What was the most powerful battleship in a straight duel, May 1941?

freebird said:

Has anyone seen the History channel programs Hunt for the Bismarck?

The show was on today from A&E's "dogfights" series, great animation, especially the Swordfish attack sequences. However.... There are several obvious errors that seem to keep being repeated about the Bismarck

Hunt for the Bismarck

Hunt for the Bismarck DVD

I have also seen "Sink the Bismarck"

Sink the Bismarck + Sink the Bismarck DVD Set

On their blurb about the DVD, they make the same common erroneous claims about Bismarck.

1.) Largest Battleship ever built - Wrong
2.) Most deadly Battleship ever built - Wrong
3.) Biggest guns on a battleship - Wrong
4.) Most "powerful" Battleship at that time - also wrong IMO

So I will see what the opinions are, what is the most powerful battleship? ie. If you were in a battleship for a straight-out duel, in which speed is not a factor, which one would you choose? {both ships are steaming toward each other, intent on mayhem.}

The AA armament is also not a factor, as in 1941 no battleship's AA was proved very effective without fighter CAP: the Bismarck couldn't shoot down any of the attacking Swordfish, the Prince of Wales Repulse only shot down 4 out of 85 attacking Betty/Nell bombers.

I would note that in the final battle, the Bismarck had a damaged rudder was leaking fuel, but her hull was intact, all of her guns equipment were functional. However the supposedly "Most Powerful, Deadly Battleship" Bismarck concentrated her fire on HMS Rodney {Nelson class} but was unable to do any significant damage to the British ship.

Sorry folks, Iowa Yamato are not completed in May 1941....

Stats:

Bismarck 8 x 15" guns, 10.6" - 12.6" armour belt, 3.1 - 4.7" deck armour

HMS Nelson 9 x 16" guns, 13" - 14" armour belt, 5" - 6.75" deck armour

N. Carolina 9 x 16" guns, 7" - 12" armour belt, 4.5" - 5.5" deck armour

Nagato 8 x 16" guns, 7" - 12" armour belt, 4" - 6" deck armour

Littorio 9 x 16" guns, 13.8" armour belt, 3.5" - 6.4" deck armour

Richelieu 8 x 15" guns, 13.6" armour belt, 5.9" - 6.7" deck armour


One other important point, the placement of the main guns.

The Bismarck had 4 twin 15" gun turrets, Nagato 4 twin 16" guns, two forward two aft.

N. Carolina Littorio had 3 triple 16" gun turrets, two forward, one aft.

French British Battleships had all main guns on the foredeck, the Richelieu with 2 quadruple 15" turrets, the HMS Nelson with 3 triple 16" gun turrets, the middle one superfiring over the other two. {This meant that Nelson could fire all guns at any ship in the forward arc, unless it was within 5' deg. of centerline.} When approaching Bismarck, HMS Rodney could fire all 9 main guns, while Bismarck could reply with only 4 of 8 main guns.

Click to expand...

thats pretty gay

Udet
There is no doubt that the stern of a ship is a weak spot and there is no doubt that the Germans had a particular problem. As a result all the German heavy ships to have major changes done to their stern due to problems encountered when they were damaged. The link I posted earlier in the thread goes into this and includes a contribution from an engineer who was responsible for the repairs.
Re the POW you quotes and statements are correct. I admit that my understanding was that the damaged propeller shaft wasn't immediately stopped resulting in that part of the ship basically tearing itself apart. Clearly my memory is wrong on that point.

i-kil-you said:

thats pretty gay

Click to expand...

A very educated response!

i-kil-you said:

thats pretty gay

Click to expand...

Adler.... You must add this one to the "famous posts" thread....

Charles

Glider said:

Udet
There is no doubt that the stern of a ship is a weak spot and there is no doubt that the Germans had a particular problem. As a result all the German heavy ships to have major changes done to their stern due to problems encountered when they were damaged. The link I posted earlier in the thread goes into this and includes a contribution from an engineer who was responsible for the repairs.
Re the POW you quotes and statements are correct. I admit that my understanding was that the damaged propeller shaft wasn't immediately stopped resulting in that part of the ship basically tearing itself apart. Clearly my memory is wrong on that point.

Click to expand...

Glider has a point I am the first to second. The structural weakness of the ships in question was either attributable to welding problems (welding by this time was comparably new technology in shipbuilding) or to structural issues. The case that whole sternstructures collapsed (Lützow and Prinz Eugen) point to the latter.
I have also read a thesis which stresses that the port shaft was stopped before and restarted in an attempt to regain controll of the ship. Damage inflicted by the torpedohit to the shaft ally lead to the destruction of watertight sealings. Some kind of emergancy measure which went wrong. The King GEORGE V class fast BB´s were very well designed from a protection point of view and I can hardly see something here which would be any different in other BB´s. It is also worth mentioning that PRINCE OF WALES stern structure collapsed somewhen between sinking and arriving on the seabed, judging from recent underwater images.

Delcyros, what was your opinion on my question about sloped deck armour? Is it feasable?

freebird said:

There is something I have been wondering about, it was standard naval tactics to try to bring your broadside to bear on the enemy, as most Battleships had 4 x 2, or 3 x 3 main guns, fore aft. But with the Nelson class it was almost equally effective approaching the enemy 10 or 15 deg. off the bow, as it would be to broadside. If you were improving a design like the "Nelson" class, obviously extending the belt would be better, but what about inclined deck armour? if you always expected to be fired on from the bows, rather than at your broadside, couldn't the ship be designed with heavy inclined deck armour, so that any incoming shells would be impacting at a high oblique angle? I'm thinking that the engine shp displacement would be higher of course, to carry the increased armour. To compensate for the heavier deck armour, if needed, even a slightly weaker {but extended lower} belt, as the ship would plan to always be in action with at least 1 or 2 other British BC's or BB's and would try to never expose the broadside.

Click to expand...

Freebird, judging only from the above pic (and granted that is a limited view and not accurate from an engineering perspective), it does not seem that angled armour is that much different in terms of angle of attack from flat deck armour. In some cases, it might even work against the theoretical protection as the distances close and the angles depart from perpendicular for the incoming fire.

My guess (and this is only a guess) would be holding the armour in place would put a lot of weight in a local area as apposed to spreading it over several frames. Further, it will probably wreak havoc on the stability of the ship to put that much weight, that high up. Flooding could become a bigger problem.

timshatz said:

Freebird, judging only from the above pic (and granted that is a limited view and not accurate from an engineering perspective), it does not seem that angled armour is that much different in terms of angle of attack from flat deck armour. In some cases, it might even work against the theoretical protection as the distances close and the angles depart from perpendicular for the incoming fire.

My guess (and this is only a guess) would be holding the armour in place would put a lot of weight in a local area as apposed to spreading it over several frames. Further, it will probably wreak havoc on the stability of the ship to put that much weight, that high up. Flooding could become a bigger problem.

Click to expand...

Tim I'm thinking only of a "Heavy Battleship" design similar to the "Nelson". In a typical Battleship, which prefers to fire at broadside the angled deck armour would be worse. However, in the "Nelson" type design all the guns fire forward, so for shots coming over the bow it would increase the deflection angle, and make it more likely to deflect shots outboard, as opposed to deflecting straight back. {and possibly impacting the barbettes} Again I prefaced this with the "Heavy design" that would always be expected to operate as part of a superior fleet, never one on one.

Just a curious thought, I would also like to hear delcyros's take on deck armour.

I gotcha ( I think), you're saying angled more like the Armour on a tank, say an M1 or the front of a Panther.

If I'm right, where would you put such armour? Would there be a false deck over the armour deck on the front of the ship? Would the conning tower be triangular in shape?

Just trying to get my head around the picture of the advantage. It seems like an idea to take the negative aspects of "capping the T" away from that manuver. All guns firing forward and sloped armour do deflect incoming rounds.

Almost a tank on the ocean.

The sloped armour deck isn´t giving You any advantage. Quite the opposite is the case: The horizontal deck armour is able to deflect enemy projectiles with thinner thicknesses than the vertical belts. If You slope the armour deck from the horizontal to the vertical, You need to make it thicker because deck hits will now engage the armour at a -from the projectiles point of view- more favourable angle of impact. To offset this higher penetration ability You need to enforce the deck. From a weight consideration, this scheme does produce considerable problems as You need more weight for A) larger coverage of surfaces and B) thicker plates. The naval architect finally will go mad with all the topweights involved. Let me stress one final point: The all-or nothing armour scheme of this class of ships tries to make the hittable surfaces as small as possible. Your scheme makes the target area protected by thick armour larger (positive: more protected buoyancy; negative: hit´s are more likely to involve the deck).

I have investigated different armour schemes in the past. The best possible I have run so far is a hypothetical armour scheme combining the advantages of german and french protective schemes. It is basically a french scheme (Dunkerwue, Richelieu-but not internal as those), including the high placed armour deck (buoyancy reserve) AND the thick armoured slope behind the belt from Bismarck and Gneisenau (giving immunity for the vitals against close range belt hits and preventing upwards venting of torpedo blasts) with a lower armour deck and torpedo bulkhead acting as splinter catcher. The 120mm slope will destroy or deflect all projectiles (which will be in decapped condition by then as they penetrated either the 120mm main armour deck or the 300mm main belt in the first place to reach the slope) and all projectiles which penetrated the main belt will suffer an upwards deflection (normalizing) which enhances the 50mm splinterdeck´s ability to deflect those projectiles greatly. The backside of the coin is that such a scheme will be very costly in terms of weight (in our example You could make a single 190mm deck instead). The immune zone for the lower scheme against Iowa 16"/50 ranges from 0 yards to 30.000 yards.

timshatz said:

I gotcha ( I think), you're saying angled more like the Armour on a tank, say an M1 or the front of a Panther.

If I'm right, where would you put such armour? Would there be a false deck over the armour deck on the front of the ship? Would the conning tower be triangular in shape?

Click to expand...

The Nelsons CT was in fact triangular {diagram 1}

And in fact a JagdPanther might be a better comparison, more of a dedicated role, for heavy assaults, not suitable for raiding or general purpose. So this type of ship would not be a "escort" type duty, there might be one "heavy" BB in the UK specifically waiting for the German fleet to sortie, another in Alexandria to engage the Italians, perhaps a third would be used in the far east. So your battle fleet might be 1 heavy BB, 1 fast BB, and 2 or 3 older "Warspite" or "Royal Sovereign" type dreadnoughts {+ CV's, CA's CL's DD's etc}

timshatz said:

Just trying to get my head around the picture of the advantage. It seems like an idea to take the negative aspects of "capping the T" away from that manuver. All guns firing forward and sloped armour do deflect incoming rounds.

Almost a tank on the ocean.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is what I was thinking, as hits from the fromt will have a very large angle of impact. {see diagram 2} {from wikipedia}

delcyros said:

The sloped armour deck isn´t giving You any advantage. Quite the opposite is the case: The horizontal deck armour is able to deflect enemy projectiles with thinner thicknesses than the vertical belts. If You slope the armour deck from the horizontal to the vertical, You need to make it thicker because deck hits will now engage the armour at a -from the projectiles point of view- more favourable angle of impact. To offset this higher penetration ability You need to enforce the deck. From a weight consideration, this scheme does produce considerable problems as You need more weight for A) larger coverage of surfaces and B) thicker plates.

I have investigated different armour schemes in the past. The best possible I have run so far is a hypothetical armour scheme combining the advantages of german and french protective schemes.

Click to expand...

But only if the deck hits occur from the sides correct? If the hit comes from closer to the bow than the beam, the angled deck will be more likely to deflect the hit towards the side of the ship, instead of deflecting to hit the CT or the barbettes. What about extending the agled part of your diagram so that the shell that penetrated the top deck will hit the angled deck, not the splinter deck? {diagram 3}

I also envision that this design will be quite a bit more than the 35,000 tons, with so much weight of armour.

If the armor beneath the deck were sloped it could cause great damage to the ship than normal armor.

freebird you are stuck on the Nelson and Rodney design mate. The Nelson design did nothing for the Rodney in the battle against the Bismarck and I will quite now what happened to her.

Of the two Battleships King George V and the Rodney the Rodney fared much worse.

"The force of the explosion from a shell that landed in the water close by had jammed her port torpedo rube doors. But this was minor compared to the side-effects of the continuous firing of her big guns, several of which actually jumped their cradles. There were damage throughout the ship. Another U.S. passenger on board, a Chief Petty Officer Miller, described the devastation in his report: "tile decking in washrooms, water closets and heads were ruptured throughout the ship.... Longitudinal beams were broken and cracked in many parts of the ship having to be shored. The overhead decking ruptured and many bad leaks were caused by bolts and rivets coming loose. All compartments on the main deck had water flooding the decks.... Cast iron water mains were ruptured and in many instances broke, flooding compartments.... Bulkheads, furniture, lockers and fittings were blown loose causing undue damage to permanent structures when the ship rolled." Given this evidence, the damage from even one well-placed 15-inch shell would likely have been enormous."

THE DISCOVERY OF THE BISMARCK by Robert D. Ballard

In my opinion if you were to hit the center turret of the Nelson/Rodney and it damaged the front or back turret the whip would be in a very bad shape. The Bridge superstructure is so large that it would be a very big target for the enemy.

If you look at the wreck of the Bismarck you can see that the open bridge were destroyed and that the other parts were also hit, but now you must take in consideration that there were how many ships firing on her at one time?

I think it is the way the enemy shoot at your ship and not if the armor is sloped or not. The Germans worked at a angle while the British worked at the hull of the enemy. The Germans thus had better luck if the hit the enemy, because as we all know that the deck armor and command parts of a Battleship is not as protected as the hull so if it got hit it was a greater hit at the enemy than just the hull.

delcyros said:

The sloped armour deck isn´t giving You any advantage. Quite the opposite is the case: The horizontal deck armour is able to deflect enemy projectiles with thinner thicknesses than the vertical belts. If You slope the armour deck from the horizontal to the vertical, You need to make it thicker because deck hits will now engage the armour at a -from the projectiles point of view- more favourable angle of impact. To offset this higher penetration ability You need to enforce the deck. From a weight consideration, this scheme does produce considerable problems as You need more weight for A) larger coverage of surfaces and B) thicker plates. The naval architect finally will go mad with all the topweights involved. Let me stress one final point: The all-or nothing armour scheme of this class of ships tries to make the hittable surfaces as small as possible. Your scheme makes the target area protected by thick armour larger (positive: more protected buoyancy; negative: hit´s are more likely to involve the deck).

I have investigated different armour schemes in the past. The best possible I have run so far is a hypothetical armour scheme combining the advantages of german and french protective schemes. It is basically a french scheme (Dunkerwue, Richelieu-but not internal as those), including the high placed armour deck (buoyancy reserve) AND the thick armoured slope behind the belt from Bismarck and Gneisenau (giving immunity for the vitals against close range belt hits and preventing upwards venting of torpedo blasts) with a lower armour deck and torpedo bulkhead acting as splinter catcher. The 120mm slope will destroy or deflect all projectiles (which will be in decapped condition by then as they penetrated either the 120mm main armour deck or the 300mm main belt in the first place to reach the slope) and all projectiles which penetrated the main belt will suffer an upwards deflection (normalizing) which enhances the 50mm splinterdeck´s ability to deflect those projectiles greatly. The backside of the coin is that such a scheme will be very costly in terms of weight (in our example You could make a single 190mm deck instead). The immune zone for the lower scheme against Iowa 16"/50 ranges from 0 yards to 30.000 yards.

Click to expand...

Delc, I think somebody else already noted this but wouldn't that design make the ship exceedingly topheavy. So much armour, coupled with turrets and a superstructure would raise the metrocentric (I think that's it) level.

It is my guess that such an increase in weight would force an increase in the beam, leading to an increase in armour, leading to an increase in weight....and so on in an ever increasing spiral.

Is your plan to shield only parts of the vessel and thereby decrease the total weight?

timshatz said:

Delc, I think somebody else already noted this but wouldn't that design make the ship exceedingly topheavy. So much armour, coupled with turrets and a superstructure would raise the metrocentric (I think that's it) level.

It is my guess that such an increase in weight would force an increase in the beam, leading to an increase in armour, leading to an increase in weight....and so on in an ever increasing spiral.

Is your plan to shield only parts of the vessel and thereby decrease the total weight?

Click to expand...

Actually Tim I don't think so, the newer battleships had 5.5 - 7 inches deck armour (130 - 180 mm) but in delcyros's diagram the 120 mm inclined belt is quite low in the hull, so together with the higher 120 mm deck armour would have a similar effect than a 190 mm belt very high up in the hull. In my example of a ship that prefers to fire over the bow instead of broadside, side armour could be compromised slightly to ensure that the deck is heavily immune. Again, this would entail careful management of the battle fleet - no "Jutland" type free for all's {but then the UK knew they wouldn't be facing a dozen battleships, just a couple of heavily armed ones

Henk said:

If the armor beneath the deck were sloped it could cause great damage to the ship than normal armor.

freebird you are stuck on the Nelson and Rodney design mate. The Nelson design did nothing for the Rodney in the battle against the Bismarck and I will quite now what happened to her.

Of the two Battleships King George V and the Rodney the Rodney fared much worse.

"The force of the explosion from a shell that landed in the water close by had jammed her port torpedo rube doors. But this was minor compared to the side-effects of the continuous firing of her big guns, several of which actually jumped their cradles. There were damage throughout the ship. Another U.S. passenger on board, a Chief Petty Officer Miller, described the devastation in his report: "tile decking in washrooms, water closets and heads were ruptured throughout the ship.... Longitudinal beams were broken and cracked in many parts of the ship having to be shored. The overhead decking ruptured and many bad leaks were caused by bolts and rivets coming loose. All compartments on the main deck had water flooding the decks.... Cast iron water mains were ruptured and in many instances broke, flooding compartments.... Bulkheads, furniture, lockers and fittings were blown loose causing undue damage to permanent structures when the ship rolled." Given this evidence, the damage from even one well-placed 15-inch shell would likely have been enormous."

Click to expand...

Henk, every battleship is vulnerable to "one well placed shell", even the Bismarck.

The Rodney had already been damaged in a very heavy storm, and was on her was to the US before the action. And she got a full re-fit, not just a radar upgrade. The fact that in 1942 the British repeatedly sent the ship into the Med to engage the Italians {but had no combat because the enemy never dared to challenge} speaks volumes to the "ability to take on another battleship". If the ship was so useless, why didn't they send HMS Anson or hMS Duke of York instead and leave Rodney at home?

The construction and the guns were not of the highest quality, I'll grant you that, but the battleship would have given her due. What do you mean "jumped cradles" All bettleship turrets are 'loose' they are not bolted down, and firing guns continuously does have a huge effect on any ship. The Yamato reportedly couldnt have crew manning the open AA guns while firing the mains, as the effect of firing her huge guns would injure them

In my opinion if you were to hit the center turret of the Nelson/Rodney and it damaged the front or back turret the whip would be in a very bad shape. The Bridge superstructure is so large that it would be a very big target for the enemy.

Click to expand...

Why would this be any different than a hit on the Iowa's turret damaging another? Do you have any evidence of a hit destroying two turrets at once? {Bismarcks second turret was knocked out for some reason, but did fire again later}

If you look at the wreck of the Bismarck you can see that the open bridge were destroyed and that the other parts were also hit, but now you must take in consideration that there were how many ships firing on her at one time?

I think it is the way the enemy shoot at your ship and not if the armor is sloped or not. The Germans worked at a angle while the British worked at the hull of the enemy. The Germans thus had better luck if the hit the enemy, because as we all know that the deck armor and command parts of a Battleship is not as protected as the hull so if it got hit it was a greater hit at the enemy than just the hull.

Click to expand...

The slope does play a big part of it Henk, thats why some side belt armour was sloped to increase the oblique angle of hits.

On HMS Tiger after a 6in shoot we went back to the mess deck and everything that could be broken was broken. Lockers had come off the bulkheads, burst open, a sink had come lose and one of its pipes burst with water everywhere. Granted our mess was directly below A turret and was always going to be damaged more than most, but it did bring back some memories.

Re the guns on the Rodney they operated well (at least that was my understanding) so I don't know what impact the damage had. A gun that jumps its cradle is unusable so soething isn't right somewhere.

Here is the operational history of the Rodney during the war. Taken from HMS Rodney, British battleship, WW2



H. M. S. R O D N E Y



HMS RODNEY was ordered from Cammell Laird, Birkenhead on 1st January 1923 having been laid down on 28th December 1922. She was launched on 17th December 1925 by HRH The Princess Royal, as the 8th RN ship to carry this name, introduced in 1759. It had previously been used for an 1884 battleship, sold in 1909. This ship was fully commissioned at Devonport on 7th December 1927 for service in the Atlantic Fleet. During pre-war service she was refitted periodically but the planned full modernisation was not carried out because of the outbreak of WW2. She was the first RN battleship to be fitted with any radar and the second installation in the Fleet. Type 79Y for detection of aircraft was installed in 1938 and had been intended to go in her sister ship HMS NELSON. However this was changed because the chosen site for the radar aerial would have required the Admiral's flag to occupy an inferior position! After a successful WARSHIP WEEK National Savings Campaign in March 1942 this ship was adopted by the staff of Glynn Mills Bank in the City of London.



B a t t l e H o n o u r s

QUEBEC 1759 - SYRIA 1840 - CRIMEA 1854 - NORWAY 1940 - ATLANTIC 1940-41 - BISMARCK Action 1941 - MALTA CONVOYS 1941-42 - NORTH AFRICA 1942-43 - SICILY 1943 - SALERNO 1943 - MEDITERRANEAN 1943 - NORMANDY 1944 - ENGLISH CHANNEL 1944 - ARCTIC 1944

H e r a l d i c D a t a

Badge: On a Field White, out of a ducal coronet Gold, an eagle

Purple with beak and claws, Gold.



M o t t o

Non Genarant Aquilae Columbas: 'Eagles do not breed doves'



D e t a i 1 s o f W a r S e r v i c e



1 9 3 9



September Deployed with 2nd Battle Squadron, Home fleet at Scapa Flow for the

interception of enemy warships attempting to enter Atlantic through

NW Approaches.

Carried out unsuccessful search for German liner BREMEN returning

to Germany.

26th Provided cover in North Sea for ships of Home Fleet escorting the

damaged submarine HMS SPEARFISH during return to UK.

Came under air attacks for first time.

(Note: This was the first occasion on which radar was used to give

warning of the approach of enemy aircraft. Prototype Radar Type 79Y had been

fitted in October 1938.)

Deployed with HM Aircraft Carrier ARK ROYAL and a screen of Home

Fleet destroyers).



October

8th Carried out search for German battleship GNEISENAU and screen of

nine destroyers in the Faroes-Iceland gap.

(Note: Enemy ships had made a brief sortie off coast of Norway but had

returned to harbour when RN ships arrived.)

Provided cover for passage of iron ore convoy from Narvik.

31st Returned to Clyde after Scape Flow defences had been penetrated by

U47 which sank HM Battleship ROYAL OAK on 14th October.



November Atlantic and North Sea convoy defence based in Clyde in continuation.

23rd Sailed from Clyde with HM Battleship NELSON and HM Cruiser

DEVONSHIRE and screen of seven Fleet destroyers to carry out an

unsuccessful search in Faroes–Iceland Gap for German battleships

SCHARNHORST and GNEISENAU which had attacked convoy.

(Note HM Armed Merchant Cruiser RAWALPINDI had been sunk

in action with these warships which were carrying out attacks

on Atlantic shipping.)



December

1st Part of escort for 1st Canadian Troop Convoy (TC1).

Steering problems developed and ship took passage to Liverpool for

repair.

9th Under repair in commercial shipyard..

(Note: Modification to strengthen rudder stiffening carried out.

This had already been done in sister ship HMS NELSON).

For details of naval activities in Home waters during 1939 see

ENGAGE THE ENEMY MORE CLOSELY by Corelli Barnett

and Naval Staff History).

29th Took passage from Liverpool to rejoin the Fleet on completion of repair.

31st Resumed Home Fleet duties and replaced HM Battleship NELSON as

Flagship.

(Note: HMS NELSON had been mined at Loch Ewe on 4th December

and was under repair).

1 9 4 0



January On completion of repairs resumed Atlantic duties based in Clyde.



February Atlantic and North Sea interception and convoy defence in continuation.

Serious problems were developing due to 'panting' of plates in ship's side.



March Returned to Scapa Flow after anchorage defences improved.

16th Under air attack whilst at Scapa Flow.



April Home Fleet interception and convoy defence in continuation.

7th Deployed with HM Battleship VALIANT, HM Battlecruiser REPULSE, HM

Cruiser SHEFFIELD, HM Cruiser PENELOPE and French EMIL BERTIN

screened by HM Destroyers CODRINGTON, GRIFFIN, JUPITER,

ELECTRA, ESCAPADE, BRAZEN, BEDOUIN, PUNJABI, ESKIMO

and KIMBERLEY.

8th After German invasion of Norway redeployed with Fleet units to attack

enemy ships on passage to ports in Norway.

On receipt of enemy report from HM Destroyer GLOWWORM attempted

to intercept German cruiser HIPPER but made no contact.

(Note: HMS GLOWWORM which had been detached earlier to escort

minelayers was sunk by HIPPER after a gallant fight)

9th Under air attacks and hit by bomb abaft funnel. Partial detonation caused

damage and fire with 18 casualties.

(Note: HM Destroyer GURKHA (i) was sunk in these attacks.)

10th Provided cover to HM Aircraft Carrier FURIOUS during air attacks on

Trondheim.

11th Provided cover to Fleet units deployed at Narvik

(Note: HMS WARSPITE and Fleet Destroyers were in action in Narvik

Fjord ( First Battle of Narvik.)

12th Deployed off Narvik with WARSPITE, RENOWN and FURIOUS

screened by six destroyers.

13th Provided cover off Narvik during 2nd Battle of Narvik.

15th Took passage to Scapa Flow with RENOWN screened by IVANHOE,

KIMBERLEY. ESK, FORESTER and ICARUS.

(Note: Serious threat of air attacks in Norwegian waters and need to

retain heavy units for interception of commerce raiders made

this necessary).

(Note During frequent air attacks off Norway including 2 near misses

flooding of compartments took place due to weaknesses in ship'

side plating. Repair by ship's staff was carried out but not totally

effective.)

17th Arrived at Scapa Flow



May Deployment at Scapa Flow in continuation



June

9th Joined HMS VALIANT with HMS RENOWN in North Sea to supplement cover

for return of evacuation convoy from Narvik (Operation ALPHABET).

12th Deployed with HM Battlecruiser RENOWN and Fleet units with destroyer screen

to cover air operations by HM Aircraft Carrier ARK ROYAL against German

warships known to be at Trondheim

15th Returned to Scapa Flow with Fleet units.

(Note: These air attacks were unsuccessful and eight aircraft were lost.

See Naval Staff History for details.)



July Deployed at Scapa Flow with Home Fleet.

24th Flag transferred to HMS NELSON.

Nominated for refit and took passage to Rosyth.



August Under refit by HM Dockyard Rosyth for installation of the Radar Type 79Z

in place of prototype Type79Y fitted in 1938.

(For details of development and use of radar in RN see RADAR AT SEA

by D. Howse).



September Resumed Home Fleet duties based at Rosyth for interception of any attempt by

major German warships attempting to enter English Channel or take passage

for attacks on Atlantic shipping.



October Home Fleet duties at Rosyth in continuation.



November Despatched from Rosyth with HMS NELSON to carry out interception patrol

in Faroes-Iceland Gap following the sinking of HM Armed Merchant Cruiser

JERVIS BAY in defence of Convoy HX84 against attack by German cruiser

ADMIRAL SCHEER.

(Note: German ship did not return to North Sea and was sent to attack shipping

in South Atlantic.)

17th Remained in NW Approaches to cover passage of Atlantic convoys when these

were resumed following earlier attack.



December Atlantic deployment in continuation.

8th Sustained major structural damage forward due to heavy weather.

Earlier ship's staff repair torn away and flooding of compartments due to

panting of plates made necessary extempore pumping which affected

watertight integrity of forward structure.

18th Taken in hand for repair of weather damage at Rosyth

Additional stiffening provided.

1 9 4 1



January On completion resumed Home Fleet duties.

28th Deployed with HM Battlecruiser REPULSE eight Home Fleet cruisers

and screen of 11 Fleet destroyers in search for German battleships SCHARNORST

and GNEISENAU.

(Note: Sighting by HM Cruiser NAIAD gave warning of the presence of RN units

and German ships retreated at speed and were never engaged.)

Returned to Scapa Flow.



February

6th Provided cover for ships of 1st Minelaying Squadron during minelay in

Northern Barrage (Operation SN7A).

(For details of all minelaying operations see Naval Staff History (MINING)).

15th Joined military convoy WS6A with HM Destroyers ECLIPSE and ELECTRA

as Ocean Escort with HM Armed Merchant Cruiser CATHAY, HM Cruisers

BIRMINGHAM and PHOEBE during Atlantic passage to Freetown.

17th Detached from WS6A with destroyers when relieved in Ocean Escort by

HMS RENOWN and HMS ARK ROYAL



March Home Fleet deployment in NW Approaches for convoy defence and

interception.

16th Detached from provision of cover for Convoy HX114 to intercept

GNEISENAU

After sighting enemy ship lost contact in bad weather.

Returned to position of sighting and rescued survivors of mercantile

mv CHILEAN REEFER which had been sunk by GNEISENAU on 14th.

(Note: SCHARNHORST and GNEISENAU had been carrying out attacks

on Atlantic shipping sinking 13 ships. They returned to Brest

without interception on 22nd.)



April Home Fleet convoy defence and interception duties in continuation.

Nominated for refit in USA.



May Withdrawn from operational service and prepared for refit in USA to remedy

hull structural problems and repair an accumulation of defects.


22nd Took passage from Clyde as escort for mv BRITANNIC with HM Destroyers

ESKIMO, SOMALI, MASHONA and TARTAR.

24th Detached with destroyers to join search for German battleship BISMARCK

by Home Fleet in NW Approaches.

25th Deployed between French coast and last known position of BISMARCK.

(Note: High speed operations caused machinery problems which were dealt

with by ship's staff and ship remained on station).

27th Took part in Home Fleet attacks on BISMARCK and obtained several hits

before BISMARCK was sunk by torpedoes from HM Cruiser DORSETSHIRE.

(For full details of search for and sinking of BISMARCK see BATTLESHIP

BISMARCK by Mullenheim Rechberg, PURSUIT by L Kennedy and Naval

Staff History).

(Note: One source records that the ship was the first to obtain hits on BISMARCK.)

Under air attacks later.



June Passage to Boston, USA after Home Fleet BISMARCK operations.

13th Taken in hand for refit at Boston Navy Yard


July Under repair and refit.

Prepared for installation of new fire control radar for main armament and of

New surface warning radar as well as replacement of Type 79Z by Type 281.



August

12th Refit work completed and commenced Harbour and Sea trials.

On completion took passage to Bermuda for work-up in West Indies.

During work-up joined US Navy Task Group to take part in search for commerce

raiders.

Sailed for UK for completion of radar installation and trials.

(Note: Radar fit included Type 284 main armament fire control,

Type 271 surface warning and Type 281 air warning.).

Resumed Home Fleet duties at Scapa Flow.

Detached for escort of Malta supply convoy took passage to Gibraltar.

(Operation HALBERD).



September Nominated for support of Malta relief convoy during passage from Clyde

to Sicilian Narrows.

(For details of all Malta convoy operations see ENGAGE THE ENEMY MORE

CLOSELY by Corelli Bamett, THE BATTLE TOR THE MEDITERRANEAN by D

MacIntyre, MALTA CONVOYS by R Woodman and Naval Staff History).

17th Deployed with HM Battleship PRINCE OF WALES, HM Cruisers SHEFFIELD,

KENYA, EDINBURGH, EURYALUS and screen of nine destroyers for escort of

military convoy WS11X during Atlantic passage (Operation HALBERD)

24th Entered Gibraltar to take part in deception to conceal true destination by leaving

harbour as if departing for UK. (See MALTA CONVOYS by R Woodman.)

Rejoined WS11X, then re-designated Convoy GM2 with HMS RODNEY for

escort to Sicilian Narrows.

(Note: Other ships in escort which joined convoy from Gibraltar were HM

Aircraft Carrier ARK ROYAL, and HM Cruiser HERMIONE with

11 destroyers as screen.)

26th Under perceived threat of attack by Italian force including two battleships.

27th Took up station with HMS NELSON, HMS PRINCE OF WALES screened by

six destroyers in readiness to engage enemy ships.

Italian warships reversed course when it became evident that convoy was under

escort by three battleships with air cover.

Under air attacks during which HMS NELSON was hit by a torpedo but remained

with escort although with restricted speed capability.

On arrival at Narrows remained with HMS NELSON, HMS PRINCE OF WALES.

GM2 ships detached with destroyer and cruiser escort and took passage to Malta.

29th HMS NELSON detached and took passage to Gibraltar.

30th Close escort ships rejoined from Malta after safe arrival of MG10 and returned to

Gibraltar.

(Note: Operation HALBERD also provided cover for passage of three empty

mercantiles from Malta to Gibraltar as Convoy MG2.)



October

1st Retained at Gibraltar to replace HMS NELSON in as Flagship of Force H.

16th Covered Malta aircraft delivery by HMS ARK ROYAL with HM Cruiser HERMIONE

and HM Destroyers COSSACK, FORESTER, FORESIGHT, FURY, LEGION, SIKH

and ZULU as screen (Operation CALLBOY)

19th Covered passage to Malta of HM Cruisers AURORA and PENELOPE.

(Note: These two cruisers were to form Force K for attacks on enemy convoys).



November After relief by HM Battleship MALAYA took passage to rejoin Home Fleet.

On arrival at Scapa Flow resumed convoy defence and interception duties in

North Sea and NW Approaches.



December Deployed in NW Approaches for Atlantic convoy defence.



1 9 4 2



January Convoy defence duties based on Clyde.

Nominated for refit at Liverpool



February Taken in hand for refit in commercial shipyard.



March Under Refit.

to (Note: Radars Type 282, Type 283 and Type 285 fitted for fire control of HA

April armament. See above reference).

Close range 20mm Oerlikon weapons fitted to improve defence against air attacks.

May

5th Dockyard work completed and commenced post refit trials.

Rejoined Home Fleet on completion of post refit trials and resumed interception

patrol and Atlantic convoy defence duties.

(Note: Planned deployment in East Indies was cancelled.)



June Deployed in Atlantic.

19th Joined military convoy WS19P with HMS NELSON, HM Destroyers

PATHFINDER, PENN, QUENTIN and DERWENT on departure from

Freetown as Ocean Escort during passage to Capetown.

26th Detached from WS19P on relief by HM Cruiser SHROPSHIRE.



July Atlantic convoy defence in continuation.



August Nominated for detached service for support of Malta relief convoy WS21X.

Took passage to Gibraltar (Operation PEDESTAL).

10th Joined Force Z to cover passage of convoy to Malta with HMS NELSON, HM

Aircraft Carriers EAGLE, INDOMITABLE and VICTORIOUS, HM Cruisers PHOEBE

SIRIUS and CHARYBDIS screened by HM Destroyers ITHURIEL, ANTELOPE,

VANSITTART, WISHART, LIGHTNING and LOOKOUT.

(For details of PEDESTAL see above references and PEDESTAL by P Smith and

above references.)

12th Detached from WS21X at Sicilian Narrows and returned to Gibraltar with ships

of Force H.

16th Passage to Scapa Flow with Home Fleet units to resume duties at

Scapa Flow.



September Deployed at Scapa Flow with Home Fleet.

Routine docking and maintenance at Rosyth.



October Nominated for detached service in Mediterranean for support of planned allied

landings in North Africa (Operation TORCH- For details see INVASION CONVOYS

by J de Winser, ENGAGE THE ENEMY MOPRE CLOSELY and the Naval Staff

History.)

Passage to Gibraltar for briefing and preparation for support duties.

(Note: Part of escort for military convoy.)



November Joined HM Battleships DUKE OF YORK, NELSON and HMS RENOWN at

Gibraltar.

6th Sailed from Gibraltar with ships of Force H to provide cover during landings at Oran.

7th Detached from Force H and took passage to carry out patrol north of Oran to

intercept any attempt by Vichy French surface warships to interfere with the landings.

8th Deployed off Oran beach head and provided naval gunfire support during landings.

10th On release from support duties resumed Force H service.



December Gibraltar deployment in continuation.



1 9 4 3



January Deployed at Gibraltar with Force H and covered passage of build-up

to convoys.

February



March Gibraltar deployment in support of military operation in North Africa.

23rd Under attack off Mers-el-Kebir by human torpedoes which were repelled.



April Mediterranean deployment in continuation

Nominated for return to UK for routine docking



May

7th Sailed from Gibraltar from Plymouth

13th Taken in hand for routine docking and maintenance by HM Dockyard, Devonport.

Resumed Home Fleet service at Scapa Flow on completion.



June Nominated for detached service in support of planned allied landings in Sicily

(Operation HUSKY – See above references.)

17th Transferred with HMS NELSON, HMS VALIANT, HM Aircraft Carrier

INDOMITABLE and Home Fleet Destroyers.

Passage to Oran to join Force H.



July Deployed in western Mediterranean and prepared for support of landings.

9th Provided cover for passage of military convoys in western Mediterranean

prior to assault phase of HUSKY.

10th Deployed with HMS NELSON, HMS WARSPITE, HMS VALIANT, HMS

FORMIDABLE, HMS INDOMITABLE, HM Cruisers AURORA, PENELOPE.

CLEOPATRA, EURYALUS and destroyer screen in Ionian Sea to prevent

interference to HUSKY landings by Italian Fleet major warships.

(For details see above references.)

12th Released from HUSKY and took passage to Malta.



August Retained in Malta for support of planned military operations in Italy.

31st Bombarded Calabrian coast between Reggio Calabria and Pessaro with HMS

NELSON, HM Cruiser ORION and Fleet destroyers prior to British landings

across Messina Straits. (Operation BAYTOWN - See above references).



September Remained in Malta with HMS NELSON, HMS VALIANT and HMS WARSPITE

for continued military support duties.

9th Provided cover and naval gunfire support with same ships WARSPITE and HM

Aircraft Carrier FORMIDABLE for landings at Salerno (Operation AVALANCHE).

(For details see the Naval Staff History and above references).

Under air attacks without damage.



October Released from Mediterranean support duties and took passage to Scapa

Flow with HM Battleship NELSON to resume Home Fleet service.

Escorted from Gibraltar by HM Destroyer OFFA.



November Withdrawn from operational service because of machinery problems and

structural defects with consequential heavy work load and poor availability.



December Passage from Gibraltar to Clyde for refit.

1 9 4 4



January Static role at Scapa Flow in continuation.



February Routine docking and maintenance at Rosyth.

to

March



April Resumed duties at Scapa Flow.



May Nominated for support of allied landings in Normandy (Operation NEPTUNE)

To be Reserve Bombarding Ship for Eastern Task Force with HM Cruiser

SIRIUS.

(For details of naval activities before and after landings see OPERATION

NEPTUNE by K Edwards and LANDINGS IN NORMANDY, JUNE 1944 (HMSO).)

Carried out bombardment exercises in NW Approaches.



June Passage to Clyde.

3rd Sailed from Clyde for Solent.

4th Operation postponed for 24 hours.

5th Remained at Portsmouth in Reserve.

6th Passage to beachhead for bombardment duties.

Carried out bombardment of shore batteries at Le Havre.

Returned to Portsmouth to replenish ammunition.

7th Resumed duty off beachhead.

Bombarded targets in Caen area.

8th Continued bombardment of Caen area.

9th Engaged batteries at Benerville and Houlgate.

10th Passage to Portsmouth to re-ammunition.

18th Replaced HMS NELSON in Eastern Task Force area.

(Note: HMS NELSON was mined whilst returning to Portsmouth on 18th June).

19th Bombardment operations suspended during gales.

26th Bombarded positions in Caen area in support of military advance.

30th Bombarded concentration of enemy armoured vehicles south of Arromanches.



July Remained in Normandy area for gunfire support after NEPTUNE completed.

7th Provided naval gunfire support during British attacks near Caen with HM

Monitor ROBERTS, HM Cruiser BELFAST and HM Cruiser EMERALD.

8th Carried out bombardment of the Caen area in support of military operation.

Under air attack and attempt by human torpedoes both of which failed.

18th Provided naval gunfire support to 2nd British Army during assault SE of Caen.

Remained in area for support until 30th.



August Passage to Devonport on release from military support.

12th Bombarded targets on Alderney and returned to Devonport.

Based at Portland for naval gunfire support requirements.



September

14th Passage from Portland to rejoin Home Fleet.

Nominated for covering duty of Russian Convoy.

15th Passage to Kola Inlet as cover for passage of Convoy JW60.

(CinC Home Fleet embarked).

20th Arrived at Kola Inlet.

28th Sailed with return Convoy RA60.

(Note: Whilst in North Russia ship was visited by Russian CinC, Admiral Golovko)



October

3rd Detached from RA60 and returned to Scapa Flow.

5th Resumed static role at Scapa Flow.

30th Deployed as Flagship, Home Fleet



November Deployed at Scapa Flow as Flagship in Static role.

to

December

1 9 4 5



January Remained at Scapa Flow as Flagship in static role until relieved by HM Battlecruiser

to RENOWN.

May



June Deployed at Rosyth

to

August



P o s t W a r N o t e s



HMS RODNEY was honoured by a Royal visit on 29th September 1945, before she paid off at Portsmouth on 30th November that year. The ship was laid-up in Reserve at Rosyth and placed on the Disposal List in March 1948. Sold to BISCO for demolition by TW Ward she arrived in tow at Inverkeithing to be broken-up on 26th March 1948.

As you can see the Rodney was repaired after the storm she was in. When a gun jumps it's cradle it jumps the mount it is mounted in the Turret. The problem with the Rodney is that all of her main armament was in the front of the ship and was thus not a great idea. Of all the other British Battleship designs she is for me one of the strangest designs and did not make her a great Battleship.

Yes it is true that when the main guns of the Yamato fired the crew had to be in a certain position not to be thrown up in the air