@Bazgatow87 My father served aboard HMS Rodney! I'm number 9 of the ten children he Fathered after the war! and he always respected the German navy and sailors and so do I. My Father always referred to sailors that were lost as "THOSE POOR LADS WERE JUST THE SAME AS ME".
@Bazgatow87 You claimed that both the Nelson class ships were sunk, when very clearly they did not. As for the second part; 1. THEY SURVIVED so they weren't weak, and Rodney owned the Bismarck.
Yes, the Rodney sure did pawn the Bismarck! I always enjoy watching the movie, Sink the Bismarck, but I shake my head when Admiral Lutjens says, "You are sailing on the largest, the most powerful battleship afloat. Superior to anything in the British navy." Not so! The Rodney had 16-inch guns as opposed to the Bismarck's 15-inch armament.
@enterprise160 Well Bismarck was superior in Speed and Armour, but then Nelson and Rodney had better armament. Bismarck looks better however, the Nelsons look like they're back to front! ;)
@HRHooChicken Targeting/ranging lasers, the Iowa class had. But if you're thinking about Star Wars/Star Trek/et al lasers, I'd suggest, sir, studying up on the subject matter first. The only combat laser I've ever heard of that is operational is mounted on a modified 747(?), and it takes (if I recall correctly) about 2-3 seconds to burn through a missiles skin.
Obvious shortcommings of the main gun turret arrangement aside, these ships actually mounted one more main gun in total than other RN battleships and could fire six guns forward - two more than other RN battleships.
They were powerful and very well protected, but they were to slow to be of considerable use in other navys. Useless as carrier supports, useless to chase merchant raiders and so on. Convoy duties and shore bombardments is a poor benefit from such a modern battleship.
Remember, when ww2 brake out, it was on of the most modern capital ships of the world.
@raynus1 .....looks a bit lighter, more like a R-class(Revenge, Royal Oak, Resolution, Royal Soverign, and Ramillies) ...slow enough to keep up with Rodney,.....Queens were bit faster and back in WWI they could keep up with most Battlecruisers....at least 25knts.... RN Battlecruisers could do appx 26-27 avg.....Germans with more armor were about 25 knts top.....so I doubt they would slow down squadron of Queens with the Nelson or Rodney.....
I'd heard that these ships were originally going to me much larger with 2 extra turrets at the stern but i'd heard budget cuts meant that the stern turrets were abandoned, could be also that it was caused by the treaty mentioned so as not to go over the max displacement agreed by the treaty.
Shame really as they could have been much more impressive.
@rosmerimine Yes, but it was the treaty rather than the budget that made the ships as they were. In oder top get the ships in under the permissble tonnage, they basically had to chop of the rear 1/3rd of the ship, reducing speed to 20ish knots.
The 16 inch was actually developed using an 18 inch gun lined down specifically to test the intended scale up from 15 inch. Three 18 inch were made, but they didn't prove particulalry effective in the single turret design they emerged in. They were slow and tended to damage their own strructures or nearby equipment!
There was one of these at Shoeburyness on a railway mount, but I think it was scrapped.
@RGV250100 No not the biggest guns in RN, Courageous and Glorious mounted 18" guns as battlecruisers, but were later converted to Aircraft Carriers in the 1930s.
they were intented to be much bigger - nearly 60,000T, they were cut short following a treaty with Germany etc., who then broke the treaty - by which time it was too late to change Rodders and Nelson.
@MollieMcBullets That's a myth. The 1922 Washington treaty limited ships to no more than 35,000 tons and 16 in guns. The Nelson class was designed in 1923 to maximise firepower under that treaty. Germany was limited by the Versailles peace treaty to 10,000 tonne ships - they broke that technically with their "pocket battleships" at 12-13,000 tonnes, in the early 1930s (long after Nelson and Rodney were launched) then smashed it with Tirpitz and Bismarck (50,000 tonnes) launched in 1939.
it was to save weight by reducing the amount of armour needed. The barbettes and magazines beneath the turrets require thick belt and deck armour around them, so by grouping them in one part of the ship this armoured region was kept to a minimal size. the weight saving was done in order to have a suitable 16" armed battleship that conformed to the Naval Treaty limitations.
The Barbette is the stationary enclosed area below the turret which contained the gunhouse and extended from the top deck to below the armoured deck and contained shell and cordite handling systems. Along with the magazines it was a very volatile environment hence they needed to be well protected. Sadly there were always deficincies, and explosions in this area sank the Barham, Arizona, Mutsu, Hood, Fuso, Invincible, Queen Mary and numerous other ships.
All turrets facing forward could only be a liability, and I should think that it would be front heavy. A good looking ship outside of that, but a poor design due to the placement of the turrets. However, there might an operational advantage to their placement, I don't know. The American Tennessee and Colorado classes were well balanced with 2 turrets forward and 2 turrets aft, and they were the slickest. Only the Yamato looked better.
@JBC814 teenesse and colarado being only slicker by yamato??? the italians produced some beautiful looking battleships, i would also say the iowa class , bismarck, and nth carolina were all nicer looking bb than tennesse and colorado.
@pramboy09 : True, there were other ships that came close, but none had the sleek clipper bows of the Tennessee and Colorado classes with 12 guns in four turrets, giving them a perfectly balanced look. I don't believe any other country built four-turret BB's, only the U.S. Navy. The Montana class was to be four turrets also, but was cancelled before the end of WW2, and it would be as big as the Yamato class.
@JBC814 you might want to do some more reading, bismarck, hms vanguard, qeen elizabeth classes, hms hood,revenge class and many more were 4 gun turrent BB's. If you are just going by hull shapes, the sharnhorst had a beautiful clipper bow which made her very stable battlecrusiser in all conditions.
@pramboy09 Stable,, Scharnhorst??? well maybe on broadside for forward toward was damn near inoperable in any kind of heavy seas....even after they replace straight bow with the Atlantic bow I....that racing look was achieved by long narrow bow that had too little bouyancy to support that amount of guns and armor forward so the S&G sisters tended to dive into swells with huge cresting wave crashing over the bow....forward turret swamped out alot....
@crpdst2003 there's not to many ships that didn't get major green over the bow in the atlantic, and i loved to know how many ships could operated their major guns in some of the major storms in the atlantic. The "atlantic bow" did however enable it to increase the speed of the ship in heavy seas, vital when operated as a raider.
excellent beautiful video!...yes that stupid 1922 washington naval limitations treaty certainly changed the super-dreadnoughts into battleships....america got screwed!...stupid little japs started ww-2!
great footage; Nelson & Rodney were maybe most unusual looking battleships in history. They were pretty slow however, and their silhouette was so unusual they could not be mistaken for any other battleship class.
@matapan50 They were designed around the washington treay restrictions and unfortuantly the brits and the americans were the only that took any notice of it! One thing the neslon and rodney were usefull for was of the development of the king george V class.
any clip that bridges the gap between years, and "old" footage.. is always welcome to me. the clip of the swordfish torp bombers and thier relative speed is what grabbed me. in between movies and selective period video, this vid gave me an idea of how fast the swordfish really were, and gave me new respect for sailors during the second world war.. name one video that portray the swordfish anything other than outdated, slow and inadequate. maybe this one does.
@UKRod Both served well, but the design was severly restricted by the washington treaty and were too slow to keep up with modern battleships and aircraft carriers, what the class did do however was provide a good steeping stone onto the king geroge V class batteships.
Why did they run away? 16" shell weght 2048lb, 11" shell weight 670lb. Nelson armour much thicker & better distributed, superior even to Bismark`. 23kts when designed was very respectable & the only faster BB`s were the Queen Elizabeths & Nagato`s. TH QE`s were outclassed in gunpower (untill modified in late 30`s) & armour. Nagato`s also inferior in armour. Nelson liquid layer torpedo protection kept secret for 25 years & was very effective. Nelson was very advanced design within treaty limits
Marcus, what you say is true - if the captain did not turn his ship - but he would in order to get his main battery to bear & he could turn faster than an enemy could circle behind him. You are not being fair to the Gerrman commanders - they were instructed to avoid action with superior forces because the German navy was very small & could not be replaced. Also, their mission was commerce raiding & not naval action.
Futch, maybe one ship could be kept at bay but remember these two sisters acted together
so could have come from both sides
and also the main armament could not bear past the bridge, 60 degs either side, and your in trouble and also remember the closer you gey the less time the other has to turn away
as said before the french gave up on this layout for what I am saying [ the ones after richelie class have a look see what i mean
would be intresting computer simulation my money on the 2 gerrys
Marcus - again what you say is theoretically true, but the reality is different. Do the geometry & see the distance one would have to steam to get behind a Nelson. It would be difficult to coordinate their actions when so separated. They would have to attack with purpose to destroy, but that was not their mission. I agree that the Nelson turret arrangement was poor but this is what was required if 16"" were wanted, within treaty limits - possibly same reasoning by the French.
Following Bing and in the spirit of "Engage the enemy more closely", there would be few situations where Rodney's captain would attempt a tactical withdrawal when faced with an enemy capital ship. Fatally flawed? Ask the crew of the Bismarck...
Certainly the Bismarck could decline combat with Rodney by virtue of superior speed; but when the moment arrived, Rodney was the superior vessel by achieving the first strike with main armament. Regarding firing over the stern, B turret = 330 degrees.
With the exception of Bockscar and Enola Gay, it can be argued that Rodney was the most effective single weapon of WW2. Pulverised the Bismarck and drove the Wehrmacht out of the Cherbourg Peninsular.
Marcus, the blast and recoil from the 16" guns caused substantial damage during trials and then throughout the life of the ship, hence alternate salvos were a requirement unless the need for a full salvo was pressing. Ballantyne's book is worth a read (no commercial connection on my part), the list of of self-inflicted damage incurred during the sinking of the Bismarck is long, including cracked longitudinal beams.
I always did like the look of the Nelson class ships. Something about that very long bow and the 3 gun turrets at the front with the superstructure near the end, almost like a sleek car with the long fronts.
Unkind (or jealous) souls on othe RN ships likened their looks to tankers and nicknamed them Rodnol and Nelsol,but i agree i think the long bow lends them a very purposeful air .
The French took it to another level level with ships like Dunkeque and Jean-Bart with all their main armament carried forward in two quad turrets they were designed not to rely on the broadside to bring their guns to bear .
Yes I know Rodney was a ship but what was the ship named after? In America always a state except for...Kearsarge? But British warships seem to be a bit more flexable in how they get named.
Royal naval naming policy often uses traditional names associated with a particular class of ship. HMS Rodney was named after a famous British Admiral like her sister Nelson. Many battleships were named after Admirals of the RN
My granfarther served on the Nelson during world war 2, something he was proud of for the rest of his life. His farther served on the Rodney so they are family ships. Both ships were glorious, the Rodney was the sister ship of the Nelson. They were both shinning examples of beauty when on the waves :)
Admiral George Brydges Rodney, 1st Baron Rodney, KB (13 February, 1719[1] May 24, 1792) was a British naval officer. this is where the name came from, british battleships took some of their names from admirals ie.. barham, hood, nelson and rodney
The Rodney and Nelson had to be redesigned as their original construction meant they exceeded the post first world war limitations on size of war ship. I believe they were intended to be about 56,000 tons dead weight. The original design was for two turrets at the stern each with 3 16 inch guns. It would have made both these ships the largest war ships in the world.
But I did mentioned it. The torpedo that caused B to turn straight into R (instead of escaping to Luftwaffe umbrella territory) was dropped by FAA. But that was hardly all...
Now, my point was that R was a fullblown BS, quite capable. As proven. Not a "pocket battleship".
? - I have no obligation to recount the entire Bismarck history. Why? To *explain* the loss of B?
@jager Not really. "what was in that moment a duel". It was a duel because B was only firing at R, hoping to get a quick victory against an old ship - like H prev. And because KG wasn't hitting.
R didn't have the speed, endurance and maneuverability to deal with B alone. A torpedo hit on B's rudder delivered B straight into R's jaws you could say. But the artillery duel then was a slam-dunk for Rodney. B was completely wrecked.
Finally: The scuttle order is totally irrelevant from every point.
No, it's not a "response" to Deutschland class. Deutschlands were built with the versailles treaty as target (but breaking it). Nelsons were built within the Washington naval treaty and were both three times bigger as well as actually fullblown battleships. Rodney did an excellent job of reducing Bismark to a burning wreck in what was in that moment a duel.
I also think they had the biggest guns and thickest armor of any british BS ever.
Comment removed
Bazgatow87 1 week ago
Many thanks for posting this video. It's the best footage I've seen of the sisters. Where did you find it?
bahoonies 4 weeks ago
and now they are paperclips:(
TheBByamashiro 1 month ago
astetically i've always found the Nelson class truly ugly ships. that forward mounted tri-utrret arangment just throws the lines all to hell.
GravesRWFiA 1 month ago
@GravesRWFiA I like the way they look, not because it's aesthetically pleasing but because they're distinctive. They're so ugly they're awesome!
sthill1993 4 weeks ago
Great video thanks fot posting.
I love the close up of the turrets around 0:39
Digmen1 2 months ago
Most powerful battleships beofre WWII.
kuluku 2 months ago 2
My grandad was on board the ship H.M.S Rodney when it sunk the Bismarck.
MusicHeartxxx 3 months ago
its a shame that they were all sunk by the german navy after seconds
Bazgatow87 3 months ago
@Bazgatow87 Nelson and Rodney both survived the war my friend.
MadMilitiaMen 3 months ago 4
@Bazgatow87 My father served aboard HMS Rodney! I'm number 9 of the ten children he Fathered after the war! and he always respected the German navy and sailors and so do I. My Father always referred to sailors that were lost as "THOSE POOR LADS WERE JUST THE SAME AS ME".
Joesalford5 2 months ago
@Bazgatow87- congratulations! You win the prize for the most ill-informed post!
adventussaxonum 1 month ago
@adventussaxonum what?? probably the next thing you wanna tell me is, that germany did lost the war?!
Bazgatow87 4 weeks ago
@Bazgatow87 You claimed that both the Nelson class ships were sunk, when very clearly they did not. As for the second part; 1. THEY SURVIVED so they weren't weak, and Rodney owned the Bismarck.
sthill1993 4 weeks ago
@sthill1993
Yes, the Rodney sure did pawn the Bismarck! I always enjoy watching the movie, Sink the Bismarck, but I shake my head when Admiral Lutjens says, "You are sailing on the largest, the most powerful battleship afloat. Superior to anything in the British navy." Not so! The Rodney had 16-inch guns as opposed to the Bismarck's 15-inch armament.
enterprise160 3 weeks ago
@enterprise160 Well Bismarck was superior in Speed and Armour, but then Nelson and Rodney had better armament. Bismarck looks better however, the Nelsons look like they're back to front! ;)
sthill1993 2 weeks ago
@Bazgatow87 - you telling me they won? Where did they hold the victory parade? In the bunker, before Adolf blew his brains out?
adventussaxonum 1 week ago
@adventussaxonum Exactly ;D maan, I was just kidding, it was ironic
Bazgatow87 1 week ago
Comment removed
FmasterJG 6 months ago
stupid battleships, why did they become obsolete. did no one think of installing lasers
HRHooChicken 6 months ago
@HRHooChicken Targeting/ranging lasers, the Iowa class had. But if you're thinking about Star Wars/Star Trek/et al lasers, I'd suggest, sir, studying up on the subject matter first. The only combat laser I've ever heard of that is operational is mounted on a modified 747(?), and it takes (if I recall correctly) about 2-3 seconds to burn through a missiles skin.
cabbievonbump 6 months ago
Comment removed
HRHooChicken 6 months ago
Rodney was decisive in sinking Bismarck. A tough old ship
Baskerville22 7 months ago
Obvious shortcommings of the main gun turret arrangement aside, these ships actually mounted one more main gun in total than other RN battleships and could fire six guns forward - two more than other RN battleships.
Twirlyhead 7 months ago
Comment removed
Twirlyhead 7 months ago
They were powerful and very well protected, but they were to slow to be of considerable use in other navys. Useless as carrier supports, useless to chase merchant raiders and so on. Convoy duties and shore bombardments is a poor benefit from such a modern battleship.
Remember, when ww2 brake out, it was on of the most modern capital ships of the world.
MrCanopius 8 months ago
The lead ship and following ship (from 00:00 to 00:16) appear to be of the Queen Elizabeth class of battleships.
raynus1 8 months ago
@raynus1 .....looks a bit lighter, more like a R-class(Revenge, Royal Oak, Resolution, Royal Soverign, and Ramillies) ...slow enough to keep up with Rodney,.....Queens were bit faster and back in WWI they could keep up with most Battlecruisers....at least 25knts.... RN Battlecruisers could do appx 26-27 avg.....Germans with more armor were about 25 knts top.....so I doubt they would slow down squadron of Queens with the Nelson or Rodney.....
crpdst2003 5 months ago
@crpdst2003: You could be right...difficult to tell them apart in a head-on view...especially prior to refit.
raynus1 4 months ago
I never really like the looking of this class. Best looking heavy british ships ----
Repulse and Renown :D
Fan from Czech Rep.
MaxxAue 9 months ago
I'd heard that these ships were originally going to me much larger with 2 extra turrets at the stern but i'd heard budget cuts meant that the stern turrets were abandoned, could be also that it was caused by the treaty mentioned so as not to go over the max displacement agreed by the treaty.
Shame really as they could have been much more impressive.
rosmerimine 9 months ago
@rosmerimine Yes, but it was the treaty rather than the budget that made the ships as they were. In oder top get the ships in under the permissble tonnage, they basically had to chop of the rear 1/3rd of the ship, reducing speed to 20ish knots.
But they were pretty impressive as they were :)
If I were to be a battleship, I'd be Rodney.
jonewer 7 months ago
the biggest guns in the royal navy 16inches
RGV250100 11 months ago
@RGV250100
The 16 inch was actually developed using an 18 inch gun lined down specifically to test the intended scale up from 15 inch. Three 18 inch were made, but they didn't prove particulalry effective in the single turret design they emerged in. They were slow and tended to damage their own strructures or nearby equipment!
There was one of these at Shoeburyness on a railway mount, but I think it was scrapped.
timpovikings 10 months ago
@timpovikings
really? i knew that HMS furious had one or two before she was converted to an aircraft carrier, its a shame really.
RGV250100 10 months ago
@RGV250100
There's internal footage of 15 inch on ...
watch?v=dCHip9ZVUW0
timpovikings 10 months ago
@RGV250100 No not the biggest guns in RN, Courageous and Glorious mounted 18" guns as battlecruisers, but were later converted to Aircraft Carriers in the 1930s.
semperfidelis677 3 weeks ago
@semperfidelis677
i know, i was mainly referring to the fact there were the only big guns in the navy that were on ships that were in use.
RGV250100 3 weeks ago
they were intented to be much bigger - nearly 60,000T, they were cut short following a treaty with Germany etc., who then broke the treaty - by which time it was too late to change Rodders and Nelson.
MollieMcBullets 1 year ago
@MollieMcBullets That's a myth. The 1922 Washington treaty limited ships to no more than 35,000 tons and 16 in guns. The Nelson class was designed in 1923 to maximise firepower under that treaty. Germany was limited by the Versailles peace treaty to 10,000 tonne ships - they broke that technically with their "pocket battleships" at 12-13,000 tonnes, in the early 1930s (long after Nelson and Rodney were launched) then smashed it with Tirpitz and Bismarck (50,000 tonnes) launched in 1939.
Nastyswimmer 1 year ago
@Nastyswimmer Scharnhorst and her sister were inbetween
dougstiro 11 months ago
Wow, talk about heavy metal! I'd like to take on some Somali pirate with an RPG with one of these babies!
MartyInLa 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
die rodney und die nelson sahen so hässlich aus,als wurden sie damals von der bismarck zusammengeschossen.was für hässliche schiffe
heikst71 1 year ago
was für hässliche schiffe.mein gott.
heikst71 1 year ago
@heikst71 sehr effektiv obwohl
MollieMcBullets 1 year ago
They may have been the ugly sisters but they sure did see some action.
Marlever357 1 year ago
My grandad served on this ship.
sukiesoya 1 year ago
What was the idea of putting the 3 turrets up front? To have all the ammo in one place, maybe?
davidrodgersNJ 1 year ago
@davidrodgersNJ
it was to save weight by reducing the amount of armour needed. The barbettes and magazines beneath the turrets require thick belt and deck armour around them, so by grouping them in one part of the ship this armoured region was kept to a minimal size. the weight saving was done in order to have a suitable 16" armed battleship that conformed to the Naval Treaty limitations.
HelmutVillam 1 year ago
@HelmutVillam That's pretty much what I was trying to say, but you said it much better. "Barbetts?" Did they have dancing girls on those ships?
davidrodgersNJ 1 year ago
@davidrodgersNJ
The Barbette is the stationary enclosed area below the turret which contained the gunhouse and extended from the top deck to below the armoured deck and contained shell and cordite handling systems. Along with the magazines it was a very volatile environment hence they needed to be well protected. Sadly there were always deficincies, and explosions in this area sank the Barham, Arizona, Mutsu, Hood, Fuso, Invincible, Queen Mary and numerous other ships.
HelmutVillam 1 year ago
@HelmutVillam I was kidding.
davidrodgersNJ 1 year ago
All turrets facing forward could only be a liability, and I should think that it would be front heavy. A good looking ship outside of that, but a poor design due to the placement of the turrets. However, there might an operational advantage to their placement, I don't know. The American Tennessee and Colorado classes were well balanced with 2 turrets forward and 2 turrets aft, and they were the slickest. Only the Yamato looked better.
JBC814 1 year ago
@JBC814 teenesse and colarado being only slicker by yamato??? the italians produced some beautiful looking battleships, i would also say the iowa class , bismarck, and nth carolina were all nicer looking bb than tennesse and colorado.
pramboy09 1 year ago
@pramboy09 : True, there were other ships that came close, but none had the sleek clipper bows of the Tennessee and Colorado classes with 12 guns in four turrets, giving them a perfectly balanced look. I don't believe any other country built four-turret BB's, only the U.S. Navy. The Montana class was to be four turrets also, but was cancelled before the end of WW2, and it would be as big as the Yamato class.
JBC814 1 year ago
@JBC814 you might want to do some more reading, bismarck, hms vanguard, qeen elizabeth classes, hms hood,revenge class and many more were 4 gun turrent BB's. If you are just going by hull shapes, the sharnhorst had a beautiful clipper bow which made her very stable battlecrusiser in all conditions.
pramboy09 1 year ago
@pramboy09 Stable,, Scharnhorst??? well maybe on broadside for forward toward was damn near inoperable in any kind of heavy seas....even after they replace straight bow with the Atlantic bow I....that racing look was achieved by long narrow bow that had too little bouyancy to support that amount of guns and armor forward so the S&G sisters tended to dive into swells with huge cresting wave crashing over the bow....forward turret swamped out alot....
crpdst2003 4 months ago
@crpdst2003 there's not to many ships that didn't get major green over the bow in the atlantic, and i loved to know how many ships could operated their major guns in some of the major storms in the atlantic. The "atlantic bow" did however enable it to increase the speed of the ship in heavy seas, vital when operated as a raider.
pramboy09 4 months ago
I liked them because they blew the fark out of the jerries.
eckyspondoolie 1 year ago
nelson is a nice shipt :D
mrmusikfreak24 1 year ago
Nelson class is stronger than U.S.S Colorado calss, but the later is more beautiful.
kuluku 1 year ago
excellent beautiful video!...yes that stupid 1922 washington naval limitations treaty certainly changed the super-dreadnoughts into battleships....america got screwed!...stupid little japs started ww-2!
rocketshipstud1 1 year ago
great vids! Thanks for posting.
anonymusum 1 year ago
great footage; Nelson & Rodney were maybe most unusual looking battleships in history. They were pretty slow however, and their silhouette was so unusual they could not be mistaken for any other battleship class.
matapan50 1 year ago
@matapan50 They were designed around the washington treay restrictions and unfortuantly the brits and the americans were the only that took any notice of it! One thing the neslon and rodney were usefull for was of the development of the king george V class.
pramboy09 1 year ago
I love that ship !
heisenfeis 1 year ago
any clip that bridges the gap between years, and "old" footage.. is always welcome to me. the clip of the swordfish torp bombers and thier relative speed is what grabbed me. in between movies and selective period video, this vid gave me an idea of how fast the swordfish really were, and gave me new respect for sailors during the second world war.. name one video that portray the swordfish anything other than outdated, slow and inadequate. maybe this one does.
carpetmonk 1 year ago
@UKRod Both served well, but the design was severly restricted by the washington treaty and were too slow to keep up with modern battleships and aircraft carriers, what the class did do however was provide a good steeping stone onto the king geroge V class batteships.
pramboy09 2 years ago
By the time Rodney encountered Bismark She was slow in the water and had lost rudder control. Rodney with 3 other ships just went in for the kill.
folland1954 2 years ago
Why did they run away? 16" shell weght 2048lb, 11" shell weight 670lb. Nelson armour much thicker & better distributed, superior even to Bismark`. 23kts when designed was very respectable & the only faster BB`s were the Queen Elizabeths & Nagato`s. TH QE`s were outclassed in gunpower (untill modified in late 30`s) & armour. Nagato`s also inferior in armour. Nelson liquid layer torpedo protection kept secret for 25 years & was very effective. Nelson was very advanced design within treaty limits
futch2121 2 years ago
Futch, what you say is tru, they had 16 inch against 11
but on the back they only had 6" and only 4 of each could be trained at the rear
so any ship that got onto the tail of those 2, could with superior speed, blast them to destruction
the 16" guns woud be of no use at all
the letter of contact was taken to seriously by the commanders, Do not engage any ship of greater power, it said,
but from behind, they are only a 4 6" gunned battle ship and very slow compared to the Sharnhorst class
marcusbewley1 2 years ago
Marcus, what you say is true - if the captain did not turn his ship - but he would in order to get his main battery to bear & he could turn faster than an enemy could circle behind him. You are not being fair to the Gerrman commanders - they were instructed to avoid action with superior forces because the German navy was very small & could not be replaced. Also, their mission was commerce raiding & not naval action.
futch2121 2 years ago
Futch, maybe one ship could be kept at bay but remember these two sisters acted together
so could have come from both sides
and also the main armament could not bear past the bridge, 60 degs either side, and your in trouble and also remember the closer you gey the less time the other has to turn away
as said before the french gave up on this layout for what I am saying [ the ones after richelie class have a look see what i mean
would be intresting computer simulation my money on the 2 gerrys
marcusbewley1 2 years ago
Marcus - again what you say is theoretically true, but the reality is different. Do the geometry & see the distance one would have to steam to get behind a Nelson. It would be difficult to coordinate their actions when so separated. They would have to attack with purpose to destroy, but that was not their mission. I agree that the Nelson turret arrangement was poor but this is what was required if 16"" were wanted, within treaty limits - possibly same reasoning by the French.
futch2121 2 years ago
never ceases to amaze me, why Shrnhorst / gneisenau, run away from these ships,
they fatally flawed, too slow, so any ship that got on their ..stern.. would be actually fighting a 4 or a 6 gun 6 inch gun armed ship,
those 16 inch guns would be usless,
thats why the French, were going to make the 3rd ship of the class , different,
slow ships , should have all the guns at the back for defence,!!! like the American Texas !!![ think it texas ] most guns at the back,
marcusbewley1 2 years ago
Parkes indicated that the arcs of fire were:
A 298, B 330, C 250 degrees..
Following Bing and in the spirit of "Engage the enemy more closely", there would be few situations where Rodney's captain would attempt a tactical withdrawal when faced with an enemy capital ship. Fatally flawed? Ask the crew of the Bismarck...
mickyredmire 2 years ago
... or even Byng
mickyredmire 2 years ago
Micky Futch yip i see where you coming from but I think a determined attack would have paid of in the end,
60d either side of 0
but this is only conjecture now
Micky the Bismarck was litterally a sitting duck, no speed above 10knots no steering
Im sure the outcome would have been different if it was not damaged to start with
not to mention those two were nearly out of fuel as well, so may have run out compleatly if they had to keep up top speeds in battle,
all ifs and but though,
rgds M
marcusbewley1 2 years ago
Certainly the Bismarck could decline combat with Rodney by virtue of superior speed; but when the moment arrived, Rodney was the superior vessel by achieving the first strike with main armament. Regarding firing over the stern, B turret = 330 degrees.
mickyredmire 2 years ago
I have seen the remains of The Bismarck in an documentary film. Even after almoust 70years, it looked evrything else but powderized.
The Bismarck, being outnumbered by british battleships, fought as good as possible with the destroyed rudder-system under these circumstances.
gosuc 2 years ago
Gosuc, did you see where the rudder was at, it was jammed into the middle prop,
the Baron in his book said that that shaft would not turn, so put alot of steam into it to get it to turn,
but going by that film, it looked as though it was not,
maybe the actuall shaft broke,or the prop shaft was spinning in the prop itself,
who knows,
rgds M
marcusbewley1 2 years ago
With the exception of Bockscar and Enola Gay, it can be argued that Rodney was the most effective single weapon of WW2. Pulverised the Bismarck and drove the Wehrmacht out of the Cherbourg Peninsular.
mickyredmire 2 years ago
Mickey, have you seen the report the Rodney got with Bismark, it was in a real bad way,
the blast / recoil from the guns ,was litterally tearing the old ship apart,
marcusbewley1 2 years ago
Marcus, the blast and recoil from the 16" guns caused substantial damage during trials and then throughout the life of the ship, hence alternate salvos were a requirement unless the need for a full salvo was pressing. Ballantyne's book is worth a read (no commercial connection on my part), the list of of self-inflicted damage incurred during the sinking of the Bismarck is long, including cracked longitudinal beams.
mickyredmire 2 years ago
ah kwl, thats some really good footage
sajuuk212 2 years ago
It was sexyy no doubt...
TheZuikaku 2 years ago
Ugly ships...hood is the sexy one.
antagonis 2 years ago
16"vs15"
ele90 2 years ago
@antagonis You think they were ugly!.........You should take a look at the original drawings. They were't ugly, ....they were gruesome.!!
SuperAncientmariner 1 year ago
@antagonis ugly but testebed for the king george V class, didn't look like hood to me look like royal oak or revenge.
pramboy09 1 year ago
@antagonis and very weak....
ShapurKing 1 year ago
The main problem with the Nelsons was that they were underpowered and therefore too bloody slow
veritascrusader 2 years ago
if the WNT had not been signed, all battleships of the 20s and 30s would have had at least 18" guns, and have been Yamato class sized and bigger.
5000433 2 years ago
But it WAS signed but not by the facist states.
veritascrusader 2 years ago
These ships were the same design but much smaller, of a projected class of battleships that were designed in 1920-1.
They were to have 9 18" guns, and would have been about half as big again as the Nelsons. They would have looked the same as the N class however.
Imagine that when you look at the film again.
5000433 2 years ago
Any ideas on the other ships in the clip?
ashkariuk 2 years ago
Yes, Queen Elizabeth class and /or Royal Soverign Class brit. battleships
veritascrusader 2 years ago
I always did like the look of the Nelson class ships. Something about that very long bow and the 3 gun turrets at the front with the superstructure near the end, almost like a sleek car with the long fronts.
Mcplkelly 2 years ago 15
Unkind (or jealous) souls on othe RN ships likened their looks to tankers and nicknamed them Rodnol and Nelsol,but i agree i think the long bow lends them a very purposeful air .
iroscoe 2 years ago
Kinda Tactical about it,there T could never be crossed
JFCPantheras 2 years ago
The French took it to another level level with ships like Dunkeque and Jean-Bart with all their main armament carried forward in two quad turrets they were designed not to rely on the broadside to bring their guns to bear .
iroscoe 2 years ago
Never seen this footage before. Where was ity sourced from ?
veritascrusader 2 years ago
Yes I know Rodney was a ship but what was the ship named after? In America always a state except for...Kearsarge? But British warships seem to be a bit more flexable in how they get named.
Toasterpuppet 2 years ago
Royal naval naming policy often uses traditional names associated with a particular class of ship. HMS Rodney was named after a famous British Admiral like her sister Nelson. Many battleships were named after Admirals of the RN
veritascrusader 2 years ago
My granfarther served on the Nelson during world war 2, something he was proud of for the rest of his life. His farther served on the Rodney so they are family ships. Both ships were glorious, the Rodney was the sister ship of the Nelson. They were both shinning examples of beauty when on the waves :)
ROMMER100 2 years ago
I recognize the name Nelson but who was Rodney? Or is that a placename?
Toasterpuppet 2 years ago
HMS Rodney was HMS Nelson's sister ship.
Amazing film, skoblini - thank you for posting. My father served on Nellie from 42 to 44
Trafalgar1961 2 years ago
Admiral George Brydges Rodney, 1st Baron Rodney, KB (13 February, 1719[1] May 24, 1792) was a British naval officer. this is where the name came from, british battleships took some of their names from admirals ie.. barham, hood, nelson and rodney
fairclought7 2 years ago
They were too slow by WW2 standards but battle wise they were extremely tough ships
ToonandBBfan 2 years ago
I like these ships,not classicaly beautiful they look like what they were big tough ugly bruisers to slug it out with the enemy .
iroscoe 2 years ago 2
For modern ships, some of the Russian cruisers look mean and ugly.
GhostOfPaley 2 years ago
I like mean purposeful looking machines over classicaly beautiful one's,something whose every look shriek's "fuck of and die!" at every enemy .
iroscoe 2 years ago
The Rodney and Nelson had to be redesigned as their original construction meant they exceeded the post first world war limitations on size of war ship. I believe they were intended to be about 56,000 tons dead weight. The original design was for two turrets at the stern each with 3 16 inch guns. It would have made both these ships the largest war ships in the world.
littlebigbrain 2 years ago
@jager. Absolutely!
But I did mentioned it. The torpedo that caused B to turn straight into R (instead of escaping to Luftwaffe umbrella territory) was dropped by FAA. But that was hardly all...
Now, my point was that R was a fullblown BS, quite capable. As proven. Not a "pocket battleship".
? - I have no obligation to recount the entire Bismarck history. Why? To *explain* the loss of B?
Vermiliontea 3 years ago
@jager Not really. "what was in that moment a duel". It was a duel because B was only firing at R, hoping to get a quick victory against an old ship - like H prev. And because KG wasn't hitting.
R didn't have the speed, endurance and maneuverability to deal with B alone. A torpedo hit on B's rudder delivered B straight into R's jaws you could say. But the artillery duel then was a slam-dunk for Rodney. B was completely wrecked.
Finally: The scuttle order is totally irrelevant from every point.
Vermiliontea 3 years ago
where do you get all your videos from this stuff is gold! :D
KooKooCow 3 years ago
The Royal Navy,s response to the German Pocket battleships.
Interesting clip.
stuartthegrant 3 years ago
No, it's not a "response" to Deutschland class. Deutschlands were built with the versailles treaty as target (but breaking it). Nelsons were built within the Washington naval treaty and were both three times bigger as well as actually fullblown battleships. Rodney did an excellent job of reducing Bismark to a burning wreck in what was in that moment a duel.
I also think they had the biggest guns and thickest armor of any british BS ever.
Love the movie, btw.
Vermiliontea 3 years ago
..and I forgot: the Nelsons are about ten years earlier than the Deutschlands.
Vermiliontea 3 years ago