#nelson class

[lonestarbattleship]

HMS Nelson, USS TEXAS (BB-35), and USS CALIFORNIA (BB-44) in Balboa, Panama.

This was before TEXAS's 10th canal crossing.

Photographed sometime between October 24 and 27, 1931.

U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command: NH 57842, NH 57843

[lonestarbattleship]

source

[lonestarbattleship]

What are your thoughts on battleships like the Nelson and Dunkerque classes that put all their main guns at the front? Was this practical, or a bad idea?

I think they were the direction battleships were heading to, had the Navies continued to build them. There are plenty of advantages to having all of the turrets concentrated in one area of the ship versus having a turret farm.

For one, it allows for the armored citadel (the inner armored section that protects the powder and shell) to be concentrated instead of being spread throughout the ship. This is not to say the propulsion plant won't be armored too, it just allows for a lower grade armor. This lesson was learned during the Battle of Jutland, as a single hit that made it to the magazine would ignite it. The resultant explosion ignited the other magazines leading to a ship at the bottom of the sea real fast.

Another advantage, it eliminated the placing a turret in or around the machinery/propulsion plant. The number one compliant about magazines close to the boiler rooms was the heat for the crews working inside them.

The downsize, it did leave the battleship with no rear facing turrets. The Royal Navy's answer to this was "we don't run away from a fight." But realistically, most battleship engagements are at broadsides. This was true after WWII, when the battleship only role was shore bombardment.

There were some discussions in the US Navy and other Navies for a post WWII battleship design that pointed towards a forward turrets only design. Some of the plans for the last two Iowas, Illinois and Kentucky, called for the rear turret to be replaced with missile systems.

Even in the 1980s when the 4 Iowas were reactivated, the Phase II plans called for the rear turret to be replaced with a flight deck/hanger space.

In short, I think it's a fine design choice.

Thanks for the ask anon.

[lonestarbattleship]

"On Very Active Service - The British Battleship"

Cutaway of HMS Rodney.

LIFE Magazine Archives: link

[lonestarbattleship]

The largest and most powerful battleships and battlecruisers that saw action.

source

[lonestarbattleship]

Battleships and Battlecruisers classes of WWII.

source

[lonestarbattleship]

The Evolution of the British Capital Ship, from 1906 to 1946.

source

[lonestarbattleship]

Has there even been a successful torpedo attack FROM a battleship? Or at least attempts during combat in either of the world wars?

As far as I know, the only "successful" use of a torpedo was claimed by HMS Rodney on Bismarck in May 1941. But it wasn't Rodney's hit that caused her to sink and her claim is debated.

It should be noted, torpedo launchers on battleships by this era and Dreadnought era were legacy weapons. They were added to predreadnought battleships as they were meant to engage in close combat, like the days of sail. But the age of dreadnoughts and the interwar era, they were vestigial armament for battleships, who did most of the fighting at long range. The naval doctrine at the time included them as a means to break up an enemy line and delivering the coup de grace. But by the 1920s and 1930s, torpedoes were relegated to destroyers and cruisers, with the latter losing them in the late 1930s.

Thanks for the ask, @enriquemzn262 . I know you sent me this before you lost your old account, but it kinda got lost in my drafts. It's odd that it switched it to anon.

source, source