Talk:Nelson-class battleship

Contradiction?

There’s a good amount of detail in this article. There is, however, a contradiction. The following:

“he crews were warned to never fire all the 16-in (406-mm) guns at the same time, because this would damage the deck - clearly, a serious handicap on a fighting ship. This is a long-standing rumour, and was disproved at the final action with Bismarck, where Rodney did fire the occasional full broadside without any adverse effects!”

sits at odds with the last sentence:

“Despite these difficulties, both Nelson and Rodney had successful careers during World War II, the latter vessel helping to sink DKM Bismarck in 1941 (although the guncrews ignored engineers' instructions during the battle, and inflicted more damage on their own ship than Bismarck did.)”

So did Rodney actually sustain damage from firing full broadsides?194.72.92.36 14:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is contradictory. The first paragraph you cite is talking about the deck planking, but this was replaced and the new teak planks were not affected by firing a full broadside. The last paragraph is talking about "damage" and I would not think this would be a term applied to superficial effects to the deck. I think it refers to structural damage, but clearly the article lacks this detail. Wiki-Ed 13:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Lt-Cdr Wellings USN who was travelling on the Rodney to back to Boston after service as assistant naval attaché in London and present at the battle reported to the Navy Department that the stresses of the damage to the deck-planking "were transmitted to the decks below, causing some damage to bulkheads, stanchions and athwartships beams" (Kennedy, Ludovic: Pursuit: The sinking of the Bismarck p.224) Jpacobb (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)jpacobb

Turret names

Shouldn't the turrets be 'A', 'B' and 'Q'? Calling it 'C' implies that it was superfiring over 'B' and capable of firing in the forward arc. 'X' would imply it could train aft, therefore to me 'Q' is the logical name as it can only fire on the beams and restricted fore / aft angles. Emoscopes ^Talk 18:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

In RN usage, 'Q' referred to "midships" turrets i.e. those aft of the forward superstructure. The Nelsons' third turret was still forward of the bridge. HLGallon 01:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The after turret is shown as 'X' on the ships plans available from the National Maritime Museum and also in the ships cover. It would have been more logical in Royal Navy terms to have called it 'C' turret as it was forward. It's likely that the 'X' designation was carried forward from the G3 Battlecruiser design, as all the letters and plans in the design process for them use 'A' 'B' & 'X'. What is less clear is why the midships turret was designated 'X' in the G3's, as on the ships built prior to WW1 midships turrets were normally allocated the letters 'Q' & 'P' and after turrets 'X' & 'Y' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.65.76 (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Was there ever any consideration of mounting the 'X' turret in a superfiring position over the 'B' turret? Or did they intend from start to finish to have it in a broadside-only location? 75.76.213.106 (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ray Burt describes an alternative layout where both 'A' & 'B' turrets are on the fo'c's'le deck with 'X' turret superfiring over both of them. Just to throw another spanner in the works he also names the third turret 'C' not 'X', in his "British Battleships1919-1945".The Dart (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Cherry Tree Class

I am reading a little book about Cromarty, written by someone who remembers the RN activity in the area during the 1930s. He says that the Nelson and Rodney were known in the Royal Navy as the Cherry Tree Class" because of being "cut down by Washington". --jmb 08:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This is mentioned in the article. It sounds like the kind of thing that wasn't ever used at the time, but has been copied and copied and copied from e.g. a single Usenet post ever since. There are a dozen or so relevant Google returns for "cherry tree"+nelson+battleship, but they're all derived from this Wikipedia article. On the other hand, the phrase is mentioned in Nathan Miller's "War at Sea" (a real book published in 1996), albeit that the author is American, and this is the kind of cutsey-pie US-centric nonsense that Americans tend to generate. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• There are other research tools than the internet. Antony Preston and John Batchelor, "Battleships 1855-1977," Chartwell Books (Phoebus Publishing Co., London, 1977), Page 71: "They were known as the 'Cherry Tree' class--cut down by Washington--but the unkindest cut was the sailors' nickname for them--'Nelsol' and 'Rodnol'--in memory of a group of fleet oilers whose names ended in 'ol': this was a reference to the position of the funnels so far aft." Preston and Batchelor are Brits. 1977 predates Usenet, Google, Wikipedia and Miller 1996. Americans can not only be cutesy-pie but also snarky. Cheerio.Naaman Brown (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC).

Image copyright problem with Image:HMS Rodney (1925).jpg

The image Image:HMS Rodney (1925).jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Boiler types?

Were these Yarrows or the very similar Admiralties? Rippon (see article) cites them, along with the Kent class cruisers as a significant innovation in the development of the Admiralty. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Circular Reference

One of the cited articles http://www.ibiblio.org/maritime/media/index.php?cat=1075 actually cites its source as Wikipedia. So Wikipedia claims to be citing from that site, but that site is citing Wikipedia. Bit problematic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.30.117 (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It has been fixed. The correct attribution is to Antony Preston, "Battleships", Bison Books.The Dart (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

"Well respected naval historian Antony Preston"

Two different editors have attempted to remove the "well respected" qualifier from this sentence, which I believe has the effect of giving undue weight to the opinions of Anthony Preston. User:The_Dart has reverted all such attempts. We need a consensus here on whether to remove the qualifier or not. --Yaush (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Remove. It's true, but it's not relevant. I would question why we even inline the name (it's not our usual practice) rather than just citing him as a ref. The comment isn't specific to him in particular (anyone could make an identical statement, it's not in a personal context), it's merely a proof by authority (which is what we do). Andy Dingley (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

RETAIN. The reason why I have quoted Preston is to balance out the well known non-expert opinions of anonymous sailors and civilian pundits who were severely derisive in their criticisms of the "Nelson's" without ever having sailed in them. I have quoted other published people who most definitely had much personal expert experience serving in them. You only need to look at the Wikipedia article on Preston to see his vast knowledge and credibility on naval engineering and history.The Dart (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

To say that "we" don't quote published experts 'in-line' would mean removing large numbers of such mentions from virtually every article that I have read on Wikipedia. That is preposterous!The Dart (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Andy: Antony Preston is a respected expect in this field, but the same is true of most authors of the reliable sources articles cite so there's no need to note this in the article. Various other experts are also complimentary about the class (for instance, Angus Konstam [1]), but others criticise them. Nick-D (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

We may indeed quote them in-line, but we follow that with a cite to them, rather than giving their names in-line. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Why then are people such as Robert Ballard and David L. Mearns, Ludovic Kennedy et al, mentioned in-line along with their quotations in the Bismarck article, which was substantially written by the Admin contributor user:Parsecboy?The Dart (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Because WP:OSE. Doesn't mean that's right. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Looking at Bismarck, I see the Ludovic Kennedy quote as comparable and would personally remove it (as here). Both of these are direct quotes, and are justified in using the names as they are direct quotes, however I don't see a compelling need for these statements to be direct quotes. Both are contested enough that we have to source them to figures of such well respected stature, but neither are so unique that only that commentator holds such a view.

The Ballard and Mearns case is different though, especially for Ballard. He's not only writing about Bismarck, he's the guy who found it (and thus the only guy to be first to find it). He thus has special relevance to Bismarck, and we should reflect this. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Well good luck if you try to interfere with Parsecboy's pet article. He's been Admin for much longer than you and will make mincemeat out of you if so much as dare to alter a fullstop on his GA rated article! I have only done the same as him with direct quotes. How are people seeking info from Wikipedia supposed to find out things if you delete them because they are quoted in-line? Removing something because it upsets your personal biases or ideas about correct format will get you blocked by Parsecboy, Acalamari and other Admin far more experienced than youThe Dart (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, your not actually Admin, but a regular editor like me except you seem to get into lots more pedantic arguments over trivial points than me, looking at your talk page history!The Dart (talk) 04:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean leaving out info because some source disagrees or contradicts another or has a commonly held view. NPOV means balancing out the negative argument with positive argument in an article. If all contentious issues were deleted from articles, readers would be totally oblivious to the various points of view and thus defeat the object of having an encyclopaedia in the first place. Education!The Dart (talk) 05:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this a case of giving the author when it is a personal opinion as opposed to one source among many that say the thing.

eg "Alfred Butter says its the best thing since sliced bread but Charles Duffy says it's total rubbish".

Qualifying a source isn't needed if they have an article because they can be looked up. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Graeme, glad you have joined in the discussion. user:Yaush has made a mountain out of a molehill, and looking at his talk history, it is a regular habit, he has been blocked in the past for doing it. How can you quote someone without naming them and merely putting a citation at the end of the quote? That requires the reader to click on the cite icon and go down to the reference before knowing who said it, interfering with the flow of thought. user:Parsecboy and many others do it all the time in the articles they write, and he is an Admin but finds no problem in doing it. I have used the authors name in-line and put the citation for the source of the quote at the end of sentence. What is wrong with that? It fulfils both needs. My use of the epithet "well respected" is to differentiate the value of his comment from those of the unknown, unnamed and uninformed clowns who expressed their views in complete ignorance of the facts way back then (1925-30).The Dart (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

For the record: I have never been blocked from Wikipedia. I have attracted the occasional crank, and welcome any of you who wish to visit my talk page and judge for yourself. Given that two editors have tried to revert the unencyclopedic qualifier, and The Dart reverted both attempts, and then went on the offensive on my talk page ... again, judge for yourselves who is making a mountain out of a molehill. --Yaush (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, the whole bit of "Despite the derisive criticism directed at this class of battleship by some of the media and 'old salts' of the navy upon their debut" is entirely superfluous. There are no other views expressed in the article. Just put "Naval historian Antony Preston said [of the Nelson class] that they were 'Soundly conceived ships....etc'". GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

So Graeme, you don't regard the names "Nelsol","Rodnol", "Queen Anne's Towers" as criticism, just loudmouth banter. Trouble is that those views commonly get expressed in many publications and conversations about the class. There seems to be some kind of sport in "Nelson" bashing, but maybe your sentence would shut up the naysayers. Bullying is obviously not only the preserve of Facebook, Youtube & Twitter.The Dart (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The more personal and subjective you make this, the less I'm listening. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

While I appreciate you hurling insults in my general direction, The Dart, I would appreciate it if you would avoid them in the future. And it would be wise not to ping the person you're insulting. I am also somewhat curious about how I am being held up as the poster boy for both including and excluding inline names.

Nevertheless, I see no problem listing a specific author in connection with a quote, but "well respected" is superfluous. Parsecboy (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Parsecboy, I am sorry if you thought I was getting stuck into you. I wasn't. I was merely pointing out that other people accept or indeed use in-line names. It seems like the way Australian's phrase things comes across like a foreign language to AmericansThe Dart (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

To answer the question posed - yes I think "Nelsol","Rodnol", "Queen Anne's Towers" etc are examples of use of humour. (not limited to navy, the Gloster Javelin was the "Harmonious Dragster"). Within the article as currently written they do not come across as criticisms. If there was notable criticism during their period in service, then perhaps that ought to be included. With the exception of Reliable Sources, Nelson-bashing in other publications has no bearing on this article. We are not here to refute others opinions but to present and encyclopaedic coverage of the subject. Also the use of "old salts" is a colloquialism that is probably best avoided. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The Dart: No, sorry. Your recent edit (changing "well respected" to "respected") still privileges this source in an unwarranted way. --Yaush (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Graeme, my use of the term "old salts" was in place of Preston's term "matelots" which I thought applied more to the French navy. P.S. I hope you didn't think that the term bullying applied to you, you always negotiate constructively.The Dart (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

"Well respected" is unnecessary and non-neutral. "By whom" is the tag that would next apply...and soon the parapraph is about the author rather than the ship. Rather than presenting some vague comments about "media and old salts" perhaps appropriate counterpoint should be in the paragraph instead? There is certainly not equal weight provided in the section.Red Harvest (talk) 10:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

About those torpedoes...

Is there an historical consensus on whether or not any of the Rodney's torpedoes actually connected with Bismarck, and if so, did they detonate properly? The article presently claims that the Rodney "successfully torpedoed another battleship." One could define "successful" as achieving a hit that detonated, but is there sufficient proof of this or would it be better to list this as "possible" or "probable?" A single source won't cut it. This requires some substantial backing to claim as an absolute as the current wording renders it. Red Harvest (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Well Red Harvest, if you care to read the references cited, Gatacre, Wellings and Kennedy, who were all present at the battle you will find the verification you require. Gatacre was "Rodney's" Navigator, Wellings was the US Naval Attache' on board and Kennedy was Lieutenant on the destroyer HMS Tartar. All three have written about this and if you care to read the HMS Rodney article you will find the source references there.The Dart (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

There was a single citation attached to the torpedo claim on both pages when I commented about it. You have since added other cites to both pages--I want others to be aware of this as it is a matter of integrity. The Wellings link you have since provided is not complete (had to search to find the actual link) and the cite doesn't include a page reference. Rather than telling someone to read several books, perhaps citing pages would be more useful? An observer from Nelson is listed on page 230 claiming a torpedo hit, but is unnamed at least in the section. The following site about the Rodney http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-01BB-Rodney.htm relates it this way: "At 0916 hours RODNEY fired the first of twelve torpedoes from her starboard tube at the BISMARCK, this was the first time a battleship had fired a torpedo at another battleship. All the torpedoes except possibly one missed." (Bolding added by me for emphasis.) Again, I'm looking for some consensus by historians. Not having read these accounts and not having page numbers or direct quotes provided that support the statement in the wiki article, this reader is left to take it on faith. What I sometimes find when I do have all of the resources to verify such things is that multiple references often use a single source, and may or may not be verified/verifiable. And as an aside, find the placement of the torpedo story in the "cricital assessment" section puzzling, particularly as plus since I've not seen anything that suggests mounting torpedoes on WWII battleships was wise idea and instead created substantial vulernability...weren't these removed during the war? Red Harvest (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Torpedo tubes were a point of weakness in the structure of the ship of the sort that just seems to attract shells. --Yaush (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

In answer to your last question regarding removal of torpedo tubes from British battleships, yes the tubes were removed from HMS Nelson in 1938 when additional armour plating was added above the forward magazines,but not removed from HMS Rodney. Source Battleships and Battlecruisers 1905-1970, by Siegfried Breyer. Yes, I did add the other sources afterwards but no-one in over the last 20 months since I wrote that entry, using the first cite (Gatacre), has ever asked for further verification so I have now added the others. In Gatacre's book, you will find the reference on page 140 and I will write the entry here: "Rodney drew ahead of Bismarck and zig-zagged across her bows, as close as a mile and a half, firing her 16-inch and 6-inch guns at her, at point-blank range; we even fired our 16-inch guns in 9-gun broadsides and we fired our last two torpedoes. One of our torpedoes scored a hit, and thereby Rodney became the only battleship in history to have torpedoed another battleship." and "One of Rodney's final salvos blew pieces off the stern of Bismarck and started a fire." Over to you.The Dart (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

So in reading those sentences it appears likely that the claim is based on a single observer on the Rodney--the paymaster who was assigned the task in the battle. Typically such a claim like this would need some sort of confirmation. Frequently in battles observers on surface ships believed they had scored torpedo hits which never happened, went unconfirmed, or were later attributed to another source. In this case it would seem likely to me that a hit would be scored from such close range, but that is just a layman's personal opinion. The problem with the statement in the article is that it is claimed as an absolute rather than probable. What would be most useful would be some historian's or or multiple historians' analysis of the claim.Red Harvest (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Red, but I don't know where you got the idea that Lt. Cmdr. Galfrey George Ormond Gatacre was the paymaster. He was the navigator and later also rose to the rank of Rear Admiral, Flag officer in charge of East Australian Area RAN. Lt. Cmdr. Joseph H. (Gus) Wellings was also witness to it, as was Admiral Frederick Dalrymple-Hamilton who later recommended Gatacre for a DSC for his part in the Bismarck chase and battle with the words "In remembrance of an eventful week, during which his advice and assistance contributed very largely to such success as Rodney achieved during the chase and destruction of the Bismarck." and in a letter of congratulation to him said "If anybody helped to decide on the course of action adopted more than you did, I have yet to hear his name, and I have never ceased to be grateful for all you did." In due course Gatacre was honoured by the award of Distinguished Service Cross, a naval decoration which must be earned in action and recipients must be below the rank of Captain. Why are people so sceptical of Rodney's torpedoing (not sinking) of Bismarck, yet so willing to accept the German claim of scuttling? It was only claimed by one man, Gerhardt Junack but repeated by others who couldn't possibly have known. No-one is claiming that the torpedo sank Bismarck, just that one torpedo actually hit and detonated.The Dart (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Late bulletin: I have found a further claim by Polish Sub-Lt. Eryk Sopocko who claims he observed "more than one torpedo hit at the height of the battle through his X-turret periscope, at least one from a cruiser and one from Rodney." I found this in the book HMS Rodney, Iain Ballantyne, Penn & Sword Books, Yorkshire, ISBN 978 1 84415 406 7, pg.142. which takes the quote from Sopocko's own book Gentlemen, The Bismarck Has Been Sunk, Eryk Sopocko, Methuen, 1942. page and ISBN unknown.The Dart (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't get the idea that he was a paymaster, if you read your own sources you would understand that. Instead his use of "we" suggests that he was relying on the official Nelson observer's report (given as a paymaster in the original link.) Again, an objective editor would ask for some historical consensus before making an absolute claim in a wiki article. That is still lacking. First person accounts are fundamental to understanding, but they are by definition also POV. So the question remains unchanged: has there been any historical evaluation and consensus about the torpedo hit claim? The part that you seem to have missed in my previous comments is that I'm inclined to believe the torpedo hit from the Nelson did occur. The problem is with your editing style: making an absolute statement and then being unable to provide the requested historical consensus.

By the way, your strawman argument about whether or not the torpedo sunk the ship is not what I said. However, you might have noticed that the phrasing you use in the article does allow a reader such an erroneous interpretation of the result of the suspected Nelson torpedo hit. Congratulations on seeing the problem with the phrasing you have chosen.

I'm not sure what you are going on about in the scuttling part. I've made no comments on it and it isn't relevant to this discussion. Instead it merely confirms a very strong POV bias by you. The result is a "critical assessment" section that is anything but critical, instead it looks like cheerleading. Red Harvest (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I took a look over at the Bismarck article and it looks like you've been down this same path before. The quotation there of Kennedy is "if true, [this is] the only instance in history of one battleship torpedoing another." Since you were involved in the discussion of that, one would be attempted to conclude that you are intentionally misrepresenting the source. The wording of this matter in that article is proper. Here it is not.Red Harvest (talk) 08:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

For an extensive historical examination of the whole Rodney/ Bismarck torpedo topic, can I suggest that the book Killing the Bismarck, Iain Ballantyne, Pen & Sword Books, 2010, ISBN 978 0 84415 983 3, appendix I, 'Decisive Tinfish Hits' para in particular (pg.258), gives more weight to the claims; in particular "Mearns credits Rodney with a torpedo hit at around 9:40 amidships, while Norfolk also fired torpedoes at Bismarck at approximately 10:10, two possibly hitting." "Using a ROV, Mearns was able to photograph the wreck. He found four gaping holes in Bismarck, three of them reckoned to be caused by tinfish from cruisers and one by a previously unknown strike by a Swordfish torpedo. However, the possibility that a second Rodney torpedo hit could have caused one of these holes is not completely outlandish, especially when you consider her 24.5-inch torpedoes packed a mighty punch. Witnesses (plural) in the British battleship counted two strikes." Once again Ballantyne is the editor of Warships International magazine & annual, as was Preston a decade before him. In the following para 'Ghosts of the Deep'(pgs.259-61) he thoroughly goes through Ballard's expedition, Mearns', Hollywood filmmaker James Cameron's, and an Australian/Russian expedition led by Michael McDowell, into the wreck of the Bismarck and comes up with one 'For' (Mearn's), one 'Against' (Cameron), one ambivalent (Ballard), and one haunted by the 'human cost' (McDowell) having discovered the hundreds of boots scattered across the seabed. Williams wrote of his deep-sea visit (in MIR submersibles), that his first thought was that they might have been kicked of by "frantic swimmers" but then realized that "like Titanic, the symmetry of the pairs brings the reality that most of these were worn by their owners to their final resting place." Ballantyne then quotes a HMS Dorsetshire sailor who helped save some of Bismarck's men: " At one of our reunions some German sailors told us they had opened the seacocks, while others said it was impossible to do so. Either way it made no difference in the end". With the ever mounting evidence in favour of the torpedo hit(s) I don't believe I am being overly POV. I have added clarification to the sentence to obvert the possibility that any reader might think that torpedo was fatal. How are readers of Wikipedia supposed to learn about history if you omit half of it, because an editor thinks it is too POV? Back to you.The Dart (talk) 11:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I have always been in a quandary as to what to call this section of the article, so I have changed it to simply "Summary".The Dart (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

As for allegedly misrepresenting things, I would put it to you that the Last battle of the battleship Bismarck article is dismissively POV by using the expression 'If true' without balancing that with the counter views expressed by the other authors I have quoted. I only included Kennedy in the interest of balance, not as the primary source, for which I used Gatacre.The Dart (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Then you are sorely mistaken. First person accounts are far from perfect. Hence the role of historians and others in evaluating the claims. The "if true" part is a reasonable thing to say if the claim is not verified. And from what you've provided so far, that is the case. Even your choice of the Ballantyne quote above weakens your argument, because what you have quoted is only stating it is possible. The other editors here and at the other article are using appropriate terms, while it appears you are applying your own spin to what the authors are saying.Red Harvest (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

As for your supposed concerns about people getting only half the history, my response is that with the way you are rewriting the history in a highly partisan POV form, I'm more concerned that they will end up with half-truths rather than history. There is more concise and accurate information conveyed in the Bismarck article concerning the torpedo claim than what you have provided. In the interest of consistency and historical accuracy, that text should replace yours.Red Harvest (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what you've accomplished by changing the name of the section. You've inserted a largely irrelevant torpedo hit claim into what should be a "critical assessment." How does that fit in a summary? It might have fit somewhere in the "armament" section, but if so it should also mention the vulnerability issues of torpedoes on battleships and that all navies were abandoning them, including on the Nelson class. (Which calls into question Preston's claim of the design "reflecting all the hard-won experience of World War One."Red Harvest (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Instead of writing a one-sided rebuttal piece (half the history as you would say), why not provide the whole story by writing an actual critical assessment? The observations about firepower and armor are appropriate, but provide only a portion of the story. I'll give you some hints: The most obvious thing missing is that this warship was very slow by WWII standards and therefore not well adapted to many first line tasks. Additionally, the large blind spot in the rear firing arc of the main guns, slow speed, and twin screws would have made the class vulnerable to surprise engagement from the rear quarter, and make it challenging to disengage if outgunned. Then there is the issue of the secondary guns being mounted on the rear half of the vessel creating vulnerability to attack by small vessels on the front quarter. Countering such attacks is a primary role of the secondary battery.Red Harvest (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Considering that I wrote the whole 'Critical Assessment' section and was always unsure about what to call the heading. I feel it is valid for me to change the title and forgive me, but I thought including my own critique, as you suggest, in a critical assessment was 'verbotten' under the OR rules and would fall under your term 'own spin'. Please be consistent in your argument. It seems that I am damned if I do and damned if I don't. The slow speed & twin screws were mentioned earlier in the article but I don't see how two screws are really much more vulnerable than four closely located ones, and no-one in all the literature I have read regarding this class (and that's a bloody lot), has ever mentioned it, so where do you suggest I get such a cite-able quote? If you have one, by all means add it. I thought we weren't supposed to speculate or theorise on Wikipedia? The speed certainly wasn't up to WWII standards, although they were the equal of most other battleships around in the mid 1920's except Japan's Nagato-class battleships whose actual speed wasn't known until 1937. The British decided they would opt for the largest calibre guns (16") and maximise the armour at the cost of speed. This is what Preston refers to in the statement "reflecting all the hard-won experience of World War One", he means the folly of sacrificing armour for speed as was the case at Jutland with British battlecruisers, also possibly later with the Hood. As for the alleged 'vulnerability' to small vessels on the forward quarters, you might notice that the arcs of S1&S2, P1&P2 6-inch guns completely cover their relevant forward sectors right up to dead ahead with no blind spots. There are eight 6-inch guns available to fire directly Forward, six on each broadside and eight rearward all under separate director control for each side . Yes, the rear blind spot of the main arcs was a weakness, but that was part of the tactical compromise that was accepted in order to conform to the weight limitations of Washington. I could add that to the armament section which I have yet to expand to include more on the secondary and AA armament, oh, and the torpedoes which were still carried on Rodney, Hood, Repulse, Renown and some of the Revenge class ships as late as 1944. I didn't create these two articles from scratch, but since 2011, have virtually been the only contributor of anything substantial, besides the fullstops, comma's and error corrections of the various Wiki-Janitors. In all that time the only other text contributions have been by Fly-by editors making what they thought were humourous comments like "Nelson on Hamilton again" or "Nelson turned over in his grave when he saw these ships created in his name". Needless to say I reverted them. The amount of anti-Nelson bias out there is ridiculous and can't be substantiated with evidence.

Anyway, I don't know about you, but I have a realworld life to get on with. Haven't you got a field to harvest? The Dart (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It would seem that my first cited reference, Gatacre, is currently used by the Bismarck article, which was recently a featured article (14 February 2014) and is now closed for general editors like you and me. Only Administrators can now edit that article.The Dart (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

edit protection, due to some back-and-forth over definition of "largest", on German battleship Bismarck expired a while back. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Per discussions above, wording has been changed to reflect the wording in the sources. (The additional sources were retained.) This brings it into line with the more extensively vetted Bismarck article. Also, the two other signficant incidents involving the torpedo capability have been added as well. Since this doesn't qualify as "summary" it has been moved to the armaments section.Red Harvest (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Chuck Hawks' website has a decent summary of the negative consequences of the compromises made for the Nelson (as well as praise for it.) Preston's book on the other hand hasn't gotten particularly favorable reviews--see http://www.navalreview.ca/wp-content/uploads/public/vol1num4/vol1num4art9.pdf where the reviewer notes glaring inconsistencies in the work and states the lack of notes and references makes it an "opinion piece of tertiary rank." As for the issue with the vulnerability of twin screws vs quadruple I've read a designer's review of the issues. http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-036.htm Considering the already dismal speed of this class, losing a shaft to gunnery near misses/underwater hits, mines, or torpedoes would slow it to a crawl and likely make it very difficult to steer. As to whether or not any notable print authors have actually made a detailed objective examination of the vessel, I don't know. Preston's book clearly doesn't qualify as such.Red Harvest (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Service

"nonetheless it created much public outcry" - does 'it' refer to the scrapping? It could and should be clearer.

Regards to all. Notreallydavid (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

it wasn't in the source, so I stripped it out. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I combined the Conway's quote with the previous quote which is from the older version of this article, although at the present I am not able to spend the time looking for which version. It was the version by user: Vanguard53 on 08 July 2012 .The Dart (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Sloping armor vs "plunging fire"?

"Armour weight was also reduced by using an internal, inclined armour belt sloped outward at 72 degrees vertically, 14 in (360 mm) thick over the main magazines and control positions to 13 in (330 mm) over the machinery and 6-inch gun magazines. The slope increased the relative thickness of the belt to a plunging projectile." How does a sloped armor belt increase thickness from "plunging fire"? Plunging fire is that which is coming almost straight down, and having the armor sloped would actually cause the fire to strike more directly, not more obliquely. The sloped armor on a tank is designed to protect from direct fire; an incoming shot at 45deg striking a glacis plate sloped at 45deg the opposite direction = a 90deg relative strike, effectively head on. A plunging shot at an angle of 56deg striking a 45deg slope gives a relative angle of 34deg. Truly vertical shots would strike at an angle of 22.5deg, whereas they would strike a vertical armor plate at 0deg, basically end-on, assuming it actually hit the armor plate at all. A 72deg slope would just make these numbers even higher; a steep slope protects best against DIRECT fire, and is more vulnerable to plunging fire. This would only make sense if it was a sloped armored DECK. A sloped BELT is less effective against plunging fire, since you are comparing it to a vertical piece of armor, but a sloped DECK is compared to a normal horizontal deck, and has much the same effect as a sloped piece of armor. The only way it can "increase the relative thickness to plunging fire" is relative to a HORIZONTAL armored deck. If it is a "belt", then sloping it would not increase the relative thickness to plunging fire, but it would increase the amount of horizontal area covered. The most theoretically effective piece of armor against fire from the vertical is armor that is totally vertical, since it has an relative angle to the shots of 0deg, effectively impervious. However this requires a second piece of armor on top. Having a single sloped piece doing double duty as belt and deck armor may not "increase the relative thickness to plunging fire", but it does effectively reduce the amount of horizontal armor you DO need to provide, or at least it minimizes the area vulnerable to plunging fire. On tanks, the main reason for sloped armor is to increase thickness to direct fire, but a secondary benefit is that it reduces the size of the thinly armored deck, since any plunging shot that previously would have penetrated the deck around the outer perimeter now will strike the heavily armored, sloped belt armor instead. This is probably pedantic, but I think it could be explained in a more lucid fashion as an attempt to use a single piece of armor for both belt and deck protection, saving much weight and cost over using separate belt and deck armor components. I also am not sure about the "outward sloping" armor. To me this implies that the armor slopes outward at the TOP, which seems very unlikely to me, since it would be totally contrary to the practice I just described. And it would be even worse at protecting from plunging fire, since it would tend to deflect the shots back inwards. Outward sloping armor would theoretically protect a tank just as well from direct fire as any other type of armor, but it would make packaging much more difficult, and you lose all the other inherent benefits, such as protection from plunging fire.

64.223.107.150 (talk) 03:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)