Chapter 1

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The British battle fleet, Vol. 2 (of 2) This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook. Title: The British battle fleet, Vol. 2 (of 2) its inception and growth throughout the centuries to the present day Author: Fred T. Jane Illustrator: W. L. Wyllie Release date: March 15, 2025 [eBook #75617] Language: English Original publication: London: The Library Press, limited, 1915 Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/75617 Credits: Peter Becker, Charlie Howard, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive) *** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE BRITISH BATTLE FLEET, VOL. 2 (OF 2) *** 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