Chapter III: Part 3

Text size

The Estimates for 1896–97 provided for five battleships which were somewhat sarcastically alluded to as “improved” _Majestics_. These ships were the _Canopus_ class, and they mark a species of early striving after the ideal of the battle-cruisers of to-day. That is to say, certain sacrifices were made in them with a view to securing increased speed.

Particulars of these ships:--

Displacement--12,950 tons.

Length--(over all) 418ft.

Beam--74ft.

Draught--(maximum) 26½ft.

Armament--Four 12in., 35 cal., twelve 6in. 40 cal., ten
12-pounders, four submerged tubes (18in.)

Armour--Harvey-Nickel. Belt amidships 6in. with 2in. extension
to the bow and 1½in. skin aft on the water-line. Bulkheads and
barbettes 12in. Turrets 8in.

Horse-power--31,500 = 18.25 knots.

Coal--(normal) 1,000 tons; (maximum) 2,300 tons = nominal radius of
8,000 miles at 10 knots.

The adoption of Harvey-Nickel armour, which was of superior resisting power to Harvey armour in the ratio of about 5 to 4, partly, but not entirely accounted for the thinning of the armour of this class. Theoretically, the 9in. armour belt of the _Majestic_ was equal to 18in. of iron, while the belt of the _Canopus_ class was equal to about 15in. of iron. In place of the 4in. deck of the _Majestics_, the _Canopus_ class had only a 2½in. deck. The thin bow (2in.) plating was introduced as a sop to a public agitation against soft-ended ships. Such a belt is, of course, perfectly useless against any heavy projectile, or, for that matter, against 6in., except at very long range indeed. Sir William White never made any secret of his cynical disbelief in these bow belts. They were and always have been what doctors call a “placebo.”

In the following year the sixth ship of this class was built--the _Vengeance_. She differed from the others in the form of her turrets, which were flat sided for the first time. In her also a mounting was first introduced, whereby, in addition to being loaded in any position, big guns could also be loaded at any elevation.

Some other details of the _Canopus_ class are:--

The cruisers of the following year were eight cruisers of the much discussed _Diadem_ class, small editions of the _Powerful_ (11,000 tons), and carrying a pair of 6-inch guns in place of the 9.2’s of the _Powerfuls_. For the first four (the _Diadem_, _Andromeda_, _Europa_, and _Niobe_) a speed of 20.5 knots only was provided, but in the late four (the _Argonaut_, _Ariadne_, _Amphitrite_, and _Spartiate_) the horse-power was increased to 18,000, in order to provide twenty-one knots. At the present time (1912) these ships have for all practical purposes already passed from the effective list, all the weak points of the _Powerfuls_ being exaggerated in them.

In the Estimates for the years 1895 to 1898, provision was made also for eleven small third-class cruisers of the “P” class of 2135 tons and twenty knot speed. The armament consisted of eight 4-inch guns. On trials most of them did well, but in a very short time their speeds fell off, and at the present time, such of them as remain on the active list are slower than the far older cruisers of the _Apollo_ class.

In the Estimates for 1897–98, in addition to the _Vengeance_, already mentioned, three improved copies of the _Majestic_ were provided. These ships were:--

The only difference between them and the _Majestics_ lies in advantage being taken of improvements in gunnery and armour to increase the offensive and defensive items. The absurd 2-inch bow belt of the _Canopus_ was repeated in them, but raised within 2½ft. of the main deck. A 40-calibre 12-inch was mounted, also a 45-calibre 6-inch.

These were the first ships of the British Navy in which Krupp cemented armour was used. This armour, generally known as “K.C.,” has approximately a resisting power three times that of iron armour. That is to say, the 9in. belts of the _Formidables_ were approximately 33 per cent. more effective than the similar belts of the _Majestics_. These ships proved faster and more handy, easily exceeding their designed eighteen knots. The superior handiness was brought about by a superior form of hull--the deadwood aft being cut away for the first time in them.

In this year’s Estimates armoured cruisers definitely re-appeared, six ships of the _Cressy_ type being laid down.

Particulars of these:--

Displacement--12,000 tons.

Length--454ft.

Beam--69½ft.

Draught--(maximum) 28ft.

Armament--Two 9.2, 40 cal., twelve 6-inch, 45 cal., twelve
12-pounders, two 18in. submerged tubes.

Armour--6in. Krupp belt amidships, 250ft. long by 11½ft. wide, 2in.
continuation to the bow. Barbettes 6in. Casemates 5in.

Horse power--21,000 = 21 knots.

Coal--(normal) 800 tons; (maximum) 1,600 tons.

In substance these ships were armoured editions of the _Powerful_. They steamed very well in their time, but have now fallen off considerably and are no longer of any importance. Total weight of armour 2,100 tons. An innovation introduced in these ships was the fitting of non-flammable wood, which at a later date was objected to on the grounds that it deteriorated the gold lace of the uniforms stored in drawers made of it. The _Cressy_ was completed in 1901; the others, excepting the _Euryalus_, in 1902. This latter ship was greatly delayed from various causes, and not completed until 1903.

The 1898–99 Estimates consisted of three battleships and four armoured cruisers. The battleships were practically sisters to the _Formidable_, but differed from her in that the main belt, instead of being a patch amidships, has a total length of 300ft. from the bow. At the bow it is 2in., quickly increasing to 4in., 5in., 6in., and finally to 9in., and this provided a measure of protection that the 2in. belts of preceding ships could never afford. The flat-sided turrets, first introduced in the _Vengeance_, were also fitted in these ships, the _Formidables_ having the old pattern turrets.

The advantages of flat-sided turrets lie in the fact that K.C. can be used for them instead of the relatively softer non-cemented. K.C. is not applicable to curved surfaces, for which reason barbettes, casemates, and batteries with curved portholes in them and rounded turrets cannot be constructed of it. Flat-sided turrets consist of a number of flat plates placed to meet each other at predetermined angles, thus forming one homogeneous whole.

These battleships were:--

All were completed in 1902.

The cruisers of the same year, the _Drake_ class, were “improved” _Cressies_, with increased displacement, power and speed. The increased displacement allowed of four extra 6-inch guns being mounted, these being placed in casemates on top of the amidships casemates.

Particulars of the _Drake_ class:--

Displacement--14,000 tons.

Length--(over all) 529½ft.

Beam--71ft.

Draught--(maximum) 28ft.

Armament--Two 9.2, 45 cal. (instead of 40 cal., as in the
_Cressies_), sixteen 6-inch, 45 cal., and fourteen 12-pounders,
two submerged tubes (18in.).

Armour--2,700 tons, as in _Cressy_, except that the casemates are
6in. thick.

Horse-power--30,000 = 23 knots. Boilers, 43 Belleville.

Coal--(normal) 1,250 tons; (maximum) 2,500.

These ships were altogether superior to the _Cressy_ class. On trial they all easily made their contract speeds and subsequently greatly exceeded them. It was discovered that increased speed was to be obtained by additional weight aft, and this was so much brought to a fine art that weights were adjusted accordingly, and in one of them, seeking to make a speed record, the entire crew were once mustered aft in order to vary the trim!

Building details are as follows:--

For some years these were the fastest ships in the world. In 1905, in a race by the Second Cruiser Squadron across the Atlantic, with ships of nominally equal speed, the _Drake_ came in first. In December, 1906, at four-fifths power for thirty hours, she averaged 22.5 knots. In 1907, the _King Alfred_ averaged 25.1 knots for one hour, and made an eight hours’ mean of 24.8. They proved very economical steamers, being able to do nineteen knots at an expenditure of eleven tons of coal an hour, and though they are now getting old, as warships go, they have never yet been beaten on the results achieved by horse-power per ton of displacement.

The Estimates of 1898–99 included a supplementary programme of four armoured ships which, like the _Canopus_ class, again foreshadowed the battle cruisers of to-day. These were the famous _Duncan_ class, and may be described as slightly smaller editions of the _London_, with armour thickness sacrificed for superior speed. The belt amidships was reduced from 9in. to 7in., but against this the belt at the extreme bow was made an inch thicker, and 25ft. away from the ram became 5in. thick. The displacement sank by 1,000 tons, the horse-power was increased by 3,000, and the speed by one knot.

The total weight of armour is about 3,500 against 4,300 tons in the _Londons_. The _Duncans_ may be regarded as a species of recrudescence of Barnaby ideas, plus a later notion that a well-extended partial protection was better than a more concentrated protection of less area. Generally speaking, they were improved duplicates of the _Canopus_ class, in the same way that the _Formidable_ and the ships that followed her were duplicates of the _Majestic_. Two ideas were obviously at work. In other forms these two ideas have (with variations) existed to the present day. Then it was purely a question between ratios devoted to speed and protection. To-day (1912) matters have been so far modified that increased displacements are given to secure speed advantages, but protection remains proportionately as it was. Reduced armament has always been accepted.

Construction details of the _Duncans_, of which two more figured in the estimates for 1899–1900:--

The _Montagu_ was wrecked on Lundy Island in 1906.

Contemporaneous with the _Drakes_, and extending over four ships in the Estimates of 1898–99 to two in the following and four in the year later, ten armoured cruisers were provided for, which in essence were little but an attempt to provide a normal second-class protected cruiser of the _Talbot_ class, with armour protection. These ships--the _County_ class--are of 9,800 tons displacement, and may also be regarded as diminutives of the _Drake_ and _Cressy_ classes, with a touch of the _Diadems_ thrown in. In place of the fore and aft 9.2’s of the _Drake_ and _Cressy_, they were supplied with a couple of pairs of 6-inch guns mounted in turrets fore and aft. The belt amidships was reduced to 4in. (a thickness in K.C. which has no virtues over armour of earlier type) with the usual extension of 2in. to the bow. The twin turrets, in which, like those of the _Powerful_, electrical control was once more introduced, have never given satisfaction, being very cramped for working purposes, and probably no more efficient than single gun turrets would have been, certainly less than the single gun 7--5in. turrets, originally proposed as an alternative, would have been.

Had the ships been regarded frankly as modern variants of the second-class protected cruisers, they probably would have been esteemed more than they were. Unfortunately they have always been regarded as “armoured ships” and discounted on account of their obvious inferiority to the _Drakes_. In the matter of steaming all of them have invariably done well (except in the case of the _Essex_, over which a mistake in design was made). The anticipated twenty-three knots was made quite easily, once certain early propeller difficulties were overcome. The Boiler Commission, already referred to, affected these ships, in so far that, instead of the hitherto inevitable Bellevilles, the _Berwick_ and _Suffolk_ were given Niclausse boilers and the _Cornwall_ Babcocks. The total weight of armour is 1,800 tons.

Details of the construction of this class are:--

All were completed during 1903 and 1904.

For the year 1900–01 only two battleships were provided: the _Queen_, built at Devonport and engined by Harland and Wolff, and the _Prince of Wales_, built at Chatham and engined by the Greenock Foundry Co. These were laid down in 1901 and completed in 1904. They were copies of the _Londons_ in every detail, saving that, instead of being enclosed, their upper deck batteries were left open as in the _Duncans_. The _Queen_ was given Babcock boilers instead of Bellevilles.

The 1901–02 Estimates provided three battleships and six armoured cruisers of the _County_ class. These were the last ships designed by Sir William White. The battleships, of which eight were built altogether--three for 1901–02, two for the next year--were of a different type from any which had preceded them, and to some extent may be said to mark the birth of the _Dreadnought_ era. That is to say, in them the old idea of the two calibres, 12in. and 6in., died out, and heavier auxiliary guns began to appear.

Particulars of these ships, _the King Edward VII_ class, are as follows:--

Displacement--16,350 tons.

Length--(over all) 453¾ft.

Beam--78ft.

Draught--(maximum) 26¾ft.

Armament--Four 12-inch, 40 cal., four 9.2, 45 cal., ten 6-inch,
45 cal., twelve 12-pounders, fourteen 3-pounders, five 18-inch
submerged tubes (of which one is in the stern).

Armour--As in the _London_ (but a 6in. battery instead of
casemates).

Horse-power--18,000 = 18.9 knots.

Coal--(normal) 950 tons; (maximum) 2,150 tons, also 400 tons of
oil, except in the _New Zealand_.

Except the last three, all were completed in 1905. The others were completed very shortly afterwards.

The boilers fitted to these ships varied considerably. The _King Edward_, _Hindustan_, and _Britannia_ were given a mixed installation of Babcocks and cylindricals; the _New Zealand_ Niclausse boilers; the other ships Babcock only. In the _Britannia_, super-heaters were also fitted to six of her boilers. The point differentiating these ships from their predecessors was the mounting of four 9.2 guns in single turrets at the angles of the superstructure. Equally novel was the placing of 6-inch guns in a battery behind the armour on the main deck.[21] Fighting tops, a feature of all previous ships, disappeared, and in place of them fire-control platforms were substituted.

When produced, these ships were considered as something like the “last word”; but in service later on it was very soon found that the two calibres of big guns rendered fire-control extremely difficult, and they have been a somewhat costly lesson in that respect. They cost about £1,500,000 each, and were found to be all that could be desired tactically, their turning circles with engines being only about 340yds. at fifteen knots. All of them did not make their speeds on trials, and some have never quite come up to expectations in that respect, but they have all proved remarkably reliable steamers.

Six armoured cruisers provided for in the 1901–02 Estimates were the _Devonshires_. These were originally intended to have been enlarged _Counties_, carrying a single 7.5 fore and aft, in place of the twin 6-inch turrets of the prototype ships. The design was, however, modified to the extent of substituting a single 7.5 for each of the forward pairs of 6-inch casemates.

Details of these ships are:--

Displacement--10,850 tons.

Length (between perpendiculars)--450ft.

Beam--68½ft.

Draught--(maximum) 25½ft.

Armament--Four 7.5, six 6-inch, 45 cal.; two 12-pounders,
twenty-two 3-pounders, two 18in. torpedo tubes submerged.

Armour Belt--(length 325ft. from the bow, width 10½ft.), 6in.
amidships, thinning to 2in. right forward. Barbettes 6in. Turrets
5in. Casemates 6in.

Horse-power--21,000==22.5 knots.

Coal--(normal) 800; (maximum) 1,800 tons.

Other details are:--

Like the _King Edwards_, various boilers were given to them. All of them have one-fifth cylindrical boilers. The _Devonshire_ and _Carnarvon_ were otherwise given Niclausse; _Antrim_ and _Hampshire_, Yarrow; _Argyll_, Babcock; and _Roxburgh_, Dürr. The designed speed was exceeded by all on trials, but none have proved successful steamers ever since. They were completed between 1904 and 1905.

These were the last ships to be designed by Sir William White. He resigned his position from ill-health; but, like his predecessors, left under a cloud--at any rate, with his services not really appreciated. He had created a magnificent fleet; but its very magnificence made many of his designs look poor on paper against any foreign construction of less displacement, but--_on paper_--of equal or superior qualities. It is the fate of the naval architect in peace-time to be judged on paper with small regard to issues such as nautical qualities, constructional strength, and a score of other details which are not to be expressed by any statistical formulæ, but yet make all the difference between efficiency and the absence of it.

Sir William White’s period of office was marked by an almost complete naval revolution. It began with the quick-firer and the disappearance of the low freeboard battleships. It ended with the coming of submarines, fire-control, and wireless. In between, it included the coming of the destroyer, the re-birth of the armoured cruiser; the arrival of the water-tube boiler, new forms of hull, unprecedented advances in both guns and armour--in fact, almost every conceivable change. Through these troubled waters with a steady hand and cool brain Sir William White guided the destiny of the Fleet and the millions of pounds expended in shipbuilding. Already his era is “the pre-_Dreadnought_” one, and to present-day ideas the term “pre-_Dreadnought_” is already very nearly akin to “pre-historic.” His creations preserved the peace, for which very reason they failed to secure glory. Already some have gone to the scrap-heap, and others are well on their way thither to join the Reed and Barnaby ships in that oblivion to which modern _Dreadnoughts_ will just as surely go in their season. More might be said: but _cui bono?_ Such public epitaph as Sir William White received when he retired was of the “about time, too!” order. The creator of the finest fleet that the world has ever seen left office with less honour and no more public interest than did half-a-dozen mediocre admirals who had chanced to fly their flags in some of his creations. It is not given for the stage manager to stand in the lime-light reserved for the principal actors. But the historian of a hundred years hence, placing great Englishmen in perspective, will assuredly place Sir William White far ahead of many who loom greater in the public eye to-day.

_GUNS IN THE ERA._

The guns which especially belong to the White era are as follows:--

===============+========+============+=========+============================
Designation. | Weight.| Projectile.| Velocity| Maximum Penetration with
| Tons. | lbs. | f.s. | capped shot against K.C. at
| | | +------------+---------------
| | | | 5000 yds. | 3000 yds.
---------------+--------+------------+---------+------------+---------------
13.5, 30 cal. | 67 | 1250 | 2016 | 9 | 12
| | | | |
12in., 35 cal. | 46 | 850 | 2367 | 11½ | 14½
12in., 40 cal. | 50 | 850 | 2750 | 16 | 20
| | | | |
10in., 32 cal. | 29 | 500 | 2040 | 5½ | 7½
| | | | |
9.2, 30 cal. | 24 | 380 | 2065 | 4 | 6
9.2, 40 cal. | 25 | 380 | 2347 | 6¾ | 9¼
9.2, 45 cal. | 27 | 380 | 2640 | 8¾ | 11¼
| | | | |
7.5, 45 cal. | 14 | 200 | 2600 | 5¾ | 7½
| | | | |
6in., 40 cal. | 7½ | 100 | 2200 | -- | --
| | | | |
6in., 45 cal. | 7 | 100 | 2535 | -- | 4½
===============+========+============+=========+============+===============

_PURCHASED SHIPS._

In the year 1902 two ships, the _Constitucion_ and _Libertad_, were laid down at Elswick and Vickers-Maxims’ respectively for the Chilian Government. They were designed by Sir Edward Reed, and compare interestingly with the _King Edwards_ in being much longer and narrower. It will be remembered that in the past Reed ideals had always centred round a “short handy ship.” They had also always embodied the maximum of protection, while these ships carried medium armour only. His ships had, further, always been characterised by extremely strong construction, while these verged on the flimsy, the scantlings being far lighter than in British naval practice.

Out of all which it has been held that they represented the Reed ideal of armoured cruisers interlaced with whatever limitations the Chilian authorities may have specified.

Particulars of these ships, which in 1903 were purchased for the British Navy and renamed _Swiftsure_ (ex _Constitucion_) and _Triumph_ (ex _Libertad_):--

Displacement--11,800. Complement, 700.

Length--(over all) 470ft.

Beam--71ft.

Draught--(Maximum) 24ft. 8in.

Armament--Four 10-inch, 45 cal.; fourteen 7.5-inch, 50 cal.;
fourteen 14-pounders, four 6-pounders, four Maxims; two 18-inch
submerged tubes.

Armour--Practically complete belt 8ft. wide, 7-inch thick
amidships, reduced to 3-inch at ends. 10-inch bulkheads at ends
of thick portion of belt. Redoubt above (250ft. long), 7-inch on
sides 6-inch bulkheads to it. Deck 1½-inch on slopes amidships,
3-inch on slopes at ends. Barbettes 10-inch, with 8 to 6-inch
turrets. Battery and upper deck casemates, 7-inch.

Horse-power--14,000 = 20 knots. Yarrow boilers.

Coal--(normal) 800 tons; (maximum) 2,000 tons.

These ships compare interestingly with the _King Edwards_ and _Devonshires_, between which they struck a mean, as follows:--

===============+=================+===============+===============
| _King Edward._ | _Swiftsure._ | _Devonshire._
---------------+-----------------+---------------+---------------
Displacement | 16,350 | 11,800 |10,850
Principal Guns | 4--12in. | 4--10in. | 4--7.5.
| 4--9.2 | 14--7.5 | 6--6in.
| 16--6in. | |
| 5--18in. tubes | 2--18in. tubes| 2--18in. tubes
---------------+-----------------+---------------+---------------
Armour belt | 9--2in. | 7--3in. | 6--2in.
Speed | 18.9 knots | 20 knots | 22.25 knots
Coal (Normal) | 950 | 800 | 800
Coal (Maximum) | 2,150--400 (oil)| 2,000 | 1,800
===============+=================+===============+===============

Other items of interest are that the armament of the _Swiftsures_ (10-inch and 7.5’s) had somewhere about that time been laid down by Admiral Fisher as the ideal armament of the future, on the principle that the best possible was “the smallest effective big gun, and the largest possible secondary gun.”

In service these ships never proved brilliantly successful. They rarely managed to make their speeds successfully, and there was a great deal of vibration with them. They were shored up internally in places with a view to strengthening them. On the other hand, it should be mentioned that some of these alleged defects have been put down to conservatism in nautical ideas, and that the shoring up was not really required. Their great drawback was that so far as the British Navy was concerned they were neither one thing nor the other, being too light in heavy guns to be satisfactory with the battleships, and too slow to act with the cruisers. Had there been six or so of them they would, possibly enough, have formed an ideal squadron. Being two ships only, they of necessity became round pegs in square holes.

_NAVAL ESTIMATES IN THE ERA._

===========+=============+============+=====================================
Financial | | | Ships.
Year. | Amount. | Personnel. +--------------+-----------+----------
| | | | Armoured | Protected
| | | Battleships. | Cruisers. | Cruisers.
-----------+-------------+------------+--------------+-----------+----------
1887–88 | 12,476,800 | 62,500 | -- | -- | 3
1888–89[22]| 13,082,800 | 62,500 | -- | -- | 2
1889–90 | 13,685,400 | 62,400 | -- | -- | --
1890–91 | 13,786,600 | 65,400 | 8 | -- | 42
1891–92 | 14,557,856 | 68,800 | 2 | -- | --
1892–93 | 14,240,200 | 67,700 | 1 | -- | --
1893–94 | 14,340,000 | 70,500 | 6 | -- | 2
1894–95 | 17,365,900 | 83,000 | 3 | -- | 9
1895–96 | 18,701,000 | 88,850 | -- | -- | 8
1896–97 | 21,823,000 | 93,750 | 6 | -- | 3
1897–98 | 21,838,000 | 100,050 | 7 | 6 | --
1898–99 | 23,780,000 | 106,390 | 3 | 4 | --
1899–00 | 26,594,000 | 110,640 | 2 | 2 | 1
1900–01 | 28,791,900 | 114,880 | 2 | 6 | 1
1901–02 | 30,875,500 | 118,625 | 3 | 6 | --
1902–03 | 31,255,500 | 122,500 | 2 | 2 | --
===========+=============+============+==============+===========+==========

In the following year 1903–04 three ships (the last of the _King Edwards_) were provided for. The total number of battleships designed for the British Navy by Sir William White was therefore 48. There were in addition 26 armoured cruisers--making a total of 74 armoured ships, and about as many protected cruisers, including some for Colonial service.

III.

THE WATTS ERA.

Sir William White was succeeded by Mr., afterwards Sir Philip Watts, who came to the Admiralty from Elswick, where he had been Chief Constructor. He came with the reputation of “putting in plenty of guns,” and his appointment was favourably received, both inside the Navy and outside.

The armoured cruisers _Duke of Edinburgh_ and _Black Prince_ were the first ships for which he was personally responsible.

Details of these:--

Displacement--13,550 tons.

Length (between perpendiculars)--480ft.

Beam--73½ft.

Draught--(maximum) 27½ft.

Armament--Six 9.2, 45 cal., ten 6-inch, 50 cal.; twenty-two
3-pounders. Torpedo tubes:--Three submerged (18in.).

Horse-power--23,500 = 22.3 knots.

Coal--(normal) 1,000 tons; (maximum) 2,000; also 400 tons of oil.

The former ship was laid down at Pembroke and engined by Hawthorn; the latter was built and engined by the Thames Iron Works. In the matter of armament and its arrangement the ships were to some extent cruiser versions of the _King Edward_; but equally, in the adoption of a number of single gun-houses for big guns, and the jump from two to a larger number of big guns, the influence of the Chilian _O’Higgins_, built at Elswick, may be noticed. The big guns were placed one forward and one aft, two on either beam and two on either quarter. The 6-inch were placed in an armoured battery below. As originally designed, right ahead fire was given to the forward battery guns, but this was dispensed with at a later date. The ships were never good sea boats, and the 6-inch guns were soon found to be well-nigh useless in any sea.

The armour was disposed in generous fashion--a complete belt reaching up to the main deck, 4in. forward, 6in. for some 260ft. amidships, and 3in. aft of that. A 6in. battery (K.N.C.) with bulkheads surmounts the belt-7in. barbettes with 6in. K.C. flat-sided gunhouses.

Both were given a mixed installation of Babcock and cylindrical boilers. A novelty was the standardisation of all their machinery, a very valuable innovation, which has been followed ever since. Parts of any one ship’s machinery can be used for any other of her class, thus facilitating rapid repairs and requiring a considerably reduced stock of spares.

On trials the _Duke of Edinburgh_ did on her eight hours’ full power trial I.H.P. 23,685 = 22.84 knots, the _Black Prince_ 23,939 = 23.6 knots. In service, however, the former has generally proved the better steamer. Another innovation in these ships was the re-appearance of the stern torpedo tube, first introduced in the _Centurions_. As re-introduced it was built submerged, a feature long desired, but which had previously presented innumerable difficulties in design.

SWIFTSURE.

WATTS ERA.
LORD NELSON.
BLACK PRINCE.
WARRIOR.
MINOTAUR.

PRE-DREADNOUGHTS OF THE WATTS ERA.]

For the Estimates of the following year (1903–04) four more ships of the same type were provided--

In these the defect of the low 6-in. battery of the _Black Princes_ was anticipated, and instead of ten 6-inch guns, four 7.5 were mounted in gun-houses on the upper deck amidships. Yarrow and cylindrical boilers mixed were installed. Otherwise no change was made. On trial the _Achilles_ reached a maximum of 23.27, the other three ships all made their contracts or over.

These four, generally known as the _Warriors_, proved to be the finest cruisers as sea-boats ever built for the British Navy. They have always proved most remarkably steady gun platforms. Shooting from them is invariably good--they have always been near the top of the list in gunnery returns. For a single ship in a single commission good shooting is attributable to causes other than the ship; but with four ships and different crews at different times the effect of the design is obvious. Apparently the extra weight on their upper decks is responsible; for their dimensions are identical with those of the unsatisfactory _Black Princes_.

In all these ships, as in the _Devonshires_ which preceded them, raking masts and stumpy funnels were introduced. The latter proved most inconvenient for navigating purposes, and in 1911 all the _Warriors_ had their funnels considerably heightened.

In these four latter the “dove-cot” platform fire-controls first appeared; they were fitted also to the three latest ships of the _King Edward_ class.

The main defect of all six is the trivial anti-torpedo armament. The 3-pounders are perfectly useless against destroyers. Incidentally it may be noticed that the class signalled the scientific placing of such guns for control purposes. In the _Warriors_ some guns were mounted on turret tops also, this being with a view to their survival after an action. It was contended that an actual hit was extremely improbable on any anti-t.b. guns, but that shells bursting underneath might easily disable them. Hence the search for an armoured base. This idea seems to have originated in the German Navy, though the Germans never adopted the turret-top position.

The Estimates (1904–05) provided for two battleships and three armoured cruisers. The latter of these, the _Minotaur_ class, were “improved _Warriors_”; but, as a matter of fact, except for a larger armament, they proved somewhat inferior to their immediate predecessors:--

Details are:

Displacement--14,600 tons (as against 13,550).

Length (between perpendiculars)--490ft., (over all) 525ft.

Beam--74½ft. (but a foot more in _Shannon_).

Draught--(maximum) 28ft. (but a foot less in _Shannon_).

Armament--Four 9.2, 50 cal., ten 7.5, fourteen 12-pounders, five
18in. tubes (submerged).

Horse-power--27,000 = 23 knots.

Coal--(normal) 1,000 tons (950 only in _Shannon_); (maximum) 2,000,
also 400 tons oil.

The 9.2 were placed in double turrets fore and aft. For those of the _Minotaur_ electric manœuvring was substituted for the usual hydraulic. The 7.5’s are disposed in ten single gun houses on the upper deck, _Warrior_ fashion. The armour belt is of the same maximum thickness, but only 3in. for 50ft. from the bow. Thereafter it thickens gradually for the next 75ft. then reaches its maximum. Vertical armour above the main deck was given up in order to allow for the increased weight of armament and its protection--a total of 2,073 tons. The _Minotaur_ has Babcock, the other two Yarrow large-tube boilers. No cylindricals were fitted; the opponents of the water-tube system having lost their influence by 1905, when the ships were laid down.

None of these ships came up to expectations on trial, though they developed considerably more than the contract horse-power. The _Minotaur_ just made her speed, the _Defence_ just failed to reach it, the _Shannon_ failed by half-a-knot. This last ship had been varied from the others with an idea that a new form of hull, would produce better speed--an unfortunate surmise. Shortly after completion all had 15ft. added to their funnels. The increased draught added to their power somewhat, but did not materially better their speeds.

Further details of these three ships are:--

All were completed in 1908. Average cost, £1,400,000 per ship. In them solid bulkheads first appear, their engine-rooms having no water-tight doors.

The battleships of the same programme (1904–05) were the _Lord Nelson_ and _Agamemnon_.

Details are:--

Displacement--16,500 tons.

Length (between perpendiculars)--410 ft., (over all) 445ft.

Beam--79½ft.

Draught--(mean) 27ft.

Armament--Four 12-inch, 45 cal., ten 9.2, 50 cal. fifteen
12-pounders, sixteen 3-pounders, five submerged tubes (18in.).

Horse-power--16,750 = 18.5 knots.

Coal--(normal) 900 tons; (maximum) 2,000 tons; also 400 tons oil.

The _Lord Nelson_ was built and engined by Palmer, the _Agamemnon_ by Beardmore and engined by Hawthorn. The former was given Babcock, the latter Yarrow boilers. Both on trial easily exceeded the contract speed, and proved abnormally handy ships. They cost £1,500,000 or only a little more than the _Minotaurs_.

The _Nelsons_ are often counted as “Dreadnoughts”; but their only claim to the position is they do not happen to carry any 6-inch guns. Actually they are nothing but improved _King Edwards_, bearing to those ships very much the same relation as the _Warriors_ to the _Black Princes_. Their comparatively slow speeds and their mixed armaments entirely differentiate them from the swifter “all-big-gun” ship which followed, and, for that matter, caught them up.[23]

The _Nelsons_ were never really successful ships outside the points alluded to above. Eight of their ten 9.2’s were placed in twin turrets, and in many circumstances two 9.2 so mounted proved very little superior in efficiency to a similar single gun in an isolated gun-house.[24]

In the matter of protection the _Nelsons_ far exceeded the _King Edwards_. In place of a 9in. belt amidships they were given a 12in. one, while the 8in. and 6in. strakes above of the earlier ships became a uniform 8in. The bow belt forward was also augmented to 6in. on the water-line, surmounted by 4in., instead of a belt uniformly increasing from 2in. to 6in. further aft. But none of this made them “Dreadnoughts,” and the absence of “Dreadnought” features relegated them to the second line very soon after they were completed.

In these ships the tripod mast, the idea of which dates back to the _Captain_ era, re-appeared. The _Nelsons_ were given as mainmasts the first of those modern tripods which have characterised nearly every British capital ship since built till the _Lion_ was altered.

The idea of the tripod mast is to avoid the many shrouds of an ordinary mast; and so give greater training to the guns. Whether the idea be of use is another matter. Generally speaking ideas abandoned by our forefathers have failed to live long if resuscitated.

In the 1902–03 and 1903–04 Estimates provision was made for four vessels each year of a new type, known as “Scouts.” These were the _Adventure_ and _Attentive_ (Elswick), _Forward_ and _Foresight_ (Fairfield), _Pathfinder_ and _Patrol_ (Laird), _Sentinel_ and _Skirmisher_ (Vickers-Maxim). One was awarded each year to each of the firms mentioned, but all were actually laid down between June, 1903, and January, 1904. The first four to be given out to contract were originally named _Eddystone_, _Nore_, _Fastnet_, and _Inchkeith_.

These vessels came to be built owing to an appreciation of the fact that destroyers had altogether lost their original rôle and had become torpedo-boats, pure and simple. The “Scouts,” though from three to four times the size, were the old “catchers” re-introduced.

They compared with these as follows:--

A 1½ deck on slopes amidships was provided for the “Scouts,” which incidentally were designed for ten 12-pounders only. By the year 1912 it became abundantly clear that, like their predecessors the “catchers,” they were doomed to pass quickly into the “little use” category on account of their weak armaments and small sea-keeping capacity.

_TORPEDO CRAFT._

It has already been mentioned that Sir William White’s period of office saw the coming of the destroyer. The origin of this craft is to be found in a public agitation, which arose out of the tremendous attention paid to torpedo boats by the French, who were then our most likely enemy, and who had an overwhelming superiority in torpedo craft.

Some years before a type of craft, the torpedo gunboats already referred to, which were first known as “torpedo boat catchers” and subsequently as “catchers” had been introduced. It soon, however, became very clear that they were little likely to achieve this end, and the doctrine that “the torpedo boat is the answer to the torpedo boat” was being steadily preached. At that time (1892) the then insignificant navy of Germany was in possession of eight very large torpedo boats, which were known as “division boats.” Austria also had one or two fast craft, capable of dealing with torpedo boats. Upon these existing lines a new type of craft was developed for the British Navy. The first two to be built were the _Havock_ and _Hornet_, which were launched in 1893. In substance they were very large torpedo boats of about 250 tons displacement, designed by Messrs. Yarrow. Their speed of 27 knots was well in excess of that of any existing torpedo boat, and it was confidently expected that they would easily run down and destroy any such. In addition to what was then the very considerable armament of one 12-pounder and three 6-pounders, they were also fitted with torpedo tubes.[26] The original idea of this was that when hostile torpedo boats had been annihilated by them, the destroyers could be used as torpedo boats in case of need.

In 1894 the _Havock_ and _Hornet_ were used in manœuvres and tested by being made to lie by for twenty-four hours in the Bay of Biscay. They underwent the test very well, and to this is probably attributed the realisation of the fact that in them a more or less really effective sea-going torpedo boat had been evolved. A large number of duplicates were ordered; at first of 27 knots. Later this was increased to 30, and in a few boats to a little more.

The whole of these boats were nothing but enlarged editions of existing torpedo boats, and some of them proved rather weak for the service demanded of them. In the year 1902 and onwards, therefore, a type of better sea-going qualities was demanded, and the River class, which totalled about 35 boats, began to be built. A feature of the River class was that they were a blend of the early torpedo gunboats of the Rattlesnake type, with the later and heavier torpedo gunboats. There was a reduction of speed to 25½ knots, with a view to securing better sea-going qualities. On account of their slow speed the River class are verging on the obsolete to-day, but the high forecastle first embodied in them has never been departed from, and the very latest types of destroyers are nothing but swifter and larger editions of them.

It is interesting to note that here again to some extent the Germans led the way. German destroyers had the North Sea to consider, whereas all early British destroyers were built with a view to being used only in the Channel. Consequently and naturally enough the Germans were the first to perceive the necessity for a high forecastle.

The submarine also appeared in the pre-Dreadnought era, but the boats of that time were of such a primitive type that they need hardly be specially mentioned. They will be found alluded to in a later chapter.

_END OF THE PRE-DREADNOUGHT ERA._

So ended the pre-Dreadnought era. It was characterised by a multiplicity of types which had included:--

First class battleships.
Second class battleships.
Fast intermediate battleships.
First rate armoured cruisers.
Second rate armoured cruisers.
First class protected cruisers.
Second class protected cruisers.
Third class protected cruisers.
Scouts.
Torpedo gunboats.
Sloops.
Gunboats.
Destroyers.
Torpedo boats.
Submarines.

Although the whole of these types were not all building or provided for at any one and the same time, yet towards the end of the period there was a general feeling that too many types of ships were in use. Reductions in this direction were announced, at first indicating that in future programmes provision would be made only for:--

“Armoured ships.”
Destroyers.
Submarines.

Contemporaneously with this came Admiral Fisher’s famous “scrap-heap policy,” whereby some eighty vessels of one kind and another were struck off the effective list, and either sold or relegated to subsidiary service.

The ships removed included all battleships and armoured cruisers of earlier date than the _Trafalgar_, several ships of the _Apollo_ class, all earlier protected cruisers, some of the “P” class, and the bulk of the small fry in the way of sloops and gunboats.

This action aroused a certain amount of criticism on the grounds that the clearance was excessive. As some of the ships were subsequently restored to the active list, something is undoubtedly to be said for that point of view; especially as no steps were taken to replace the scrapped cruisers. On the other hand, most of the ships removed were of trivial fighting value; though here again the zeal of the reformer somewhat overlooked the fact that the police duties rendered by the small fry had been valuable.

In connection with this policy some of the outlying naval bases were done away with, and there commenced a “reorganisation” of the Fleet which has continued intermittently from that day to this! Certain other considerable changes affecting the _personnel_ will be found dealt with in a later chapter.

IV.

THE DREADNOUGHT ERA--(WATTS).

A new era in battleship design, not only for the British Navy, but for the navies of the entire world, was opened with the advent of the _Dreadnought_. As has been seen, it was in a way led up to by previous designs, notably the _Lord Nelson_ class. The essential point of difference, however, lies in the fact that whereas the _Lord Nelson_ carries heavy guns of two calibres, in the _Dreadnought_ the main armament is confined to one calibre only. The advantages of this on paper are not particularly great, but for practical purposes, such as fire control and so forth, the superiority to be obtained by a uniformity of big gun armament is tremendous.

As the historical portion of this book indicates, the “Dreadnought idea” has been a fairly regular feature of British Naval Policy, but in this particular case the inception would seem to have been due to accident and circumstance rather than to any settled policy.

Immature and abortive attempts to realise something of the “Dreadnought ideal” had taken place in the past. The earliest ship claimed to represent the Dreadnought ideal was the U.S. _Roanoake_, built at the time of the Civil War. This was a high freeboard ship, fitted with three turrets in the centre line. A few years later something of the same sort found expression in the four-turreted British _Royal Sovereign_ and _Prince Albert_, though these were merely coast defence ships. Still later in the _Tchesma_ class, Russian, and in the _Brandenburg_ class of the German Navy, six big guns were installed as the primary armament. Both these two ideas were laughed out of existence; and it became a settled fashion to carry four big guns, two forward and two aft.

Matters were at this stage when the late “Colonel” Cuniberti, Constructor to the Italian Navy, conceived the idea of a ship carrying a considerable number of big guns, and embodying in herself the power of two or three normal battleships. This design was considered altogether too ambitious for the Italian Navy; but permission was given him to publish the general idea, subject to official revision. It first saw the light in “_Fighting Ships_,” in 1903, and is now so historically interesting that I here reproduce the article in full, the original being long since out of print:--

“Admiral Sir John Hopkins, late Controller of the British Navy, in his admirable article, ‘Intermediates for the British Fleet,’ published in the last edition (1902) of this Annual, asks what results it would be possible to obtain in the British Navy by extending the ideas of the two Italian Ministers of Marine, Admiral Morin and Admiral Bettolo, which were translated into fact in the _Vittorio Emanuele III_ (12,625 tons), so as to arrive at the much greater tonnage of recent British battleships, in the same manner as the ideas that found concrete form in the projected vessels of the _Amalfi_ class were amplified and realised in the Italian battleships alluded to and regarding which, even now, so many doubts are expressed as to such realisation being practicable.

“To proceed from 8,000 to 12,000, and from 12,000 to 17,000 tons of displacement, constitutes not only a problem of naval architecture, but also involves high considerations of quite another nature, such as the special functions of the Fleet, so as to harmonise with the political objects of any given maritime Power, the geographical position of that Power, the state of its finances, etc., etc. So that not only does the answer to such a question entail a certain amount of difficulty from the constructive point of view, but before the answer can be seriously considered it is absolutely necessary to determine exactly what end this ideal British battleship is to serve; for it is not to be imagined that we are going merely to enlarge the _Vittorio Emanuele_ until we arrive at a displacement equal to that of the _King Edward VII._ For example, putting an extra 4,000 tons on board will produce a vessel that will perhaps be a little steadier in heavy weather than the original ship.

* * * * *

“In Britain are to be found naval experts of the highest possible order, and they will have their own ideas as to what type of vessels best fulfil the needs and ideals of the British Fleet, so that it would almost appear a presumption on my part to offer suggestions for any Navy other than the Italian. But in deference to the courteous interrogation of Admiral Hopkins I may be permitted to point out that from the purely human point of view there are two leading methods by which one can strike to the ground one’s opponent, either by gradually developing the attack and disposing of him little by little, or, on the other hand, killing him at one blow without causing him prolonged suffering. In like manner there are two distinct modes of sending an enemy’s ship to the bottom.

“Let us take, for example, a human combat. The first--the most commonly used, and the most practical in the majority of cases--has as its basis the progressive dismemberment of the enemy.

“Two mortal foes place themselves on guard at a distance; they begin with exceptional strokes, with feints, with opportune advances and retreats, never coming to close quarters for a deadly blow until the capabilities of the enemy, both offensive and defensive, are well tested, and until some fortunate stroke, even although not actually deadly, has considerably weakened the foe, has rendered his defence less able, and has somewhat demoralised him. Covered with blood, stunned, mutilated, and hardly capable of remaining on his feet, then comes the moment when his adversary closes in upon him and delivers the final and mortal blow. And we may almost imagine we hear the beaten one, with thick and choking voice, repeat the terrible words of Francesco Ferruccio at the battle of Gavinana: ‘Maramaldo, thou but killest a man already dead!’

“Similarly, two opposing ships, with but slight differences in their powers, will commence their combat at a great distance, utilising their evolutionary abilities and their speed in prudent manœuvres, seeking to gain as much advantage as possible from their offensive powers, and attempting to place every obstacle in the way of the antagonist utilising powers in either direction. The discharge of projectiles will commence in earnest, greatly assisted by the rapid loading of which the guns of medium and small calibre are now capable. What results can reasonably be expected from the discharge of the smaller guns at such great distances is hard to say; nor can the slender expectation of, let us say, chancing to hit the captain of the opposing ship in the eye with a lucky shot, at all justify such a waste of ammunition. Gradually nearing one another, the ships manœuvring less freely, hits will become more dangerous; the boats that were not set adrift before the action began will be alight and burning fiercely; the cowls of the wind trunks, the funnels, and the masts will be in fragments.

“The crew, wounded and reduced in numbers, will have lost their calm, and consequently the firing will have become wilder; finally, one of the two antagonists will get in a lucky shot that will disable the other. She will speedily become unmanageable, and her enemy will as speedily close into within the thousand metres which will permit of a torpedo being launched with every chance of success, or the battle may be concluded by a final rush and the point of the ram.

“As the wounded hull sinks slowly beneath the waves, the flag which had put such heart into the crew, and the sight of which had spurred them to fight to the last, may well seem as it disappears to repeat to the enemy these sad words, ‘Thou but slayest one already dead.’

“Four ships in place of two, eight in place of four, will repeat in a perhaps more complex action the same phases of attack, and the same foolish waste of ammunition, which in these days causes the greatest preoccupation of those who, having to design warships, must decide on the quantity of ammunition and projectiles provided for each different calibre of the armament.

* * * * *

“There is, however, another method of fighting and sending your enemy to the bottom; but it is one that is capable of adoption only by a Navy at the same time most potent and very rich.

“Let us imagine a vessel whose armour is so well distributed and so impervious as to be able to resist all the attacks of an enemy’s artillery with the exception of the projectiles of the 12-inch guns. Such a ship could approach her enemy without firing a shot, without wasting a single round of ammunition, absolutely regardless of all the scratchings that her antagonist might inflict on the exterior of her armour plates.

“And as to-day the belts of fighting ships are generally of such thickness that, when we leave the results of the proving ground and come to the conditions of actual combat, we find that it would be more than difficult to penetrate them with 6-inch guns, we see at once that it would be useless to equip our contemplated ship with such artillery.

Previous Next

Comments

The British battle fleet, Vol. 2 (of 2)Chapter III: Part 3

0%36 min left in chapter