Transcriber’s Notes:
This is Volume II of a two-volume set. Volume I is available at Project
Gutenberg: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/75616.
Italics are enclosed in _underscores_. Additional notes will be found
near the end of this ebook.
THE BRITISH BATTLE FLEET
[Illustration: DREADNOUGHTS ANCHORING--1912.]
THE
BRITISH BATTLE
FLEET
ITS INCEPTION AND GROWTH
THROUGHOUT THE CENTURIES
TO THE PRESENT DAY
BY
FRED T. JANE
AUTHOR OF “FIGHTING SHIPS,” “ALL THE WORLD’S AIRCRAFT,”
“HERESIES OF SEA POWER,” ETC., ETC.
WITH ILLUSTRATIONS IN COLOUR
FROM ORIGINAL WATER-COLOUR DRAWINGS BY
W. L. WYLLIE, R.A.
AND NUMEROUS PLANS AND PHOTOGRAPHS.
VOL. II.
London
The Library Press, Limited
26 Portugal St., W.C.
1915
CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I. THE BARNABY ERA 1
II. THE WHITE ERA 54
III. THE WATTS ERA 117
IV. THE DREADNOUGHT ERA (WATTS) 133
V. SUBMARINES 208
VI. NAVAL AVIATION 218
VII. AUXILIARY NAVIES 231
VIII. GENERAL MATTERS IN THE LAST HUNDRED YEARS 242
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
IN COLOUR
FROM PICTURES BY W. L. WYLLIE, R.A.
PAGE
DREADNOUGHTS ANCHORING--1912 _Frontispiece_
BOARDING A SLAVE DHOW 41
SECOND CLASS CRUISER OF THE NAVAL DEFENCE ACT ERA, NOW CONVERTED
INTO A MINELAYER 73
WHITE ERA BATTLESHIPS OF THE MAJESTIC CLASS 91
EARLY TYPE OF “27 KNOT” DESTROYERS 111
THE “DREADNOUGHT,” 1906 147
“INDEFATIGABLE” AND “INVINCIBLE,” 1911 171
EARLY “30 KNOT” DESTROYERS 189
SUBMARINES LEAVING PORTSMOUTH HARBOUR 209
BATTLE CRUISER “NEW ZEALAND” ON THE STOCKS 1912 235
SHIP PHOTOGRAPHS
“INFLEXIBLE” AS ORIGINALLY COMPLETED 1881 3
“BENBOW” SHIP OF THE ADMIRAL CLASS 29
SUBMARINE E2 213
BRITISH NAVY SEAPLANE 219
HOISTING A NAVAL SEAPLANE ON BOARD THE “HIBERNIA” 223
PORTRAITS
SIR N. BARNABY 45
SIR WILLIAM WHITE 55
SIR PHILIP WATTS 123
GENERAL CUNIBERTI 135
ADMIRAL FISHER 243
ADMIRAL SIR JOHN JELLICOE 249
PLANS, DIAGRAMS, ETC.
EARLY TURRET SHIPS OF THE BARNABY ERA 7
FOREIGN SHIPS PURCHASED FOR THE NAVY IN 1877–78 11
BARNABY BARBETTE SHIPS 17
SOME FAMOUS RAMS 21
CHARACTERISTIC BARNABY SHIPS 33
TURRET SHIPS OF THE BARNABY ERA 37
BATTLESHIPS OF THE WHITE ERA 79
SYSTEMS OF WATER-LINE PROTECTION 83
PRINCIPAL CRUISERS OF THE WHITE ERA 95
PRE-DREADNOUGHTS OF THE WATTS ERA 119
ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS FOR THE DREADNOUGHT 151
ORIGINAL DREADNOUGHT DESIGNS 157
EARLY EXAMPLES OF WING TURRETS 161
DREADNOUGHTS 167
CENTRE-LINE SHIPS OF VARIOUS DATES 177
DIAGRAM TO ILLUSTRATE WEAK POINT OF THE ÉCHELON SYSTEM 181
THE BRITISH BATTLE FLEET.
I.
THE BARNABY ERA.
The characteristic _motif_ of the Barnaby designs has been described
as a “maximum of offensive power and the minimum of defence.” This
is not altogether correct; though as a generalization it is no very
great exaggeration. In every Barnaby design proper, offence was the
first thing sought for, but defence as then understood was by no means
overlooked as to-day it appears to have been.
The bed rock “Reed idea” was to produce a ship which could attack and
destroy the enemy without much risk of being damaged in doing so. The
“Barnaby idea” was that “the best defensive is a strong offensive”; and
a strict subordination of defence to what might best serve the attack
on the same displacement.
The first big armoured ship to be laid down at all on Barnaby
principles, the _Inflexible_, was built under somewhat peculiar
circumstances. In the year 1871 a Committee was appointed. One of its
findings was as follows:--
“As powerful armament, thick armour, speed, and light draught
cannot be combined in one ship, although all are needed for the
defence of the country; there is no alternative but to give the
preponderance to each in its turn amongst different classes of
ships which shall mutually supplement one another.”[1]
Amongst the Committee’s suggestions had been the abolition of the
complete belt, and its concentration amidships. This recommendation
was mainly intended to refer to cruising ships rather than to ships
definitely intended for the line of battle; but the idea soon spread.
These suggestions had already been embodied in a modified form in the
_Shannon_, of which particulars will be found later on. The _Shannon_,
however, was frankly a “belted cruiser,” and no idea had then been
entertained of adapting a similar system for heavy armoured ships.
In the year 1874, however, it transpired that the Italians were
evolving an entirely new type of battleship, the _Duilio_ and
_Dandolo_, and adopting a central box system. By this means they were
able to protect the citadel with 22-inch armour and mount four 100-ton
guns in two turrets _en échelon_, so that all four could bear ahead and
astern as well as on either broadside. The seriousness of the situation
was increased by the fact that in most of the tactical ideas of the
day, end-on approach figured largely.[2]
Compared with these Italian designs, the most powerful British ironclad
of those days, the _Dreadnought_, with a belt of only 14-inch to
11-inch armour, and bearing but two of her four 38-ton guns end-on, cut
a sorry figure.
[Illustration:
_Photo_] [_Ellis_.
THE _INFLEXIBLE_, AS ORIGINALLY COMPLETED, 1881.]
It was deemed essential to build a “reply.” The largest gun actually
available at the time was, however, the 81-ton M.L.; so this was
adopted for the new ship. The _Inflexible_ being frankly an adoption
of Italian ideas, she can hardly be described as the design of any one
man; Sir N. Barnaby having been tied down to an extent with which
(from his subsequent writings) he did not, it would appear, altogether
agree. A smaller central citadel than that of the Italian ships was
adopted, but the thickness was carried to 24-inch, the thickest armour
ever introduced into an ironclad either before or since. The bulkheads
were 20-in. The freeboard of the central redoubt was 10ft. Round about
it, fore and aft, on an armoured raft-body were built a bow and stern,
with superstructures curtailed to the centre line sufficiently to allow
of unimpeded end-on fire from the big guns, which, like those of the
Italians, were placed in échelonned turrets.
With a view to satisfying the “masted turret-ship” ideal, an absurd
brig rig was fitted to the _Inflexible_. With this it was possible for
the ship to drift before the wind, haystack-fashion, but the rig was
so much of the “placebo” order that it was designed to be taken down
and thrown overboard in case of action! At a later date it was removed
altogether and a military rig substituted.
The _Inflexible_ was crammed with novelties. Like the _Devastation_
she was the “_Dreadnought_” of her time. Chief among her innovations
were the adoption of submerged torpedo tubes (of which she had two),
the mounting of Nordenfeldts as a definite anti-torpedo-boat armament,
and an ingenious anti-rolling arrangement, whereby water was admitted
amidships to counteract the roll. This was very partially successful;
but in 1910 the idea re-appeared in a slightly altered form and is now
used in certain big Atlantic liners.
An ingenious feature of the _Inflexible_ concerned the big guns. In the
_Devastation_ and _Dreadnought_ types these could be run in and loaded
inside the turret. With the much larger guns of the _Inflexible_
this was impossible, without a very considerable increase of the size
of the turrets. Outside loading without protection was recognised as
unsuitable and practically impossible. A special glacis was, therefore,
designed, which admitted of outside loading under cover, and at the
same time ensured that, in the event of premature discharge, the
projectile would emerge above the water-line and not below it.
This device is of special interest as the “last word” of those
muzzle-loading guns to which the British Navy adhered so long as it
possibly could. Had it been thought of earlier, the British Navy might
perhaps have adhered to muzzle-loaders even longer than it did. As
things were, the _Inflexible_ device came too late to stay the tide
which had already begun to set strongly in the breechloader direction.
Details of the _Inflexible_ were:--
Displacement--11,880 tons.
Length (between perpendiculars)--320ft.
Beam--75ft.
Maximum Draught--26⅓ft.
Armour--Belt amidships 24--16-inch, beyond that a protective deck
only; 22--14-inch bulkhead, all iron; and 17-inch compound armour
turrets.
Armaments--Four 81-ton guns (to which eight 4-inch breechloaders
were added later on). Two submerged tubes and two above-water
launching appliances for torpedoes.
Horse-power--8,010 (I.H.P.).
Speed--13.8 knots.
Coal--1,300 tons = nominal 10-knot radius of 5,200 miles.
Built at Portsmouth Dockyard. Engined by Elder. Completed 1881.
[Illustration:
DUILIO.
DREADNOUGHT.
INFLEXIBLE.
EARLY TURRET-SHIPS OF THE BARNABY ERA.]
On completion she was sent to the Mediterranean, with Captain Fisher
(afterwards Admiral of the Fleet, Lord Fisher) in command of her. He
was the chief gunnery officer of those days and the founder of the
torpedo school. At the time it was put on record that, asked by a Press
interviewer what he would do if the fortunes of war brought it about
that he had to encounter a similar “last word” in naval construction,
he replied that he would keep away from her till nightfall, and
then send in the, then, novel second-class torpedo-boats which the
_Inflexible_ carried, to settle the foe. Over which statement the
historian of fifty years hence may yet place Lord Fisher among the
prophets. To-day, some thirty years later, similar ideas obtain, but
have got no further. Fifty years hence----?
In 1882 the _Inflexible_ was the central figure at the bombardment of
Alexandria. The damage she did was infinitesimal compared to the ideas
which the public had formed of her. Far more actual mischief was done
by Lord Charles Beresford in a trivial gunboat, the _Condor_, which
steered into close range of the hostile guns and knocked them over. At
the time this was regarded as an act of spectacular heroism; but the
historian of the future is far more likely to discover in it (as in the
Fisher torpedo-boats) something closely akin to the reasoning behind
Nelson when he destroyed the French fleet at the Nile or charged into
them at Trafalgar. The commonplace expression, “sizing up the other
man,” and acting accordingly, is the secret. In peace time we are all
too apt to assess hostile weapons at their theoretical potentiality.
The victors in war are those who gauge correctly the handling ability
of the man behind the weapon and--act accordingly.
About the years 1877–78, towards the close of the Turco-Russian War, an
Anglo-Russian war seemed probable, and four foreign ships building in
England were purchased for the British Navy.
These were the Brazilian _Independencia_, an improved _Monarch_,
designed by Sir E. J. Reed, which went into the British service as
the _Neptune_. Save that she carried 38-ton guns instead of 25-ton,
she reproduced the _Monarch_ idea almost exactly. After certain
vicissitudes she entered the British service, and eventually was fitted
with a couple of military masts. The points of special interest about
her were that (1) owing to some error her funnels were put in sideways
instead of as designed; and (2) in service in any bad weather the sea
regularly washed out her wardroom; (3) she was the first ship of the
British Navy to carry a bath-room. As an effective warship she never
figured to any large extent.
The other three purchased ships had been destined for the Turkish Navy;
and all three turned out worse than the _Neptune_. The _Hamidieh_,
re-christened _Superb_, more or less duplicated the _Hercules_. She
took part in the bombardment of Alexandria a little later, and it
was there discovered that her guns could not train at all well in
comparison with contemporary British naval ships.
[Illustration:
SUPERB
NEPTUNE
BELLEISLE
FIRE ZONES OF THE BELLEISLE (4 GUNS)
FIRE ZONES OF THE DEVASTATION (4 GUNS)
FOREIGN SHIPS PURCHASED FOR THE NAVY IN 1877–78.]
Of the fighting value of the other two ships, _Pakyi-Shereef_ and
_Boordyi-Zaffir_, which became the _Belleisle_ and _Orion_, the least
said the better. They turned out to be nothing but improvements on a
type of “coast defender,” already obsolete, diminutives of the original
Reed broadside idea applied to a _Hotspur_ type hull. In place of
the single 25-ton gun of the _Hotspur_, they carried four similar
guns--the old 12-inch 25-ton M.L. These guns were carried in a central
raised battery, from which, as in the _Hotspur_, one gun could always
bear, and from which two bearing on an exact and unlikely broadside
might be looked for.
No useful service was ever performed by these ships. The _Belleisle_
ended her service as a target, the _Orion_ as a hulk. They proved
conclusively that the central battery idea was obsolete and so far
probably did good service. In the past Sir E. J. Reed had argued,
and for that matter proved, that for a given weight of armour and
armament eight guns, four on either broadside, could be mounted with
equal protection and economy of weight as against two pairs of guns in
turrets.[3] The _Belleisle_ gave the lie to this idea, however, when
it came to be applied to half the number of guns. The step from that
to the same thing with more guns was made easy, and the turret idea
assured, out of the _Belleisle_ type. To the _Belleisle_ and _Orion_
more than any other ships may be traced the first real appreciation of
“angles in between”--the demonstration that “right ahead” or “right
on the broadside” were ideal positions which no enemy would willingly
assume.
The _Devastation_ and her sisters had, of course, anticipated this
idea; but to the _Belleisle_, at most fighting angles only able to
bring a quarter of her battery into action, may be traced most modern
developments in gun disposition.
Contemporaneous with the special Barnaby ships, reference may be made
to the entirely nondescript _Téméraire_. She may be described as an
absolute hybrid--partly Reed, partly Barnaby, partly gun inventors of
the era, and partly nothing in particular.
Details of this ship are:--
Displacement--8,540 tons.
Length (between perpendiculars)--285ft.
Beam--62ft.
Draught--27¼ft.
Armament--Four 25-ton 11-inch M.L. (two in barbettes), four 18-ton
M.L.--two above water torpedo tubes.
Armour (iron)--Complete 11--8in. belt. Bulkheads 8--5in. Barbettes
10--8in. Battery 10--8in. Horse-power--7,520 = 14.5 knots.
Coal--620 tons = 2,680 miles at economical speed (nominal).
The _Téméraire_ was unique in the world’s navies in that two of her
25-ton guns were carried--one forward, one aft--on special Moncrieff
mountings, an adaption for naval purposes of the “disappearing gun,”
invented for forts of that era. The gun, loaded under cover, was raised
to fire by hydraulic mechanism, and then recoiled to the loading
position. The ship was otherwise essentially of the Reed box-battery
type; the other two 25-ton guns being in a central main-deck battery,
and capable of a good deal of ahead fire. The other big guns (18 tons)
were cut off from the 25-ton by an armoured bulkhead, and merely had
the ordinary broadside training.
Like the _Inflexible_, the _Téméraire_ had a heavy brig rig. Towards
the end of her active service career this was replaced by a military
rig; but all her active work was done as a brig. She was built at
Chatham Dockyard, engined by Humphrys, and completed for sea in 1877.
In 1882 she was at the bombardment of Alexandria, and there did more
execution than any other ship. Her subsequent career was uneventful,
and in her own way she was a “monstrosity” as much as the _Polyphemus_
was. She is generally understood to have been a “naval officers’ ideal”
ship, rather than the regular production of the Chief Constructor.
Whether this be true is, at least, doubtful. Certainly she may equally
well be regarded as the forlorn hope of those who looked to see the
general principles of the central battery system adapted to suit the
new ideas as to ironclads. French ideas[4] also had probably something
to do with her peculiar design.
The idea embodied in the _Inflexible_ was so pleasing to the
authorities of that period that she was duplicated in two smaller
vessels of the same type, the _Ajax_ and _Agamemnon_, though the
precise purpose for which these vessels were built is difficult to
fathom. They were in every way inferior to the _Inflexible_, and
mainly of interest as indicating the definite abandonment of the idea
of the masted battleship, and they were also the last ships to mount
muzzle-loading guns:--
Particulars of these ships were:--
Displacement--8,660 tons.
Length (between perpendiculars)--280ft.
Beam--66ft.
Draught (mean)--24ft.
Guns--Four 38-ton M.L., two 6-inch 81-cwt. B.L.
Horse-power--5,440.
Speed--13.25 knots.
These were followed by the _Colossus_ and _Edinburgh_, which were laid
down in 1879. In these ships the 12-inch breechloader was adopted,
and an attempt at what was then a very considerable speed was made.
An auxiliary armament made its first really definite appearance, five
6-inch guns being mounted on the superstructure.
Particulars of these ships were:--
Displacement--9,420 tons.
Length (between perpendiculars)--325ft.
Beam--68ft.
Draught (mean)--26ft. 3ins.
Guns--Four 45-ton B.L.R., five 6-inch, 89-cwt. do.
Horse-power--7,500.
Speed--15.50 knots.
At and about the same time considerable interest was being taken in
rams. This resulted in the laying down of the _Conqueror_, a species of
improved _Rupert_, and a type of ship destined to be enlarged upon in
the future.
Particulars of the _Conqueror_ were:--
Displacement--6,200 tons.
Length--270ft.
Beam--58ft.
Draught--24ft.
Armament--Two 45-ton B.L.R., four 6-inch 89-cwt. do., six 14-inch
torpedo tubes (above water).
Horse-power--(maximum) 6,000.
Speed--15.5 knots.
Coal--650 tons.
The _Conqueror_ was launched in September, 1881. Some three years later
a sister, the _Hero_, was laid down, and launched towards the end of
1885. She differed from the _Conqueror_ only in that all four of her
6-inch guns were mounted on the superstructure, whereas the _Conqueror_
carried two of them on the main deck inside the superstructure.
[Illustration:
TEMERAIRE
IMPERIEUSE
BRITISH SYSTEM IDEAL
FRENCH SYSTEM IDEAL
BARNABY BARBETTE SHIPS.]
Although developed from the _Rupert_, the _Conqueror_ differed a good
deal in appearance, on account of the whole of the after part of the
ship being one huge superstructure. In her, the superstructure, as a
very definite feature instead of a mere accessory, may be said to have
made its first appearance, to remain as a factor of growing importance
for many years.
Contemporaneously with these ships two entirely different types made
their appearance. One of these was the “torpedo ram” _Polyphemus_, an
absolutely unique vessel, the outcome (though not so designed) of the
influence of the torpedo. The ship was never duplicated, and never
performed much service, but it would be rash to assert that the future
may not see something like her re-appear. She was first projected as a
“ram” pure and simple, so long ago as 1873, and designed by Barnaby to
suit the specifications of certain naval officers as embodying their
ideals of the warship of the future. This is the generally accepted
theory, though Sir N. Barnaby[5] has made public a somewhat different
view of the matter, and according to him, Admiral Sir George Sartorius,
the naval officer principally concerned, lost his interest in the
_Polyphemus_ when it was decided to give her an armament of torpedo
tubes and some quick-firers against torpedo attack. So far as can be
gauged, the torpedo tubes were likewise a naval innovation with which
Sir N. Barnaby was also not much in sympathy. At any rate, he has put
on record the view[5] that:--
“The introduction of torpedoes made the ship far more costly than
she need have been, and it is possible that the type would have
been continued and improved had the simplicity of the ram been
adhered to.”
The _Polyphemus_ performed little useful service; her life on the Navy
List was short; and she is always spoken of as a “failure.” Officers
who served in her were, however, invariably enthusiastic about her, and
had war occurred during the time that she was in existence there is no
telling what she might have accomplished or how profoundly she might
have affected naval construction.
In essence the _Polyphemus_ was a semi-submerged craft, those parts of
her which were above water being merely a light superstructure for the
accommodation of her crew in peace time.
She was of 2,640 tons displacement, length 240ft. between
perpendiculars, beam 40ft., and a normal mean draught of 20ft. In form
she was cigar-shaped, plated with 3-inch armour on the upper part of
her curved sides. With 5,520 I.H.P. she had the then very high speed
of 17.8 knots. She carried 300 tons of coal, sufficient for a nominal
radius of 3,400 miles at economical speed.
Her principal feature, however, was the fitting of five submerged
tubes, one in the bow the others on the broadside. For repelling a
torpedo attack she carried six 6-pounders and a couple of machine guns.
[Illustration:
POLYPHEMUS.
ALARM.
KATAHDIN.
SOME FAMOUS RAMS.]
It is here of interest to relate that some years later the U.S. Navy
created a species of _Polyphemus_ imitation in the “ram” _Katahdin_. To
a certain extent they had anticipated her likewise in the _Alarm_, 720
tons, launched in 1873, which carried a 15-inch smooth-bore gun _under
water_ in her ram, and the _Intrepid_ (launched 1873), of 1,123 tons,
of which no details ever transpired, and it may be said that she was
“strangled at birth.” But the _Polyphemus’s_ ancestry is undoubtedly
American. The _Katahdin_ (first produced as the “ram” _Ammen_) was not
launched till 1893. She was of 2,050 tons and seventeen knots, and
having no torpedo tubes, being a “ram” pure and simple, exactly
reproduced the Sartorious-Barnaby idea. She soon disappeared from the
U.S. Navy List, and she never did anything. She doubled the armour of
the _Polyphemus_, whilst lacking her torpedo armament. Since then, the
idea has found expression in three small U.S. “semi-submerged” boats,
with the torpedo as their main armament; but these three boats never
got beyond the “designed” stage. No other nation ever exhibited the
least interest in the _Polyphemus_ idea.
Reference has already been made to the _Shannon_, which was the
first armoured cruiser of the British Navy. She was launched towards
the end of 1875 and completed two years later. In substance she
was a development of the idea which first found expression in the
_Inconstant_, heavy armament being preferred to the protection of
the guns. A narrow belt of armour with a maximum thickness of 9-ins.
protected three-quarters of the water-line. This belt commenced at the
stern and ended in a bulkhead some 70ft. from the bow. Forward of this
bulkhead was an under-water protective deck, and a certain amount of
armour was concentrated on the ram under water. The bulkhead, which
was from 9in. to 8in. thick, rose to the upper deck, and afforded
protection to a couple of 18-ton muzzle-loaders, capable of right-ahead
fire. The remainder of her armament consisted of seven 12½ton guns, and
was entirely unprotected.
Other details of the ship are as follows:--
Displacement--5,390 tons.
Length--260ft.
Beam--54ft.
Draught--23ft. 4in.
Horse-power--3,370.
Speed--12.35 knots.
Coal carried--580 tons = nominal economical radius of 2,260 miles.
The speed of the _Shannon_ was so low, even in those days, that it
is a little difficult to surmise for what purpose she was designed,
especially as this design was more or less contemporary with the
re-designing of the _Dreadnought_.[6] It found favour, however, since
she was almost immediately followed by two larger replicas, the
_Nelson_ and the _Northampton_, details of which were:--
Displacement--7,630 tons.
Length (between perpendiculars)--280ft.
Beam--60ft.
Draught (maximum)--26ft. 6in.
Armour--Belt amidships, 9in. to 6in., compound: bulkhead ditto.
Armour deck only, at ends.
Main Armament--Four 18-ton M.L.R., eight 12-ton M.L.R., two
above-water 14-inch torpedo tubes.
Horse-power--6,640.
Speed--14.41 knots.
Coal carried--1,150 tons = nominal radius of 3,850 miles.
These ships differed from the _Shannon_ in that the armour belt was
confined to a water-line strip amidships, while the after guns were
also protected by a bulkhead. The most curious, and to modern ideas,
eccentric feature of these ships, was that they were fitted with
triangular rams, which, “for the sake of safety,” could be removed in
peace time and merely put on for war purposes! As a matter of fact,
the ships always carried their rams without rendering themselves
dangerous to anybody. On the other hand, shortly after construction,
the _Northampton_ was run into by a small trading schooner, which cut
her down to the water’s edge. The ships, therefore, started with an
unfavourable reputation, which the _Northampton_ followed up by a total
inability to make even her moderate designed speed. The _Nelson_, on
the other hand, proved herself a comparatively good steamer, so much
so that at a later date she was to a certain extent modernised. Both
ships were originally heavily masted, the idea being to perform most
of their peace service when convenient under sail. The _Nelson_ sailed
moderately well, but the _Northampton_ very badly. It was possibly with
some view to remedying this that some years later, when it was decided
that the _Imperieuse_, originally built as a brig, should be given a
military rig, her lofty iron fore and mainmast were taken out of her
and substituted for the two equivalent masts in the _Northampton_. The
change, however, was not satisfactory, as thereafter she sailed if
anything worse than ever.
At and about this year protected cruisers made their first appearance
in the _Comus_ class. Of these altogether eleven were built, the best
known of these being the _Calliope_, which in the early nineties became
famous through steaming out of Samoa Roads in the teeth of a hurricane,
which utterly destroyed every foreign vessel anchored there at the
same time. The _Comus_ class consisted of the _Calliope_, _Calypso_,
_Canada_, _Carysfort_, _Champion_, _Cleopatra_, _Comus_, _Conquest_,
_Constance_, _Cordelia_, and _Curacoa_. They averaged 2,380 tons
displacement, though the first mentioned, which were the last to be
built, were slightly larger. The original armament consisted of two
6-ton muzzle-loaders and twelve 64-pounders. This was afterwards
varied by the substitution of breechloaders. The ships generally had
a speed of about thirteen knots, and were completed between the years
1877, for the earliest, and 1884 for the latest. They had a 1½-inch
protective deck for the engines amidships. These ships, which were
generally officially known as the “C” class cruiser, were undoubtedly
diminutives of the _Shannon_, or, at any rate, inspired by a similar
idea.
Besides growing downwards the idea also grew upwards, and resulted in
the building of six ships of the “Admiral” class, of which the first
was the _Collingwood_. These, which were the apotheosis of the Barnaby
idea, represented an absolute revolution in naval construction, so far
as big ships were concerned.
The “Admirals” were not all identical, as they formed four different
groups in the matter of displacement and three in armament. In all,
however, the integral idea was the same. Amidships was a narrow belt,
150ft. long by 7½ft. wide, which sufficed to protect engines, boilers,
and communication tubes of the barbettes. This belt varied in thickness
from 18ins. to 8ins, of compound armour. The ends of the belt were
closed up by 16-inch bulkheads. Forward and aft was merely a curved
protective deck; there was also a flat protective deck on top of the
armour belt. The ships were of low freeboard, forward and aft, but
had a large superstructure built up amidships. At either end of the
superstructure, with their bases unprotected by armour except for the
communication tubes already referred to, were many-sided barbettes
with plates set at an angle of about forty-five degrees. These
barbettes were about 11½ins. thick, and carried each a couple of the
heaviest guns then available. These were 12-inch breechloaders in the
_Collingwood_, and 13.5-inch in the other ships, except the _Benbow_,
which mounted one 16.5 inch 110-ton in each barbette instead. An
auxiliary armament was mounted inside the superstructure. The speed of
these ships was about seventeen knots, and was considerably in excess
of the average for the period.
=====================+====================+=====================+=====================+====================
Name. | _Collingwood._ | _Rodney_, | _Anson_, | _Benbow._
| | _Howe._ | _Camperdown._ |
---------------------+--------------------+---------------------+---------------------+--------------------
Displacement, tons | 9,500 | 10,300 | 10,600 | 10,600
| | | |
Length (_p.p._) ft.| 325 | 325 | 330 | 330
| | | |
Beam, ft. | 68 | 68 | 68½ | 68½
| | | |
Draught (_mean_) ft. | 26¾ | 27¼ | 26¾ | 27¼
| | | |
H.P. | 9,500 | 11,500 | 11,500 | 11,500
| | | |
Nominal Speed, | | | |
knots | 16.5 | 16.7 | 17.2 | 17.5
| | | |
Armament | 4--12in., 6--6in. | 4--13.5, 6--6in. | 4--13.5, 6--6 in. | 2--16.25, 10--6in.
| | | |
Built at | Pembroke Yard | _Rodney_, | _Anson_, | Thames, I.W.
| | Chatham Yd. | Pembroke Yd. |
| | _Howe_, Pembroke Yd.| _Camperdown_, |
| | Chatham Yd. | Por’th. |
| | | |
Engines by | Humphrys | _Rodney_, Humphrys | _Anson_, Humphrys | Maudslay
| | _Howe_, Humphrys | _Camperdown_, Maud’y|
| | | |
Armour belt | 18in.-8in. | 18in.-8in. | 18in.-8in. | 18in.-8in.
| | | |
barbettes | 14in.-12in. | 11½in.-10in. | 16in.-6in. | 12in.-4in.
| | | |
bulkheads | 16in.-6in. | 16in.-6in. | 14in.-12in. | 18in.-6in.*
| | | |
Armament | 4--12in., 6--6in., | 4--13.5, 6--6in., | 4--13.5, 6--6in., | 2--16.25, 10--6in.,
| and smaller, | and smaller, | and smaller, | and smaller,
| 2 sub. and 4 | as _Collingwood_ | as _Collingwood_ | as _Collingwood_
| above water tubes | | |
=====================+====================+=====================+=====================+====================
As compared with the _Colossus_ and _Edinburgh_ class of the same date
and era of design, the “Admirals” were somewhat inferior in armour
protection, but because of that secured a far better speed and a
greatly superior big gun command.
In all the “Admiral” class the armour weighed about 2,500 tons--say,
20 per cent. of the displacement. This proportion has never been very
greatly varied from either before or since, and the popular idea that
Barnaby designs sacrificed armour weight for other features is entirely
incorrect. The real Barnaby ideal is better described (the conditions
of his own time being kept in mind) as an attempt to put into practice
“everything or nothing,” so far as protection was concerned. To-day,
a compromise is in fashion, and Barnaby is very much out of date.
It may well be but a phase in the cycle of naval design. Properly
to appreciate the _Admiral_ class ideal, we have to translate it
into the ideal which obtains to-day. Thus put, the _Admirals_ would
be somewhat swifter than our existing battle-cruisers, their vitals
would be invulnerable and their armaments superior to that of any
potential enemy. They would not, in fact, very greatly differ from
Admiral Bacon’s conception (published some five years before the
present war) of the battleship of the future, in which he predicted the
disappearance of much of the side armour of to-day.
[Illustration:
_Photo_] [_Symonds & Co._
THE _BENBOW_--A SHIP OF THE “ADMIRAL” CLASS.]
The coming of the medium calibre quick-firer soon rendered the
“Admirals” obsolete and even ridiculous. The medium calibre quick-firer
profoundly modified design until the development of the big gun
enabled it to act well beyond the effective range of the medium gun,
and incidentally enabled it to fire nearly as fast as the elementary
quick-firers were built to do. Thus we have come back to something very
akin to the condition under which the Barnaby ships were designed.
These ships could not, perhaps, be described as an absolutely original
idea, save in so far as the British Navy was concerned, since the
Italian _Italia_ was launched in the same year that the _Collingwood_,
the first of the “Admirals” was laid down. The _Italia_, equally
abnormally fast (or faster) for the period, carried four 100-ton guns
échelonned in one large heavily armoured barbette amidships, but had
no water-line belt whatever, and relied entirely upon an armour-deck
to protect the motive power. In the “Admirals” the motive power was
thoroughly protected by the vertical belt amidships, while flotation
otherwise depended upon internal sub-divisions.
The “Admiral” class idea was re-developed into armoured cruisers in
a somewhat curious fashion. At that time the French Navy was second
in the world, and French ideas of construction commanded a great deal
of respect. French notions at that era ran largely to single gun
positions, four guns being separately disposed in four barbettes placed
one ahead, one astern, and one on either side. The particular point of
this arrangement was that while British designs accepted two or four
big guns bearing, the French system allowed for a definite mean of
three. More practically put, this may be translated into a conception
that an enemy would use every effort to avoid positions in which four
big guns could be brought to bear on him, and seek those in which he
was exposed to two only. A gun-arrangement which gave three big guns
bearing in _any_ position seemed therefore far more reasonable on paper.
It stands to the credit of Sir N. Barnaby (or else to the credit of the
Admiralty of the era) that he recognised the impossibility of any such
manœuvres in fleet actions, but at the same time he also realised how
heavily it might tell in cruiser duels. Out of which the _Imperieuse_
and _Warspite_ were born.
Details of these ships:--
Displacement--8,400 tons.
Length (between perpendiculars)--315ft.
Beam--62ft.
Draught (maximum)--27⅓ft.
Armament--Four 9.2 24-ton B.L., six 6-inch, 89cwt., six torpedo
tubes.
Horse-power--10,000=16.75 knots.
Coal--1,130 tons = nominal radius of ten knots of 7,000 miles.
Armour--Belt amidships of 10in. compound, with 9-inch bulkheads,
8-inch barbettes. No armour to lesser guns. 3-inch protective
deck fore and aft, and on top of belt.
[Illustration:
SHANNON.
NORTHAMPTON.
ADMIRAL class.
“C” class.
ORLANDO class.
CHARACTERISTIC BARNABY SHIPS.]
The _Imperieuse_ was built at Portsmouth Dockyard and engined by
Maudslay. The _Warspite_, built at Chatham, was engined by Penn.
Both were completed in 1886 at a total cost of about £630,000 each.
They were copper sheathed, and (like the _Inflexible_) originally
were to carry a heavy brig-rig. This was removed at an early stage,
and a single military mast between the funnels substituted. The
_Imperieuse’s_ masts were subsequently put in the _Northampton_
(which see). Both proved faster than anticipated; but the coming of
the quick-firer placed them in the semi-obsolete category almost as
soon as they were completed. The type was never repeated. Till recently
the _Imperieuse_ still existed as a depot ship for destroyers; the
_Warspite_ has long since gone to the scrap heap. Years after their
conception a modernised version of them was to some extent reproduced
in the _Black Prince_ class. In their own day, however, they appeared
and that was all.
The “battleship of the future” ideal of those days had to some extent
been foreshadowed in the _Benbow_, with her couple of 110-ton guns.
The monster gun was “the vogue” and no way of carrying it on existing
displacements allowed of more than two such pieces being mounted.
The idea of the moment became the mounting of guns capable of
delivering deadly blows, and (corollary therewith) protection to ensure
that that deadly blow could be delivered with relative impunity. Since
the secondary gun had now come in, auxiliary guns and a secondary
battery were a _sine quâ non_; but the ideal ship was to be one
incapable of vital injury from such weapons. On lines such as these the
_Victoria_ class was designed.
The call was for an improved _Benbow_. The armament was to be no less
and, if possible, more; while better protection was an essential
feature.
Details of the _Victoria_ type, of which only two were built, are as
follows:--
Displacement--10,470 tons (approximately that of the _Benbow_).
Length (between perpendiculars)--340ft.
Beam--70ft.
Draught (maximum)--27¼ft.
Armament--Two 110-ton guns (in a single turret), one 9.2 (aft),
twelve 6-inch; twenty-one anti-torpedo guns, and six torpedo
tubes (14-inch).
Armour (compound)--18-inch to 16-inch belt amidships, redoubt and
bulkheads, 18-inch turret, 2-inch in battery. Armour deck, and
heavily armoured conning tower.
Horse-power--14,000 = 16.75 knots.
Coal--1,200 tons = 7,000 miles at 10 knots.
The _Victoria_ was built at Elswick and engined by Humphrys; launched
in 1887 and completed for sea in 1889. The _Sanspareil_, engined by the
same firm, but built at Blackwall (Thames Ironworks) was launched a
year later, but completed about the same time.
The design of these ships closely approximated to the _Conqueror_,
of which they were merely enlarged editions with a heavily increased
battery.
[Illustration:
RUPERT.
CONQUEROR.
VICTORIA.
DREADNOUGHT.
TRAFALGAR.
TURRET SHIPS OF THE BARNABY ERA.]
The _Victoria_ on completion became the flagship in the Mediterranean
of Admiral Sir George Tryon. In the course of evolutions off the
coast of Syria on June 22nd, 1893, she was rammed and sunk by the
_Camperdown_. The disaster, which cost the lives of the Admiral and
321 officers and men, teaches no useful lesson, saving the danger of
transverse bulkheads. Water-tight doors were shut too late. The sea
entered. The ship gradually turned over, then suddenly “turned turtle”
and capsized.
The mystery of her loss has never been fully explained. Admiral Tryon
gave an order for the fleet, then in two lines, to turn inboard sixteen
points, while at six cables apart. This manœuvre, with turning
circles as they were, was bound to create a collision. This was
pointed out to Admiral Tryon, who, however, took no notice of the
representations. It has since been assumed that he went suddenly mad.
A more reasonable explanation is that he intended the ships to “jockey
with their screws” (a manœuvre which he never employed as a rule),
and forgot to mention the fact, though details of evidence in the
court-martial hardly bear this out.
The exact signal as made was:--
“Second division alter course in succession sixteen points to
starboard, preserving the order of the Fleet.”
“First division alter course in succession sixteen points to port,
preserving the order of the Fleet.”
This signal was capable of more than one interpretation. Along one of
them each ship in the two squadrons might easily have rammed the other
in succession, according to some interpretations. Using screws, both
divisions might have closed in very closely but quite safely. Acting
other than simultaneously they might anyway have effected the manœuvre
without disaster. At eight cables (a distance which was suggested to
the Admiral an hour before) it might have been done quite safely. There
have been other explanations also.
In the Fleet at the time everything was believed, except the “blunder”
theory which has gone down to history. To this day that is accepted
with reservation. But the rest is mystery.
The _Camperdown_, in turning, crashed into the _Victoria_, striking
her forward, curiously enough directly on a bulkhead, just as the
_Vanguard_ was struck when she was rammed.
It was not expected that the _Victoria_ would be sunk. Had the
water-tight doors been closed during the manœuvre, instead of at the
last moment, she would probably have remained afloat. As things were,
it was impossible to close many at the time the order was given, but
her low-freeboard also played a part. The sea invaded the door on the
starboard side of the superstructure and thence got everywhere on that
side of the ship. It was that which threw her over and capsized her,
but the chance circumstance of the blow on the lateral bulkhead should
not be forgotten. The _Victoria_ was struck just on one of the points
where all the odds were against her being struck.
The _Sanspareil_ had an uneventful career, and was eventually sold
out of the Service somewhat suddenly under the “scrap-heap” policy of
Admiral Fisher in 1904.
Following upon the _Imperieuse_ type, an entirely new class of armoured
cruisers, the _Orlandos_, were designed. Just as the _Victorias_ were
improved and enlarged _Conquerors_, so the _Orlandos_ were “improved
_Merseys_.” Particulars of these ships, of which seven were built
altogether, are as follows:--
Displacement--5,600 tons.
Length (between perpendiculars)--300ft.
Beam--56ft.
Draught (maximum)--22½ft. (actually more).
Armament--Two 9.2in. B.L.; ten 6in.; and six torpedo tubes.
Armour (compound)--Belt amidships 10in., with 16in. Bulkheads.
Protective deck at ends. All guns protected by shields only.
Horse-power--8,500 = 18 knots.
Coal (maximum)--900 tons = nominal radius of 8,000 miles.
[Illustration: BOARDING A SLAVE DHOW]
They were built as follows:--
===============+===========+=============
NAME. | BUILDER. | ENGINED BY
---------------+-----------+-------------
_Orlando_ | Palmer | Palmer
_Australia_ | Glasgow | Napier
_Aurora_ | Pembroke | Thompson
_Galatea_ | Glasgow | Napier
_Immortalité_ | Chatham | Earle
_Narcissus_ | Hull | Earle
_Undaunted_ | Palmer | Palmer
===============+===========+=============
They were laid down in 1885 and 1886. The _Orlando_ was completed in
1888, all the others in 1889. They were launched in 1886 and 1887, and
some of them, fitted with wooden guns (“Quakers”), served to swell the
Fleet at the great Jubilee Review of 1887. All made over their designed
speeds on trial, but they did their trials “light.” In service all
proved fairly useful, and the _Undaunted_, with Lord Charles Beresford
as her captain in the Mediterranean, “made history” to the extent
of first creating an Anglo-American _entente_, beginning with the
U.S.S. _Chicago_, captained then by the now universally known naval
author, Admiral Mahan. Beresford first achieved fame in the _Condor_
at Alexandra, in 1882; but it was in the _Undaunted_ that he first
“made history” by ending the previously existing hostility between the
British and U.S. Navies; and establishing the naval brotherhood of
those who speak the same language.
The _Orlandos_ were the last of the essentially Barnaby ships.
Barnaby was associated with the Navy thereafter; but the _Nile_ and
_Trafalgar_, though produced under his régime, were not “Barnaby
ships,” and differences of opinion with the Admiralty about them
eventuated in his resignation.
The tide of naval opinion was then setting back in the old
_Dreadnought_ direction. More complete protection was being demanded.
The quick-firer was just coming in and its potentialities seemed
enormous. The secondary battery had to be protected. Destruction of
communications on board began to take on a fresh and more serious
aspect. In a word, the Admiralty reverted to Reed ideas, and in
reverting exaggerated them. In such circumstances the general idea of
the _Trafalgars_ was born.
Sir N. Barnaby totally dissented from the Admiralty line of thought.
In his view the size of a ship could not legitimately be increased
unless her offensive powers increased in proportion; in the _Trafalgar_
idea both speed and armament were reduced as compared to the _Admiral_
class, and over a thousand odd tons added entirely to carry extra
defensive armour. Over which dispute he resigned his position.
Details of the _Nile_ and _Trafalgar_ as built are:--
Displacement--11,940 tons.
Length (between perpendiculars)--345ft.
Beam--73ft.
Draught (mean)--27½ft.
Armament--Four 13.5-inch, six 4.7 Q.F., also smaller guns, and four
14-inch torpedo tubes, of which two were submerged.
Armour (compound)--Belt, 230ft. long (_i.e._, 80ft. longer than
in the _Admirals_ and _Victorias_), 20--16in., with 16--14 inch
bulkheads, protective deck at ends and over main belt.
Over this a redoubt 141ft. long, 18in. thick. Above the redoubt a
battery, 4in. thick. Turrets, 18in.
Horse-power--12,000 = 17 knots.
Coal--(normal) 900 tons; (maximum) 1,200 tons = 6,500 miles at 10
knots.
[Illustration:
_Photo_] [_Russell & Sons._
SIR N. BARNABY.
A recent photograph.]
The _Nile_ was built at Pembroke and engined by Maudslay. She was laid
down in April, 1886, launched in March, 1888, and completed some two
years later. The _Trafalgar_ was laid down at Portsmouth in January,
1886, and launched in September, 1887. Her machinery was supplied by
Humphrys. The armour of these ships weighed no less than 4,230 tons,
_i.e._, some 35 per cent. of the displacement instead of the more usual
25 per cent. or so. The then first Lord of the Admiralty took the
occasion of the launch to remark that the days of such armoured ships
were over, and that probably these were the last ironclads that would
ever be built--the future would lie with fast deck-protected vessels!
As, for three years, no more armoured ships were laid down, he at least
enunciated a definite policy when these heavily armoured successors of
the _Admiral_ class were put afloat. They differed from the _Admirals_
in that turrets were reverted to instead of barbettes, and, as already
mentioned, they were really nothing but modernised versions of the old
low freeboard _Dreadnought_.
At a later date 6-inch Q.F. were substituted for the 4.7’s; but no
other schemes of modernising the ships ever came to a head.
_PROTECTED CRUISERS OF THE BARNABY ERA._
Four ships of the _Amphion_ Class--_Amphion_, _Arethusa_, _Leander_,
and _Phæton_, of which the first (_Arethusa_) was laid down in
1880--represented the first Barnaby idea of the protected cruiser. They
were of 4,300 tons displacement, and 16.5 knots nominal speed. They
carried ten 6-inch guns, and a 1½-inch deck amidships. According to the
ideas of those days they were heavily over-gunned. They always steamed
well; but it is doubtful whether Barnaby, left to himself, would ever
have produced them. Incidentally, they were always bad sea-boats.
In 1883, completed about the same time as the _Victoria_, the _Mersey_
class--_Mersey_, _Thames_, _Severn_, and _Forth_--of 4,050 tons
displacement, and carrying two 8-inch and ten 6-inch, were commenced:
practically early essays at the _Orlando_ class idea which followed.
The _Orlandos_, on only a thousand or so tons more displacement,
carried 9.2’s instead of 8-inch, had armour-belts as well as protective
decks, and were a good knot faster. Both the _Amphions_ and _Merseys_
may be described as representing strictly naval Admiralty ideas--the
_Orlando_, Barnaby ones. Each type was quickly rendered obsolete by the
coming of the quick-firer; but the Barnaby type of cruiser, for 20 per
cent. extra displacement, certainly offered better chances than any
rival proposition, if only we consider matters in the light of what
existed in those days and what promised best at that time.