Descriptions of Hood's dirt, corrosion and ageing machinery need to be assessed in their original context. The full book is unavailable during this exchange, and the quoted passages may be personal recollections with qualifications omitted from the chat. Planned boiler replacement does not establish that a boiler was already dangerous enough to require immediate withdrawal. Air or condensation in hydraulic systems would also need to be distinguished from the claimed route of salt-water contamination. A leak's rate and location matter more than the mere presence of water. Riveted construction, extensive steam and water pipework, and the shock of firing heavy guns all provide reasons for leakage in an operating warship. Serious defects would also risk crew resistance, giving chiefs and officers another reason to report and address them.
Notable Point · 52:50-1:06:15
Testing accounts of Hood against engineering evidence
Hood's reported defects need their severity and engineering context established before they can demonstrate that the ship was unfit for service.