General History: Dreadnought Turret Layouts
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 ноя 2022
- As another on the line to the development history, today we'll look at various turret layouts. Consider this much more of a general overview than anything in detail, though I am open to covering individual layouts in more detailed videos.
This will, by and large, cover the layouts, why they came into being, and some pros and cons. Background information. General overview.
Early Dreadnoughts and their turret arrangements were always interesting. Particularly with regards to wing turrets and such, though I can see why they went out of fashion in favor of a full centerline fit. Informative and Really Well Done
getting as many big guns on a warship, without having to do superfiring, close clustering, and increasing the size of dockyard.
awww man, you should have covered the British King Edward V class of pre-dreds, and their proposed "nassau like" layout of either 12in/10in batteries, even before the nassau's were laid down, as well as the Japanese "Pre-Satsuma Designs" which interestingly enough, featured centerline non-superfiring main battery arrayed in a manner like north carolina's turrets.
There potentially are many fun and interesting things to cover in this era, and i do hope future videos cover on this. Good content!
That was a fun and enlightening coverage of the early dreadnoughts' gun turret arrangements. I'm looking forward to your discourse on the Interwar/WW2 BBs and especially the silly-looking two-storey turrets that you glossed over because of time constraints hahaha.
24:00 - As a youth, I knew a gentleman who had been the Major of Marines on HMS Agincourt. "A very palatial ship but not a good one to be in, if torpedoed." Large accommodation spaces and inadequate armour, also not very maneuverable.
It’s easy to trash early gun layouts on the grounds that they were not the most battle efficient, with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight. For as long as there have been guns mounted on ships, it was normal to have up to 50% of the guns out of the fight at any moment in time. Having main gun wing turrets was a step up from the barbet or casement mounted secondary armament, found on all pre Dreadnought battleships prior to Dreadnought. Sea keeping and stability were also a major consideration. If you read an early Jane’s Fighting ships edition from that era, comments on sea keeping were prominent.
I thought you'd leave Agincourt to the last, but you should have mentioned that it was built originally for a foreign navy which could operate only one or two Dreadnoughts, hence the concentration of fire power on only one hull.
I originally did. That part didn’t record properly so I had to cut it out.
Agincourt will get her own video, eventually, though.
@@skyneahistory2306 That's sad to hear. This video would have been the point to discuss why guns should be spread over more hulls for survivability. HMS Agincourt was really cool ship, and was capable of firing all its guns without falling apart, despite some worries.
Interesting. Educational and enjoyable.
Nice layout summary!
Love your channel and videos, explanation and the views of the ships is superb!
Proud to be your 1000th subscriber, this is great content
HMS Agincourt was originally built for the Brazilian navy as part of the South American arms race, with the intention of outgunning any Chilean or Argentinian ship, but was sold to the Ottoman empire when relations between those nations thawed. At the outbreak of WWI with the Ottomans siding with Germany and Austro-Hungary, it was seized by Britain. It was a mad design and not one that the Royal Navy would ever have proposed.
Wing turrets also have less space for underwater protection if the area gets hit by a torpedo.
That wasn't really a worry at the time, when torpedoes weren't a major threat
They also have less space for armor protection. It is harder to have defence in depth than a barbett in the center of the ship such as having decapping plates.
"Really only 2 navies of note, Italy and Russia" a new sentence never said before
A good video. I will admit, though, that I was disappointed to have no mention of the Spanish battleships. They seem to be universally scorned, but, seem sensible for a poorer country.
I thought the Dreadnought was a simplified version of the hexegon arrangement with a single turret rather than an after pair of wing turrets.
I thought the dreadnought was the only ship that had that stupid mast right behind the funnel thing. Am I wrong?
The British did this multiple times for some reason. For the following two classes of dreadnoughts, they put the foremast in front of the funnel, but then reverted on the Colossus class and the Orion class. I have no idea why they did it again on those two classes, since they really should have known better due to experience with Dreadnought, which was in service by the time the Colossus and Orion classes were laid down.
The Courbet class of French dreadnoughts was even worse with mast placement as the foremast was behind two funnels instead of just one. This was corrected with their modernization between the wars.
The Italian battleship Dante Alighieri also had this problem but later had her mast replaced and moved ahead of the first funnel. Prior to their radical modernizations, the Conte di Cavour class also had their foremast behind the first funnel. Some of the Italian pre-dreadnoughts also had this issue, which makes it even stranger that they continued to design ships with a funnel in front of the first mast.
The USS South Carolina was far more important to naval history than Dreadnought herself, to be honest. Dreadnought was a natural evolutionary step and simply the first completed of several such ships under construction. But the South Carolina gave us superfiring centerline turrets, which would eventually become the layout for all warship classes of destroyer size and above. This ship actually did something revolutionary, not simply evolutionary.
Hard disagree. Almost everything about South Carolina was conservative. From her VTE propulsion and 18 knt top speed to her fire control system located in turrets instead of in the mast. The only reason super-firing was adopted was to keep the size of the ship, and thus the cost, down. This came at the expense of sea-keeping and gunnery (which is the main reason other nations didn't adopt super-firing on early dreadnoughts). She's basically just a pre-dreadnought with extra main battery guns and less stability. As a top trump ships she is solid for the time but as a turning point in naval history she simply doesn't deviate from existing thought.
By contrast the invincible class battlecruisers are completely revolutionary. A 28 knot capital ship is an out of context problem for all navies of the era. While they are not suited to engage other similarly equipped ships (unlike later examples of battlecruisers) they enter into a world where their is nothing like an opponent and completely change the balance in cruiser warfare.
Dreadnought is the better ship for various reasons; here's two of them:
• Wasn't nuetered by politicians before even being built (which in SC's case resulted in worse protection, speed & FCS than was possible at the time).
• Had a far cooler name, which is handy if said Battleship is to be the byword for all Battleships thereafter ^_^ .
@@jimtaylor294 Dreadnought was better in terms of speed and a few other factors, but was crippled by a vastly inferior turret arrangement. SC"s 18 knot speed was in keeping with other battleships of her time and was acceptable. Dreadnought's 21 knots, while fast for her time, wasn't enough to make an actual combat difference over 18. But Dreadnought definitely wins in the name department. The overall implementation of SC was simply superior, despite her lesser tonnage (which was largely due to needing fewer turrets).
@@WardenWolf if the note in speed were true then their wouldn't have been issues with Hippers decision to bring the pre-dreadnaughts to Jutland. 3 knts for a fight that lasts hours is significant. Also Dreadnaughts gun layout was not vastly inferior. It was less efficient but on a larger hull that was more stable than SC. Their were tradeoffs made in using superfiring on a small hull and their is a reason why most navies didn't do it beyond tradition.
Care to debate with Alias72? Or just ignore his points, keep those blinkers on and continue believing you're right?
Willing ignorance is the worst kind of flaw a person can have.
Don't forget about the Tillman Maximum Battleship design group.
They needed the Romulans to help them design the ships: ruclips.net/video/udyttBN1eV8/видео.html
434th
You sound discouraged Narrator? Please try harder to keep it up m8!
Oh, just checked up on dee ofa comments: see y'all Virginian, wit dat southern drawling