Hardly. the definition of a Dreadnaught involved 3 elements. All big gun, turbines and fire control. These American semi- Dreadnaughts met the first criterion and took a slight lead in adopting superfiring gun houses. Not because it was an innovation, but because most turrets in the early Dreadnaughts had sighting hoods that would have made superfiring impossible if you valued your gun crews. , But they were thoroughly outdated on the propulsion and fire control issue.😊

@@alecblunden8615 This first generation was, yes, but turbines were not a requirement. A few later American ones still used triple expansion but managed to make the 21 knots of the Standard battleships. They also generally had superior fire control. The later Florida class was extremely competitive, and the American Standard battleships were overall superior to their contemporaries.

@@WardenWolf I see you ascribe to the Humpiy Dumpty school of linguistics When I use a word, it means precisely what I intend , no more no less. '" Triple expansion engines would pound themselves to pieces if they tried to maintain 21 lnts for more than a few hours so all that employed that means of propulsion were by the 3 fold definition , semi dreadnoughts and markedly inferior in all aspects to their contempoties like the Queen Elizabeths

Bruh i played that ship in world of warships blitz bro doing brake checks to reverse mode

Well stated.

I don’t know about that book, but Rodney is very much *not* anything resembling a second generation dreadnought. Unless you consider everything from Dreadnought to Revenge/Queen Elizabeth to be first generation. Second generation is, like with many things involving dreadnoughts, difficult to nail down. It varies between countries. As a general rule, though, it’s a jump in capability while remaining with 12-inch guns. 13.5-inch and up is, similarly, the usual ‘super-Dreadnought’ indicator. So examples would be the Delaware-class in the USN, the Kaiser-class in Germany… The Brits are a bit more foggy, which is where this becomes a very loose definition. I’d personally go with HMS Neptune as the start, with her addition of superfiring turrets. But that’s me.

@@skyneahistory2306 Checking the book page once more, the author defined the start of Second Generation dreadnoughts being Fuso for the Japanese, the Queen Elizabeths for Britain, Oklahoma for the US, and Baden for Germany. There's also a little side note on the same page talking about the 1934 Battleship Holiday saying seven years later the Royal Navy would commission the first of the Third Generation ships. The author of this book being Richard Hough. I'm am not entirely sure what his criteria is for separating generations and can't really find concrete info myself. What I've thought myself as an amateur at least for the US line of battleships is South Carolina-class to Wyoming-class being the first generation dreadnoughts, the New York-class and the Standard-types being the second generation as they're now the super-dreadnoughts, with the fast battleships of the late 30s/early 40s counting as a third generation of "dreadnought" since with them it all feels like a continual evolution learning from past designs at least on the surface.

National pride, perhaps? "Dreadnought" is a Royal Navy term. Battleship is more generic.

I think it's due to some bows being designed to be used as rams, hence the lean backwards. They would most likely have recieved a lot of damage though, if used as such. I wish they would have named the ships dreadnoughts/super- dreadnoughts/super-duper dreadnoughts. It would have been much more fun for someone to yell "there's a super-duper comming out of the mist captain".

The "extension" is primarily for "sea keeping". The flared bow keeps seas from breaking over the bow.....under the waterline the bulbous forefoot is there on both styles. The bulbous shape breaks surface tension ahead of the stem to allow easier passage thru the water. Consult a hydrodynamic engineer for a much more detailed explanation than that, lol.

Well if we were to keep up the same naming scheme for all the Battleships exceeding the Super Dreadnoughts of the First World War then the next name given would have been a Super Heavy Dreadnought due to the wrong lessons being taken from Jutland and instead of improving their fire handling and combustible ordnances nations decided to increase armor protection and as a result Battleships and Battlecruisers became more heavily armored. Therefore Super Heavy Dreadnoughts is the most accurate name going forward. That’s until better engines became available and nations wanting to combine the Battleship and Battlecruiser for a Fast Battleship. Therefore a Fast Super Heavy Dreadnought is the natural next step. These would be the late 1920s and treaty era Battleships we are accustomed to.

Super duper Dreadnoughts.

Yeah and the Yamato Class would be the Ultra Mega Super Duper Heavy Dreadnought!

If the Montana class was built the Iowas would be capital ships faster and with fewer but the same caliber guns: soooo...could call them battlecruisers?😮

@@knightoflight8249 Super-duper-walla-whooper Dreadnoughts

Because that's another generation away from any of the ships being discussed here. The US didn't adopt 16" until they'd done five classes of superdreadnoughts with 14" guns. The Colorados were 3rd generation Dreadnoughts like Nagato.