The Dreadnought Challenge!

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

The Dreadnought Challenge!

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:21 pm

Hey guys:
let´s figure this out: HMS Dreadnought vs. IJN Satsuma vs. USS South Carolina. The three "firsts" challenging between them. If we study their specifications they were all quite "standard" having more or less the same displacement, armour, armament and speed. The Japanese had a handicap because they weren´t able to install all 12" guns as they planned and had to use some 10". So there´s something about a congressional mandante (ergo: illlogic. Why is it that politicians always try to weaken their own countries in order that, when in war, the cost of lives increase because of that same weakness?) limiting the South Carolina.
Let´s see them:

I. Important Dates: Desgined or Ordered, Laid down, Launched
HMS Dreadnought: 1905, 1905, 1906
IJN Satsuma:1904,1905, 1906
USS South Carolina: 1905, 1906, 1908

II. Displacement:
HMS Dreadnought: 18,420 tons
IJN Satsuma: 19,372 tons std/ 19,700 tons full
USS South Carolina: 16,000 tons/17,900 tons

III. Dimensions: lenght, beam, draught
HMS Dreadnought: 160.55 mts, 24.98 mts, 7.92 mts
IJN Satsuma: 146.91 mts, 25.5 mts, 8.38 mts.
USS South Carolina: 137.85 mts, 24.43 mts, 7.46 mts.

IV. Horsepower & speed
HMS Dreadnought: 22,500 hp @ 21 knots
IJN Satsuma: 17,300 hp @ 18.5 knots
USS South Carolina: 16,500 hp @ 18.86 knots

V. Armament: main, Secondary1, Secondary2, torpedoes
HMS Dreadnought: 8 x 12" cal 45, 27 x 12 pounders (4"), 5 x 18" torpedoes.
IJN Satsuma: 2 x 12" + 12 x 10" (projected 14 x 12": 6 more than Dreadnought), 12 x 4.7", 4 x 3", 5 x 18" torpedoes.
USS South Carolina: 8 x 12", 22 x 3". 2 x 3 `pounders, 2 x 21" torpedoes

VI. Armour:
HMS Dreadnought: 11" main belt
IJN Satsuma:9" main belt
USS South Carolina: 12" main belt

Huh? Pretty close isn´t it? Well: what do you think?

:think:

iankw
Member
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Rotherham, England

Post by iankw » Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:39 pm

Very close Karl. I reckon it comes down to who gets the first critical hit. What year do you set this scenario in? That might have some effect on fire control, range finding etc.

regards

User avatar
Gary
Senior Member
Posts: 706
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:37 pm
Location: Northumberland

Post by Gary » Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:39 pm

How does the British 12" gun compare to the US version?

I know that the British 12" wasnt as good as the German 12"
God created the world in 6 days.........and on the 7th day he built the Scharnhorst

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:24 pm

Ianwk:
let´s say: 1912: Before WWI.

User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Post by marcelo_malara » Tue Jun 06, 2006 3:40 am

I believe British fire control was more advanced during that years. May be the Satsuma (which was built with British assistance, right?) would share the same fier control system with Dreadnought.

User avatar
nwhdarkwolf
Member
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:42 pm
Location: Appleton, USA

Post by nwhdarkwolf » Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:42 pm

I have read someplace, don't remember where, that the Japanese bought a great number of their WWI ships from Britian. If that is the case, they should be receiving the FCS as the British, maybe with a slight change to make the accuracy a bit less.

I know that the US 12s were not all that, and a bag of donuts. If that is the case, the Dreadnought should come out ahead, but it would be close.

Of interesting note, is that all three of those ships were commissioned within months of each other. The Dreadnought came first, then the SC, then the IJN. If the SC had have been commissioned first, we wouldn't be calling the later ships Dreadnought Battleships, but South Carolina Battleships?? Yeeesh...I'm an American, and even I don't like that idea. LOL ;)

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Post by Bgile » Tue Jun 06, 2006 3:22 pm

nwhdarkwolf wrote: I know that the US 12s were not all that, and a bag of donuts. If that is the case, the Dreadnought should come out ahead, but it would be close.
Can you tell us where this information comes from? I looked in navweaps and can't find any particular criticism of them compared to contemporaries. You probably have another source, and I'd like to read it.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Tue Jun 06, 2006 3:48 pm

I believe that if the vessels are so even then the difference must came with their commander and crew. In this case, seeing what happened at Tsushima on one hand and at WWI on the other then the Japanese offers a serious advantage along with the US vessel.
Just my opinion.

User avatar
nwhdarkwolf
Member
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:42 pm
Location: Appleton, USA

Post by nwhdarkwolf » Tue Jun 06, 2006 4:47 pm

Bgile wrote:
nwhdarkwolf wrote: I know that the US 12s were not all that, and a bag of donuts. If that is the case, the Dreadnought should come out ahead, but it would be close.
Can you tell us where this information comes from? I looked in navweaps and can't find any particular criticism of them compared to contemporaries. You probably have another source, and I'd like to read it.
I'll have to find the book. :( I'm in the process of moving, so I'm not sure where it is at the moment. I'll see what I have once I get to the house, and post the name...If I can't find it...I'll retract my statement. :stubborn:

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Post by Bgile » Tue Jun 06, 2006 5:54 pm

Dreadnought actually had 10x12”, but two turrets were arranged such that they could fire to only one side, making the combination an inefficient use of tonnage.

User avatar
nwhdarkwolf
Member
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:42 pm
Location: Appleton, USA

Post by nwhdarkwolf » Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:15 pm

That's very true. The broadside on the Dreadnought was only 8 barrells. Granted the forward shot would 6, the aft as much as 8, depending on the angle. But, that arrangement caused some strange issues.

I can only imagine that noise level, based upon the placement of the turrets in relation to the the bridge superstructure. It must have been deafening, at times.

User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Post by marcelo_malara » Wed Jun 07, 2006 12:59 am

can only imagine that noise level, based upon the placement of the turrets in relation to the the bridge superstructure.
The wing turrets were not supposed to fire straight ahead due to the damage the blast produced to the superstructure. I don´t remeber now the minimum angle of the bow they were allowed to fire, but that is the reason that the configuration came out of use.

User avatar
nwhdarkwolf
Member
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:42 pm
Location: Appleton, USA

Post by nwhdarkwolf » Wed Jun 07, 2006 12:55 pm

Yeah, I have read that too, Marcelo.

I was speaking of the wing turrets. The configuration seems like it would make a lot of noise coming from both sides of the ship.



And I must retract my statement about the US 12s. I can't find the book I'm looking for. I'll keep searching for it, but as of now, I don't have it. My apologies.

iankw
Member
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Rotherham, England

Post by iankw » Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:27 pm

Karl, I don't have time to read a lot of background stuff at the moment (work is taking a lot of my free), so I can't comment on the 1912 date right now. However, wasn't Tsushima a traditional close range battle? If so we can't really extrapolate crew performance to a long range 1912 battle. Or can we?

Sorry, that's all I can add at this time.

regards

User avatar
nwhdarkwolf
Member
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:42 pm
Location: Appleton, USA

Post by nwhdarkwolf » Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:45 pm

http://www.russojapanesewar.com/tsushima.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tsushima - This site states that the battle distance was stabilized at 6200m, not short, but not long either.

Post Reply