far more sense than the almost certainly emotional last salvo story, doesn’t it?
 * Modern theories and Wreck both speculate on unprovable theories, as do articles on Bismarck, Yamato, Titanic, and other sunken ships. Sort of a cottage industry. And this one uses reason to possibly explain what has often seemed like a fantastic fabrication to many of us. They were not making it up, they just were wrong.Sammy D III (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it's worth mentioning, but feel free to add it yourself. Just be sure to cite it properly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * From HMS Hood association "According to the Germans, as the bow rose into the air, Hood’s forward turrets were seen to fire one last salvo. If this is true, it is likely due to a short or a mechanical failure."


 * I have read elsewhere that mercury switches triggered by the list -could cause the turret to fire. JRPG (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

File:HMS Hood (51) - March 17, 1924.jpg
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:HMS Hood (51) - March 17, 1924.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 24, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-05-24. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary armament
I know that there's been some tension between this article and Admiral-class battlecruiser, but it is far from being resolved. There's redundant and conflicting information out the wazoo. In particular, the Admiral article lists the main secondary battery as 16 5/50 single mounts. Yet apparently no ship of the class (ahem!) ever mounted more than 12. And over time the entire complement was removed. Neither fact is mentioned in the Admiral, and the first surely should be. I would be quite happy to gut the Admiral article, removing everything except the justification for the class, the execution of the class (i.e. single ship needing modification), and a reference to this article. Also, there really should be some description here of the refits. Dmforcier (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The 16 5.5" guns were the planned secondary batteries but armour mods saw 4 be removed due to weight 146.200.194.6 (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HMS Hood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080708214655/http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2006/20062616.htm to http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2006/20062616.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on HMS Hood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515050708/http://www.memorials.inportsmouth.co.uk/southsea/naval.htm to http://www.memorials.inportsmouth.co.uk/southsea/naval.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041204195722/http://www.warship.org/no21987.htm to http://www.warship.org/no21987.htm
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20131018060342/http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/sitecore/content/home/about-the-royal-navy/organisation/life-in-the-royal-navy/history/historic-ships/hms-hood-1920 to http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/sitecore/content/home/about-the-royal-navy/organisation/life-in-the-royal-navy/history/historic-ships/hms-hood-1920

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Invincibility
Where is the evidence that the Hood was perceived to be invincible? I've heard this idea passed about before, but it seems off to me: it contradicts what I know about inter-war RN thinking, and it sounds a bit too close to the similar myth about the RMS Titanic. 94.4.116.24 (talk) 11:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * A Google search for ""invincible hms hood"" produces only low quality hits on this phrase, i.e. none from reputable military histories. It strikes me as likeliest to originate in propaganda, either British before she was sunk ("we've got an invincible warship") or German after ("we've sunk their 'invincible' warship"). In a similar way the term "pocket battleship" was propaganda that I suspect was most useful in helping Britain spin the destruction of a heavy cruiser as a more material loss to Germany than it really was. Tirailleur (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

"Most powerful"
I question whether, as the article asserts, Hood "remained the largest and most powerful warship in the world for 20 years after her commissioning". She wasn't the most powerful warship in the world beyond 1920, when Nagato / Mutsu of the IJN, with their 8 x 16" guns, came along, closely followed by the US Colorados in 1921. Hood wasn't even the most powerful warship in the RN after 1923, when Nelson and Rodney rocked up with 9 x 16" guns. Who actually made this claim? Meanwhile I have edited the text as this claim would appear at best to be unsubstantiated OR or a non-noteworthy opinion. Tirailleur (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You're arguing facts, but I was talking public perceptions, ignorant of the fine details.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Then please produce a cite for the claim that the public thought she was invincible. I don't mean a cite that she was, but a cite to a source that authoritatively states that the public thought she was. Tirailleur (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Taylor has a extensive quote from a Portuguese newspaper that begins "The great Hood, the most powerful warship in the world".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * So what? That's a clearly non-noteworthy opinion. I can produce newspaper quotes that describe HMS Belfast as a battleship, and any tracked vehicle as a "tank". Is that the one and only citation? Tirailleur (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It speaks to the public perception and nothing in the quote is factually incorrect, unlike most popular media today.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "Nothing...is factually incorrect"? You mean apart from the central claim that Hood, with 8 x 15-inch guns and 15,360lbs broadside weight, was somehow more powerful than Nagato (1920) with 8 x 16-inch guns and 18,000lbs broadside weight, or Colorado (1921) with 8 x 16-inch guns, or Nelson (1923) with 9 x 16-inch guns and 21,375lbs broadside weight - 40% more than Hood? It's bizarre and wholly false FGS.86.155.93.46 (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's the reality, not the public perception. Don't forget that Hood was 5,000 tons bigger, which plays a part in that perception.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by 'powerful'. Hood displaced considerably more than Nagato but went considerably faster. So... more powerful, one would think. She displaced about 30% more than a Colorado but went about 50% faster. So... more powerful again. And a big-gun warship's fighting power was partly determined by its speed, because the faster ship could open and close the range at will. Hood also looked a damn sight more impressive than a Nagato or a Colorado, which counted for something when half the point of these great white elephants was prestige, and showing the flag, and deterring potential enemies. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

change in format
Somewhere since this article reached featured status, the presentation in the infobox of the armament changed. Instead of the more specific type of gun "BL 15 inch Mark 1" - we just now have the link piped down to just its calibre. Is this a case of changing views on how the infobox should be structured, or minor edits along the way changing the format? GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's me realizing that the precise mark of gun isn't really necessary in the infobox as it supposed to be a summary of the ship's characteristics, not a full and complete listing of them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There still seems to be some inconsistency - whether it's "15 inch" or "15-inch". GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Image of Hood’s bell
I found a free use Geograph image of Hood’s bell: https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/6641531 Implacable18 (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone know ?
I have been told about a man called Dennis Edward Collins that was a radio man on the ship, my friends grandad, can anyone confirm? Been looking and researching for him for hours now 🙄, hope someone can help please 🙂 2A02:C7D:F829:1200:5543:337C:CA7E:493A (talk) 03:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Start of construction
There is an inconsistency between the lead which states "Already under construction when the Battle of Jutland occurred in mid-1916," and the Construction section which has "Construction of Hood began at the John Brown & Company shipyard in Clydebank, Scotland, as yard number 460 on 1 September 1916." It looks like one of these needs to be changed - which one should it be? Bcp67 (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly certain that those bits that had been laid down before Jutland were removed after the battle and that she was re-laid down in September, but I'm on the road and can't confirm that right now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Report, 27 July 1916 – On 14 June, we received a letter from the Admiralty advising that the Treasury agreed that one ship of the new battle cruisers is to be proceeded with. It is to be ours, ship No 460. Editor's Note: Hood's keel was officially laid on 1 September 1916. Based on some anecdotal mentions in an Admiralty file, some authors have noted 31 May 1916 as the "first keel laying date." The records of John Brown Shipyards do not support this. The official date for the ship that became Hood as we know it, was 1 September of that year. This date is reportedly also backed-up by the "Ship's Books" (ADM 136/13) held at The National Archives.
 * From http://www.hmshood.org.uk/history/construct/construction.htm 78.150.86.84 (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hood Commission date
There is an inconsistency in the date the Hood was commissioned into the Royal Navy as the 15th of May when official British admiralty documents, list of commission, dockings in the Hood's ship log book which put her 1st recorded commission as the 29th of March 1920

The list of Hood commissions can be found in The Battlecruiser H.M.S HOOD" by Bruce Taylor 150.143.193.154 (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Hood sunk by Prince Eugen, not the Bismark
I dont have a reference here, but I have read that Ballard's observsation of the wreck of the Hood suggest that it is more likely that it was sunk by the Prince Eugen, not the Bismark. I have further read that both the initial reports and ongoing fiction to the contrary are nothing but propaganda - it would not look good to have a battleship like the Hood sunk by a "mere" cruiser. 2001:8003:E40F:9601:9D79:A255:911C:8514 (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's an extraordinary claim. It will require extraordinary sources. BusterD (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hood was sunk by Bismarck thanks to a Golden BB shot below her armour belt which happen to cook off 3 magazines all at the same time 195.213.66.52 (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)