HMS Dreadnought - where are the torpedo tubes?

[kilroy1911]

royal navy dreadnoughts and possibly also from various other countries had submerged torpedo tubes. For example the HMS Dreadnought had 5 of them but i really cant find where. and is there any reason to have torpedoes on such a ship? Especially the early torpedoes, i doubt that they were enough accurate and with significant range.

[Ordie]

and is there any reason to have torpedoes on such a ship? Especially the early torpedoes, i doubt that they were enough accurate and with significant range.

Torpedoes were the anti-ship missiles of its day. To have your ship sunk before any of your torpedoes fired was considered a disgrace. And getting into harms way was the norm.

None of this "over the horizon"- "fire and forget" BS.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Usually mounted underwater in a broadside fashion for when as was the normal strategy of the time, the two opposing fleets would sail in a line and pummel each other.

[kilroy1911]

Torpedoes were the anti-ship missiles of its day. To have your ship sunk before any of your torpedoes fired was considered a disgrace. And getting into harms way was the norm.

None of this "over the horizon"- "fire and forget" BS.

i always thought that the main guns of the dreadnoughts were more accurate and with longer range than these early unguided torpedoes.

[kilroy1911]

Usually mounted underwater in a broadside fashion for when as was the normal strategy of the time, the two opposing fleets would sail in a line and pummel each other.

thanks - if i understand it correctly all 5 tubes were on one side of the ship and they maneuver the ship to aim with this side towards enemy? or were 2 on one side and 3 on another?

[Alfacentori]

Heres a few pic that might help

1st is an old postcard of the Dreadnought that shows features, including tubes

2nd is an internal torpedo tube the pre-dreadnought battleship USS Oregon

3rd is the loading of another internal tube on the WW2 Italian battleship Cavour

Alfa

[happyslapper]

royal navy dreadnoughts and possibly also from various other countries had submerged torpedo tubes. For example the HMS Dreadnought had 5 of them but i really cant find where. and is there any reason to have torpedoes on such a ship? Especially the early torpedoes, i doubt that they were enough accurate and with significant range.

Most early dreadnoughts had either one or two submerged tubes on either beam, and one on the stern.

There's loads of reasons for torpedo tubes on battleships. In a large scale contact, several ships firing a salvo of torpedos in the enemies direction means that they have a massive maneouvering advantage, and can often wipe out a couple of large contacts before bringing guns to bear.
The other option is as a 'get out of jail card'. This is how the German Navy avoided being anhialated at the Battle of Jutland, by firing a volley at the British line, then turning and running away at max revs, while a few destroyers remained to slow the British and deter a flanking move. It's still a subject of great bitterness in the RN that Jellicoe did not absord the inevitable losses and destroy the German Navy once and for all (which would almost certainly have ended the war earlier).

[baboon6]

Most early dreadnoughts had either one or two submerged tubes on either beam, and one on the stern.

There's loads of reasons for torpedo tubes on battleships. In a large scale contact, several ships firing a salvo of torpedos in the enemies direction means that they have a massive maneouvering advantage, and can often wipe out a couple of large contacts before bringing guns to bear.
The other option is as a 'get out of jail card'. This is how the German Navy avoided being anhialated at the Battle of Jutland, by firing a volley at the British line, then turning and running away at max revs, while a few destroyers remained to slow the British and deter a flanking move. It's still a subject of great bitterness in the RN that Jellicoe did not absord the inevitable losses and destroy the German Navy once and for all (which would almost certainly have ended the war earlier).

Why? The High Seas Fleet wasn't achieving anything sitting in port anyway, which it did for the remainder of the war, bar one or two brief sorties. The British blockade worked and certainly contributed to ending the war. I don't see how sinking more German ships (and it was by no means certain who would have taken more losses) would have ended the war sooner. The British had far more to lose from a really negative outcome at Jutland. The real German threat was from U-boats and nothing that happened at Jutland would have affected them.

[happyslapper]

Why? The High Seas Fleet wasn't achieving anything sitting in port anyway, which it did for the remainder of the war, bar one or two brief sorties. The British blockade worked and certainly contributed to ending the war. I don't see how sinking more German ships (and it was by no means certain who would have taken more losses) would have ended the war sooner. The British had far more to lose from a really negative outcome at Jutland. The real German threat was from U-boats and nothing that happened at Jutland would have affected them.

There's been entire books written on the subject, but here's a brief summary:
It would have been a major propaganda boost for the British to have destroyed the German Fleet. As it happened, despite it being a major military victory for the RN, it was turned around by the German propaganda machine due to the fact that a larger tonnage of British ships were sunk.
The morale issue is another major one. Things were not going fantastically on the western front, and the British public were in need of a lift. Instead of it being an epic Nelsonian style victory, it was seen as a case of ''our boys died, and the hun got away''. To have obliterated the German Navy in a classic high-seas engagement would have significantly changed the moral of both sides.
Not finishing the job meant a great deal of resources were tied up for the remainder of the war. Whilst the Germans never again tried to break out as they did Miay 1916, the amount of ships/intelligence assets/etc preoccupied with blockading the North Sea and being ready to preempt any movement was colossal. All these ships could have been employed in various other roles, from convoy protection to shore bombardment and interdiction.
Had the threat of the German Navy been permanently removed, another front could have been opened up, or at least capitalised on more forcefully (especially in the eastern med). British naval dominancecould have been extended into the Baltic, forcing the Germans to protect another flank at the expense of the Western Front, as well as suffer the indignity of having north German ports and coastal industry shelled by British battleships.

Theres other reasons, but they are the main ones.

Britain could afford to lose the ships, the prize would have been well worth it. Jellicoe, for all his brilliance, was over-cautious at Jutland.

[baboon6]

I see your points but I do believe you are being overly optimistic. The North Sea would still have to be blockaded- the blockade concentrated on stopping supplies reaching Germany from overseas, not just on containing the High Seas Fleet. Besides the destroyers the ships of the Grand Fleet would have been of little use in escorting convoys against submarines. Shore bombardment- monitors had been built for this job and obsolete ships not used by the Grand Fleet were more than adequate for the task. There were limited opportunities for such a task anyway. As for opening another front the only place that makes sense is on the Belgian coast, to take out the U-boat bases. I don't know whether this was viable or not- it could have been.

Anyway I really don't think destroying the entire High Seas Fleet could have happened- maybe a large part of it but significant parts would have remained intact.

[Euroamerican]

There were vicious/deadly torpedo exchanges between cruisers in the South Pacific in WWII. Very effective weapons.

[Indiana Jones]

[...]As it happened, despite it being a major military victory for the RN, it was turned around by the German propaganda machine due to the fact that a larger tonnage of British ships were sunk.
[...]
I find your assessment of the Battle of Jutland as a major British military victory quite questionable. Mind you, the KM did not intend to engage the RN in all out altercation. Their objective was of decidedly tactical, limited scope to begin with- decreasing the numerical inbalance- and they archieved it. Strategically, the situation was not likely to be altered by any outcome save catastrophical defeat of either side.
Considering the forces both sides had at their disposal and the respective losses, I find it hard indeed to escape the conclusion that the KM archieved victory, even if it was ultimately inconsequential to the outcome of the war.

''our boys died, and the hun got away''As the case stands, I think this perception does justice to what transpired.

All the best,
IJ.

[happyslapper]

I find your assessment of the Battle of Jutland as a major British military victory quite questionable. Mind you, the KM did not intend to engage the RN in all out altercation. Their objective was of decidedly tactical, limited scope to begin with- decreasing the numerical inbalance- and they archieved it. Strategically, the situation was not likely to be altered by any outcome save catastrophical defeat of either side.
Considering the forces both sides had at their disposal and the respective losses, I find it hard indeed to escape the conclusion that the KM archieved victory, even if it was ultimately inconsequential to the outcome of the war.
As the case stands, I think this perception does justice to what transpired.

All the best,
IJ.

This reinforces my earlier point that the failure to pursue the Germans meant that the opportunity to capitalise on propaganda and subsequently morale was lost (let alone the military consequences).
As ever, retrospect and perception of the time are two different things. Jutland was a major victory for the British. It contained (rahter than eliminated - as it should have done) the threat of the German Navy for the remainder of the war, as the result of a single action lasting just a few hours. It reaffrimed British supremacy for the remainder of the war.

[happyslapper]

I see your points but I do believe you are being overly optimistic. The North Sea would still have to be blockaded- the blockade concentrated on stopping supplies reaching Germany from overseas, not just on containing the High Seas Fleet. Besides the destroyers the ships of the Grand Fleet would have been of little use in escorting convoys against submarines. Shore bombardment- monitors had been built for this job and obsolete ships not used by the Grand Fleet were more than adequate for the task. There were limited opportunities for such a task anyway. As for opening another front the only place that makes sense is on the Belgian coast, to take out the U-boat bases. I don't know whether this was viable or not- it could have been.

Anyway I really don't think destroying the entire High Seas Fleet could have happened- maybe a large part of it but significant parts would have remained intact.

I'm not a professional historian by any means, just an enthusiast of sorts. However, my points emulate (in brief) those of just about every piece I've ever read about the battle, on what it achieved/failed to achieve.
The North Sea certainly would have had to be blockaded, but the form of that blockade would be completely different. Controlling merchant movements is an entirely different kettle of fish to standing ready to deliver overwhelming force, should the High Seas Fleet want to tango.
Those were extremely useful units sitting primed and ready, rather than supporting the war elsewhere.
By eliminating the threat, it opens a very wide range of options to the British. Failing to eliminate that threat meant a limitation, and a loss of opportunity. Jellicoe did the job, but if it was a school report, it would read ''could do better''. A braver decision would have been to take the torpedo hits, and finish the job.

It's an interesting topic, and is utterly shamelessly revisionist.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

A far inferior fleet inflicted considerable losses to a numerically superior fleet. The High Seas Fleet was back to full strength by October and it indeed set sail again 2 months after Jutland August and again in October.

However by the time of the sortie in October material shortages in Germany, and the subsequent offensives against Russia meant that German priorities lay elsewhere, combined with the introduction of unrestri ted submarine warfare against British Merchant shipping the High Seas Fleet was not needed to be engaging the Grand Fleet.

Also remember this. Royal Navy loses, and the Allies lose the war. Hence the reason why the British were happy to leave the field and not destroy the Germans.

[Jaguar]

It's still a subject of great bitterness in the RN that Jellicoe did not absord the inevitable losses and destroy the German Navy once and for all (which would almost certainly have ended the war earlier).

It´s far from certain that such objective could be achieved and if I´m not mistaken Jellicoe was said to be "the only man that could lose the war in one day", or something alike.

[skipperbob]

It´s far from certain that such objective could be achieved and if I´m not mistaken Jellicoe was said to be "the only man that could lose the war in one day", or something alike.

Yes indeed. Jellicoe wins a decisive victory and the war still goes on as before. Jellicoe loses enough ships so that the Germans have surperority and Britain is blockaded and the war is over. Seldom has one man faced such pressure - to lose one battle is to lose the war.