AHC: US makes all-big-gun BB first.

[Admiral Halsey]

Your challenge should you accept it is to have the US be the first one to make an Dreadnought before any other nation. Bonus points if this sparks a naval arms race involving the US. Double bonus points if you include specifications about said Dreadnought

 

[MattII]

Well if you want to look at it one way, HMS Devastation (1871) could theoretically be classed as a dreadnought, after all, her main battery (which on her commissioning was her entire armament) was all of one calibre . In a more modern sense, simply having all the main battery of the same calibre is not in itself a big thing, Dreadnought's other advances included steam turbines (allowing her to pick when and where she would fight), and fire-control. Without such other developments, such a ship would be all bluff and no blood.

 

[Admiral Halsey]

Well if you want to look at it one way, HMS Devastation (1871) could theoretically be classed as a dreadnought, after all, her main battery (which on her commissioning was her entire armament) was all of one calibre . In a more modern sense, simply having all the main battery of the same calibre is not in itself a big thing, Dreadnought's other advances included steam turbines (allowing her to pick when and where she would fight), and fire-control. Without such other developments, such a ship would be all bluff and no blood.

Yeah I guess you're right about the other stuff. Though the US and Germany both had their first Dreadnoughts and the next few of them used Expansion engines.

 

[Delta Force]

The Royal Navy had a major structural advantage in the form of large budgets, a large naval-industrial complex, highly productive shipyards, a steam turbine industry, and extensive public and political support for naval spending. Even if another nation had a lead of a few years in starting a dreadnought program, the British would likely commission dreadnoughts of their own around the same time, if not earlier.

 

[CalBear]

Your challenge should you accept it is to have the US be the first one to make an all-big-gun BB before any other nation. Bonus points if this sparks a naval arms race involving the US. Double bonus points if you include specifications about said all-big-gun BB.

Easy. Get Congress off the dime a year sooner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_South_Carolina_(BB-26)

 

[Admiral Halsey]

Easy. Get Congress off the dime a year sooner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_South_Carolina_(BB-26)

Get the South Carolina in service a few years early? That could work actually if like you said Congress opens up the pocket book.

 

[MattII]

South Carolina as she was designed OTL was a fine ship indeed, and could probably have beaten Dreadnought in a duel, but the fact that she got stuck with expansion steam engines rather than turbines would probably have given the latter an edge she could have played on.

 

[LHB]

Easy. Get Congress off the dime a year sooner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_South_Carolina_(BB-26)

What would the impact be of the United States resetting the battleship clock? Following in the wake of the Spanish-American War that's going to cause a bit of a stir in Europe.

 

[Admiral Halsey]

South Carolina as she was designed OTL was a fine ship indeed, and could probably have beaten Dreadnought in a duel, but the fact that she got stuck with expansion steam engines rather than turbines would probably have given the latter an edge she could have played on.

That was just Congress being conservative when it came to design. That's why IMO the US Dreadnoughts were always the more practical designs.

 

[sonofpegasus]

IIRC the reason for the use of Recipriating engines by the USN instead of turbines was princeply one of range. At that time turbines were less fuel effiecent at cruising speeds and therfore would have required larger bunkers for Paifi Ocean operations.

 

[Driftless]

That was just Congress being conservative when it came to design. That's why IMO the US Dreadnoughts were always the more practical designs.

Yup, but the follow-on parts would be just as important: get Congress completely out of the design business, and have the Bureau of Ships (or Construction) better prepared to design and build ships based on need.

Perfect world, Congress give them a budget, the desgining Bureau creates plans, and Congress gets to vote yea, or nay.

 

[Delta Force]

Yup, but the follow-on parts would be just as important: get Congress completely out of the design business, and have the Bureau of Ships (or Construction) better prepared to design and build ships based on need.

Perfect world, Congress give them a budget, the desgining Bureau creates plans, and Congress gets to vote yea, or nay.

I don't know about how involved Congress was with the designs themselves. It usually set tonnage and budget limits though. I think 15,000 tons or so was the tonnage limit for a USN battleship for many years, possibly into the 1910s.

 

[Driftless]

I don't know about how involved Congress was with the designs themselves. It usually set tonnage and budget limits though. I think 15,000 tons or so was the tonnage limit for a USN battleship for many years, possibly into the 1910s.

Didn't they meddle more than other comparable bodies, partly out of the general isolationist view, that the US did not want, let alone need a true blue water Navy? Keep the Battleships as low free-board coastal defence ships - that type of thing? The first BB-Iowa kind of broke that mold. Maybe the ACR's New York & Brooklyn?

To be fair, the naval technology of that era was very dynamic, in that favored theories changed with great frequency. Lacking much of the analytical capacity (and knowledge), they were kind of shooting in the dark.

 

[CalBear]

I don't know about how involved Congress was with the designs themselves. It usually set tonnage and budget limits though. I think 15,000 tons or so was the tonnage limit for a USN battleship for many years, possibly into the 1910s.

16K tons. After HMS Dreadnought was launched Congress decided that the tonnage limits, which were a cost savings measure (some things never change), were a failed idea in the new era of warship design.

The biggest error made with the South Carolina and her sister USS Michigan was decision to make them 18 knot ships. This was deliberate in order to have them match the speed of other U.S. BB (and for that matter the RN's Lord Nelson class). This, of course, made the ships unable to maintain station with all other USN dreadnought battleships, which were uniformly designed to make 21 knots until the still born 23 knot South Dakota (1920) class and the the first of the "fast battleships" of the North Carolina class.

 

[Driftless]

The real POD would have to be before the Spanish American War, I think. It would involve changing the mindset against a long legged, blue water navy.

Perhaps, something like another Virginius incident around 1890? That might be enough salt rubbed in a wound to alter the view of Congress & country towards a more capable navy with a longer reach.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Easy. Get Congress off the dime a year sooner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_South_Carolina_(BB-26)

Which would not have been the same South Carolina as we know. There was an article about the design of the South Carolina class in the magazine Naval History that points out that superimposed turrets were adopted in order to save tonnage. If Congress had freed up restrictions on tonnage it is possible that the South Carolina would have been a more conventional hexagon layout with four single 12in guns occupying the corner turrets.

I wouldn't consider it unlikely that the 8in guns would have been dropped entirely in favour for single 10in guns either.

 

[Athelstane]

Well if you want to look at it one way, HMS Devastation (1871) could theoretically be classed as a dreadnought, after all, her main battery (which on her commissioning was her entire armament) was all of one calibre . In a more modern sense, simply having all the main battery of the same calibre is not in itself a big thing, Dreadnought's other advances included steam turbines (allowing her to pick when and where she would fight), and fire-control. Without such other developments, such a ship would be all bluff and no blood.

A "dreadnought" has as its definition a rather singular quality: A capital ship with uniform heavy armament.

In this sense, USS South Carolina qualified. No question.

But as you point out, the impact of HMS Dreadnought was what it was because of more than just its uniform 12" armament. It also was the first to incorporate steam turbines, giving it an unheard of (for capital ships) 21 knot speed, and a generally much more sustainable power plant. It was also one of the first to use electrical range finders. It had a new watertight bulkhead scheme. And yes, at the time of commissioning it was, I believe, the heaviest battleship afloat.

But one other splash it made was a literal one: the record time in which it was laid down and commissioned - basically under 14 months. USS South Carolina, on the other hand, took three years and three months, only commissioning in March 1910. That speed was a function both of unmatched British shipbuilding capability as well as Jackie Fisher's prioritizing Dreadnought's construction over all other ships.

So: even though a number of powers and naval experts were considering all-big gun ships at the same time - Cuniberti's and Poundstone's articles both appeared in 1903, Fisher had already been thinking along these lines, and South Carolina was being designed at the same time that Fisher's Committee on Designs was designing the Dreadnought - the Royal Navy beat everyone by a few years. Which means just getting the US Navy the funding a year earlier won't suffice. There must be a much greater sense of urgency to the US Navy, and it's not clear to me how that happens short of a war scare. As it is , the moment Fisher is installed as First Lord (Oct. 1904), he will work like the devil to beat any other naval power to the punch. You'd almost have to have South Carolina slipways before he takes office.

 

[MattII]

A "dreadnought" has as its definition a rather singular quality: A capital ship with uniform heavy armament.

In this sense, USS South Carolina qualified. No question.

When did I say otherwise?

 

[Admiral Halsey]

Ok after thinking it over I edited the first post to change it from first All-Big-Gun BB to first Dreadnought. If someone could change the title text as well that'd be great.

 

[zoomar]

They did...or at least they designed and ordered the first dreadnought: the USS South Carolina class, which in the layout of its main armament (eight 12 inch guns in a superfiring for/aft turret arrangement) was far more forward-looking than Dreadnought.

Had South Carolina been built as quickly as Dreadought it would have been the first operational all-big gun battleship, but except for the probablity we wouldn't use the cool name "dreadnought" to refer to all modern battleships, there probably wouldn't be much difference. Dreadought of course was already in development and I believe the same is true for the German Posen class. Thess ships and their immediate follow-ons would probably still employ wing and staggered turrets because there was resistence to the notion of superfiring turrets from a stability perspective. Also there was the idea that wing turrets were a good thing because the ones on the disengaged side of the ship couldn't be damaged (forgetting the fact that they also couldn't shoot an the enemy). But I suspect the main reason that South Carolina being launched a year or two earlier would make little difference is that, in 1909, the USA was still seen only as a confirmed neutral regional power that was not a threat to Britain or Germany. The Anglo-German "First-Class Battleship" race would probably continue pretty much as OTL.