AHC: US makes all-big-gun BB first.

Status
Not open for further replies.

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
A "dreadnought" has as its definition a rather singular quality: A capital ship with uniform heavy armament.

In this sense, USS South Carolina qualified. No question.

But as you point out, the impact of HMS Dreadnought was what it was because of more than just its uniform 12" armament. It also was the first to incorporate steam turbines, giving it an unheard of (for capital ships) 21 knot speed, and a generally much more sustainable power plant. It was also one of the first to use electrical range finders. It had a new watertight bulkhead scheme. And yes, at the time of commissioning it was, I believe, the heaviest battleship afloat.

But one other splash it made was a literal one: the record time in which it was laid down and commissioned - basically under 14 months. USS South Carolina, on the other hand, took three years and three months, only commissioning in March 1910. That speed was a function both of unmatched British shipbuilding capability as well as Jackie Fisher's prioritizing Dreadnought's construction over all other ships.

So: even though a number of powers and naval experts were considering all-big gun ships at the same time - Cuniberti's and Poundstone's articles both appeared in 1903, Fisher had already been thinking along these lines, and South Carolina was being designed at the same time that Fisher's Committee on Designs was designing the Dreadnought - the Royal Navy beat everyone by a few years. Which means just getting the US Navy the funding a year earlier won't suffice. There must be a much greater sense of urgency to the US Navy, and it's not clear to me how that happens short of a war scare. As it is , the moment Fisher is installed as First Lord (Oct. 1904), he will work like the devil to beat any other naval power to the punch. You'd almost have to have South Carolina slipways before he takes office.

Always nice to have the fastest shipyards. :)
 
When did I say otherwise?

You didn't. I was just clarifying the definition since some of the other posts seemed to be struggling a little bit with this.

A dreadnought really was/is nothing more than a uniform big gun armament. In practice, of course, it did end up entailing the other features of HMS Dreadnought - turbine propulsion for faster speed, advanced fire control and yes, more and more tonnage to accommodate the required machinery and armor.

To get back to the original post, I do think that Dreadnought made a bigger splash than a South Carolina beating it to commissioning would have, because it embodied so many of these things at once, including record build time - and because, yes, Britain had a more central spot on the world naval stage.
 
They did...or at least they designed and ordered the first dreadnought: the USS South Carolina class, which in the layout of its main armament (eight 12 inch guns in a superfiring for/aft turret arrangement) was far more forward-looking than Dreadnought.

No question - but that was really the only advantage that the South Carolinas had, aside from an arguably slightly better armor scheme. Yet it is surprising that the British were so slow to adopt super-firing turrets, or to at least conduct tests to see what the effects would be like.

But as Calbear suggests, Dreadnought would have had the advantage in any battle, given her greater speed.

Had South Carolina been built as quickly as Dreadought it would have been the first operational all-big gun battleship, but except for the probablity we wouldn't use the cool name "dreadnought" to refer to all modern battleships, there probably wouldn't be much difference. Dreadought of course was already in development and I believe the same is true for the German Posen class. Thess ships and their immediate follow-ons would probably still employ wing and staggered turrets because there was resistence to the notion of superfiring turrets from a stability perspective. Also there was the idea that wing turrets were a good thing because the ones on the disengaged side of the ship couldn't be damaged (forgetting the fact that they also couldn't shoot an the enemy). But I suspect the main reason that South Carolina being launched a year or two earlier would make little difference is that, in 1909, the USA was still seen only as a confirmed neutral regional power that was not a threat to Britain or Germany. The Anglo-German "First-Class Battleship" race would probably continue pretty much as OTL.

The Posen was a Nassau class dreadnought, and their design postdates Dreadnought - indeed, Tirpitz halted work on the class for a full year so that his designers could have time to more fully study the features of the Dreadnought.

But if your point is that dreadnoughts were inevitable, and would have made their appearance in that time frame no matter what Jackie Fisher did, no argument here. Too many navies were moving in that direction. Dreadnought just speeded up and intensified the race more than would have been the case otherwise.

The one power that would have felt most threatened by a US "first" dreadnought would be, of course, Japan. Of course, Japan was already facing severe funding problems after the Russian War - as it was, they had to scale back the Satsumas from being all-big gun to semi-dreadnoughts with a mix of 10" and 12" guns. The Royal Navy, of course, would have had to follow suit if it wasn't building one already, even if someone like Beresford had been First Sea Lord.
 
But if your point is that dreadnoughts were inevitable, and would have made their appearance in that time frame no matter what Jackie Fisher did, no argument here. Too many navies were moving in that direction. Dreadnought just speeded up and intensified the race more than would have been the case otherwise.

The one power that would have felt most threatened by a US "first" dreadnought would be, of course, Japan. Of course, Japan was already facing severe funding problems after the Russian War - as it was, they had to scale back the Satsumas from being all-big gun to semi-dreadnoughts with a mix of 10" and 12" guns. The Royal Navy, of course, would have had to follow suit if it wasn't building one already, even if someone like Beresford had been First Sea Lord.

As a new naval power Japan also had the least to lose by introducing the all-big gun battleship and in fact had very early design sketches for such a ship that even incorporated all centerline turrets (although not superfiring). In a way I've always thought that, if not for Fisher, Britain might have been the last major power to build "dreadnoughts". Britain had by far the largest fleet of pre-dreadoughts and this constituted a massive investment. Dreadnought made these ships essentially obsolete overnight. It's usually the smaller powers that seek to offset numerical superiority by building individually superior ships, not the one seeking to maintain its status quo advantage.
 
As a new naval power Japan also had the least to lose by introducing the all-big gun battleship and in fact had very early design sketches for such a ship that even incorporated all centerline turrets (although not superfiring). In a way I've always thought that, if not for Fisher, Britain might have been the last major power to build "dreadnoughts". Britain had by far the largest fleet of pre-dreadoughts and this constituted a massive investment. Dreadnought made these ships essentially obsolete overnight. It's usually the smaller powers that seek to offset numerical superiority by building individually superior ships, not the one seeking to maintain its status quo advantage.

Which is why Fisher was such a visionary (despite his occasional mistakes). Britain was in a far better position when the Great War erupted because of his efforts.

It's actually quite striking that Britain maintained naval supremacy through out the "Long Nineteenth Century" despite such a profound revolution in naval technology - the Royal Navy of 1914 was unrecognizable from that of 1815. Invariably a great power loses its power in large part because it fails to adapt. Britain not only adapted; it stayed out in front.

Britain did not pioneer every single new advance of this period, but it did pioneer a surprising number of them - and rapidly adopted the ones it didn't.

Japan had the least to lose, but also had the least to spend. And it was still building a lot in British shipyards in the first place...meaning that British adoption of dreadnoughts in short order was likely inevitable. But it would not have had nearly as many, or as well developed, in 1914 had Fisher not been on the scene.
 
For those curious, this is what the dreadnought picture worldwide looked like in August 1914 - dreadnoughts (including battlecruisers) that were completed, or completing:

Code:
Britain  34
Germany  24
Japan     8
U.S.A.    8
Austria   4
France    4
Italy     4
Russia    4
Brazil    2
Argentina 2

Of course, during the war, the UK would add five Queen Elizabeths, five Revenges, two Renowns, three Courageouses, and the Canada. The U.S. Navy would add six dreadnoughts (with six more under construction), Japan would add four during the war...Germany would add only two Bayerns.

It is an astonishing spurt of dreadnought construction around the world in a very short period of time - 90 built from 1906-1914, and 28 more finished over the four years of the Great War. If I have done my sums correctly.
 

Delta Force

Banned
As a new naval power Japan also had the least to lose by introducing the all-big gun battleship and in fact had very early design sketches for such a ship that even incorporated all centerline turrets (although not superfiring). In a way I've always thought that, if not for Fisher, Britain might have been the last major power to build "dreadnoughts". Britain had by far the largest fleet of pre-dreadoughts and this constituted a massive investment. Dreadnought made these ships essentially obsolete overnight. It's usually the smaller powers that seek to offset numerical superiority by building individually superior ships, not the one seeking to maintain its status quo advantage.

The Royal Navy thought it was cementing its position by building dreadnoughts and battlecruisers. However, other powers saw it as akin to a reset, working out to their relative advantage.

For those curious, this is what the dreadnought picture worldwide looked like in August 1914 - dreadnoughts (including battlecruisers) that were completed, or completing:

Code:
Britain  34
Germany  24
Japan     8
U.S.A.    8
Austria   4
France    4
Italy     4
Russia    4
Brazil    2
Argentina 2

Of course, during the war, the UK would add five Queen Elizabeths, five Revenges, two Renowns, three Courageouses, and the Canada. The U.S. Navy would add six dreadnoughts (with six more under construction), Japan would add four during the war...Germany would add only two Bayerns.

It is an astonishing spurt of dreadnought construction around the world in a very short period of time - 90 built from 1906-1914, and 28 more finished over the four years of the Great War. If I have done my sums correctly.

If the Satsuma and Radetzky class were completed as dreadnought battleships, the count would have been ten dreadnoughts for Japan and eight for Austria-Hungary. The Satsuma was a semi-dreadnought due to budget pressures during the Russo-Japanese War, while the Radetzky was a semi-dreadnought because new facilities would have been required to build and maintain the larger dreadnought proposals. Ironically, shortly afterwards Austria-Hungary approved funding to modernize Austrian shipyards and expand Hungarian ones to build battleships as part of funding for the Tegetthoff class dreadnoughts.
 
The Royal Navy thought it was cementing its position by building dreadnoughts and battlecruisers. However, other powers saw it as akin to a reset, working out to their relative advantage.

Of course, as you can see from the numbers, it didn't quite work out that way - not until Britain's finances and economy were wrecked by the Great War, at least.

Without the war, Germany and America might well have caught Britain eventually, but it would have taken 2-3 more decades, assuming the political will persevered. By which point, naval aviation would have begun making the question increasingly moot...
 
Ok after thinking it over I edited the first post to change it from first All-Big-Gun BB to first Dreadnought. If someone could change the title text as well that'd be great.

It's very simple. See the "Go Advanced" next to the "Save" button on the edit screen? That allows you to change the title.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top