Did you see the article from ABC News, posted at the above site, that suggests "Titanic-type" steel was used in the Hood's construction --which contributed to the Hood's sinking?
According to the article, the HMS Hood was about the same size as the Titanic (860 feet long, 46,000 tons). It's steel came from D. Colville & Co. in Motherwell, Scotland, as did Titanic's.
Further, according to the article:
"Timothy Foecke, a metallurgist at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Md., said the ships’ steel–although state-of-the-art at the time–was “very strain-rate sensitive.” In other words, he said, like Silly Putty, it will stretch if pulled apart slowly but it will snap if it is pulled quickly. “If the Hood’s hull was disassembled very quickly by an explosion, then the steel may have indeed behaved very brittlely,” said Foecke, who conducted extensive tests on metal fragments from Titanic. William Garzke of the U.S. Society of Naval Architects in Arlington, Va., said tests on recovered segments of the Titanic showed the rivets and plates were liable to crack easily under pressure, in contrast to the much more flexible steel used today. “It is possible this was a factor in the sinking of the Hood,” Garzke said."
I had heard this before, i.e., that the Hood was not armoured nearly as well as it should have been.
The sinking of the HMS Hood was a monumental loss for the British, and particularly devastating given the manner of the loss.
". . . The battlecruiser’s bow and stern sank separately in two minutes even as her 15-inch guns blasted a final salvo at the enemy."