"Sad fate of HMS Dreadnought" Topic

"Dreadnought became flagship of the 4th Battle Squadron in December 1912 after her transfer from the 1st Battle Squadron, as the 1st Division had been renamed earlier in the year. Between September and December 1913 she was training in the Mediterranean Sea. At the outbreak of World War I in 1914, she was flagship of the 4th Battle Squadron in the North Sea, based at Scapa Flow. She was relieved as flagship on 10 December by HMS Benbow.

Ironically for a vessel designed to engage enemy battleships, her only significant action was the ramming and sinking of German submarine SM U-29, skippered by K/Lt Otto Weddigen (of SM U-9 fame), on 18 March 1915. U-29 had broken the surface immediately ahead of Dreadnought after firing a torpedo at HMS Neptune and Dreadnought cut the submarine in two after a short chase. She almost collided with HMS Temeraire who was also attempting to ram. Dreadnought thus became the only battleship ever to sink a submarine.

She was refitting from 18 April to 22 June 1916 and missed the Battle of Jutland on 31 May, the most significant fleet engagement of the war. Dreadnought became flagship of the 3rd Battle Squadron on 9 July, based at Sheerness on the Thames, part of a force of pre-dreadnoughts intended to counter the threat of shore bombardment by German battlecruisers. During this time she fired her AA guns at German aircraft that passed over her headed for London. She returned to the Grand Fleet in March 1918, resuming her role as flagship of the Fourth Battle Squadron, but was paid off in July to begin another refit.

Dreadnought was put into reserve at Rosyth in February 1919. Dreadnought was put up for sale on 31 March 1920 and sold for scrap to T.W. Ward & Company on 9 May 1921 for the sum of £44,000.00 GBP She was broken up at Ward's new premises at Inverkeithing, Scotland, upon arrival on 2 January 1923."

Curious the British saved HMS Victory, HMS Warrior and HMS Belfast but not HMS Dreadnought. IMHO Dreadnought was way more significant than Belfast. Did anyone even try to perserve her? Very stange and sad for such a historic ship.

Well, Warrior was saved by accident. When she was put up for sale as scrap in the 1920s the iron market was down, so nobody bought her. Then she was converted into a basically a floating oil tank and refueling depot and was used as such for the next 40-50 odd years. Then she was up for the chop again and someone in the Navy said, "Hullo, this hulk happens to be our first ironclad warship. Perhaps we'll save her."

So luck, luck, and more luck. Didn't get scrapped, didn't sink of poor maintenance, didn't get sunk by German bombs in WW2, and when she was on the chop yet again, got a last minute reprieve.

When you think of all the historic ships that wound up in the wrecker's yards its perhaps surprising that any get preserved. For the RN you would have thought that Warspite and Iron Duke would have been kept. Maybe HMS Shannon and possibly KGV. For the US (while we've done a somewhat better job) its amazing that we scrapped Enterprise (the CV) and sank Pennsylvania as a target. USS Hartford managed to last until 1956, when she finally sank at her moorings and was scrapped.

The USA has tended to have the advantage of not being effectively bankrupt at the end of its wars – WWI and especially WWII totally destroyed British finances, so ship preservation was somewhere off of the bottom of the budget. There was something of a demand that one ship (probably Warspite) be preserved, but the funds just weren't there; a crying shame, but you can see how it'd have been hard to prioritise at the time. :-(

Belfast was also preserved as a private move originally, and only taken over by the Imperial War Museum after she had been in situ for a while, IIRC

Yes, the IWM amongst others teamed up in a bid to preserve her in the '60s but the government vetoed it. A private trust was then formed and happily saved her, before she was later signed over to the IWM.

Just some background on the US warships that are on display. (Disclaimer – I am personally involved with program described below.)

The US Navy has a ship donation program whereby they will lend non-commissioned ships to non-federal entities on an indefinite basis. In this program, the Navy retains ownership of the vessel and federal law requires the Navy to conduct an inspection every year to verify that vessel remains a fitting memorial and is in sufficiently good material condition not to present a hazard to safety or marine navigations. Other than the administration of the inspection program the US Navy and Federal government's costs are minimal. The private organizations to which the vessels is lent are responsible for her upkeep etc. On the occasional basis, the US Navy has paid for repairs to some of these vessels in conjunction with the private entities. IIRC we have ~40 of these ships spread around the US including a number of carriers, battleships, cruisers, submarines, and sailing ships.

The USS Consititution (still in commission) and the ex-USS Barry are exceptions to the above since they are still entirely retained by the Navy. The Barry is a Vietnam era destroyer moored at the Washington Navy Yard which is in essence a floating museum and is fully owned and crewed by the Navy.

For all of these ships, the private organizations are mightily challenged to make ends meet. The costs of annual maintainence are staggering. When you visit one of these please remember that they are not only visiting the past, but a time capsule for the future. Your support will make all the difference to our descendants.

Lost Pict

Her is a link to the US Navy ship museums:

link

Sorry for commandeering the message.

Lost Pict

LostPict, any thoughts on why the link shows so many submarines versus surface combatants? And nice to see not just combatants preserved.

The only non-combatants I saw were the Albacore and the Hoga. I'm not sure about the Albacore, but the Hoga is the last ship afloat that was at Pearl Harbor on Dec 7, 1941.

A guess at why there are so many subs: they aren't huge, so they don't cost as much to preserve and maintain as a cruiser or battleship; but the steel in their hulls is high quality and quite thick, so they stand up to the ravages of time and corrosion better than the thin hull of a destroyer or similar-sized vessel.

LostPict, any thoughts on why the link shows so many submarines versus surface combatants? And nice to see not just combatants preserved.

Many years ago I was a curator on a WWII submarine museum. Off the top of my head, submarines are:

1. Relatively small. There isn't as much metal to keep from rusting as there would be on a big ship.

2. Sturdily built. That thick steel will last longer than many surface ships. The fact that they're a relatively sealed environment makes them a bit easier to preserve.

3. Mass produced. Hundreds were made in WWII. The USN also retained many after the war, some in relatively unaltered condition.

4. Easy to pass tourists through. In one end, out the other – there are a lot less "dead space" to maintain.

5. Charismatic and cool. This makes them more attractive as a tourist-funded museum than, say, a fleet oiler.

"but the Hoga is the last ship afloat that was at Pearl Harbor on Dec 7, 1941"

Baltimore has the Coast Guard cutter "Taney"

historicships.org

Several of the large sites (Baltimore, NY City, and Charleston, etc.) have multiple ships. When they do that they typically end up with a sub in the mix. I agree with ScottS, that the subs have a lot of appeal due to the gee-whiz factor plus the relative ease of maintenance due to the form-factor and general durability of the hull. Over the years, I have visited about half of these old girls and hope to see the rest one of these days.

Lost Pict

Several of the large sites (Baltimore, NY City, and Charleston, etc.) have multiple ships.

This is the biggest single factor in the success or failure of a historic ship museum – location. If you're in a big city and near other tourist attractions, you'll do well. You'll get enough people paying admission to pay for the maintenance – drydocking a ship is staggeringly expensive. If you're in a bad location, you'll be lucky to scrape by.

Which leads back to poor old Dreadnaught. If you don't have a LOT of money, the expense of keeping a non-working warship afloat is pretty high. As sad as it is, the Royal Navy's decision to scrap Dreadnaught was probably driven purely by money.

There's an interesting piece here on the American propensity for ship preservation – from 2000, so it's a little bit dated, but still a good read:

link

My admiral put on his stars on the ex-USS New Jersey a couple of years back. (The ship made a big to do of it and it was very nice event – paid for by the new flag officer.) Watching all this pomp and circumstance just across the river was the sad ex-USS Olympia (flag ship of the Great White Fleet). Both great ships, one flush with money in comparision to the other. One we will undoubtedly have around for a long time yet and the other facing euthanasa. It quite simple all comes down to how much tourist money you can generate. As the reverend says, time to pass the plate ;-)

Lost Pict

"Dreadnaught?"

That's embarrassing – it should be Dreadnought. I blame auto-correct.

Lost Pict,

I for one am of the mind that preserving our nation's history is a civic duty, and USS Olympia is no exception.

Arrrgh. Well, at least out here in the SF Bay Area we have the Jeremiah O'Brien and the Pampanito (both of which I need to go visit again before the summer gets away from me again)…

Leland R. Erickson
Metal Express
metal-express.net