Part 5

Chapter 53,509 wordsPublic domain

The Naval Defence Act also included a certain number of third-class cruisers--_Pallas_, _Pearl_, _Philomel_, and _Phœbe_--for the ordinary service, and five similar ships for the Australian station, originally named _Pandora_, _Pelorus_, _Persian_, _Phœnix_, and _Psyche_. These were later altered to Australian names, _Katoomba_, _Mildura_, _Wallaroo_, _Tauranga_, and _Ringarooma_. They were of 2,575 tons, with 2½ decks, armaments of eight 4.7-inch and four above-water 14-inch tubes. The designed speed was 19 knots.

Thirteen torpedo gunboats, improved _Rattlesnakes_, were laid down under the Act, corresponding to nine others of the normal Programme, of which two were for Australia. The Naval Defence boats were _Alarm_, _Antelope_, _Circe_, _Gleaner_, _Gossamer_, _Hebe_, _Renard_, _Speedy_--all laid down in 1889, as also were the _Whiting_ (afterwards _Boomerang_) and _Wizard_ (renamed _Karahatta_) for Australia. Those laid down normally in the previous year were the _Salamander_, _Seagull_, _Sheldrake_, _Skipjack_, _Spanker_, _Speedwell_, for the British Navy. Two others, _Assaye_ and _Plassy_, were built for the Indian Marine at and about this time. All carried a couple of 4.7-inch guns, were of about 750–850 tons displacement, and were first known as “catchers.” They were all intended to steam at 19 knots or over with locomotive boilers; but in service none ever did. At a later date, reboilered with water-tubes, many reached or exceeded the designed speed, and the majority of them are still in service for auxiliary purposes--many being specially fitted as mine sweepers, and the rest used as tenders for various services.

They are of considerable interest on account of the fact that the destroyers of 1909–12 were practically the same displacement and general shape, with a not very dissimilar armament--two 4-inch instead of two 4.7. The modern destroyers, however, were approximately ten knots faster--an interesting commentary on engineering improvements in the course of twenty years!

More interesting still, however, is the fact that Sir William White should have evolved twenty years ago almost exactly what--except in the matter of modern speed possibilities--is to-day the recognised ideal for destroyers.

In the British Navy the torpedo gunboats never get beyond the “catcher” stage--they never had the opportunity; but it is worthy of note that the first two ships to be torpedoed under anything like modern war conditions--the Chilian _Blanco Encalada_ and the Brazilian _Aquidaban_--were both sunk by vessels of almost exactly the same type as the “catchers,” and not by torpedo boats.

So far as the British Navy was concerned, the “catchers” tested in the “secret manœuvres” of 1891 did uncommonly well. They hung about off the torpedo bases, and though only about one to four, accounted for at least 90 per cent. of the hostile torpedo boats. To this very success, perhaps, was due the fact that in their own day they were not thought of as an offensive arm against big ships--destruction of the torpedo boat was then the principal aim in view. This they fulfilled. The South American Republics discovered their “other uses,” and so really led the way to the evolution of the destroyer of a later era.

Perhaps the only nation which really read the lesson involved was Germany. So long ago as 1895 she had launched the 2,000-ton “small cruiser” _Hela_; in 1898 the _Gazelle_ of 2,645 tons was set afloat. For years Germany added to the _Gazelle_ class, at a time when all the rest of the world had decreed that “third-class cruisers” were useless. Not for many a year did the British Admiralty discover that Germany had seen the matter of the _Lynch_ and the _Sampaio_[16] better than any other Power.

Neither of these ships in attacking got hit. They got home without. But they might have been hit. Germany evolved something that even if hit badly would still float long enough to get off her torpedoes.

Till the Chilian “catchers” in 1891 proved their offensive abilities, no one had ever considered that side of the question. To this day Germany has never really received her meed of credit for perceiving that a small third-class cruiser has potentialities with torpedoes against a battleship at night.

So late as the present day much comment about German small cruisers being inadequately gunned, a clear indication that just as in the past there was a difficulty in conceiving of the torpedo-gunboat for other than her nominal use, so the possibilities of the small cruiser in the role of destroyer were still apt to be generally overlooked.

In February, 1893, there was laid down the _Renown_, the only armoured ship of the 1892–93 Estimates; an improved _Centurion_, with thinner belt armour. Harvey armour--three inches of which had the resisting value of four inches of compound or six inches of iron--was adopted in this ship for the first time. Influences other than taking advantage of the reduced weight required for a given protective value were, however, at work, for in the _Renown_ sacrifices were made at the water-line in order to secure better protection to the lower deck side.

Details of the _Renown_:--

Displacement--12,350 tons.

Length (between perpendiculars)--380ft.

Beam--72⅓ft.

Draught--(maximum) 27ft.

Armament--Four 10-inch, ten 6-inch 40 cal., twelve 12-pounders, four submerged 18-inch tubes, and one above water-line in stern.

Armour--8--6in. belt, 200ft. long amidships, 6in. side above. Bulkheads 10--6in., barbettes 10in., casemates, main deck ones 6in., upper deck ones, 4in.

Horse-power--12,000 = 18 knots.

Coal--(normal) 800 tons; (maximum) 1,760 tons = nominal 7,200 miles at ten knots.

Built at Pembroke; engined by Maudslay; she was launched in May, 1895, and completed for sea in April, 1897, having taken no less than 4¼ years to build. Cost, £746,247.

She proved one of the best steamers ever built for the Navy. On a four-hour trial she made 18.75 knots, with 12,901 I.H.P. Her economical speed proved to be fifteen knots. She always steamed well, and after thirteen years’ service did 17.4 knots with ease.

The special feature of this ship was that in her instead of the ordinary flat deck on top of the belt, a sloping deck behind the belt was first introduced. This system--rigidly adhered to in the British Navy ever since, and copied eventually into every other Navy--was based upon the idea of reinforcing the deck-protected cruiser with side armour. The principle involved was that at whatever angle the belt might be hit and penetrated, the incoming projectile would then meet a further obstruction at a 45° angle, calculated to present a maximum of deflecting resistance. Professor Hovgaard and others have since indicated that, weight for weight, three inches of inclined deck armour, having to be spread more, represent as much or more tons as six inches of vertical armour (the nominal equivalent), and protective decks behind armour are to-day much thinner than of yore and little better than “splinter decks.” The principle, however, remains, as originated by Sir William White, and is, perhaps, the most characteristic feature of his era: seeing how universally the idea was copied.

The French were the last to adopt it. Instead, they used the flat deck below the belt in addition to the one on top of it. This was made use of so late as the _République_ and _Liberté_ class. While ideally better for resisting projectiles which might penetrate the belt, it was impossible of really practical application amidships on account of the difficulty of keeping the engines entirely below it.

The _Renown_ was the first ship to carry all her secondary guns in casemates. She was fitted as a flagship, and first served on the North American Station. When Admiral Fisher went from there to the Mediterranean he took the _Renown_ with him as flagship, presumably with the idea that speed was better than power in a flagship. The _Renown’s_ fighting power was small even then, but she was well fitted for the social side of flagship work--so nicely, indeed, that the flash-plates of the big guns had been taken up so as not to interfere with ladies’ shoes in dances!

After leaving the Mediterranean the _Renown_ was still further converted into a “battleship yacht,” the six-inch guns being removed. She was painted white, and used to convey the then Prince of Wales to India. Thereafter she practically disappeared from the effective list and eventually became a training ship for stokers.

The _Renown_ was followed by the ships of the Spencer programme, nine battleships of the _Majestic_ class, which were spread over the 1893–94 Estimates, and those of the next year. The _Majestics_ were in substance amplified _Renowns_, their special and particular feature being that in place of the two amidships belt of varying thickness a single belt of 16ft. wide of a uniform 9in. thickness was substituted.

In the _Majestics_, the 13.5, which had been for so long the standard gun for first-class battleships, disappeared in favour of a new type of 12-inch, a Mark VIII. of 35 calibres. The two types compare as follows:--

=====+=======+=======+===========+================================= | | | |Maximum Penetration against K.C. Bore.|Length.|Weight.|Projectile.| (capped projectiles). Inch.| Cals. | Tons. | lbs. | at 5000 yds. | at 3000 yds. | | | | in. | in. -----+-------+-------+-----------+-----------------+--------------- 13.5 | 30 | 67 | 1250 | 9 | 12 | | | | | 12 | 35 | 46 | 850 | 11½ | 14½ =====+=======+=======+===========+=================+===============

The new gun was, therefore, superior in everything except weight of projectile, and that was not considered much in those days. To-day, of course, it has quite a special meaning.

In the _Majestics_, except in the first two, all-round loading positions for the big guns were introduced in place of the cumbersome old system whereby, after firing, the guns had to return to an end-on position, tilt up, and at a fixed angle take their charges at what was little but an adaption for breechloaders of the loading system evolved twenty years before for the old _Inflexible_.

Details of these ships:--

Displacement--14,900 tons.

Length--(between perpendiculars) 390ft., (over-all) 413ft.

Beam--75ft.

Draught--(mean), 27½ ft., (maximum) about 30ft.

Armament--Four 12-inch 35 cal., twelve 6-inch 40 cal., sixteen 12-pounders, twelve 3-pounders. Torpedo tubes (18-inch), four submerged and one above water in stern.

Armour (Harvey)--Belt, (220ft. by 16ft.) 9in. Bulkheads, 14in. Barbettes, 14in. with 10in. turrets. Casemates, 6in.

Horse-power--12,000 = 17.5 knots.

Coal--(normal) 1,200 tons; (maximum) 2,200 tons = nominal radius of 7,600 miles at 10 knots and 4,000 at 15 knots.

The ships were built, etc., as follows:--

Mostly they were completed inside two years, the only ones which took appreciably longer being the _Hannibal_ and the _Illustrious_. In these and the _Cæsar_ an innovation introduced in the others--the placing of the chart house round the base of the foremast with the conning tower well clear ahead--was done away with, and the old system of the bridge over the conning tower reverted to. In the _Cæsar_ and _Illustrious_, laid down later than the others, an improvement was effected by the introduction of circular instead of pear-shaped barbettes. The _Majestic_, _Magnificent_, and _Cæsar_ were built in dry dock instead of on slips--the first instance of this since the days of early coast-defence monitors.

The total cost was approximately a million per ship.

On trials most of them exceeded the designed speed, but all were light on trials. They proved very handy ships, with circles of 450 yards at fifteen knots. Coal consumption was always high.

Compared to the _Sovereigns_, the following figures are of interest:--

=============+============+=========+==========+=======+======== | | | Weight of| | |Displacement|Weight of|Armament &| |Normal Name. | (tons). | Armour |Ammunition| | Coal | | (tons). | (tons). | H.P. |(tons). -------------+------------+---------+----------+-------+-------- _Majestics_ | 14,900 | 4260 | 1500 |12,000 | 1200 _Sovereigns_ | 14,100 | 4600 | 1410 |13,000 | 900 =============+============+=========+==========+=======+========

The total dead weight carried in armament, armour, and coal thus works out at practically the same figure, despite the rise of 800 tons in displacement. On these grounds certain attacks were made upon the ships, mainly by those who argued against the unarmoured ends. The criticisms were, however, mainly of the captious order--the ships were certainly the finest specimens of naval architecture of their day.

At a later date electric hoists were fitted to the 6-inch guns, and 400 tons of oil fuel were added to the fuel capacity (the maximum coal capacity being reduced by 200 tons). The first ship to be so fitted was the _Mars_. Another innovation was shifting the torpedo nets, first in the _Mars_, then in all the others, from the upper deck to the main deck level; the idea being to keep the nets clear of the 6-inch guns.

The _Majestic_ and _Magnificent_ served for a long time as flagships in the Channel Fleet. Admiral Sir F. Stephenson and Sir A. K. Wilson flew their flags in the _Majestic_, of which ship Prince Louis of Battenberg was at one time captain.

It was during the early service of the _Majestics_ in the Channel Fleet that “invisible” colours for warships first came into consideration, all ships up to that date being painted with black hulls, white upper works, and yellow masts and funnels. For these experiments the _Magnificent_ was painted black all over, the _Majestic_ and _Hannibal_ were given grey and light green upper works respectively. The latter was really the more “invisible” of the two, but both ships were left with black hulls. Ultimately a grey, a little darker than that which the Germans had long used, was adopted as the regulation, though for some time it varied greatly between ship and ship, following the old system under which a good deal of latitude in painting was allowed.[17]

To this era, 1894–95, belong two groups of protected cruisers, the _Powerfuls_ and the _Talbots_. The latter, nine in all, were merely enlarged (5,600 tons) editions of the later cruisers of the Naval Defence Act, and call for no comment. The former group were the _Powerful_ and _Terrible_, “replies” to the Russian _Rurik_ and _Rossiya_. They displaced nearly as much as the battleships--14,200 tons--and ran to the then unheard of length of 500ft. between perpendiculars. They carried no belt armour whatever, but were given stout protective decks, no less than 6in. on the slopes amidships. The two big guns (40 calibre, 9.2) were given 6in. Harvey barbettes, the twelve other guns[18] (6-inch) being in 6-inch casemates. Sixteen 12-pounders were disposed about the upper works. Designed horse-power 25,000 = 22 knots. Total bunker capacity of 3,000 tons, equal to a nominal 7,000 miles at fourteen knots. Both ships were laid down in 1894, the _Powerful_ by Vickers and the _Terrible_ at Clydebank. They were launched in the following year.

In service the _Powerfuls_ proved capable of keeping up a speed of twenty knots almost indefinitely. For the rest, they were unhandy ships with large turning circles. At the time of the South African War, both of them were at the Cape, and did service with landed naval brigades. Of these, one from the _Powerful_, with some 4.7’s on special Percy Scott gun-carriages, materially assisted in the defence of Ladysmith.

During the year 1911 the decision was come to that it was not worth while preserving either ship, on account of the large crews required and their comparatively small fighting value under modern conditions.

Two considerable novelties were embodied in these ships. The first of these was the adoption of electrical gear for the big guns. The other and more far-reaching was the adoption of Belleville boilers.

_THE BATTLE OF THE BOILERS._

Owing to favourable reports of their use in the French Navy, Belleville boilers were in 1895 experimentally fitted to the _Sharpshooter_, torpedo gunboat; but the decision to adopt them in large ships was taken from French rather than any British experience. Trouble and failure were freely predicted. With the result frequently attending lugubrious predictions, very little trouble has ever been experienced with any type and then only in the very early stage when the water-tube boiler was an almost unknown curiosity to the engine-room staff.

The chief advantages claimed for Belleville boilers were the higher working pressures, economy in maintenance and fuel consumption, saving of weight, rapid steam raising, and great facility for repairs.

The Belleville was the first water-tube boiler to come into prominence; other types, however, soon appeared. In the period 1895–98, torpedo gunboats were experimentally fitted as follows:--_Sharpshooter_, Belleville; _Sheldrake_, Babcock; _Seagull_, Niclausse; _Spanker_, Du Temple; _Salamander_, Mumford; _Speedy_, Thornycroft--these three last being of the small tube type. Other existing types were the Yarrow, White-Foster, Normand, Reed, Blechynden, all these being of the small tube type also, and regarded as suitable for small craft only.[19]

In the matter of big ships, so far as the British Navy was concerned, “water-tube boiler” for some years meant Bellevilles only, whence it came that in the insensate “Battle of the Boilers,” which presently broke out, Bellevilles were the main object of attack in Parliament and elsewhere. Actually, of course, the whole principle was in the melting pot. All the elements opposed to change in any form rallied to the attack, led on and influenced in some cases by those whose interests were bound up with the old style cylindrical boilers. It was all over again the old story of the fight for the retention of the paddle against the screw propeller, with an equal disregard for facts.

Unfortunately the party of progress played somewhat into the hands of the reactionaries. In fitting the Belleville type only, they had not much alternative, other types being then in a less forward state. The error made was that in the wholesale adoption of a new type of steam generator, requiring twice the skill and intelligence necessary for the old type, it was practically impossible to train quickly enough a sufficiency of engineers and stokers. Hence troubles soon arose. An even greater error was that the boilers were mostly built in England to the French specifications, without, in many cases, sufficient experienced supervision; and minor “improvements,” such as fusible plugs and restricting regulations, were introduced by more or less amateur Admiralty authorities--which also produced trouble.

For example, French practice had taught that adding lime to the feed water was desirable; but in many British ships this rule was ignored. Again, one Belleville essential was to throw on coal in very small quantities at a time, in contradistinction to the old cylindrical practice in which shovelling on enormous quantities of coal was the recipe for increased speed. This feature was often disregarded.

The Belleville, ever a complicated and delicate mechanism, if its full efficiency is to be secured, was a worse boiler for the experiments than many of the simpler types of to-day would have been. But no water-tube boiler of any type would have stood any chance of success against the opposition. There were some terrible times in the boiler rooms in those days. One or two ships whose chief engineers had been specially trained in France secured marvellous results, usually by ignoring Admiralty improvements and regulations.[20] But for one success there were many early failures.

The agitation triumphed to the extent of a Committee of Inquiry being appointed. An interim report of this Committee made a scape-goat of the Belleville, to the extent of recommending that no more should be fitted. But the victory of the retrogrades ended there. A species of compromise with public opinion inflamed against the water-tube system was temporarily adopted, and absurd mixed installations of cylindrical and water-tube boilers were fitted to some ships. Four large tube types were selected as substitutes for Bellevilles, the Niclausse, Dürr (a German variant of the Niclausse), the Babcock and Wilcox, and the Yarrow large tube.

It may approximately be said that every water-tube boiler is a species of compromise between facility for rapid repair on board ship and complication, and the need of great care in using and working. It is usual to put the Belleville at one end of this scale and the Yarrow (large tube) at the other, this last boiler now requiring little, if any, more care than the old type of cylindrical.

In the course of comparatively short experiments, both the Niclausse and the Dürr were found to possess most of the alleged deficiencies of the Belleville without its advantages; and it was decided to fit all future types of large ships with the Babcock and Yarrow types only. The absurd mixture of cylindrical and water-tube boilers was wisely done away with. Curiously enough, the Belleville boiler, once the agitation had ceased, also ceased to be troublesome. This was no doubt due to the increased experience which had been gained in the interim.

Both the Babcock and Yarrow boilers have been immensely improved since the days when they were first brought out. Something of the same sort is, of course, true of all the standard types, and there is to-day hardly any question as to which of them may be the best or worst. Each type has some special advantage of its own, and in no case, probably, is that advantage sufficiently pronounced to render any one type absolutely the best. When adopted by the Admiralty the Belleville was certainly the best water-tube boiler available. Had it been persisted in and not “improved” by amateurs it would probably have done quite as well as any type adopted to-day. The real issue was mainly not one of type, but of principle. That principle was the water-tube boiler as opposed to the old type cylindrical.