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.
“Further, if this ideal vessel which we have imagined to be so potently
armoured is also very swift, and of a speed greater than that of a
possible antagonist, she could not only prevent this latter from
getting away, but also avail herself of her superiority in this respect
for choosing the most convenient position for striking the belt of the
enemy in the most advantageous manner.
“For this swift vessel a numerous and uniform armament of 8-inch guns,
such as was contemplated for the _Amalfi_ class,[27] would appear to be
sufficient, if we had only to consider the penetration at right angles
of modern belts, especially if capped projectiles are adopted.
“If, however, the hit is an oblique one, and the distance is
considerable, it appears necessary that we should adopt the calibre of
12-inch if we want to be absolutely certain of sinking the adversary,
striking him _only_ on the belt. But the loading of such guns is as yet
very slow, although it has been greatly improved of late. Besides, the
number of hits that one can get in on to the belt itself is small. From
this it appears that in our ideal and intensely powerful ship we must
increase the number of pieces of 12-inch so as to be able to get in at
least one fatal shot on the enemy’s belt at the water-line before she
has a chance of getting a similar fortunate stroke at us from one of
the four large pieces now usually carried as the main armament.
“We thus have outlined for us the main features of our absolutely
supreme vessel--with medium calibres abolished--so effectually
protected as to be able to disregard entirely all the subsidiary
armament of an enemy, and armed only with twelve pieces of 12-inch.
Such a ship could fight in the second method we have delineated,
without throwing away a single shot, without wasting ammunition. Secure
in her exuberant protection with her twelve guns ready, she would
swiftly descend on her adversary and pour in a terrible converging fire
at the belt.
“Having disposed of her first antagonist, she would at once proceed
to attack another, and almost untouched, to despatch yet another, not
throwing away a single round of her ammunition, but utilising all
for sure and deadly shots. A large and abundant supply of 12-inch
projectiles and ammunition can be provided, in addition to the belt and
guns contemplated, out of the 4,500 tons of increase of displacement
that will be disposable in the enlargement of the _Vittorio Emanuele
III_ to become the national British type of vessel in place of the
_King Edward VII_.
“It will be necessary to defend our ‘_Invincible_’ with a thick
complete belt of twelve inches, and a battery also protected with the
12-inch armour (for the redoubt must be thus defended as well as the
water-line, so as to eliminate the perils of the first system of attack
sketched out, of progressive damages being adopted against her); and at
the same time she must be armed with twelve pieces of 12-inch, arranged
as in the _Amalfi_ class or in the _Vittorio Emanuele III_, so as to
be able herself to attack in the second method that has been outlined,
that is to say, the system of the stronger, of the better defended, and
most certainly that of the richer. But when a certain number of such
colossi of 17,000 tons--six, for example--had been constructed, it is
more than probable that the adversary would do his utmost to prevent
their getting near him, and, fearful of the fatal result of so unequal
a combat, would seek to betake himself elsewhere immediately on the
appearance of the famous _Invincible_ division.
“In that case the command of the seas, or a deluded belief that they
have such command, will remain with these _Invincible_ ships, even
although they may be of slow speed; but to stop at this point would
be too little and unworthy of the Navy of the richest and most potent
Power in the world.
“For this squadron or division, however ‘invincible,’ will not be
really and truly _supreme_ if it cannot also catch hold of the enemy’s
tail. The bull in the vast ring of the amphitheatre deludes himself
with the idea that because he is more powerful than the agile toreador
he therefore has absolute command of the scene of the combat; but he
is too slow in following up his adversaries and these almost always
succeed in eluding his terrible horns.
“We must, therefore, come to the conclusion that the type of vessel
will not be absolutely _supreme_ and worthy of such a nation unless
we furnish it with such speed that it can overtake any of the enemy’s
battleships and oblige them to fight. It is, then, possible to give to
a vessel of 17,000 tons displacement--
Protective armour of 12ins.
Twelve guns of 12-inch calibre.
An abundant supply of ammunition, and
A very high speed, superior to that of all and existing battleships
afloat.
“It has been said and written--indeed, repeatedly written--that the
_Vittorio Emanuele III_ was a practical impossibility. But before long
she will be actually in the water, and facts already show how vain were
the suppositions and criticisms of such croakers.[28]
“But it has also been asserted that in the case of this vessel
surpassing the contemplated speed of 21½ knots on trial and attaining
that hoped for of 22 knots, such would only prove that that particular
tonnage of displacement especially lends itself to obtaining a form
of hull with which we can realise a very high speed, and more so than
with larger ships. This, however, is not quite exact. The law which
governs the speed and displacement, other things being equal, is well
known to all naval constructors, who have by heart the rule that
whilst the displacement increases as the cube of the dimensions, the
resistance, on the other hand, at a given speed does not increase in
the same proportion as the displacement. The pith of the kernel lies
in utilising the most opportune dimensions, or, rather, let us say, in
adopting the special form of hull most adapted to those dimensions,
more than in the actual amount of the displacement itself.
“The amount of the displacement, however, is intimately bound up with
the question of the defensive and offensive powers that it is wished to
give to a ship; so that once the particular objectives of the Italian
Navy had been laid down, and thereby the defensive and offensive power
sought for decided on, the question resolved itself into harmonising
them with a form of hull of the greatest possible efficiency, and this
worked out at 12,600 tons. Nor does it appear that the problem could
have been satisfactorily solved with a vessel of less displacement,
as in that case it would have been impossible to realise the required
power, while with a greater displacement the ship would have been
incapable of obtaining the desired speed.
“In the same manner the defensive and offensive power of the projected
ships of the _Amalfi_ class was harmonised with a form of hull of such
high efficiency that it would have been possible to obtain a speed of
23 knots and probably more; but the statement that the problem could
not have been solved with a displacement of much less or much greater
tonnage than that projected, is not to be taken as insisting that the
solution must be interpreted in a too absolute manner, asserting that
the speed of 23 knots could not be efficiently obtained save with a
displacement of from 8,000 to 9,000 tons, for this would be inexact.
“If now the question be put--Is it possible for some naval architect
to design a special form of hull having a displacement of 17,000 tons,
and with which we can realise a very high speed--twenty-four knots, for
example?
“‘Without doubt,’ will answer all practical naval constructors.
“If we go further, and ask--Is it possible for him at the same time to
arm such a vessel with twelve pieces of 12-inch?
“‘Without doubt,’ will answer but a certain number of such experienced
men.
“But if we go still further, and demand, finally--Is it also possible
for him to protect such a ship with 12-inch armour?
“‘Without doubt,’ will answer only one here and there who may have
already made researches in that direction.
“And as the solving of such a problem necessitates many and many a
calculation, and no amount of discussion or argument on the matter
could in any way be conclusive unless based on definite plans and
figures, these lines might well conclude here.
“But, in deference to the courteous inquiry of Admiral Hopkins, this
brief article must not be allowed to close in a manner so indefinite.
“I would, therefore, say frankly at once that the designs for such a
vessel have already been worked out, and that its construction seems
quite feasible and attainable. Following up the progressive scale of
displacement from 8,000 to 12,000 tons, and then on to 17,000 tons,
a new _King Edward VII_ has been designed, 521½ft. (159 metres) in
length, with a beam of eighty-two feet (twenty-five metres), and mean
draught of 27ft. (8.5 metres); with the water-line protected with
12-inch plates, and the battery similarly armoured; having two turrets
at the ends, each armed with a pair of 12-inch guns, and two central
side turrets high up (similar to the two with 8-inch guns in the
_Vittorio Emanuele III_), also each armed with two pieces of 12-inch,
and four turrets at the four angles of the upper part of the battery,
having each one 12-inch gun.
“This vessel has no ports whatever in her armour; she carries no
secondary armament at all, but only the usual pieces of small calibre
for defence against torpedo attack.
“The speed to be realised, as proved by the tank trials, is twenty-four
knots.”
The idea was at first received with derision and scepticism, which
lasted until, in the Russian-Japanese War, it was announced that the
Japanese had laid down two battleships, the _Aki_ and _Satsuma_, which
“were to be more or less on the lines of the ship projected by Colonel
Cuniberti.” Contemporaneous with this the United States authorised the
building of the _South Carolina_ and _Michigan_, which carry eight
12-inch guns, so disposed as to be available on either broadside.
Both these ideas were public property before the British _Dreadnought_
was laid down. She was, however, built with such rapidity that she was
completed long before any other vessel of the type.
[Illustration: THE “DREADNOUGHT”--1906.]
In the design for a new type of British capital ship, a great many
ideas were considered and rejected. Eventually, however, it was decided
to equip the _Dreadnought_ with five turrets so disposed that eight
guns were available on either broadside and six guns available ahead
or astern. The designed speed of the ship was twenty-one knots.
Together with this type of ship, another type, somewhat more resembling
the Cuniberti ideal, was laid down. Three ships of this class, the
_Invincible_ class, were designed for a speed of twenty-five knots, and
given big guns so disposed that eight guns were available on either
broadside and six big guns ahead or astern.
The _Dreadnought_ was officially laid down in December, 1905, and
completed ten months later. Actually, however, materials for her were
collected months beforehand, and the rate at which she was built,[29]
like the secrecy with which her building was surrounded, consisted in
great measure of a theatrical display, very impressive to the general
public at the time, but to-day generally regarded as “unfortunate”
on account of the foreign attention thus attracted. But, while the
previous chapter is clear proof of the futility of any real secrecy
about the “Dreadnought idea,” so far as the British Navy was concerned,
it likewise serves to refute a charge which has been made to the effect
that the “secrecy policy” induced foreign nations to build Dreadnoughts
also. The most that can be said is that had the _Dreadnought_ been
built without so much attention being attracted to her, foreign nations
might have been less in a hurry to copy her. But it is absolutely clear
that the all-big-gun ship era had arrived, just as in the past the
ironclad era came, or, in earlier days still, the gun and steam eras
did. The actual place of the _Dreadnought_ in history is that she marks
a wise and rapid recognition of new conditions.
Details of the _Dreadnought_ are as follows:--
Displacement--17,900 tons.
Length--526ft. (over all).
Beam--82ft.
Draught--Maximum, 29ft. (normal).
Armament--Ten 12-inch, 45 cal.; twenty-seven 12 pounders; five
submerged tubes (18 inch).
Armour Belt--11-in. to 6-in. forward; and 4-in. aft. On turrets
11-inch (K.C.)
Machinery--Parsons Turbine; four screws.
Horse-power--23,000 = 21 knots.
Boilers--Babcock.
Coal--(normal) 900 tons; (maximum) 2,000 tons; oil fuel also.
Built at Portsmouth; Engined by Vickers.
The _Dreadnought_ was unique in every particular. The exact disposition
of her big gun armament was only arrived at after a long and careful
consultation, and the consideration of a number of alternatives. It
admits of eight big guns bearing in nearly every position, and allows
a minimum fire of six in any case. It is understood that, in addition
to the plan actually adopted, in the earliest plan of all (which was
merely an adaption of the _Lord Nelson_ class), consideration was
given to a scheme of five turrets, all in the centre line, and also to
an arrangement whereby the two amidship turrets would be placed _en
échelon_.
One of the particular arguments in favour of the plan ultimately
adopted was that next to four, eight big guns form the best workable
unit for fire control purposes. It was also considered that eight guns
would probably be the maximum that could safely be fired together
continuously, with full charges in battle conditions.
[Illustration: ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS FOR THE DREADNOUGHT.]
In these days when all big gun armaments are the rule, there is a
tendency to overlook the fact that the _Dreadnought’s_ main armament
was double that of previous ships, with only a comparatively small
increase of displacement, and that no intermediate experience existed
as to what might be expected.
With a view to standing the shock of discharge, the _Dreadnought_ was
built with very heavy scantlings and generally given an immensely
strong hull. The armouring followed orthodox lines, except that a
certain amount was applied internally under-water as a protection
against torpedoes. In addition she was given solid bulkheads,[30]
though this was no novelty except with the British Navy, as they had
been introduced some years before in the battleship _Tsarevitch_ and
the armoured cruiser _Bayan_, built for the Russians at La Seyne.
Another novelty in the _Dreadnought_ was the adoption of a high
forecastle, she being the first British battleship in which this
appears. Another innovation was the placing of the officers’ quarters
forward and putting the men aft, a system which, however, has since
been abandoned in the most recent vessels.
The greatest novelty of the _Dreadnought_, however, was the adoption of
turbine machinery, and the form of her hull, with a 30ft. overhang aft,
in order to adapt the ship to the new means of propulsion. The fitting
of turbines to the new _Dreadnought_ was perhaps an even greater
novelty than her armament, she being the first warship, other than
small cruisers, to be so equipped.
The introduction of turbines was regarded with a good deal of
apprehension in certain quarters, especially when it became known that
the three other big ships belonging to the same programme were also to
be turbine propelled. The type selected for all was the Parsons with
four shafts. The wing shafts of the _Dreadnought_ have each one high
pressure ahead and one high pressure astern turbine. The amidship ones
are fitted with three turbines each--one low pressure one ahead, and
one low pressure astern, and one turbine for going astern. Each turbine
has 39,600 blades.
On her first trials the _Dreadnought_ exceeded her designed speed for
short spurts by three-quarters of a knot, but on the eight hours’
run barely succeeded in making a mean of twenty-one knots. Shortly
afterwards she fell a little below this, but at a later date picked
up again, and on more than one occasion since she has easily made
twenty-two knots or over. Such early difficulties as occurred were due
to the fact that her engine-room complement were at first necessarily
unfamiliar with working so large an installation. The total cost of the
_Dreadnought_, which belongs to the 1905–06 programme, was £1,797,497,
and save that her draught somewhat exceeded anticipations, the ship was
a success in every way, proving a remarkably steady gun-platform.
The Committee which sat on the _Dreadnought_ design was by no means
entirely unanimous as to what sacrifice should be made for speed.
The _Dreadnought_ herself, despite a considerable increase of speed
as compared with the battleships that preceded her, did not obtain
that speed by the sacrifice of any battleship qualities, but almost
entirely on account of the substitution of turbines for reciprocating
engines. To that extent, therefore, though nearly as fast as the
armoured cruisers of a few years before, she may be said to have
developed entirely along normal lines, rather than on those laid down
by Cuniberti.
The table on the next page and diagrams indicate how the original
Cuniberti idea compares with the first results obtained. It will be
noticed that, except in the case of the _Invincible_ type, and there
only at a sacrifice of armour and armament, was, however, anything
like the Cuniberti speed attempted. It should be stated that in the
Cuniberti ship the peculiar “girder construction” of his _Vittorio
Emanuele_ was obviously contemplated. This construction, which admits
of far lighter scantlings than usually employed, has not been attempted
in any other Navies, and a corresponding extra dead-weight results.
Coming to details, there is uncertainty as to the exact original design
of the _Satsuma_; but a uniform armament of big guns was certainly the
first to be projected. It is not clear whether it was abandoned from a
preference for a numerically larger but mixed battery; or with a view
to utilising such guns as were most likely to be available for early
delivery. Japan was then at war, and there was the natural anticipation
that the ships might be wanted before the war was over. It should, on
the other hand, be borne in mind that the _Kashima_ and _Katori_, of
16,400 tons, carrying four 12-inch, four 10-inch, twelve 6-inch, and
twelve 14-pounders, with 9-inch belts and 18.5 knot speeds were at that
time held up in England on account of the war. Hence it has with some
considerable show of reason been argued that the _Satsuma_ and _Aki_
are nothing but normal developments of the _Kashima_ design, bearing
just the same relation to it as the British _Lord Nelsons_ bear to the
_King Edwards_. It was also practically admitted by the Japanese at a
later date that for diplomatic reasons, in accounts of the contemporary
armoured cruisers of the _Tsukuba_ class, the armaments[31] were
exaggerated.
ORIGINAL DREADNOUGHT DESIGNS.
============================+===============+==================================+=======+========+============
| Normal | | | Des’d. |
| Displacement. | Armament. | Belt. | Speed. | Laid
| Tons. | | in. | Knots. | Down.
----------------------------+---------------+----------------------------------+-------+--------+------------
_Cuniberti_ (as built) | 17,000 | 12--12in., 18--12 pdr. | 12 | 24 | _pro._ 1903
_Satsuma_ Design | 19,250 | 12 _or_ 10--12in., 12--4.7 | 9 | 20 | ----
----------------------------+---------------+----------------------------------+-------+--------+------------
_Satsuma_ | 19,250 | 4--12in., 12--10in., 12--6 | 9 | 20 | 1905
_S. Carolina, pro._ | 16–17,000 | 8--12in., (_or_ 4--12in., | 10 | 18–20 | ----
| | 8--10in.), 30--14 pdr. | | |
_S. Carolina_ | 16,000 | 8--12in., 22--14 pdr. | 12 | 18½ | 1906
_Dreadnought_, 1st Design | ? | 10--12in. | .. | .. | ----
_Dreadnought_ (as built) | 17,900 | 10--12in., 27--12 pdr. | 11 | 21 | 1905
_Invincible_ | 17,250 | 8--12in., 16--4in. | 7 | 25 | 1906
_Nassau_ (as “S”) | ? | 8--11in., 12--6in., 10--24 pdr. | ? | 19½ | 1906
_Nassau_ | 18,500 | 12--11in., 12--6in., 10--24 pdr. | 9¾ | 19½ | 1907
============================+===============+==================================+=======+========+============
_Note._--The _Nassau_ was delayed a year owing to alterations in design.
Be all these things as they may, however, Japan is obviously entitled
to some considerable share in originating the “Dreadnought movement.”
The claims of the United States Navy rest on a stronger basis. The
_South Carolina_ type, all big guns in the centre line, all bearing
on either broadside, was a distinct advance and novelty. The actual
chronological date of laying down goes for nothing; the ships were
designed and authorised long before they were commenced. No secrecy
whatever was observed about them, and a strong body of opinion will
always credit the United States with being the first Navy that
definitely adopted the “all-big-gun idea.” It is interesting to note
(see table) that at one stage a mixed 12-inch and 10-inch armament was
regarded as a possible alternative.
[Illustration:
CUIBERI.
SATSUMA.
S CAROLINA. FIRST DESIGN
S CAROLINA.
FIRST BRITISH DREADNOUGHT DESIGN
DREADNOUGHT.
INVINCIBLE.
NASSAU FIRST DESIGN
NASSAU AS BUILT
ORIGINAL DREADNOUGHT DESIGNS.]
It has been claimed, either by those responsible for the _Dreadnought_
herself, or by others professing to speak for them, that the
_Dreadnought_ was evolved entirely independently of Cuniberti’s ideal.
It is practically impossible to say definitely how far there can be any
truth in this. In all Admiralties, ships are, as a rule, designed as
“projects” long before they see the light (some never see it at all,
as witness the sea-going masted turret-ship of his design referred to
by Sir Edward Reed in some remarks quoted on an earlier page!). The
first British all-big-gun ship design (see diagram) is a lineal enough
descendant of the _King Edward_ and _Lord Nelson_, just as Cuniberti’s
is a descendant of the _Vittorio Emanuele_.
The Cuniberti design appears, however, to have been submitted as early
as 1901. In any case, to Cuniberti belongs the first clear exposition
of the idea, while the ridicule with which it was at first received
indicates the general novelty.
Germany is also a claimant to having evolved Dreadnoughts with the
“_S_” type, intended to have been laid down in 1906, to follow the
_Deutschlands_. These ships can hardly have been designed much later
than 1904. When first heard of they were reported to carry four big gun
turrets, of which two were placed on either side amidships. Six big
guns was the first reputed armament, later each turret was to carry two
guns.
The absurd secrecy with which subsequent German designs have been
shrouded was not then in evidence; and all the indications are that the
_Nassau_, as originally contemplated, was to have been a four-turret
ship--the two extra 11-inch being Germany’s equivalent for the four
12-inch, four 9.2, of our _King Edwards_. This would perhaps accord
Germany a priority in actually adopting the principle of an increased
number of heavy guns.
All of which suffices to indicate that the adoption of more than four
big guns had little or nothing to do with the somewhat theatrical
building of the original _Dreadnought_.