Were the Maximum Battleships good or bad ideas?

I'd say "utterly pointless"
youtu.be/zvGL5ozHSCA

When talking about whether or not WW1 battleships were "worth it" the answer depends very heavily on what side you're talking about. For Britain, the dreadnoughts of the Grand Fleet essentially won them the war. For Germany, the dreadnoughts of the High Seas Fleet were an expensive liability which arguably cost them the war. The High Seas Fleet came out to play exactly once, got into a bit of a scrap where it performed admirably well, but not well enough to make any kind of difference to the overall strategic picture. It then retreated back to Heligoland where it stayed for the remainder of the war.

why have the forward most rear turret lower than the middle? I get that it should fire broadside as all ships really should, but its actual firing angles seem so restricted, esp being mounted backward, to almost be a waste of space, ammo, weight, and structural integrity to the stern of the boat. plus with the length of the ship I cant imagine that if they had turned it around and stuck the back or the turret just behind the aft smokestack that it would bother center of gravity or weight dispersion, esp since it would be more toward the middle of the ship and away from engines and steering.
That said I have no educational background in nautical engineering or naval tactics

the middle turret is lowered because putting it in a super firing position over the already raised middle turret would dangerously increase the center of balance and make it roll dangerously when turning

so why not have the rearmost two guns at the same level, raise the forwardmost rear gun, and again not have it facing backward to give all guns better firing angles and better weight distribution?

Because that would mean that the rear firepower would be 3 guns rather then 6, and the inner guns would still be masked forward by the superstructure.

Nothing cost more then being second best.

and what of third best?

Let's say you have a contest where the winner gets $100 and second prize is anal rape.

1st place spends $175 on the contest.
2nd spends $140
3rd spends $50

see but with a setup like this if need be the middle rear gun can shoot over the rearmost gun, with all other rear guns being able to obv shoot at elevation.Front rear turret (red) can shoot anywhere, and the last turret (oragne) can shoot basically like a conventional 2 turret settup and over the middle (blue) turret if pointed toward the bow, relatively speaking of coarse.

Attached: bigdumb.png (2120x788, 102K)

Uhhhhhh....

Do you have a second metaphor?

Good idea in that it basically told the Navy to get their fucking act together or that's what they'd end up getting

>battleships
>ever being a good idea

"I have read with great interest the pamphlet which justifies, apparently, the construction of two new battleships on the basis that other people are building battleships and we should do the same. I am not prepared to dispute that. Let the Admiralty have their battleships and take them as far away as possible so that they do not come to any harm—that is what they always do with battleships. But I should like the House to notice the somewhat unconscious humour of the Admiralty, that although nobody else can do any harm to our battleships from the air, they are keen to get a larger air fleet to harm enemy battleships."
Lt.-Col. Moore-Brabazon
Debate on the Address, 12 November 1936

Worth adding the Admiralty's snappy comeback:

"That is a very small point."
V.Adm. Taylor.

Battleships weren’t a good idea in 1700?

Lack of the ability in that era to mill proper steel plates and uniformly cement them with carbon.

modern dreadnought battleships werent a thing yet, but large ship-of-the-lines were the core of any respectable navy and served a similiar role to 20th century battleships

napoleons ass kicking on the ground campaign was brought to an abrupt halt by their naval losses, due largely to british ships

naval battles were almost always decided by who had more guns, and bigger ships had more guns
its where the term battleship comes from, as these ships were some times refereed to as line-of-battle ships
a large navy of these ships had far more political and strategic value than any other period of time

>Let the Admiralty have their battleships and take them as far away as possible so that they do not come to any harm—that is what they always do with battleships
Did this man ever see the Royal Navy?
They were reckless to the point of suicidal bravery with their capital ships.

Swap the forward-facing aft turret for turbines, mega-Lexington

Attached: QimZw6O.jpg (2698x2111, 969K)

Every country had plans for 18-inch BBs until the CV rendered them pointless