Which country's early dreadnoughts do you prefer?

[Neil]

By early, let's say pre-Washington treaty.

[katmai]

Nips or Limey

[11B4V]

Dont know if it's qualifies under Neil's rules.

[katmai]

it should

[Syt]

Going with the underdogs, because there was only a brief window for the Habsburgs to build Dreadnoughts, making them a bit exotic.







SMS Tegethoff, SMS Prinz Eugen, SMS Szent Istvan, SMS Viribus Unitis

[The Brain]

I need pics of all contestants.

[Maladict]

1. RN
2. KuK
3. KM

[dps]

Going with the underdogs, because there was only a brief window for the Habsburgs to build Dreadnoughts, making them a bit exotic.

Given the listed choices, I'll go with that.  Plus, as pointed out in the poll, triple turrents.

Beyond that, I've always been kind of partial to the Brazilizn Minas Geraes class.

[Agelastus]

By early, let's say pre-Washington treaty.

Your definition of "early" covers the majority of dreadnoughts ever built!

And leaves a voter with a problem, since the RN's 12" vessels are both pug-ugly and in many respects poorly designed (firing arcs, mast placements etc.)

Whereas the later 13.5" and, in particular, the 15" "super-"dreadnoughts are mostly very aesthetically pleasing while still being capable combatants (even the much derided "Splendid Cats" given the number of hits Tiger and Lion both survived.)

Of course, the same could be said of both Germany's and Japan's dreadnoughts, the early problems balancing the later successes.

I must admit I've always admired Austria-Hungary's designs, but that's a personal preference rather than any acknowledgement of their actual quality.

Sad as I am to admit it the Americans probably made the least "mistakes" of any in the pre-Washington dreadnought era, and their "Standards" were certainly capable vessels. Still, the question asks for "like", not "admire" or "respect"...

Well, given the era I'll have to go with Austria Hungary. I "like" all their vessels, whereas every other nation has ships that I dislike.

Small numbers are a go!

[Ed Anger]

I'm a kraut fan. Kaiser all the way.

[DontSayBanana]

Austria-Hungary.  The Tegethoff-class ships were pretty magnificent beasts.

[Neil]

By early, let's say pre-Washington treaty.

Your definition of "early" covers the majority of dreadnoughts ever built!

And leaves a voter with a problem, since the RN's 12" vessels are both pug-ugly and in many respects poorly designed (firing arcs, mast placements etc.)

Whereas the later 13.5" and, in particular, the 15" "super-"dreadnoughts are mostly very aesthetically pleasing while still being capable combatants (even the much derided "Splendid Cats" given the number of hits Tiger and Lion both survived.)

Of course, the same could be said of both Germany's and Japan's dreadnoughts, the early problems balancing the later successes.

I must admit I've always admired Austria-Hungary's designs, but that's a personal preference rather than any acknowledgement of their actual quality.

Sad as I am to admit it the Americans probably made the least "mistakes" of any in the pre-Washington dreadnought era, and their "Standards" were certainly capable vessels. Still, the question asks for "like", not "admire" or "respect"...

Well, given the era I'll have to go with Austria Hungary. I "like" all their vessels, whereas every other nation has ships that I dislike.

Small numbers are a go!

I decided to be a little broader in my definitions, although I usually classify dreadnoughts as follows:

1st generation - The early designs.  Examples are Dreadnought, Nassau, South Carolina
2nd generation - Superdreadnoughts.  Examples are Queen Elizabeth, Bayern, Tennessee
3rd generation - Treaty ships.  Examples are Rodney, Scharnhorst, North Carolina
4th generation - Post-treaty ships.  Examples are Vanguard, Bismarck, Iowa

But I figured that I could just say 'early' and 'late', give people a broader pool of data.

You can use whatever qualities you like.  You could vote RN on the strength of the Queen Elizabeths alone if you liked, or exclude them because you really don't like the St Vincents.

I've always found the Austrian designs to be fun as well.  And rather clever, since they let everyone else fool around with wing turrets and other nonsense, and just went straight to triple superfiring turrets, the best arrangement possible.

[Josquius]

It feels a little unusual to me to use dreadnought for post-ww1 ships. In my mind it refers solely to the pre-war designs. Post-war dreadnoughts were pretty firmly established as the norm and weren't a particularly new and exciting thing anymore, so just battleships.

Anyway.
British.
Of course.
I can't picture too many ships in my head to make a neutral decision.

[Neil]

It seems that the Austrians are the favorites.  That's kind of surprising and an exotic choice.  Maybe we have a few more Spelluses than we had previously thought.

[DontSayBanana]

It seems that the Austrians are the favorites.  That's kind of surprising and an exotic choice.  Maybe we have a few more Spelluses than we had previously thought.

Whoa, now; let's not go overboard, here- I just said I liked the Tegethoff.