Great War Dreadnought Showdown:

[Imperious Leader]

Which nation made the best Dreadnought class warship?

[Red Harvest]

We probably should put a list of representatives from each of these nations for comparision.  I’m not well versed on WWI ships of the line.  I’m assuming all contestants must be commissioned in time to see active duty (between say Oct. 4 when Germany asked for an armistice and Nov. 11, 1918 when armistice was agreed upon for a final date?)  This probably includes the battlecruisers…although I doubt they will prove popular.

Are we doing this on the basis of ship-to-ship match up or in more general terms (which would include torpedo defense for example?)

[Imperious Leader]

I guess we can start with UK’s line of ships.

I remember the HMS Canada being one of the best but i think it was a Battlecruiser, so armor was sacrificed for speed.

Royal Sovereign Class looks to be the best…

[Imperious Leader]

http://www.worldwar1.co.uk/ww1-warships.html

found this…

[KurtGodel7]

@Imperious:

http://www.worldwar1.co.uk/ww1-warships.html

found this…

Thanks for the link. I compared the German Bayern class against the British Royal Sovereign Class. Both classes had eight 15" guns as their main armament. The Bayern class had thicker armor and was slightly faster. Both ship classes had similar displacement. My overall impression is that the Bayern was the better ship class.

[ABWorsham4]

The Iron Duke was the best name ofany ship. Just sounds awesome.

[CWO Marc]

@Imperious:

Which nation made the best Dreadnought class warship?

“The best” in what sense?  It affects the answer.

By the way, dreadnoughts are a type, not a class.  (Except in the case of HMS Dreadnought, which was the only member of her class.)

[Red Harvest]

Fire control figures into this prominently as well.  Good fire control means longer range fire and increased risk to the target from plunging fire.  The WWI builds largely focused on a thick belt for medium range engagements, but inadequate deck armor for long range encounters.  The fire control issue is worth some study as each nation’s systems had its advantages.  Germany had some rigorous standards and constant drill for the range finding officer.  The UK emphasized low dispersion in their gunnery.  They had a pointer fire control system that worked well and that other nations were adopting.  The U.S. had dispersion problems, but by the end of the war also had some more advanced fire control entering service.  Who had what when on which ship class could really complicate the comparisons.  The least reliable fire control relied on a lot of voice communication of elevations, azimuth, etc. and then dialing these ins–too many steps and prone to error as battle progressed.

When I was doing an initial survey of the dreadnoughts last night I noted the Bayern class had only 2.5" of deck armour while the Royal Sovereign had 4" decks.  I’ll gladly give up an inch on the very thick belt for 1.5" on the thin decks…  And the Japanese Fuso class had even thinner deck armor.

Propellant type and handling is a factor in survivability as well.  The Brits emphasized maximizing fire rates over propellant/ammunition handling security…and that didn’t work out so well in practice. Some propellants were less likely to cause catastrophic magazine explosions even when hit.

Another thing to consider is the secondary batteries since they were critical to holding destroyers outside of torpedo range.  During this time period there were still casemate guns and other guns on lower decks that were “wet” in typical North Atlantic seas.  USN dreadnoughts found the lower deck guns unmannable during much of their time in the North Atlantic.

Many of the dreadnoughts also had torpedo tubes in the hull, but these were being removed/phased out.  They posed some flooding risk and the engagement ranges had increased enough that the torpedoes could not be employed anyway.

[ABWorsham4]

I have visited the Dreadnought Texas

[Gargantua]

I’m still undecided…

[poloplayer15]

IL, royal sovereign class was a scaled down, cheeper, variant of the queen elizabeth class battleships. They were oil powered, had the worlds first 15" guns, great armor and was very fast battleships for their time, they are considered the worlds fist fast battleships.

[Red Harvest]

I’m not going to have a lot of time to do this for the next day or so, but it seems best to start listing some of the candidates.  Some ships were refitted after the war and even saw service in WWII, so we need to limit this to their WWI configuration.

Japan:  Ise class
31,320 tons
23 knots
Weapons:
12 - 14" C45 guns (Vickers) in six turrets all on centerline, two forward, two aft, two amidships, each set superfiring over the other. 
20 - 5.5" guns in casemates
16 - 3" guns, and four 3" AA guns
Six torpedo tubes
Armor:
Belt - 12" (down to 8" or less in some areas)
Turrets - 12" face, 9" sides/rear, 6" roof
Deck - 1.25 - 2.5"
Conning tower - 13.75"

Note:  Has the impressive IJN bridge/mast arrangement, and fire director in UK style.

France: Bretagne class
23,230 tons
20 knots
Weapons:
10 - 13" C45 guns in five centerline superfiring turrets, two forward, two aft, one midships
22 - 5.5" C55 guns in casemates
Four torpedo tubes
Armor:
Belt - 11"
Turrets - 13"
Deck - 1.5"
Conning tower - 12.4"

Note:  Has fire director similar to UK.  Bretagne was sunk by ~4 hits from 15" rounds at Mers-el-Kebir in WWII, exploded and sank extremely rapidly.

[KurtGodel7]

@Red:

Fire control figures into this prominently as well.  Good fire control means longer range fire and increased risk to the target from plunging fire.  The WWI builds largely focused on a thick belt for medium range engagements, but inadequate deck armor for long range encounters.  The fire control issue is worth some study as each nation’s systems had its advantages.  Germany had some rigorous standards and constant drill for the range finding officer.  The UK emphasized low dispersion in their gunnery.  They had a pointer fire control system that worked well and that other nations were adopting.  The U.S. had dispersion problems, but by the end of the war also had some more advanced fire control entering service.  Who had what when on which ship class could really complicate the comparisons.  The least reliable fire control relied on a lot of voice communication of elevations, azimuth, etc. and then dialing these ins–too many steps and prone to error as battle progressed.

When I was doing an initial survey of the dreadnoughts last night I noted the Bayern class had only 2.5" of deck armour while the Royal Sovereign had 4" decks.  I’ll gladly give up an inch on the very thick belt for 1.5" on the thin decks…  And the Japanese Fuso class had even thinner deck armor.

Propellant type and handling is a factor in survivability as well.  The Brits emphasized maximizing fire rates over propellant/ammunition handling security…and that didn’t work out so well in practice. Some propellants were less likely to cause catastrophic magazine explosions even when hit.

Another thing to consider is the secondary batteries since they were critical to holding destroyers outside of torpedo range.  During this time period there were still casemate guns and other guns on lower decks that were “wet” in typical North Atlantic seas.  USN dreadnoughts found the lower deck guns unmannable during much of their time in the North Atlantic.

Many of the dreadnoughts also had torpedo tubes in the hull, but these were being removed/phased out.  They posed some flooding risk and the engagement ranges had increased enough that the torpedoes could not be employed anyway.

Thanks for this information, and especially for the datum about the deck armor of the Royal Sovereign and Bayern. While I don’t profess to be an expert about battleships, it seems quite plausible that 1.5 extra inches of deck armor would matter more than an inch of belt. I also want to say that I appreciate the quality of your posts, both in this thread and in the other battleship thread.

[Red Harvest]

Austria Hungary:  Tegetthoff class dreadnought
20,013 tons
20.5 knots
Weapons:
12 - 12" C45 guns in four triple superfiring turrets on centerline, two forward, two aft
12 - 6" C50 guns in casemates
18 - 2.6" guns
Four torpedo tubes
Armor:
Belt - 6-11"
Turrets - 11" face/sides, 2" roof
Deck - 1.2 - 2"
Conning tower - 11"

Notes:  Compact design, but lacked reserve flotation capacity and adequate torpedo/mine bulkheads.  Fire control director looks similar in height/style/arrangement to contemporary IJN/UK.

Imperial Russia:  Imperatristsa Mariya class dreadnought
(Note: Imperator Nikolai I was an improved class that was launched by never completed.)
22,600 tons
21 knots
Weapons:
12 - 12" C52 guns in four triple turrets on centerline, one forward, two mid ships, one aft
20 - 5.1" C55 guns in casemates
Four torpedo tubes
Armor:
Belt - 4.9 - 10.3"
Turrets - 9.8"
Deck - 0.35 - 2.0"
Conning tower - 11.8"

Looks like this one has short bridge height and turret based fire control rather than central.  Class had trouble scoring hits vs. cruisers (splinter damage only), and namesake lost to ammunition explosion in port.

[Red Harvest]

Italy:  Andrea Dorea class dreadnought
22,956 tons
21 knots
Weapons:
13 - 12" C46 guns in three triple turrets on centerline (forward, aft, mid) and two double turrets in superfiring position fore and aft
16 - 6" C45 guns in casemates
13 - 3" guns
Three torpedo tubes
Armor:
Belt - 10"
Turrets - 11" face, 9.5" sides/rear, 3.35" top
Deck - 3.9" over magazines, 3.1" over machinery, 1.2" elsewhere
Conning tower - 11"

Ottoman Empire:  Yavuz Sultan Selim battlecruiser (German Moltke class BC)
(I picked this over the 17 knot pre-dreadnoughts)
22,616 tons
25.5 knots
Weapons:
10 - 11" C50 guns in five twin turrets, one forward, two wing en echelon, two aft (w/one superfiring)
12 - 5.9" C50 guns in casemates
12 - 3" guns
4 torpedoes
Armor:
Belt - 4-11"
Turret - 8"
Deck - 1-3"
Conning - 10.5"

Note:  German captain and crew.  Had good underwater protection as it survived hitting multiple mines.  Good gunnery demonstrated in combat at mid-range 11,000 yards.  Was used as a battlecruiser should be, making use of speed avoiding duels with 12" and 15" armed pre-dreadnoughts and dreadnoughts.

[Imperious Leader]

But the guns are 11 and 12, far smaller than the 15" UK late war Dreadnoughts

[CWO Marc]

@KurtGodel7:

While I don’t profess to be an expert about battleships, it seems quite plausible that 1.5 extra inches of deck armor would matter more than an inch of belt.

It depends on the combat range.  At short ranges, vertical protection matters more because shells come in on a flatter trajectory and hence have a lot of potential to penetrate a ship’s sides.  At long ranges horizontal protection matters more because shells arrive on a high-arc trajectory and hence have a lot of potential to penetrate a ship’s deck.  At intermediate ranges, a well-designed battleship is theoretically in its “immunity zone” in which it is adequately protected from both horizontal and plunging fire.

[ABWorsham4]

Had Germany captured Norway in WWI would this have broken the British Blockade?

[Imperious Leader]

Well no because the primary flow of trade was at German ports via Baltic to Atlantic.

Germany would still need to ferry the goods to Germany, which again means running the blockade. The British blockade

Also, UK placed substantial sea mine zones to block against ‘running’ the blockade.

[Red Harvest]

Okay, we’ve finished the appetizers, lets get on to the main courses (Germany, UK, US)

United States:  New Mexico class dreadnought
(Two commissioned before the end of WWI, Tenn. class was post war)
32,000 tons
21 knots
Weapons:
12 - 14" C50 guns in four triple turrets on centerline, two forward, two aft, superfiring
14 - 5" C51 guns in casemates (originally had 8 additional casemate bow and stern guns but were too wet and were removed)
Two torpedo tubes
Armor:
Belt - 8-13.5"
Turret - 18" face, 9-10" sides, 9" rear, 5" top
Deck - 3.5"
Conning - 11.5"

Notes:  Compact turret design may have increased dispersion and slowed loading, turret elevation limited to 15 degrees until 1930’s.

A number of ship classes in various navies had similarly restricted elevation and therefore range in WWI.  This should be checked when evaluating whether or not plunging fire could penetrate a deck of a given ship.