胡德号未能完成的大改计划（组图）

2，胡德号最有可能实施的改装方案，注意副炮是双联114毫米的高平两用炮。艏楼没有延长。

3，另外两种胡德号改进设想图。副炮是双联114毫米的高平两用炮（这两种方案该炮数量不一样）。彩色那副加上了大量博福斯40毫米高炮。

4，分别装了双联133毫米和114毫米副炮的改进型PS图。

4，分别装了双联133毫米和114毫米副炮的改进型PS图。

好了，发完了，大家开始准备拍巴掌了！

不过按照计划，即使能够完成改装，也得到1942年了，到时肯定赶不上与俾斯麦的决斗了。到时候只有沙恩霍斯特了，提子在峡湾不敢出来~~

那样的话，也许俾斯麦打沉的就是另一艘船了……

南宫儒 发表于 2009-8-26 16:35
应该是俾斯麦活不了了，被打重伤后逃不掉被迫自沉~~Yeah,perfect!

怎么还没有见到巴掌出现？我在网吧等一小时了。

问个问题，为啥你写的和原文有些不同？

http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/official/adm229/adm229-20.htm

-H.M.S. Hood Reference Materials-
ADM 229/20: DNC's Reports (1938-1939)
Updated 09-Mar-2007

This document is a modern transcription of Admiralty record ADM 229/20. The original record contains papers and correspondence related to the proposed reconstruction of several Royal Navy vessels, to include H.M.S. Hood. This extract contains only the Hood portions of the record. The original file is held at the The National Archives at Kew, London. This Crown Copyrighted material is reproduced here by kind permission of The National Archives.


- Pages 53 & 54-

NOTES TAKEN AT CONTROLLER'S CONFERENCE ON 7/3/39, CONCERNING RECONSTRUCTION OF "NELSON", "RODNEY" AND "HOOD", ALSO RE-ARMOURING "ROYAL SOVEREIGNS".

(Copies to:-
D.N.C.
MR. SANDERS.
" PENGELLY.
Records).

Present:-

CONTROLLER. D.N.C. D.N.E. D.N.O. D.D.N.O.

"HOOD"

(a). New Machinery. Controller decided that the argument for new machinery in this ship was a strong one on the score of subdivision and safety.

(b). H.A. re-armament. Controller examined the drawings and enquired where the 6 Mark 'M' pom-poms would be. D.N.C. said that only 4 were shown in the drawing, but there appeared no difficulty in providing two more mountings. D.N.O. queried the cost and D.N.C. stated that this would be re-examined and details available for C.N.S.'s meeting on the 9th.

(c). Increased protection. The two schemes, viz, extra deck protection on the upper deck or the main deck, were examined. Controller preferred the former.

The only other item discussed in some detail was the removal of the conning-tower and the reconstruction of the bridges. D.N.O. would wish to have an armoured director aft, if the present director over the conning-tower were removed.

The impression I received was that Controller thought the laying up of this valuable ship at the present or at any time in the near future on the score of policy.

(d). Extension of forecastle. Controller was not impressed that this was a very desirable alteration, but D.N.E., speaking from his experience, said he thought it was, and that when the ship was going at speed the crest of the wave seemed to come close to the present break.

(initialed)
S.V.G.

8/3/39

- Pages 306-310 -

H.M.S. "HOOD".

D.N.E.,

A mass of papers dealing with work to be done to the above ship when taken in hand this year for refit is herewith. The situation summarised is as follows:-

D.02984/36. Controller called a conference to discuss "HOOD" under two headings:-

(a). What can be done prior to her large refit, and
(b). What are the proposals for complete reconstruction.

As a result, Yards were informed that 8 single 4" H.A. guns should be fitted at the expense of 2 - 5.5" mountings, that the total number of Mark M's carried was to be 3, and the total number of .5" machine-guns 4; that the submerged torpedo tubes were to be removed and submerged flats subdivided.

In principle the above work has been done, but the magazine stowage is incomplete.

Yards were also informed that during the refit at Portsmouth this year it was intended to fit 8 - 4" guns in 4" twin mountings, replace the upper 5.5" guns, fit H.A. directors, and instal [sic] H.A. calculating positions.

The other papers herewith discuss the following:-

Provision of a new 15" D.C.T. and fire control table and installing power control searchlights. Although the fire control table has been ordered, this work will not now be done this year.

D.01481/37. Herewith is the paper which has been resuscitated from time to time to consider big reconstruction. The latest phase of this situation is that Controller instructed me verbally to consider complete reconstruction. This has been done and a separate report to Controller is herewith, which it is presumed will now be put on record in D.03414/38 and that paper then put away.

(Sd.) S.V. GOODALL
20.1.39

H.M.S. "HOOD": LARGE REPAIR.

CONTROLLER,

Submitted.

1. In accordance with your verbal instructions, consideration has been given, without going into great detail, of the work that would be involved if H.M.S. "HOOD" were completely reconstructed to bring her up to date as far as possible, viz.:-

(a). Provision of new main and auxiliary machinery.
(b). Fitting eight twin 5.25" H.A./L.A. mountings in lieu of the existing 5.5" L.A. and 4" H.A. mountings
(c). Short range A.A. armament increased to 6 - M.Mk.VI. pom poms; 0.5" machine guns removed.
(d). Fitting D.III.H. catapult, aircraft and hangars as in "KING GEORGE V" Class."
(e). Removal of above-water torpedo tubes.
(f). Removal of conning tower and reconstruction of bridges.
(g). Modification to underwater protection by removal of tubes from the buoyancy space in the bulge, the oil fuel in the existing wing tanks being transferred to the buoyancy space.
(h). Provision of increased deck protection.
(i). Removal of 5" belt upper-forecastle deck.
(j). Modification of top portion of bulge to provide requisite stability.

2. When reconstructed as above, "HOOD" would possess the following main characteristics:-

I. Armament.

8 - 15" in four twin turrets.
16 - 5.25" H.A./L.A. in eight twin turrets.
6 - M Mk.VI. pom-poms.

The 15" magazines are situated above the shell rooms, instead of below as in all capital ships since "HOOD".

II. Protection.

Alternative arrangements involving approximately equal weight are shown on the attached drawings, D.N.C.1/A 365 and 366. In each arrangement the upper belt (5") is removed and the 2" splinter protection on lower deck is made more extensive. The arrangements differ as follows:-

Arrangement (A). 12" belt extended to upper deck, and the existing upper deck strengthened to provide the equivalent of 2½" over machinery spaces and 4" over magazines.
Arrangement (B). 12" and 7" belts remain as at present and the main deck is increased to 5" over magazines and 4" over machinery.

Arrangement (A) is preferred, as it gives better protection to the lower portions of the barbettes.

Underwater Protection. This remains as capable of withstanding a 500 lbs. charge in contact.

III. Machinery and Speed.

The new machinery spaces will be subdivided as in recent capital ships, which would be a great improvement. With the same power as formerly, estimated speeds are 31½ knots standard and 30¾ knots deep.

3. Time and Cost. It is estimated that the alterations outlined in para 1 above will cost about ￡4½ millions and take about three years to complete.

(Sd.) S.V. GOODALL
20/1/39

- Pages 180-182 -

ITEMS FOR DECISION IN CONNECTION WITH THE
RECONSTRUCTION OF "HOOD".

(1). Last large repair in 1931.
(2). New machinery.
From D.N.C.'s point of view it would be desirable to save weight by fitting new machinery and to have the machinery compartment smaller with the boiler rooms separating engine rooms.

Cost.
Time.

(3). Protection.
Horizontal protection is not up to present standards.

(a). Should the 12" belt be extended up to the upper deck, the 280 and 200-lb. strakes being removed?

(b). If the above were done it would be proposed to increase the upper deck to the equivalent of [left blank].

(c). An alternative proposal to increase the main deck to the equivalent of [left blank] has been considered, but is not so desirable as it leaves the barbette bases weak.

Time.
Cost.

(4). Underwater protection.
Propose to remove tubes. The weight thereby saved is necessary. Oil fuel would be carried in the tube space. The top of the bulge will require modification for stability reasons.

Time.
Cost.

(5). H.A. Re-armament.
Present approved arrangements are 16 - 5.25", 8 - 4" and 3 Mark "M" pom-poms. Is the above to be altered into a 5.25" HA/LA armament with 6 Mark "M" pom-poms?

Time.
Cost.

(6). Aircraft arrangements.
A D.IV.H. and 2 hangars can be provided if the H.A. rearmament is approved.

(7). Bridge arrangements.
The present bridge is out of date. The conning-tower, which is very heavy and never used, would have to be removed to provide requisite weight saving and stability.

Time.
Cost.

(8). Extension of forecastle.
This is very desirable.

- Pages 112-114 -

CONTROLLER

Reconstruction of "HOOD"

The following notes are submitted:-

Item 1. Last large repair in 1931.
Cost of next large repair about ￡600,000 (excluding all alterations and additions).

Item 2. New Machinery.
It is desirable to save the weight gained by fitting new machinery and to adopt an arrangement with boiler rooms separating engine rooms.

Cost, about ￡1,625,000.
Time, not less than 3 years.

Notes. If machinery is to be renewed at all during the ship's life, now is the time. An alternative scheme might be to re-boiler only. (E in C has not been consulted).

Item 3. Protection.
Horizontal protection is not up to present standards. The following schemes are for consideration:-

(a). 12" belt extended up to upper deck, the 7" and 5" tiers being removed. Increase the upper deck to the equivalent of 2½" over machinery and 4" over magazines.

(b). Leave the 7" tier, remove the 5" tier and increase the main deck to the equivalent of 4" over machinery and 5" over magazines. This is not recommended as it leaves the barbette bases weak.

Time, about 2 years.
Cost for scheme (a) about ￡750,000, including armour.

Item 4. Underwater protection.
Propose to remove tubes as it is necessary to save this weight. Oil fuel would be carried in the tube space. The top of the bulge will require modification for stability reasons.

Time, about 2 years, including about 12 months in dock.
Cost, about ￡300,000.

Item 5. Rearmament.
The present approved arrangements are 12 - 5.5" [sic] L.A., 8 - 4" H.A., 3 Mark "M" pom-poms, the HA/LA guns proposed would be 12 - 5.25's or 16 - 4.5's , the magazine stowage being a difficulty. If new machinery or new boilers were fitted this difficulty would be less, in the former case we might get in 16 - 5.25", but supply would not be very good (See Item 7 re conning-tower).

Time, about 2 years.
Cost, about ￡1,000,000 for the 16 - 5.25 scheme.

Item 6. Aircraft arrangements.
A D.III.H. and 2 hangars can be provided, either with the existing secondary and H.A. armament or with the H.A. rearmament suggested.

Cost, about ￡180,000.
Time: Could be done during a large repair.

Item 7. Bridge arrangements.
The present bridge is out of date. The conning-tower, which is very heavy, would have to be removed to provide the necessary stability.

Time: Could be done during a large repair.
Cost: Depends on rearmament (D.C.T.'s) (Say ￡150,000).

Item 8. Extension of forecastle.
This is very desirable.

Time: Could be done during a large repair.
Cost: About ￡30,000.

Summary of Cost.

2. New Machinery         ￡1,625,000
3. Protection         ￡750,000
4. Underwater Protection         ￡300,000
5. Rearmament         ￡1,000,000
6. Aircraft         ￡180,000
7. Conning Tower and Bridges         ￡150,000
8. Extension of Forecastle         ￡30,000
Total
￡4,035,000
Add for defects and the usual alterations and additions         ￡465,000
Total
￡4,500,000
Note. If any of the above items are deleted, the total cost will be more than the above total minus the deleted items.

(Sd.) S.V. GOODALL

24.2.39

- Page 95 -

"NELSON", "RODNEY" and "HOOD" - Large Repairs and/or modernization.

Proposals for large repair and/or modernization of "NELSON", "RODNEY" and "HOOD" have been prepared and I understand that you wish to hold a meeting to discus them. I would propose that D.N.C., E-in-C., D.N.C. and D. of D. should attend from Controller's Departments.

2. In the meantime I attach a few notes which seem to me to present the broader aspects of the question and which can be developed at the meeting.

(Signed) F.T.B. TOWER
for Controller

1st March, 1939.

问个问题，为啥你写的和原文有些不同？

http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/official/adm229/adm229-20.htm

-H.M.S. Hood Reference Materials-
ADM 229/20: DNC's Reports (1938-1939)
Updated 09-Mar-2007

This document is a modern transcription of Admiralty record ADM 229/20. The original record contains papers and correspondence related to the proposed reconstruction of several Royal Navy vessels, to include H.M.S. Hood. This extract contains only the Hood portions of the record. The original file is held at the The National Archives at Kew, London. This Crown Copyrighted material is reproduced here by kind permission of The National Archives.


- Pages 53 & 54-

NOTES TAKEN AT CONTROLLER'S CONFERENCE ON 7/3/39, CONCERNING RECONSTRUCTION OF "NELSON", "RODNEY" AND "HOOD", ALSO RE-ARMOURING "ROYAL SOVEREIGNS".

(Copies to:-
D.N.C.
MR. SANDERS.
" PENGELLY.
Records).

Present:-

CONTROLLER. D.N.C. D.N.E. D.N.O. D.D.N.O.

"HOOD"

(a). New Machinery. Controller decided that the argument for new machinery in this ship was a strong one on the score of subdivision and safety.

(b). H.A. re-armament. Controller examined the drawings and enquired where the 6 Mark 'M' pom-poms would be. D.N.C. said that only 4 were shown in the drawing, but there appeared no difficulty in providing two more mountings. D.N.O. queried the cost and D.N.C. stated that this would be re-examined and details available for C.N.S.'s meeting on the 9th.

(c). Increased protection. The two schemes, viz, extra deck protection on the upper deck or the main deck, were examined. Controller preferred the former.

The only other item discussed in some detail was the removal of the conning-tower and the reconstruction of the bridges. D.N.O. would wish to have an armoured director aft, if the present director over the conning-tower were removed.

The impression I received was that Controller thought the laying up of this valuable ship at the present or at any time in the near future on the score of policy.

(d). Extension of forecastle. Controller was not impressed that this was a very desirable alteration, but D.N.E., speaking from his experience, said he thought it was, and that when the ship was going at speed the crest of the wave seemed to come close to the present break.

(initialed)
S.V.G.

8/3/39

- Pages 306-310 -

H.M.S. "HOOD".

D.N.E.,

A mass of papers dealing with work to be done to the above ship when taken in hand this year for refit is herewith. The situation summarised is as follows:-

D.02984/36. Controller called a conference to discuss "HOOD" under two headings:-

(a). What can be done prior to her large refit, and
(b). What are the proposals for complete reconstruction.

As a result, Yards were informed that 8 single 4" H.A. guns should be fitted at the expense of 2 - 5.5" mountings, that the total number of Mark M's carried was to be 3, and the total number of .5" machine-guns 4; that the submerged torpedo tubes were to be removed and submerged flats subdivided.

In principle the above work has been done, but the magazine stowage is incomplete.

Yards were also informed that during the refit at Portsmouth this year it was intended to fit 8 - 4" guns in 4" twin mountings, replace the upper 5.5" guns, fit H.A. directors, and instal [sic] H.A. calculating positions.

The other papers herewith discuss the following:-

Provision of a new 15" D.C.T. and fire control table and installing power control searchlights. Although the fire control table has been ordered, this work will not now be done this year.

D.01481/37. Herewith is the paper which has been resuscitated from time to time to consider big reconstruction. The latest phase of this situation is that Controller instructed me verbally to consider complete reconstruction. This has been done and a separate report to Controller is herewith, which it is presumed will now be put on record in D.03414/38 and that paper then put away.

(Sd.) S.V. GOODALL
20.1.39

H.M.S. "HOOD": LARGE REPAIR.

CONTROLLER,

Submitted.

1. In accordance with your verbal instructions, consideration has been given, without going into great detail, of the work that would be involved if H.M.S. "HOOD" were completely reconstructed to bring her up to date as far as possible, viz.:-

(a). Provision of new main and auxiliary machinery.
(b). Fitting eight twin 5.25" H.A./L.A. mountings in lieu of the existing 5.5" L.A. and 4" H.A. mountings
(c). Short range A.A. armament increased to 6 - M.Mk.VI. pom poms; 0.5" machine guns removed.
(d). Fitting D.III.H. catapult, aircraft and hangars as in "KING GEORGE V" Class."
(e). Removal of above-water torpedo tubes.
(f). Removal of conning tower and reconstruction of bridges.
(g). Modification to underwater protection by removal of tubes from the buoyancy space in the bulge, the oil fuel in the existing wing tanks being transferred to the buoyancy space.
(h). Provision of increased deck protection.
(i). Removal of 5" belt upper-forecastle deck.
(j). Modification of top portion of bulge to provide requisite stability.

2. When reconstructed as above, "HOOD" would possess the following main characteristics:-

I. Armament.

8 - 15" in four twin turrets.
16 - 5.25" H.A./L.A. in eight twin turrets.
6 - M Mk.VI. pom-poms.

The 15" magazines are situated above the shell rooms, instead of below as in all capital ships since "HOOD".

II. Protection.

Alternative arrangements involving approximately equal weight are shown on the attached drawings, D.N.C.1/A 365 and 366. In each arrangement the upper belt (5") is removed and the 2" splinter protection on lower deck is made more extensive. The arrangements differ as follows:-

Arrangement (A). 12" belt extended to upper deck, and the existing upper deck strengthened to provide the equivalent of 2½" over machinery spaces and 4" over magazines.
Arrangement (B). 12" and 7" belts remain as at present and the main deck is increased to 5" over magazines and 4" over machinery.

Arrangement (A) is preferred, as it gives better protection to the lower portions of the barbettes.

Underwater Protection. This remains as capable of withstanding a 500 lbs. charge in contact.

III. Machinery and Speed.

The new machinery spaces will be subdivided as in recent capital ships, which would be a great improvement. With the same power as formerly, estimated speeds are 31½ knots standard and 30¾ knots deep.

3. Time and Cost. It is estimated that the alterations outlined in para 1 above will cost about ￡4½ millions and take about three years to complete.

(Sd.) S.V. GOODALL
20/1/39

- Pages 180-182 -

ITEMS FOR DECISION IN CONNECTION WITH THE
RECONSTRUCTION OF "HOOD".

(1). Last large repair in 1931.
(2). New machinery.
From D.N.C.'s point of view it would be desirable to save weight by fitting new machinery and to have the machinery compartment smaller with the boiler rooms separating engine rooms.

Cost.
Time.

(3). Protection.
Horizontal protection is not up to present standards.

(a). Should the 12" belt be extended up to the upper deck, the 280 and 200-lb. strakes being removed?

(b). If the above were done it would be proposed to increase the upper deck to the equivalent of [left blank].

(c). An alternative proposal to increase the main deck to the equivalent of [left blank] has been considered, but is not so desirable as it leaves the barbette bases weak.

Time.
Cost.

(4). Underwater protection.
Propose to remove tubes. The weight thereby saved is necessary. Oil fuel would be carried in the tube space. The top of the bulge will require modification for stability reasons.

Time.
Cost.

(5). H.A. Re-armament.
Present approved arrangements are 16 - 5.25", 8 - 4" and 3 Mark "M" pom-poms. Is the above to be altered into a 5.25" HA/LA armament with 6 Mark "M" pom-poms?

Time.
Cost.

(6). Aircraft arrangements.
A D.IV.H. and 2 hangars can be provided if the H.A. rearmament is approved.

(7). Bridge arrangements.
The present bridge is out of date. The conning-tower, which is very heavy and never used, would have to be removed to provide requisite weight saving and stability.

Time.
Cost.

(8). Extension of forecastle.
This is very desirable.

- Pages 112-114 -

CONTROLLER

Reconstruction of "HOOD"

The following notes are submitted:-

Item 1. Last large repair in 1931.
Cost of next large repair about ￡600,000 (excluding all alterations and additions).

Item 2. New Machinery.
It is desirable to save the weight gained by fitting new machinery and to adopt an arrangement with boiler rooms separating engine rooms.

Cost, about ￡1,625,000.
Time, not less than 3 years.

Notes. If machinery is to be renewed at all during the ship's life, now is the time. An alternative scheme might be to re-boiler only. (E in C has not been consulted).

Item 3. Protection.
Horizontal protection is not up to present standards. The following schemes are for consideration:-

(a). 12" belt extended up to upper deck, the 7" and 5" tiers being removed. Increase the upper deck to the equivalent of 2½" over machinery and 4" over magazines.

(b). Leave the 7" tier, remove the 5" tier and increase the main deck to the equivalent of 4" over machinery and 5" over magazines. This is not recommended as it leaves the barbette bases weak.

Time, about 2 years.
Cost for scheme (a) about ￡750,000, including armour.

Item 4. Underwater protection.
Propose to remove tubes as it is necessary to save this weight. Oil fuel would be carried in the tube space. The top of the bulge will require modification for stability reasons.

Time, about 2 years, including about 12 months in dock.
Cost, about ￡300,000.

Item 5. Rearmament.
The present approved arrangements are 12 - 5.5" [sic] L.A., 8 - 4" H.A., 3 Mark "M" pom-poms, the HA/LA guns proposed would be 12 - 5.25's or 16 - 4.5's , the magazine stowage being a difficulty. If new machinery or new boilers were fitted this difficulty would be less, in the former case we might get in 16 - 5.25", but supply would not be very good (See Item 7 re conning-tower).

Time, about 2 years.
Cost, about ￡1,000,000 for the 16 - 5.25 scheme.

Item 6. Aircraft arrangements.
A D.III.H. and 2 hangars can be provided, either with the existing secondary and H.A. armament or with the H.A. rearmament suggested.

Cost, about ￡180,000.
Time: Could be done during a large repair.

Item 7. Bridge arrangements.
The present bridge is out of date. The conning-tower, which is very heavy, would have to be removed to provide the necessary stability.

Time: Could be done during a large repair.
Cost: Depends on rearmament (D.C.T.'s) (Say ￡150,000).

Item 8. Extension of forecastle.
This is very desirable.

Time: Could be done during a large repair.
Cost: About ￡30,000.

Summary of Cost.

2. New Machinery         ￡1,625,000
3. Protection         ￡750,000
4. Underwater Protection         ￡300,000
5. Rearmament         ￡1,000,000
6. Aircraft         ￡180,000
7. Conning Tower and Bridges         ￡150,000
8. Extension of Forecastle         ￡30,000
Total
￡4,035,000
Add for defects and the usual alterations and additions         ￡465,000
Total
￡4,500,000
Note. If any of the above items are deleted, the total cost will be more than the above total minus the deleted items.

(Sd.) S.V. GOODALL

24.2.39

- Page 95 -

"NELSON", "RODNEY" and "HOOD" - Large Repairs and/or modernization.

Proposals for large repair and/or modernization of "NELSON", "RODNEY" and "HOOD" have been prepared and I understand that you wish to hold a meeting to discus them. I would propose that D.N.C., E-in-C., D.N.C. and D. of D. should attend from Controller's Departments.

2. In the meantime I attach a few notes which seem to me to present the broader aspects of the question and which can be developed at the meeting.

(Signed) F.T.B. TOWER
for Controller

1st March, 1939.

战列舰吧的老毛病，篡改文字伪造证据:sleepy:

计划赶不上变化啊~~

1# nelson001
楼主肯定认识xike1吧
我和他是好朋友

水饺变包子

11# qianjizhao 我们看到的文章不一样啊。我是在HMSHOOD.COM上看的，觉得我翻译的还是正确的，你的那篇我有空在看看。我是用某些手段进去的www.hmshood.com 是参考了ship information部分的文章。

11# qianjizhao 我们看到的文章不一样啊。我是在HMSHOOD.COM上看的，觉得我翻译的还是正确的，你的那篇我有空在看看。我是用某些手段进去的www.hmshood.com 是参考了ship information部分的文章。

14# 北航军协
认得认得。

T64狂潮 发表于 2009-8-26 19:38
我鄙视这样的人，我也不是那样的人，只是我参考的文章和他粘贴下来的可能有所不同，我回来在看看。

呵呵，还是战巡

北航军协 发表于 2009-8-26 20:17
反倒是不认识阁下...

专程被老衲拉来看这篇东西，发现老衲某些词句的翻译还要改...........而且，指望改装后的胡德去捏死BSM，就如同指望金刚去压扁敦克尔可一样不现实.....两败俱伤才是正常效果

专程被老衲拉来看这篇东西，发现老衲某些词句的翻译还要改...........而且，指望改装后的胡德去捏死BSM，就如同指望金刚去压扁敦克尔可一样不现实.....两败俱伤才是正常效果

勋爵原来是这里的核潜艇啊:victory:
我出道虽晚，也算是您的老朋友了。
你和西洋那次不快，我在线经历了。可是之后你回群了啊，我以为没什么事了。后来又怎么了导致这样一个结果？
唉......百度的山寨被官军封了之后，战列舰吧逐渐的分崩离析了.....让人不爽的紧啊。

另，三川兄好啊。什么时候大家再重聚一堂多好啊:)

克虏伯火炮 发表于 2009-8-26 22:28
家产都已经分光了，还聚他干吗

不知道到底哪个才是原始文档
你把你看得链接发过来吧

11# qianjizhao 我们看到的文章不一样啊。我是在HMSHOOD.COM上看的，觉得我翻译的还是正确的，你的那篇我有空在看看。我是用某些手段进去的www.hmshood.com 是参考了ship information部分的文章。
nelson001 发表于 2009-8-26 12:59

不知道到底哪个才是原始文档
你把你看得链接发过来吧

不错！！！！！

20# thorongil


如果你是xike1
你绝对认识公主好勇敢

不过胡德主要缺点是装甲太薄，防护弱，按照你提供的改装方案，对这没有什么改进，就算赶上与俾舰的对决，也讨不到什么好。

老衲好久不见了……巴掌又在抽了麽？

qianjizhao 发表于 2009-8-26 23:03
我看的是这篇文章：H.M.S. Hood's Proposed 1942 Large Repair
Written by Frank Allen
Updated 30-Nov-2008

In the late 1930s, Hood was considered a potential candidate for a major reconstruction. This article addresses the plans made and suggests some possible "looks" for a modified Hood. This information is based primarily upon ADM 229/20, DNC's Notes, 1938-1939. This document contains correspondence concerning Hood's proposed refit. We would also like to give special thanks to the following individuals: Maurice Northcott (for background information), José Rico and Manuel González Lòpez (for allowing us to modify their drawings) and "Alt Naval" (for the use of his photographic conceptions of a modified Hood).



As a ship ages, its machinery and structure experience "wear and tear." The degree of wear and tear depends of course, upon the conditions under which the ship was operated, as well as the quantity and quality of maintenance received. Often, regardless of how well-maintained a ship may be, deficiencies in its design and/or equipment come to light and must be addressed. As a result of any of these factors, modifications in the form of refits or repairs are periodically necessary.

Hood herself was certainly no exception: she received some form of refit for nearly every single year from the time of her launching until the time of her loss. Of the approximately 20 more notable refits, most involved modifications to secondary guns, fire control and range finding equipment. The scope of the refits varied in size. Only one (1929-1931) was actually a major refit/overhaul.

By the late 1930s, Hood, due to the poor condition of key internal components (i.e., engines) was once again in need of a major refit. It was also apparent that she was not up to the standards of the current generation of modern battleships. Thus, in late 1938, preliminary plans were discussed with Captain Walker and crew. Hood's key deficiencies and shortcomings were outlined and a rough plan was formulated. This plan was officially referred to as the "Large Repair."

Unfortunately, detailed final plans were not created – only preliminary planning sketches were drawn-up. According to sources, the sketches were simply overlaid or drawn-over drawings of Hood in her then present configuration. Logically, the sketches showed an arrangement extremely similar to that of Renown following her 1936-1939 refit/overhaul. The whereabouts of these sketches is unknown and are they are believed to have been lost. Therefore, any attempt to draw a reconstructed Hood is hypothetical at best.

The work (based on pre-war considerations) would have taken between two and three years to complete at a cost of as much as £4.5 million. Sadly, due to budgetary constraints and the fact that there were other ships in need of more immediate attention, Hood's refit was not scheduled to commence until at least Spring 1942.

Proposed Modifications
What follows is a list of the proposed work:

New internal machinery. Nearly everything would have been upgraded, especially engines/propulsion.
Rearranged/remodelled torpedo bulges and side armour. Bulge would have extended to the top of the 7" armour belt rather than to the top of the 12" belt)
Improved deck armour/protection over vital areas
Removal of spotting top and the 5" side armour
New superstructure and masts fore and aft. Most notably, the forward superstructure would have been a "block" type similar to that of Renown, the Queen Elizabeths or the King George Vs (KGV).
New funnels. These would have been something similar to those on Renown as KGV funnels would have been too small.
Addition of a catapult, hangars and Walrus seaplanes. (See "Some Considerations" below)
Improved antiaircraft (AAA) protection. This would include: The addition of 3 pom poms (for a total of 6), removal of all UPs and 4" HA/LA guns and lastly, the addition of either 16 x 4.5" (like Renown) or 5.25" guns (like KGV) (See "Some Considerations" below)
Upgraded fire control. She would have received updated radar, fire control tables, comms, directors, etc.
Extended forecastle deck. Hood's stern was notoriously wet due to her overweight condition. An extension was considered for the simple fact that it might help keep the quarterdeck a bit drier. The extension would retain the rough "V" shape but would instead, extend to "X" turret. (See "Some Considerations" below).
Some Considerations
We feel that due to certain circumstances, of the above list, a few items would likely have been changed or possibly not implemented:
Catapult/aircraft gear–. By 1944/1945, the Royal Navy had reexamined the need for aircraft aboard battleships and battle cruisers. Due to key considerations, not the least of which was the improvement in aerial surveillance radar, it was decided to remove such equipment. Therefore, Hood, under construction during this period. would likely have had changes made. It is possible that if aircraft were not used, the space they would have occupied would have gone to boats or possibly increased 40mm antiaircraft batteries.
4.5" or 5.25" Secondary Battery–. Though the 5.25" would have been preferred, there were availability issues with the guns. Instead, the widely available 4.5" guns would have been a more likely choice to install aboard Hood.. It was also a more standard sized round (Queen Elizabeth, Renown, carriers, etc.).
Extended Forecastle deck–. This would only have been done if other modifications did not result in a significant reduction in displacement/increase in freeboard. If Hood If Hood sat higher in the water, there would have been no need for the extension.
Location of shell rooms and magazines–. This, Hood's "Achilles heel," would not have been fixed. The powder magazines would still have been situated dangerously over the shell rooms.
Final Conclusions
It is highly possible that even had she survived her encounter with Bismarck, Hood would still not have undergone a full refit or r large repair. As stated above, the proposed "Large Repair" was based upon pre-war considerations. With the war well underway, resources and finances would have been severely limited. Resources would be diverted to building new ships and repairing damaged ones.

Additionally, an important asset like Hood may not have been able to be spared for a full three years. At worst, Hood would likely have had her engines repaired/updated, some slight modifications to her superstructure (weight saving attempts) and a significantly increased antiaircraft capability. If that were the case, she may have looked something like a cross between her actual final appearance and one of the drawings shown above (Note- because of the extreme uncertainty involved, we have not attempted such a drawing). After a refit of 1 to 2 years, she would have been right back out on front line service. Following the completion of the war, the ship would likely have paid off and decommissioned then eventually scrapped along with all the other great "big gun" ships of the Royal Navy.

:handshake哈哈，个人觉得这个舰最漂亮了！[:a2:]:D

改完也不是新锐高速战列舰的对手。

我永远永远永远最爱的

HMS-HOOD！！！

谁知道spotting top怎么翻译吗，我觉得我翻译的不对，可能是瞭望台的意思吧。