HMS Nelson: Post War Modernisation Plans

Anyone got any sketches of the proposed 1938 modernisation with four 5.25 inch mountings ahead of "A" turret, making use of the former torpedo flat as the magazine?
 
Temeraire said:
strange since she was kept around until 1948
Click to expand...
Rodney paid off into Reserve on 30 Nov 1945, and remained there until sale in March 1948. She went to the scrapyard still wearing her 1944 camouflage paintwork.

Photographs - Gallery 9

www.geocities.ws

She went to the scrap man at the same time as the rest of the old battleships. The most any of them did after Nov 1945 when Nelson returned home was acted as training ships. Some static, one or two like Nelson & Renown, going to sea periodically with trainees until about 1947 when carriers and KGVs began to replace them.
 
EwenS said:
Rodney paid off into Reserve on 30 Nov 1945, and remained there until sale in March 1948. She went to the scrapyard still wearing her 1944 camouflage paintwork.

Photographs - Gallery 9

www.geocities.ws

She went to the scrap man at the same time as the rest of the old battleships. The most any of them did after Nov 1945 when Nelson returned home was acted as training ships. Some static, one or two like Nelson & Renown, going to sea periodically with trainees until about 1947 when carriers and KGVs began to replace them.
Click to expand...
Honestly it was a pity she had gotten into such a bad state, maybe she’d have been preserved if in better condition
 
Though this thread is about the Nelsons post war modernization plans which to my current knowledge is not existing (No plans were made for the Nelsons post 1945)
I've instead collected the various actual proposals for class:

These are from Norman Friedman's British Battleship book:

1935 August:
Sir Algernon Usborne Willis’s proposal:
Issues with the funnel gases at high speed and request for modern open bridge for better night combat and AA fighting abilities. Also interest of of modern DP guns instead of SP and AA ones.
– So a sort of rebuild the top part like on KGV and maybe add a funnel-cap like on the 1920’s Nagatos and ont he Revenge class battleships?

1936 May:
Inclined inner belt armour to be replaced by external side armour, not clear if inclined/following hull shape or vertical. At least two alternatives were proposed.
Or extended the inner sloped belt to below diving shell depth.
New deck armour forward of the magazines

1936 July: (Rough Sketches should exists)
Forward part Deck Armour changes as above
Move the steering gear (Forward, aft?) for better protection
Install 2x HACS Mk III*
Catapult on the 3rd or X turret
Proposed Armament Changes (Replacement of the 6” twin turrets and I presume the 4,7” ones):

Scheme A:
8x2 5,25” + 4x8 40mm Pom-Poms
No Hangers only Catapult on X turret (1-3 floatplanes?)

Scheme B:
10x2 4,5” and it’s not clear of 4x8 40mm Pom-Poms in total or 4 Pom-Poms per side but I think it would be the total 4x8 and not the 8x8
Trainable? catapult on the shelter deck eg where the boats were stored and Hanger (2-3 floatplanes?)

Scheme C:
10x2 5,25” and it’s not clear of 4x8 40mm Pom-Poms in total or 4 Pom-Poms per side but I think it would be the total 4x8 and not the 8x8
No Hangers only Catapult on X turret (1-3 floatplanes?)

1937 July Refit:
Part of the above changes were done:
Forward part Deck Armour changes as above (4-3-2,5in, only Nelson received it)
Install 2x HACS Mk III* (Received)
Catapult on the 3rd or X turret (Only Rodney received it)
Additional electric generators at the steering compartment/flat, changes to the supporting mast on top of the bridge (Received)
Remove Torpedo Director Tower (Done)

1937 November:
Replace the 6” and 4,7” guns by 10x2 5,25”
All 6” Director Control Tower to be replaced by DP directors (I presume the circular one used on the KGVs)
4x8 40mm Pom-Poms instead of two, the extra two to be located on the quarterdeck (fantail? where the old 4,7” guns were located?)
DTSD Wanted 6 mountings so maybe extra two on top of the 2nd or B turret?
DTSD wanted a KGV style cross-deck catapult

1938 June: (Drawing should exists in the official papers)
Austere new secondary armament of 6x2 5,25” replacing the 6” turrets
4x8 40mm Pom-Pom (2 abeam the bridge not sure if direct on both sides or somewhat aft or somewhat forward and 2 abeam the funnel likely at their current position in place of the Torpedo Control Tower)
2x HACS aft on the very aft close to the 3rd pair of 5,25” turrets
Catapult on the 3rd or X turret and 3 aircraft (1 on catapult 1-1 on each side and behind /abeam of the 3rd turret) which suggests two heavy cranes on deck or attached to the bridge structure
Note this was Scheme B according to the sketch in the papers)

1938 July???
New Scheme A:
8x2 5,25” Fridmans describes two forward of the 1st or A turret and two aft implying either 4 turrets in front of the A turret (unlikely) and 2-2 in place of the 6” turrets, or as we think should be logical:
3-3 in place of the 6” turrets and 1-1 likely side by side in front of the A turret likely just behind the forwardmost breakwater as that is where the 9°elevation and 15°training arcs restrictions suggests
Belt armour might be extended forward to “allow for pitching and wave profile” whatever that means. Probably as a way for increasing stability by re-distributing weight more forward.
Alternatively they can be recessed for a lower profile.
Hanger aft of the funnel and 100ft (QE style) cross-deck catapult
Rebuild the bridge to look like that of the QEs (Warspite style maybe?)
New machinery for 70.000shp (First mention of machinery upgrade) for 25,5knots at 36.000tons
10ft taller funnel and (partial?) removal of uptake protection
Removal of the internal sloped belt armour and replace it with an external one, again no mention if it was to be inclined/sloped or vertical ala KGV style. base thickness not changes so 14” over magazines and 13” over machinery but it was to be tapered to 6 and 7” respectively and the magazine one to be deeper by 2ft
extra 4” and 2,”5 deck armour between the current deck and the sides at magazines and machinery respectively so this would be equivalent to the sloped deck of WW1 era ships I think

New Scheme B:
Same as above but the forwardmost 5,25” turrets moved to abreast the bridge, I presume out of the way of the 3rd turrets firing line.

1938 May:
The missing refits for Rodney was prepared:
deck armour extension
re-wiring
two more octuple Pom-Pom
Refit not carried out

1938 September:
Controller asked and DNC ordered a reconstruction:
6x2 5,25”
6x8 40mm Pom-Poms
Modified side armour. I presume the replacement of the internal belt armour to external one.
New “maximum power” machinery, likely the proposed 70.000shp
Removal of the conning tower and installation of modern bridge, I presume the QE, Warspite or KGV style bridge.
Aircraft and Catapult installation, not sure which version was considered at this time: X turret catapult and 1-3 aircraft, hanger aft of the funnel and cross deck catapult (1-3 aircraft), trainable catapult at the shelter deck and maybe hanger?
Splinterproof poretction between main and middle decks

1939 March:
Replacement of internal belt armour to external one
New machinery, likely the 70.000shp one
High-Angle re-armament (Unknown which proposal)
Catapult on top of x turret, 1-3 aircrafts?
New Bridge, likely ones done for QE, Warspite or KGV/Lion
Removal of Torpedo Tubes

1943 April:
Short Term variant:
8-12 4” AA instead of the 4,7” and 6” guns

Ultimate variant:
8x2 5,25” instead of the 4,7” and 6” guns
9x8 40mm Pom-Poms, apart from the then current arrangement (1-1 in place of the old aft 6” Directors/Rangefinders, and 1-1 next to the funnel) likely 2 extra mounts on the quarterdeck and one on top of turret B
50-60 20mm Oerlikons, like mix of single and twin
Re-wiring

1943 July: (Drawings should exists of the various schemes)
Variant A:
8x2 4,5”
Unknown number of light AA but likely as described below

Variant B:
10x2 4” and 4 Mk VI Directors
12x8 40mm Pom-Poms, not sure how these should be placed. Apart from 4 mountings already exists, 2 more on the quarterdeck, 2 behind the funnel and 2 on top of the conning tower where the 40mm Bofors mounts will be, and the last two maybe in front of the A turret or on top of B and X turrets.

Variant C or temporary measure:
4x2 4”
9-10x8 40mm Pom-Poms and unknown number of Oerlikons: in place of the after 6” turrets and the vacant space of the 4,7” guns. Later Friedman states that 1-1 Pom-Poms were to be put in the vacant space and a 3rd one atop Turret B so a layout of 2 on the quarterdeck, 4 around the funnel, 2 in place of the 4,7” guns and 1-2 atop B and maybe X turret (for a 10th mounting)
No machinery or belt armour replacement

DGD’s proposal 1:
4x2 5,25” with HA/LA Directors
Then Friedman states something weird: “The old 4.7in guns might either be left in place or replaced by two twins each side. The result would be the desired fourcornered ship”
I’m not sure how to imagine this proposal:
4x2 5,25” in place of the 6” while the rest of the 4,7” remains untouched?
4x2 5,25” in place of the 6” while an extra 4x2 5,25” in place of the 4,7” superstrcutre mounted ones (The quartedeck ones got removed)?
8x2 5,25 in place of the 6” ones?

DNC Interim battery:
8x2 4” in place of the 6” turrets

DNC Ultimate Battery:
8x2 5x25” in place of the 6” turrets
Two Mark IV GB or Mark VI directors with type 285 radars replacing the 6” ones on top of the bridge with an extra two directors aft ont he mainmast replacing and thus relocating the octuple Pom-Poms there (This was where the aft 6” directors were located at)
52x 20mm Oerlikons 2x2 and 48x1 (Nelson) or 52x1 (Rodney)

DGD proposal 2:
8x2 5x25” in place of the 6” turrets
4x Mark VI directors with Type 275 radar
9x8 40mm Pom-Poms 3 in place of the 4,7” guns
24-18 20mm Oerlikons (4x2 12x1 in Nelson, 2x2 14x1 Rodney) Seems like the numbers does not add up… or that 24 would be like 20 or 16 instead of 12 single oerlikons.

DGD proposal 3:
As above but with 8x2 4,5” BD mountings instead of the 5,25” guns

DGD proposal 4:
4x2 4” in place of the forward 4,7” guns and 1-1 octuple Pom-Poms in place of the after 4,7” ones
After pair of 6” turrets replaced by Pom-Poms, not sure if the 1st and superfiring 2nd pair would be retained or not

DGD Optimum battery:
10x2 4,5” BD alternatively 4” twins instead of the BD mountings
4 corner HA/LA Director arrangement with blind fire ability
9x4 or 9x8 40mm Pom-Poms
50-60 20mm Oerlikons (likely mix of twin and singles)
Deck armour improvement for Rodney

1943 September: (Plans and wind model test should exists)
USN/BAD (British Admiralty Delegation) Proposal 1 for Nelson:
6x2 5”/54 Mark 16 turrets in place of the 6” ones
4 Mark 37 directors with British Type 275 radars on supports on the plotting platform and aft of the mainmast on the shelter deck.
Main battery directors (I presume both) to be fitted with Type 274 radars and two 16in Barrage directors for B and X turret (I don’t know what would be these or how they would look like)
9x8 40mm Pom-Poms: 1 Pom-Pom to replace the revolving armoured gun director tower (So that was that weird object above the conning tower!) 4 aft of the superstructure if I deduce right where the aft 4,7” single guns were located and where the fantail Pom-Pom was at, the two next to the funnel would remain, the two near the Mainmast would be moved to the Boat Stowage area and the B turret one would remain
4x2 and 48x1 20mm Oerlikons

USN/BAD (British Admiralty Delegation) Proposal 2 for Nelson:
8x2 5”/38 Mark 12 turrets in place of the 6” ones abaft the funnel
8x4 40mm Bofors guns instead of the Pom-Poms: 1 on B turret, 1 on the extreme aft, 1-1 next to the bridge at the shelter deck, 1-1 fore side of the funnel and 1-1 near the tripod mast
Funnel to be heightened
Deckhouse constructed for the 5” turrets with a similar look to that of the Modernized California class Battleships.
Tower bridge to be replaced similar to Valiant or KGV with more forward protruding Compass platform.
4 Mark 37 directors in Diamond and not square arrangement. On what remained of the conning tower a Mark 37 director was placed with the other centerline one behind the tripod mast overwatching the aft 16” DCT. While the last two on both sides and slightly behind of the bridge structure.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Tzoli said:
Though this thread is about the Nelsons post war modernization plans which to my current knowledge is not existing (No plans were made for the Nelsons post 1945)
Click to expand...
As far as I understood, some kind of modernization was assumed, when the decision to scrap both ships were briefly cancelled, but nothing more than that.
 
One wonders how much work would have been necessary to add those mounts forward of A turret, and how well they would have tolerated the blast. Quad 40mm or octuple pom-poms would have worked, requiring less deck penetration.
Replacing the 6" twins with 5.25 or 4.5 would have given them proper dual-purpose mounts, and those 6" could have been reused for light cruisers; a straight-up swap of six for six would have been relatively easier than cutting through multiple decks and armor then building whole new structures, including magazines for additional such mounts. However, I am unfamiliar with the spaces beneath them, so perhaps adding another pair, and even one more centerline aft, would have been relatively simple.
 
Deck penetration for the mountings forward of A turret would have been fine, I assume they would have used the former torpedo flat as the magazine, with a 4-inch armoured deck added above it, as was done to Nelson in the late 1930s.

The problem is deciphering what Friedman means when he says "four 5.25 inch mountings per side, two forward of 'A' turret and two aft".

I'm of the view that this is four mountings, tow per side, especially when you consider the way British HA fire control was arranged at the time, with four cornered HA directors, each controlling two mountings. Having the two turrets of the forward corner batteries widely divided from each other would make fire control arrangements more difficult.
 
Does anybody intend to visit the Brass Foundry archives and check the Nelsons papers? The sketches mentioned by me should help with the various modernization proposals.

But in the mean time here is the 1936 July Scheme A:
Nelson 1936 Mod A.png
 
By the way does anybody heard of a Main battery Barrage Director for the RN capital ships?
Friedman mentions for the USN modernization proposals:
Main-battery fire controls would be modernised with Type 274 radars and there would be two 16in barrage directors (for ‘B’ and ‘X’ mountings, fitting to be deferred).
Click to expand...
How would such an equipment look like?

Sidenote: I'm soon finish all the known modernization proposals of the Nelsons so stay tuned.
 
Tzoli said:
By the way does anybody heard of a Main battery Barrage Director for the RN capital ships?
Friedman mentions for the USN modernization proposals:

How would such an equipment look like?

Sidenote: I'm soon finish all the known modernization proposals of the Nelsons so stay tuned.
Click to expand...
The Auto Barrage Unit used the Type 283 radar, two Yagi antennas, looks a lot like a Pom-Pom director.
 
Tzoli said:
By the way does anybody heard of a Main battery Barrage Director for the RN capital ships?
Friedman mentions for the USN modernization proposals:
Click to expand...
RN cruisers were fitted with Barrage Directors for their main armament that resembled Pom-Pom directors and surmounted by a Type 283 radar aerial with its Yagi antennae

Here is a photo of Bermuda from 1946 after her 1944/45 refit. She carries two of these directors on platforms in front of the bridge. Another was fitted aft. Note the Pom-Pom directors for the mounts on top of the hangar were also on the hangar roof, abreast the mainmast. Their protective bulwark is the semi-circular shield above the forward end of the row of liferafts.
https://flic.kr/p/7xoq4w
View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/41311545@N05/4293325388
 
Thx, I was about to ask for photos! For Nelson that would mean potruding platforms in front of the Bridge then.
 
Tzoli said:
Thx, I was about to ask for photos! For Nelson that would mean potruding platforms in front of the Bridge then.
Click to expand...
They may well be sided, HMAS Shropshire had four, two per side, either side of the bridge and aft superstructure.

Crown Colonies and derived ships seem to have had them on the centerline, I know Gambia originally had four, one for each 6" mounting, two ahead as on Bermuda, and another pair on a small structure abaft the mainmast.
 
Last edited:
Friedman stated two, 1-1 for the 2nd and 3rd turrerts
 
There was not necessarily one such director for each turret. Swiftsure only had one in front of the bridge. As did Achilles, Ajax, Ceylon, Cumberland, & Leander.

London had a pair side by side on the bridge front.

Belfast had a sided arrangement with one pair on the hangar roof and another pair aft sided on the after superstructure.

So much has to have depended on how individual directors were wired to the turrets for control to be exercised.
 
Swiftsure had two, one forward of the bridge, and another on the aft superstructure.

Jamaica also seems to have two, both aft on a structure abaft the mainmast similar to that of Gambia.

I assume if Nelson was intended to receive two barrage units for A and B turrets they would ideally be on the centerline, to share the arcs of their respective turrets.
 
Now the USN/BAD wind tunnel model:
There are a number of objects on the model which I cannot identify:
https://imgur.com/KtydZPd
View: https://i.imgur.com/KtydZPd.png


Norman Friedman's relevant part:
BAD developed an alternative arrangement: directors were in a diamond rather than a square arrangement and the pom-poms were all have replaced by US-type quadruple Bofors guns. A model of Nelson, as modified, was tested in a wind tunnel at the National Physical Laboratory.59 (Nelson Cover No. 4, Folio 51. The enclosure is the NPL report dated November 1944, including photographs of the 1/96 scale model used. Unfortunately these photos are too fuzzy to reproduce.) It is almost certainly the planned configuration. The most striking feature is a deckhouse built up on each side just abaft the heightened funnel, carrying two twin 5in/38 on each side, with two more such guns on the upper deck forward and aft of the deckhouse (the arrangement was much like that in the modernised US California class battleships). The tower bridge was replaced by a structure more like that in Valiant or King George V, but with a compass platform projecting further forward. At its after end was a raised tubular tower. Between compass platform and tower was the forward main-battery DCT on a pedestal, with a Mk 37 director (5in control) atop what was left of the former conning tower. A second Mk 37 was placed on a pedestal abaft the tripod mainmast, with the after mainbattery DCT abaft it. Two more Mk 37s were sided abeam the tubular tower at the after end of the bridge structure. On the model, octuple pompoms are visible atop ‘B’ turret, on the shelter deck abeam the bridge, at the fore side of the funnel (raised above the boat deck), on the upper deck abaft the superstructure and on the upper deck on the centreline right aft, for a total of eight. Positions of pom-poms are not clear, except for those atop ‘X’ turret.
Click to expand...

Now he states BAD (British Admiralty Delegation) developed this alternative scheme where all Pom-Poms replaced by Quad Boforses, yet Friedman states Pom-Poms though even he says most of the mounts are not clear. He states 8 mountings:
1 on B turret
1-1 next to the bridge
1-1 next to the funnel
3 on the stern.
The model shows what looks like 2-4 extra mounts near the 5" twin mounts and behind the funnel (red and blue).
Also there are a weird object on the tripod mast (green) and two circular things on the platform between the funnel and bridge (purple)

Friedman also states that the tower bridge superstructure would be replaced something similar to that of Valiant or KGV eg the standard BB bridge of the RN yet the model shows Nelson's original bridge with an heavily extended compass platform...
 
Last edited:
From Friedman's BB book:

In May 1945 D of D proposed to take her in hand at Devonport after completion of repairs to Valiant and the refit of Queen Elizabeth, probably in the spring of 1946. At this time Rodney was flagship of the Home Fleet. On 29 October C-in-C Home Fleet was instructed to have Rodney docked at Rosyth and destored, a decision on her future to be made as soon as possible.62 (Nelson Cover No. 4, Folio 49.) In April 1946 she was provisionally earmarked for ship target trials.63 (Nelson Cover No. 4, Folio 53A, 26 April 1946, reducing her to Category ‘C’ Reserve, to be retained in drydock in Rosyth. A note dated 17 May stated that this decision was being reviewed, leaving open the possibility that she would be refitted for further service.) However, on 31 July 1946 she was ordered refitted for further service (but she could not begin this refit before December).64 (Nelson Cover No. 4, Folio 50, dated 19 November 1945 with additional note dated 31 July 1946.) That in turn was cancelled. Rodney again was earmarked for ship target trials, but probably because she was in such poor material condition, Nelson was substituted.
 
For a 1946 Refit I can see at minimum these changes:
- New updated radar systems
- HACS Mk VI
- Replace the Boforses and Pom-Poms with sextuple, twin and single Boforses aka Vanguard outfit.
- Power worked Oerlikons
- CRBFD's
- Replace the 4,7" and 6" guns with new 4,5" or 5,25 guns. (Daring/Vanguard fit)
- Electric system overhaul and new generators.
- Engine replacement would be a good investment but costly.
 
Nelson had such a a long bow that I am surprised that no one thought to make a proto-arsenal ship out of her.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom