Talk:Dreadnought

message: 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)
thread_title: "Dreadnaught"?

message: 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)
thread_title: Unsupported statement

message: 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)
thread_title: Fork from [[battleship]]

message: 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)
thread_title: Blown out of the article

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Ocean [[Plymouth Laser|eclipse]]

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Main Picture

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Move to [[Dreadnought battleship]]? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Hail of Fire

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: End Date

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title: Armour Concept

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Triple & quad turrets - implications for armour

message: 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)
replies: text: Typically on the order of 100 rounds per gun. The Land (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magazine capacity 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Just a footnote 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Doctrinaire 

message: 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)
thread_title:  First Triples 

message: 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)
replies: text: I strongly suspect a typo; will check but think it should read "21 July 1906". The Land (talk) 13:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reasonable. Me like.Kcor53 (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Building the first Dreadnoughts 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Don't shoot, I'm only the lathe operator

message: "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)
replies: text: Good point. Have amended the article. The Land (talk) 15:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Oil-firing quibble 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  USS Texas - which year? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The introduction is significantly different from the Dreadnought#Anglo-German_arms_race section.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't you guys believe in citations?

message: 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)
replies: text: They're called "range clocks." In a caption for two images of , 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  dreadnaught battleships 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Speed of ''Dreadnought'' 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Misleading unintelligible organization in the "SUPERFIRING" theme 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: I am considering adding  and  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,  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)
replies: text: Please go right ahead - thank you! The Land (talk) 09:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upgrading citations 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It sounds like he's talking about other coal dust explosions....  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  11:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Fuel types 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Missing link for Neptune class 

message: According to this article, the two main characteristics of a dreadnought are (all) big guns and steam turbines. But the "only remaining dreadnought battleship"  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  USS ''Texas'' and turbines 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's probably worth a note to explain why they're included. Parsecboy (talk) 11:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kawachi class as semi-dreadnoughts (or not) 

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