Dilandu wrote:There's a lot of evidence that in his own initial design Jackie Fisher was looking less at long-range gunnery than at overwhelming weight of fire at short to moderate range.
Hm. Itn't it was Cuniberiti? Yes, Fisher liked big guns, but as i recall, initially (in XIX century) he thought that the "Renown" with her 10" guns were the perfect type. And frankly, the overwhelming weight of fire on short distances wasn't a "Dreadnought" strong side: the "Danton", or "Andrey Pervizvanny" or "Satsuma" were much more suitable.
Note that I said short [to moderate ranges, and, yes, Cuniberti wrote the initial article for [oi]Janes[/I]. He didn't devlop the concept in a vacuum, however, nor did Fisher endorse the Dreadnought design solely for the reasons Cuniberti set forth. With improvements in armor, the 9.2"-10" guns were losing effect even at the fairly moderate ranges expected in 1905, and there's very little evidence that Fisher was directly concerned with the similarities in shell splashes which would make spotting at longer ranges evident. It's also worth noting that he wasn't anywhere near as advanced in gunnery concepts --- initially, at least --- as Percy Scott was. The Americans were actually a bit ahead of him in that respect in 1905, although they lost ground on the Brits between about 1908 and 1916 (by which time WW I had intervened on the British side). What Fisher obviously did realize very early on was that uniform armament allowed a very heavy weight of fire and hugely simplified ammunition supply, and he effectively deleted the entire traditional secondary battery in favor of 12-pounders for anti-torpedo defense. He was focused on putting out the heaviest volume of fire from the heaviest guns he could put to sea and used the weight savings of the 12-pounders (in place of 6" and 9.2" guns) to add additional 12" guns. In the event, gunnery ranges ended up extending to ranges far beyond anything he (or anyone else, really) had visualized in 1905.
runsforcelery wrote:(It's worth noting that for all of his accomplishments, Fisher wasn't prescient across the board. For example, he thought 15" canister would be more effective at dealing with torpedo boats than a battery of 6" secondary guns.)
Dilandu wrote:Doesn't knew that at all. Thank you, RFC, for the valuable information!
Fisher insisted that the 12-pounder was adequate for stopping torpedo boats and was unwilling to sacrifice main armament to return to a heavier secondary armament. The Bellerophonns went back to a 4", but he held the line there, and it wasn't until the Iron Dukes that the decision to revert to a 6" secondary armament in response to the increasing size and toughness of DDs was sanctions. IIRC (and I'm not sure I do), Fisher was no longer First Lord when that decision was rammed through. He'd opposed it because he thought the 4" was adequate and that 13.5" and 15" shrapnel shells would be more effective than a 6" secondary (and because he refused to sanction the diversion of the extra displacement to carry the heavier secondaries from his golden trinity: speed, armor, and main battery.
In some ways, the various navies' approaches to their pre-dreadnoughts' and dreadnought's secondary armament is almost more fascinating than the debates over main armament. And, of course, there's the incredible attention paid to submerged broadside torpedo tubes, which ultimately proved about as useful as a carronade and compromised the ships' underwater protection dangerously. And then there was the unpleasant discover that you simply can't make a bulkhead watertight if it's pierced by scuttles for passing coal that can be sprung or warped by shock effect once the ship takes a hit. This minor problem sort of undermined the arguments in favor of retaining coal over oil because of the way the coal bunkers could be used to provide additional "armor" protection. Oh, the stories Dialandu and I could tell you guys!
Believe me, I've still got lots of tactical blind alleys I can send various unnamed Safeholdian realms down!
runsforcelery wrote:]My point in this instance, though, is that Dilandu knows his stuff, and as long as he's willing to accept that the naval developments on Safehold are going to follow the path of my choosing, my skin is thick enough to tolerate an occasional "Mary Sue" reference.
Dilandu wrote:Thanks! I'll try to not go off the borders.