Gun turret configuation of HMS Rodney

With 3 turrets foreward of the superstructure, crossing the T would not be needed. But I have a feeling that design, didn't work out all that well.

Does anyone know what problems the 3 foreward turret design had?
Looks to me like the Brits only made two battleships of this design.

 

The Nelson class was designed to fit the most firepower and protection into a battleship design while still staying within the weight limitations of the 1920's Washington Treaty.
The resulting design was possibly one of the ugliest battleships ever built, but it was a powerful and well protected ship, whose main fault was its slow top speed compared to later battleships.

ps; In the Bismarck battle its was the Rodney which caused the most damage to the German ship, the other battleship the King George V was the one with the turret problems. The blast damage from her own guns suffered by the Rodney was minor, the refit she unwent after the battle was where she was going before she was called on to join the hunt for the Bismarck.

 

There were alot of problems the the Rodney and Nelson, most due to the Washington Naval Treaty.

First the design came about as a result of tonnage restrictions on the ships. The design was done the way it did to make it possible to cram 9 16" guns on a 23,000 ship.
The design saved weight at every possible turn. This showed itself in the structurial damage Rodney took from firing her own guns in prolonged fire during the Bismarck battle.

Also, the third (X) turret was was masked on many arcs of fire reducing the number of guns that could bear on a target in many cases.

The machinery spaces were also problematic. Because of the design these were crammed into the aft portion of the ship making the potential for a complete or near complete loss of propulsion from a hit more likely. The tonnage limit also severely limited these ship's speed making them considerably less valuable in many fleet operations. They couldn't operate with carriers for example.

The reason only two were made was this was all the British were permitted by treaty.

 

Concentrating the main battery like that allowed for the armor protecting their magazines to also be concentrated and thus either thicker or lighter or some combination. Note that the French solution was similar.

 

I believe T.A.Gardner hit the nail on the noggin. It the Royal Navy's first attempt at an "all or nothing" armor scheme as well. There were only two because of the limits as he says, but also I believe their own defects convinced the Brits that this wasn't a really good solution to the weight/speed/arms equasion.

 

French also built battleships with all guns facing forward, none at back, although they prefered 2 4-gun turrets. Good example is Richieleu.
To me, this looks like more elegant solution than british one.

Regarding debate which is better, at the time when it was supposed to be battle-tested, aircraft carrier has made both designs obsolete.

 

This too was a trade off. The French felt that seperating the turrets by a greater distance on the hull reduced the likelyhood of a magazine hit wiping out the main battery or worse, sinking the ship. They thought the danger of losing a full turret was less probable than actual history showed and could be reduced by internally dividing the turret with armored partitions.
In the Mers el Kabir battle the Hood hit one of Dunkerque's turrets with a shell. Theoretically, the angle of impact and the thickness of the roof armor was such that the shell shouldn't have penetrated. What happened was the shell merely by its massive weight and energy smashed out a trough of armor about 8" wide and two feet long spraying this inside one half of the turret.
A flash fire resulted from exposed powder that ignited, wiped out that half of the turret crew, spread to the lower handling rooms and to the other half of the turret killing or incapacitating the crew there. The turret was effectively knocked out entirely. This reduced Dunkerque's battery by 50%.

The British realized this and were unwilling to compromise to that degree to get a more compact ship or higher speed. They stuck with a three turret design instead.

 

It has no inherent problems per se, aside from poor forward AA arcs & the lack of a rear main battery arc.
The class had many troubles but all that appear to be linked to the layout are really attributable to other design problems. The layout offers advantages & contrary to what you might read elsewhere is the most efficient in armour terms, though not by enough vs. the AA & battery arc issues. The notion that it leaves any components more vulnerable (why would the engines being crammed behind the guns, as opposed to between, make them more vulnerable?) is a nonsense...

 

"The Big Gun" by Peter Hodges gives an excellent analysis of all naval gun and turret design. He identifies numerous pre war defects in the 16" mounting (sheared drive shafts, cracked bearings and worn roller paths)that were eventually rectified by ingenuity and management of the mounting to alleviate the weaknesses. The blast of a full broadside was considerable and reduced many bridge instruments to scrap. In the Bismarck encounter he notes it was KGV that was reduced to 20% of guns in operation. On top of the problems with PoW it appears that the pre war efforts to produce the 16" lead to design which was superior to the 14" design. However it appears that the 15" gun and mounting were tried and tested, serviced by a body of experts and probably the superior weapon.

 

Interesting comments on this thread .
A photo of the massive guns of HMS Nelson .
View attachment 10811
jim


www.throughtheireyes2.co.uk

 

I've always thought that Rodney and Nelson were really awesome looking battleships, not ugly at all, just really intimidating.

I cannot remember where I read this, but I think I remember reading that Rodney had to go into drydock for an overhaul after its battle with Bismarck. Her Guns fireing as much as they did that day caused some kind of serious damage to her hull.

Has anyone else read something to this affect or am I imagining this?

 

See the last paragraph of Redcoats post 9 Nov