Part 9

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.

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.

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_.

On the other hand (with the possible and doubtful exception of the _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.

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.

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.