A word on Starship classes.

[Vagabond Elf]

That's not what it meant. In pre-WW1 discussion, the all-same-size battery distinction is only meaningful in relation to the pervious classes of battleship. Dreadnoughts were optimized for the main battery to be used at its longest range, rather than the mixed batteries of previous battleships that would be employed at intermediate ranges.

EDIT STARTS:

I've just realised I totally misinterpreted this portion of your post, and that you and I are saying basically the same thing.

I'm leaving my original comments for transparency, but I do apologise for misreading your post, and for the confrontational nature of the response. I leapt to "somebody is wrong on the Internet!" and I'm sorry for that.

I do stand by the broader conclusion that by 1920, almost every warship met the definition of a "dreadnought" and that today, the term is meaningless and sci-fi writers are annoying when they use it to mean "battleship."

EDIT ENDS.



Ummm. No.

A Dreadnaught-type Battleship or Cruiser had:
-A main battery that was all the same size and caliber of gun, so that spotters could accurately determine which shells came from which guns. This made it easier for long range shooting to be accurate. It also made intermediate range shooting more accurate. Basically, a Dreadnaught's main battery was simpler and more accurate but had fewer guns.
-Steam turbine engines. This is the part that people forget. Dreadnaughts had super-advanced engines (for 1905) which meant they could control the range in a fight with pre-Dreadnoughts.

"Dreadnought cruisers" meant battlecruisers. There were some at the time who thought that the Invincible type could replace the slower, more heavily armored battleship. By WW1, dreadnought is pretty much synonymous with battleship.

I mean, all of this is correct, and is what the Admiralty meant when they said "Dreadnought type cruisers," but isn't how the term was used in Parliament (both the UK and Canadian) or newspapers in 1910. There's nothing in the definition of "dreadnought" that confines it to capital ships.

Also, few in 1910 thought an Invincible was going to replace a battleship; a battlecruiser's job is to kill cruisers, not fight battleships, and most people recognised that they lacked the staying power to fight BBs - or even other BCs.

No, nobody at the time [WW2] would use the term that way.

And I didn't say anyone did. By 1920 the term has vanished form real-world use. This doesn't change the fact that all the major surface combatant ships from destroyers on up of WW2 had main batteries with a single gun type and steam turbine engines, which means they fit the definition of "dreadnought." My point was that by about 1920, "Dreadnought" was a meaningless word because all warships were dreadnoughts, and the general public had abandoned it. So it bugs me that Sci-Fi keeps reinventing it instead just using terms that describe a ship's actual function.

 

[StarCruiser]

Okay - stepping into a quagmire...

H.M.S. Dreadnought of 1906:

18K+ tons (long tons of 2200 lbs) normal load - 21 knots speed - 10x 12"/45 cal. rifles + 21x 3:/50 cal. QF rifles + 5x 18" torpedo tubes. Max armor (armour for the Brits here) of 11".

Complex and larger than pre-Dreadnoughts built before her and faster as well. The immediate precursor being the Lord Nelson class (2 ships) that were completed after Dreadnought do the ahem... "borrowing" of the main guns from these two ships to complete Dreadnought more quickly:

15.3K+ tons normal load - 18 knots speed - 4x 12"/45 cal. rifles + 10x 9.2"/50 cal. rifles + 24x 3"/50 cal. rifles - 5x 18" torpedo tubes. Max. armor of 12".

Both posters are both correct and incorrect on some items. A "Dreadnought" is always a "Battleship" (aka. a Ship of the Line of Battle/Battleship of the Line etc.) but, not all Battleships are Dreadnoughts. Destroyers are always Destroyers as they are never Battleships. Fast Battleships are their own type, as is the "Super Dreadnought" (basically, just a bigger and more powerful Dreadnought). Battlecruisers (aka. Dreadnought Armored Cruisers) are also their own type and basically merged into the Fast Battleship type between the wars (Washington and 1/2 London Naval Treaties messing with the development process).

The point behind the all-big-gun approach was to maximize the firepower that could be delivered to a target at range. Combat ranges at the end of the 19th century were shockingly similar to those involving old wooden ships of Nelson's time - 100's to maybe a bit over a 1000 yards. This was not because the guns were weak, it was due to a lack of proper fire control systems. By the Russo-Japanese war (1904-05) the ranges were expanded since many of the ships had primitive optical spotting equipment and ranging tables to aid in targeting.

The problem then was the miserable accuracy since ships were often throwing out two or three different calibers of shells and it was often difficult to tell if that was an 8" shell at shorter range, or a 12" shell at longer range. Going to one caliber for Battleships removed that part of the problem.

The idea that Cruisers should do the same came about fairly quickly and the idea of the Armored Cruiser becoming a all-big-gun ship led to several design concepts in the Royal Navy wherein a all 9.2" gun ship would be built but, Jackie Fisher felt it would be better to use a 12" gun instead since that would make these new ships true Cruiser killers - far outclassing the typical Armored Cruisers then in use. A little subterfuge later (allowing the Germans to believe the former would be built) and the Kaiserliche Marine built S.M.S. Blucher - a larger Armored Cruiser packing no less than 12x 8.3" guns. Oops - Compare that to H.M.S. Invincible's 8x 12" guns and higher speed....ouch.

Now, what any of this actually has to do with Star Trek...I don't really know.

 

[Tuskin38]

could of sworn the Klingons called the Enterprise a warship or a battle cruiser at some point, but I can't find it.

But knowing the Klingons, they probably call all ships that.

 

[Dukhat]

could of sworn the Klingons called the Enterprise a warship or a battle cruiser at some point, but I can't find it.

But knowing the Klingons, they probably call all ships that.

In STIII, one of Kruge's crew referred to the Enterprise as a 'Federation battle cruiser.' But yes, that's hardly a reliable source.

 

[publiusr]

The biggest disconnect (in gaming at least) is that—in FASA, frigates are in between destroyers and cruisers.

In SFB, frigates arent much more than fast patrol ships.

The Klingon Bird of Prey has even been called a “fighter” in places…an “escort” in others.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

The Klingon Bird of Prey has even been called a “fighter” in places…an “escort” in others.

Wouldn't they be more analogous to the IRL "Attack Subs" given the way it's expected to operate?

 

[publiusr]

I would think so…weight divisions was forefront.

O/T I like the idea of higher NCC-numbers being larger craft, not just later/newer.

 

[Ithekro]

FASA was still using the pre-1975 America concept of the frigate. Prior to 1975 American frigates were what was known as Destroyer Leaders. After 1975 all of those "frigates" were rerated as "cruisers" and the "destroyer escorts" were reclassified as "frigates" to closer match other nation's standards.

This was largely to close the "cruiser gap" between the Americans and the Soviets, as most of the American cruisers were old world war two cruisers and the USS Long Beach. After 1975 the US had a lot more cruisers when all the rather large frigates became the cruisers. This included the Ticonderoga-class, which had been a destroyer type before the reclassification.

This is also why there is practically no difference between a cruiser and a destroyer in the US Navy today, because the only class of cruisers left in the US Navy were built as a type of destroyer.

 

[Cicero]

This is also why there is practically no difference between a cruiser and a destroyer in the US Navy today, because the only class of cruisers left in the US Navy were built as a type of destroyer.

I think that's mostly just stubborn nomenclature (and the lack of flag spaces on the DDGs). The Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke classes are in most aspects essentially CAs and CLs, respectively. We've been struggling to build survivable DDs for decades.

 

[Vagabond Elf]

Now, what any of this actually has to do with Star Trek...I don't really know.

I was whinging about the way Federation capital ships are called "dreadnoughts" instead of "battleships" because the term is really only used in 1905-1914 and meant something fairly specific. Then @J.T.B. and I started arguing on the Internet about what the boundaries are of said specific meaning.

 

[Vagabond Elf]

I think that's mostly just stubborn nomenclature (and the lack of flag spaces on the DDGs). The Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke classes are in most aspects essentially CAs and CLs, respectively. We've been struggling to build survivable DDs for decades.

Isn't a Ticonderoga classed as a CG (Guided Missile Cruiser)? That's my vague memory from Tom Clancy novels, anyway.

Anyway, this particular quandary has precedent - there was a big kerfuffle around about whether the Tribals should be called destroyers or cruisers with... I want to say Italy, but I don't remember confidently, saying the British were just trying to get around the naval treaties by calling them destroyers, and the British saying they lacked the range to be cruisers because they couldn't, well, cruise. In the end the argument went away because the entire naval treaty system collapsed.

It's also worth noting that the popular notion that a Frigate is smaller than a Destroyer comes from RN and Commonwealth terminology in WW2, and the term Frigate was re-introduced because Churchill wanted something more inspiring than "Twin-Screw Corvette." (And "Corvette" itself was adopted because Churchill didn't like "whaling boat type Escort.) In the Age of Sail, a Frigate served the roles that by 1930 were filled by Destroyers and Light Cruisers.

In a similar vein, the US has a romantic attachment to "Destroyers," so during WW2 their equivalent to RN/RCN Frigates were called "Destroyer Escorts." I'm sure that's part of why the term persists today.

So basically, our modern popular understanding of what kind of ship is bigger than another comes down to Winston Churchill being a ship nerd with power.

 

[Cicero]

Isn't a Ticonderoga classed as a CG (Guided Missile Cruiser)? That's my vague memory from Tom Clancy novels, anyway.

Yes, they were originally meant to be DDGs, but were reclassified as CGs before they were laid down. At the time, the Navy was focused on cost-cutting, and both the Ticos and Burkes have suffered for being under-sized.

In the Age of Sail, a Frigate served the roles that by 1930 were filled by Destroyers and Light Cruisers.

Interestingly, the cruiser designation originates as a term for the role that frigates (and sloops/corvettes) traditionally played, cruising independently from the battle fleets.

 

[Vagabond Elf]

Interestingly, the cruiser designation originates as a term for the role that frigates (and sloops/corvettes) traditionally played, cruising independently from the battle fleets.

Ships-of-the-line could go on cruises. It wasn't common and was more likely to involve Fourth Rates in distant theatres like the Indian and Pacific Oceans (less of a need to concentrate the battle line for fleet actions and a shortage of ships that could do the job), but it wasn't confined to frigates and unrated vessels.

But yes, in the Age of Sail and early Age of Steam, "Cruiser" was a mission, not a ship type.

While we're talking about jargon-related trivia, in the same time frame a "ship" was a vessel with three or more square-rigged masts. If it had fore-and-aft rigging or only one or two masts, it wasn't a ship.

 

[drt]

I was whinging about the way Federation capital ships are called "dreadnoughts" instead of "battleships" because the term is really only used in 1905-1914 and meant something fairly specific.

I always leaned towards the idea that FJ used "dreadnought" as a way to get away from overtly war-specific terminology, since Starfleet was supposed to be peaceful. However, FJ still used "destroyer" on the same page, which should have maybe also been avoided using that logic*, so who knows.

* = the way the actual TV shows use "escort" to describe destroyer-like ships.

 

[FredH]

I always leaned towards the idea that FJ used "dreadnought" as a way to get away from overtly war-specific terminology, since Starfleet was supposed to be peaceful.

How is “dreadnought” not war-specific terminology?

 

[drt]

How is “dreadnought” not war-specific terminology?

note I said "overtly"

If you don't know anything about military vessels, which seems more aggressively war-like, "dreadnought" or "battleship"?

 

[FredH]

note I said "overtly"

If you don't know anything about military vessels, which seems more aggressively war-like, "dreadnought" or "battleship"?

I’m too aware that dreadnought means, or rather meant “more powerful than your average previous battleship” to take it any differently. I’ve never heard the word in a non-warship context, just as I’ve never heard battleship in a non-warship context. So with respect, that’s like asking me which sounds more violent, a sword or a spear.

 

[Ithekro]

"dreadnaught" sounds more impressive. Especially in the 70s when there were no battleships in service with anyone. The last one was a Turkish ship that retired in the early 70s, with the Iowas coming out of reserves in the 80s.

 

[StarCruiser]

"Dreadnought" literally means "dread nothing" but, the full expression was:

"Fear God and Dread Nought"

And sadly, that last Turkish ship was actually the German Battlecruiser S.M.S. Göeben that escaped the Royal Navy early in World War I by running into Turkish waters with the Cruiser S.M.S. Breslau.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_Goeben

 

[J.T.B.]

I'm leaving my original comments for transparency, but I do apologise for misreading your post, and for the confrontational nature of the response.

All good, all good.

I do stand by the broader conclusion that by 1920, almost every warship met the definition of a "dreadnought" and that today, the term is meaningless and sci-fi writers are annoying when they use it to mean "battleship."

I don't think so, unless it's an extremely broad definition that loses much of its usefulness. "Dreadnought" has historically been applied only to battleships and, for a time before terminology standardized, to battle cruisers. There is a meaningful distinction between dreadnought battleships and pre-dreadnought battleships. There is something similar, in a way, between battle cruisers and armored cruisers. But not for cruisers and destroyers. "Dreadnought" survived well into the 20th century as a catchy alternative to "battleship," The New York Times referring to USS New Jersey under the headline "DREADNOUGHT TOPS 26 SHIP LAUNCHINGS" in 1942, for instance.

SF writers do seem to have an aversion to using "battleship." Does it sound too set in the high-seas past? You don't hear about space sloops either.

Also, few in 1910 thought an Invincible was going to replace a battleship; a battlecruiser's job is to kill cruisers, not fight battleships, and most people recognised that they lacked the staying power to fight BBs - or even other BCs.

It wasn't so clear to people at the time; technological developments were coming fast and there were differing ideas on how to address new threats. Admiral Fisher had envisioned battle cruisers as the real core of a future fleet, with Dreadnought being an interim development. Even after fleet building solidified around dreadnought battleships, there were many who thought that gunnery effectiveness would exceed the ability of armor to counter it, and thus speed at the expense of armor made some sense, practically as well as financially. First Lord Churchill was thinking along those lines as late as 1912 (Sumida, In Defence of Naval Supremacy, p. 120). And of course the Admiralty was not averse to having the Battle Cruiser Squadron/Fleet operate as the "fast wing" of the battle fleet, where action with the enemy battle line would be expected. Right up to the day when three of them were blown up within a couple of hours.

I'm not aware of the particulars of the Canadian Parliament discussion, though, so I can't address that specifically.

Now, what any of this actually has to do with Star Trek...I don't really know.

Fun to talk about, though!

While we're talking about jargon-related trivia, in the same time frame a "ship" was a vessel with three or more square-rigged masts. If it had fore-and-aft rigging or only one or two masts, it wasn't a ship.

It grates on me when I read something like the 1799 Enterprise being called USS. One, use of the prefix is anachronistic, and two, though it might stand for US Schooner, no way it stands for US Brig in her later configuration.

Yes, they were originally meant to be DDGs, but were reclassified as CGs before they were laid down. At the time, the Navy was focused on cost-cutting, and both the Ticos and Burkes have suffered for being under-sized.

Right. The original DLG frigates were hot stuff in their day, and seemed like an economical fit for the cruiser role. Architecturally, the line of US cruisers ended in 1959 with Long Beach.