My Grandfather was trained on HMS Rodney in 1928. He would go on to command HMS Codrington (RN Destroyer) HMS Acasta (RN Destroyer) before WWII and was mentioned in despatches when the ship he was commanding, HMS Speedwell (RN Minesweeper) picked up 1668 men off the Dunkirk beaches in 1940! I just found his sextant in a marine shop last week and bought it back!

I actually find Nelson class a quite good looking ship. Brutalistic superstructure and three turrets up front in a row mean all business.

Well done. It is not uncommon for American evaluation of foreign designs to be dismissive. This was very fair and the presenter was very knowledgeable.

the nelson class: business up front, party out back.

I was never a fan of their look, but I do like the citadel tower. The QE's that got properly modernized, Queen Elizabeth herself and Warspite were, imo, after the modernization, the best looking battleships ever. I wish Warspite had been preserved, but at least she avoided the breaker's yard by taking matters into her own hands.

When I was going through my Royal Navy Officer's application process in the mid 1980s, my liaison officer was Capt Evans who, during WW2, served as a gunnery lt on HMS Nelson. He said that the enclosed bridge was hugely appreciated, the rear funnels made it pleasant but the ship was slow, a nightmare to manouever at slow speeds and the length of the propeller shafts made the engineering officer's jobs a nightmare.

Apparently during the chase for Bismark, and with worn out boilers Rodney made 25 knots on overload power. I think they look pretty cool. A very innovative design.

One thing I find incredible about the NelRods was that even though they were limited in tonnage, they managed to be extremely well-protected, with extremely powerful guns for the time, and even then- for the time, were some of the fastest battleships afloat- making 24 knots on trials. They were my favourite treaty-era battleships, and clearly outshone both the Colerados and Nagatos, and giving Hood a run for her money.

For me they didn't look awful at all, they were one the best looking and unique battleship design ever. They look so menace and scary to face against.

I like the lines of the Nelson and Rodney. They look mean and the superstructure has a medieval, menacing appearance - perfect for the Royal Navy.

I love the shape of the Nelson class battlesips - there is something really sinister, brutal and muscular about that 3 turrets forward layout and the almost futurisitc octagonal bridge. In fact, the set back superstructure and elongated forward section reminds me of a classic American muscle-car: the 69' Corvette Stingray!

Just come across this series and have enjoyed them . This chap know his stuff and seems quiet unbiased in his assessments of the ships from different nations. Very refreshing. Well done.

Just think about it for a minute. The Nelson's outgunned and out armoured Bismarck on 13000 tons lower displacement despite entering service 12 years earlier. The only advantage Bismarck had was her speed. The Nelson's really were miracles of naval architecture.

My initial reaction to the aesthetics of the HMS Nelson and HMS Rodney was similar to yours but I have since changed my opinion and find them to be an interesting variation on general Battleship design. I've become a fan of these ships. Still...as far as looks go...The KMS Scharnhorst with her Flared Atlantic Bows is my favorite. Of this 'era'.

Rodney turned Bismarck into a floating wreck. Such a shame her achievements are barely remembered.

The extent of your knowledge and enthusiasm is mighty impressive Sir!

These are the most menacing looking ships ever built. No retreat, no surrender, only forward, firing. Very Royal Navy tradition in fact.

I'm really enjoying these posts. Keep 'em coming. I met an elderly fellow a few years ago and had a couple of chats with him. He was well into his 90s then, but he'd been on Nelson during the Second World War. He was an interesting person to listen to though his stories were more from an operational rather than design perspective.

I'm always interested in learning more about the British battleships. It also gives our British friends a chance to contribute to the discussion. The American and the Royal Navy worked closely during WWII. With the commissioning of HMS Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales, all of us "in the colonies" are hoping to continue this strong relationship.

And of course Rodney was the only battleship to successfully torpedo another one

the Nelsol and Rodnol nicknames came from them looking like oilers, as all oiler names ended in 'ol'

Wholeheartedly agree with you about their looks. They look like cruiser builders started at the stem and tugboat builders started at the stern, and the money ran out near the middle.

The Nelson Class were equipped, by way of experiment, to use their main battery against low-flying aircraft while escorting convoys to Malta. A formation of torpedo bombers was engaged, and when all the smoke and spray dispersed they were no longer there, but there's a dispute over whether any were shot down or whether the crews simply saw the light and went home. The the turreted and director-controlled secondary armament was much better than the single, 6" mounts (locally aimed) which were common to the Queen Elizabeth and the Revenge Classes and probably the only secondary battery on any British battleship that might have engaged _cruisers_ with any degree of success. (The 5.25" dual purpose gun on later ships wasn't very effective against cruiser-thickness armour, but I don't think any RN battleship ever had to rely on its secondary battery to deal with a cruiser.)

My great grandfather served on Nelson during WW2, I’ve still got his shellback certificate for when he crossed the equator to see the Japanese surrender at Singapore.

The most beautiful battleships ever. They look like art deco power boats. A pity they didn't go like powerboats. Even today they look futuristic.

♫ Come, cheer up, my lads, 'tis to glory we steer... ♫

Sorry! But I thing they look AMAZING and BEAUTIFUL! I absolutely love the design. Having said, that I also LOVE how the IOWAs look. They were, (and still are) amazing Battleships, and how lucky that they were (at least) turned into museums. How great it would have been, if the Nelsons' were still here as museums. Also, nice work with the videos! I have watched most of your tours of the interior areas of the New Jersey, and it provides another perpective about the Battleship and how it would feel like to work and live there. Keep up the excellent job in preserving those ships, and thus giving us the opportunity to learn about their history.

I have been following some battleship channels for a while, but this video gave some new insights into battleship design issues and how they were solved. Viewers can keep in mind that machinery power output improved dramatically after the 1920's using increased steam pressure boilers, so many nations refitted their machinery spaces and upped the speeds possible and freed up room for other use.

They may not have been the prettiest of battleships but they certainly looked badass.

Cheeky sod. The Nelsons were superb looking ships. The very epitome of what a battleship should look like; power incarnate. I suspect the Bismarck's crew must've been far from delighted when they saw that one of the capital ships heading directly for them was HMS Rodney.

from Fraser, husband of Leslie The lower deck, (US = enlisted men), nicknamed the two ships 'Nelsol' and 'Rodnol' as they had the appearance of fleet auxiliary oil tankers ! Apparently there were two of these whose names ended in 'ol'. Also the two battlecruisers Repulse and Renown were nicknamed "Refit" and "Rebuild" as they seemed to always be in dock for repairs or refitting ! Just thought you'd all like to know

This guy knows his stuff. There you have it in relation to the fact that the British dropped heavier shells ON a target and German threw lighter shells AT a target I read way too much that the Hood's "light", actually a combined seven inches over the magazines, beefier than a Queen Elizabeth class, deck armour failed her but Bismarck's fifth salvo went through the side seven inch upper or twelve inch lower armour belt, ignited an OVERSTOCKED four inch HA ammo magazine which set off the fifteen inch main magazine. There was NOTHING wrong with the Hood. Just bad logistics and stupendously bad luck.

I love the look of the Nel/Rod class! Everything up front? Just looks like a clenched fist!!! Tough looking as the Iowa's in my opinion.

According to both Brown and Friedman the Iowas had to have their entire main armament redesigned as the intended 16/50 guns and turrets would not fit the barbette rings so it was not only the RN that had a few problems. Rodney also has the distinction of being the only battleship in history to hit another with a torpedo(the class carried oxygen enriched 24 inch torpedoes in submerged tubes)during the fight with Bismarck

The problem with placing nine 16 Inch guns clustered together is recoil. After her engagement with Bismarck, Rodney had more damage from her own gun's recoil than from enemy fire. She had to go into port for repairs for things like warped bulkheads, sprung fittings, water-tight doors that would not open or close due to bent doorways/bulkheads. So much concussive force concentrated in one area, with all guns firing in the same direction over and over again, was very hard on her hull!

At the end of the day, looks have nothing to do with the ships fighting capacity, that’s down to the guns and armor and these ships sure delivered!!

An old design but with amazing careers; the Queen Elizabeth battleships a comparison please?

And that girls and boys is how you asserting dominance with superstructure....

Thank you very much. Great talk about this important class of battleships.

Nelson and Rodney were, despite being reputed for weathervaning, very manoeuvrable and were the only 2 British capital ships never to accidentally hit the gates at scapa flow

17:00 - I kinda like how the Nelsons look, actually; having all three big turrets in a line at the front makes their firepower more visually striking for me when it's all clustered together, and it just looks kinda neater to have the big turrets all together instead of spread out in the front and back parts of the ship.

Nelsons were really well armored mean turtles. Slow, but borderline indestructible, if the armor belt was as good as advertised.

Am fascinated by your efforts.

Good assessment of the Nelson class, thanks very much. A few years ago, I read some rather 'flag-waiving' official press releases dating from the time they came into service. The location of all three turrets forward was explained, according to this official nonsense, by stating that British battleships don't need guns facing aft...because British battleships never run away ! The age of misinformation has been going on longer than we think ! ;)

I learned a lot from this - even though I was well aware of the Nelson's. I also was impressed with your ability to keep an open mind on things. For a guy who works with an Iowa class ship? One might expect you to be extremely partial to them/all things American. Yet you seem to be excellent at 'calling a spade, a spade'. That is most appreciated for historical commentary, imo. Thank you for this. ☮

Completely off subject but I just needed to share Today after my bike ride I got to meet a member of the flying tigers. Never got his name. Though I did give a stern 2 finger salute and thanked him for his service 96 years old 🙌

I love the way they look. That low silhouette really helps.

The Nelsons may have been ugly, but they did have a lot of firepower. The US even considered copying the Nelsons when designing the North Carolinas. Early designs of the North Carolinas had all three turrets forward of the superstructure.

A very accurate and fair presentation... Well done.

Thanks for the entertaining presentation of real information, miles better than us having to plough through waffle.

I absolutely love "The Ugly Duckling Look" of the "NELROD's" ! Yes, they did look exactly like a modern Container Ship as, if it was converted into a Battlewagon but, that's what makes them Cool in my opinion !

BISMARCK by WWII standards was not that heavily armored except for the side waterline hull which had that highly-sloped thick Wh armor "turtleback" deck behind the side belt to deflect shells that penetrated intact the belt around the waterline (slightly above or below it). This side hull armor was the WWI-style "don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes" type but souped-up to handle typical circa-15" AP shells with blunt-point noses (the 12.6" KC n/A armor side belt would strip off any AP cap or windscreen from the nose of a penetrating shell). The cost of such a design was that the gap between weather deck (top hull deck) and the thick primary armored deck to which the upper edge of the slope locked several feet inboard of the belt had to be lowered to only just above the waterline, which meant that an entire deck of hull was no longer behind/below the heavy deck armor and could be torn up by shells that punched through the rather thin armor of the weather deck or 5.71" KC n/A armor amidships upper hull side so this additional upper hull was sacrificed to prevent engine/boiler/magazine damage from large-caliber AP shells hitting from the side. (IOWA had its armored 2nd deck only a single deck below its weather deck and meeting the upper edge of the side belt, protecting with heavy armor one additional deck of internal volume to help keep the ship from sinking if flooded.) If the ship did not have to worry about aircraft bombs or ship- or aircraft-launched torpedoes causing flooding damage that would lower the hull in the water, this would have been acceptable (shells in the engines or magazines are stopped better here). But at longer range, shells would be hitting the flat deck armor due to their long fuze delays and, except for the area over the main magazines, the added weight of the sloped deck sides caused the flat deck over the large engine and boiler rooms to be thinned down to only 3.2" Wh armor, much too thin to stop anything larger than heavy cruiser shells. Also, as more AA guns and such were added to BISMARCK, the armored deck began to end up below the waterline, allowing flooding over the entire inside of the ship above it if torn up by shell fragments and any significant flooding of the lower hull for any reason occurred (singe torpedo hit, even). BISMARCK was totally designed for close-in WWI-type fighting, possibly assuming that bad weather in the North Sea would prevent long-range gunfights using optical directors/range-finders (no radar, remember). BISMARCK was thus in some ways the last WWI-era battleship design, being a kind of "super-HOOD" battle-cruiser in concept (nobody in the German Navy thought that the BISMARCK Class was going to defy the British on a one-on-one battleship gunfight level). As opposed to this, NELSON and RODNEY, as mentioned, were supposed to be the first "modern" post-WWI battle-cruiser concept ships with their engine rooms cut down to keep their weight under the new limits, resulting in battleships that were about the same speed as the faster WWI-era ships, not the high-speed designs replacing HOOD originally envisaged. They had the thin deck armor over the engine/boiler rooms that BISMARCK also had, though the armor was one deck higher, as in IOWA, to help increase the ability to take some flooding without sinking. The British lightweight 2049-pound 16" Mark IB AP shells were the first version of the new long-windscreen "B" pattern for reduced air drag and longer range flight, though their design was unique to British AP shells in that the nose was not a curved single arc-of-circle shape ("Secant Ogive" if the joint with the upper edge of the cylindrical side has a shoulder of crease, indicating a longer, more pointed nose shape, and "Tangent Ogive if they merge smoothly with no crease), but a long cone-shaped nose with a rounded shoulder at the shell side joint. This shape of nose was also used by the Japanese in their later Type 91 AP shells introduced in 1931 and in many US Army artillery shells, as it gave reduced drag, but it also made the nose narrower and lighter in weight and when this kind of lightweight AP shell was no longer considered a good idea due to barrel wear problems, the British reverted back to their WWI-era basic shell design with a new "B" nose shape with a thicker, heavier AP cap and nose and a long Secant Ogive curved windscreen to get the increased range (required older ships to have their magazines and shell handling devises modified and only some of their older ships got this upgrade, while others, like HOOD, had to use the improved WWII AP shells that retained the basic end-of-WWI shorter, less-streamlined "A" nose shape, which was slightly lighter in weight due to less cap width and less windscreen length, though otherwise virtually identical to the "B"-nosed heavy shells used by the improved ships.. The use of a high-velocity, lightweight AP shell to get added range with guns that could elevate much higher than the older ships could (even after overhauls the older 15"-gunned ships never could elevate their guns as high as RODNAY and NELSON could) was compromised due to the higher gun wear and ship weight-restriction rules imposed on post-Washington Treaty warships -- the latter causing ship blast shock problems due to not-quite-adequate hull strength. Though much was very slowly fixed over the years, the design was considered a failure and never repeated. (IOWA, like the other new US battleships of WWII, used an exaggerated concept of the British heavy shell/lower-velocity gun pattern used prior to and after NELSON and RODNEY, elevating their guns to the same high angle as NELSON and RODNEY to get the maximum possible range, but using the increased weight of the "super-heavy" new AP shell design, with a long streamlined shape much like the British "B" nose design, to reduced air resistance by inertia to keep the longer range, not just a higher velocity that could be lost and still have enough to get to the longer range. The US shells would also penetrate better against deck armor due to more weight giving them better energy retention at those long ranges than any lightweight shell could. The lightweight, high-velocity shell concept was only really viable for short-range fire against face-hardened hull/turret side armor and the great improvements in fire-control were assumed to make long-range fighting more probable -- actually, during WWII most battleship battles turned out to be at rather short range, better fire-control not withstanding, so "go figure"...)

Thanks very much for making this video on HMS Nelson & Rodney as it was my request, originally. Lots of great info covered here. However, one issue I would have liked to have had addressed would be the advantages or disadvantages of the main battery arrangement in terms of arcs of fire for this ship design vs. the more traditional layout as in Battleship New Jersey. I believe Turret 3 was significantly limited in its arc of fire and also when trained fully aft, would cause blast damage to the superstructure. And, of course, there is no main battery coverage for targets behind the ship. Do you have comments on these points? What were the firing arc positives over a traditional layout?

I like the look of Nelson class battleship a lot !!! Thats my fav class of battleship !!

You missed one important issue with the design, which the Rodney suffered from particularly - because weight was saved by cutting back on bracing, hogging (flexing of the hull in high seas) caused the seams to open up in the bow. This was made worse by the hammering that Rodney endured during the chase to catch Bismark and was never fully addressed. My dad joined the ship in June of 1941 and told us that the pumps had to be run almost flat out just to stop her sinking.

I think the British had water excluded from the treaty because they were designing ships with water filled torpedo protection.

Nelson class was phenomenal

I like them, very unique concept. Nothing else quite matches them except maybe French Richelieu Class Battleships with their 2 quad turrets. There has to be some downside to this layout as from what I understand, once the Escalater clause kicked in and war broke out, these naval treaties went out the window. I mean there has to be a drawback as once there was no limits on battleship size or armament, they never built a improved version on the NelRods, like with 4 screws, or more range, or armor, ect

Handsome battleships ....🇬🇧

My father served aboard the Nelson and briefly on the Rodney during WW2. He commented that the gunnery of the secondary armament (pre radar-controlled) during firing practice in 1940 was appalling. While escorting a convoy to Malta he was aboard when Nelson was torpedoed by an S.M.79. His locker was flooded and his tank watch which he kept as a memento was ruined. He later served aboard the Malaya, u.S.S.South Dakota ( as liaison communications with our Home Fleet) during her spell as distant cover for Russian convoys, as well as Valiant. Unlike many shipmates he survived. You could choose which of the services you were conscripted into and given the appalling losses of trench warfare during WW1 he chose the NAVY which unfortunately like our Bomber Command had the highest loss of life!. 👍🏻🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

The Nelson class was a tough bruiser.

It would be really cool to compare NJ to the G3 , the Nelrods unbuilt predecessor.... the capabilities of the Iowas and G3 are very similar

I love the Nelson class. With all the guns up front she looks like a Croc

The Nelsons are my favorite British battleships and are in my top 10 favorites

The island South Georgia is not so far from the Antartic and we had a whaling station there, so fuel would have been available.

They look fantastic

It should be noted the Nelson's were actually among the first, possibly THE first, ships with "dual purpose" secondaries in turrets. Although they were not entirely successful in that role because they traversed too slowly....the 6" gun batteries were designed to be capable of high angle elevation to fire at aircraft. And while the slow traverse prevented accurate targeting, the range and power of the 6" when firing high explosive shells in barrage would likely have contributed to making they sky above the Nelson's a dangerous place for attacking planes. Though, I'm not sure if by WW II the 6" were actually used in that role anymore, they were capable of it.

The British Battle Cruisers at Jutland blew up largely due to poor power handling procedures in an effort to increase the firing rate...

Haha, they look... different, but to me they are good looking ships.

Nice video, I've done quiet a bit of reading on the 1920s program and DNC Eustace T D'Enycourt had wanted to push all the turrets fore of the machinery space for the reason of he felt that with a thick armour deck was required for the range of naval combat their was a risk that the expected chase or closure to decisive range would expose these to the danger of a shell slipping through the holes cut for the boiler uptakes and on into the aft magazine. With the rearrangement they would only be vulnerable from within the blind spot. The 6 inch gun on Nelrods were designed as dual purpose but of course aircraft performance outstripped their train and elevation rates by the 30s as with the 8 inch guns on the County class cruiser.

Rodney, the only battleship to torpedo another battleship, I think.

Excellent content! I learned a lot watching this video. I would like to mention that the Nelson and Rodney got bad marks in some quarters for having weak structures. As I understand it wood was used structurally in the deck. Rodney in particular suffered deck damage from the use of her main armament. Also I disagree with the comment about appearance! I think they look awesome! Best regards and keep up the good work!

They may look ugly to you but if one was 10 miles away and coming at you angled at 10° you could admire the 9 flashes from 16 inch guns sending shells in your direction.

I always thought Nelson and Rodney were beautiful in a utilitarian brutal fashion

I like the look and features of HMS Rodney!

Love these ships, stripped down to badass gun platform.

Because the funnels were so far aft, and because of the rearwards placement of the superstructure, the ships reminded the sailors of oil tankers and so were nicknamed the 'Nelsol' and the 'Rodnol'....

Always interesting.

The only nicknames I recall for the pair were Nelsol and Rodsol, a combination of the ship names and the suffix for fleet oilers.

While watching the "making of" features on the Lord of the rings DVDs I saw the design meetings about the URUK HAI and they were only armoured on the front because they were designed to be super agressive, never retreat so would never show their back to the enemy. Rang a distant bell and then I thought " Aaah! the HMS Rodney".

Merry Christmas Ryan.

Nelson and Rodney were nicknamed "the Oil Tankers" because, from a distance, they resembled that type of ship, with a long low fore part, and the superstructure far aft.

The N3s were 18" gun battleship designs. The Nelson class were derived from the G3 battlecruiser design.

There wasnt any British bases on the continent of Antarctica until 1943 and then quite a few in the 50's. However a Refueling station was maintained in the Falkland islands 1000km to the north that covered the British Antarctic and Sub Antarctic islands for several hundred years.

As, at 23 knots they Nelsols were fast enough to out-pace any other battle fleet, and the reasons for the loss of the battlecruisers were, for the most part, not the defeat of their armour, munition handling issues were far more to blame. Little surprise in the similarities in some of the features of US and RN ships, as for much of WW1, the interwar years and WW2 the two navies had pretty much open book relationships. The looks? Love them myself, far more modern looking than any other battleship, and far more in line with current designs. Very much look forward to your piece/s on the G3s and N3s

Liking the look of a battleship came a distant second to practicality back in the early to mid 20th century.

I love the citadel style.

It was HMS Furious a very heavy cruiser or light Battle Cruiser, that was fitted with 2 X 18" Guns. Subsequently rebuilt into an aircraft carier

I think the Iowa class battleship design is the sleekest design where everything just seems to fit and looks like it belongs where it should. I can't see that with the "Nel-Rods."

Fantastic. TY

HMS Rodney ripped Bismark apart firing at point blank range, guns level

My father served on Rodney at the time of the Bismark engagement,

I have always wondered why they put the super-firing 16" turret in the "B" position instead of the "C" position. The citadel length would have been identical. Having the taller barbette in the "C" position would put it closer to the center of buoyancy and improve load distribution. Also, having the super-firing turret in the "C" will allow the "B" turret to fire forward over the "A" turret at long range where it can elevate sufficiently.

Actually the British tower style superstructure (or Queen Anne's mansions) as they were called were highly effective and much superior to the old bridge design used on ships like the Iowa's. It provided dry conditions to the people who controlled the ship in battle and suffered from much less vibration, which was a good thing for the range finding equipment. Personally I like that bridge design While good ships the Iowa's had severe flaws you skip over. The long narrow bow had little reserve buoyancy and would have caused problems if they faced another Battleship which hit them there. The bow also had problems dealing with the heavy weather more commonly found in the Atlantic. in rough seas HMS Vanguard was easily able to keep pace with them due to her vastly more seaworthy design. A fight between Vanguard and New Jersey in bad weather would greatly favor the British ship. I think your passion for the Iowa's makes you overlook their flaws and prevents a fair comparison. A fight between Nelson and an Iowa would be a close thing pitting speed vs superior armour. Also the Nelson's were much lighter ships and given the pace of technology advances, several generations older. An much fairer match up would be New Jersey vs a modernized G3. And I think I know where I'd place my money on that fight.

Interesting video. My father served on HMS Rodney. Bags of great background and technical information, the first time I have heard some of this detail. I totally disagree about their smooth, streamlined look. They are beautiful and elegant. Could I politely suggest a tiny bit more prep to allow more ease of flow in your presentation? Thank you

HMS Rodney was one of the ships that engaged and helped sink the German Battleship Bismarck in revenge of HMS Hood.

I think they look great. My favorite British Battleship.

[Continued] Fourth, the ability of a blunt hardened cap (not a factor in soft or tough caps) to assist penetrating sloped homogeneous, ductile armor depends on the corner of the hard face (acting as the "chin" of the shell on initial impact, even if the cap is broken during the penetration process) digging a notch into the plate that starts the plate surface to bend upward in front of the shell. The sharpness of the corner of the cap where the edge of the face of the cap meets the upper edge of the cap side ("skirt") is the important factor here. From what I now understand, the amount of notching does not matter, no matter what shape the cap edge is, so you always get the same, roughly, bonus: A drop of 12% in the necessary velocity to penetrate the plate completely. Just WHEN the bonus applies gets complicated and I have only limited data. The typical US Army or Navy WWII hard cap had about a 150-degree angle at this corner (a very blunt conical face and a tapering skirt that conformed to the narrowing of the windscreen for drag reduction; there were several variations of this, but the ones issued during WWII all complied to this design, whether the windscreen was screwed onto the edge of the cap or, in early US Navy WWII caps, screwed into the softer steel near the bottom of the skirt with the upper cap inside and hidden from view. The later German AP caps in their tank and anti-tank guns used a very similar cap edge design. A sharper corner, such as used by the Japanese Type 88, Type 91, and final Type 1 AP shells with the Cap Head instantly knocked off at all impact angles over 45 degrees, had about a 105-degree angle for the edge, while the German and British "Knob-and-Ring" AP caps (Krupp and Firth/Firth-Brown) with a large done over the tip of the nose and a wide "Saturn Ring" nearly flat region to the edge of the cap face, where the angle was also about 100-105 degrees. The US Army/Navy and later German Army AP caps required about at least a half-caliber plate at 50 degrees obliquity to have the beneficial bonus effect to penetration. As the obliquity increase, the plate thickness steadily dropped down to only about 0.2-caliber at near 80 degrees (above 80 degrees I assume the projectile always ricochets). This is due to the thinner plates for each angle being able to dent ("dish") downward and the sharp edge of the cap not being able to "get its foot in the door" to cause the needed chisel action. With a sharper edge like the noted naval caps, I assume (I have almost no data) that the needed minimum thickness for any given obliquity would go down due to better chisel action, perhaps by 25% or so under the US test data, though this is just a guess. Note that caps with no corners, such as the post-WWI contoured Hadfield AP caps (used intermixed with Firth/Firth-Brown caps randomly I assume, as both were used as issued by whatever was in the shore station's magazines at the time the ship came in) or any French AP shell even-more-contoured AP caps, get NO bonus EVER for the cap being there, other than a general blunter-nose-shape bonus/penalty if the cap remains intact during most of the penetration (if it shatters on impact, then it gives no shape bonus/penalty, either). Unfortunately, I have little data on much of this topic, either with non-US AP caps or nose shape effects for more than a very few special cases. This is a very complicated topic. It demonstrates how complicated the universe really is, since we are just talking about two pieces of metal being banged together. No wonder biology is complicated almost beyond belief...

Superb! 😎

what are the ladders on (the front) the 16 inch Mark 7 guns on the New Jersey used for? also did the New Jersey and her sister ships ( Iowa, Missouri, and Wisconsin) have "smoke generators" installed during their construction?