General History: Dreadnought Turret Layouts 

getting as many big guns on a warship, without having to do superfiring, close clustering, and increasing the size of dockyard.

I originally did. That part didn’t record properly so I had to cut it out. Agincourt will get her own video, eventually, though.

@@skyneahistory2306 That's sad to hear. This video would have been the point to discuss why guns should be spread over more hulls for survivability. HMS Agincourt was really cool ship, and was capable of firing all its guns without falling apart, despite some worries.

That wasn't really a worry at the time, when torpedoes weren't a major threat

They also have less space for armor protection. It is harder to have defence in depth than a barbett in the center of the ship such as having decapping plates.

Hard disagree. Almost everything about South Carolina was conservative. From her VTE propulsion and 18 knt top speed to her fire control system located in turrets instead of in the mast. The only reason super-firing was adopted was to keep the size of the ship, and thus the cost, down. This came at the expense of sea-keeping and gunnery (which is the main reason other nations didn't adopt super-firing on early dreadnoughts). She's basically just a pre-dreadnought with extra main battery guns and less stability. As a top trump ships she is solid for the time but as a turning point in naval history she simply doesn't deviate from existing thought. By contrast the invincible class battlecruisers are completely revolutionary. A 28 knot capital ship is an out of context problem for all navies of the era. While they are not suited to engage other similarly equipped ships (unlike later examples of battlecruisers) they enter into a world where their is nothing like an opponent and completely change the balance in cruiser warfare.

Dreadnought is the better ship for various reasons; here's two of them: • Wasn't nuetered by politicians before even being built (which in SC's case resulted in worse protection, speed & FCS than was possible at the time). • Had a far cooler name, which is handy if said Battleship is to be the byword for all Battleships thereafter ^_^ .

@@jimtaylor294 Dreadnought was better in terms of speed and a few other factors, but was crippled by a vastly inferior turret arrangement. SC"s 18 knot speed was in keeping with other battleships of her time and was acceptable. Dreadnought's 21 knots, while fast for her time, wasn't enough to make an actual combat difference over 18. But Dreadnought definitely wins in the name department. The overall implementation of SC was simply superior, despite her lesser tonnage (which was largely due to needing fewer turrets).

@@WardenWolf if the note in speed were true then their wouldn't have been issues with Hippers decision to bring the pre-dreadnaughts to Jutland. 3 knts for a fight that lasts hours is significant. Also Dreadnaughts gun layout was not vastly inferior. It was less efficient but on a larger hull that was more stable than SC. Their were tradeoffs made in using superfiring on a small hull and their is a reason why most navies didn't do it beyond tradition.

Care to debate with Alias72? Or just ignore his points, keep those blinkers on and continue believing you're right? Willing ignorance is the worst kind of flaw a person can have.

The British did this multiple times for some reason. For the following two classes of dreadnoughts, they put the foremast in front of the funnel, but then reverted on the Colossus class and the Orion class. I have no idea why they did it again on those two classes, since they really should have known better due to experience with Dreadnought, which was in service by the time the Colossus and Orion classes were laid down. The Courbet class of French dreadnoughts was even worse with mast placement as the foremast was behind two funnels instead of just one. This was corrected with their modernization between the wars. The Italian battleship Dante Alighieri also had this problem but later had her mast replaced and moved ahead of the first funnel. Prior to their radical modernizations, the Conte di Cavour class also had their foremast behind the first funnel. Some of the Italian pre-dreadnoughts also had this issue, which makes it even stranger that they continued to design ships with a funnel in front of the first mast.

Oh, just checked up on dee ofa comments: see y'all Virginian, wit dat southern drawling