General > The Great War

Dreadnoughts!

(1/3) > >>

Ruckdog:
So, in many ways the dreadnought-type battleship is still the symbol of the naval side of WWI, even though mines and submarines were arguably the bigger part of the action. I figure we can't have a discussion of WWI on a naval wargaming site without at least having one thread devoted to them!

So, I thought I would start by outlining some basic things about battleships during. The first thing to understand is just what constitutes a "dreadnought." While there is no precise definition, the basic characteristics of a dreadnought battleship that distinguished it from earlier designs were the following:

1. Large Size
2. Higher speed
3. All big-gun armament

In it's purest form, a dreadnought battleship would have only large main guns, with only a few small, rapid firing guns for point defence against torpedo boats. In practice, only the earliest British designs really held to that concept; just about everyone else insited on retaining a 5" or 6" secondary armament. The HMS Dreadnougt herself mounted 10x 12" guns in 5 twin turrets. Compare that to a typical pre-dreadnought battleship, that would have had 4 such guns in only two turrets forward and aft. Of course, the pre-dreadnought would also have had 4-8 8" guns, and a dozen or more 5" or 6" guns backing those up.

What do you guys think? What is your favorite dreadnought-era class? What do you think the most game-changing aspect of the HMS Dreadnought was? And perhaps more provocatively, do you think that Britain was wise to upset the apple cart by building her in the first place (not that she was the only one considering such a move, mind you)?

MajorMcNicol:
So I was under the impression that one of the most revolutionary features of the HMS Dreadnought was that all its big guns were center-line turrets that could be brought to bear in either broadside, thereby yielding great long-range firepower from all guns (although the Dreadnought itself had the two beam turrets that couldn't fire over the centerline).  Was this not done before, or was the Dreadnought remarkable for bringing this concept to the fore? 

Ruckdog:
That was not so much HMS Dreadnought's revolutionary feature as it was USS SOUTH CAROLINA's; The Dreadnought could only put 8 of her 10 12" guns on a single broadside, whereas the SOUTH CAROLINA could match that broadside with only 8 guns in 4 turrets, because all of hers were mounted on the centerline. The HMS Dreadnought's major claim to fame was being "first to market" with the all-big-gun battleship concept. Other powers were already considering similar designs; the US had already authorized the SOUTH CAROLINA at the time the Dreadnought being laid down, for example. However, the Royal Navy (specifically First Sea Fisher) pushed her construction along at a break-neck pace and she was completed something like 2 years ahead of any comparable ship.

Landlubber:
Here here, a grand idea, Ruckdog!

I actually learned more in your posts in this thread about Dreadnoughts than I previously knew on the topic.  So, I don't really have a favorite, I guess.

My first question, I suppose, is how effective were these ships?  Were they hampered by only having "big" guns?  Did the presence of Dreadnoughts have a profound effect on naval warfare of that era (like the aircraft carrier did in WW2)?

Ruckdog:

--- Quote from: Landlubber on April 22, 2014, 12:43:43 am ---Here here, a grand idea, Ruckdog!

I actually learned more in your posts in this thread about Dreadnoughts than I previously knew on the topic.  So, I don't really have a favorite, I guess.

My first question, I suppose, is how effective were these ships?  Were they hampered by only having "big" guns?  Did the presence of Dreadnoughts have a profound effect on naval warfare of that era (like the aircraft carrier did in WW2)?

--- End quote ---

I'll do my best to address each of these points...

"How effective were these ships?"
 
This question strikes at the heart of the debate going on within the navies of the time. The problem was, in the early 20th century the navies of the world did not have a lot of experience with naval combat involving modern warships. There had been dramatic leaps in all aspects of warship design, but there was a lot of debate on the impact of all of these advancements. One camp argued an effective battleship needed to have as many smaller guns as possible to lay down a torrent of fire and degrade an enemy ship by destroying unarmored portions of it, with a few heavy guns to put critical hits on the more protected areas. The other camp (which is where the Dreadnought concept sprung from) contended that if a few heavy guns were good, more would be better; hits would be more damaging, and it would be easier to direct the fire from one size of gun than two or three simultaneously. The Battle of Tsushima in 1904 was the main instance of battleship-on-battleship action at that time, and it provided ammuntion for both camps. A vast majority of the hits scored were made by smaller guns, but the few large-caliber hits that were scored had devestating effects on the ships that were struck.

The question was ultimately settled by First Sea Lord Fisher's "bull in a china shop" approach of using his position to rush an all big-gun battleship to service. Once he had, the geanie was out of the bottle; the Dreadnought's uniform armament, combined with advances in fire control, made her much more accurate and deadly than prevoious battleship designs. No other navy with aspirations of first-rank status could afford to be left behind.

Were they hampered by only having big guns?

Yes and no. Certainly, the lack of a decent secondary armament was one of the main criticisms of HMS Dreadnought and her immediate successors. Just about every navy except Britain went with robust secondaries from the beginning, and even Britain followed suit eventually. It turned out that large caliber main guns just weren't suited to fending off attacks from destroyers, torpedo boats, and the like. However, that is not to say that having a uniform main armament was a detriment; to the contrary, this worked in the ship's favor, for the reasons discussed above. It's just that the main armament wasn't the one size fits all solution Fisher imagined.

Did Dreadnoughts have a profound effect on naval warfare?

Again, yes and no. As I said, the advent of the all big-gun battleship definitely touched off an international naval arms race, as earlier classes of battleship simple could not compete. Likewise, dreadnoughts steadily grew in size, power, and speed, while at the same time engagement ranges steadily increased as better and better spotting and fire control techniques were developed. Despite all of that, dreadnoughts did not dramatically shift tactical or strategic thinking. Tactically, naval commanders were still forming up in lines of battle and endeavoring to cross each other's "T." Strategically, admirals still thought in Mahanian terms, where the primary objective was to engage and destroy the enemy's battle fleet. The dreadnought did have one unanticipated affect in this area, however. The growth in size and power of battleships also led to a growth  in cost; dreadnoughts were drastically more expensive to build than pre-dreadnoughts. This in turn tended to make commanders more cautious about employing their ships; you can see this in the way both the German and British admirals at Jutland placed the preservation of their fleets ahead of destroying the enemy.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page