Some questions about steel-based warships

[Kyriakos]

Just a few general questions...

1) Did they come to exist as a direct result of the problems Britain and France faced in the invasion of the Crimea? Installed cannons/guns could easily burn wooden ships.

2) What was the golden era of those warships? They did play crucial roles in most of the euro wars after 1871 (afaik they did not play much of a part in the Franco-Prussian war, due to the abandonment of the French plan to invade from the Baltic, mostly argued to have been the effect of newly installed powerful artillery there). In the Italian-Ottoman war, the first Balkan War, and obviously in WW1, they seem to have been very important in securing victory, either through force or effective blockade of movement of troops or equipment (Ottoman utter defeat in the first Balkan War, German plan for a 'Risk-fleet' in WW1 and the resulting lesser funding for the land force).

3) Which pre WW2 battleships were deemed as the most important ones? (specific names, or classes).

Thanks for any info

 

[Core Imposter]

The idea originated in Europe but the first practical test as far as I know came in the War of Northern Aggression with the ironclads.

It was an issue of penetration rather than fire I think. Solid shot literally bounced off.

Beyond that observation I cannot answer much as I am not a navy history guy. But I declared aircraft carriers obsolete a long time ago and I am pretty sure I am right about that.

 

[Flying Pig]

I would have thought them a reaction to the ironclads of the American Civil War, which could absolutely devastate traditional wooden-hulled ships while being seemingly impervious to conventional firepower. HMS Dreadnought and its imitators and successors certainly count among the most important battleships before the Second World War.

 

[Kyriakos]

Thank you both

Re Ironclads, iirc the Brazilian navy (which had at least one main ironclad-type ship) and defeated utterly the Paraguayan river-based armed-steamerboat force, was very crucial in how that war went on (1864-1870 war of the triple alliance).

Edit: re-reading about that river-battle, it is not clear if they had any actual 'ironclad', since their flagship was also a fortified steamer:

The Paraguayan fleet was a fraction of the size of Brazil's, even before the battle. It arrived in Humaitá on the morning of June 9. Paraguayan president Francisco Solano López prepared to attack at Riachuelo the ships supporting allied land troops. Nine ships and seven cannon-carrying barges, totaling 45 guns, plus 22 guns and two Congreve rocket batteries from shore troops, attacked the Brazilian squadron, totaling 58 guns. Paraguay planned to attack before sunrise since most Brazilian troops would leave the steamers in order to sleep on land, leaving thus very few men to guard and handle their fleet. The original plan had been that, under the cover of the night, the Paraguayan steamers would approach the docked Brazilian ones and board them.[1] No confrontation other than the one carried out by the boarding party was planned, and the Paraguayan steamers were only there to provide cover from the inland forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Riachuelo

 

[Silurian]

Steel-based warships came into existence because large amounts of good steel could be produced following the invention of the Bessemer process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessemer_converter#Bessemer_converter

 

[IglooDame]

I would have thought them a reaction to the ironclads of the American Civil War, which could absolutely devastate traditional wooden-hulled ships while being seemingly impervious to conventional firepower. HMS Dreadnought and its imitators and successors certainly count among the most important battleships before the Second World War.

This. Also, this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Clad

 

[Cutlass]

From the 1860s until the turn of the century there was a constant state of innovation and experimentation to discover how to make steel warships. It wasn't just that the ACW showed how tough they were, but also that the development of the steam engine had gotten advanced enough so that ships could get away from sail. And the development of cannon made ever bigger and more powerful guns available. All of these trends made the leaders of navies realize that wood and sail could not compete against iron and steam. So they either learned to master iron and steam, or they could not offer battle to those who did.

There were a lot of missteps between the Monitor and the Dreadnaught. And the Dreadnaught was obsolete before it first sailed. But it was either go that direction, or go without a navy.

 

[Phrossack]

It's important to remember that the Gloire and HMS Warrior came out several years before their American counterparts. They were also far larger and better armed, and there was nothing like them in the world at the time.

 

[Antilogic]

Don't have a lot of time now, but I do want to subscribe and offer what I can.

There was experimentation across the Atlantic from the Crimean War era to the American Civil War and thereafter. Steamers are first used in Crimea by the French and British, and yes they do have the first armored ships but the size is not necessarily indicative of technological sophistication. The tiny USS Monitor deserves a bit of attention here because it had a fully armored turret and was arguably the first all-big-gun ironclad warship. (Yeah, the early monitor design only has two guns and this term is particularly applied to dreadnoughts, but they were heavy caliber for the size of the ship and it was a different design philosophy than the broadside ironclads like the Confederates used.)

The key limitation was a function of the power source (i.e. coal and later oil, the efficiency of the turbines, etc.) to move the mass of metal/armor, and the designers were focused on whether the thickness of the armor was sufficient to protect the ship from a similarly-armed vessel. Given the rapid technological advances, vessels were often obsolete within 1-3 years of being launched.

 

[r16]

some French artillery guy invented the exploding shell in something like 1829 to offset the ever present British Naval superiority after the failure of Napoleonic attempts to heat cannon shots while afloat . The counter to that would be armour of some sort to keep the incoming rounds out , with the experiences of the American frigates vs the RN somehow showing it was possible . So there was the talk , spurred quite effectively by the destruction of the combined Fleet in Navarin as well . So when there was the need , armouring came in Crimea . Once the resistance was defeated as such it was only an application of engineering to find optimum solutions .


for the insanity section of post #2100 , Averoff will still be sunk .

 

[Kyriakos]

^It might be sunk, but will it be one of the 11 out of 12 lost in the new Sinope battle?

(besides, i am sure it is just used as a museum now).

*

Thank you all for the good info

 

[r16]

there are ample measures against the Russians but it seriously escapes me why they would want the kind of the attention America seriously asks for . Despite all the Western fantasing that takes place to contract WW III out, Russians have no intention of escalating it to levels they would get some hurt ...

as for that museum , the initial thing for opening "the day" with LGB strikes have been replaced with cooler means .