Remembered Today:

Kitchener's Bugle

Battleship USS TEXAS - An ambition fulfilled!

41 posts in this topic

25 minutes ago, PhilB said:

So a Dreadnought could be upgraded to an ex-Dreadnought?:unsure:

So Warspite, with her upgraded fire control that gave her a hit on Giuglio Cesare at over 26,000 yards, was an ex-super-dreadnought then? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID: 27   Posted (edited)

On 8/14/2017 at 18:36, MikB said:

The term 'super dreadnought' may have been coined for the QE and R classes because their broadside was about equal to 2 dreadnoughts (the original could only fire 8 guns, not all 10, on one broadside because of the sided turrets). Broadside weight of metal didn't perhaps turn out to be as critical as was thought, but at that time it was generally believed  a key statistic. 

 

The question of the name Super Dreadnought, though perhaps of minor relevance, is nevertheless intriguing. I have been scratching around it for a couple of days but without any firm evidence one way or another. As a layman [non-naval & only just about literate] I wonder to what extent the Edwardians and their Navy were accustomed to using the word 'Super' in this sort of context; not very, I suspect.

 

Certain aspects of the post Dreadnaught battleship which stand out, size, speed, armour and guns, were all greater than their predecessors, but that would seem to me to be simple technological progression.

 

The thing which really sets them apart is that all their main armament were on the centreline and in superfiring turrets

 

Super firing had been considered previously but had been dismissed on account of the supposed likelihood of it needing only a single enemy shot to disable two of the main turrets. [see Bacon's Life of Lord Fisher Vol.I, p.259]

 

At some point it must have been realised that the stresses caused when centreline and off-centre guns were firing together, out weighed the chances of a single lucky shot taking out two turrets positioned one above the other for superfiring

 

My guess is that the Super in superdreadnought probably comes from the position of its main turrets, rather than from any other single, or number of, aspects.

 

After the Great War, the term superdreanought seems to pass away, with a return to the old expression, 'battleship'. The Washington Naval Treaty of 1921 abandons even this and uses the wording 'Capital Ship'; CAPITAL SHIP - A capital ship, in the case of ships hereafter built, is defined as a vessel of war, not an aircraft carrier, whose displacement exceeds 10,000 tons (10,160 metric tons) standard displacement, or which carries a gun with a calibre exceeding 8 inches (203 millimetres) .

 

Just a thought

Michael

 

Edited by michaeldr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another layman here, semiliterate. I've long been confused by the description Dreadnought, which usually starts "all big gun" although they did have smaller guns. There doesn't seem to be a foolproof definition of Dreadnought which would clearly separate them from more developed examples and I suspect that the date of building would be a major factor. Unless anyone can supply a good definition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID: 29   Posted (edited)

51 minutes ago, PhilB said:

Another layman here, semiliterate. I've long been confused by the description Dreadnought, which usually starts "all big gun" although they did have smaller guns. There doesn't seem to be a foolproof definition of Dreadnought 

 

This may help Phil,

 

again referring to Bacon's biography of Fisher, p.255 has

“The main considerations that inevitably pointed to the adoption of the 'Dreadnought' type therefore were:

I] The torpedo menace necessitated longer ranges in action

II] Long-range hitting had become practicable

III] The only method known of ranging at long ranges was by firing salvoes

IV] This necessitated a uniform armament of eight or more guns

V] The heaviest gun gave the greatest blow, and was the most accurate at long ranges.

 

The Dreadnought solved the above problems

 

As to 

51 minutes ago, PhilB said:

more developed examples

I think that centreline-superfiring main armaments is a very clear difference

but is that 

51 minutes ago, PhilB said:

a foolproof definition

maybe not

 

regards

Michael

Edited by michaeldr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID: 30   Posted (edited)

mostly Thanks, Michael. But weren`t Texas` 14" guns all centreline and mostly superfiring?:unsure:

Edited by PhilB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil,

 

I'm sorry if I have not been able to make myself clear above 
The centreline superfiring arrangement of the main armament was a clear step forward for the British
and perhaps contributed to the adoption of the expression Super Dreadnought

 

If your patience will allow you read (despite its many typos) the article here https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/influence-of-the-united-states-on-t/
you will find out lined the arguments in favour of this system, citing Jane's of 1910 and the Journal of the Royal United Services Institution of  December the same year.

Eg:- All the big guns are on the center line of the ship, this being a characteristic feature of the turret arrangements in American designs, two of the turrets being raised above the others in order to obtain a sufficiency of right ahead and right astern fire and this method of placing the turrets is the one now adopted for our latest ships, as giving the advantage that all the guns can be fired on either broadside. Thus, while the 'Dakota' and 'Delaware' can bring all ten of their 12-inch guns to bear on either, side, our earlier Dreadnoughts including the St. Vincent and her sisters, can only bring eight.

 

The Americans were a step ahead here, though, this system (sometimes called called vertical-echelon) was proposed earlier in 1905 by Admiral Sir A K Wilson to Fisher's committee, but was dropped by the British at that time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, michaeldr said:

...

At some point it must have been realised that the stresses caused when centreline and off-centre guns were firing together, out weighed the chances of a single lucky shot taking out two turrets positioned one above the other for superfiring

...

Just a thought

Michael

 

Well, I can think of two instances where something similar to that actually did happen: Seydlitz' after mountings hit by Lion at Dogger Bank, and in WW2, Bismarck's forward ones hit by Rodney. But I can't readily think of a case where a ship's fighting capability was damaged by simultaneous firing of centreline and sided armament.

 

I take your points on the possible origin of the 'superdreadnought' classification, but I think it'll always be vague and uncertain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you who might be interested, here is the site of the Battleship Texas Foundation.

battleshiptexas.org

 

Ann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID: 34   Posted (edited)

On 8/16/2017 at 22:33, MikB said:

I can't readily think of a case where a ship's fighting capability was damaged by simultaneous firing of centreline and sided armament.

 

Mik,

 

Apologies for the carelessness in my post No.27, giving that impression

However, it was true that the technology was not fully understood at the Admiralty, and it was widely thought that the blast from the upper turret would adversely affect the lower

 

R A Burt's British Battleships of World War I mentions this and further suggests that superfiring was not adopted for the original Dreadnought because previous experience in such a design was lacking, meaning extra costs and extra time were needed; time was something which Fisher did not think he had when building the Dreadnought

 

These arguments gave way with the later designs and the arrival of their larger guns, when it was found that their additional weight and armour meant that beam turrets were now impracticable.

Burt makes the point that the decision to go ahead with superfiring was based on “careful investigation of foreign designs” (eg US Navy's 1905 Michigan class) see p.152

 

 

On 8/16/2017 at 22:33, MikB said:

origin of the 'superdreadnought' classification, ... it'll always be vague and uncertain.

agreed, but it's fun to speculate

 

 

regards

Michael

Edited by michaeldr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID: 35   Posted (edited)

This sounds reasonable?

 

"The second Iron Duke was the name ship of the last class of dreadnoughts to enter Royal Navy service prior to the beginning of World War I. She and her sisters were considered “super-dreadnoughts,” an ill-defined term that distinguishes the second generation of dreadnought battleships from the first. Generally speaking, super-dreadnoughts avoided wing turrets, carrying guns in the centerline with super-firing turrets. Most super-dreadnoughts carried weapons heavier than 12 inches — although this varied from country to country — and had more advanced armor schemes. However, no one has successfully established a clear definition for the distinction."

https://warisboring.com/iron-duke-was-the-united-kingdoms-super-dreadnought/

 

 

Edited by PhilB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Phil

Yes, I'd go along with that

..................................................................................

 

2 hours ago, michaeldr said:

the technology was not fully understood at the Admiralty, and it was widely thought that the blast from the upper turret would adversely affect the lower

 

regarding the the adoption of superfiring turrets and the worry that the blast from the higher turret would affect the lower:

Norman Friedman in his The British Battleship 1906-1946 suggests that the later change over in favour of superfiring may have been made possible by the introduction of periscope sights (rather than sights in hoods) see p.106 and 107

 

 

 

regards

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, michaeldr said:

Thanks Phil

Yes, I'd go along with that

 

In that case, is it a moot point whether Texas is a Dreadnought or a SuperDreadnought?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that Texas was the first ship to employ 14" Guns then I would suggest the Latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, at least she's either the last Dreadnought or the first SuperDreadnought!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

She has an impressive list of, “firsts:”

  • First US battleship to carry anti-aircraft guns
  • First US battleship to launch an aircraft
  • First US ship to use fire control and range-keepers (predecessors to modern targeting systems)
  • First US battleship to become a museum ship

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A pleasure to see all your pics KB

Thanks for sharing here

 

regards

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now