Talk:Royal Sovereign-class battleship

Secondary armament as torpedo boat protection
Though I'm not in a position to reference, it was my understanding was that during the pre-dreadnought era 6inch QF guns (and the like) were intended to play a major part in the line of battle, wrecking the upperworks of other battleships, & the propusion lighter guns (12, 6, 4 or 3 pounders) were intented to see off TBs.

These (pre-dreanought) 6" guns grew larger, ultimately into the 9.2" on the Lord Nelsons or 10" guns on IJN Satsuma, in order to accomodate increased battle ranges & extensive armour arrangements, until the logical conclusion of a uniform heavy battery was reached in 1906. The extant non-primary arament (in the case of dreadnought 12 pounders - 3"/76mm) then grew in size again up through 4" and finally to 6" to counter the torpedo armed fast/light threat which had evolved from the the diminutive & frail TBs of the late-19thC into larger, more robust destroyers. This is to say that the 6" (or 5" or 150mm etc) pre-dreadnought guns & the similar calibre guns on the later generation of dreadnoughts were not born of the same purpose; rather the former gun & its purpose "died out," while the later was the progeny of the lighter (sub-4") anti-TB guns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.48.5 (talk) 11:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are a die-hard supporter of Lord Fisher, then that is how you would shoe-horn the facts into supporting the arguments he put forward, without admitting that the secondary armament on Fisher's Dreadnought was a mistake.


 * But all the German so-called dreadnoughts had a 15cm (5.9") secondary armament, which was intended for use against both capital ships, cruisers and torpedo vessels.


 * In World War II, one of Fisher's ships, the Renown engaged the German's two latest battleships, and like the so-called pre-dreadnoughts, the Renown used both her main armament and her 4.5" secondary armament against them. In fact, the hit that knocked out the Gneisenau's A turret was from one of the 4.5's.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Certainly all navies did not write off the secondary gun as utterly superseded as the RN did; nor was the distinction in use clear cut - any vessel has "soft parts" (e.g. turret optics...) & the splinters/splash from a larger shell might deal with light craft - if a tube can be brought to bear it won't be left unused. However the drive that the primary purpose of 6"QFs was there contribution in line engagements remains valid, especially when the subject vessels were designed & the range of engagement & speed/range of torpedoes then is considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.183.203 (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)