Talk:Japanese battleship Satsuma

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

[edit]

What a fascinating article. I seem to remember reading somewhere that before the Dreadnought had been built an Italian Naval architect designed a ship describing it as the “ideal battleship for the British battlefleet�? It resembled greatly the “Dreadnought idea�?

It is quite possible that all the advanced naval countries were converging toward the basic “Dreadnought�? design with all the turrets having the same calibre.

There are certain reason why the first symbolic Dreadnought would probably be British

  • Probably only Britain had the technology to produce the total “package�?, turrets, turbines as well as the ship building skills.
  • In Jackie Fisher, as First Sea Lord, Britain had a genius of volcanic energy who drove the whole project through in a year.
  • The position of the fleet was probably different in Britain to almost every other country, (maybe Japan was similar) in that the fleet was crucial to the defence of Britain. In most other countries the army represented the crucial defence arm.

Just some thoughts stimulated by such a good contribution. Pat 19:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add some extra points:

  • Cuniberti did come up with the idea first, but the Italian Navy didn't have the resources to pursue the idea.
  • Other countries such as France and Germany did possess resources during the late 19th/early 20th century to create dreadnoughts, but the older and more traditionalist admirals often resisted change.
  • Charles Parsons's steam turbines were a relatively new technology at the time. Few boats installed them.
  • Smaller armament than big guns were seen to have inflicted large damage to the upper bridgeworks of ships during the Battle of Tsushima.

USS Carolina[edit]

USS Carolina was laid down after the Dreadnought was launched, therefore she can hardly have been designed before the Dreadnought. Any reference to back the claim? PHG 21:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

We are talking about USS South Carolina (BB-26). I read in one of my books (probably Skeppet ("Das Schiff") by Landström) that it was laid down before but completed after Dreadnought. The Wikipedia article disagrees. I'm currently travelling - I'll check it once I'm back with my books (next weekend). --Stephan Schulz 22:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Non British Dreadnoughts[edit]

I have checked my books about my entry at the top of this page. The book I am using is "Dreadnought" by the American writer Robert K Massie. He (sort of) confirms what Stephan Schulz said, The USS South Carolina and the Michigan were presented to Congress in 1904. The Americans moved slowly, the ships were not authorised until the spring of 1905 and not laid down until the autumn of 1906.

By then the Dreadnought revolution had happened.

What is not clear is to what extent the South Carolina and Michigan were “Dreadnoughts�?.

Massie gives the name of the Italian naval architect I referred to, as Vittorio Cuniberti. When the Italian Navy didn't pursue his ideas Cuniberti wrote an article in Janes propagating his concept.

Jackie Fisher never gave any credit to Cuniberti, or to any other foreigner, Then, of course, Jacky Fisher was Jacky Fisher!

The more I think about it the more I feel that a number of countries were converging to the all big gun idea.

The one foreign country of most interest to the Royal Navy at the time was Germany. Would any contributor know if Germany was developing a Dreadnought concept? Pat 19:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Glad you could verify and detail the South Carolina story - I could not find it in my books so far (but I have a lot of books, and got many more temporarily from libraries). As far as I know, in 1906 the all-big-gun concept had been around for some time. Nobody was eager to take on the risk and expense to be first, until Britain as the main sea (and world) power did. --Stephan Schulz 18:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I expanded the "Genesis" part in the Dreadnought article with this new information. The Imperial Japanese Navy was actually the first to undertake the project (laying down of the Satsuma), although the British Navy was the first to complete it. Regards. PHG 23:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


Dreadnought?[edit]

Why is Satsuma described in the article as a 'dreadnought'? Her armament is similar to other pre-dreadnought battleships, four 12-inch guns in two twin turrets, with an intermediate battery of smaller caliber. She seems quite similar to the RN's Lord Nelson class. The caliber of her secondary armament is quite large, but unlike a true dreadnought, it is not the same caliber as the main battery. Blackeagle 21:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comment has finally, a year later, been addressed. And I can't belive someone has put the ship as being built in two different places. Insane. --Harlsbottom (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Japanese battleship Satsuma/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 13:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Great article, no issues whatsoever. Well done! Listed.

Comment. The pic appears (on face value) to be free, given its age, but there is no image source provided. This will probably pose an issue at ACR/FA if you are going there. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

New image[edit]

Japanese battleship Satsuma 1907.jpg

In case the main editor of this article is interested. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)