Talk:Dreadnought

"Dreadnaught"?

The article states, without support, that "dreadnaught" is an acceptable alternate spelling.

What support is there for this? If none, I strongly suggest removing. 209.188.41.105 (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Unsupported statement

The entry says "The Adriatic was in a sense the mirror of the North Sea: the Austro-Hungarian dreadnought fleet remained bottled up by British and French blockading fleets." This is a rather unsupported statement. It was the Italian Navy to blockade the Adriatic, mostly with mines, in its narrowest point, the Channel of Otranto. --213.140.21.227 17:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Also remove Gallipoli because this operation was specialy designed for outdated pre-dreadnougths. Maybe Operation Albion should be added to the baltic theater because there 10 dreadnoughts were used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.86.11.55 (talk) 12:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Fork from battleship

After discussion at Talk:Battleship I have forked out the material on Dreadnoughts as the basis for a new article. The Land 17:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Blown out of the article

I deleted this

"Japan ordered four Kongo-class battlecruisers in 1911. While Japan adopted an "eight-eight" Navy target—eight battleships and eight battlecruisers—it took until 1921 to reach the target, by which time the Washington Naval Treaty had negated it."

as not really on point. (I'm not entirely convinced any reference to battlecruisers belongs in an article about Dreadnought.) Anybody who feels really strongly, put it back (but carefully; it's split up now). And you might note this was a 1916 program, which is 1 reason it took until 1921; as it was, it implied a prewar beginning. IIRC, the U.S. commenced the New Yorks, or something, in reply. Also, W&W notes delays in building the Ganguts meant they were all obsolete before they completed. Trekphiler 17:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Dread lock

Anybody know why "dreadnought" came to be generic, while (say) Langley didn't? Trekphiler 22:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's my educated guess. British battleship designs were often described, in their early stages, with reference to a previous successful design - hence Inflexible started off as 'new Fury. So the first drawings for the next battleship would likely have said 'new Dreadnought at the top. I think it would be a short step from that to "we must have three Dreadnoughts", aided and abbetted by the obsession with naval matters and Fisher's eye for PR.

Of course, Monitor followed the same pattern. Perhaps the common element is the massive attention generated by these two naval innovations, while Langley was of less interest... The Land 17:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. My hunch is nobody really understood carriers had made (or shortly would make) BBs obsolete, either. You suppose "carrier" being descriptive made it less likely? Trekphiler 22:24 & 22:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The explanation was that Fisher wanted to get the government to spend more on ships. Fisher was an expert spin-doctor. Insisting that dreadnoughts made the older battleships count for less was part of how he achieved his aims. It was much easier to get his message across by using the term dreadnought than a more generic term. See: Lambert, Nicholas A. Sir John Fisher's Naval Revolution, pub University of South Carolina, 1999, ISBN-1-57003-277-7 --Toddy1 (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The name probably derives from the fact that HMS Dreadnought was the first all-big-gun battleship, and attracted huge notice. Therefore, her name was used as a generic term for this type of ship, which rendered all predecessors ("pre-Dreadnoughts") instantly obsolete. --Vvmodel (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)--Vvmodel (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Because Dreadnought wasn't just the first "all big-gun ship", it was also powered by steam turbines which meant that it could run all day at high speed so it could steam much greater distances at higher speed than the previous reciprocating-powered ships, and this was recognised at the time as making her far more potent than the earlier vessels. Ships powered by piston engines were limited to how long they could run at high speed as the greatly increased vibration could lead to damage to the engines. With Dreadnought she could be steamed flat-out for as long as her coal lasted, with no problems other than greater fuel consumption.

BTW, the Langley wasn't the first proper aircraft carrier - that was Argus, and by the time aircraft carriers 'came of age' and started to be useful and powerful warships, the Argus and Langley had probably been long forgotten. Initially aircraft carriers' main role was reconnaissance, as the early carrier aircraft had little capability other than as reconnaissance and spotters for the big guns of the battleships, or as relatively slow and vulnerable torpedo bombers, and at the time they great leap forward in carrier aircraft capability had not yet arisen. So the early carriers were not seen as being as important as this type of vessel would become later.

So, Dreadnought was recognised worldwide as being revolutionary at the time - Argus and the later Langley were not. The nearest recent equivalent would be the Nautilus, as she also revolutionised submarines in a similar manner that Dreadnought had revolutionised battleships, although why nuclear submarines never became generically called Nautiluses, I don't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Why isn't the obvious being mentioned here, or the article? The name itself meant so much and it's a great name. Dread = Fear. Nought = Nothing. Dreadnought = "Fear Nothing". I would add this to the article myself if I had any sources for what seems glaringly obvious to me. jason404 (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

♠That doesn't seem to address itself to the question at hand at all. However evocative it was for the original ship, why would others like her be called by her name? (Notice, this isn't about naming Dreadnought at all... So your change to the header is mistaken & inept.)

♠On reflection, tho, can it be as simple as "Dreadnought-type" being shortened? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Jason 404 is definitely on the right track, as Geoffery Penn refers to this in both "Fisher, Churchill and the Dardenelles" (1999) and "Infighting Admirals" (2000),( both Pen & Sword books) but I can't find the pages to actually cite this correctly.The Dart (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The British do have a history of somewhat grandiose ship names, (Invincible, Inflexible, Implacable, Impregnable, Indefatigable, Indomitable, Inflexible, just to pick a few from the I's), and Dreadnought as a ship name goes back to the 16th century. From that perspective, it is a good name, and it happened to be available when a particularly significant ship was being built. As for it becoming a generic name, certainly its position as the first name of that type of ship was a big deal, and second, it was subtle enough that other people were willing to adopt it as a name - I suspect admirals in most navies would not have been able to go to their governments and say "we want to build some Invincibles" with a straight face, they’d have almost certainly said “all big gun battleships” or “Invincible-like”. Rwessel (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Ocean eclipse

I'm inclined to add a ref @the Washington Treaty that it (inadvertently) led to a boom in CV building, contrib to end of BB era. Comment? Trekphiler (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Washington encouraged the building of CVs, notably through reconstruction of existing hulls made redundant by the treaty. Also, in the absence of Washington, there might have been a new generation of super-battleships, a concept which, in the event, was only pursued by Japan. So the treaty was pivotal in the development of the dreadnought battleship. --Vvmodel (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

have been interested in the navy of this era for a year now but still find these annoying references. what on earth is a CV? curriculum vitae? Sandpiper (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

A CV is a "Carrier Vessel", i.e. aircraft carrier. The abbreviation is most commonly used in US hull numbers (CVN - Nuclear powered carrier, CVE - Escort carrier, CV - plain old carrier). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I guessed it was some sort of carrier from context. But if I don't know what it means, nor does most of the world. Beware lest I set LV on initals users! Sandpiper (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not afraid of Luther Vandros. ;D Now, Lex Luthor.... Edward Albee ^{the blue pencil is mightier than the pen} 03:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Main Picture

Surely the main picture for the article should be one of HMS Dreadnought, the ship that gave its name to this type of ship —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.253.49 (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. HMS Dreadnought has its own page, with plenty of images. Having a modern picture here is a nice deviation from all the period black-and-white images. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the first comment, I thought the same thing when I first looked at the article. I don't think that it 'is a nice deviation' is a good enough reason. 82.18.132.162 (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary. This article isn't just - or even mainly - about HMS Dreadnought (1906). Colour images are much more interesting than black and white ones. The Land (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, there is no picture of the eponymous warship at all which seems wrong to me. Perhaps a better view of the Texas could be found, something more form the side since the one included is a big bulk of grey paint. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Both points taken. I like Image:USS_Texas01a.jpg better for Texas - it's a slightly different angle, showing more of the ship, and it also seems to have better exposure. Yes, we should add a good picture of HMS Dreadnought as well. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Do we need a bit more in the caption for Texas just to clarify that she has been modernized along the way. Eg loss of cage masts and barbette armament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GraemeLeggett (talk • contribs) 14:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

One wonders if those who object to the choice of a US BB lead picture are from the UK and those defending a picture of Texas are from US. As for pointing out that Texas has been modernized (losing cage masts, etc.), the more salient point may be that she is a Super Dreadnought with 14" vs. 12" guns (which is probably far more important than having lost her cage masts, which were a problematic design feature in any case). jmdeur 13:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope: while Graeme is English, so am I; and Stefan is German. The Land (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Texas is a super-dreadnought, so an odd choice in any case to represent a dreadnougt... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

edit: The caption to the Texas is incorrect. She is not afloat, rather steerage is filled with concrete and she rests on the bottom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.92.255.209 (talk) 11:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? As far as I know, she is afloat, with a dry-docking process commissioned, but planned to commence from 2014-2017. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The caption for the Texas is incorrect. She is not the only dreadnought still afloat as her bilges are filled with concrete and she is resting on the bottom. She'll never sail again. Ealtram (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealtram (talk • contribs) 23:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Move to Dreadnought battleship?

Should we move this page to the more descriptive title Dreadnought battleship (which currently is a link to Battleship(?!?))? It would avoid confusion with the ship, it's more descriptive, and it's in line with Ironclad warship and Pre-dreadnought battleship (which, to be open, I moved from Pre-dreadnought after this discussion a while back). I know that I'm always a bit confused when I see this page. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Go for it, it makes sense and there is precedent from Pre-dreadnought battleship. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Noooo! People refer far more often to 'dreadnought' than 'dreadnought battleship', which is not at all the case with 'pre-dreadnought'. The redirect at Dreadnought battleship is left over from before this article was forked off, I'll just fix it. The Land (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you certain? My impression is that most people just say "battleship" if they refer to a "dreadnought battleship". Maybe my impression is tainted by German, where everything before Dreadnought is often called a Linenschiff. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

In English it varies after WWI. From 1906-1920ish the common term was 'dreadnought', as dreadnought battleship' was redundant (there being no non-battleship dreadnoughts); after that at some point people simply referred to 'battleship' and 'dreadnought' started to take on a more and more antique feel. What's the German for dreadnought then? The Land (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The normal distinction is Schlachtschiff (battleship - Dreadnought and on) vs. Linienschiff (ship of the line - everything from c. 1700 to Dreadnought). But terminology is not very established for the time from 1850-1906 or so - I can very well imagine a German popular writer refer to HMS Warrior as a Schlachtschiff, when a better term would be gepanzerte Fregatte. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"Dreadnought battleship" strikes me redundant, & how many people will search it that way? They'll either search "dreadnought" & use a dab link, or "battleship" ditto (or not; is there a link to "dreadnought" from "battleship"?). And it seems to me "dreadnought" is a bit elastic anyhow; post-WW1 ships have been broadly described as dreadnoughts, tho technically not... Trekphiler (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Post Scriptum: "gepanzerte Fregatte"=armoured cruiser? (Nein sprechen zie panzerschiffe.) 18:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Gepanzerte Fregatte translates as "armoured frigatte". Panzerschiff is normally restricted to the Deutschland class ships (although "Panzerkreuzer" is common for them as well). In general, Kreuzer = "Cruiser". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Danke schön. Curt Jurgens 11:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose move - the dreadnought concept was also applied to armoured cruisers. If this article is to have value it should encompass the dreadnought concept. Otherwise it merely deals with one part of the battleship's history.--Toddy1 16:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that somewhat. It is inevitable that we will talk about the development of the battlecruiser in this article because of the close connection between the too. However, many people use 'dreadnought' strictly to mean 'dreadnought battleship' and other people use 'dreadnought' to mean battleships and battlecruisers together. My feeling is that since there is a potentially thorough article at battlecruiser we should focus on the stricter use of the term here. It would be repetitiou to go into too much depth in this article about the evolution of battlecrusier design. This is particularly the case given that the distinction between battleship and battlecruiser largely vanished again in the 1920s onwards. The Land 20:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Fisher and 1900

There was until recently something in the article which mentioned the discussions Fisher had with W H Gard ar Malta in 1900, saying that Fisher had essentially conceived the all-big-gun battleship at this stage. User:Toddy1, who generally knows what he's talking about, removed it as being untrue. Now what exactly happened in Malta in 1900? Massie states that in his memoirs Fisher conceived a fast, all-big-gun battleship (the Untakeable) at Malta in 1900. Massie is not the world's most reliable source. I do however have a paper by Charles Fairbanks which says that in the most recent biography of Fisher, Mackay's Fisher of Kilverstone, Mackay proves that Fisher had a 'revolutionary type of battleship' in mind at this stage. Fairbanks goes on to argue that Fisher's revolutionary idea was more the ancestor of the battlecruiser than Dreadnought. So how do we deal with this in the article? What did Fisher invent in 1900? Did he later claim that in 1900 he had essentially invented the dreadnought? How do we deal with the difficulties of condensing all of the reams that have been written about this sort of thing into a few paragraphs? The Land 21:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

JA Fisher's ideas

"In his Memories Fisher states that the idea of the Dreadnought came to him in 1900 when C.-in-C. Mediterranean Fleet and that it was developed in association with Mr. W.H. Gard, the Chief Constructor at Malta." (Page 468, Parkes, British Battleships)

However this is disingenuous of Fisher, since the type of future battleship Fisher envisaged in 1900 was very different from the Dreadnought-type.

"In his comments to the Admiralty in June 1901 on the fast battleship question, Fisher called for a simpler mixed calibre system that would consist of a 'uniform armament of 7 1/2 inch guns' in association with a battery of 10-inch guns, and in his memoirs he claims to have discussed the uniform calibre armament issue with William Henry Gard, the Chief Constructor of the Malta Dockyard, as early as in 1900." (Page 50, Sumida, Jon Tetsuro, In Defence of Naval Supremacy, Finance Technology and British Naval Policy 1889-1914, pub Unwin Hyman, 1989, ISBN 0-04-445104-0)

It should be stressed that during his time as C-in-C Mediterranean Fleet, J.A. Fisher was very keen on speed and long range gunnery, and became a convert to the idea that Britain needed lots of armoured cruisers. Fisher had not favoured armoured cruisers when he was Controller from 1892 to 1897. However, in the 1905-06 programme, when the Royal Navy decided to build the Dreadnought-type in place of other types of battleships, they laid down three dreadnought armoured cruisers, and only one dreadnought battleship.--Toddy1 22:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm familiar with Sumida's line of argument (though I don't have his book!) - any idea what Marder made of it? Anyway, I have re-written the 'origins' section with hopefully a more historiographical approach to it. In an ideal world we would have more detail on what the Americans and Japanese (and Cuniberti) were thinking as they designed their first dreadnoughts. regards, The Land 22:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Cuniberti's ideas are easily available - they were published in Janes.
• US Battleships, by Norman Friedman explains in detail US thinking.
• Japanese ideas are more of a problem. However, good descriptions of their ships should be obtainable from the relevant editions of Brasseys.

--Toddy1 23:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You posted:

"In 1900-2, the first suggestions were being made to replace the pre-dreadnought with an all-big-gun ship. The British Admiral Jackie Fisher stated in his memoirs that while at Malta in 1900 he had discussions about an all-big-gun battleship, nicknamed the Untakeable.

You have misunderstood.

• Fisher in 1900-1901 was suggesting a battleship with an armament consisting of 10-inch guns and 7.5-inch guns. This compares with for instance, the Formidables which had four 12-inch, twelve 6-inch, sixteen 12-pdrs, six 3-pdrs, and two Maxim guns.
• At the same time, Fisher was also advocating building lots of armoured cruisers.
• By 1905, Fisher's ideas about battleships had changed. He now advocated battleships with lots of 12-inch guns, and 12-pdrs, and nothing in between.
• In 1905, Fisher favoured applying the dreadnought-style armament to armoured cruisers, which were called dreadnought armoured cruisers. (The term battlecruisers was invented five or six years later.)

--Toddy1 23:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

In the section on HMS Dreadnought in Marder's From Dreadnought to Scapa Flow, I found no mention of Fisher thinking up the Dreadnought idea in 1900.--Toddy1 23:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

And there was I about to rewrite it again but you got in first. Thanks a lot for that. I think what we're losing sight of a bit as we revise is the why the move to all-big-gun-armament. Regards, The Land 20:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've had another edit of what you added (only for clarity and style, I wasn't intending to alter the meaning). Thanks to your work we now have a remarkably detailed description of how intermediate-calibre and all-big-gun ideas developed. What we don't realyl ahve is a narrative about how these relate to the decision to build an all-big-gun ship. The Land (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hail of Fire

I wrote:

The pre-dreadnought battleships combined heavy-calibre potentially ship-killing guns, with a secondary and tertiary armament that could generate a hail of fire destroying the less protected parts of enemy ships. At the Battle of the Yalu River (1894) and the Battle of Santiago de Cuba (1898], this hail of fire destroyed most the the vessels of the defeated side.

You have suggested the following wording instead:

At the Battle of the Yalu River (1894) and the Battle of Santiago de Cuba (1898], the decisive weapons were the quick-firing guns of 6-inch or 8-inch calibre, which crippled the enemy ships at relatively short ranges with a hail of fire.

Problems with your wording:

• The term quick-firer (QF) has a precise meaning.
• At the Yalu:
  • There were no 8-inch QF present, though the Chinese had a number of 8.2-inch BL (with the usual defective Chinese ammunition)
  • Only three Japanese ships had 6-inch QF: Fuso, Yoshino and Akitsusu.
  • There were a lot of ships (mostly Japanese) with 4.7-inch QF. Unlike 6-inch QF, 4.7-inch QF were true quick-firers with one-piece ammunition.
  • There were a lot of 6-pdr and 3-pdr QF. The hail of fire from these cannot be ignored.
  • The 15cm and 6-inch BL cannot be ignored, though their rate of fire was an order of magnitude lower than the 6-inch and 4-7-inch QF.
• At Santiago:
  • The QF guns used by US armoured ships were 5-inch QF, 4-inch QF, and 6-pdr QF
  • US armoured ships also had slower firing 8-inch BL and 6-inch BL.
  • The QF guns used by Spanish armoured ships were 6-inch QF, 5.5-inch QF, 4.7-inch QF, 12-pdr QF, and 3-pdr QF.
  • The vast number of hits on Spanish ships by small QF guns is most impressive. (I have copies of reports on these - but it is a lot of work to sort them out.)

(Sources for guns present, Brassey's Naval Annual 1895, and 1899 and Conways.)

The advantage of my wording is that it is 100% true. Your wording is false. I have made the correction.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Is it fair to say that the conclusion people drew from these actions was that the volume of fire from medium-calibre guns was the crucial factor, and therefore that quick-firers would be the crucial weapons on new ships? The Land (talk) 10:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about US terminology but in British use the term QF (Quick Firing) usually means that the gun has a sliding breech and is cocked by the action of the breech-block's movement. There is therefore no separate ejection and cocking of the weapon, these are all performed automatically by the gun, the loader only having to load a shell and close the breech, and after firing, to open the breech, whereupon the empty cartridge case (in the case of a brass case) is then extracted and ejected, leaving the gun ready for a new round to be inserted. This contrasts with earlier interrupted-screw breech block designs and similar. The result of this is that the rate-of-fire is much greater, hence the term 'quick-firer'. The term was also used in the designations of UK anti-tank guns, such as the Ordnance QF 6 pounder and Ordnance QF 17 pounder, which all used the same sliding breech type. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.82.103 (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

End Date

There needs to be an approximate end-date on the designs to be covered by this article.

• I don't think that this should be the late 1940s.
• From the point of view of the ordinary reader, a sensible end-point might be the designs undertaken before experience from World War I was available. Though even this is debatable, since the armament concept for the Queen Elizabeths was more like the designs of Sir William White than that of the Admiralty-designed 1-2inch dreadnoughts.
• Another possible cut-off point would be the adoption by the US of the all-or-nothing armour concept.

--Toddy1 (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd go for the Washington Naval Treaty: there's a continuous line of development from 1905 to 1922, then the treaty interrupts it, and there is a holocaust of dreadnought-scrapping (and pre-dreadnought scrapping). There is a separate article on fast battleships, which this article should refer to and we should also have one on the treaty battleship. The Land (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

A further thought on this. The technical discussion of battleships stretches quite logically from Dreadnought to Iowa, Yamato, and Vanguard. It will take quite a lot to do justice to the technical aspects of battleship building; to avoid duplication between this article and others (e.g. treaty battleship, fast battleship I suggest we use this article to discuss at some length the issues about armour thickness and disposition, turret positioning and selection of armament calibre since all of these issues were fully-established by the end of World War I. We can then note solutions to some of these problems attempted from 1922-45 in this article, and in other relevant articles provide a summary and a link to a section here. Then we can restrict the coverage of operations, tactics etc in this battleships in World War IIarticle to the period 1905-1921. (Of course there are other ways of doing it, but I think this one makes the most sense). The Land (talk) 12:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to disagree. This page isn't "battleship", & the broader discussion belongs there, not here, with links there & out from there to treaty, fast, battlecruiser, dreadnought, pre-dreadnought, ironclad BB (pre-pre-dreadnought?), & arguably cruiser, protected cruiser, &c. Trekphiler (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I take your point; my plan is to sort out this article and battleships in World War II (both forked from battleship) and then to return to the main battleship article. The challenge of talking about design tradeoffs is that the solutions changed quite radically over time with technology. However, both the technology and the tactical imperatives for battleships from 1905-45 are very similar and even more similar if you consider 1916-1945. The Land (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're after something like a historical perspective, Dreadnought in a lineage, I've no problem with that. I'd say go easy here & link it to a more extensive discussion on Battleship; more than a few passing references to contemporaries & comparable spex & you're over the limit to this subject, IMO. I would add a mention of BBs being replaced, or Dreadnought being more/less obsolete soon (she was too slow for TF escort, wasn't she?), due to the appearance of CVs. As for the added detail, if you've got it, & can find the place for it, I say put it in; I, for 1, want to see it all. (I'll take the brand of paint on her decks, if you've got it! But I'm a bit nutz... =D) Trekphiler (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that battleship has to summarize several whole epochs of technology: if you only count the revolutions, there's the introduction of the screw propellor, the introduction of armour plate, development of heavy armament, steel armour, all-big-gun/turbine dreadnoughts. This means that battleship can't have a more detailed coverage of dreadnought engineering than dreadnought does; fundamentally all later battleships faced the same technology as the later dreadnoughts did. Regarding aircraft - I think the place to go into detail about the response in battleship design to first the threat and then dominance of aircraft is in (say) battleships in World War II. The Land (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

<--Noted. I don't mean to exclude it all, just that it should be judicious. I'd disagree with putting it in battleships in World War II; by then, the changes have already happened. What about a link out from battleship, or from here, to an "interwar developments" or "other influences" page? Or maybe a "battleship technology" page? Trekphiler (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Armour Concept

I don't understand why you pruned down what I wrote about the armouring concept for pre-dreadnoughts, with respect of armour protecting the guns.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Essentially because it's about pre-dreadnoughts, not dreadnoughts. The statement about gun armour, in particular, was a first approximation. The Land (talk) 10:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

On that, "Protection against torpedoes, secondary armament, fire control, and command equipment also had to be crammed into the hull." reminds me (I wish I could recall where I saw it...) this drives the length/beam of the ship: the longer the belt, the more armor needed, so designers try to shorten it, meaning the beam goes up, meaning horsepower has to go up... This was a big problem with Yamato, which hit the limits of Japan's ability to build more powerful turbines. Mention it? (I'll look & see if I can find the source...) Trekphiler (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure we'll mention it. Friedman's Battleship Design and Development goes into this sort of thing. You've got the logic slightly the wrong way around. A longer ship has lower frictional resistance, so a shorter ship is slower - all other things equal. (Though the weight saved will reduce the displacement, and hence the wave-generating resistance, which gives some compensation). So the shorter ship needs more horsepower, which in turn means a broader beam assuming you can't eliminate a turret to find space for the engines. The broader beam, irritatingly, has two effects on wave-making resistance: one increasing it and one decreasing it... The Land (talk) 10:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Just mentioning a random thought... Didn't know about the "conflicted" effect of broader beam. I always thought it had to do with fineness: higher L/B =faster. Compare Yamato & Iowa; on same hp, Iowa will be faster, no? Or not so simple? Trekphiler (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Not so simple! Frictional resistance (dominates at low speeds) is related to V/L - hence longer ship/finer lines = faster ship for the same power. Wave-making resistance (dominates at higher speeds) is related to a whole bunch of coefficients. I recommend Friedman's book on the subject if you can get it! The Land (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"Not so simple!" That figures... =D I'll look for Friedman. (Not a lot of hard math, I hope? I'm not planning to make a careeer of it...) Trekphiler (talk) 14:52 & 14:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC) (BTW, I was curious about Friedman just for the history; now, I've got another reason. And another book I can't find time to read... :( PS, for a way off-topic, he's also done a really good one on subs. And I seem to recall one on the development of US CVs, too. The man is a powerhouse.)

Triple & quad turrets - implications for armour

A point which should be made about triple and quad turrets was its importance in terms of armour. Essentially, design moved towards the "all-or-nothing" principal - instead of spreading armour in a fairly piecemeal way as previously, "all or nothing" meant that a ship would have armour concentrated to defend a citadel, containing essential weaponry, magazines, machinery and controls. Little or no armour was required outside the citadel.

in this context, a key virtue of the triple or quad turret was that this arrangement compressed the citadel, enabling better armour protection to be provided. This can be seen if one compares earlier designs with the more modern layout of Richelieu, with the main armament compressed into two adjacent turrets. These were spaced well apart in the belief that this would reduce vulnerability to a single hit. --Vvmodel (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a fair point. The economy of weight from the concentration of guns and the possible economy of protected length certainly made triple and quad turrets attractive. I wouldn't say it necessarily meant an 'all-or-nothing' scheme - there are examples of triple-turreted ships without all-or-nothing armour - but it certainly helped achieve one. The Land (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Origins - again

I have started a sandbox version at User:The Land/Dreadnought. This is principally to try to work the narrative of why the move to all-big-gun ships into the description of how and when such ships emerged. The Land (talk) 13:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Why? I wrote out an account with proper citations explaining it.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What I'm trying to do is make the prose flow a bit better and highlight the rationale for the change. The factual information is all great, but it doesn't clearly answer the question of why people moved to an all-big-gun design. Your (very detailed and generally admirable) citations are almost all preserved, they just don't display in the sandbox version because I didn't tell it to list the refs. Regards, The Land (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I've 'finished' the origins section at User:The Land/Dreadnought to my satisfaction: any objections to moving it into the main article? Then I can get to work on the rest of the article... The Land (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Seeing that there haven't been any objections but there have been improvements by other people to the sandbox version I have copied it into the article. The Land (talk) 09:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest you have a look at my draft User:Harlsbottom/HMS Dreadnought (1906) for the origins of the all-big-gun ship in the Royal Navy - there are some things missing here which I haven't the time to go through alas which would give the British side more context I think.

Also, in the "All-big-gun mixed-calibre ships", there's a reference to a June issue of the USNI Proceedings, which hasn't got a year next to it. Can someone clarify, as I;d be interested in hunting the article down. Cheers, --Harlsbottom (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to take some care that this article and the one on HMS Dreadnought don't replicate the same content; perhaps when the HMS Dreadnought article improves that should be the main place for the discussion of British developments and the others should mainly be covered here? The Land (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. One of these days I will try and get the HMS Dreadnought article up to scratch (your comments would be appreciated by the way). I have to say by the way, I think you (or whoever wrote it) may be putting too much emphasis on this idea that "However, it is now seriously suggested Fisher's main interest was in developing the battlecruiser and not the battleship." The school of thought behind this, Sumida, Fairbanks and Lambert have basically flogged a dead horse - regardless of what Fisher may have thought (and it still isn't clear) it's what he did that mattered. And the record shows that as soon as he became First Sea Lord in 1904 he presented an all-big-gun proposal to the British Cabinet.

Running concurrent to that, there's the issue of the Satsumas. Breyer, as extensive as it is (and it is the source cited for the section) made some errors, not unexpected as there isn't a lot on the Satsuma class. The design with eight 8-inch guns was scrapped before the end of 1903, and the next plan for the class was actually a copy of the Cuniberti idea - twelve 12-inch guns. However, both designs were found unworkable and as the Russo-Japanese war continued the IJN simply couldn't afford two such vessels. The supply of 12-inch guns wasn't a factor at all. So saying that the Satsuma was the precursor of the all-big-gun ship is really like me saying that the all-big-gun version of the Invincible from 1881 was the same - it was a proposal thought to be impractical and therefore never adopted.

Cutting a very long story short, I think it would be better to find something other than Breyer to cite on the Japanese ships. --Harlsbottom (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC) P.S. You may ask why I don't just go on an edit-spree myself. I'm rather loath to editing other people's project pages, a) because there's a bit of pride involved and b) I can not be bothered being dragged into pointless arguments. My experience suggests you're the sort who writes proper researched-stuff, so I'd probably be alright, but still, I let someone else take the heat :).

Thanks for all that! Re Sumida et al: I'm not really qualified to make a judgement about who's right, but we have to at least cover the fact that there's a controversy. re Satsuma: Breyer actually talks more about finance and design flaws as the reasons Satsuma wasn't completed all-big-gun than the other sources I have to hand (Evans and Peattie Kaigun and Jentshura et al Warships of the IJN. It surely is significant, though, that the IJN laid her down as an all-big-gun design. I will take another look at the text. The Land (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The thing is though, I have yet to see something incontrovertible that says the IJN did lay down Satsuma as an all-big-gun ship. They of course planned to, which is certainly reflected in the record, but other than that I'm unconvinced, and from what I can ascertain so are many others. --Harlsbottom (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm in an interesting position. I'm satisfied that the Satsuma was not laid down as an all-big-gun ship, despite what Breyer and what others say. A number of people qualified to know whom I've been in touch with say the same. However, the best materiel I can come up with atm to prove so is Cassier's Magazine, a period engineering magazine referring to an announcement made in January, 1905 that the ship to be laid down would be of 19,000 tons, have four 12-inch guns and ten 10-inch guns. A New York Times article from November, 1905 makes the same assertion. This is what horrifies me about Breyer. The only thing I truly trust him for is armamament changes and his line drawings. The uncited nature of his other statements is damning. The fact that he highlights the statement "When laid down in the spring of 1905 – before Tsushima – they were the first 'all-big-gun battleships' in the world" is unforgiveable. He has Aki laid down a year before it actually was. As to the issue of the availability of guns (which Breyer cites as a reason for non completion as all-big-gun ships) I have it on good authority that Satsuma completed with all Japanese-made 12-inch guns (41st Year Type). --Harlsbottom (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Evans and Peattie say Satsuma 'could have been' built with twelve 12-inch, but are quite vague. Do you have access to Anthony Preston Battleships (probably not particularly close to the facts itself but might highlight some sources) or indeed Hayashi Katsunari's Nihon gunji gijutsu shi? Those are Evans and Peattie's sources for the statement. The Japanese one (A History of Japanese military technology) sounds particularly fruitful. Re the contemporaneous articles you mention: there are umpteen reasons why a journal or newspaper in 1905 might have printed inaccurate details (misinformation, misttranslation, misunderstanding); which is why for the purposes of the article we need to stick to reliable secondary sources. I'm sure there is a more detailed secondary soruce out there! The Land (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I really hate to say this, as I have a lot of respect for Anthony Preston, Rest in Peace, but he was hardly the best author in the world. And his Bison Books volumes are not the work of academic rigorousness. I have his similar books on Cruisers and Destroyers and I would never cite them. If memory serves his referencing was hardly spectacular. I will hunt down the other work specified. As you say it does sound fruitful.

The periodical concerned was published in 1909, and was specifically debating the specifics of the Satsuma class from 1905, as it emerged that they completed heavier than was intended, which caused some commotion at the time. --Harlsbottom (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at Kaigun today. Evans and Peattie are really vague, aren't they. The fact that the phrase "remained pre-dreadnoughts" is used suggests that they were laid down as such - that would be the grammatical way to interpret it anyway.

The information on these two ships out there is ludicrous - I'm having trouble just establishing what year Aki was even laid down, as there are numerous references to either 1905 or 1906. Unbelievable. --Harlsbottom (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Magazine capacity

Can anybody provide something on the typical magazine capacity? It would be interesting to be able to compare this with modern VLS. --MarkMLl (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Typically on the order of 100 rounds per gun. The Land (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Admiral Sir George Callaghan, Commanding Home Fleet in 1914, issued an order adding 25% to the peacetime-normal ammunition loadouts aboard his battleships. In most cases this exceeded the capacity of the safe-storage magazines for shell and propellant - the compartments had never been designed to contain so much materièl; and so shells and propellant-charges had to be stored wherever space could be found below in blatant disregard of safe-handling regulations already in force - [ammunition once loaded aboard could not be returned to Ordnance Wharves unless a Ship was being decommissioned] This Order - from CinC Home Fleet, - resulted in -for example, HMS Vanguard - having 211tons of cordite and propellant aboard for her main battery, when she was mined - and then sank afterwards in the Irish Sea, exploding just after the hulk had capsized on the surface, while sinking. It should not be forgotten that this was a Service in which the Rules were "Do not speak unless spoken-to; do not offer unsolicited comment; do not question Orders; do nothing without Orders" {The latter is verbatim comment from my late father, who served as an Officer aboard several Light cruisers of the 2nd Light Cruiser Squadron based at Harwich, in the Service from 1916 until 1922, before being RIFfed under the cuts generically known as The Geddes Axe]. There is no record that Admiral Callaghan's excessive-loadout Order was ever rescinded by Admirals Jellicoe and/or Beatty - which may have been a contributory cause of the explosions that destroyed HMShips Bulwark & Princess Louise in the River Medway in 1914, the explosion and destruction of HMCruiser Natal at Rosyth in 1915; and the 3 battlecruisers, and the cruisers Black Prince, and Defence at Jutland. [. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.109.48 (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually unsigned IP the increase in shell (and propellant) was ordered by the Admiralty, albeit in response to representations made by Callaghan in 1913. In his article on the topic, "Our Bloody Ships or Our Bloody System," Nicholas Lambert does not give a date or a source for the increase in ammunition and cordite, merely writing "early in 1914." In this he is wrong, as the increase was ordered by Admiralty telegram of 31 July 1914 and qualified by a letter of 14 August 1914, a copy of which is in the papers of Callaghan's Flag Commander, Roger Backhouse, at the Admiralty Library, Portsmouth. This letter makes clear that your claim with regard to Ordnance Stores is incorrect, as the Fleet was ordered to return certain shell for refilling. It's a matter of record that cordite was meant to be returned when approaching deterioration date (whether it was or not is a matter of dispute). A lot of people have referred to the handling regulations then in force but no one seems to know what they were or where they are. If you know of a source I would be very interested to hear from you. Your point with regard to Audacious, not Vanguard, seems rather irrelevant, unless you're complaining about the cost of extra shell and cordite lost with her. Whilst the experience of your father is interesting, I'm afraid to say that it's hardly representative. The Light Cruiser Squadron at Harwich was the Fifth, not the Second. At the end of the day the Royal Navy was cursed with arrangements for handling a dangerous propellant which were at best imperfect before the wake-up call of Jutland. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 11:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Just a footnote

I notice they're including a lot of redundant text to back up the article claim. Is this really necessary? That it's footnoted should be enough; anybody who doesn't believe it can go look at the source, no? My inclination is to delete. Trekphiler (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer they stayed, for the minute at least. They were originally included in the text by Toddy1 when he and I were doing some very detailed work on those parts of the article. I moved them to footnotes to avoid breaking up the flow of the article. I agree that when the article is finished they should be redundant, but let's leave them in for now. The Land (talk) 08:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit torn between it being useless & risking screwing up the fn altogether... (Guilty 8[). Trekphiler (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Doctrinaire

I know this is true, but I can't source it, & it's created some controversy here: carriers as fleet scouts being less valuable/more expendable than BBs, per Mahanian doctrine. If somebody's got a good source, can you put it in the fn on the article page? (If it hasn't been removed again...) Thanx. Trekphiler (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment

"More recent investigation suggests firecontrol in 1905 was not advanced enough to use the salvo-firing technique where this confusion might be important;[28] confusion of shell-splashes does not seem to have been a concern of those working on all-big gun designs.[29]"

I can't answer for Friedman, but Fairbanks is certainly barking up the wrong tree and I think it's wrong to call a few lines in a 1991 paper "recent investigation". Fairbanks' problem is he read into Sumida's somewhat arbitrary distinction between "spotting" and "bracketing", the former supposedly being a calculated adjustment to the range of the guns and the latter being what Fairbanks was being so dismissive of. ("correction…will never in itself make the next salvo land on target.") Any fire-control system or framework by definition relies on spotting, or observing the fall of shot - it is after all the part the "control" relies on. I am forced to conclude re-reading his article that he has no adequate comprehension of either pre-Dreadnought gunnery or post-Dreadnought.

Considering the RN adopted spotting rules in 1901, based on a set of Royal Artillery ones, and was also well-equipped with 4½ foot base range-finders for ranging out to well over 5,000 yards, I really am staggered by Fairbank's ignorance on this matter.

Another point which interests me is this; Friedman wrote "In view of later accounts of the origins of the Dreadnought, it is interesting that the possibility of gunnery confusion due to two calibres as close 10 and 12 inches was never raised." I have a quote from the Jellicoe Papers;

"Lord Fisher's action in initiating the Dreadnought class…was based upon the extreme difficulty of obtaining accurate fire control and consequently accurate shooting in a ship armed with a mixed armament of 12-in. and 9.2-in. or 12-in. and 10-in. guns. This difficulty entirely disappeared when the heavy gun armament comprised guns of one calibre alone." (I, 12) The lack of any fire-control calculation device other than possibly the Dumaresq pre-1906 means that the only other main source of control is spotting, which kind of rains on Fairbank's statement on assertion that Marder was mixing up practices.

My own conclusion is, and it will be interesting to see what Friedman has written in Naval Firepower, that one doesn't see much on the differentiation between different calibre splashes due to the fact that just as we find it blatantly obvious today, any gunnery officer back then would have found the same and lumped it under "problems of control". Just some rambling musings... Harlsbottom (talk) 08:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

For the ships of the day the much greater range and hitting power of the main guns meant that any engagement would likely be decided using these guns well before the target came into the range of the smaller weapons. The many smaller calibres were therefore of little use, and could be safely omitted from the designs except for a few for use against torpedo boats.

In other words, in an engagement between equal ships, one or other of the combatants is not likely to survive long enough ever to get close enough to use the smaller weapons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.9 (talk) 09:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

First Triples

Hi all, I've spotted a small error in the article. The first dreadnought with triple turrets was the Dante Aligheri, not the Gangut. I'll correct the article shortly. Getztashida (talk) 11:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Building the first Dreadnoughts

Someone with a clear head or knowledge of the subject or both should review the dates in the below section:

"However, building was slow; specifications for bidders were issued on 21 March 1906, the contracts awarded on 21 July 1905 and the two ships were laid down in December 1906, after the completion of the Dreadnought."

The years don't jive in my understanding. Kcor53 (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suspect a typo; will check but think it should read "21 July 1906". The Land (talk) 13:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Reasonable. Me like.Kcor53 (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't shoot, I'm only the lathe operator

Looking at the MV issue, & without Friedman to hand, I'm wondering if the fn now points correctly to the point in Q. Can somebody have a look? Also, "increasing either the calibre of the weapon and hence the weight of shell". If somebody can add a reason for the connection? As it stands, I don't see a causal link. I don't doubt it, but somebody less well informed is liable to say, "Huh?" TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 08:51 & 08:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your point. The "either" in the sentence you quote can be got rid of. The Land (talk) 09:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Not the "either" that's a problem, it's the lack of evident connection between caliber & shell weight. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 09:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Shells are broadly the same shape and broadly the same density. Hence increasing calibre increases shell volume and hence mass. It's pretty obvious to me. Bigger shell -> heavier shell. The Land (talk) 09:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm obviously not at my best today... I was thinking caliber=length rather than caliber=bore diameter... 8[ TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 13:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Photo finish

Not being by any means expert (& liable to blindness ;D), I do wonder if South Carolina wasn't in design before Dreadnought even so. Fitzsimons suggests it, & says construction was held up by Congress, so she didn't begin building until 1908. Can somebody with better sources check & (if needed) correct? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 16:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

See what I put at Talk:South Carolina class battleship#Design dates for South Carolina Class versus H.M.S. Dreadnought. The process may well have begun before Dreadnought, but that's irrelevent - Dreadnought's design was finalised well before the South Carolinas'.

Last year I started work on a new HMS Dreadnought article and tried to cover some of the genesis of the ship's design before getting bogged down with other things. One day (when I get John Roberts' Anatomy of the Ship) I will finish it unless someone drastically improves the mainspace article. I think there's some interesting points in there: User:Harlsbottom/HMS Dreadnought (1906)#Genesis.

As to photo finish, it might be worth pointing out that the U.S.N.'s first finished dreadnought (Michigan) completed in the same month as Brazil's Minas Gerais, which also had a larger broadside. In "U.S. Navy dreadnoughts" there's this line; "The American South Carolina-class battleships were the first all-big-gun ships completed by one of Britain's rivals." Rival might be too strong a term there. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 17:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Not inclined to argue it, just wanted to raise the point in case it got changed by mistake. Thanks. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 18:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

As Harlsbottom says. The Land (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Oil-firing quibble

"The USA was a major oil producer, and the U.S. Navy was the first to wholeheartedly adopt oil-firing, deciding to do so in 1910 and ordering oil-fired boilers for the Nevada class, in 1911.[90] Britain was not far behind, deciding in 1912 to use oil on its own in the Queen Elizabeth class; the shorter British design and building times meant that the first oil-fired battleships in both fleets went to sea at nearly exactly the same time."

I'm not going to be able to look at my copy of The Grand Fleet for well over a week - what exactly does D.K.B. actually write to warrant the last statement? Warspite, Queen Elizabeth and Malaya were both commissioned months ahead of the Nevadas - indeed, Warspite was commissioned a year before and Queen Elizabeth was in combat ten months before Nevada was first commissioned. "Nearly exactly the same time" sounds remarkably wishy washy. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 15:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Have amended the article. The Land (talk) 15:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The Royal Navy's going over to oil-fired boilers was the main reason behind the founding of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, later to be called BP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Laying down

Forgive me, perhaps it's the weather doing this to me, but "she"s being "laid down" is a little...creepy. They're also a bit colloquial. Are there any viable substitutions? —La Pianista ^(T•C) 06:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

?I'm not sure there is... It is common (thought not univeral) practice in English to refer to ships as 'she' - and I've seen attempts to get people to refer to them as neuter cause a lot of heat for no particular result. As to the 'laying down' I don't think there is any alternative terms (it refers to the start of construction work, probably though not necessarily the laying of the keel).... But if you can think of an alternative ... The Land (talk) 09:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

In the days of sail most ships had a figurehead at the bow, often in the shape of a carved figure of a sea nymph or goddess, and so due to this the ships themselves were usually referred-to by the crews as 'she'. Sailors are notoriously superstitious and in pre-scientific earlier times having a figurehead of a sea goddess was thought to provide protection for the ship and crew and bring them good luck at sea.

In some cases the figurehead was scantily clad, often with bare breasts, as was sometimes found in ancient art forms from classical times.

In the case of merchant ships, when a new ship was laid down for a wealthy person a new owner would often name the ship after his wife, so again, the female aspect would have been appropriate.

Not all countries refer to ships as 'she', but the UK certainly does, and probably has done since at least the 1500s. 'She' is the correct term when using English, although some other languages IIRC use 'He'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.205.88 (talk) 09:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Image review

Good thing you asked for a review ahead of FAC!

• File:USS Texas01a.jpg - This image needs a source, date, and author. Once we have a source, we can check and see if the licensing is correct.

Replaced it with File:USS Texas BB-35.jpg which hopefully has everything needed.

Yes, it does. Awadewit (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:HMS Dreadnought 1906 H61017.jpg - We need to link to the HTML page where this image appears, so that users don't have to hunt for the image on the website. Hopefully, we can get more specific author information from the website.

Have improved the link but no author information forthcoming.

I think that "U.S. Navy" might suffice. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 23:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If all photos on that site are from USN sources, then I shall do that. The Land (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:HMS Bellerophon Plan.jpg - This image needs a description, a source, a date, and an author. Once we have a source, we can then check and see if the licensing is correct.

Fixed, I believe.

The source needs complete publication information and we still need a description. Awadewit (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:HMS Bellerophon Broadside.jpg - This image needs a description, a source, an author, and a date. Once we have a source, we can then check and see if the licensing is correct.

Also fixed.

The source needs complete publication information and we still need a description. Awadewit (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

These two, done.

• File:Battleship Paris.png - We need a source and a date. I'm not sure about the author. Once we have the source, we can figure out the licensing.

Source and date added - a French newspaper, 1st August 1914. Not a clue about the author, the French journos don't seem to have gone in for credits. ;)

Ok, since this is hosted on Commons, we need to establish that is PD in France and the US. Why is it PD in France?

Awadewit (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Because France uses a 70-year rule from publication for anonymous work: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#France. The Land (talk) 07:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added the appropriate tag - thank you. Awadewit (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:Wirnik turbiny parowej ORP Wicher.jpg - Can you find this image in the author's galleries? I couldn't. Since the uploader is different than the author, we can't be sure that they are the same person, and thus that the uploader can release the copyright owned by the author.

• Status? Awadewit (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed

I've struck this since the image has been removed. Awadewit (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:Settsu.jpg - We need a source, date, and author for this image. Once we have a source, we can check and see if the imaging is correct.

• Status? Awadewit (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed

I've struck this since the image has been removed. Awadewit (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:IJN Satsuma.jpg - This image needs a source, date, and author. Once we have a source, we can check and see if the licensing is correct.

• Status? Awadewit (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Replaced by File:IJN Satsuma 2.jpg

We need a date and source for this image as well as some way to verify the license provided. Awadewit (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've asked the user who originally uploaded it. Since the ship sank well before 1946, the photo must have been taken then. So the only issue for the 'pd-japan' justification is whether it fell under Japanese jurisdiction. The Japanese characters would suggest it was... The Land (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The tag says "photographed before 1946 and not published for 10 years thereafter", so we also need proof of its publication. Awadewit (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The photo must have been taken before 1923. If it was published before 1956, it is PD because any photo published before 1956 is PD. If it was published after 1956, then it is PD because it was a) taken before 1946 and b)ten years elapsed before publication, which taken together are sufficient for it to be PD. So I think it is PD in any case. Unless I've misunderstood somewhere. The Land (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, apparently for Japan, "If the work is anonymous or pseudonymous, the copyright lasts for 50 years after the publication or the death of the author, whichever is the earlier (article 52)" (apparently these templates are not as reliable as I thought they were). So, we really need to establish a publication date for the image. Where did the image come from? Does the source have any info on it? Awadewit (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:Provence-3.jpg - Could we get more specific publication information for this image, in the "source" field?

Am chasing the people who uploaded these

More specific information is there

Is this the complete publication information available for this booklet? Awadewit (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

So far as I can tell. We have the name, publisher, and date. The Land (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:Animated gun turret.gif - It would be best to include a reliable source for this diagram.

• File:HMS Agamemnon (1908) profile drawing.png - This diagram requires a reliable source per WP:IUP.

I will try to drop User:Emoscopes a line... I don't hold out too much hope though.

The animation of a gun turret is based on that of the 15-inch. It represents the movements involved, but is not accurate detail for detail so you'll never find a "Reliable Source" for it, although I'll go on record and say its derived from information found in Peter Hodges' The Big Gun. Considering the numerous variations of turret arrangements just in the Royal Navy, let alone other navies, this animation is best left as a useful representative image. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 21:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough (so far as I can tell, at least!): any ideas about Agamemnon? It isn't Breyer, there are differences in the boat positions and the bridge wings.... but it might be more or less copied from something int your library ;) The Land (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid I've just left most of my library for the week (only a mass of Jellicoe books with me). I have no idea what source Emoscopes would have used - the detail is certainly superior to that in Breyer, Parkes et al. Maybe a coffee table book on battleships? --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 21:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Try e-mailing him - he still has it enabled. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 23:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

We need the complete publication information for the source that has been added. Awadewit (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Publisher and date info added. The Land (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me know if I can help in any way. Awadewit (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot... have interspersed some comments above. The Land (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Vanguard

Hi, I placed a {{dubious}} tag on the statement that HMS Vanguard was armed with spare 15" guns from the QE class. As far as I know, the ship received the turrets that had been removed from Courageous and Glorious during their conversion to carriers. Parsecboy (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Another, albeit unrelated issue: the article uses a mix of armor/armour. Does this article use BE or AE? Parsecboy (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The guns were indeed from the two large light cruisers, though not the turrets. I have amended the article to say that the guns were 'kept' as spares rather than 'built' as spares.

American. Spotted two 'armour's which were, ironically enough, introduced during the FA review ;) The Land (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The "mountings" for Vanguard came from Courageous and Glorious. One of the actual guns (No. 65), manufactured by Elswick Ordnance Company had been fitted in July 1917 in the monitor Erebus. See the table of 15-inch gun allocations in British monitors provided in Dr. Ian Buxton's Big Gun Monitors, p. 178. According to Buxton the gun wasn't fitted in anything else before being installed in Vanguard. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 20:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Presumably 'mountings' doesn't mean 'turrets' in this case? The Land (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Presumably it means gun cradles, slides, gunhouse, working chamber and revolving structure: no barbette. This website has more on it: http://battleshiphmsvanguard.homestead.com/15inch.html. It certainly wasn't the actual guns from Courageous and Glorious - they'd long done the circuit of the fleet - in fact according to the same source I mentioned before one of Courageous' guns (No. 14) ended up in Roberts in 1944. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 21:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

USS Texas - which year?

The Pre-dreadnaught article states that the USS Texas (BB-35) was launched in 1892 while this article states that it was launched in 1912. Does the pre-dreadnaught article refer to another USS Texas?Osli73 (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's referring to USS Texas (1892). I'll take a look at the pre-dreadnought article and fix it accordingly. Parsecboy (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, Texas is described in the caption to the photo accompanying this article as the last dreadnought in existence. Technically, it is a super-dreadnought, but okay lets call it a dreadnought. While known as fast battleships, the North Carolinas, South Dakotas, and Iowas would also meet the definition of super-dreadnoughts as well presumably, so if we're going to go ahead and call Texas a dreadnought, why not the seven other surviving American battleships? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.160 (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

A huge blunder?

I think there ought to be discussion in the article of whether the UK building Dreadnought was a huge blunder. There were certainly many people at the time who thought it was. But there were others who came to the conclusion that it was a huge blunder with hindsight - see for instance Philip Pugh's The Cost of Seapower (1986), or Philip Noel-Baker's Nobel Lecture, of 11 December 1959 (Philip Noel-Baker won the Nobel Peace Prize for 1959). Lambert's book Sir John Fisher's Naval Revolution argues that the then First Sea Lord, Sir John A. Fisher, did not believe that all the expensive battleships his admiralty ordered as part of the arms race were necessary for the navy, and that he had the admiralty order them to give money to the arms manufacturers (it will be recalled that J.A. Fisher's son was the main beneficiary of the will of one of the leading arms magnates of the time).--Toddy1 (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not familiar with Pugh.The only decent source directly related to this I can think of is John Brooks' recent article on the topic in War in History which comes to the conclusion that Dreadnought was not a blunder but perhaps premature.

Noel-Baker can be discounted because he had such a blatant conflict of interest - anyone who is a key proponent of disarmament is naturally going to regard '@Dreadnought as a blunder, especially when he is so poorly-informed. The Liberals sought to use Dreadnought as a means to bringing countries to a second Hague disarmament conference, while at the same time only paring down and not cancelling the terms of the Conservative Cawdor Memorandum - building three battleships a year instead of four. Balfour was willing to criticise the Liberal's growing retrenchment but was called off by Fisher. See Williams' Defending the Empire. Anyone who thinks that the battleship played a nearly useless part in the Second World War can't really be trusted.

As to Fisher himself, Lambert obviously obfuscated the truth for whatever reason. Fisher did have good relations with armaments industry personnel, because during the 1880s he wanted to be at the cutting edge of technology and Josiah Vavasseur was an acknowledged expert in his field - and by merit he became a director at Armstrong's. Vavasseur became a friend of the Fisher family and later stayed at Kilverstone Hall, where he struck up a relationship with the young Cecil Fisher. Years later, Vavasseur, who was childless, stated that he would leave his fortune to Cecil if he changed his name to Vavasseur which is eventually what happened. See Mackay, Fisher of Kilverstone.

What is your source for "he had the admiralty order them to give money to the arms manufacturers"? --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 12:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Lambert's book Sir John Fisher's Naval Revolution argues that the then First Sea Lord, Sir John A. Fisher, did not believe that all the expensive battleships his admiralty ordered as part of the arms race were necessary for the navy, and that he had the admiralty order them to give money to the arms manufacturers.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether you or I think that Dreadnought was a blunder is immaterial. I think it is an issue that probably ought to be in the article explaining the different points of view.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely ought to be explained in the article because it was a hot issue at the time and subsequently. As to whether it was the right thing to do, the matter turned on what would be the effect if some other country did it first, which they were already thinking about doing. Traditionally Britain had relied upon its technological capacity and shipbuilding capacity (biggest in the world) to 'catch up' if anyone did something innovative. This edge was already disappearing or disappeared by the time dreadnought was built. So the choice was either start first and have a couple of years lead, or wait for someone else to complete their own dreadnought first giving them the lead. What would have been the effect if the program was delayed 5 years (say), germany got a dreadnought design out first and as a result had more dreadnoughts at the start of WW1 than Britain? Sandpiper (talk)

So some time later I have been reading Lambert. As yet no mention of favouring the arms industry, but a good deal of discussion of Fishers views on the navy. Lambert states he was appointed specifically because he agreed to cut the navy budget, but from Fisher's perspective what he wanted to do was move away from a battleship centred navy to use of destroyers and submarines as defence against battleships and invasion fleets in home waters, the first role of the navy being defence of the British Isles, and towards a battlecruiser strategy for foreign waters, the second role being worldwide defence. He saw the battleship as becoming obsolete as torpedoes become more and more effective and his interest in capital ships was to win the cruiser war he expected away from europe. The battlecruiser was no more than an extension of the armoured cruiser, where rapid technological innovations and a mini arms race had been going on.

More directly relevant here perhaps, Lambert argues that in 1904 Britain was not at all concerned about the German navy. Indeed, that it was most unlikely Germany and France might ally, so it was not necessary to apply the two power standard to France and Germany once Germany overtook Russia. Russia also had a greatly diminished navy after the Japanese debacle, so in some respects the navies to be faced had actually been reducing.

Lambert also says that the argument Dreadnought made other battleships obsolete did not appear until a year or two after it was built, and debate continued in naval circles whether this was true. Then, faced with demands for budget cuts the admiralty itself chose to talk up the degree to which dreadnought had made its existing ships obsolete, so as to justify a renewed building program. My own reading of Tsushima is that it did not justify the claims about big guns being predominant or of single calibre armament. Mostly it emphasised the need for people running ships to know what they were doing. Lambert says Fisher was very concerned in his reforms to improve naval efficiency in a fleet which was big on paper but maybe only had half its ships in a fit state to fight. It also had a disproportionately high percentage of new recruits and a stark shortage of manpower.Sandpiper (talk) 10:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't you guys believe in citations?

When people flag up that some statements are questionable, the appropriate response is provide evidence in the form of citations. Simply reverting the tags that gently request evidence and/or corrections is not an appropriate response.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty with that is, you're liable to get tags for things that aren't in question except by people who don't know what they're talking about. (I don't mean you.) AFAIK, it's not really in question there was a naval arms race before WW1, & given the revolution Dreadnought represented, her completion effectively reset it, which was the idea (IIRC); AFAIK, that's not really in doubt, either. I've already seen tags for things that are cited, by people who don't bother to pay attention to the fns. Do we really want to endorse tagging things like who was SO of the attack on Pearl Harbor? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That and the lead section doesn't require citations if the material there is cited elsewhere in the text (which it is in this section). Parsecboy (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The introduction is significantly different from the Dreadnought#Anglo-German_arms_race section.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

dreadnaught battleships

can anyone tell me the use for the big clocks attached high up on the forward masts above the bridge? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.240.214 (talk) 05:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

They're called "range clocks." In a caption for two images of USS West Virginia (BB-48), Friedman in U.S. Battleships: A Design History says "...its range "clock" (concentration dial), for communicating the range to other ships. A similar clock was mounted on the mainmast. Both could be rotated so they could be visible to ships not exactly in line ahead." Basically they could give the range to a target to other ships. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Less ambiguously, they're called "range dials" or "concentration dials". A "range clock" is a calculator that can alter a range indication continuously over time (see Vickers range clock. DulcetTone (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Query regarding one paragraph

Good afternoon. In the section Dreadnought#Super-dreadnoughts a paragraph currently states (with my emphasis):

"The design weakness of super-dreadnoughts, which distinguished them from post-World War I designs, was armor disposition. Their design emphasized the vertical protection needed in short-range battles. These ships could engage the enemy at 20,000 yd (18,000 m), but were vulnerable to the high-angle ('plunging') fire at such ranges. Post-war designs typically had 5 to 6 inches (130 to 150 mm) of deck armor to defend against this. The concept of zone of immunity became a major part of the thinking behind battleship design. Lack of underwater protection was also a weakness of these pre-World War I designs which were developed only as the threat of the torpedo became real.

I'm new to this subject. I'm wondering, should that bit I've bolded read "pre-World War I designs"? That would make more sense to me, but perhaps I've misunderstood the text. --bodnotbod (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No it should not.

The so-called super-dreadnoughts were battleships like dreadnoughts, but with guns larger than 12in - the first British ones were the Orions, which were laid down in 1909. In other words, many of the super-dreadnoughts were pre-World War I designs.

Some of the capital ship gunnery engagements in World War I were at longer ranges than had been expected before the war. At longer ranges, the angle of descent of shells is much greater than at shorter ranges (for the same muzzle velocity). This meant that at longer ranges, shells were more likely to hit the deck of the ship than the side of the ship. If they were hitting the deck and not the side, then side armour did not protect against them. So the experience of World War I encouraged warship procurement departments to want ships with more horizontal armour (deck armour) than they had demanded before World War I.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Speed of Dreadnought

The section on American dreadnoughts notes that the South Carolinas had a top speed of 18.5 knots, compared to 22.5 knots for Dreadnought. I have never seen Dreadnought's top speed listed as higher than 21 knots, including in the HMS Dreadnought article. Nonetheless, the statement is cited so I have not changed it. Could someone with access to the source (Breyer, Battleships and Battlecruisers of the World, p.115, p.196) check on this figure? Jrt989 (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Breyer gives a speed for Dreadnought of 21.0kts but notes a trial run of 22.4kts. He gives a speed for the South Carolines ships of 18.0kts and a trial run of 18.8kts. The Land (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest changing "top speed" to "trials speed", then. I find using the trials speed as if it's a typical in-service maximum misleading. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Roberts, page 16, gives the highest speed achieved by Dreadnought as 21.78 knots with 27,899 shp whilst running the measured mile at Polperro on 9 October, 1906. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 20:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Roberts is the source used at the HMS Dreadnought page, although there the trials speed is listed at 21.6 knots, oddly enough. I'm assuming that Simon has the figure correct. Nonetheless, I agree with Trekphiler that trials speeds tend to be misleading, and would suggest we use the "service maximum" of 21 knots, instead. Jrt989 (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Misleading unintelligible organization in the "SUPERFIRING" theme

Dear Parsecboy! Italian Dante Alighieri and Russian Sclass|Gangut battleships haven't superfiring layouts (check board planes photos or videos) but they have triple turrets. Therefore I moved them to another section. The section talks about mainly the superfiring instead of the number of the guns. They Don't fit in the theme. Therefore Italian Dante Alighieri and Russian Sclass|Gangut battleships have no place in the "superfiring" category. These ships/classes are off-topics in the superfiring part of the text...

Those are separate paragraphs. You moved the information about Dante Alighieri and Gangut from a paragraph specifically about the development of triple and quadruple turrets to a paragraph about centerline mounting of gun turrets. You actually damaged the arrangement of the section. Parsecboy (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Definition

Suggest that turbine powered be removed from the definition. The early German and American dreadnoughts used reciprocating engines. If turbine power remains a requirement, then there is a naval arms race between the British and Germans, and that is silly.Bill Covered Bridge (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

"there is a naval arms race between the British and Germans, and that is silly" Since there actually was one, how is it silly? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Upgrading citations

I am considering adding {{sfn}} and {{efn}} templates to this article to improve and modernise the referencing system. The {sfn} template allows for automatic collating of page numbers and provides clickable links down to the books in the bibliography. The {efn} template allows the explanatory notes to be removed from the prose and placed down below in their own section. Here, {{harvnb}} templates will be used to provide clickable links directly to the bibliography. Please see John Diefenbaker for a nice example of an article that uses both of these templates. I will get started on the conversion in a week or so if there's no objections raised. Comments and questions are welcome. — Dianna (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Please go right ahead - thank you! The Land (talk) 09:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Fuel types

Expansion of text question: the article currently states, "Coal was, however, quite inert and could be used as part of the ship's protection scheme."

Although lump coal isn't all that reactive (it does burn, after all), coal dust in air is downright explosive, as shown by the destruction of the USS Maine (among many other explosions); should this be mentioned, or was it not yet comprehended (or were there countermeasures in place by 1906; if so, these should be mentioned)? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

A good thought. I don't recall it being mentioned in the sources on armour protection in battleships. Basically, navies were quite happy with the idea that shot or shell should lodge/explode in coal bunkers, where it would cause less mayhem and less flooding than in a crew compartment... Which other explanations than the Maine do you refer to, by the way? The Land (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like he's talking about other coal dust explosions.... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 11:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, other coal dust explosions, which sunk or damaged a number of ships in the days of coal-fired steam propulsion. Coal dust explosions have long been a hazard in coal mines (e.g., Mount Mulligan mine disaster, Senghenydd Colliery Disaster, Courrières mine disaster), and were the reason for many 19th-century mine safety improvements; they occur in coal mines to this day, and are the focus of significant effort to prevent them from happening. It's possible that the navies of the world had developed countermeasures (maybe even spraying the coal with oil worked) by 1906, but if so, that should be mentioned. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Type or class?

The lead says that the Dreadnought is a "type" of battleship, can anyone explain the difference between class and type? Something else: Dreadnought class battleship redirects to HMS Dreadnought (1906)...shouldn't it redirect here? ~ Soerfm (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The difference is that nearly all battleships between 1906 and 1912ish were called "dreadnoughts", thus becoming a 'type' of warships like a ship of the line or a trireme. A ship class is different in that they are all ships built to a similar or exact same design.

When the ship class is only one ship, though, the class article redirects to the individual ship. For Wikipedia's purposes, an individual ship doesn't need a specific article on an entire class (hence why "Dreadnought class battleship" redirects to Dreadnought the ship). That can be juxtaposed against Minas Geraes-class battleship and its daughter articles Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes and Brazilian battleship São Paulo.

That answer became way more complex than I thought it would. Let me know if I need to clarify it. Regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

"type" isn't a particularly well-defined term in naval design - in this case it means simply that "dreadnoughts" are a subset of "battleships". (Though even that is an oversimplification, as battlecruisers are often referred to as dreadnoughts. But the first lines of an article necessarily oversimplify things...). "Class" on the other hand has a more specific meaning; a "class" of ships is a group of ships built to a homogenous design so that one is essentially a copy of another (though one can quibble about that as well if you want to!). The Land (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Missing link for Neptune class

I made an edit before realizing this was a FA.. I'm not sure I did it right, so I figure I'll ask here after the fact.. The link to the Neptune class battleship article in the "Position of main armament" section was a dead link when using the sclass template. The Neptune class battleship article redirected to HMS Neptune (1909), so that's where I redirected the link in the article. It bypasses using the sclass template though, so perhaps this isn't the right protocol? HappyDa (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

USS Texas and turbines

According to this article, the two main characteristics of a dreadnought are (all) big guns and steam turbines. But the "only remaining dreadnought battleship" USS Texas doesn't have steam turbines, and couldn't even make 20 knots during WWII. I'm left thinking that big guns are the main thing, 20 knots is the second thing, launched after 1905 is a good indicator, and steam turbines are important but not a deciding factor. In fact oil-fired seems more important than the turbines, since it increases the range, reduces the refueling time, and makes refueling at sea more practical. Also that maybe the definition is a bit loose. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

HMS Dreadnought had steam turbines, but they were inefficient direct-drive turbines. To be efficient, steam turbines need to rotate at a substantially higher RPM than the propellers of a large ship. According to the articles, USS Texas and HMS Dreadnought both had a speed of 21 knots. So the steam turbine was a beginning that future ships could improve upon, but doesn't seem to be a decisive improvement in the case of HMS Dreadnought. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a somewhat loose definition - the all-big-gun, same-caliber armament is the defining characteristic. Plenty of early dreadnoughts retained reciprocating machinery (notably the first two classes of German dreadnoughts and half of the first generation of American ships - for the latter, usually one ship of each class had turbines and the other had reciprocating engines) for a variety of reasons (not least of which was the fact that reciprocating engines had better fuel economy as Jc3s5h points out above). Parsecboy (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

ENGVAR

The original version of this article was spun off from battleship and was in a mixture of UK and US spelling. I notice the article still employs a mixture of the two spelling styles, in spite of its FA star. I would probably say that this topic has strong national ties with UK English, being a British invention. It should therefore go to UK English. Any thoughts? --John (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the ties are stronger to the British than to other countries that developed similar ships around the same time, in part because the Dreadnought was British, and in part because the Royal Navy was the strongest navy at that time. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Calling it a British invention is a bit of a stretch - if anyone invented the idea, it was Cuniberti, but the Japanese and Americans had also been thinking along the same lines (and Kaiser Bill had already been arguing for a fast, all-big-gun ship for over a decade by the time Dreadnought hit the water). Those facts, I think, diminish the argument for there being particularly strong national ties to Britain, at least on the basis of it being "a British invention".

Now, the British certainly got credit for it, because their ship was the first in service, but even that is a pretty tenuous tie (one could imagine arguing that British English should be used for USS Winston S. Churchill because of its namesake).

For what it's worth, the earliest viewable revision for battleship (there's also nothing older at the nostalgia.wiki), from which this page's content was spun off, appears to use AmEng. All that being said, I don't particularly care which way the article is standardized. Parsecboy (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry I went ahead and made the adjustments before seeing this. Honestly I do not especially care which spelling convention this article uses, but it needs to use one. Two looks terrible on a Featured Article. --John (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that one needed to be picked - I was mostly saying there isn't really a case to be made for one over any other. Parsecboy (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Kawachi class as semi-dreadnoughts (or not)

Recent edits have removed and re-added Kawachi class battleships as example of semi-dreadnoughts.

I'm not sure which way this should go but "caliber" usually refers (at least approximately) to the bore diameter. On large guns, the barrel length is often described as a number of calibers, so a "16 inch, 50 calibers" navel gun has a barrel some 800 inches long, and would be 80 inches longer than a 16"/45, which might fire the same shells. In naval usage that's often abbreviated to remove the "s" (IOW, "16 inches, 50 caliber"). Now usually semi-dreadnoughts had actual different bore diameters for a subset of their guns (say some 9" in addition to the main 14"), replacing a larger number of smaller caliber guns. So the question is do the Kawachis qualify a "mixed caliber" because they had eight 12"/45 and four 12"/50s? Presumably firing the same shells (although I've no source for that). Those were certainly different guns, and the 12"/50s would have had higher muzzle velocities, hence different ranges, which would have negated one of the advantages of a uniform large-caliber battery (one set of range calculations for all guns).

I think the Kawachis represent an interesting intermediate case, and we should probably include them in the list of semi-dreadnoughts, but with the proverbial asterisk. Rwessel (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

It's probably worth a note to explain why they're included. Parsecboy (talk) 11:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Italics

@Parsecboy: this edit seems to mean you think that "Admiral" in "British Admiral class" should not be italicized, but "Lexington" in "Lexington class" should be. Please explain. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

That is correct. Ship classes named after a specific ship are italicized, those named after a category (like the Battles) are not. Parsecboy (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC: “Super-dreadnought” as its own article?

Just a casual RfC regarding splitting-off "super-dreadnought" into its own article. Many articles Wikilink "super-dreadnought" to this article/the super-dreadnought sub-section. This alone may result in some confusion, particularly if people Winkilink improperly (to simply "Dreadnought" vice "Dreadnought#Dreadnought building#Super-Dreadnoughts"). While this alone would not be cause for "super-dreadnought" (SD) warranting its own article, there are other points.

SDs were quite important designs in the battleship's lineage. A relatively large jump in overall displacement, all-centerline and/or superfiring turrets, an initial doubling of broadside weight-of-fire (which would only continue increasing), innovations in torpedo/underwater protection schemes, innovations in horizontal (deck) protection schemes, and the expansion of anti-air armament were all — or at least mostly — pioneered by super-dreadnoughts.

Secondary proposal: If you feel that "super-dreadnought" does NOT warrant its own article, how would you feel about 'promoting' SD from a sub-section within the current "Dreadnought" article to a section? Probably after "Dreadnought building." This would highlight SDs a tad more and also make Wikilinking to it slightly simpler ("Dreadnought#Super-dreadnoughts")

Thoughts? MWFwiki (talk) 03:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Super-dreadnought was strictly a media term, not used by any navy, and was functionally obsolete and fell out of favor before the end of WWI. I'm not inclined to give it any more importance than it already has.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I certainly don’t disagree, but it is not uncommon for ‘retronyms’ — or whatever is more appropriate a term — to warrant their own articles. Besides, a vast majority of naval vessel articles mentions SDs, particularly late-WWI/interwar designs.

All of that being said, I certainly acknowledge that your opinion carries merit. MWFwiki (talk) 09:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that those are relics of a particular editor's investment in the term and should not be accorded any particular weight.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I gotchya. That is fair enough MWFwiki (talk) 05:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Only one left?

A caption in the article claims that the USS Texas, now a museum ship, is "the only dreadnought still in existence". I questioned this assertion, and @Parsecboy says it's correct. A quick whistle through Wikipedia shows that there are several extant battleships (e.g., USS New Jersey (BB-62), USS Missouri (BB-63), USS Massachusetts (BB-59), and USS Iowa (BB-61)), all of which appear to be museum ships, and still "in existence", just like the Texas. Does this "only" assertion (which is made without citation) rely on some tightrope-walking definition of "dreadnought"? If so, the distinction should be explained or the statement qualified. Minturn (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Those aren't dreadnoughts; the term had fallen out of use by the time they were built. They're considered fast battleships. Also, I added a citation. Parsecboy (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Quotation marks around the term (or similar) would thus be appropriate. Minturn (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Those would be interpreted as WP:SCAREQUOTES, which is a bad idea. Parsecboy (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

"[C]lassic dreadnought" or "traditional dreadnought" could also work; or an explanation could be inserted. Wikipedia needs to be understandable by all, not just those familiar with the difference between a "dreadnought" and a "fast battleship". Minturn (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)