# Talk:HMS Rodney (29)

From where is the statement that Rodney actually torpedoed Bismarck successfully derived from? Neither Raven and Roberts' British Battleships or Bercuson and Herwig's The Destruction of the Bismarck mention it at all, and Ludovic in Pursuit says that Rodney fired 8 torpedoes, none of which hit (p.197-199 of the 1975 Pinnacle Books edition). 
68.20.4.14 (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The quote regarding the number of torpedoes fired and the one that hit and exploded comes from "Reports of Proceedings 1921-1964" by Rear Admiral  Galfrey, George, Ormond, Gatacre RAN who was the Navigator on the bridge of  Rodney  throughout the Bismarck sinking. He was in fact a Lt. Cmdr. at the time and served as Navigator on HMS's Devonshire, Norfolk, Edinburgh, Renown and Nelson before joining Rodney in 1940-1, leaving in 1942 to become Commander of HMAS Australia and much later Flag Officer Commanding HMA Fleet. The Dart (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Considering that Ludovic Kennedy was a junior Lieutenant in  HMS Tartar, a destroyer which had returned to it's duties escorting the convoy that HMS Rodney had left to pursue 'Bismarck', he was not actually present at the sinking of her. The written words of 'Rodney's' Navigator who was actually there obviously have far more credence than his!The Dart (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
And we all know how reliable eyewitnesses are. AFAIK, there's no evidence of any torpedo damage to the hull seen by any of the expeditions to the wreck of the Bismarck.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Well Sturmvogel 66 perhaps you need to see David L. Mearns DVD "The Battle of Hood and Bismarck" of 2009. The claim that the German crew make that 'Bismarck' was scuttled is highly disputed by several Naval historians of high regard, Antony Preston for one.The Dart (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I've got the book that he did on that, although it's inaccessible for the nonce. I was more interested in his comments on Hood at the time, but I'll pull it out and take a look at it whenever I can. Evidence from the wreck, if it's clear enough, will trump everyone's opinion's about the torpedoing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Funny you should ask about that. David Mearns, who discovered the wreck of the Hood and surveyed the Bismarck on the same expedition, reported visible torpedo holes, as well as large-calibre shell holes, in what remains of the Bismarck. https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=129972&page=1 Mearns can't be doing with the childish 'scuttled' theory of the Bismarck's demise, or the pretence that she was somehow invulnerable to shells and torpedoes.
'"I have a real problem with that," says David Mearns, an explorer and author who has also examined the Bismarck wreck.
Mearns says the damage is there if one looks closely enough, and more may be hidden by the mud on the sea floor. He adds that sailors' accounts from the time — both British and German — agree that the British got the revenge they sought.
"It is only when you start getting closer and closer," he says, "that you see that this beautiful hull is actually peppered with torpedo holes and large-caliber shell holes, that she was actually sort of beaten to death by all this British gunnery."'
Bismarck is full of holes, including torpedo holes, probably more holes than we can see because she's half-buried in mud. People who claim otherwise are being disingenuous. Rodney fired 378 16-inch shells at Bismarck, just one of them in the fourth salvo disabling the forward armament and wiping out the entire bridge crew including the captain and the admiral, and those 16s could penetrate Bismarck's belt armour, anywhere, at any range from point blank to 23km. It is evident that KG5 and Rodney shot Bismarck to pieces in fairly short order, and for good measure Rodney scored the only torpedo hit ever gained by one battleship against another. It is not possible that Bismarck was sunk by scuttling, because she rolled over and went under only 20 minutes after the supposed detonation of the charges on the seawater feedpipe in the engine room, and that method would take at least six hours to sink a ship the size of the Bismarck, and probably more, and might never succeed in sinking her at all. (Over twenty of the German ships 'scuttled' at Scapa Flow in 1919 failed to sink, including a capital ship. It was 40 minutes before even one ship in the fleet started to list visibly, and six hours before the last ship to sink went down -- and this was after days of preparation with holes made in all the bulkheads to speed the flooding process.) Khamba Tendal (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC) 

Per Ballantyne p.142, Rodney's Torpedo Officer, Lt Cdr Lewis, said, 'I always claimed that one of the last three torpedoes I fired, at a range of 3,000 yards by then, did hit the Bismarck and in several circles this has been accepted.' Rodney's battle observer recorded a torpedo hit on Bismarck at 9.58am. ERA Ken George, in the starboard engine room, said he heard Dalrymple Hamilton say over the Tannoy, 'We have made history in hitting another battleship with a torpedo.' Dalrymple Hamilton had a fairly good view. Bismarck's surviving gunnery officer apparently claimed the hit was 'doubtful', but, given what was happening to Bismarck at the time, with Rodney, KG5, Devonshire and Norfolk all in action, it is unlikely that the German officer was in full possession of his faculties. 
Ludovic Kennedy's ship HMS Tartar was in fact present. Only Eskimo had been detached to escort Britannic. Earlier in the morning, Tovey in KG5 had asked Tartar and Mashona for their fuel state and signalled, 'On receipt of executive signal, proceed as convenient to refuel at Plymouth or Londonderry.' Later, he sent, 'Proceed in execution of previous orders.' According to Kennedy, 'Tovey's original signal had said to proceed to refuel as convenient -- "and what I'm going to find convenient," said the captain, "is to stick around for a bit and watch." ' Rodney opened fire 'a moment later'. Kennedy wrote, 'In all my life I doubt if I will remember another hour as vividly as that one.' But he was perhaps not best positioned to see which torpedoes hit and which did not. (Ludovic Kennedy, On My Way To The Club, Harper Collins 1989, extracted in Mordecai Richler ed., Writers on World War II, Chatto & Windus 1992, p.154.) Tartar and Mashona withdrew once the Bismarck sank. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

A good color image exists at World War 2 in color

I am reading a little book about Cromarty, written by someone who remembers the RN activity in the area during the 1930s.  He says that the Nelson and Rodney were known in the Royal Navy as the Cherry Tree Class" because of being "cut down by Washington".  --jmb 08:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
This is supported by another source too: Antony Preston and John Batchelor, "Battleships 1855-1977," Chartwell Books (Phoebus Publishing Co., London, 1977), Page 71: "They were known as the 'Cherry Tree' class--cut down by Washington--but the unkindest cut was the sailors' nickname for them--'Nelsol' and 'Rodnol'--in memory of a group of fleet oilers whose names ended in 'ol': this was a reference to the position of the funnels so far aft." 'Washington' referring to the naval arms limitation treaty. Unfortunately Preston and Batchelor don't cite their source.Naaman Brown (talk) 02:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Rodney had her 6 x 4.7 inch guns replaced by 8 x 4 inch guns in twin mounts.  Does anybody know:  which 4.7 inch mounts were replaced, and which were not?  Was it number 1 and 2 on each side (abreast the superstructure) were replaced, and number 3 (on the fantail) left open?  Or was it numbers 1 and 3 replaced, and number 2 left open?  Anybody know?
76.112.65.31 (talk) 04:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Although it was one of several modifications to the A/A weapons considered, it was never carried out.The Dart (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Both these ships were notorious for bad steering at low speeds. Both ships leaving Portsmouth harbour frequently ran aground on the Hamilton Bank. A standing naval joke was "Nelson on Hamilton again".AT Kunene (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Not under the navigation of G.G.O. Gatacre. Besides HMS Warspite did exactly that several times and Ray Burt states in "British Battleships 1919-1945" pg.154 Handling and Manoeuvrability, "it is on record that several of the Royal Sovereigns 'played up' especially at slow speeds". To level such a criticism specifically at the 'Nelson's' as though they were uncommonly difficult to navigate is absurdly unfair! In Burt's book on pg.350 he quotes Capt. T.H. Binney with regard to Nelson's manoeuvrability "In the early stages of the ship's 1st commission, there was a general misconception in 'the service' that the 'Nelson' class were unhandy & difficult to manoeuvre", followed by " both my predecessor & myself, however, very soon discovered that this opinion was ENTIRELY FALLACIOUS"."In calm weather, the ship's manoeuvring capabilities are in no way inferior to those of 'Queen Elizabeth' or 'Revenge'." Also matelots who never served in the 'Nelson's' were always deriding this class of battleship because of jealousy relating to the comfortable accommodation & amenities that Nelson & Rodney's crews enjoyed compared to any other battleship in the RN. The criticisms directed at these two ships is mainly based in ignorance of the radical design concepts they embodied which other navies such as the French and with respect to the all-or-nothing armour, the U.S. were later to emulate.The Dart (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)The Dart (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but the US invented the concept of all-or-nothing armor back in 1916 with the Nevada-class battleship.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, what I was refering to in particular was "the length of the armoured citadel was reduced to a minimum in order to maximise armour thickness; this ran counter to accepted practice in other navies, notably the US Navy, which saw the armoured belt as a protector not only of the ships vitals but also of its bouyancy and stability." cite. John Jordan & Robert Dumas, French Battleships 1922-1956, ISBN 978-1-84832-034-5 The Dart (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, that's entirely different. IIRC, the American concept dropped things like the upper strake of armor and similar thinly-armored places to concentrate most everything except the conning tower protection on thickening the waterline belt and the main deck armor.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on HMS Rodney (29). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6BCbi4H90?url=http://www.wrightmuseum.org/explore-world-war-ii/the-archive/97-nh-connection-to-the-sinking-of-the-bismarck.html to http://www.wrightmuseum.org/explore-world-war-ii/the-archive/97-nh-connection-to-the-sinking-of-the-bismarck.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Above there has been discussion on the replacement of the 4.7 in guns with 4 in ones. I feel that in the photo of the Rodney shelling Caen the stern heavy AA guns are different from those appearing in the photos at earlier times. At least they have been enclosed. Is a computer wizard able to say something? Perhaps the top-quality photo to do this is in www.world-war.co.uk. pietro151.29.86.54 (talk) 08:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Photos are not normally considered reliable sources.SovalValtos (talk) 10:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Rodney (29)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 19:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I'll take this - my contribution to Majestic Titan, I guess. Hog Farm  Bacon 19:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misreading stuff, but it seems to me that there's a bit of disparity between the infobox and prose figures for some of the armor.  Seems to me that the lower range end for the deck armor should be 3.75 in not 4.25, and I'm not seeing where the 6in minimum figure for the conning tower is coming from.
No, you're reading things just fine. I've screwed up the infobox. The 6 inches was a reference to the communications tube, which I later deleted without looking at the infobox.
It never received the necessary upgrades and as a result was unfit for service by the end of 1944.
"The port side mount was installed several years later in the position occupied by the port torpedo director" - Is the exact date known?
Sadly, no
Link aircraft catapult
Link Rosyth at the first mention, not the third.  Also add that it is in Scotland at the first mention, not the third.
"was the fourth ship of her name to serve in the Royal Navy" - The SIA page HMS Rodney suggests it was the sixth?  I'd trust the Colledge & Warlow source over that uncited SIA page, but it's maybe something to look into
Nope, that's my miscount
Infobox says that it was completed in August 1927.  Prose says that trials began then, but doesn't explicitly mention completion date.
Commission date varies between the prose and infobox
"of a armoured 4.7-inch ready ammunition box" - Can we get a conversion to cm?
It's in the armament section
Link River Clyde
"Despite the heavy anti-aircraft fire, the Swordfish hit her with three torpedoes" - It's no immediately obvious that her is Bismarck here, as Ark Royal and Sheffield have both been mentioned since the last mention of Bismarck
"Tovey decided to reduce speed to save fuel and wait until dawn as that allow his ships the maximum amount of time in which to sink the German ship" - Something is off grammatically here, probably with "allow"
Belike
"As the range diminished, she began to fire torpedoes, although shock waves from near misses caused the door for her starboard tube to jam at 09:23. At 09:31, the ship blew off the left barrel of the lower aft gun turret and started a fire inside the turret that forced its evacuation" - It's not entirely clear if this damage happened to Bismarck or Rodney
I wonder if movie star is common enough it doesn't need linked
"The ship was sent to Rosyth for repairs on 22 August[53]" - This sentence is lacking a trailing period
Good catch
Link Operation Husky
Linked in the lede
"tearing a 9 ft-long (2.7 m) hole in her hull plates " - Did this not warrant getting pulled out of the fight for repairs?
My guess is that she wasn't pulled out for two reasons. They had no replacement for her firepower immediately available and that the damage wasn't too severe (long, but narrow, maybe?) for her crew to handle.
"The ship also provided fire support during Operation Windsor, a partially successful Canadian assault on Carpiquet and its airfield west of Caen on 4–5 July and Operation Charnwood a frontal assault on Caen proper on 8–9 July." - I think there should be commas after the first July and after Charnwood, because the descriptions are appositives
Location needed for Kennedy
Boston, MA is first linked in the Bismarck section, but is actually first mentioned in the deficiencies section
That's about all I can find on this.  Very impressive work.  Placing on hold.  Once these get fixed, I'd say this is a good ACR candidate. Hog Farm  Bacon 06:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for reading through all this so thoroughly. Nearly all of the battleship articles will go to ACR eventually. I just need to get back in the swing of things there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@AugusteBlanqui: I'm white-washing nothing. Did you miss these bits? 
"The ship encountered a strong storm with gale-force winds on 6–8 December that caused leaks in her hull plating with a moderate amount of flooding. Repairs at Rosyth began on the 18th that included structural reinforcement of the hull plating and general reinforcement of the forward hull structure." 
"While at sea with the French battleship Richelieu to conduct a night gunnery exercise on 29 December, Rodney suffered weather damage during a severe storm that caused extensive flooding forward."
"heavy weather further stressed the steering motors and exacerbated her many leaks."
What you persist in defending is far too detailed and is not encyclopedic, i.e. summarized. If you have helpful suggestions on what should be added to the excerpts I gave above, I'm perfectly willing to discuss them with you. But nothing will be used verbatim, I can tell that to you right now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Raven and Roberts, the highest quality source we have on British battleship in World War II, devote no less than ten pages to discussing the weaknesses and limitations of the Rodney.  They note, for example, that as a result of emphasizing lighter machinery weight in its construction the ship "was continually beset by machinery problems" (124).  The single quote by an officer above that the Rodney handled fine is biased and it is undue to take this quote as the definitive statement on the issue.  Regarding Rodney's endurance, Raven and Roberts note that during its trials, the ship made 23.8 knots consuming 16 tons per hour which gave an endurance of 5,500 nautical miles.  However, by 1941 the ship's performance had dramatically declined (table reproduced from page 267) :

So there is no question that information about the ship's limitations and faults should be given better weight than is currently present in this article.  The other issue is the way that this information is presented.  Rather than a straight chronological narrative of the ship's history that presents a simplistic story-telling, there should be topical organization as well.  I am happy to expand the 'questions of seaworthiness' section and rename it, perhaps to 'limitations and flaws'.  In terms of encyclopedic content, it is important to include such information rather than present a hagiography of a ship.  Indeed, that the Rodney was almost a hulk makes its action against the Bismarck all the more impressive.  AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Calling Rodney "almost a hulk" at the time of the battle with the Bismarck is a gross exaggeration of her deficiencies, especially since she exceeded her trials speed during the pursuit. I'm willing to expand the coverage of her problems as an additional paragraph in the description, to avoid "simplistic story-telling", but the existing text remains too detailed and is very close to a copyright infringement of Raven & Roberts in its existing form. I'd suggest dialing down the rhetoric and hyperbole as neither aids in achieving consensus.
The problems common to both Nelson and Rodney should be most fully covered in the class article, notably the 16-inch turret and steering at low speeds issues, but can be briefly mentioned here. I'll add a paragraph summarizing the issues to the article and you can tell me where I've gone wrong.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
The flaws of the Rodney merit a sub-heading.  Its current location, 2.2 is fine, but it could also be placed as 2.1.  Second World War becomes 2.2.  I'll have time tomorrow to add additional detail.AugusteBlanqui (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I've started it inside the description section where everything is theme based, not chronological.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Made a few tweaks, but you did a very nice job of summarizing her issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Cheers! AugusteBlanqui (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to wade in here @AugusteBlanqui: @Sturmvogel 66:, but I think more needs to be said in the 1943–1948 section now. Design deficiencies ends with the statement "The ship never received the necessary upgrades and as a result was unfit for service by the end of 1944" but, other than some mentions of damage, this is not explained in 1943–1948, which continues to record various operations until Rodney was placed in reserve at the end of 1945 (I assume this was a matter of necessity, but nothing is said to this effect) Cavie78 (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
After escorting convoys to and from Murmansk, Rodney was kept as Home Fleet flagship at Scapa from early October '44 (in the absence of Nelson, which was in the US for repairs after hitting mines off Normandy -- Nelson never had much luck with mines), the purpose being to present a counter to Tirpitz in case she sortied, so Rodney was obviously not considered unfit for service at the time, albeit under war emergency conditions. She took part in a practice shoot at sea on 8 November. Four days later, Tirpitz was capsized and written off by RAF Lancasters. This allowed Churchill to release 'all heavy ships' to the Far East, but Rodney, not in the best of shape having received much less maintenance than Nelson, was not sent, whereas Nelson later was. That is the point at which Rodney became non-operational. In any case battleships were now seen as obsolete in the face of carrier air power. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Please explain your deletion of the Buxton reference Source Buxton (2019) with the allegation in the summary that the author, Ian Buxton, was a "Spammy Author" in the edit summary.[1]  Additionally this left the article syntax broken in a "good article" with citation to Buxton p. 114 being left with no associated reference source, and I've reverted from that inconsistent broken state for that reason.  Referring to Tony Holkham's thread at Talk:Chichester#"Spammy author" it is possible the gripe is with the book editor MacDougall.  Per that thread, and especially as the citation seems added by Sturmvogel 66 in good faith on 30 November 2021 at [2] & [3], albeit temporarily removed by an IP on 9 December 2020, [4], please explain your actions and allegations.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark Kindly (and very bluntly) unwatch my talkpage and stay the fuck out of things that do not concern you. If I wanted your opinion I would've asked for it. –Davey2010Talk 10:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Colorized Rodney May 1942.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

4-in guns
two posts above have discussed this point. One answer is that photographs are not generally considered reliable sources. But https://iainballantyne.com/part-two-struggle-at-sea-off-normandy/ shows beyond any doubt that there is a twin mount in the stern right place.
torpedos
R. Greenfell (The Bismarck Episode, of whom I own the italian translation) says that the Rodney fired her last two torpedos from 2700 m and that one of them was seen to hit 151.29.70.84 (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I have been investigating the claim that HMS Rodney carried "other cargo included three or four crates of the Elgin Marbles" while escorting the MV Britannic in 1941.
This is a widely cited "fact", most sourcing directly or indirectly from Ballantyne, Iain (2008). H.M.S. Rodney. Ships of the Royal Navy.
Ballantyne is in turn citing the oral history of Lt Cdr Crawford archived at the IWM https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/80010451 which does include the story about the Elgin Marbles (at 27:28). This appears to be the primary source for all claims about the Elgin Marbles ever being on Rodney.
The problem I am finding is that all other sources, and the British Museum’s own material, appear to indicate that the Elgin Marbles (aka Parthenon sculptures) held by the British Museum were evacuated to Aldwych Underground Station in 1939 and remained there throughout the war; post-war logistics allowed their return to the British Museum starting in late 1948. There is no evidence of any primary document showing a sea transport on Rodney - but it is hard to prove a negative.
My suspicion is that the oral history of Lt Cdr Crawford, recorded in 1989, represents a mistaken memory, or perhaps a contemporary ship-board rumour.
I believe additional evidence is required to substantiate the oral history, before it can be considered sufficiently well-sourced to be presented in the article. 
Until further evidence is uncovered, I think the best action is to remove the claim from the page, unless others have better suggestions. I will proceed to make the change for now, and direct follow-up discussion here. Pratalife (talk) 02:37, 25 September 2025 (UTC)