Was Nelson an ugly Battleship?

[ysi_maniac]

Should I address the issue?

[proditor]

That looks awesome, but I think I may be one of 4 people on the planet that thinks Nelson was gorgeous in a "so ugly they become beautiful" sort of way.

Regardless, I say go for it as it looks very cool. 

[Doc Yo]

 So, you want to take a neat and effective design and make it pedestrian? knock yourself out.

[pyro-manic]

Nelson and Rodney were odd-looking beasts, to be sure, but they have a unique charm IMO that sets them apart from any other ship ever built. I think your modification is actually less attractive than the original, but it's a sensible idea that could well work. Maybe tweak the superstructure a bit to reflect the more conventional layout?

[Thorvic]

The idea was to allow the main guns to fire a full broadside without naving to expose the full side of the ship to enemy fire. The Nelsons were also somewhat a product of the 1923 Naval treaty to set limits on naval development following the pre WW1 dreadnaught race.

There were a couple of more handsome battlecruiser/battleship designs the G3 and N3 which had the third turret mounted aft of the Bridge superstructure but fwd of the main superstructure with funnels, boats. secondary and AA armament at the stern of the ship as per Nelson.

http://ihphobby.tripod.com/shippages/appstandrew.html G3 St Andrew Class

http://ihphobby.tripod.com/shippages/appinvincible.html N3 Invincible

G

[Weaver]

The idea behind the Nelson's layout was to concentrate the magazines, thereby reducing the length of armour neccessary to protect them. This means that if you put one turret at the back, you either have to reduce the armour to compensate or break the treaty limit by making the ship bigger. You can't compensate by making it slower because it's speed was already about as slow as could be tolerated.

[PR19_Kit]

I quite like the original Nelson and Rodney, that MONSTER tower of a superstructure looming over the massed turrets looks the business indeed.

But I see no harm in proposing an aft turret version, after all this is Whiff-World and there never was a Washington Treaty here.... 

[pyro-manic]

The idea behind the Nelson's layout was to concentrate the magazines, thereby reducing the length of armour neccessary to protect them. This means that if you put one turret at the back, you either have to reduce the armour to compensate or break the treaty limit by making the ship bigger. You can't compensate by making it slower because it's speed was already about as slow as could be tolerated.

This is true, but Nelson and Rodney actually came out a couple of thousand tonnes too light, so there is scope for extra armour or machinery.

[sequoiaranger]

Maybe try my "Inflexible"-class of convoy escort battleships that had slow speed, lesser armament (two triple-16 instead of three), but whopper armor for dealing with corsair sea raiders like Scharnhorst and even Bismarck. The raiders would have to come TO the Inflexible, and she would be waiting!!

http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/inflex_f.htm

[ChernayaAkula]

Looks pretty cool with the aft turret, but I'm also a fan of the original Nelson. Way cool beast! 




Come on, Trumpeter, give us a 1/350 and 1/700 ('specially the latter) rendition of Nelson and Rodney. You know you want to!

[Joe C-P]

Ugly. Form was left way, way behind by function.
I truly wish the RN had insisted on less cutting down of the N/G class design in their reworking as the N and R. The 16" guns weren't well designed and damaged the superstructure when fired too close by. 23 knots was simply too slow.

But they were important ships to the RN, and I wish the UK could have preserved even part of one of them.

[Taiidantomcat]

But I see no harm in proposing an aft turret version, after all this is Whiff-World and there never was a Washington Treaty here.... 

If we did, I would promptly violate it anyway 

[rickshaw]

Nelson and Rodney were the known as the "Cherry Tree" class in the RN.  Washington cut them short.

In reality, they were specifically the product of the 1923 Washington Treaty and yes, they were cut short.  Their original design was to have had AB XY turrets.  Instead they ended up with the ABC turreted layout.

[sequoiaranger]

>Their original design was to have had AB XY turrets.  Instead they ended up with the ABC turreted layout.<

You sure? That's a new one on me.

The proposed pre-Washington "super Nelsons", (known as "G3") I know of had the same armament in the same configuration, just a longer and more powerful/speedy hull. It couldn't be done within the Treaty displacement restrictions, so speed was sacrificed. There was also an 18"-gunned similar version ("N3"), but not intended to be so fast. These were the basis of "Furashita"s (U-know-who) "Saints"-class hybrids that were powerful AND fast:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/sainta_f.htm

[pyro-manic]

The G3 didn't have quite the same configuration as the Nelsons:



That's an awful image, but it shows enough. N3 was similar, but shorter, beamier, much slower (23kts to the G3's 32kts), more armour and 18" guns instead of 16". Both would have displaced around 48,000 tons.

The Nelson design is part of the same series, initially designated "O3". The battleships went from L up to N (then O later), while the battlecruisers went from K back to G. The number referred to the armament layout.