War-ships of all Sorts
"The King's Navy exceeds all others in the World for
three things, viz.: Beauty, Strength, and Safety. For
Beauty, they are so many Royal Palaces; for Strength,
so many moving Castles and Barbicans; and for Safety,
they are the Most Defensive Walls of the Realm.
Amongst the Ships of other Nations, they are like
Lions amongst silly Beasts, or Falcons, amongst
fearful Fowle."--_Lord Cokes Fourth Institute._
IN a previous chapter was set forth the story of the evolution of our
battleships, up to and including the famous _Dreadnought_ of 1907, the
so-called "first all-big-gun type". As there had been several
"all-big-gun ships" among our earlier ironclads, this description seems
hardly warranted. However, the _Dreadnought_ stands pre-eminent as the
first of the modern type of battleship, though in power, speed, tonnage,
and general efficiency she has been far out-classed by the successive
batches of Super-Dreadnoughts which have followed her, which are
represented by the _Bellerophon_, _St. Vincent_, _Colossus_, _Orion_,
_King George V_, _Iron Duke_, and, last of all, the monster _Queen
Elizabeth_, or "_Lizzie_" as she is irreverently called. To describe
this latest product of the naval designer's art is the best way of
explaining what a really modern battleship is like.
The _Queen Elizabeth_, then, is 600 feet in length--that is to say, just
200 yards. Think of the distance you have often seen measured off for a
hundred-yards' race, multiply it by two, and you will have some idea of
what this means. Or, if you have ever done any shooting on the range,
try to remember how far off the 200-yard target looked, and you will
realize what must be the size of a ship long enough to cover all the
ground between it and the firing-point. (The _Dreadnought_, by the way,
was only 490 feet in length.) The beam of the _Queen Elizabeth_ is 92
feet--10 feet more than that of the _Dreadnought_. You may well imagine
that the tonnage, or weight of water displaced, by a ship of these
dimensions is enormous, and so it is, being no less than 27,500 tons!
So, also, is the horse-power of her engines--58,000! But when we know
that they have to be able to drive this leviathan through the water at a
speed of 25 knots an hour, we can well understand the necessity for
powerful engines. To feed their furnaces 4000 tons of fuel are carried.
It is not coal, but what is known as "heavy oil", arrangements having
been made by the Admiralty for an immense quantity of this fuel, which
is considered to have many advantages over coal. Earlier ships carry a
proportion of both coal and oil. The engines are, of course, of the
turbine type, which has entirely superseded the old reciprocating
engines in the Royal Navy.
"The introduction of the turbine engine", writes a naval officer, "has
revolutionized the appearance of the engine-room. The flashing
piston-rods and revolving cranks have vanished. All the driving-power of
the ship is hidden in some mahogany-sheathed horizontal cylinders, and
there is nothing to indicate that the engines are in movement but a
small external dial and needle no larger than a mantelpiece clock,
attached to each of the shafts, of which there are two in each
engine-room."[68]
The _Queen Elizabeth_ can hardly be called an "all-big-gun ship", since
besides the eight huge 15-inch guns which form her principal armament
she carries sixteen 6-inch quick-firing guns, firing projectiles of 100
pounds weight, and about a dozen little cannon specially mounted for
firing up at Zeppelins or aeroplanes. But her 15-inch guns are the
biggest and most powerful cannon now afloat. Not only do they fire huge
elongated shells of 1950 pounds weight, but their range and accuracy is
most remarkable. We have seen a little of what they can do in the
Dardanelles, when the ship, steaming well out at sea, pitched these
terrible projectiles right over the peninsula of Gallipoli, to descend
like a combination earthquake and avalanche upon the Turkish forts in
the straits. The _Dreadnought_ had 12-inch guns firing 850-pound
projectiles, but she carried ten to the four of all her predecessors.
But though the _Queen Elizabeth_ had to give up one turret,[69] and
therefore two guns, in order to make room for more boiler-power for the
production of greater speed, her broadside totals 15,600 pounds of metal
as against the 8500 of the earlier war-ship, or the 12,500 pounds of
later Super-Dreadnoughts armed with ten 13-1/2-inch big guns. But the
ability to throw heavier projectiles was by no means the only reason for
increasing the calibre of our big guns. The fact was that gradual
improvements in the 12-inch gun had made it so long in proportion to its
calibre that there was an imperceptible sort of "whip" at the muzzle on
discharge that was yet quite enough to interfere with its accuracy.[70]
So we brought out the 13.5-inch, a most formidable weapon, and, later
on, the 15-inch gun. With each of these the difficulty of making sure of
hitting at long range decreased, and the encounters in the war that have
taken place between our ships and those of the Germans which have had
the temerity to put their noses outside their harbour defences have all
gone to prove the previously-advanced theory that the battles of the
immediate future will take place at immense ranges, at which the smaller
guns and torpedoes cannot be effectively used.
[Illustration: DECK OF A _DREADNOUGHT_ CLEARED FOR ACTION]
It would be superfluous to describe the general appearance of the _Queen
Elizabeth_ in words, the photograph opposite presenting it better than
the most detailed description: but it may be fairly said that while in
picturesque beauty modern battleships cannot compete with the
masterpieces of "the days of wood and hemp", there is yet an appearance
of power, proportion, and impressiveness about them which forms a
combination that may be almost called a beauty in itself. In the same
way we may compare the plain, severe beauty of the Parthenon at Athens
with the elaborately carved, gilded, and painted workmanship of a
Japanese temple. Both are attractive to the eye in their own peculiar
and far differing ways. In the old wooden ships an appreciable
proportion of their cost went in decoration alone, but out of the
£2,400,000 expended on the "_Lizzie_" such expenditure may be set down
practically as _nil_. A plain slate-coloured coat of paint, extending
from truck to water-line, is all the painter has had to do with her
external appearance.
The turrets in which the _Queen Elizabeth's_ big guns are carried are
four in number, and are placed on the centre line of the ship--two
forward and two aft. Each turret contains a pair of guns, and the two
innermost turrets are perched up on a species of protected tower or
pedestal in such a way that they can fire directly over the foremost and
aftermost turrets. By this arrangement four guns can be discharged dead
ahead, four astern, and the whole eight on either broadside. We have
been some time evolving this arrangement of turrets--in point of fact
some foreign "Dreadnoughts" were the first to adopt it.
Our original _Dreadnought_ had five turrets, three on the centre line of
the ship and one on either broadside. The same arrangement was carried
out in the _Bellerophon_ and _St. Vincent_ classes, which followed her,
but in the _Colossus_ class, which succeeded them, the position of the
five turrets was altered. There was one right forward on the centre line
of the ship, then one on the port side, and farther aft another on the
starboard side. In fact, these two turrets were arranged _en echelon_,
just as they were in the earlier _Colossus_ and other ships. The fourth
and fifth turrets were on the centre line, and the fourth was able to
fire over the fifth, just as the second can fire over the first in the
_Queen Elizabeth_. In the _Orion_ class, which came next, the same
arrangement as in the _Queen Elizabeth_ was followed, but as there was
an additional turret it was placed by itself right amidships. No change
in this respect was made in the _King Georges_.
We must not leave our typical modern battleship without some reference
to the way in which she is protected by armour. As in all such ships,
the armour-plating is distributed (_a_) to protect her flotation and
(_b_) to protect her guns. With the former object in view she has a
broad water-line belt of the finest and strongest 13-1/2-inch armour
procurable, which is supplemented by an armoured deck of considerable
thickness. Each turret stands on a species of armoured tower, going
right down to the armoured deck, and is itself made of 13-1/2-inch
armour. Her flotation is further safeguarded by minute subdivision below
the water-line.
"Long experience of naval war has established a belief, shown by the
practice of maritime powers to be unanimous, that a navy should comprise
three great classes of ships, these classes admitting of much internal
subdivision. In the period of the great naval wars there were ships of
the line, frigates, and small craft. These are now represented by
battleships, cruisers, and smaller and special-service vessels.
Individuals of the first-mentioned class are intended to fight in large
groups, that is to say, in fleet actions; those of the second class are
intended for solitary service, or, at any rate, to fight only in small
groups; while those of the third are intended, according to the
subdivision to which they belong, for a variety of special purposes." So
writes Admiral Sir Cyprian Bridge in his _Art of Naval Warfare_, and his
definitions are clear and compact.
With the battleship class we have already dealt, both as regards its
evolution and present-day pitch of perfection; but want of space has
precluded any attempt to trace the evolution of the cruiser in the same
way. It is therefore necessary, before going on to describe the cruisers
of our modern navy, to glance, in the briefest possible manner, at
their predecessors of days gone by. Perhaps we may take the viking
_skuta_, or fast scouting vessel, as its first prototype, scouting being
one of the most important duties of a cruiser. Possibly the galleys and
balingers of mediæval times may be regarded as the _skuta's_ successors,
while the low-lying _Tiger_ and other ships of her class in Tudor reigns
may be considered as the immediate precursors of the famous frigates and
corvettes which figured so largely and did such yeoman service in our
eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century maritime campaigns. Our first
frigates were the _Satisfaction_, _Adventure_, _Nonsuch_, _Assurance_,
and _Constant Warwick_, all built in the year 1646; and from that time
up to about 1870 a constant succession of ships of this useful type were
added to the navy, the latest ones being, of course, steam frigates.
A frigate, according to an old work of 1771, was defined as "a light
nimble ship built for the purposes of sailing swiftly. These vessels
mount from twenty to thirty-eight guns, and are esteemed excellent
_cruisers_." The name was derived from _fregata_, a Mediterranean vessel
propelled both by sails and by oars. It is said the British navy was the
first to adopt frigates for use in war, but the French, and afterwards
the Americans, were generally successful in building the finest vessels
of this class. These ships were full-rigged, with three masts, and
carried all their principal guns in one battery on the main deck. The
corvette may be regarded as a smaller frigate, but was not square-rigged
on her mizzen-mast, and carried her main battery on her upper deck. This
later type of cruiser outlasted the frigate by some years, and the last
of them, such as the _Opal_ and other corvettes of the "Jewel" class,
were very handsome vessels, though by no means so formidable as the
pole-rigged cruisers which took their place.
The frigates in the old French War were considered "the eyes and ears of
the fleet". They sought out and reported the enemy, they attacked his
cruisers and commerce and protected our own, and fully justified their
name and the general reputation for smartness which they were accorded.
The duties of our cruisers of to-day are of a very similar kind,
although the invention of wireless telegraphy and the aeroplane has
supplemented and to some extent superseded their scouting work.
As for what they have actually done, we have only to recollect the
various incidents of the Great War as regards its aspects at sea. Acting
in unison with those of France and Japan, they have swept German
commerce and German cruisers from the face of the ocean, and so far,
except for shore bombardments and submarine attacks, have been the only
war-vessels engaged on either side. At the time of writing no
battleships have as yet been in action against one another, for we may
regard all those ships which have been reported in action at sea as
cruisers, from the big battle-cruiser _Lion_ down to the destroyers--and
even, perhaps, our submarines, which are very useful scouts.
Cruisers proper in our navy are now officially classed in three main
divisions--"battle-cruisers", "cruisers", and "light cruisers", though a
very short time ago they were subdivided into "armoured cruisers",
"first-class protected cruisers", "second-class protected cruisers",
"third-class protected cruisers", "unarmoured cruisers",
"lightly-armoured cruisers", and "scouts".
The battle-cruiser is a hybrid and, as this war has proved, a most
useful war-vessel. She is not so heavily armed or armoured as a
battleship of equivalent age, but has much greater speed. She is as big
or bigger, and costs just about as much. Thus the _Lion_ was launched in
the same year as the battleship _Orion_--1910. Note the comparison
below:--
Thickest
Displacement. Guns. Speed. Armour. Cost.
_Orion_ 22,300 Ten 13·5 in. 21 knots 12 in. £1,900,000
_Lion_ 26,350 Eight 13·5 in. 28 knots 10 in. 2,100,000
Thus it will be seen that of these two contemporary ships the
battle-cruiser is the bigger, cost £200,000 more, has two less big guns,
2 inches less protection, but steams at least 7 knots faster than the
battleship. Indeed, it is hard to say whether she is or is not, on the
whole, the more useful ship, even as a battleship. The Admiralty and
naval constructors would seem to incline to this opinion, for, as we
have seen in the latest battleship--the _Queen Elizabeth_--two guns have
been sacrificed for the sake of 4 knots more speed than the _Orion_.
The cruiser-battleship or battle-cruiser, then, not only has almost
precisely the same appearance as a battleship, though probably of rather
greater length, but has special battle duties as well as cruiser duties.
Thus, if working with battleships, it is her business to pursue an
enemy's battle squadron in retreat, and, by bringing its rearmost ships
to action, try to induce their consorts to stand by them till her own
slower but more powerfully gunned consorts can come up and take a hand.
As for her cruising duties, we have had conspicuous examples during the
course of the war, both as to the right and wrong way of such ships'
employment. The unexpected and opportune intervention of the
_Inflexible_ and _Invincible_ in the Falkland Islands battle, whose mere
appearance convinced von Spee that his "game was up"; and the way in
which Sir David Beatty was "on the spot" and swooped down on the German
North Sea raiders, are both excellent examples of the way these
formidable fighting-cruisers should be used. If you want to see "how not
to do it" you have only got to consider the misuse of the _Goeben_ in
the Mediterranean, where, after a useless bombardment of one or two not
very important Algerian towns, she fled for shelter to the Dardanelles,
instead of trying to break out into the Atlantic. It is claimed, of
course, that, but for her appearance at Constantinople, Turkey would not
have been drawn into the war on the side of Germany, but it is hard to
believe that the long-pursued German intrigues in Turkey would have all
gone for nothing without the arrival of the somewhat discredited
_Goeben_. Nor was the use of battle-cruisers to bombard a few
defenceless coast towns a sound method of strategy. As it was, they were
within an ace of being lost--and for what result? Absolutely _nil_ from
a military point of view. The battle-cruiser has a great future before
it, and it does not seem unlikely that, now that the enormous advantages
of high speed have been so clearly demonstrated, it will altogether
supersede the slower and heavier armed and armoured battleship proper.
After battle-cruisers we come to cruisers. Our typical modern cruisers
may be taken to be represented by the "_Defence_" and "_Achilles_"
classes, the latest of which dates from 1909. The former class have a
displacement of 14,600 tons apiece, and carry four 9·2 and ten 7·5 guns.
The latter are about 1000 tons smaller, and have an armament of six 9·2
and four 7·5 guns. Both types have 6- to 8-inch armour, and about 23
knots speed. They are exceedingly smart-looking vessels, with their
numerous turrets or gun-houses, four funnels, and two lightly-rigged
masts. They sit comparatively low in the water, and present an
appearance of both speed and war-like efficiency.
The "County" class of cruisers, which immediately preceded those just
mentioned, are considerably smaller, though to some minds but weakly
gunned for their size. None of them have heavier guns than 7·5-inch, and
most only 6-inch weapons. Neither have they a great deal of armour
protection or an extraordinary high rate of speed. As none have been
built within recent years, we may fairly assume that they are not
considered quite what we want at the present time, though many or most
of them have done excellent work in the present war. You will remember
how the _Kent_ and _Cornwall_ fought at the battle off the Falklands.
The "Town" class, of not much more than half the size, would appear to
have superseded the "Counties", and they, too, have been very much in
evidence in the hostilities which have been carried on afloat. The
biggest of these are of 5400 tons displacement, and carry eight 6-inch
guns, and as these are the latest cruisers built, with the exception of
the monster battle-cruisers, it seems likely that it is not intended to
have any cruisers of intermediate size. Big sparsely-armoured cruisers,
like the unfortunate _Good Hope_, which did not steam faster than
smaller ones, and which carried but a poor armament considering her size
and cost, cannot be considered a good investment. The "Town" class have
done splendidly in the war at sea. The _Birmingham_ had the distinction
of sinking the first German submarine; the plucky little _Gloucester_
hung closely on the heels of the giant _Goeben_ and her consort the
_Breslau_ during their flight to Constantinople, though one
well-directed shot from the former would have put her out of action and
probably sent her to the bottom. The _Glasgow_, _Carnarvon_, and
_Bristol_ were of great use in the Falklands fight, the first-named
having already fought against the heavy batteries of the _Scharnhorst_
and _Gneisenau_ off the coast of Chile, while later on she sank the
Dresden; while the _Sydney_ won undying fame by defeating and driving on
shore the notorious commerce-destroyer _Emden_.
Another distinctly modern type of cruiser is the "light cruiser", a fast
unprotected vessel with light guns of 4-inch calibre, which has proved
of immense value in the area of "liveliness" in the North Sea. The
_Amphion_ opened the ball by sinking the German mine-layer _Königin
Luise_ at the very opening of hostilities, but was very soon after
herself blown up by a mine the latter had laid. She, like her sisters,
was almost exactly like a big destroyer in appearance. The "Saucy"
_Arethusa_ has proved a worthy descendant of the famous frigate after
which she was named, and has more than once particularly distinguished
herself, notably in the fight off Heligoland. But space forbids more
than the mere mention of the smallest class of cruiser, the "scouts", of
just under 3000 tons, which are also extremely useful little vessels,
since it is necessary to give some account of destroyers and
submarines.
The destroyer was originally built to "destroy" the torpedo-boat, which,
from its small size, had its limitations in anything of a sea-way. The
earliest torpedo-boats were ordinary steamboats, such as are carried by
most ships of any size, fitted with a long spar with a tin of gun-cotton
at the end of it, which could be run out some way over the bows. The
idea was to approach an enemy's ship under cover of the darkness, lower
the outer end of the spar with its "torpedo" below the water-line, place
it in contact with the enemy's ship, and explode the charge by means of
an electric current. This seems a crude way of going to work, but
several ships have been sunk by its means, notably the Confederate ram
_Albemarle_, which was attacked by Lieutenant Cushing of the United
States navy in this way in the course of the Civil War in America.
Special boats were then made for this purpose, but the advent of the
"Whitehead" automobile torpedo provided them with a much more formidable
weapon. Naval powers built these "torpedo-boats" in considerable
numbers, and they were considered such a menace to bigger ships that the
destroyer, an almost exactly similar boat, but of larger size, was
designed to cope with them. In point of fact it did destroy them, for it
was found to be so much better an "all-round craft", not only for
attacking torpedo-boats, but to act as one itself, that the smaller
craft before long were entirely superseded by the destroyers. Beginning
about 1897 with boats of about 180 tons, armed with 6-pounder guns, we
have now improved our destroyers till at the present day our latest
types are more than twice as big, and are armed with 4-inch guns, which
give them a decided advantage over less heavily-gunned destroyers, as
has been amply demonstrated in more than one encounter with German
destroyers. The destroyer is used, generally speaking, for scouting
purposes, and especially to attack an enemy's submarines, which, if
caught at the surface, may be approached in a swift destroyer and sunk
by gun-fire before they are able to dive, or, with luck, may even be
rammed. Destroyers, too, may be used to attack at night as
torpedo-boats, or even in the course of a naval action if a favourable
opportunity offers; it will be remembered that the _Goliath_ was
torpedoed by a Turkish destroyer.
"Vessels of stealth", as submarines have been called, have now taken the
place of the obsolete torpedo-boat. The latter relied on torpedoing her
enemy under cover of the darkness, but the submarine is most dangerous
in day-time. At night it is almost impossible for her to find her target
or to estimate the speed at which she is travelling if under way,
without which knowledge it is extremely difficult to arrange for a
torpedo to intercept her course unless fired at very close quarters
indeed. As the particulars of our submarines are wisely kept secret, no
more can be said about them than is already public property.
The "E" class, our latest improved "Hollands", are 176 feet long, with a
beam of a little over 22 feet, and have a displacement--when
submerged--of 800 tons. When at the surface their heavy oil-engines, of
something like 2000 horse-power, enable them to travel at a speed of
from 16 to 20 knots. When under water the electric engines are brought
into play, but owing to the increased friction and larger area of the
vessel to be forced through the water the speed of the boat drops to 10
knots. Moreover, travelling at the most economical rate of speed, not
more than 140 knots can be negotiated when submerged, while at the
surface an "E" submarine can travel for no less than 5000 miles without
refilling her oil-tanks.
These boats preserve the "porpoise" shape, are equipped with wireless
apparatus, and provided with panoramic periscopes to enable them to
sight their target when submerged. There is no necessity nowadays to
describe the principle of a periscope, since little portable patterns of
this optical instrument, of various types, made for use in the trenches,
can be seen exposed for sale almost anywhere. But, of course, those in
use on a submarine are of a large and highly perfected type. The
conning-tower of the "E" boats is armoured, and they carry a couple of
quick-firing guns of 3 inches calibre in recesses on their decks, closed
in by folding doors. These little weapons can be quickly raised into
position by an arrangement of hydraulic machinery, and by merely
pressing a lever they sink down and are boxed in again in a second or
two.[71] They are so mounted as to be able to fire at a very high
elevation, in order to defend the boat against bomb-dropping air-ships
or aeroplanes, but, of course, can be used against surface vessels in
the same way as those of the German submarines, which have made several
attempts to sink merchantmen. As a modern Whitehead has a range of
something like 3 miles, travels at a speed of 50 miles an hour, and
carries a heavy charge of high explosive in its head, we need not dwell
on its formidable nature, which has been amply proved in the course of
the war. It has also been equally proved that it is almost impossible
for a submarine to torpedo a fast and well-handled vessel once it has
located the position of its attacker.
[Illustration: _Photo. Cribb, Southsea_
THE BRITISH SUBMARINE _E 2_
It was a boat of this class, _E9_, by which the German cruiser _Hela_
and a destroyer were sunk by Lieutenant Max Horton; and another, _E11_,
specially distinguished herself at the Dardanelles.]
"The modern submarine has every comfort commensurate with the size and
service of the vessel. The principal item making for comfort is, of
course, properly-prepared food.... As time passed, electric
cooking-apparatus was installed. This was always subject to the many
troubles inherent in early electrical heating-apparatus. However, the
idea was a step in advance. To-day there is installed a well-arranged
oven, four or five independent plates for cooking meats and vegetables,
and an urn for keeping coffee constantly hot and on tap when cruising.
All of these things, though small in themselves, make for contentment in
the crew."[72] Whether or not such cooking appliances are installed in
our own submarines I am unable to say, but there is no doubt that
everything necessary for the comfort of their crews has been provided by
the Admiralty, and the boats themselves are very like the American
submarines which are referred to above.
"Monitors" are novel vessels in our navy, and at present we have only
three of them--the _Humber_, _Mersey_, and _Severn_--which were
originally built for Brazil, but were acquired from their builders,
Vickers, Maxim, & Co., immediately on the outbreak of war. They proved
their usefulness by standing close inshore and attacking the flank of
the German advance on Nieuport in the fighting between that place and
Ostend which took place in the autumn of 1914. Their light draught of
water--under 9 feet--enabled them to do this, and rendered them very
difficult targets for the German submarines, which, moreover, could not
operate in such shoal water.
The appearance of the original _Monitor_ in the Civil War in America has
already been referred to. The United States Navy had a considerable
number of such vessels during and after that campaign. Russia also
purchased several of a similar type. But for many years, if we except a
few of an improved type which were built for the United States Navy
between 1885 and 1895, they fell quite into disuse, except for river
work. The Austrians have a small flotilla of such vessels on the Danube,
and Brazil has had others for use on the Amazon before the ones we took
over were ordered. It is, however, one would imagine, not without the
bounds of probability that there may be some return to the
shallow-draught "Monitor" type among the battleships of the future, as
being less vulnerable to torpedo attack. A battleship design put forward
some years ago by a Russian inventor, which he claimed to be nearly
torpedo-proof, certainly approximated somewhat to a "Monitor".
The three "Monitors" which were added to our own navy as described, are
of only 1200 tons displacement apiece. They are 265 feet long, with a
beam of 49 feet, and have a speed of 11-1/2 knots only. But it is
obvious that speed was of very secondary consideration for the purposes
for which they were designed. They have thin armour-plating on their
sides, and carry two 6-inch guns in a turret at the bows. Aft are a
couple of 4·7-inch howitzers under revolving shields, while half a dozen
machine-guns are mounted on their upper works. They are smart-looking
little craft, with one funnel and a single military mast with a
search-light platform.
* * * * *
Having described the various classes of our fighting-ships, we may for a
moment or two consider the subject of fighting tactics afloat. In the
old sailing-ship days it was the object of the commander of a
fighting-ship to get what was known as the "weather-gage" of his
opponent. Put into shore-going English, this meant that, as far as
possible, he kept his own ship between the direction of the wind and his
enemy, which enabled him to manoeuvre more easily, close in upon him or
not as he considered more advantageous to himself. The French were not
so keen in seeking for the weather-gage, since in that position it was
not so easy to break off the engagement and get away. This remark must
not be necessarily taken as imputing any want of courage to our then
gallant enemy, for whereas the Admiralty orders to our captains were to
find the enemy and "sink, burn, or destroy" him, those given to the
French naval officers impressed upon them that it was their first duty
to save their ships. The result was that though as a general rule our
sea-captains took the weather-gage whenever they could get it, there
were some of them who, according to a pamphlet published in 1766, were
fond of "engaging to leeward", to prevent an enemy from running away!
In fleet actions in Nelsonian times our object was to break the enemy's
line in one or more places, and, having effected this, to set upon the
broken portions with all the strength available and defeat them in
detail. This was the principle followed so successfully at Trafalgar.
Of course the leading ships of our two lines suffered severely from the
broadsides of the enemy as they approached him at right angles, but it
must be remembered that the range and efficiency of the guns of those
days was so limited that the leading and rear ships of the combined
French and Spanish fleets could not damage any of our rear ships very
much, nor even our leading ones. As for our own ships, we were prepared
to take this preliminary pounding and not really to begin our offensive
till we had broken their line and got within close range of that portion
of their fleet we intended to destroy first. If, as at the Nile, the
enemy foolishly chose to await our attack at anchor, it simplified
matters for us pretty considerably. We could, as we did, move towards
one end of their line at an angle on which we could exchange broadsides
as we advanced on equal terms, and as soon as one-half of our ships had
passed the flank selected for attack, both halves altered course so as
to move parallel to the line of anchored Frenchmen and engage half their
line with a superiority of two to one. Each French ship had to fight two
British ones, one on either side. The ships farther down the line could
do nothing to assist them unless they weighed anchor, made sail, and
broke their formation, and so simply lay there waiting their turn to be
dealt with.
Steam has, of course, put all this class of manoeuvring long out of
date, though as long as naval warfare endures on this earth the main
principle of attempting to take the enemy at a disadvantage must always
remain. In the early days of ironclads there were various theories as to
the best fighting-formations. There were advocates of "line ahead", that
is to say, each ship following the other in "Indian file"; of "line
abreast", in which ships advanced like a line of soldiers in "extended
order", and which necessitated that each ship should have a very
powerful "right ahead" fire; and various group formations. At the battle
of Lissa, in 1866, practically the only fleet engagement during the
ironclad period prior to the Chino-Japanese and Russo-Japanese wars,
the victorious Austrians attacked the Italian fleet in a wedge-shaped
formation; but they intended to use their rams and to fight at
absolutely close quarters, a procedure which in the present days of
long-range guns of tremendous power and extraordinary accuracy would be
almost, if not quite, impossible. The ram, moreover, is now practically
obsolete. In the naval actions in the Far East, to which reference has
been made, the generally adopted battle-formation was that of "line
ahead", the first of those explained above, and the ideal manoeuvre was
considered to be what was known as "crossing the T"--that is to say, to
get one's line of ships into such a position with regard to the enemy's
line that, while his represented the perpendicular part of the "T",
one's own would be in the place of the horizontal line forming the top
of the letter: in fact, to be in the same relative position as were the
enemy's fleet at Trafalgar to our advancing lines. With modern guns and
gunnery the whole fleet could concentrate on and smash up the leading
ships one after the other, those following in rear not being able to do
very much to assist them. Obviously it is the object of every fleet
commander to avoid being caught in this way. If he sees the enemy's line
are steering so as to cross his course at right angles, he will alter
course to one parallel to theirs. If within range, broadsides will
doubtless be exchanged while passing, but each opposing line will then
try to turn and cross the enemy's "T" for him by passing in rear of his
line. Both will be awake to this manoeuvre, so that if the manoeuvre
continues on normal lines the battle will resolve itself into two curved
lines of ships chasing each other round the circumference of a circle.
But varieties of speed, the disabling of some ships, and the menace of
destroyers or submarines will probably throw any such regular sequence
entirely out of gear, and, other things being equal, victory will
incline to the fleet whose commander is quickest to adapt its formation
to meet the sudden emergencies of the fighting and to turn them to his
own advantage. But he will not be able to do this unless his fleet is
well drilled in manoeuvre, and at least as capable of carrying out his
orders and signals with smartness and efficiency as that of the enemy.
[Illustration: Squadron in "Line on a Bearing" or "Bow and Quarter Line"
Observe the first position of the five battleships A, B, C, D, E
(shaded). Each can fire right ahead, right astern, and on both
broadsides. They are steering due west. Now suppose they all turn
directly south. They will then be in similar formation, as indicated by
a, b, c, d, e (unshaded).]
At the present time, perhaps what is known as the "line on a
bearing"--i.e. compass bearing--or "bow and quarter line" as it is
sometimes called, is the favourite formation, and there is a very great
deal to be said in its favour. It is what is known as an "echelon"
formation when applied to the manoeuvres of soldiers. The word "echelon"
is derived from the French _echelle_, a ladder, and the ships in this
case are disposed in a way suggestive of the steps of a ladder or stair.
Thus, suppose the flagship leading, the next ship would follow her on a
parallel course, not immediately in her wake but some way astern on her
port or starboard quarter, the next in a corresponding position with
regard to the second ship, and so on, as indicated in the annexed
diagram.
If you look at this you will at once see its advantages over "line
ahead". Every ship can bring its broadside to bear either to port or
starboard, as in that formation, but, in addition, every ship can fire
directly ahead or astern as well. If ships in "line ahead" all turn
together to the right or left, or, to use the correct wording, alter
course together eight points to starboard or port, only the leading and
rear ship could use their broadsides, and only one of them at that. But
a similar turn in "bow and quarter line" can be made without any loss of
fire effect.
In the Great War we have not, at the time of writing, yet had a fleet
action. The German Navy has shown itself most determined--to take no
risks. It seems to be imbued with the principles impressed by the French
Government on its sea commanders in the old wars with us.[73] Never, on
any account, are ships to be hazarded against superior force, or, in
other words, the ships of the "admiral of the Atlantic" are not to fight
unless in very superior force to their antagonists, as was the case in
the action off Chile. The German squadron, starting out on the second
raid on our coasts, no sooner clapped eyes on Admiral Beatty's
ships--which only numbered one more ship than the German squadron--than
it turned tail and made off for all it was worth. So the British had no
chance of crossing the "T", or of any manoeuvre other than a stern
chase. Such a chase is proverbially a long one, but in this case it was
long enough to enable our seamen and marines to sink one German and
badly damage at least two others, who only got away "by the skin of
their teeth", thanks to the intervention of their mine-fields and
submarines.
FOOTNOTES:
[68] Engineer-Commander Chas. E. Eldred, R.N., _Everybody's Book of the
Navy_.
[69] "The Progress of Dreadnoughts", _Journal of Commerce_, 4th March,
1915.
[70] "Your Navy as a Fighting Machine." Fred. T. Jane.
[71] Particulars from _Submarines, Mines, and Torpedoes in the War_. C.
W. Domville Fife.
[72] Paper by Lieutenant C. N. Hinkamp, United States Navy, reprinted in
_Journal of Commerce_, 29th April, 1915.
[73] German ships, by the way, are often provided with a heavier astern
fire than a forward one, so that apparently they have long decided to
fight a retreating action. The opposite system is pursued in our navy.