Yuku free message boards

Nile and Trafalgar actually had compound armour, which had about half the resistance of KC against APC. In 1903 there was no effective APC yet, just uncapped steel shot, so the advantage of KC would be even greater (as uncapped shot would shatter on KC*). Still, they had excellent protection against the shot and shell of 1903, and would have been comparable in this respect to the latest battleships like HMS Formidable which had a deep 9" KC belt.

The key disadvantage of Nile and Trafalgar were low freeboard, which would severely affect their battle efficiency in a seaway. That is why they mainly served in the Med and not the Atlantic. Also, by 1903 the rate of fire of their main guns was low at one RPG per 2 minutes. The best 12" mountings in 1903 could manage a loading cycle of about 40 secs, so would have at least twice the RoF.

Still in the 1890's they were well regarded, and some would prefer them to a Royal Souvereign in the Med.

* Note: many readers who are not very familiar with the effects of ordnance think that if (the nose of) a shell shatters, nothing happens. This is a serious misunderstanding. If only the nose of a projectile shatters, it may still penetrate with devastating consequences. In fact, up to WWI intact penetration of a projectile was the exception, not the rule. Even after that, shells did often not work as advertized. Although this often diminishes the damage that is caused, even a damaged shot or shell that does not function properly smashing into your ship at high velocity is a very bad thing that can cause extensive and sometimes fatal damage.