Talk:Pre-dreadnought battleship

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Replaced lead image
It isn't often that the lead image at a featured article deserves replacement, but this time seems to be justified. I have located and restored a very high resolution photochrom print of the first US battleship. Nominating it for featured picture shortly. Removed a shot of the Great White Fleet to make room for it (wasn't sure where else the Great White Fleet would fit, since the section on the US in the Pacific already had two photos). The full version of the USS Texas shot is 30MB, so a lower resolution 1.5MB version is available at File:USS Texas2 courtesy copy.jpg. Best regards, Durova Charge! 16:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The new image is a very nice photo, particularly because of the colour! However I am not sure it is right for the top of this article. IMV the ideal lead image would be a photo of a representative pre-dreadnought, which had good resolution and showed some of the key features of the type - fore and aft heavy turrets, secondary armament, military masts, seagoing hull. Texas is not a representative pre-dreadnought - she was too small to be a proper battleship (US navy nomenclature notwithstanding), and her echelon turret arrangement (and the flying deck above the turrets) is atypical. What's more the photo doesn't give a particularly clear idea of the ship's features; one turret is missing, the other one doesn't appear to have any guns in it (so looks a bit like a water tank), it takes some headscratching to work out which end is bow and which is stern... The best lead photo I've been able to find is the one of HMS Ocean that's currently underneath Texas... Regards, The Land (talk) 11:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. The image of Texas is attractive, but not enlightening. If we could find such a picture for a typical pre-Dreadnought, say HMS Ocean or HMS Majestic, or even one of the Royal Sovereigns, that would be great. Durova, unfortunately nearly all the images we have are not-so-great quality B&W. Can you work some of you magic with them? I suspect File:Uss_massachusetts_bb-2.jpg or, more significantly, File:HMS Ocean (Canopus-class battleship).jpg could be improved a lot. The Ocean image seems to have some kind of glare, and I don't know if anything can or should be done about the fog around the tops. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah-ha! File:HMS_Russell_LOC_LC-DIG-ggbain-21816.jpg is available in much higher resolution (22mb tiff) from the Library of Congress. It's a great image - needs a lot of scratch-removing, and contrast restored, but there is a huge amount of detail visible in the original high resolution. Also, the image is more comprehensible as a battleship, and the ship is fairly representative. I might be able to have a proper play with it next week.... The Land (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We still (2023) ideally need to replace this image. Texas was far from the definitive version of these ships c- indeed was a quirky outlier v- and we really do want to be using a typical vessel to demonstrate what what so characteristic about these ships. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:D41F:F644:EA84:3318 (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

USS Texas - which year?
The Dreadnaught article states that the USS Texas (BB-35) was launched in 1912 while this article states that it was launched in 1892. Does the pre-dreadnaught article refer to another USS Texas?Osli73 (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Another USS Texas. Blackeagle (talk) 04:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * With 60+ USN battleship planned and built by 1945, some of the 48 state names were reused. Naaman Brown (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
'''[RM withdrawn by the requester. N oetica Tea? 06:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)]'''

Pre-dreadnought battleship → Pre-Dreadnought battleship – Somehow this featured article is named with a lower-case "d" in "dreadnought", though that is clearly a proper name for a ship. The article uses that lower-case form throughout. Unless I am missing something fundamental, this RM should be uncontroversial. N oetica Tea? 06:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're missing something ;-). "Dreadnought" is both a proper name and a general term - compare HMS Dreadnought (1906) where it is a proper name and dreadnought where it is not. I think the general use is pre-dreadnought, particularly as some pre-dreadnoughts are actually post-Dreadnought. This is all a bit confusing, but then that's naval terminology for you. The Land (talk) 09:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose We don't have to understand it. This is the way it is done. Period. Kauffner (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Dreadnought is both a proper noun (used when referring to the ship of that name) and a common noun (as a descriptor of the general type of ship built with design commonalities). In this article it is used in its common noun form. Benea (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Yes, I see now. It is not as clearcut as Kauffner has said above! It is done more than one way. Many authorities do use "pre-Dreadnought", taking that kind of vessel to be named directly after Dreadnought (and many others that are easy to find and that are central to the relevant literature). But this article follows those that use "pre-dreadnought", taking the vessels to be named after the generic dreadnoughts that were themselves named after Dreadnought. Some use both forms, in slightly different senses. Sorry to have taken up a little time on this; I suppose it could be made more immediately obvious in the article. I might do something about that. Meanwhile, I am withdrawing the RM. Thank you! N oetica Tea? 06:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pre-dreadnought battleship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090808061100/http://www.navy.mil/gwf/battleships/bb-20.htm to http://www.navy.mil/gwf/battleships/bb-20.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050409122958/http://www.bobhenneman.info/pdcntry.htm to http://www.bobhenneman.info/pdcntry.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pre-dreadnought battleship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090417191030/http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usnshtp/ap/w1ap-tbc.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usnshtp/ap/w1ap-tbc.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605144714/http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/o3/oregon-ii.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/o3/oregon-ii.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

“Contemporaneous”
&Nbsp;Nbsp;nbsp;I repeat here, on talk, my comment, embedded in the article, where it seemed important to explain to any colleague who found the edit mysterious. This repetition is unnecessary, but arguably worthwhile here where its obscure but IMO potentially valuable point Of distinction may be A bit more accessible, without Resigning to Resorting to the IMO transcending!y obscure purgatory of the WP:ESSAY. For some colleagues, my 2020 May 19 verbose edit summary may prove ... provocatively valuable, and/or valuably provocative.—JerzyA (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

FA concerns
As noted here, some additional inline citations will be needed for the modern FA standards. Current sourcing looks otherwise fine- I'd try to get the inline citations added, but my personal library of naval sources only covers American vessels and primarily the 1860-1880 period. Hopefully the discussion currently ongoing at WT:MILHIST can attract someone with the proper sources - this shouldn't be a hard cleanup if someone has the right sources. Ideally the situation of Featured article review/Ironclad warship/archive1 can be avoided. Hog Farm Talk 06:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

RN pre-dreadnought fleet
The article stated 39 pre-dreadnought battleships in RN service or under construction in 1904, beginning with the Majestics and including the Swiftsures.

However, this omits the second-class battleship Renown, so the total would in fact be 40 (the Swiftsures themselves were second-class battleships). It is also unclear as to why the 1889 NDA's ten battleships were not included in this count, as they were very much part of the pre-dreadnought line of development in the RN and are counted as such under this article.

Therefore, including both first- and second-class battleships, but omitting the two slightly later Lord Nelsons (addressed in the article as of a 'post-dreadnought' date), the true size of the pre-dreadnought RN fleet was fifty battleships. This has now been corrected. The approximate number of earlier legacy battleships has also been adjusted accordingly. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:C6C:89C3:7D79:E7E2 (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Period of construction
For most, the pre-dreadnought battleship is the classic 12-inch and 6-inch armed type from the Majestic to the Mikasa, covering a period of less than fifteen years. This type largely ceased construction by 1906.

As this article also concerns itself with the later battleships of non-dreadnought type - the 'semi-dreadnoughts' - which were still under construction when HMS Dreadnought appeared in the Royal navy, we should accept that we are talking about a construction period which extends beyond the early part of the 1900s and into the later part of that decade.

Both the Lord Nelsons and the French Dantons fit this type and this date period, as well as do the Japanese Satsuma, Italian Regina Elena, French Liberte and Russian Andrei Pervozvanny classes; all completing construction around 1908 or in some cases slightly later.

I am returning this article's opening paragraph to "late 1900s" accordingly, as the facts support this rather better than "early 1900s". 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:D41F:F644:EA84:3318 (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)