_South Carolinas_[32]) it appears clear that the _Dreadnought_ was
the first ship in which the all-big-gun principle was adopted as a
technical asset in gun-laying over and above guns _qua_ guns. After
four, eight was the “tactical unit” of guns, promising results
altogether out of proportion to anything that six, or for that matter,
ten (in proportion) could achieve.
[Illustration:
1879. French AMIRAL DUPERRÉ.
1886. French HOCHE.
1886. Austria K.E.RUDOLPH.
1886. Russian TCHESMA.
1889. German SIEGFRIED.
EARLY EXAMPLES OF WING TURRETS.]
It may not be too much to say that what Cuniberti “saw as through a
glass darkly,” the _Dreadnought_ translated into fact, and that she was
the first battleship avowedly so designed.
“Fire control” was a new thing in 1905. No navy, save the British,
had considered it to any appreciable degree. The _King Edwards_ had
taught that control of two calibres from one position was a practical
impossibility. Mixed calibres were damned accordingly, and there was no
outlet but the _Dreadnought_.
But for Cuniberti she might, and possibly would, have remained a
theoretical desirability for several more years. The measure of his
genius may be the demonstration that such an ideal ship could be built.
It is to be argued that he did nothing more than put into practicable
shape what already existed as a hypothesis. Even so, however, to him
belongs the honour of indicating that the step from theory to practice
was possible; and on that account alone he deserves to go down to
posterity as the actual creator of Dreadnoughts.
In the other three ships of the 1905–06 programme, however, a high
speed was accepted as the governing factor. The ships as built were
designated “armoured cruisers,” and in so far as the Japanese were
known to be building armoured cruisers carrying battleship guns,
that designation was legitimate. For that matter, there also existed
a paper by Professor Hovgaard, of the Massachusetts School of Naval
Architecture, in which it was tentatively laid down that the ideal
armoured cruiser of the future would be a battleship in armament and
armour, increased in size, to obtain greater speed.
The three companion ships to the _Dreadnought_--the _Invincible_,
_Inflexible_, and _Indomitable_--adhered no more closely to the
Hovgaard ideal than to the Cuniberti one. In principle they varied from
the _Dreadnought_ design only in that they sacrificed a certain amount
of armour in order to obtain a greater speed. By the adoption of the
échelon system, the same broadside-fire was secured for them (on paper,
at any rate) as for the _Dreadnought_, though with a turret less.
In practice it has been found that there are very few positions in
which they can bring more than six big guns to bear, but this must be
considered as an error of construction rather than of principle. They
have turned out to be wonderful steamers, but considerably inferior
sea-boats to the _Dreadnought_, and in the British Navy are generally
likely in the future to become regarded as obsolete long before the
former. For all that, they probably approximate more nearly to the
warship of the future than the _Dreadnought_.
Admiral Bacon, in his views as to the warship of the future, generally
inclined to the idea of very large and very swift ships, relying on
armament, speed, and super-scientific internal sub-division rather than
on armour protection. These ships would act more or less independently,
each, as it were, representing a divided squadron group of to-day.
It is interesting to note that Italy, which in the seventies evolved in
the _Duilio_ and _Dandolo_ the “Dreadnought” of that period, eventually
developed a very similar idea in the _Italia_ and _Lepanto_, which had
no side armour whatever. In later designs a thin belt was reverted to,
and finally the old cycle was resumed.
This result was brought about by the quickfirer, which appeared as a
rival to the hitherto predominant monster gun. To-day the torpedo is
becoming paramount and a danger to a fleet in close order at almost any
range--hence the Bacon ideal. It remains to be seen whether the future
will produce any analogy to the cycle of the quickfirer of the eighties.
Details of the _Invincible_ type are:--
Displacement--17,250 tons.
Length (over all)--562ft. (_p.p._, 530ft.).
Beam--78½ft.
Draught--29ft.
Armament--Eight 12-inch, XI, 45 calibre, sixteen 4-inch (model
1907); three submerged tubes.
Armour Belt--7-inch, reduced to 4-inch at the ends.
Machinery--Parsons Turbine.
Horse-power--41,000 = 25 knots.
Boilers--(_Invincible_ and _Inflexible_) Yarrow, (_Indomitable_)
Babcock.
Coal--(normal) 1,000 tons; (maximum) 3,000 tons; oil fuel also.
Builders--(_Invincible_) Elswick, (_Inflexible_) Clydebank,
(_Indomitable_) Fairfield.
Engined--(_Invincible_) Humphrys, (_Inflexible_) Clydebank,
(_Indomitable_) Fairfield.
As originally designed, the anti-torpedo guns of these ships would
have been the same as the _Dreadnought’s_, but, having been completed
nearly two years later and a new pattern 4-inch quickfirer having been
invented in the interim, they were fitted with these guns. The trial
results were as follows:--_Invincible_, 26.6 knots; _Inflexible_, 26.5
knots; and _Indomitable_, 26.1 knots; the designed horse power being
considerably exceeded in every case. After they were commissioned and
had shaken down, these trial speeds were considerably exceeded, and at
one time and another they all did well over 28 knots; the _Indomitable_
having made a record of 28.7.
The fuel consumption of these ships is naturally enormous. The
_Indomitable_, in crossing the Atlantic at full speed, burned about
500 tons of coal a day, as well as about 120 tons of oil. As steamers
they are to be considered remarkably successful. The average cost of
construction was about £1,752,000, which works out at a little under
£102 per ton.
Towards the close of the year 1911 the official designation of
“armoured cruiser” for them and similar ships was abandoned, and the
term “battle cruiser” substituted. No further secret was made of the
fairly obvious fact that they were designed as “fast battleships,”
intended to engage and hold a retreating enemy till such time as the
main squadron could come up.
Curiously enough, for some while, though every nation started building
_Dreadnoughts_, Germany alone proceeded to build _Invincibles_ also.
In 1911 Japan ordered a ship of fast battleship type; but, generally
speaking, foreign nations have abstained from embodying this portion of
the Cuniberti ideal in their designs.
[Illustration:
DREADNOUGHT.
INDOMITABLE.
NEPTUNE.
INDEFATIGABLE.
DREADNOUGHTS.]
The programme for the years 1906–07 had been originally intended
to include the building of four armoured ships, presumably one
_Dreadnought_ and three _Invincibles_; but the Liberal party, which
had just come into power, modified this to three battleships of an
improved _Dreadnought_ type. This action led to a popular agitation
which ultimately eventuated in the provision of no less than eight
armoured ships in the estimates of three years later.
The three ships which followed, the _Dreadnought_, the _Bellerophon_,
_Téméraire_, and _Superb_, are some seven hundred tons heavier, but
otherwise differ only in minor details. For the one heavy tripod of
the _Dreadnought_, two were substituted, and the 4-inch anti-torpedo
gun was also mounted. In the next year the _St. Vincent_ class, a
group of similar type, but increased by 650 tons, were provided. The
anti-torpedo armament is carried to 20 guns in the _St. Vincent_ class,
which are 10ft. longer than their predecessors, and carry fifty-calibre
big guns in place of the forty-five calibre pieces of the earlier
ships. The constructive particulars of these ships are as follows:--
==============+============+====================+===========+===========+========
Name. | Built at. | Machinery by. | Laid down.| Completed.| Trials.
--------------+------------+--------------------+-----------+-----------+--------
_Bellerophon_ | Portsmouth | Fairfield | Dec., ’06 | Feb., ’07 | 21.9
_Téméraire_ | Devonport | Hawthorn, Leslie | Jan., ’07 | May, ’09 |
_Superb_ | Elswick | Wallsend Co. | Feb., ’07 | June, ’09 |
--------------+------------+--------------------+-----------+-----------+--------
_St. Vincent_ | Portsmouth | Scott Eng. & S. Co.| Dec., ’07 | Jan., ’10 | 21.9
_Collingwood_ | Devonport | Hawthorn, L. | Feb., ’08 | Jan., ’10 | 22
_Vanguard_ | Vickers | Vickers | April, ’08| Feb., ’10 | 22.1
==============+============+====================+===========+===========+========
In the Estimates for 1908–09, the armoured ships provided were reduced
to two, the _Neptune_ and the _Indefatigable_. Provision in the United
States, Argentine, and Brazilian Navies for ships bearing ten big guns
on the broadside and the prospect of ships with equal broadsides being
constructed elsewhere is presumably the reason why in the _Neptune_
the original _Dreadnought_ design was varied, and a new arrangement
of turrets introduced. The _Neptune_, which is of 20,200 tons, is
a species of compromise between the _Dreadnought_ and _Invincible_
designs, the amidship guns being _en échelon_, and so mounted that
they give a very full arc of fire on either broadside. The increased
space occupied by this arrangement necessitated a certain cramping aft,
for which reason the forward of the two after turrets was superposed to
train over the aftermost, American fashion.
Particulars of the _Neptune_ are as follows:--
Displacement--20,200 tons.
Length (over all)--546ft.
Beam--85ft.
Draught--29ft.
Guns--Ten 12-inch, fifty calibre, twenty 4-inch.
Armour--Belt 12-in. amidships, 6-in. forward, 4-in. aft. Lower
deckside, 9¾-in. Turrets, 12--8-in.
Machinery--Parsons Turbine.
Horse-power--25,000 = 21 knots.
Boilers--Yarrow.
Coal--(normal) 900 tons; (maximum) 2,700 tons; oil fuel also.
Built at Portsmouth Dockyard.
Engined by Harland and Wolff.
On trial she developed at three-quarter power I.H.P. 18,575, with a
speed of nineteen knots, and at full power 27,721, with 21.78 knots.
Her best maximum spurt speed was 22.7--that is to say, about one and
three-quarter knots over contract.
In the _Neptune_ the original _Dreadnought_ practice of mounting the
anti-torpedo armament on top of the turrets was entirely abandoned, and
these guns were placed inside or on top of the superstructure in three
main groups.
The number of torpedo tubes was reduced to three, the reason for this
being partly to save space and also to take advantage of improved
methods for securing rapidity of fire. In the _Neptune_ the possibility
of aero craft first received consideration, the upper deck being built
sufficiently thick to be proof against bombs dropped from aloft.
[Illustration: “INDEFATIGABLE” AND “INVINCIBLE” 1911.]
The _Neptune_ was one of the cheapest ships ever built for the British
Navy, her cost working out at a little under £87 per ton.
The other ship of the same programme was the _Indefatigable_, an
improved _Invincible_. She represents an increase of nearly 2,000 tons
over the type ship, with an increase in length of 18ft. and a foot more
beam. Save for the addition of four more anti-torpedo guns the armament
remains the same, but an extra inch is added to the belt. The principal
improvement achieved in her is that the two amidship turrets are much
less crowded up than in the type ship, thus securing a considerably
better range of fire.
Although the horse power is proportionately less than that of the
_Invincibles_, the better lines of the ship have made her even more
speedy. She easily exceeded her designed speed on trial, and has
reached as high as 29.13 knots.
The cost of construction was £1,547,426, which works out at about
£82 10s. per ton, as against the average £120 per ton that the
_Invincibles_ cost to build. She was the cheapest ship ever built for
the British Navy,[33] to her date.
Details of the _Indefatigable_ are:--
Displacement--19,200 tons.
Length--578ft.
Beam--79½ft.
Draught--27¾ft.
Guns--Eight 12-inch, fifty calibre, twenty 4-inch.
Armour Belt--8-in. amidships, diminished to 4-in. at the ends.
Machinery--Parsons Turbine.
Horse-power--43,000 = 25 knots.
Boilers--Babcock.
Coal--(normal) 1,000 tons; (maximum) 2,500 tons; oil fuel also.
Built at Devonport Dockyard.
Engined by J. Brown & Co., of Clydebank.
Two other battle-cruisers almost identical to the _Indefatigable_,
the _Australia_ at Clydebank, for the Australian Navy, and the _New
Zealand_ at Fairfield, a gift from New Zealand to the British Navy,
were launched in 1911.
The programme for 1908–09, consisting as it did of only two armoured
ships, and the fact that the corresponding German programme was
increased by one capital ship, bringing the total to four, brought the
naval agitation to a head. Meetings demanding eight “Dreadnoughts” were
held all over the country, with the result that the British programme
for 1909–10 rose to four armoured ships with four other “conditional”
ships. The ships of the former programme were the _Colossus_,
_Hercules_, _Orion_, and _Lion_, and the first two of these were laid
down some months before the usual date, the _Colossus_ being commenced
in July instead of at the end of the year.
The “conditional” ships were all eventually laid down in April of the
following year. They were the _Monarch_, _Conqueror_, _Thunderer_, and
_Princess Royal_.
Under this programme there were no less than three distinct types of
ships. The first two, the _Colossus_ and _Hercules_, are practically
sisters of the _Neptune_, but of 400 tons greater displacement. They
differ in appearance in having but one tripod mast instead of two.
This, like the _Dreadnought’s_, is placed abaft the foremost funnel.
The _Colossus_ was built and engined by the Scott Shipbuilding and
Engineering Co., commenced in July, 1909, and completed two years
later. The _Hercules_, built by Palmer’s, followed a month later in
both cases. The first is fitted with Babcock, and the second with
Yarrow boilers. A point of minor interest about these two ships is that
whereas the anti-torpedo armament of the _Neptune_ is in three groups,
that of the _Colossus_ and _Hercules_ is in two groups only, the
mounting of small guns between the échelon turrets being done away with.
The other two types of the 1909–10 Estimates are the ships generally
known as “super-Dreadnoughts.”
_SUPER-DREADNOUGHTS._
The most obvious feature of the so-called “super-Dreadnoughts” is
the introduction of the 13.5-inch gun, particulars of which will be
found at the end of this chapter. This gun was experimented with
with a certain amount of secrecy, and was for a long time officially
designated as the 12-inch “A,” although practically everybody knew
that it was really a 13.5. It was only rendered possible by recent
improvements in gun-mountings and gun-construction. It is not very
appreciably heavier than the latest type of 12-inch, as mounted in the
_Colossus_, and its adoption was not so much a matter of obtaining
an increased range and penetration, as of securing the tremendously
increased smashing power of the heavier projectile.
Somewhat less obvious to the general public, but really of a great deal
more far-reaching importance, is the “Americanising” of British naval
design exhibited in all the “super-Dreadnoughts.” Though differing in
detail, the arrangement of the armament in all the “super-Dreadnoughts”
followed the American centre-line system, an interesting indication
of the progress of the United States Navy from the days, not so very
long ago, when American warship design was more or less a _pour faire
rire_! It is none the less interesting from the fact that in the
earliest designs, in all ships carrying more than two turrets, the
centre line was the only arrangement ever built or even considered.
Yet when an increased number of turrets came into being, the American
Navy was the only one which followed the original practice. In all
other Navies ideas of the period 1870–1880, when strong end-on fire was
considered an all-important essential, influenced design. America alone
appreciated the prophecy long ago made by Admiral Colomb to the effect
that whatever else might temporarily obtain, broadside to broadside
would always be reverted to for battle, on the grounds that thus, and
thus only, could the maximum number of guns be utilised.
It is proper here to remark that though the Americans adopted the
centre line from the outset for practical reasons, this disposition
became more or less a necessity when 13.5’s came in, owing to the
infinitely greater strain on the structure. This has been occasionally
used as an argument against American influence having made itself felt,
but the balance of evidence shows that even had the 13.5-inch not
appeared, the centre line system would have figured in the Navy. The
original centre-line idea disappeared because the échelon system looked
so superior. The échelon system of the 1875–85 era, however, died
out in its turn on account of certain practical disadvantages. It was
resurrected when these had been forgotten in the lapse of years; but
the disadvantages entailed in firing across a deck soon made themselves
felt again once the system was reverted to.
[Illustration:
U.S. ROANOKE.
British. ROYAL SOVEREIGN.
Russian. ADMIRAL LAZAREFF.
French. AMIRAL BAUDIN.
German. BRANDENBURG.
U.S. S. CAROLINA.
CENTRE-LINE SHIPS OF VARIOUS DATES.]
One of the earliest advocates, if not the first of modern advocates, of
the centre-line in England was Admiral Hopkins. Discussing the original
Cuniberti ideal, Admiral Hopkins pointed out that although for an
absolute right-ahead or astern fire wing-turrets gave an advantage, a
very slight yaw entirely altered the proportion, and that circumstance
in which the enemy was dead right-ahead necessitating such a yaw were
likely to occur very rarely indeed in war. He leaned, therefore, to the
opinion that a fewer number of guns all in the centre line would be
equally as efficacious, practically, as a larger number disposed partly
in wing turrets.
The échelon system, of course, renders practically no assistance
here, the arc of the guns firing across the deck being necessarily
restricted, even with the best échelon arrangement. While, therefore,
the échelon system is good for absolute end-on, or for more or less
absolute broadside firing, any intermediate and more probable position
renders it less efficient than a centre-line arrangement.
Another defect of the échelon system is that with it, except exactly
end-on, one side of the ship is necessarily more efficient than the
other, and that this is reversed according to whether the enemy is
ahead or astern, twenty-five per cent. of the big-gun armament being
affected thereby in a four turreted ship.
Though attention never seems to have been drawn to the matter, it is
a fact worthy of some attention that the _Von der Tann_, which is to
be regarded as Germany’s “answer” to the _Invincibles_, has (like all
German[34] ships on the same system) her échelonned turrets exactly in
reverse order to British ones. All British ships have the port turret
foremost; all German ones the starboard. The net result of this is that
(as the diagram indicates) there are two worst and two best positions
for either design. An _Invincible_ getting and keeping a _Von der
Tann_ upon her starboard bow or port quarter would have a twenty-five
per cent. superiority over her, while, supposing the German type to
maintain a position on her starboard quarter or port bow she would be
to the same extent over-matched, and to a certain extent “in chancery.”
With the centre line system, the imposition of fighting one side
rather than the other is not imposed, and overhauling or being
overhauled causes no disadvantage. Nothing is lost, save in the almost
hypothetical case of two ships engaging exactly end-on--a condition
which in no case would endure for more than a very short space of time,
to say nothing of the fact that practically all gunnery errors being
of “elevation” and not of “direction,” a ship adopting the end-on
position offers the equivalent of a vertical target of some 60ft. to
70ft. instead of the equivalent of 30ft. or so that she would present
broadside on.
The centre-line system may, therefore, be expected to endure against
all other dispositions pending the appearance of some fresh
condition of affairs which would cause the old end-on idea to be
reverted to.[35]
[Illustration: DIAGRAM TO ILLUSTRATE WEAK POINT OF THE ÉCHELON SYSTEM.]
The _Orion_ was the only one of her class which belonged to the
normal Estimates, 1909–10, the other three--_Conqueror_, _Thunderer_,
_Monarch_--being “contingent ships.” Details of the class are as
follows:--
Displacement--23,500 tons.
Length--(between perpendiculars) 554½ft; (over all) 584ft.
Beam--88½ft.
Draught--(mean) 27¾ft.
Armament--Ten 13.5-inch, forty-five calibre; sixteen 4-inch; three
21-inch torpedo tubes.
Armour Belt--12--4-inch. Turrets, 12-inch.
Machinery--Parsons turbine.
Horse-power--27,000 = 21 knots.
Boilers--Babcock.
Coal--(nominal) 900 tons; (maximum) 2,700 tons; oil, 1,000 tons.
============+=============+=============
Name. | Built at. | Engines by.
------------+-------------+-------------
_Orion_ | Portsmouth | Wallsend Co.
_Conqueror_ | Beardmore | Beardmore
_Thunderer_ | Thames I.W. | Thames I.W.
_Monarch_ | Elswick | Hawthorn
============+=============+=============
The _Orion_ was laid down in November, 1909, the others in April, 1910.
The _Orion_ was the first of these ships to be commissioned, and her
gunnery trials were watched with great interest. Few details of them
transpired, save that part of the secondary battery was injured by
blast. After commissioning, the _Orion_ was sent for a voyage across
the Bay of Biscay, and attracted much attention by rolling very
heavily, this being attributed to the fact that her bilge keels were
not large enough--not to any general structural defect.
An interesting feature of the _Orion_ type is that in it provision
first appears for the protection of boats in action.
Belonging to the same programme (1909–10), the first belonging to the
normal Estimates and the second to the “contingent,” are the battle
cruisers _Lion_ and _Princess Royal_. A great deal of secrecy was
observed about these ships, but their main details are approximately as
follows:--
Displacement--25,000 tons. Full load, 26,350 tons.
Length--(water-line), 675ft.; (over all) 690ft.
Beam--86½ft.
Draught--(maximum) 30ft.
Armament--Eight 13.5 inch 45 calibre, twenty 4-inch, three 21-inch
torpedo tubes.
Armour--Belt, 9--4-inch.
Machinery--Parsons Turbine.
Horse-power--(as designed) = 28 knots.
Boilers--Yarrow.
Coal--(normal) 1,000 tons; (maximum) 3,500 tons; oil also.
_Lion_--Built at Devonport; engined by Vickers.
_Princess Royal_--Built at Vickers; engined by Vickers.
The _Lion_ was laid down in November, 1909, and launched in the
following year. The _Princess Royal_ was laid down in April, 1910, and
launched a year later. Both were arranged to be completed during 1912.
The _Lion_ was somewhat delayed owing to slight repairs being required
to her turbines. In addition, the authorities very wisely did not
“hurry” her--hurrying ships to fit an exact official date having done
more mischief than anything else in the past.