Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military From: military-request@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Battleship Nelson Message-ID: <1990Jul24.024932.21117@cbnews.att.com> Date: 24 Jul 90 02:49:32 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 103 Approved: military@att.att.com 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