HMS Lord Nelson - Guide 092
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ส.ค. 2024
- The Lord Nelson class, pre-dreadnoughts of the Royal Navy, are today's subject.
Want to support the channel? - / drachinifel
Want to talk about ships? / discord
Next on the list:
-Essex class
-Slava (Pre-dreadnought)
-USS Massachusetts
-Pensacola class
-HIJMS Oyodo
-Riachuelo (NB)
-I-19
-HMS Ark Royal
-ORP Błyskawica
-USS West Virginia
-Amagi Class
-Tosa Class
-Alaska class
-Derfflinger class
-Yorktown class
-Tre Kronor class
-Nelson class
-Gato class
-Admiralen class
-H class (NB)
-Greek 'Monarch' class destroyers
-'Habbakuk' project
-USS Texas
-USS Olympia
-HIJMS Mikasa
-County class
-KMS Tirpitz
-Montana class
-Florida class
-USS Salt Lake City
-Storozhevoy
-Flower class
-USS San Juan
-HMS Sheffield
-USS Johnston
-Dido class
-Hunt class
-HMS Vanguard
-Mogami class
-Almirante Grau
-Surcouf
-Von der Tann
-Massena
-HMCS Magnificent
-HMCS Bonaventure
-HMCS Ontario
-HMCS Quebec
-Lion class BC
-USS Wasp
-HMS Blake
-HMS Romala/Ramola
-South Dakota (1930's)
-SMS Emden
-Väinämöinen and Ilmarinen
-Destroyer Velos
-U.S.S. John R. Craig
-C class
-HMS Caroline
-HMS Hermes
-Iron Duke
-Kronprinz Erzerzorg Rudolph.
-HMS Eagle
-Ise class
-18 inch monitor
-Mogami
-Vanguard
-De Zeven Provinciën
-South American Dreadnoughts
-Fletcher class
-USS Langley
-Kongo class
-Grom class
-St Louis class
-H class special
-All-big-gun designs
-USS Oregon
-Gascogne
-Alsace
-Lyon and Normandie classes
-Leander class
-HMS Ajax
-Project 1047
-O class
-R class
-Battle class
-Daring class
-USS Indianapolis
-Atago/Takao
-Midway class
-Graf Zeppelin
-Bathurst class
-RHS Queen Olga
-HMS Belfast
-Aurora
-Imperator Nikolai I
-USS Helena
-USS Tennesse
-HMNZS New Zealand
-HMS Queen Mary
-USS Marblehead
-New York class
-L-20e
-Abdiel class
-Panserskib (Armoured ship) Rolf Krake
-HMS Victoria
-USS Galena (1862)
-HMS Charybdis
-Eidsvold class
-IJN “Special” DD's
-SMS Emden
-Ships of Battle of Campeche
-USS Texas?
-HMS Tiger
-USS England (DE-635)
-Tashkent
-1934A Class
-HMS Plym (K271)
-Siegfried class
Specials:
-Fire Control Systems
-Protected Cruisers
-Scout Cruisers
-Naval Artillery
-Tirpitz (damage history)
-Treaty Battleship comparison
-Warrior to Pre-dreadnought
-British BC Ammo Handling
-Naval AA Special
-Plan Z
-Drydocks
The Lord Nelson class were 1st class battleships and at medium to close ranges were believed to be a match for the earliest dreadnoughts. This class's reputation was so high that it was seriously considered that 2 more of the class be built so as to form a tactical fleet unit of 4 ships. This never happened because of funding disputes between the Admiralty and the Exchequer. With HMS Dreadnought and the 3 Invincible class armoured cruisers (later reclassified as battlecruisers) the politicians thought that Britain had achieved a lead and there was no immediate need to rush ahead with additional construction. When funding was available the debate was firmly settled that the funds would go into building the 3 Bellerophon class dreadnoughts. The 9.2-inch gun was a very popular weapon in the Royal Navy and was expected to be devastating to existing battleships at medium to close ranges. Even in 1914 the majority of the world's battleships were still pre-dreadnoughts and some the earliest dreadnoughts were only marginally better than the best classes of pre-dreadnoughts. The Lord Nelson class were more heavily armoued than many dreadnought battleships.
The reasonable parity in combat was also proven to a large degree in the clashes between the Russian Navy and the German Navy in WW1, and by the successful use of Pre-Dreadnoughts in a limited role into WW2, mostly on the same limited coastal bombardment and escort roles along side the rest of the battleships that weren't stuck in port for lack of fuel, safe coastlines, or safe airspace.
Which was more because of Russia being on the defense and having a minefield. Once König got in effective range Slava was hammered. Since they main batteries of Pre deadoughts were essentially the same, with early dreadnoughts just having more of them, yes, a pre dreadnought could hurt a dreadnought regardless, but was, in a fight at a severe disadvantage. Simply because, well to stick with those two, König had more 12" guns (6 more) and even 4 more 6" guns per broadside, while also being much heavier armored and faster.
The greater problem of Pre dreadnoughts where severe safety and damage control issues with regards to mines and torpedos.
"Reasonable Parity" is key hear, as this is a context where, for most of WW1, a Pre-Dreadnought fleet, some mines, and batteries, most all that were either comparable, or notably weaker than their own mid-late 1890's Japanese contemporaries, successfully held a front against a force that was vastly superior in practically every respect, both qualitatively, and quantitatively, and bringing a few modern flavors such as torpedo bombers and submarines for good measure. If Pre-Dreadnought era vessels were so severely obsolete, the Russian Navy should not have survived twice as long as it did in the Russo-Japanese War, with a greater difference in matériel, with only somewhat better positioning and training to compensate. I say "Somewhat better positioning and training" because the Russians also spent most of the Russo-Japanese War defending from a Port with nearby enemies, and defended with batteries, mined approaches, older ships, and unhappy, poorly trained, and poorly fed personnel.
Top that off is that the RN prefered to fight at the closest range they could get.
Whenever I hear “Russo Japanese War” all I can imagine is phantom Japanese torpedo boats.
Kamchatka
I see torpedo boats do you see torpedo boats?
@@isaiahnesheim2971 Indeed, and am already firing on 8 of them.
True fear
i love pre-dreadnoughts - the real steampunk
Hell yeah
Yes
Yes! Stumpy, pugnacious, beauty in strength ;)
This fascinating, quick period of history.
These were obviously robust warships. I'll bet it galled the Turks to surrender on board a ship named for a hated Greek. HMS Agamemnon!
Hahahaha, good point.
Another great educational video on a pre-dreadnought battleship, that was unique in several directions. Those big secondary rifles of Lord Nelson and sister ship, along with the main battery of 12-inch rifles would have been an interesting display at Jutland. I cannot help but ponder the results of the Lord Nelsons at Jutland. Thanks again for this great informative class on pre-dreadnought battleships.
Agamemnon is an ironic name for a ship that attacks dardanelles which is not far away from Troy
No, you're thinking of that word that's pronounced: "Arm-a-GED-don!"
@@russg1801 ???
Not ironic,but a real relation in history to this location of the battle. In opposite, Lord Nelson never fought at the Dardanelles.
How is this a mocking discreepancy between appearance and reality, fact and fiction?
Thats what IRONY is.
Put my comment on Troy in the wrong place. Agamemnon was the King of Mycenae. Other ships that used names of Greeks from the Trojan War had Royal Navy ships named after them include Ajax and Achilles.
Thank you for the story of the Lord Nelson, I am firmly convinced that in actual combat with more modern and contemporary Dreadnoughts a 9.2" would sting sufficiently to give an opponent some serious headache and impede with their capabilities to fight and probably 2 on 1 they would have stood a chance.
I light of the half hearted attempts to engage the Royal Navy by the Kaiserliche marine, except for a few engagements like the battle of Jutland, they would have stood up well against the smaller units usually sent out, although they were faster and would probably have disengaged.
Because of their unusually heavy secondary armament in turrets, Lord Nelson and Agamemnon were often referred to as "intermediate dreadnoughts".
This is the first time I've heard a reason for the medium battery on pre-dreadnoughts. Thanks!
So the innovation that enabled HMS Dreadnought was the 12-inch guns being able to fire fast enough to also be effective at shorter ranges at night or in fog :)
I really look forward to these guides and I just found out, they are well worth revisting after a year or two.
Yup lets stick armored cruisers on the sides of battleships.
My great grandfather served as a stoker on the HMS Lord Nelson from 1917 to 1919.
Hahaha, fantastic;) Know how old he was at that time?
@@hazchemel about 30 I think
Thanks for the excellent video. This is an interesting class and technological development I don't think I'd have known anything about otherwise. =)
Thank you for the real voice, those computer generated voices are awful
They worked well for Yuro, though.
How about a video on the HMCS Bonaventure, Canada's only aircraft carrier.
I believe she's on the list.
@@Drachinifel that moment when you make do many videos you don't even exactly know what you made
My new favorite channel! Loved your HMCS Haida reveiw; thanks :)
It's up as of yesterday.
I own a barrel plug from the Agamemnon.its cool.
In my Grandest Fleet war game, I stationed the two Nelsons and the USN's Michigan and South Carolina at Malta to help the Regia Marina contain the Austrians. The most powerful pre-dreadnoughts ever built combined with the slowest dreadnoughts ever built (both classes made 18 knots) - a combination made by Neptune. The IJN is in the Eastern Med with the Kurama, Satsuma and Kawachi Classes (The Kongos are attached to the Grand Fleet) to contain the Turks. The armored cruisers of the Katori and Tsukuba classes - which mounted 12 inch guns (The IJN rated them as Battlecruisers - Second Class for a period) - are in the Atlantic helping the RN and USN escort convoys from the US.
Nice ship, i got it as model kit last year.
Interesting data delivered expertly. Thank you Drach
Thanks for uploading!
That was very interesting.
I've just built a 1/350 Scale Model of the Lord Nelson, and a fine Ship she was, she now sits with the rest of the fleet, HMS King George V, Repulse, Hood, Warspite, Illustrious, Daring, Ark Royal, Dragon, Belfast, Dreadnought, as well as USS Indianapolis, Independence, Freedom Enterprise, and the latest to the fleet I'm waiting to be delivered, HMS Exeter, along with a some Submarines, and not forgetting my wee HMS Compass Rose K49
I'm not sure about being ironic but I do get the connection with Troy which is fairly close to Anzac Cove. Agamemnon was the King of Mycenae one of the leaders of the attack on ancient Troy. Don't wish to appear pedantic but this point seems to have been missed by others.
Q&A - Why did the US (as well as most other navies) persist in having their secondary battleship armament in casemates?. In the case of the USN, that was through the Colorado class, commissioned in the early 20's. eE had the example of the Lord Nelson all the way back in 1906 yet the mounting of secondary batteries in turrets didn't really start until 1927 with the Nelson class. I don't think the Japanese abandoned casemates until the Yamato's, and the 1920 South Dakota class still featured casemates.
Cheaper, more cost effective(more guns is more guns), and at the time of their construction, there wasn’t much of an advantage to having a turret, because engagement range for the secondaries were still good, even in casemates, especially ones that have room for elevation.
Nova and Johnathan, those answers certainly make sense. Let me reverse my question then. What did the Lord Nelson designers see as the value of the secondary turrets while almost everyone else didn't see any value? Casemates were cheaper, and you could squeeze in more guns, yet every navy had experienced the problem of trying to fight casemate guns in any kind of rough seas.
The key thing to remember is that the Lord Nelson's 9.2-inch guns were actually not a secondary battery, but an *intermediate* battery. That may sound like splitting hairs, but it actually had a significant impact on how the guns were expected to be used. As intermediate guns, the 9.2-inchers were intended to fight other large warships at ranges similar to the 12-inch main battery guns, so they needed the greater elevation (and therefore range) that turret mountings provided.
On the other hand, secondary batteries are intended to fight against destroyers and torpedo boats that the main or intermediate guns would have trouble engaging effectively at close range. That meant the extra range of turrets wasn't as big a consideration, but mounting as many guns as possible was. Also, the disadvantage of casemate mounts being more difficult to use in heavy weather wasn't seen to be as big of a problem as you might think, because (at least in the pre-WWI era) the destroyers and torpedo boats those guns were designed to fight had a very hard time operating in heavy weather themselves. This thinking largely persisted in battleship designs up until the Washington Naval Treaty, and by the time new ships were being designed in the 1930s, the increased power of aircraft made it more advantageous to have dual-purpose secondary guns. That meant the higher elevation and better angles of fire provided by turrets became more desirable.
Actually, navies were still having to remove casemate guns from their older ships up into the 1930s or later because of these problems. The Omaha class cruiser is a pretty spectacular late example of casemate guns, and by WW2 two of the lower ones had to be deleted. Note that all later cruiser classes were all-turret designs.
+Sar Jim the Lord Nelson class 9.2 inch intermediate guns and twin turrets where identical to the main armament of the Minotaur class armoured cruiser it was simply a case of using something already designed as both where the only 2 classes of ship to use 9.2inch guns in twin mounts.
Once again, great stuff!
A suggestion: Do the Queen Anne's Revenge
Is it just me or there is something dunny about the turks surrendering onboard agamemnon?
Q+A Could you please do a video on the event of the HMS Agincourt 1914 And HMS Erin 1914 But most importantly the Fates of Destroyer Leaders Faulkner and Brooke
There is a robo-voice on the Agincourt, the others I can add to the list.
Good looking ships, had a French look with the flying deck. Slightly off topic, I've always been intrigued by the fact that HMS Dreadnought was never used with the fleet in the Great War. It makes no sense, the Navy needed numbers. One final point, a pre-dreadnought type of design, upgraded a bit and faster, might well have served the Navy well in the second world War. I'm thinking 3x14 inch in turrets fore and aft.
Malcolm Taylor - She was obsolescent by 1914. The queen Elizabeths already mounted 15 inch guns (1920 pound shell vs 850 pound 12 inch shell) and was, therefore under armed and under armored. As far as needing numbers, the Grand Fleet decisively outnumbered the High Seas Fleet at every stage of the war. At Jutland, the RN had 37 dreadnoughts and IGN had 20. Would one more dreadnought made a difference? There was also a qualitative edge - by the end of 1916, the British had 12 ships armed with 15 inch guns and the Germans had 2.
I'm always in favour of a ship named Agamemnon #captSheridan
"...radio-controlled target ship..."
How did they do that in the 1920s? Probably beneath the scope of the channel. but I'd be interested to know exactly how they did this with vaccuum tubes, i.e. before transistors.
The lost opportunity was not to arm the KE VII with an uniform secondary battery of 9.2 in guns. Such a possibility was considered but rejected due to the redesign required.
A question for drydock maybe: Did the secondary batteries (excluding those that could provide effective AA protection) on big battleships from, say, 1906-1945, ever get any meaningful use? Seems to me these ships were always escorted so destroyer and cruiser attacks were handled by other ships, and in big ship vs big ship duels,one would only close the range when the other was effectively disabled. Was there any point to them, in the outcome?
Naval gunfire support mostly.
Rare but it happened: 1940 Scharnhorst&Gneisenau vs. Glourios, Ardent and Acasta. 1941 the crippled Bismarck vs. 5 British destroyers. In both cases of course unescorted battleships.
During Jutland german capital ships drove some ligher forces off or destroyed others with secondaries. Best known are Nestor and Nomad being sunk, and interestingly well, another destroyer called Acasta being heavily damaged. Acastas seemingly do not have the best record in that regard.
IIRC, Yamato's forward 15.5cm secondary turret scored some hits on USS Johnston in the Battle off Samar.
+thisnicklldo better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.
Kinda like RN Roma (Regina Elena class if you will) as well right?
The masts on the ships shown in these videos have actual yards. Were they actually intended to provide some propulsion in the event of engine problems? If so, did anybody ever sail one?
The only warship post 1900 that I’m aware of using sails at all was USS Intrepid CV-11 I forget the exact circumstances
Signal lines and radio antennas.
Mate! Primus Pilus = 1st Centurion, Chief Centurion, right?
@@Cpt_Boony_Hat HMS Ark Royal/HMS Pegasus also did, a Seaplane Carrier and there was also another seaplane carrier which did which I unfortunately have forgotten the name of
Could you do HMS Nemesis sometime? Cheers.
Sure
At around 4:00 you said the bulkheads had "no doors" - so How TF was movement along the ship possible? I think you need to clarify that, possibly along the lines of "no doors below such-and-such deck" etc.
It was very unpopular precisely because you had to go up and over if you wanted to move between bulkheads. Wonderful for watertightness, terrible for movement.
Of course - those would be Hatches - right?
.
I suspect vertical shafts like Vanguard.
hms canopus?
Another question, on the naming of this class.
As its the Lord Neslon class, you would think that the other ship would be named similarly eg another British Admiral. Where does the name Agamemnon come from?
The Illiad, Agamemnon is king of sparta, whose wife was stolen by troy
Agamemnon, apart from the Greek king character in the Iliad, was a ship that Nelson himself sailed, and was also an important ship in Nelson's fleet at Trafalgar ;).
It's a pity it seems that taking pictures of sail assisted sailing of pre-dreadnoughts seems to have been ill approved. One doesn't find them searching around on line. It would be nice to have more pictures showing the use of the sales, as on long navigation.
Can you do a review of Grom class destroyers?
What are those forward facing things on the side of the ship?
If you mean the angled booms along the sides, they were used for anti-torpedo nets.
The idea was that when stationary (usually at anchor), the booms could be swung out and metal mesh nets were hung from them around the ship to try to ward off torpedo attacks - I think the idea was to tangle the torpedo up until it ran out of fuel rather than triggering it prematurely.
@@davebignell773 thank you. It was driving me crazy. Lol
The post-dread nought
Who's the lucky person who gets to control the real remote control battleship?
A question if you please. What are the long metal poles running diagonally down along each side of the Nelson!? Let me guess, there Oars. Alright lads!... all hands man your secondary propulsion stations. >_
Spacers to hold out the anti-torpedo nets at the apropriate distance from the hull. They're only extended when anchored and, as shown, are folded up along the side of the hull when underway.
@@gustaveliasson5395 well that's no fun, thanks for the info, much appreciated.
Great video thanks
Why did the British come up with 9.2 or 9.4 inch guns?
Why not just 9 inch, surely much easier to measure in those days.
I'm not going to look it up, but they were probably using metric. Many of the measurements given on the guns of other nations aren't exact. The guns on the Yamato class are given as 18 inches. They used metric, the guns are actually 18.1 inches.
@@bigwitt187 You're right about Yamato; and some other sized Japanese guns too. Doubt very much that the British referred to "French" metric ;), however, I can't offer an alternative reason.
Because the British approximately doubled the shell weight from caliber to caliber 47mm = 3 pounder 57mm = 6 pounder 3inch = 13 pounds 4 inch = 31 pounds 4.7 inch = 50 pounds 6 inch = 100 pounds 7.5 inch = 200 pounds 9.2 inch = 380 pounds 12 inch = 850 pounds With the introduction of the 13.5 inch, this broke down 1250 (light) 1400 (heavy) pounds 15 inch 1920 (WW1) 1938 (WW1) pounds
I heard/saw either"Ian" from forgotten weapons or "Othias" from "C&Arsenal" presenting a heafty late 19th century revolver and explaining that if a country or an armoury cannot get hold of quality steel for whatever reason, they could still just use iron but would have to make their weapons inconveniently over sized when compared with steel examples in order to be sure of it's ability to bare the pressure created during usage.
This is me chatting horse manure grade bull shit on the Internet, allow me my moment of perceived relevance before I let reality back in to the never ending dullness and depression of life.
Could you review the US tench class submarines?
You should do HMCS Sackville (Flower class corvette) or the HMCS Boneventure (one of the Canadian Aircraft carriers from back in the day)
I think the secondary was actually 9.4 in not 9.2!
Strike this comment...you are correct!
@@jacksonfloyd5929 Definitely 9.2".
Sorry. 9.4 was designed for a Norwegian coastal defense ship which became HMS Gorgon. The guns were lined down to 9.2 inch. Incredibly, in this configuration, the mk xii was one of longest ranged guns ever built! The English claimed 36K as naval guns, meanwhile I have read that some of the guns were used as coastal defense guns by Norway with a range of 40K!!
What about the radetsky class
There's a video on it on this channel already.
Ey there are something wrong with the desc
Apologies, fixed
@@Drachinifel ya gj fam
Christopher Dent wants to know how 15 boilers run 2 prop shafts.
Want to see how this type of ship go to WOWS
How useful were the torpedoes on battleships?
Ender Not very. The Rodney once scored a torpedo hit on Bismarck and....that was about it. Ever.
In other Drach movies, Rodney is mentioned as being the Only battleship ever to have successfully torpedoed another battleship, Bismark. hahaha. He also mentions that as older battleships were refitted in the 30s and 40s, usually torpedoes were removed, because the range of battle had grown progressively farther, and newer battleships were not given them at all.
was there ever a 5 minute vid? :O
More or less :p
HMS M 33 please
Q&A - What caused the switch from side mounted turrets to all centerline armament? Were side turrets more vulnerable than centerline turrets or was it more a case of being able to fire all guns from either side?
As the main batteries got bigger and heavier, the weight difference between two wing turrets and one centerline turret became a bigger deal.
Nathan Saper - Because wing turrets wasted tonnage. Consider the original German battleships - they mounted 6X2 main battery turrets in a hexagon, but could only fire 8 guns in any direction. That was tonnage that could have been put to use with more powerful engines or thicker armor.
I want this in World of Warships
The Brits should have sold Agamemnon to the Greeks after WWI to troll the Turks.
theres only one nelson...
*my sister*
Lady Nelson? ;)
kermit
The electronic voice used in this video is horrible. Please stop using it.