Nelson VS KGV, which battleship was better?

Onlooker

Banned
Would Britain be better served with more Nelson class battleships instead of King George the V?

What were the advantages and disadvantages of each class compared to the other?
 
28 vs 23 knots
I agree.
While the Nelsons were arguably the better armed and armoured ship, they were slow, which limited them massively.
A more modest design with 15" guns, maybe a little less armour and a 25-8 knot speed would've been much more useful.
 
I agree.
While the Nelsons were arguably the better armed and armoured ship, they were slow, which limited them massively.
A more modest design with 15" guns, maybe a little less armour and a 25-8 knot speed would've been much more useful.
No simply claim them as existing ships as they are obviously the first two G3s that's did really get laid down honest.... add the two 3,000t modification allowances (air and underwater protection) like the USN/IJN CVs to the 1000t they came in underweight OTL and you get existing ships but with 28 Kn? (41,000t cut down G3s)

Obliviously then a well funded early 30s refit with 4.5" DP and light 40mm AA guns and a new heavy 16" shell.....
 

SsgtC

Banned
new heavy 16" shell....
Easier said than done. There's a reason the USN never converted the Colorado-class to fire the 2700 pound super heavy 16" shell. It's not just the gun, it's the entire shell handling system that needs to be replaced/reinforced. Basically, it's more trouble than it's worth.
 
28 vs 23 knots

This. :p
Although 29 kts seems to have been a realistic speed for POW, based on her dash to Denmark Strait. Not sure about the later KGVs, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that they were a little slower, given all the extra equipment that sprouted up in the later war years.

Not sure that the Nelsons were really better armoured though. While inclined, their belts were a little shallow and the armour quality wasn't quite as good, presumably, although none of these ships' belts were ever actually tested by a heavy shell.
 
No simply claim them as existing ships as they are obviously the first two G3s that's did really get laid down honest.... add the two 3,000t modification allowances (air and underwater protection) like the USN/IJN CVs to the 1000t they came in underweight OTL and you get existing ships but with 28 Kn? (41,000t cut down G3s)

Obliviously then a well funded early 30s refit with 4.5" DP and light 40mm AA guns and a new heavy 16" shell.....
Indeed.
If the British figured quads out earlier, you get get an even better ship.
Easier said than done. There's a reason the USN never converted the Colorado-class to fire the 2700 pound super heavy 16" shell. It's not just the gun, it's the entire shell handling system that needs to be replaced/reinforced. Basically, it's more trouble than it's worth.
We all know the British are far superior at these kind of things :p
 
As already stated, speed is big plus. Plus a more modern design, engines, and electrical and electronics systems add to KGV's side.
 

SsgtC

Banned
We all know the British are far superior at these kind of things :p
Yes, that's why the British had to be reminded, several times, that flash protection is there for a reason. Namely that cordite and fire, do. Not. Mix. Lol
 
Last edited:
Basically the King George V class was 15 years later in design and technology (1921 vs 1935), as well as far stronger protected compared to the Nelson class, as both the belt thickness and depth was on a larger scale, covering more of the hull sides, while Nelson had a slightly thinner angled internal belt, covering a smaller part of the side itself. King George V was actually the most heavily armored battleship in the world, 2nd only to Yamato. The price was a somewhat smaller main gun, which in itself was not so bad at all, as it allowed a ten gun layout, while the individual 14 inch AP shell of this gun was more powerful than the already very good 15 inch shell's in use on older battleships. Simply said, it did the job it was designed to do and nothing could be safe from this weapon under normal battle conditions, as Bismarck was to experience in battle twice and Scharnhorst once. Only a Yamato could be considered superior to the British 14 inch gunned King George V at all battle ranges, having the armor to defeat the projectile.

Compared to this the Nelson had a bigger gun, but it was a a serious price as mentioned, not just speed, but also overall size of the ship and its protective scheme. The more balanced King George V was an overall better design with a far more flexible ship, equally capable of doing the same thing a Nelson was supposed to do, besides a few more the older ship could not perform. As such the King George V was most likely the most balanced treaty battleship, with the firepower, speed and protection needed to do its job, where all other nations either cheated themselves out of the treaty limmitations (Italy and Japan) or created ships of more firepower, but less protection and speed (USA). Only France's Richelieu came close, though this ship was never commissioned in a prewar sort of condition, to its design and had to be rebuild in wartime abroad, so it is left out of the comparison.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Basically the King George V class was 15 years later in design and technology (1921 vs 1935), as well as far stronger protected compared to the Nelson class, as both the belt thickness and depth was on a larger scale, covering more of the hull sides, while Nelson had a slightly thinner angled internal belt, covering a smaller part of the side itself. King George V was actually the most heavily armored battleship in the world, 2nd only to Yamato. The price was a somewhat smaller main gun, which in itself was not so bad at all, as it allowed a ten gun layout, while the individual 14 inch AP shell of this gun was more powerful than the already very good 15 inch shell's in use on older battleships. Simply said, it did the job it was designed to do and nothing could be safe from this weapon under normal battle conditions, as Bismarck was to experience in battle twice and Scharnhorst once. Only a Yamato could be considered superior to the British 14 inch gunned King George V at all battle ranges, having the armor to defeat the projectile.

Compared to this the Nelson had a bigger gun, but it was a a serious price as mentioned, not just speed, but also overall size of the ship and its protective scheme. The more balanced King George V was an overall better design with a far more flexible ship, equally capable of doing the same thing a Nelson was supposed to do, besides a few more the older ship could not perform. As such the King George V was most likely the most balanced treaty battleship, with the firepower, speed and protection needed to do its job, where all other nations either cheated themselves out of the treaty limmitations (Italy and Japan) or created ships of more firepower, but less protection and speed (USA). Only France's Richelieu came close, though this ship was never commissioned in a prewar sort of condition, to its design and had to be rebuild in wartime abroad, so it is left out of the comparison.
I gotta disagree with you that the KGV was second only to Yamato and was the best of the treaty battleships. I think the Iowa-class was the best next to the Yamatos. While the South Dakota class were the best treaty battleships. The SoDaks mounted 9x16" guns verses the 10x14" of the KGVs. And they were mounted in far more reliable turrets. They threw a heavier broadside despite having one less gun. They were well matched in speed, 27kts verses 28kts. While the SoDaks couldn't stand up to their own guns when firing the 2700lb APC shell, neither could any other ship save Yamato (in theory, tests done post war showed the super heavy shell could penetrate the Yamatos armor). It was also, at the time, to be the best of the treaty battleships. While I agree the ships were cramped, they still were the most balanced ships built
 

SsgtC

Banned
But wasn't that test at point blank range at 90 degrees not at fighting range and as sloped armor?
Pretty much. It was partially a propaganda stunt, but it does go to show that the 16"/50 with 2700lb APC shell COULD penetrate her armor in certain conditions
 
Would Britain be better served with more Nelson class battleships instead of King George the V?

What were the advantages and disadvantages of each class compared to the other?

KGV - best armoured BB of the war with the exception of the Japanese monsters
The KGV was faster - POW topped 29 knots and was 'easily' keeping up with Hood which was flat out and capable even in the poor state she was in of 30 knots
The KGV had more modern FCS and tables etc than NelRod


Other than having smaller guns which in this fight do not matter the KGV has no real disadvantage over the NelRods

That all being said the NelRods were a well conceived design for their time and by 1940 the problems that had plagued the guns and ammo had been largely resolved.

I tried to find the quote (I failed) but IIRC when Rodney was on her way to the USA (who was neutral at the time 'honestly guvnor') for a major refit, parts for said refit decorating her deck, when the Bismarck sunk the Hood and broke out - she like the KGVs exceeded her design speed of 23 knots by a significant margin - 25+ knots I believe.

I think that the design compromises of the NelRods went too far and the gun layout proved to be problematic

Britain was better served by the KGVs than she would have been by more of the NelRods
 
I gotta disagree with you that the KGV was second only to Yamato and was the best of the treaty battleships. I think the Iowa-class was the best next to the Yamatos. While the South Dakota class were the best treaty battleships. The SoDaks mounted 9x16" guns verses the 10x14" of the KGVs. And they were mounted in far more reliable turrets. They threw a heavier broadside despite having one less gun. They were well matched in speed, 27kts verses 28kts. While the SoDaks couldn't stand up to their own guns when firing the 2700lb APC shell, neither could any other ship save Yamato (in theory, tests done post war showed the super heavy shell could penetrate the Yamatos armor). It was also, at the time, to be the best of the treaty battleships. While I agree the ships were cramped, they still were the most balanced ships built

USN BB's are often overrated, simply as non realy was tested against an opponent of equal, or more strength, while the British had ample of experience in this matter. Fact remains the USN 3rd Generation of Dreadnought type BB's, (1930 - 1940 design) all showed severe weaknesses in both structural integrity, seaworthyness and ballance, as all were severely overweight, with dangereous levels of freeboard left to play with, besides having to fight with the thinnest beltarmor of all post treaty period, or 3rd generation BB's, appart from the much smaller Dunkerque class. Often calimed to be resistand to 16 inch shellfire, they actually were never that and were extremely lucky never to be tested in battles comparable to the sort the Royal Navy had to fight. Even an 12 inch gun Alaska could quite easily defeat the side armor of a North Carolina, South Dakota, or Iowa at all but the longest gunranges. (Perhaps even the 11 inch gunned Scharnhorst could, though not considered a likely opponent.)

In terms of deckarmor the USN ships were better off, though not excelling, compared to the European contemporaries. The deckarmor was slightly thicker than on the German Scharnhorst and Bismarck classes (5.3 inch for an Iowa, or South Dakota, 4.7 inch on a North Carolina, to 4.7 inch on a Bismarck and 4.1 inch on a Scharnhorst, but 5,9 inch on Richelieu, 6 inch on King George V, 6.5 inch on Nelson and 6.7 inch on Littorio at their thickest parts) Some older reconstructed battleships even surpassed the new breed of the USN, like Nagato, with 7.6 inch main armored deck after refit, Ise class with 6.5 inch and the venerable Kongo with 4.7 inch equalling the North Carolina's.

So the USN BB's certainly were hard hitters, but not protected in the same way contemporaries were. Basicallyn they were what good old Jack Fisher had demanded for his beloved Dreadnought Cruisers, or Battlecruisers: Outgun what you cannot outrun and outrun whatever you cannot fight.
 
IMHO RN would have been better served building Nelson and Rodney to design F3 with nine 15", having developed a triple 15" turret in 1920's would increase the likely hood of triple 15" for later KGV, provided RN didn't try for 14" at LNT.

Imagine 29 knot F3 Nelson & Rodney at Denmark Strait 18 forward firing 15" guns, Bismarck and PE might have a very bad day.
 
But wasn't that test at point blank range at 90 degrees not at fighting range and as sloped armor?
Yes but at a reduced powder charge to simulate firing on it at range hitting it at a volciety of roughly 502 m/s roughly how fast the Iowa's shells would be going after a distance of 20000 yards. There's still the angle of the armor to deal with but under 15000 or so yards the Iowa should penetrate anywhere on the Yamato without issues this gos without stating that the places were the Yamato is that thickly armored is fairly small (only the fronts of it's turrets) and every other other portion of it's armour is ten or more inches thinner the Iowa shouldn't have any real difficulty penetrating at all but the longest ranges. (If anyone wants to know why the US Navy (other Navy's did weapons test the same way) did the test this way is so they wouldn't have to fire hundreds of rounds to try and hit a small target at long range)
 
Pretty much. It was partially a propaganda stunt, but it does go to show that the 16"/50 with 2700lb APC shell COULD penetrate her armor in certain conditions
c2a6c10c1cd35a714deddee7bdb1a85a.jpg
 
USN BB's are often overrated, simply as non realy was tested against an opponent of equal, or more strength, while the British had ample of experience in this matter. Fact remains the USN 3rd Generation of Dreadnought type BB's, (1930 - 1940 design) all showed severe weaknesses in both structural integrity, seaworthyness and ballance, as all were severely overweight, with dangereous levels of freeboard left to play with, besides having to fight with the thinnest beltarmor of all post treaty period, or 3rd generation BB's, appart from the much smaller Dunkerque class. Often calimed to be resistand to 16 inch shellfire, they actually were never that and were extremely lucky never to be tested in battles comparable to the sort the Royal Navy had to fight. Even an 12 inch gun Alaska could quite easily defeat the side armor of a North Carolina, South Dakota, or Iowa at all but the longest gunranges. (Perhaps even the 11 inch gunned Scharnhorst could, though not considered a likely opponent.)

In terms of deckarmor the USN ships were better off, though not excelling, compared to the European contemporaries. The deckarmor was slightly thicker than on the German Scharnhorst and Bismarck classes (5.3 inch for an Iowa, or South Dakota, 4.7 inch on a North Carolina, to 4.7 inch on a Bismarck and 4.1 inch on a Scharnhorst, but 5,9 inch on Richelieu, 6 inch on King George V, 6.5 inch on Nelson and 6.7 inch on Littorio at their thickest parts) Some older reconstructed battleships even surpassed the new breed of the USN, like Nagato, with 7.6 inch main armored deck after refit, Ise class with 6.5 inch and the venerable Kongo with 4.7 inch equalling the North Carolina's.

So the USN BB's certainly were hard hitters, but not protected in the same way contemporaries were. Basicallyn they were what good old Jack Fisher had demanded for his beloved Dreadnought Cruisers, or Battlecruisers: Outgun what you cannot outrun and outrun whatever you cannot fight.
This whole post is a crock of disingenuous bullshit with some nuggets of truth.

First, citation on the "severe weaknesses in both structural integrity, seaworthiness, and balance [stability?]", because it contradicts everything else I've read about US battleships of the era. Especially in structural integrity, as I'm well aware the US battleships were not as seaworthy as some of their foreign contemporaries.

Second, severely overweight? Every battleship in the war gained weight during the war and lost freeboard. I seriously doubt 960 tons (which is what the North Carolinas gained) was all that dangerous to seakeeping, nor that it was appreciably worse than everyone else's battleships.

Third, the American battleships did not have the thinnest belt armor of the 3rd-gen dreadnoughts. That "honor" goes to the Littorio class; despite many sources, Wikipedia included, giving them a 350mm armor belt, it was actually 280mm, set behind a 70mm decapping plate. Despite that, it was still the best belt scheme of any battleship ever built, which segues nicely into my next point.

Namely, that the effectiveness of a side protection scheme is about more than just the basic thickness of the armor. And don't say that's not what you're talking about, not when you're casting shade on their ability to resist 12" and 11" shells. The Littorio scheme was best in the world not because of raw thickness, but because of the decapping plate and the sloping of the main belt behind it. Similarly, the belt of all three is more effective than the plain thickness indicates due to being sloped at 12 degrees for the North Carolina class, and 19 degrees for the South Dakota and Iowa classes. Further, the latter two classes also had significant STS plating outboard their main belts that also acts as a decapping plate. For the South Dakota class' 1.25" plate, at a striking angle more acute than 15 degrees, the plate will decap projectiles below 15"; below 15 degrees, it won't work against anything bigger than 10". For the Iowa class' 1.5" plate, above 15 degrees will decap any shell fired from a gun put to sea; below 15 degrees, shells above 14" are unaffected.

What's the benefit of decapping? Well, not only does it significantly decrease the penetration of the shell, but it also significantly increases the likelihood of the shell outright shattering to little effect.

And if you want to check the math and confirm that it is based on actual testing, here you go.

As for deck armor, while you have the South Dakota and North Carolina thicknesses right, the Iowas actually had a 5.8" deck. My real beef is that once again you're reducing the problem to bare armor thicknesses without considering layout. Take the Bismarck and Scharnhorst classes, for instance. Those thicknesses you listed? They're for the sloped edges of the main armored deck, which is actually part of the side protection. The flat part of the deck, the part that actually (kinda) makes a difference in horizontal protection, is only 3.1". The only other armored deck is a 2" deck mounted high up adjoining the top of the upper belt, which is more comparable to the 1.5" bomb deck the American ships mounted. And in between? Lots of vital components protected only by that 2" deck.

All of the other European battleships, meanwhile, had varying thicknesses of deck armor over the machinery and magazine spaces. Sometimes, this doesn't matter; I'd rate the King George V scheme (6" magazines, 5" machinery) equal to the Iowas against shells, for instance, and the Richelieus (6.7" magazines, 5.9" machinery) superior. But the 3.75" machinery armor of the Nelson class is a serious weakness, and the Littorio class had a very limited area of deck armored to the maximum 6.4"; the outboard sections of the deck and everything over the machinery were a much thinner 4" or 4.4".

And then we get to the Japanese rebuilds, which are somewhere in between. Nagato, for instance, is only a 7.6" deck if you add up the thicknesses of three separate decks, a 1" bomb deck, a 2.8" upper deck, and 3.9" lower deck. Not only is this less effective than one thick deck of the same thickness, but doing the same for the American battleships - all battleships, really - dramatically ups the comparative thickness: 6.95" for the North Carolinas, 7.1" for the South Dakotas, and wouldn't you know it, 7.6" for the Iowas!

706px-Nagatoarmor.svg.png

I can't find the details on the earlier rebuilt schemes, but I presume they're similar in being multiple, relatively thin decks.

Edit: and this isn't getting into the differences in homogeneous armor quality, an area where the US was kinda beating the pants off of everyone except probably the British.

So, tl;dr yes, while the North Carolinas were rather thin-skinned compared to their contemporaries, the Iowa and South Dakota classes are very well protected battleships.
 
Last edited:
Top