WesWorld

I'm having an _interesting_ arguement on another board about the merits of HMS Dreadnought with respect to USS South Carolina. I was wondering what you guys think.

By the time South Carolina comes along it's 'Dreadnoughts' ain't it? If you want one on one then my money's on the nuclear powered submarine. What about South Carolina vs Sao Paulo?

Cheers,

Aside from speed wouldn't they be fairly evenly matched in combat? The only placement Dreadmought has an advantage would be directly forwards and aft and bringing all six guns to bear would be difficult and going head to head (or stern to head) would not be wise ina battleship duel.

Both ships are nearly equal in capabilitys, dreadnought having the superior machinery, while the South Carolina enjoys the more space saving superemposed layout giving it the same beam broadside.

The ability to fire 6 guns forward is over rated in my opinion if you look at how close the wing turrets are to superstructure.

I guess it comes down to armor quality and survivability, which dreadnought would probably have a slight advantage with being the bigger ship.

Interesting opinions. Not quite as many wild statements about either ship.

What were the "wild statements" on the other board?

" The South Carolina-class was a significant improvement over Dreadnought in all ways except powerplant, and that, too was bound to follow."

This is then laboured through over 3 pages now. Some of points raised are really quite ludicrous. South Carolina is a pre-dreadnought with 8 guns on a very small, very cramped hull. It doesn't help when opinions are based off wrong information - like from a book with this following review;

"While this book does have a suprising number of photos that are not usually found in other publications, the technical data is rife with errors, even to the point of contradicting itself from one page, or even paragraph, to the next. Great for pictures, but don't buy this if you are looking for any new nuggets of information (or even to attempt to corraborate any ones you might have in other publications). I'm not sure if the problem was shoddy research, or poor editing, or a combination of the two."

Which book was refered too?

IMO she was bound to be more cramped being some 6,000 tons lighter IIRC (16,000 tons?). Triple expansion engines seemed to continue on in later American designs so I don't think the machinery comment was accurate.

Hore's Encyclopaedia of Battleships.

Seems to be almost as accurate as this one which even manages to spell the author's name incorrectly.

There was also a large misunderstanding between normal and full load displacement.

Here is the best argument against South Carolina, at speed in calm weather. About 6ft of freeboard compared to 32 for Dreadnought.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/012721.jpg

To me the most telling thing about the SCs is that they keep being referred to as cramped, or unsatisfactory, with the follow on classes being different, while dreadnaught's follow ons were quite similar.

This makes sense given that the American ships evolved from a tonnage limited coastal battleship legacy, while dreadnaught was a bold attempt to assert high seas dominance.

Statistically, the SCs look good- slightly thicker armor, better battery arrangement, competitive speed.

But with a poor freeboard, engines that would break if run at high speeds for long (like most TE), cramped conditions, they were not nearly as good a vessel to build a high seas battle fleet out of. Imagine a fleet of 12 SCs with their limitations vs. 12 Dreadnaughts, which would you rather be operating for power projection?

Power projection you use Dreadnoughts. But for defense, I'd rather have South Carolinas. Less draft (in theory) means she's more suited for coastal work than Dreadnought. But what can you expect from what could be called a heavily modified Connecticut. Also, in theory you could build more South Carolinas to Dreadnoughts if one bases off tonnage. I don't have an estimate for South Carolina's cost verse Dreadnought's cost in Dollars or Pounds. I'd almost say yoiu could have 13, almost 14 South Carolinas for 12 Dreadnoughts...at least by tonnage. Price is likely very different. But that is also if construction time and economics are valued as equal rather than one being rushed and the other taking there time. The economies and the needs were not equal, therefore you have the Americans plan and project South Carolina and then the British project, lay down, launch and nearly complete Dreadnought, before South Carolina is laid down. But weren't the British racing so they'd beat the Japanese to the "All Big Gun Battleship"? What about Dreadnought verses Satsuma , as planned.

Who made the armor for South Carolina and where?

The South Carolina verse Sao Paulo is interesting though. The Brazillians would probably win that fight if it comes down to just firepower.

Dreadnought screwed the Germans because they were limited to about 16000tons by the Kiel canal.

It wouldn't surprise me if English shipbuilding was significantly cheaper than US shipbuilding at this time. This would mean that you are more likely to have 3 or 4 Dreadnoughts to 2 South Carolinas. In a US vs GB war wouldn't the fighting be around Halifax rather than the Carribean? How's the sea-keeping looking now?

I'd like to know what the Argentinians paid for the Morenos and what the USN paid for the Wyomings to get an idea of warship costs for the US in this era.

Cheers,