tom@yikes.math.ufl.EDU (Thomas J Gillen) (07/24/90)
From: tom@yikes.math.ufl.EDU (Thomas J Gillen) I have an incredibly detailed, four-inch lead model of a battleship which is identified only as "Nelson." I'd appreciate some basic information about the ship, if anyone is knowing and willing, as I'm clueless even as to its nationality. The ship is of a fairly strange design, with the entire superstructure being on the aft-half of the ship, and is very heavily armored and with quite an impressive and varied display of guns. Why, even its guns have guns! (The number three turret has six AA guns on top.) However, if I'm only parading my naval innocence and copious amounts of information are available about this ship, then just a reference or two would be appreciated. Thanks, in advance. Regards, tom.
military-request@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) (07/24/90)
From: military-request@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) tom@yikes.math.ufl.EDU writes: > I have an incredibly detailed, four-inch lead model of a >battleship which is identified only as "Nelson." I'd appreciate some >basic information about the ship, if anyone is knowing and willing, as >I'm clueless even as to its nationality. That's the British HMS Nelson, named after the famous admiral. The Nelson was a 1920's construction battleship, which makes her and her sister ship Rodney pretty unusual, because as a result of the Washington Naval Treaty of 1921 all signatories (every major naval power) agreed on a "building holiday" with no battleship construction. Another term of the treaty was that no BB's should be built carrying guns over 14", though existing ships with larger guns could remain in service. America and Japan both obtained permission to complete several battleships under construction; the Colorado, Maryland, and West Virginia for the US, and the Nagato and Mutsu for Japan; these were near completion and carried 16" guns. Britain complained that she had no 16" gun battleships and would be at a disadvantage, and was therefore allowed to build two such ships despite the holiday. These were Rodney and Nelson. > The ship is of a fairly strange design, with the entire >superstructure being on the aft-half of the ship, and is very heavily >armored and with quite an impressive and varied display of guns. Why, >even its guns have guns! (The number three turret has six AA guns on >top.) In an attempt to gain the most advantage from the Washington Treaty limitation of max. 35,000 tons displacement, Britain (and later, France) adopted this novel scheme. All three main turrets were placed fore of the superstucture; this allowed the magazines to be placed all together, instead of at opposite ends of the ship, and so saved weight on armor (meaning that the armor could be made a little thicker). Of course, this risked having one lucky hit knock out all three main turrets, but the tradeoff was considered worth the risk. "C" turret (third from the front) had somewhat better angles of fire forward than it would had it been mounted at the stern, but of course, there were no main guns firing directly aft. One interesting side effect is that this shift in weight concentrated the ship's center of gravity further forward. In a decent crosswind, so I've read, the superstructure aft would act as a sail and the ship would tend to turn into the wind like a weathervane unless she was making a "reasonable" speed (probably 5-10 kts). This apparently made them difficult to maneuver in harbors, and so tugs were required. The poor harbor handing earned these ships the nicknames "Nelsonol" and "Rodnol", following the pattern used on some oil tankers of the day. (Or so the story goes; can anyone confirm or deny this ?) Of course, being designed in the 20's meant that the designs underestimated airpower, and so the ships were originally weak on anti-aircraft armament. During various refits the AA battery was improved, but no extra space was available for the guns (the huge forward deck area could be used because the AA guns would be blown away by the blast from the 16" mains) so they ended up in places like the roof of B turret. Another outcome of their design was their slow speed of 23 knots, 5 knots slower than ships designed in the thirties. Combat Service (WWII): Nelson: Struck a mine in Dec. 39, 5 months repair. Several times chased the German Scharnhorst and Gneisenau without success. Served as convoy escort in the Mediterranean from June, 1941; took an aerial torpedo there Sept.41, repair for 7 months, then back to the Med. Supported Torch landings in NW Africa, same for Sicily and Salerno. Struck a mine while on similar duty during D-Day, repairs until Jan.45. Then transferred to Far East Fleet, op's off Malayan islands. Postwar as training ship until deleted 1948. Rodney: With Nelson, chased Scharnhorst/Gneisenau. Took part in Bismarck chase, despite being in need of engine overhauls; battle with Bismarck, scored numerous hits (many from very close range; so close that some of her guns, firing at minimum depression, actually jumped from their cradles and were put out of action). Served with Nelson during the Med. landings and at Normandy. Escorted Murmansk convoys until Dec '44, then reserved at Scapa Flow. Deleted 1948. > However, if I'm only parading my naval innocence and copious >amounts of information are available about this ship, then just a >reference or two would be appreciated. I'm afraid I can't name any references just on the Nelson class. Any decent book on battleships, though, will mention them. Breyer's _Battleships and Battlecruisers, 1905-1970_ is a good one, though it's very technical and lacking on historical information. Even Anthony Preston's book on battleship (probably titled _Battleships_) will have something, though perhaps brief. HMS Rodney took part in the final battle against the Bismarck, so you should be able to learn more about her from any of the numerous books recalling the Bismarck's sinking. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Bill Thacker Moderator, sci.military military-request@att.att.com (614) 860-5294 Send submissions to military@att.att.com
prm@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu (Phil Moyer) (07/25/90)
From: prm@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu (Phil Moyer) Here's what I could find on the Nelson Class: Nelson Class Battleships There were two ships in the class; the HMS Nelson and HMS Rodney. Nelson was completed in September of 1927 and scrapped in 1949. Rodney was completed in November of 1927 and scrapped in 1948. They were the only English battleships to be built after the Washington Treaty - designed primarily for protection and heavy armament at the expense of speed. They were the Royal Navy's most modern capital ships in 1936, so they were not refitted for WWII. By 1945, however, their short-range armament, particularly their AA system, had been considerably increassed. They were also fitted with modern radar systems. Displacement: 33,950 Tons Length: 710 feet Armament: 9 x 16 inch 12 x 6 inch 6 x 4.7 in AA 24 x 2 pdr AA 2 x 24.5 in TT Armor: 14 in belt 9/16 in main turrets 3 3/4 / 6 1/4 in main deck Maxmimum speed: 23 knots Reference: Battleships 1856-1977, by Antony Preston Cheers, Phil
cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold) (07/26/90)
From: cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold) >From article <1990Jul23.202210.6040@cbnews.att.com>, by tom@yikes.math.ufl.EDU (Thomas J Gillen): > > I have an incredibly detailed, four-inch lead model of a > battleship which is identified only as "Nelson." I'd appreciate some > basic information about the ship, if anyone is knowing and willing, as > I'm clueless even as to its nationality. Nelson was the first of the two Nelson class of British battleships completed in 1927 (Rodney was the other). At the time, they were the most powerful battleships in commission: 33,900 Tons displacement Main Armament: Nine 16" 45 cal guns in 3 turrets Secondary: 12 6" guns, 6 4.7" guns AA: numerous 20MM Oerlikon mg Main Propulsion: Two geared turbines total 45K SHP Top Speed 23 knots The unique arrangement with all three turrets forward was done to save weight by putting the heavy armament and ammo handling machinery in one spot (rather than 2), plus the total armor needed was less. Guns were of unique design, and had high elevation (40 degrees), but did not perform as well as the British 15" and 14" guns (their opinion) due to a multitude of safety interlocks that often prevented firing. Nelson was damaged by a magnetic mine in 1939 while part of the Home Fleet. Rodney participated in the Norwegian campaign, and was damaged by air attack. The Bismarck was put out of action by gunfire from Rodney and King George V; Rodney closed to 4000 yards at one point. Nelson was with Force H in the Mediterranean, and was later joined by Rodney in Operation Pedestal to escort a convoy to Malta. Sources: Preston, _Navies of World War II_; _Encyclopedia of Sea Warfare_ Pat Kauffold AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL (708) 713-4726
phil@hpsmdca.hp.com (Philip Walden) (07/26/90)
From: phil@hpsmdca.hp.com (Philip Walden) I seem to recall that the Nelson was the sister ship to the Rodney which took part in the final Bismark battle. Yes it was an unusual design. I learned this while playing a "war game". One thing about that design with all your guns and armour up front, never turn and run!
scottmi@ncar.UCAR.EDU (SCOTT MICHAEL C) (07/28/90)
From: boulder!snoopy!scottmi@ncar.UCAR.EDU (SCOTT MICHAEL C) "Nelson" and "Rodney" were nicknamed "Nelsol" and "Rodnol" because of their appearance. Their single squat funnels were situated fairly far aft, resutling in an appearance similar to a class of fleet tankers the Royal Navy was using at the time. Every ship in this class of tankers had a name ending in "-ol", so Nelson and Rodney were nicknamed accordingly. This was at a time when nearly any ship in the RN would be given a nickname if it had an unusual enough appearance or some annoying quirks. HMS "Renown" and "Repulse", because they were poorly designed and structurally weak - the armor belt did not extend up the lower deck side as they were originally constructed, and the scantlings were too light for a ship armed with 15" guns - went into drydock fairly often in the years immediately following their construction. They came to be known as "Refit" and "Repair". --don't like snow, miss Deirdre, and wish I was still in Santa Cruz.
paul@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Paul Bailes) (07/31/90)
From: paul@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Paul Bailes) Lots of sound info. on Nelson and Rodney has been published here already. What's REALLY interesting about the pair is their genesis. The full story is available in "British Battleships of WWII'' by Alan Raven and John Roberts (Arms and Armour Press, London, 1976) - the VERY best battleship book available in my opinion (yes, limited coverage in nationality and time, but stupendous in depth) - or alternatively in "British Battleships" by Oscar Parkes (Seeley Service, 1970) - which covers the period 1860-1960 with rather less depth per class of ship, but remains an all-time classic. The story is in brief that after WWI, the US and Japanese set a-building monster battleships and battlecruisers, so the British had to follow suit: 1921 saw finalisation of design and contracts to build 4 48,000 ton battlecruisers (9 x 16", 16 x 6" guns, 14" main belt, 8" decks, 32 kts), with 4 48,500 ton battleships (9 x 18", 16 x 6" guns, more armour, 23.5 kts) to follow next year. Both these classes had odd armament layout: bow turret turret bridge turret funnel(s) stern With the Washington treaty, and British permission to build 2 new battleships, evolution of battlecruiser designs led to Nelson class with bridge and 3rd turret swapped to save more armour and only battleship speed. (BTW, someone called the 3rd turret "C" turret - I think British practice would have called it "Q" or even "X" (the Raven/Roberts book cited above says "X", so that settles it for me!)). BUT, even before the 48000/48500 designs were done, some absolutely fascinating intermediate designs were developed. See Raven/ Roberts for all the data. [mod.note: I find that turret nomenclature interesting. I was fairly certain that bow turrets were A,B, and C; stern turrets were X, Y, and Z; and midships (but centerline) turrets were P,Q, and R. But I'll bow to the expertise of Mssrs. Raven and Roberts. Oh, and this is British terminology; the USN just numbers them, starting at the bow, while Germany gives them names starting with the letters alphabetical from the bow; Bismarck's 4 turrets were, from bow to stern, Anton, Bruno, Caesar, and Dora. - Bill ] Finally, Nelson was used as a bombing target after WWII. I understand the results caused the British to abandon their post-war battleship design program (YES, I have seen an account of these - can somebody help me remember where - there was a series of illustrated journal-style magazines out a few years back) when they realised that 12" deck armour wouldn't be enough to keep bombs out (Hmm - hope for Iowa et al the bombs they were worried about have gone rotten.) Now a question: can anyone get a DETAILED account on the deployment of the HMS "Queen Elizabeth" from 1941 to its scrapping in 1948? Thanks, Paul Bailes
mlfisher@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu (08/03/90)
From: mlfisher@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu > They were the only English battleships to be built after the Washington > Treaty What about the KING GEORGE V class, (KGV, PRINCE OF WALES, VANGUARD and DUKE OF YORK)? Had the Washington Treaty been scrapped when these ships were laid down? A small point about the RODNEY, she took part in sinking the BISMARCK, (with KGV), and was the first (only?) battleship to successfully torpedo another battleship. Mike
paul@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Paul Bailes) (08/09/90)
From: paul@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Paul Bailes) mlfisher@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes: >What about the KING GEORGE V class, (KGV, PRINCE OF WALES, VANGUARD and DUKE OF >YORK)? Woops! KGV class: KGV; PoW; DoY (as you say) PLUS Anson; Howe Vanguard was a one-off taking advantage of 15" guns and mountings salvaged when HMS Glorious and Courageous (WWI light battlecruisers, if you can believe such a classification!) were converted to carriers during the 20's [mod.note: Courageous, Glorious, and their sister, Furious (which carried 18" guns) were officially designated "large light cruisers." - Bill ] There was also to have been the LION class after the KGVs (Lion, Temeraire, Conqueror, Thunderer): 40,000 tons, 30kts, 9 x 16" guns, 15" belt, 6" deck over main mags. 1st 2 laid down in 39 I think, but cancelled due to need for more escort ship construction. I think the Lions to be better value for money than the US Iowas: these battlecruisers (only 12" belts!) surely would have been at risk at close range - was the USN relying on their speed to keep far away? >A small point about the RODNEY, she took part in sinking the BISMARCK, (with >KGV), and was the first (only?) battleship to successfully torpedo another >battleship. So I believe too. Paul Bailes
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (08/15/90)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: paul@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Paul Bailes) > these battlecruisers (only 12" belts!) surely would have been at risk > at close range - was the USN relying on their speed to keep far away? Well, *no* battlecruiser was really meant for close range -- the original concept of the battlecruiser was to trade off protection, and to some extent volume of fire (same guns but fewer), for speed. The shambles early at Jutland was a good demonstration of what happened when battlecruisers tried to play battleship. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry