Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Anglo-German Dreadnought Arms Race - Anything you can build I can build better!" video.

The problem is that both Japan and the United States were either planning or constructing all big gun battleships at the time. Only the speed of Dreadnought's construction led to her being the first one in operation.
5
@Neneset Thank heavens Dreadnought cam first. Referring to capital ships as 'Dreadnoughts' is one thing. Referring to them as 'Satsumas' would be quite another!
3
@LucioFercho They were not 'cannibalised.' The main armament intended for them was simply diverted and sent to Dreadnought instead. Read McBride, Keith (2005). "Lord Nelson and Agamemnon". In 'Warship, 2005,' pp. 66–72. The 'new parts' as you call them, were simply the next sets of 12 inch barbettes and guns off the production line.
3
Which wars do you think Churchill 'mongered?'
2
@minimax9452 How did Churchill actually 'monger' WW1? Enlighten us.
2
@minimax9452 I assume from your answer that you have simply called Churchill a 'war monger' without actually knowing why you posted such a comment.
2
@minimax9452 He played a significant role in preparing the Royal Navy for potential conflict with the German Navy, but that hardly made him a factor in the events that brought about the war.
2
@minimax9452 Certainly Britain was a superpower at the time. Why, then, would Britain seek a European Land War, when her government was happy enough with the world situation as it was? I don't recall saying that Britain 'played no role,' nor that Churchill was 'passive.' However, how does being the political head of the Royal Navy make him a 'warmonger?'
2
@minimax9452 To be a warmonger you need to be in a position where your political influence makes you able to bring about a war. Churchill was not in such a position in 1914, and he held no government office between 1929 and September 1939. If Buchanan is the best you have to offer, then you need to read more books by proper academic historians. WW1 was brought about by a number of factors involving the various major land powers in Europe. The British were rather dragged in, some would argue unwisely, but none of this can be laid at Churchill's door.
2
@minimax9452 You will need to prove that Churchill, at 40 still a junior member of the government, was actively 'encouraging the country to go to war' and urging Asquith to declare war. Certainly he was eager to ensure that the navy was ready for the event, but that isn't quite the same thing.
2
@LucioFercho I don't usually reply to people who use the asinine LOL in their posts, as it suggests a degree of immaturity. However, what parts were taken from Lord Nelson or Agamemnon? Actually, none. Both were still in the early stages of construction, and the turrets intended to be delivered to them were simply diverted to Dreadnought. You seem to be trying to argue simply for the sake of arguing. Just read the article I recommended, and then go away.
2
There were five 'London' class pre-dreadnoughts, London, Bulwark, Venerable, Queen, and Prince of Wales.
2
The Japanese actually planned to build an all big gun Battleship from 1904, but didn't have access to enough 12 inch guns. Probably just as well, really. Referring to a battleship as a 'Dreadnought' had a degree of majesty to it that referring to it as a 'Satsuma' could never have matched.
2
Kongo's designer, George Thurston, did have some influence on the design of Tiger, which was more or less a contemporary of Kongo.
1
@peterthomson4632 'Admiralty kept a tight rein on costs.' Perhaps someone needs to have a word with our unfit for purpose MoD, who don't seem even to have heard of the concept!
1
No they weren't. They simply paused the construction of Lord Nelson & Agamemnon by transferring their barbettes to Dreadnought. Lord Nelson was laid down in May, 1905, and completed in October, 1908. Agamemnon was laid down in September, 1905, and completed in June, 1908.
1
Attacked what?
1