Talk:Pre-dreadnought battleship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pre-dreadnought battleship article.
Article policies
Featured article star Pre-dreadnought battleship is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 6, 2008.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Featured
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Featured article FA rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale
Top rated as Top-importance on the assessment scale

Contents

[edit] older entries

This page says the "only" surviving pre-dreadnought is the Japanese museum ship, but the USS Olympia (http://www.spanamwar.com/olympia.htm) is also still around. Is there some reason it is disqualified or should the page be edited?

The USS Olympia (C-6) is a protected cruiser, not a pre-dreadnought battleship. Thanks, though! Atkindave 16:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Atkindave.

[edit] Language usage in context to this page

The only major naval clashes of the pre-dreadnought era were the two Sino-Japanese Wars;

First, what two Sino-Japanese Wars are being refered to? Second, while the thought is expanded in a succeeding statement in another section, pre-dreadnoughts were used in several major naval clashes; Battle of Yalu, Battle of the Yellow Sea, Battle of Santiago, and others all come to mind. Therefore, this statement is effectively bankrupt in discussing "clashes of the pre-dreadnought era". If the author is prefering battleship-on-battleship engagements, a better clarification should be made (the description, and indeed the page title, is of an "era" in naval architecture, not necessarily a ship type). In following with that parenthetical line of thought, I also suggest that the main page be titled "Pre-Dreadnought Battleship", as opposed to "Pre-Dreadnought" as this can maintain clarity on what is being expressed and described. --Angelsy1 09:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Cough. Yes, you're right. I'm actively working on the article at teh minute, hence the appearance of some right nonsesne like that. I don't think there's any point moving the article ot 'Pre-Dreadnoguht Battleship' though - msot people will be searchign for 'pre-dreadnought'. The Land 09:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Small points of technology

This is primarily directed to "The Land", but other editors should feel free to discuss. First off, good job on fleshing this out. As you may have noticed, I don't have very dry prose, and so was hesitant to edit the article myself. Second, the points of history and technology...

1. While I know the popular term is "turret", most later pre-deads mounted barbettes with gun shields. Is it advisable to make the distinction? The turreted designs were marked by lower freeboard and thus weaker sea-keeping characteristics. Reference the mentioned Royal Sovereign class with its one-off half sister HMS Hood - this was built to examine the difference between barbette and turret mounts in warships. The gun shields were adopted later as QF weaponry became more readily available (and thus more of a danger to crews and the guns themselves). They were not true turrets, however.

2. I see that the 9.4 inch gun is sited as the first standardised piece available to German pre-dreadnought battleships... I disagree, but certainly see where you are coming from. It's a matter of opinion whether the Brandenburg class are the first German pre-dreadnoughts, but I think they share more characteristics than not. They mount their armament similarly to other pre-dreads, albeit with two different calibres of 11 inch main weapons (28 and 35 cal, IIRC). That they mount six rather than four main weapons is not a disqualifier, I believe. They are certainly separate in design elements from the Sachsen class and the Oldenburg.

In any case, as I said, it's open for discussion. Comments? -- Angelsy1 22:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Sorry I have't responded to this sooner. Most of the sources I work from give up the distinction as they talk about ships commissioned in the 1890s. I think (hope) this article (and Ironclad warship) comment on the progression from barbette to modern turret - when dealing with the modern turret, I think 'turret' is the best term to use.
Re the 9.4in gun - defining the first pre-dreadnought in any navy is very tough. Can't remember where I got the idea from, I'll have a look... The Land 14:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Dreadnought

Is it really a good idea of having an image of HMS Dreadnought (1875) in an article on Pre-HMS Dreadnought (1906) without further remarks? It's rather cute, but may lead to confusion... --Stephan Schulz 10:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly needs to be made clear in the caption ;) - there are very few indisputably usable images of ships of the right sort! The Land 10:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I tried to improve things. What do you think? I also hope we can get Mikasa back - I've contacted the original uploader. --Stephan Schulz 12:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title?

Should we move this page to "Pre-dreadnought battleship"? For non-experts, that might make it clearer that we are talking about ships, not about e.g. the era. --Stephan Schulz 16:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. Don't think the currenty title is particuarly misleading though (maybe the article needs to mention at some stage the idea of a 'pre-dreadnought armoured cruiser'). The Land 16:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not bad, but not as informative, as it could be. Pre-deadnought what? Dinner plates?
Is "pre-dreadnought armoured cruiser" a well-defined class? I thought the big break for cruisers came with the Washington Naval Treaty. Anyways, that would only suggest that we need one more article... --Stephan Schulz 23:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Thinking more about it, yes, it might well be worth moving it. :P The Land 23:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok. If there is no opposition by tomorrow, I'll do it. Good night! ;-) --Stephan Schulz 23:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Moonsund

Just out of curiosity, would it be advisable to make a note of this battle in this article and provide a link to the main article on that battle? Once again, I must defer to people with a better writing style than myself, but my reasoning is that it would help to illustrate the obsolescence of pre-dreads against dreadnoughts (not completely obsolete, as the Russians had raised the elevations of their guns to provide a comparable range to the Germans' 50 calibre weapons). -- Angelsy1 (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly worth linking to it and explaining the relevance of the battle to the pre-dreadnought - preferably with a source! The Land (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weird line

From the WWI section;

"However, it was not the damage to the pre-dreadnoughts which led to the operation being called off. The two battlecruisers were also damaged; since Queen Elizabeth could not be risked in the minefield, and the pre-dreadnoughts would be unable to deal with the Turkish battlecruiser lurking on the other side of the straits, the operation had failed."

Considering that the Lord Nelson and Agamemnon spent the rest of the war sat out at Mudros waiting for Goeben (or Yavuz Sultan Selim) to come through the straits, this seems rather odd. And that there is no mention of Cape Sarych where Russian pre-dreadnoughts engaged Goeben and Breslau and gave the Germans the shock of their lives, is equally baffling. Summary article this may be, but since there isn't an article on the Cape Sarych encounter it ought to be mentioned here. --Harlsbottom (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to update the article. ;) The Land (talk) 08:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Surviving Pre-dreadnought warships with rotating gun turrets

I think this section needs to be rectified. This article deals with pre-dreadnought battleships yet several of the ships included in this section are not pre-dreadnoughts. That's the case of the cruisers Olympia and Aurora and the ironclads Huáscar and Cerberus. As those type of ships are not the subject of this article I removed them but got reverted. Any reason why they should be kept here? --Victor12 (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I think they should go... this is an article about pre-dreadnought battleships. The section should be trimmed down to pre-dreadnaught battleships, and/or converted from uncited list to cited prose. I don't know about the others, but there is no way the 3,000 ton rusting hulk of Cerberus, in use as a breakwater, should classify as a surviving pre-dreadnought battleship. -- saberwyn 07:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Gone. The Land (talk) 08:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HMVS Cerberus

Someone (an IP) had added HMVS Cerberus to the "Surviving Pre-dreadnought warships with rotating gun turrets" category of the article, although I'm not sure it qualifies as it is not a battleship-size vessel, and currently 'exists' as a deteriorating breakwater. 137.111.143.146 (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly not a pre-dreadnought battleship. I think it's a very interesting ship, but doesn't deserve to be mentioned here. I will add it to ironclad warship. The Land (talk) 08:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology

Just a thought: what did they call pre-dreadnought battleships at the time? Was there a clear conception of a significant break with the previous ironclad battleships, represented by the Majestic? PatGallacher (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The newer ships produced after the Naval Defence Act were called 1st Class Battleships - everything else was called a 2nd Class battleship, so they were well aware of the superiority of the new-build ships --Harlsbottom (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protection?

Isn't it worth considering some level of protection for this article now? Seems to be coming under sustained attack... Martocticvs (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah, it's not that bad. See WP:NOPRO; besides the standard move protection, main page featured articles generally aren't protected, except possibly in very extreme circumstances. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd prefer not. Apart from the vandalism there are some useful edits. The Land (talk) 11:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)