![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
"Although the battlecruiser concept would become unpopular in the aftermath of World War I, Fisher was nonetheless forced by the Admiralty to create an all-big-gun battleship instead."
Huh? I don't see the relation between battlecruiser popularity and fisher creating "an all-big-gun battleship instead." -- Aqua 07:27, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
This page says HMS Cobra sank in 1899. The HMS Cobra page says it was launched in 1899 but wrecked in 1901. Does anyone know which is correct? -- 86.130.213.104 12:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
The article said:
I rewrote. It wasn't a limit on range that was the issue so much as the distribution; broadside batteries (typical before turrets) could only be used on one broadside, where turrets opened wide fields of fire, & both broadsides--with half the number of guns. This flaw was allowed to persist in Dreadnought, to an extent, with her barbetted secondary armament, & two wing turrets; the spec box needs cleanup for calling them "midships": a midships (P, Q, or X) turret would not be masked by superstructure, while both Dreadnought's wing turrets were.
On a separate point, can somebody clarify when director firing was introduced? It's implied Dreadnought used it; as I recall, it wasn't introduced until after she was, sometime in the '10s or '20s.
Re the spec box, it needs cleanup in the "fate" category, too: seems to me that should include yr struck, yr decommissioned, yr scrapped, &/or yr sunk, as appropriate, in one category.
Trekphiler 14:42 & Trekphiler 15:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I also remember reading reading somewhere that Dreadnnought did not have central fire control when introduced. This seems strange. David R. Ingham 01:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
This is comparing to a ship like Hood with two big guns forward and two aft, isn't it? It says "four". So that should read "equal to one and a half or two battleships" shouldn't it? David R. Ingham 01:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The article said:
I rewrote. To begin with, it's irrelavent if RN ships sank, & frankly, if any DDs sank; it's not like there would never be any more built. The issue, put colloquially, is "be able to outrun anything you can't outgun, & outgun everything else". Dreadnought did that. She did it so well, she redefined "battleship". Trekphiler 15:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
In a related matter, the article says the Dreadnought had geared turbines. Since the first successful turbine gearset wasn't invented until, I believe, 1912, that seems impossible. They were direct drive turbines, as I recall. Will check before editing the article though. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
208.191.55.135 (
talk) 02:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The mention of an unfounded fear of concussion links to Concussion, which is about head injuries, not anything related to big guns... please clarify :-) -- AlanH 19:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Would anyone object to splitting this article in two? What I'm imagining is that the Dreadnought article itself would deal only with the ship, and a new article on the development of Dreadnought-style battleships is created to handle sections lke those on Japanese developments would be created - something like Dreadnought (naval warfare) (although maybe this could be incorporated into the Battleship article...). I think this would have the advantage of streamlining this article, while at the same time not sacrificing any important material. Any thoughts? Carom 17:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
"History of..." sounds better, especially when compared to other weapons. -- Harlsbottom 13:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, per the discussion above, I think I'll create a new article, entitled Dreadnought battleship (or maybe Dreadnought (battleship) which will get the bulk of the information on the history and development of the type. this article and the Battleship article will have {{ main}} redirects to this new article (which means I'll also cut down some of the info in the Battleship article. Unless anyone has a problem with that, I'll go ahead this weekend. Carom 20:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I have retitled the section describing Dreadnought's career, and cleared up a few misconceptions. In particular:
Some tidying-up is needed, which I will attend to in the next few days.
Regards to all, John Moore 309 23:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
"Thus protected from smaller ships, lighter guns that would normally be placed along the sides of the ship to deal with them could be omitted."
I don't understand the reasoning. How was the Dreadnought protected from smaller (supposedly faster) ships? Asking another way, if medium guns were used for protection against smaller faster ships (eg. torpedo boats), how was the Dreadnought supposed to protect herself?
How much of the 'genesis' and 'technology' sections need be here, and how much at Dreadnought? Don't know the answer, but there is little point the two articles being a fork of one another. The Land 17:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm using Parkes' British Battleships - some would call it the definitive tome on the subject (696 pages) - it's a very good general overview. It quotes at length from Cuniberti's Janes article and I'll quote the relevent section in the draft I'm working on, which can be seen here; User:Harlsbottom/HMS Dreadnought (1906). -- Harlsbottom 10:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've finally been re-acquainted with my copy of Warrior to Dreadnought as well as Brown's article on the Design and Construction of Dreadnought. I wouldn't say that Fisher was a late convert to the all-big-gun ship, for he definitely started having ideas drawn up in 1902, albeit with 10-inch guns. And then there's the 8 16-inch gunned Inflexible vessel which he and Watts briefly opined upon in 1881 as illustrated by John Roberts in a 1979 issue of Warship.
Anyway, I am trying to make my draft less-Fisher-centric - it has been updated accordingly. Considering the weight of materiel - I have yet to scour my Sumida, Lambert, and Brooks articles - would it be too much to suggest an article series for this if I accumulate enough referenced materiel? I'm thinking "Development of the battleship HMS Dreadnought", "Armament of the battleship HMS Dreadnought", "Construction and Career of the battleship HMS Dreadnought". Comments? -- Harlsbottom 19:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Another remark: Maybe I'm blind, but do we link from this article to Dreadnought? -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 21:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
A paragraph states that "Another major innovation was the elimination of longitudinal passageways between compartments below the main deck level. While doors connecting compartments were always closed during combat, connected compartments had been found to be a cause of weakness following a collision during fleet exercises which resulted in the sinking of a battle cruiser." It is my understanding that one advantage the Germans had at Jutland was that their ships were designed without such passageways, while the British ships still had them (to provide for greater habitability on long voyages). Also, how could the design of the Dreadnought benefit from a weakness in a battlecruiser, when no such ships had been built at that time? Vgy7ujm ( talk) 23:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
The firing range of typical secondary guns in earlier designs is mentioned in the article, but what was the range of the Dreadnought's own big guns? -- 212.63.43.180 ( talk) 15:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The United States was so impressed by the HMS Dreadnought. The USS South Carolina (BB-26) and USS Michigan (BB-27) had all four turrets on the center line. From the name of the British ship "Fear God Dread Nought"; U.S. Congressman John S. Williams (D-MS) House Minority leader authored a bill to change the name of USS Michigan to USS Skeered O' Nothing. The bill never left committee. Source: Pater, Alan F. United States Battleships. Beverly Hills, Ca. Monitor Book Co. 1968. P.8 Ustye ( talk) 06:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
According to my dictionary "vice versa" is two words but more importantly "If the shells were seen to splash beyond the target, the range was shortened, and viceversa" implies: If the range was shortened the shells were seen to splash beyond the target. This makes no sense.
Noises Off ( talk) 13:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Noises Off
I didn't notice much in the article about what was wrong with dreadnought, which after all was a revolutionary new design. Without particular explanation, Morris in Fisher's face comments in the section on Dreadnought (p. 153) that there were issues with the steering, the control top on the masts between the funnels could be blinded by smoke and was sometimes too hot for anyone to go up there, and the conning tower proved to be an impractical design. Doesn't give more detail, but I wouldn't doubt the criticisms must be better documented somewhere. Sandpiper ( talk) 07:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The first britisch dreadnoght with superimpsed turrets was HMS Neptune, not the Orions.
As for the instruments for "transmitting range etc. to the turrets" I would suspect that they where electric rather than electronic. -- 84.177.60.154 ( talk) 20:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
The ineffectiveness of secondary batteries was first demonstrated during the Battle of Pungdo in which several western officers of several fleets served as advisers. Torpedoes were never a factor in the design of all big gun ships. The first mission of a large naval combatant is to choke off the enemy's commerce by sinking merchant ships and destroying ports. Their potential to destroy ports was the big worry for politicians. Second is to serve as supporting artillery for invading ground forces. The all big gun design came about as result of the range of big guns, both at sea and ashore.
67.128.188.61 ( talk) 12:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Don Granberry.
Have been reading the comments by Padfield in 'the battleship era' re the battle of tsushima. He draws rather different conclusions to those presented here. Perhaps the most important consideration (he says, though he lists it third after gunnery competence but it dictated the entire engagement) was that the Japanese fleet was twice as fast as the Russian. This allowed them to choose the range, place, when to engage, etc etc. Next, the japanese were good at shooting and hitting, and the Russians were terrible. They had better shells. The russian ships were overloaded so their armour belts were below the waterline and holes above it let in water. The victory was accomplished by an overwhelming hail of fire of all sorts, not by precision gunnery which didn't exist in the sense later achieved, even though the japanese were better and generally were under orders not to waste shells by chooting when they did not have a good target. The russians had more big guns than the Japanese, but lost. it was a victory achieved by going in all guns blazing and thus certainly did not demonstrate 'that only big guns mattered' as the article claims. He withdrew and used detroyer/torpedo attacks when that was more effective. Togo was the better admiral. Sandpiper ( talk) 08:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
And by the why, the Russians were good shots, they hit the IJA flagship with their main guns right off the bat! Almost continuously! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.160.36 ( talk) 07:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd aways understood that the assessment made of the Battle of Tsushima was that whilst the smaller calibres certainly played their role, the decisive work was done by the heaviest calibres, the Japanese 12 inches. That the decisive blows had been struck by the time the secondary and tertiary batteries came into play. That certainly would support the concept of the "all big gun ship". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.39.162.130 ( talk) 13:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The sea trials didn't go as well as expected. Some incidents were carefully concealed.
While the Dreadnought was on trials in the West Indies there was a massive steering gear break down while the ship was at high speed. The rudder went hard over and the ship started circling and was very nearly wrecked on a nearby reef.
It's an interesting speculation what might have happened had the newest and most modern battleship in the world been wrecked or even sunk on its maiden voyage as was the later Titanic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 ( talk) 15:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer: Xtzou ( Talk) 22:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Hi, I am reviewing this article and will be adding comments as I go. Xtzou ( Talk) 22:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Xtzou ( Talk) 14:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Congratulations! Xtzou ( Talk) 16:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm a little confused by this edit [1] on gunnery developments. The edit description is the most confusing at all: "Age of sail battles were typically at several hundred yards, not a thousand". My own edit summary was merely to highlight the error in the article text of "...battle ranges out to an unprecedented 6000 yd, a distance far enough to force gunners to wait for the shells to arrive before applying corrections for the next salvo." My point was that this statement was nonsensical, even during Age of Sail battles at far shorter ranges, gunnery crews could not correct until the shells had arrived.
The other changes to the paragraph tightened an overly long and confused bit of text into something that conveyed the same information, but with far fewer words. And, by the way, some AOS battles did take place at ranges exceeding 1000 yards, though admittedly much shorter ranges were typical. Fell Gleaming talk 21:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, but I'd already conceded chase situations were different than ordinary battles in terms of range when opening fire during the AoS. And tangent sights were generally only used for chase guns, as those had the highest need for them. Broadside guns rarely had sights of any kind. You are theoretically correct, but time of flight for a 18-pdr at 200 yards was short enough that the gunner had to wait for the gun to be reloaded before re-aiming for the next shot. With quick-firing guns, the opposite was true because muzzle velocity increased so much and reload time decreased as well. You don't seem to realize that I, and my source, are making comparisons with the period after the introduction of QF guns when the typical battle practice range was 1500 yds and QF guns could deliver coarsely-aimed fire as fast as they could be fired, because they didn't need to take the time for precision aimed fire. This is the gunnery revolution of the turn of the 20th century.
FellGleaming's language guts the fundamental points that I was trying to make in my original text which, I'm perfectly happy to admit, could probably use some polishing. At 1500 yds there's only a couple of seconds of flight before any shell from the high-velocity guns of the 1880-1890s hits its target so that it's effectively instantaneous. At 6000 yds that's no longer true and gunners needed to wait to watch where their shells landed.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 16:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The matter of the 12 pounder guns seems a little confused. One authority says that Fisher had the 12 pounders added in case Dreadnought was attacked by a torpedo boat.
A Victorian source, "Navy and Army Illustrated 1897" seems quite clear that 12 pounders were routinely included in the gunnery outfit for firing ceremonial salutes on entering or leaving harbour as at least one large Victorian warship was unable to fire a salute when entering a French harbour due to a lack of small guns.
The Dreadnought had direct drive turbines and these proved so much quieter in use that several large Edwardian steam yachts had direct drive turbines fitted. The far more efficient single and double geared turbines tended to produce a whining noise from the gearboxes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 ( talk) 14:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The high noon of the Victorian navy saw very little action although ship design had progressed to a scientific basis. A great deal of thought was given to crew protection despite the lack of practical action. It was theorised that when the ship went into action the captain and senior officers would move from the bridge to the safer area of the armoured conning tower. A heavy conning tower seems to have been incorporated in the Dreadnought design. It was a good idea that didn't really work out in action.
After the combat damage of Jutland it was realised that Admirals and captains preferred to remain on the riskier less armoured bridge rather than descend to the conning tower.
The design policy then became that as a ship came in for a big refit the conning tower would be removed and the weight allowance used elsewhere. The battlecruiser "Hood" was always due for a considerable refit, which never happened but was to include removing the 500 ton conning tower and possibly fitting extra armour elswhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 ( talk) 15:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Jellicoe was probably initially correct in his assesment that each turret should have a sighting hood, he was a methodical man who carefully considered ideas and tactics.
There must have been some sort of arrangement for at least aiming the guns from the fighting top, but it looks a rather vulnerable position at the top of the fore mast and it must have seemed to Jellicoe that if the fighting top was shot away...what next?
The obvious thing to do was to give each turret its own sighting hood so that the turret gunnery officer could see the intended target and continue firing individually if indeed the fighting top was hit or shot away.
It's a good idea but probably nobody at the time realised just how severe was the concussive force from a large naval gun as it fired. By the time that WW1 started the shortcomings of the idea had become obvious and the necessary rebuilding carried out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 ( talk) 15:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The battleship conning tower was a good idea on paper that didn't work out in practise. The conning tower was a heavily armoured position which was designed to be the safest place on the ship for the Admiral, Captain and senior officers when the ship went into action. The idea and design of a conning tower had gradually developed during the Victorian and Edwardian years into quite a heavily armoured and elaborate structure.
During WW1 when the heavy ships actually went into serious combat it was realised that the Senior officers preferred to be on the bridge of their ships during combat actions rather than in the conning tower, so the idea was only then proven unsuccessful.
The whole concept seems to have peaked with the battlecruiser "Hood" which had a conning tower weighing approx 500-600 tons. This was always due to be removed "next refit" and was never carried out.
The late Dr Oscar Parkes devotes some detail to the subject of conning towers in "British Battleships". AT Kunene ( talk) 13:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The turbines on the "Dreadnought" were indeed direct drive which needed considerable compromise between high speed turbines and slow moving propellers. One little known aspect of this was the low noise level. So much so that several very rich men had their yachts built using direct drive turbines. With the introduction of the much more efficient geared turbine there was always a background whining sound from the gearboxes.
One question that has always puzzled me though. These were very large warships for their time but few had the coal endurance for more than about a week. Was it possible that even by the time of the launching at the "Dreadnought" that this ship was expected to fight only in the North Sea? Was a war with Germany being planned or expected even at this early date? AT Kunene ( talk) 10:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Referring to a gunship, a thing of war comparable to tanks and interceptors and such, as "she"/"her" at every turn sounds real silly. Such language is more suitable to poetic/fictional writing, in my opinion - just distracting here. Anyone agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.67.147 ( talk) 18:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
We apply gender terms to ships as their respective navy does/did; within the RN there's no divergence of opinion, ships are always female. However if we were talking about ships of the German navy we'd use "he", "him" etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.172.25 ( talk) 19:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
No, same here in Germany. Ships are always female, even if they are named after male persons, e.g. "die Bismarck", "die Scharnhorst" etc. 213.61.58.164 ( talk) 12:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC) kookee
Is there any information about capital warships including the "Dreadnought" being designed and fitted with torpedos in addition to the main gunnery armament, as part of their original design and construction?
The later "Hood" was armed with torpedoes and has been described as "the last capital ship to be fitted with torpedos" and some theories conjecture that the ship blew up from a shell hit on the torpedo room. AT Kunene ( talk) 09:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
This article states that "Dreadnought thus became the only battleship ever to sink a submarine." But United States Battleship Division Nine (World War I) indicates that "Both Admirals Rodman and Beatty concluded that the New York must have accidentally collided with a submerged German U-boat. They agreed that the submarine had rammed its bow into the ship's side, then been struck moments later by the ship's propeller. In their opinion, the damage would have been fatal to the German craft," citing Admiral Rodman's memoirs, Yarns of a Kentucky Admiral, and the book U.S. Battleship Operations in World War I by Jerry Jones. It goes on to note that "Postwar examination of German records revealed that the submarine lost may have been UB-113 or UB-123. This strange—and accidental—encounter marked the only time in all of Battleship Division Nine's service with the Grand Fleet that one of its ships sank a German vessel," again citing U.S. Battleship Operations in World War I.
Should the statement in this article be rewritten to indicate that it was the first battleship to sink a submarine? Or perhaps that it was the first of only two battleships to have done so (to retain some impression of the rarity of the action)? -- 98.204.140.83 ( talk) 03:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The introduction of the article states that the HMS Dreadnought was sold for scrap in 1911, but the info bar states that its fate was scrapped in 1913. Are both of these years correct? I don't know much about the fate of the ship, but I was confused by the differing years and just want to verify the information. DeiKobol ( talk) 05:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
In your entry on Sir Philip Watts you say that he was the designer of the first Dreadnought but he is not mentioned in the article on HMS Dreadnought. I think he should be.
˜˜˜˜ Peter Le Mare — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.170.218.142 ( talk) 09:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
The infobox reveals the cost of production as £1,672,483. However, I found no footnote next to it, nor was it referenced elsewhere in the article. Also, is this in 1906 currency or a comparison to modern times counting inflation?-- OsirisV ( talk) 14:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Pre WW1 gunnery instructions related to the size of propellant charge to be used for gunnery. The 1/4 charge was the normal load for peacetime use with the occasional use of the 1/2 load. The full charge was to be used in wartime only. It was possibly only when the full charges were used in WW1 with the resulting massive discharge pressures that the shortcomings of sighting hoods became obvious, something that the careful and methodical Jellicoe couldn't possibly have foreseen. AT Kunene ( talk) 16:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Should it be mentioned that H.M.S. Dreadnought helped to spark a new naval arms race (there was already strong competition going on before her launch) by de-classing all existing designs, practically enabling all nations with the ability to construct such vessels to start from zero again? While making obsolete all foreign designs, she first and foremost also nullified the great naval supremacy of great Britain, practically reducing Britain’s many Pre-Dreeadnoughts to floating scrap. 213.61.58.164 ( talk) 13:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC) kookee
-- Maxrossomachin ( talk) 07:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I think we should change the opening line and remove the "revolutionised naval power" part, maybe swapping it out with "was the only ship of her class". Would this be a good idea, or no? Utahwriter14 ( talk) 22:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
text reads "Dreadnought did not participate in the Battle of Jutland in 1916 as she was being refitted. This was the only time during the war that British dreadnought battleships fired on their German counterparts. Nor did Dreadnought participate in any of the other World War I naval battles."
This text indicated HMS Dreadnought did not participate in the Battle of Jutland in 1916 but did in fact during that time fire on a German Battleship. This is likely an error, seeing as the previous sentence refers her to ramming a submarine and later we learn she did not participate in any other WW I naval battle.
Did she fire or not? Text should be clarified either way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.154.67 ( talk) 10:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
As it is not relevant (the fact the ship wasn't there is relevant, further information about a battle in which this ship did not take part is not, especially in the lead) JeffUK ( talk) 12:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on HMS Dreadnought (1906). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
The opening sentence reads "HMS Dreadnought was a Royal Navy battleship that revolutionised naval power." Is this actually true? As the article says, Dreadnought itself saw no significant action, and the only battle between dreadnought fleets was Jutland, which decided nothing.
The innovation that revolutionised naval power in WWI, and has continued to do so was the large scale use of submarines. Even at Jutland, the fear of running into submarines was a big factor. JQ ( talk) 06:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
In the Trials section we have the following sentence:
"On the 9th she undertook her eight hour long full power contractor trials off Polperro on the Cornwall coast during which she averaged 20.05 knots and 21.6 knots on the measured mile."
Were these "eight-hour-long full-power contractor trials" or "eight hour-long full-power contractor trials"? Ericoides ( talk) 05:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I think it means "fear nothing" rather than "a fearless person". If nobody objects I'll change the lede. 46.227.49.108 ( talk) 10:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Please stop it. But you won't. -- 71.182.194.112 ( talk) 16:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
So what was the reason it was decommissioned? 172.58.206.164 ( talk) 03:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
...decommissioning confers that the ship has reached the end of its usable life and is being retired...". But for more info, Google is your friend ;-) Now, if you're asking because you would like to see some information about why Dreadnought was decommissioned added to the article, feel free to add what you've learned in your research, just don't forget to cite your sources. However, if you're just asking out of curiosity, you should know we don't use these talk pages for that, as Wikipedia is not a forum. Hope this was helpful, take a look at your own talk page for more information about Wikipedia, it's uses and how to use it. - wolf 02:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
"Although the battlecruiser concept would become unpopular in the aftermath of World War I, Fisher was nonetheless forced by the Admiralty to create an all-big-gun battleship instead."
Huh? I don't see the relation between battlecruiser popularity and fisher creating "an all-big-gun battleship instead." -- Aqua 07:27, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
This page says HMS Cobra sank in 1899. The HMS Cobra page says it was launched in 1899 but wrecked in 1901. Does anyone know which is correct? -- 86.130.213.104 12:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
The article said:
I rewrote. It wasn't a limit on range that was the issue so much as the distribution; broadside batteries (typical before turrets) could only be used on one broadside, where turrets opened wide fields of fire, & both broadsides--with half the number of guns. This flaw was allowed to persist in Dreadnought, to an extent, with her barbetted secondary armament, & two wing turrets; the spec box needs cleanup for calling them "midships": a midships (P, Q, or X) turret would not be masked by superstructure, while both Dreadnought's wing turrets were.
On a separate point, can somebody clarify when director firing was introduced? It's implied Dreadnought used it; as I recall, it wasn't introduced until after she was, sometime in the '10s or '20s.
Re the spec box, it needs cleanup in the "fate" category, too: seems to me that should include yr struck, yr decommissioned, yr scrapped, &/or yr sunk, as appropriate, in one category.
Trekphiler 14:42 & Trekphiler 15:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I also remember reading reading somewhere that Dreadnnought did not have central fire control when introduced. This seems strange. David R. Ingham 01:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
This is comparing to a ship like Hood with two big guns forward and two aft, isn't it? It says "four". So that should read "equal to one and a half or two battleships" shouldn't it? David R. Ingham 01:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The article said:
I rewrote. To begin with, it's irrelavent if RN ships sank, & frankly, if any DDs sank; it's not like there would never be any more built. The issue, put colloquially, is "be able to outrun anything you can't outgun, & outgun everything else". Dreadnought did that. She did it so well, she redefined "battleship". Trekphiler 15:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
In a related matter, the article says the Dreadnought had geared turbines. Since the first successful turbine gearset wasn't invented until, I believe, 1912, that seems impossible. They were direct drive turbines, as I recall. Will check before editing the article though. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
208.191.55.135 (
talk) 02:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The mention of an unfounded fear of concussion links to Concussion, which is about head injuries, not anything related to big guns... please clarify :-) -- AlanH 19:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Would anyone object to splitting this article in two? What I'm imagining is that the Dreadnought article itself would deal only with the ship, and a new article on the development of Dreadnought-style battleships is created to handle sections lke those on Japanese developments would be created - something like Dreadnought (naval warfare) (although maybe this could be incorporated into the Battleship article...). I think this would have the advantage of streamlining this article, while at the same time not sacrificing any important material. Any thoughts? Carom 17:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
"History of..." sounds better, especially when compared to other weapons. -- Harlsbottom 13:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, per the discussion above, I think I'll create a new article, entitled Dreadnought battleship (or maybe Dreadnought (battleship) which will get the bulk of the information on the history and development of the type. this article and the Battleship article will have {{ main}} redirects to this new article (which means I'll also cut down some of the info in the Battleship article. Unless anyone has a problem with that, I'll go ahead this weekend. Carom 20:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I have retitled the section describing Dreadnought's career, and cleared up a few misconceptions. In particular:
Some tidying-up is needed, which I will attend to in the next few days.
Regards to all, John Moore 309 23:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
"Thus protected from smaller ships, lighter guns that would normally be placed along the sides of the ship to deal with them could be omitted."
I don't understand the reasoning. How was the Dreadnought protected from smaller (supposedly faster) ships? Asking another way, if medium guns were used for protection against smaller faster ships (eg. torpedo boats), how was the Dreadnought supposed to protect herself?
How much of the 'genesis' and 'technology' sections need be here, and how much at Dreadnought? Don't know the answer, but there is little point the two articles being a fork of one another. The Land 17:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm using Parkes' British Battleships - some would call it the definitive tome on the subject (696 pages) - it's a very good general overview. It quotes at length from Cuniberti's Janes article and I'll quote the relevent section in the draft I'm working on, which can be seen here; User:Harlsbottom/HMS Dreadnought (1906). -- Harlsbottom 10:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've finally been re-acquainted with my copy of Warrior to Dreadnought as well as Brown's article on the Design and Construction of Dreadnought. I wouldn't say that Fisher was a late convert to the all-big-gun ship, for he definitely started having ideas drawn up in 1902, albeit with 10-inch guns. And then there's the 8 16-inch gunned Inflexible vessel which he and Watts briefly opined upon in 1881 as illustrated by John Roberts in a 1979 issue of Warship.
Anyway, I am trying to make my draft less-Fisher-centric - it has been updated accordingly. Considering the weight of materiel - I have yet to scour my Sumida, Lambert, and Brooks articles - would it be too much to suggest an article series for this if I accumulate enough referenced materiel? I'm thinking "Development of the battleship HMS Dreadnought", "Armament of the battleship HMS Dreadnought", "Construction and Career of the battleship HMS Dreadnought". Comments? -- Harlsbottom 19:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Another remark: Maybe I'm blind, but do we link from this article to Dreadnought? -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 21:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
A paragraph states that "Another major innovation was the elimination of longitudinal passageways between compartments below the main deck level. While doors connecting compartments were always closed during combat, connected compartments had been found to be a cause of weakness following a collision during fleet exercises which resulted in the sinking of a battle cruiser." It is my understanding that one advantage the Germans had at Jutland was that their ships were designed without such passageways, while the British ships still had them (to provide for greater habitability on long voyages). Also, how could the design of the Dreadnought benefit from a weakness in a battlecruiser, when no such ships had been built at that time? Vgy7ujm ( talk) 23:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
The firing range of typical secondary guns in earlier designs is mentioned in the article, but what was the range of the Dreadnought's own big guns? -- 212.63.43.180 ( talk) 15:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The United States was so impressed by the HMS Dreadnought. The USS South Carolina (BB-26) and USS Michigan (BB-27) had all four turrets on the center line. From the name of the British ship "Fear God Dread Nought"; U.S. Congressman John S. Williams (D-MS) House Minority leader authored a bill to change the name of USS Michigan to USS Skeered O' Nothing. The bill never left committee. Source: Pater, Alan F. United States Battleships. Beverly Hills, Ca. Monitor Book Co. 1968. P.8 Ustye ( talk) 06:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
According to my dictionary "vice versa" is two words but more importantly "If the shells were seen to splash beyond the target, the range was shortened, and viceversa" implies: If the range was shortened the shells were seen to splash beyond the target. This makes no sense.
Noises Off ( talk) 13:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Noises Off
I didn't notice much in the article about what was wrong with dreadnought, which after all was a revolutionary new design. Without particular explanation, Morris in Fisher's face comments in the section on Dreadnought (p. 153) that there were issues with the steering, the control top on the masts between the funnels could be blinded by smoke and was sometimes too hot for anyone to go up there, and the conning tower proved to be an impractical design. Doesn't give more detail, but I wouldn't doubt the criticisms must be better documented somewhere. Sandpiper ( talk) 07:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The first britisch dreadnoght with superimpsed turrets was HMS Neptune, not the Orions.
As for the instruments for "transmitting range etc. to the turrets" I would suspect that they where electric rather than electronic. -- 84.177.60.154 ( talk) 20:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
The ineffectiveness of secondary batteries was first demonstrated during the Battle of Pungdo in which several western officers of several fleets served as advisers. Torpedoes were never a factor in the design of all big gun ships. The first mission of a large naval combatant is to choke off the enemy's commerce by sinking merchant ships and destroying ports. Their potential to destroy ports was the big worry for politicians. Second is to serve as supporting artillery for invading ground forces. The all big gun design came about as result of the range of big guns, both at sea and ashore.
67.128.188.61 ( talk) 12:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Don Granberry.
Have been reading the comments by Padfield in 'the battleship era' re the battle of tsushima. He draws rather different conclusions to those presented here. Perhaps the most important consideration (he says, though he lists it third after gunnery competence but it dictated the entire engagement) was that the Japanese fleet was twice as fast as the Russian. This allowed them to choose the range, place, when to engage, etc etc. Next, the japanese were good at shooting and hitting, and the Russians were terrible. They had better shells. The russian ships were overloaded so their armour belts were below the waterline and holes above it let in water. The victory was accomplished by an overwhelming hail of fire of all sorts, not by precision gunnery which didn't exist in the sense later achieved, even though the japanese were better and generally were under orders not to waste shells by chooting when they did not have a good target. The russians had more big guns than the Japanese, but lost. it was a victory achieved by going in all guns blazing and thus certainly did not demonstrate 'that only big guns mattered' as the article claims. He withdrew and used detroyer/torpedo attacks when that was more effective. Togo was the better admiral. Sandpiper ( talk) 08:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
And by the why, the Russians were good shots, they hit the IJA flagship with their main guns right off the bat! Almost continuously! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.160.36 ( talk) 07:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd aways understood that the assessment made of the Battle of Tsushima was that whilst the smaller calibres certainly played their role, the decisive work was done by the heaviest calibres, the Japanese 12 inches. That the decisive blows had been struck by the time the secondary and tertiary batteries came into play. That certainly would support the concept of the "all big gun ship". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.39.162.130 ( talk) 13:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The sea trials didn't go as well as expected. Some incidents were carefully concealed.
While the Dreadnought was on trials in the West Indies there was a massive steering gear break down while the ship was at high speed. The rudder went hard over and the ship started circling and was very nearly wrecked on a nearby reef.
It's an interesting speculation what might have happened had the newest and most modern battleship in the world been wrecked or even sunk on its maiden voyage as was the later Titanic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 ( talk) 15:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer: Xtzou ( Talk) 22:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Hi, I am reviewing this article and will be adding comments as I go. Xtzou ( Talk) 22:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Xtzou ( Talk) 14:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Congratulations! Xtzou ( Talk) 16:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm a little confused by this edit [1] on gunnery developments. The edit description is the most confusing at all: "Age of sail battles were typically at several hundred yards, not a thousand". My own edit summary was merely to highlight the error in the article text of "...battle ranges out to an unprecedented 6000 yd, a distance far enough to force gunners to wait for the shells to arrive before applying corrections for the next salvo." My point was that this statement was nonsensical, even during Age of Sail battles at far shorter ranges, gunnery crews could not correct until the shells had arrived.
The other changes to the paragraph tightened an overly long and confused bit of text into something that conveyed the same information, but with far fewer words. And, by the way, some AOS battles did take place at ranges exceeding 1000 yards, though admittedly much shorter ranges were typical. Fell Gleaming talk 21:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, but I'd already conceded chase situations were different than ordinary battles in terms of range when opening fire during the AoS. And tangent sights were generally only used for chase guns, as those had the highest need for them. Broadside guns rarely had sights of any kind. You are theoretically correct, but time of flight for a 18-pdr at 200 yards was short enough that the gunner had to wait for the gun to be reloaded before re-aiming for the next shot. With quick-firing guns, the opposite was true because muzzle velocity increased so much and reload time decreased as well. You don't seem to realize that I, and my source, are making comparisons with the period after the introduction of QF guns when the typical battle practice range was 1500 yds and QF guns could deliver coarsely-aimed fire as fast as they could be fired, because they didn't need to take the time for precision aimed fire. This is the gunnery revolution of the turn of the 20th century.
FellGleaming's language guts the fundamental points that I was trying to make in my original text which, I'm perfectly happy to admit, could probably use some polishing. At 1500 yds there's only a couple of seconds of flight before any shell from the high-velocity guns of the 1880-1890s hits its target so that it's effectively instantaneous. At 6000 yds that's no longer true and gunners needed to wait to watch where their shells landed.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 16:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The matter of the 12 pounder guns seems a little confused. One authority says that Fisher had the 12 pounders added in case Dreadnought was attacked by a torpedo boat.
A Victorian source, "Navy and Army Illustrated 1897" seems quite clear that 12 pounders were routinely included in the gunnery outfit for firing ceremonial salutes on entering or leaving harbour as at least one large Victorian warship was unable to fire a salute when entering a French harbour due to a lack of small guns.
The Dreadnought had direct drive turbines and these proved so much quieter in use that several large Edwardian steam yachts had direct drive turbines fitted. The far more efficient single and double geared turbines tended to produce a whining noise from the gearboxes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 ( talk) 14:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The high noon of the Victorian navy saw very little action although ship design had progressed to a scientific basis. A great deal of thought was given to crew protection despite the lack of practical action. It was theorised that when the ship went into action the captain and senior officers would move from the bridge to the safer area of the armoured conning tower. A heavy conning tower seems to have been incorporated in the Dreadnought design. It was a good idea that didn't really work out in action.
After the combat damage of Jutland it was realised that Admirals and captains preferred to remain on the riskier less armoured bridge rather than descend to the conning tower.
The design policy then became that as a ship came in for a big refit the conning tower would be removed and the weight allowance used elsewhere. The battlecruiser "Hood" was always due for a considerable refit, which never happened but was to include removing the 500 ton conning tower and possibly fitting extra armour elswhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 ( talk) 15:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Jellicoe was probably initially correct in his assesment that each turret should have a sighting hood, he was a methodical man who carefully considered ideas and tactics.
There must have been some sort of arrangement for at least aiming the guns from the fighting top, but it looks a rather vulnerable position at the top of the fore mast and it must have seemed to Jellicoe that if the fighting top was shot away...what next?
The obvious thing to do was to give each turret its own sighting hood so that the turret gunnery officer could see the intended target and continue firing individually if indeed the fighting top was hit or shot away.
It's a good idea but probably nobody at the time realised just how severe was the concussive force from a large naval gun as it fired. By the time that WW1 started the shortcomings of the idea had become obvious and the necessary rebuilding carried out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 ( talk) 15:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The battleship conning tower was a good idea on paper that didn't work out in practise. The conning tower was a heavily armoured position which was designed to be the safest place on the ship for the Admiral, Captain and senior officers when the ship went into action. The idea and design of a conning tower had gradually developed during the Victorian and Edwardian years into quite a heavily armoured and elaborate structure.
During WW1 when the heavy ships actually went into serious combat it was realised that the Senior officers preferred to be on the bridge of their ships during combat actions rather than in the conning tower, so the idea was only then proven unsuccessful.
The whole concept seems to have peaked with the battlecruiser "Hood" which had a conning tower weighing approx 500-600 tons. This was always due to be removed "next refit" and was never carried out.
The late Dr Oscar Parkes devotes some detail to the subject of conning towers in "British Battleships". AT Kunene ( talk) 13:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The turbines on the "Dreadnought" were indeed direct drive which needed considerable compromise between high speed turbines and slow moving propellers. One little known aspect of this was the low noise level. So much so that several very rich men had their yachts built using direct drive turbines. With the introduction of the much more efficient geared turbine there was always a background whining sound from the gearboxes.
One question that has always puzzled me though. These were very large warships for their time but few had the coal endurance for more than about a week. Was it possible that even by the time of the launching at the "Dreadnought" that this ship was expected to fight only in the North Sea? Was a war with Germany being planned or expected even at this early date? AT Kunene ( talk) 10:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Referring to a gunship, a thing of war comparable to tanks and interceptors and such, as "she"/"her" at every turn sounds real silly. Such language is more suitable to poetic/fictional writing, in my opinion - just distracting here. Anyone agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.67.147 ( talk) 18:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
We apply gender terms to ships as their respective navy does/did; within the RN there's no divergence of opinion, ships are always female. However if we were talking about ships of the German navy we'd use "he", "him" etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.172.25 ( talk) 19:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
No, same here in Germany. Ships are always female, even if they are named after male persons, e.g. "die Bismarck", "die Scharnhorst" etc. 213.61.58.164 ( talk) 12:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC) kookee
Is there any information about capital warships including the "Dreadnought" being designed and fitted with torpedos in addition to the main gunnery armament, as part of their original design and construction?
The later "Hood" was armed with torpedoes and has been described as "the last capital ship to be fitted with torpedos" and some theories conjecture that the ship blew up from a shell hit on the torpedo room. AT Kunene ( talk) 09:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
This article states that "Dreadnought thus became the only battleship ever to sink a submarine." But United States Battleship Division Nine (World War I) indicates that "Both Admirals Rodman and Beatty concluded that the New York must have accidentally collided with a submerged German U-boat. They agreed that the submarine had rammed its bow into the ship's side, then been struck moments later by the ship's propeller. In their opinion, the damage would have been fatal to the German craft," citing Admiral Rodman's memoirs, Yarns of a Kentucky Admiral, and the book U.S. Battleship Operations in World War I by Jerry Jones. It goes on to note that "Postwar examination of German records revealed that the submarine lost may have been UB-113 or UB-123. This strange—and accidental—encounter marked the only time in all of Battleship Division Nine's service with the Grand Fleet that one of its ships sank a German vessel," again citing U.S. Battleship Operations in World War I.
Should the statement in this article be rewritten to indicate that it was the first battleship to sink a submarine? Or perhaps that it was the first of only two battleships to have done so (to retain some impression of the rarity of the action)? -- 98.204.140.83 ( talk) 03:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The introduction of the article states that the HMS Dreadnought was sold for scrap in 1911, but the info bar states that its fate was scrapped in 1913. Are both of these years correct? I don't know much about the fate of the ship, but I was confused by the differing years and just want to verify the information. DeiKobol ( talk) 05:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
In your entry on Sir Philip Watts you say that he was the designer of the first Dreadnought but he is not mentioned in the article on HMS Dreadnought. I think he should be.
˜˜˜˜ Peter Le Mare — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.170.218.142 ( talk) 09:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
The infobox reveals the cost of production as £1,672,483. However, I found no footnote next to it, nor was it referenced elsewhere in the article. Also, is this in 1906 currency or a comparison to modern times counting inflation?-- OsirisV ( talk) 14:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Pre WW1 gunnery instructions related to the size of propellant charge to be used for gunnery. The 1/4 charge was the normal load for peacetime use with the occasional use of the 1/2 load. The full charge was to be used in wartime only. It was possibly only when the full charges were used in WW1 with the resulting massive discharge pressures that the shortcomings of sighting hoods became obvious, something that the careful and methodical Jellicoe couldn't possibly have foreseen. AT Kunene ( talk) 16:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Should it be mentioned that H.M.S. Dreadnought helped to spark a new naval arms race (there was already strong competition going on before her launch) by de-classing all existing designs, practically enabling all nations with the ability to construct such vessels to start from zero again? While making obsolete all foreign designs, she first and foremost also nullified the great naval supremacy of great Britain, practically reducing Britain’s many Pre-Dreeadnoughts to floating scrap. 213.61.58.164 ( talk) 13:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC) kookee
-- Maxrossomachin ( talk) 07:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I think we should change the opening line and remove the "revolutionised naval power" part, maybe swapping it out with "was the only ship of her class". Would this be a good idea, or no? Utahwriter14 ( talk) 22:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
text reads "Dreadnought did not participate in the Battle of Jutland in 1916 as she was being refitted. This was the only time during the war that British dreadnought battleships fired on their German counterparts. Nor did Dreadnought participate in any of the other World War I naval battles."
This text indicated HMS Dreadnought did not participate in the Battle of Jutland in 1916 but did in fact during that time fire on a German Battleship. This is likely an error, seeing as the previous sentence refers her to ramming a submarine and later we learn she did not participate in any other WW I naval battle.
Did she fire or not? Text should be clarified either way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.154.67 ( talk) 10:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
As it is not relevant (the fact the ship wasn't there is relevant, further information about a battle in which this ship did not take part is not, especially in the lead) JeffUK ( talk) 12:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on HMS Dreadnought (1906). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
The opening sentence reads "HMS Dreadnought was a Royal Navy battleship that revolutionised naval power." Is this actually true? As the article says, Dreadnought itself saw no significant action, and the only battle between dreadnought fleets was Jutland, which decided nothing.
The innovation that revolutionised naval power in WWI, and has continued to do so was the large scale use of submarines. Even at Jutland, the fear of running into submarines was a big factor. JQ ( talk) 06:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
In the Trials section we have the following sentence:
"On the 9th she undertook her eight hour long full power contractor trials off Polperro on the Cornwall coast during which she averaged 20.05 knots and 21.6 knots on the measured mile."
Were these "eight-hour-long full-power contractor trials" or "eight hour-long full-power contractor trials"? Ericoides ( talk) 05:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I think it means "fear nothing" rather than "a fearless person". If nobody objects I'll change the lede. 46.227.49.108 ( talk) 10:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Please stop it. But you won't. -- 71.182.194.112 ( talk) 16:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
So what was the reason it was decommissioned? 172.58.206.164 ( talk) 03:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
...decommissioning confers that the ship has reached the end of its usable life and is being retired...". But for more info, Google is your friend ;-) Now, if you're asking because you would like to see some information about why Dreadnought was decommissioned added to the article, feel free to add what you've learned in your research, just don't forget to cite your sources. However, if you're just asking out of curiosity, you should know we don't use these talk pages for that, as Wikipedia is not a forum. Hope this was helpful, take a look at your own talk page for more information about Wikipedia, it's uses and how to use it. - wolf 02:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)