Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Lert

A thought about the 'Dreadnought / pre-dreadnought' naming convention

9 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

33,624
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
24,717 posts
19,921 battles

So we all know our history, I hope. HMS Dreadnought came out, obsoleted every period battleship with its all big gun main armament and turbine propulsion, blah blah. But ...

USS South Carolina was not that much later, and arguably as revolutionary. All big gun main armament and although she lacked Dreadnought's turbine propulsion her main battery was all superfiring, which is revolutionary in its own way.

Makes me think. What would we be calling dreads / pre-dreads now if South Carolina had come out first instead of Dreadnought?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
67
[COOP2]
Members
342 posts
8,878 battles

Good question Lert. Maybe they would have been called something unoriginal like "super battleships." The later dreadnoughts were called "super dreadnoughts" so it might have just gone that way.

It certainly helped that the name "dreadnought" just fit right (I'm certain that was on purpose too).

Now a real interesting question would be, what would we have called them if Satsuma was completed sooner and with all the intended 12 inch guns that were to be fitted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33,624
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
24,717 posts
19,921 battles
Just now, Ironshroud said:

Now a real interesting question would be, what would we have called them if Satsuma was completed sooner and with all the intended 12 inch guns that were to be fitted?

I think you answered that question yourself:

1 minute ago, Ironshroud said:

Good question Lert. Maybe they would have been called something unoriginal like "super battleships." The later dreadnoughts were called "super dreadnoughts" so it might have just gone that way.

But, yeah, I agree on this:

1 minute ago, Ironshroud said:

It certainly helped that the name "dreadnought" just fit right (I'm certain that was on purpose too).

They knew she was revolutionary and I'm sure they picked a name to fit. Though the British have always been good at naming their big ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,384
[KWF]
Members
4,960 posts
6,612 battles

We could go the "important figure creating the concept" route.

From Wikipedia:
 

Quote

 

In the first years of the 20th century, several navies worldwide experimented with the idea of a new type of battleship with a uniform armament of very heavy guns.

Admiral Vittorio Cuniberti, the Italian Navy's chief naval architect, articulated the concept of an all-big-gun battleship in 1903. When the Regia Marina did not pursue his ideas, Cuniberti wrote an article in Jane's proposing an "ideal" future British battleship, a large armored warship of 17,000 tons, armed solely with a single calibre main battery (twelve 12-inch [305 mm] guns), carrying 300-millimetre (12 in) belt armor, and capable of 24 knots (44 km/h).

 

So, each nation would rush to produce Cunibertis, followed by Super-Cunibertis during WWI and after. Yes, I think I like this. :cap_book:

Edited by warheart1992

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33,624
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
24,717 posts
19,921 battles
6 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

So, each nation would rush to produce Cunibertis, followed by Super-Cunibertis during WWI and after. Yes, I think I like this. :cap_book:

Works for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,452
[REVY]
Members
8,099 posts
6,118 battles
17 minutes ago, Lert said:

So we all know our history, I hope. HMS Dreadnought came out, obsoleted every period battleship with its all big gun main armament and turbine propulsion, blah blah. But ...

USS South Carolina was not that much later, and arguably as revolutionary. All big gun main armament and although she lacked Dreadnought's turbine propulsion her main battery was all superfiring, which is revolutionary in its own way.

Makes me think. What would we be calling dreads / pre-dreads now if South Carolina had come out first instead of Dreadnought?

I doubt it.  Ships like Dreadnought or USS Monitor get ship types named after them because they aren't the names of locations.  If HMS Dreadnought was instead named HMS Spanker (real name by the way), I don't think we'd call them spanker ships because the name would just be too "un-cool".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
828
[KIA-T]
Members
2,237 posts
9,838 battles
41 minutes ago, Lert said:

Makes me think. What would we be calling dreads / pre-dreads now if South Carolina had come out first instead of Dreadnought?

I like to imagine that HMS Dreadnought coming out second would've allowed us to strong-arm the name in anyway.

It's suitably British to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,384
[KWF]
Members
4,960 posts
6,612 battles

To add a bit more, it's not that Dreadnought inspired just this design name, but previous and subsequent ones. Without it pre-dreads would be called simply battleships. Who knows what super-dreads would end up being named as.

Cuniberti  perfection aside, I also agree that dreadnought battleships would probably be called super or maybe even grand battleships. Who knows, maybe Orion or Warspite could have made enough of an impression to be used as terms; the former due to the jump in displacement, the latter as part of the first battleship class to use 15in guns.

Edited by warheart1992

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,866
[WOLFG]
Members
10,738 posts
9,936 battles
24 minutes ago, Sventex said:

I doubt it.  Ships like Dreadnought or USS Monitor get ship types named after them because they aren't the names of locations.  If HMS Dreadnought was instead named HMS Spanker (real name by the way), I don't think we'd call them spanker ships because the name would just be too "un-cool".  

Instead of "That's a paddling", we would have "That's a spanking".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×