Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: paul@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Paul Bailes)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Battleship Nelson
Keywords: Design Construction References
Message-ID: <1990Jul31.023233.20471@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 31 Jul 90 02:32:33 GMT
References: <1990Jul24.024932.21117@cbnews.att.com> <1990Jul28.161240.2473@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 55
Approved: military@att.att.com



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