Was the Nelson-class the most powerful Royal Navy battleship during WW2?
>>61926939In terms of raw caliber of gun multiplied by number of barrels? Probably.In terms of actual usable weapons platform? No.In terms of effectiveness when considering the compromises made in the 16" shell design? Debatable.
>>61926956>In terms of actual usable weapons platform? No.What are you referring to? Were her AA guns deficient? I know that her torpedo tubes were retarded and a liability. >In terms of effectiveness when considering the compromises made in the 16" shell design? Debatable.What was wrong with her shells? The 16-inch 45-guage guns are comparable to the guns mounted on the NoCals and the Sodaks.
>>61926976>What are you referring to?They had a max speed of 23kts. In a world where everyone else is building ships in the high 20's to 30s range, that leaves them painfully slow. If your ship can't keep pace with a fleet action it's firepower means nothing.>What was wrong with her shells?>"From inadequate firing trials, a mistaken theory was promulgated by the Director of Naval Ordnance (DNO) that held that a high-velocity, low-weight projectile would have superior armor penetration characteristics at large oblique angles of impact, a conclusion which was the opposite of previous findings. This theory was not substantiated by later trials, but these took place too late to affect the decision to use a lightweight APC projectile for new designs. As a result, these guns proved to be only marginally better in terms of armor penetration than the previous 15"/42 (38.1 cm) Mark I and much less satisfactory than those older guns in terms of accuracy and barrel life. "
>>61927013Firepower meant a lot when Rodney stove in Bismarck. Sure, she only caught up because of the lucky swordfish torpedo hit but you can't deny Bismarck essentially got fucking executed by a "slow" battleship that she should have been designed to handily beat.
>>61927233>a lone battleship completely unable to maneuver got executed by a group of shipsI mean yeah
>>61927013So were the guns of the George-V-class more deadly against ships than Nelson's guns?
Fuck the Nelsons. A massive waste of steel and treaty tons.
>>61930035I think they look cool, granted I think having all your guns towards the bow and no turrets stern like the Richelieu leads to a unique shape, same vibe as the Ford class or a sports car with a fairly low front end and a tall rear end
>>61927842possibly not, but they were ridiculously good for 14 inch guns
>>61927842>>61931368Actually yesThe Admiralty concluded in a postwar analysis that the KGV 14"ers were the best RN battleship guns>>61926939NoKGV probablyVanguard was a bit late and might be considered a more well-rounded design but had fewer and slightly less efficient guns
>>61926939King George V class
What is the advantage of arranging turrets like this?
>>61931969The idea was that they could avoid showing broadside to an enemy ship, while presenting a narrow profile and still able to shoot all their main guns. (did not need to form a line of battle)
>>61931969It reduces the size of the armored citadel and thus the weight of the ship. The magazines are the most heavily armored part of the ship, so if you have them all concentrated forward you only need to armor that portion. The rest of the citadel is still armored decently well but iirc it's like 9 inches compared to the 14 or 15 over the magazines.
>>61926939They thought the King George V class was the most powerful in the world, so they sent the Prince of Wales to Malaysia.At the time, the existence of the Yamato class battleships was kept secret, and the Nagato class was considered the most powerful battleship in Japan.
>>61932176>At the time, the existence of the Yamato class battleships was kept secret, and the Nagato class was considered the most powerful battleship in Japan.Nah, everyone knew about the Yamato. It's just nobody knew they had 18 inch guns. The British could have built the KGVs with 16 inch guns because of the "escalator clause" in the London Naval Treaty, but they didn't have a serviceable design or turret and couldn't afford to delay construction enough to develop one so they kept the 14 inch guns.
>>61932176Whenever I read about European battleships, I can't help but imagine how they would have fared in Ironbottom Sound on the night of October 14, 1942. Imagining a Nelson or a KGV getting to go toe-to-toe with a Japanese BB gives me a semi.
>>61932434>Imagining a Nelson or a KGV getting to go toe-to-toe with a Japanese BB gives me a semi.Tbh I don't think that it really would have mattered which modern battleship Kirishima faced. At the end of the day, she was a pre-WW1 battlecruiser and would have been facing ships that were both two and a half decades younger than her and significantly larger.
>>61932112>flame reetardant mask>Ddoesn't cover your faceAre the wearing them low just for the video?
>>61926939What was the rationale for putting all the turrets up front? Being unable to fire on chasing enemies seems like a pretty big drawback for not having to turn so much to unmask your entire battery.What am I missing?
>>61932584See>>61932120The British assumed they would never be chased and were mostly correct.
>>61932584Made the ship significantly lighter then a traditional design. you can armor the machinery, magazine, and lower barbette more efficiently since they are all packed together vs having to stretch it out behind the superstructure on a more traditional design. The treaty limits at the time even with the persistent cheating each side did were still an exacting standard that were difficult to stay within while keeping any innovation
>>61932584>Being unable to fire on chasing enemiesI may be wrong but I think this was a very rare situation in the few WWII battleship-on-battleship fights
>>61931969when firing a broadside it would shatter the porcelain toilets in the officer's head. :)
>>61933057It's less about battleships doing it and more a case of general design of surface combatants and how line battle worked.
>Alaska and Guam never got to seal-club Japanese cruisers
>>61932176>Turkey trots to water. >Where is, repeat, where is TF 34?>The world wonders. How do you respond without sounding mad?
>>61932584FRONT TOWARDS ENEMY>Being unable to fire on chasing enemies seems like a pretty big drawbackjokes aside, it is a drawback yesbut the post-Jutland RN figured that the Allies would have battleship supremacy in future wars, and they were generally right despite the France upset>>61933057>this was a very rare situation in the few WWIIyes, but it was very important in WW1, so it is strictly a tactical tradeoff mitigated by operational advantages>>61933315no, it is less about the general design of surface combatants and how line battle worked, and more about the overall geopolitical and strategic environment
>>61934602>Luke 7:7-8
>>61931969So your turrets can be all >Oompa>LOOMPA>doopity-doo...as you sail along. Very British.
>>61935244>it was very important in WW1It was NEVER important. Designers then could be autistic and real world date was scant. Look how long rams were kept.
>>61932434I want to see battlecruiser Lexington vs Kirimishima
>>61931969fit the boat under treaty limits
>>61935545>It was NEVER importantJutland>Look how long rams were keptwhich class of ship?
>>61927013Speed was deliberate choice. Within Washington Treaty You can either make slow BB but that has overmatch in firepower or you can make fast BB that is just on par with enemy.They decided to make couple slow overmatch BBs, because reasons and brits had some.
>>61932584That reduced main belt length and allowed to cram more firepower than usual into smaller battleship.
>>61932536Generally humans like to breathe.
>>61932536>Are the wearing them low just for the video?yes>>61938864to this day RN flash hoods cover all but the eyes
>>61934602I didn't realize that Nimitz was a bubblehead. Based.
