World of Warships – Cinematic Battle Hood vs Scharnhorst

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1,409 votes, average: 4.91 out of 5)

Close Ad ×

So I decided to play a ship which I don’t exactly like very much but I don’t play it often, Hood AND to play a bit with HUD and camera angles for both your satisfaction and mine.

I hope you like it, because it does show up just how beautiful the game is.

Enjoy and have fun watching 😉

Invite code for new players – [](

Visit my merch shop – [](

Join the team on Discord – [](


  1. The Hood. The only British battlecruiser to be also half submarine.😁

  2. Hood: Had a unique playstyle with god tier AA. AA gets nerfed by WG “balancing”; shell arming threshold gets directly nerfed because of changes to DD damage based on gun calibre. A series of direct and indirect nerfs by WG that gutted the playstyle of a paid for premium ship with no compensation; and we are not up in arms about this because? 🙁

    • Because it’s par for the course with WG. Hence why I stopped playing this game and WoT years ago. My only investment with either is watching videos of people who are far better at the games than I ever thought of being.

    • Every ship I’ve paid cash money for has been nerfed in some way. Fool me fifteen times, shame on you. Fool me sixteen times, shame on me. I’m done except for watching Hans and the old man.

    • @Gary Crispin Exactly 😄 I stopped paying anything for any WG title a long time ago:

      Greed in excess of EA: Check
      No interest in game balance: Check
      Little interest in the opinion of the community: Check

  3. The militia will now spam this on all survey “Request Clean camo”

  4. Johann Wolfgang von Dörte

    Holy Shit. Love the cinematic aspects. More Please. If also somebody could tell me how to do this i would love it.

  5. Having barely ever played the game I never picked up on how good the look and the sounds are when the camera is close to the ship. Hadn’t caught those ricochet noises just listening to people play normally.

  6. I would play without HUD if WG could let us keep the aiming marks in sniper mode

  7. I think the Mighty Hood got a bit tired of the submarine jokes…. She’s out here kicking everyone’s asses.

    • The submarine bit came from her low freeboard, waves would actually break over her quarterdeck in bad weather – she had one of the highest rates of TB of any RN warship.

  8. Literally how I play all my ships expect DDs because all their guns look like the inside of a robot

  9. At that time, the Germans could shoot further and more accurately, so they also need fewer test shots. would certainly be at eye level in real combat.

  10. When you sunk the Kansas, Jingles was actually right, you did sunk an ALLIED BB

  11. To be fair, in modstation there are mods that completely remove all camos from ships or repaint it in more “believable way” so that ship camo looks like it should and not look like a fantasy painted wall. So if you want to, there is definitely an option! 🙂

  12. Pretty sure that camo is how she appeared historically. Hood’s torp tubes may have saved Prince of Wales, Prince Eugen detected torpedos and both Bismark and her evaded, probably giving PoW time to get away. Realistically given the trouble both Gneisenau and Scharnhorst had with Renown, Hood versus Scharnhorst would only have ended one way. Because of the manner of her demise Hood is generally underrated as a battlecruiser but if you’d talked to someone in the 1930s there’s no way the twins would have been considered equal to “Mighty Hood” even in the German Navy, there was a reason PoW and Hood were sent to stop Bismark in the Denmark straight and it wasn’t with anticipation of them being beaten. Actually if she’d gotten her refit she’d have probably been superior to Tirpitz or Bismark…. but the war started sooner than anticipated, it never happened and a lucky shot later history remembers everything differently…. I still like her in WoWs the speed is great :-)!

    • The reason why the British sent Hood to the Denmark Strait was because they had nothing else and it was the only fast ship available to get there in time accompanying the not yet fully operational KGV. The British knew far to well (propaganda aside) how weak actually the Hood structure was and Holland tried to point his bow to the enemy closing the gap as fast as possible. Despite being completed after Jutland, very few of the teachings about the battle were refitted on the hood, but, being the largest ship in the Royal Navy after The treaty of Washington it was shown around between the wars to boost morale and to impress the nation it visited.
      Scharnhorts was a much better ship, better protected, built from the begin to mount 380mm and tank those calibres: it was considered a “Battle cruiser” only because of the smaller guns, because the intended Bismarck turrets were not available at the launch of the ship; the 280mm was chosen, deemed enough for a corsair ship fighting convoys and their escorts. Even with the 280mm Scharnorst was a danger for the Hood: during the Jutland battle, the German 280mm were enough to perforate and damage British ships better armoured then Hood. Scharnorst did not have WWI guns: these were modern 280/54 with a very high muzzle velocity and excellent penetration.
      Consider that the German always tried to evade direct contact well knowing that the British ship were heavily supported by cruisers and DDs. this is what happened a the battle of Bear Island, where in the middle of the mist a British cruiser destroyed with the usual lucky shot the German radar antenna blinding the Scharnhorst and allowing the British fleet to corner and surround it. Scharnhorst was probably no match for a KGV ship which was larger and had thick armour, but Hood did not had any of those and was plenty vulnerable. especially in 1939 when the RN did not had the radar advantage on their side.

    • @Zumzifero The reason Holland pointed the Bow of Hood towards Bismark was to close the range as fast as possible to prevent a longer range hit from penetrating the deck, which was known to be unlikely to withstand plunging fire from Bismark at long range, Hood had successfully closed the range and was turning to engage with all 8 guns when she was sunk (confirmed by position of the rudders on the wreck) the commonly parroted version of events that Bismark’s fire penetrated her deck armour is therefore demonstrably not true. Hood was redesigned after Jutland, she did function as the fleet flagship and this prevented her from receiving the refit which she was due for and as mentioned would have involved much improved armour and capability. Battleship guns are always going to be a threat but I don’t believe the the twins armanet would have been particularly worrying for Hood. It’s demonstrable at Jutland that whilst the 280mm guns were able to penetrate the Invincible class Battlecruisers they were unable to do significant damage to the later classes of battlecruiser (which were less well armoured than Hood) as demonstrated by Tiger endurance. The detonation of British Battlecruisers at Jutland had much more to do with poor shell handing practices to emphasize rate of fire (removing antiflash precautions and storing extra ammunition beyond the normal ready use ammunition outside of magazines as a counter for the relative inaccuracy of the battlecruiser fleet due to lack of practice after it was moved south from scapa flow to counter raid on the coast – Tiger being the exception to these practices). I also disagree with your assessment on the effectiveness of the Geman 280mm guns during the battle of Jutland – Scheer himself asked for larger guns after the battle so he clearly believed they weren’t good enough. Once again on 9 April 1940 faced with Renown and some destroyers (more or less non-contributory in the conditions) Geisenau and Scharnhorst very much did not evade direct contact but both broke off the engagement after taking damage and suffering flooding – two twin battleships disengaging from a single Battlecruiser or similar age (actually older) to Hood. It’s also notable that that’s one of 3 battles in world war 2 where a german capital ship had its fire control radar knocked out (Denmark straight, North Cape being the others) which to me suggests that it was a systemic issue.

    • Honestly, Hood vs Bismarck is an evenly matched fight. Hood might be weak, but that’s because the British already had the KGVs by then, so Bismarck is also supposedly not as strong too then.

      The twins are actually quite formidable, if not for two facts:
      1) 11″ guns

      2) “Don’t take damage” policy

      Especially the 2nd one where they could’ve blown HMS Renown off but decided not to, heck they have a thicker armor than even Bismarck! Although armor scheme isn’t as great since the Germans used incremental armor.

  13. imagine having War Thunders realistic battle mode in WG.

  14. I totally agree upon the Clean Look. Its to much with those “Cirkus Camo’s” that WG offers.

    • david and martine albon

      Agreed, although some of the camos (Hunter) do look decent, but most of the time they do just make my eyes bleed

  15. I wish that WoWS had a “realistic” mode wherein you were stuck without identifiers, and all targeting and view was done at ship level, with aiming through the scoped mode.

  16. Of course WG wouldn’t give you the plain camo option. That way, they can sell it to you for 5,000 doubloons.

  17. I expected a cinematic ammo rack explosion.. but this will do as well 🙂

  18. i had a NM yesterday that shot nothing but HE at me, and every freaking shell caused a fire, got burned down in no time

  19. That’s a great look, I enjoyed that. Thank you

  20. please do more of these! I know they’re really only possible in battleships and heavy cruisers but its so cool to watch!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.