Lectionary Calendar
Thursday, November 21st, 2024
the Week of Proper 28 / Ordinary 33
Bible Encyclopedias
Ship and Shipbuilding
1911 Encyclopedia Britannica
Search for…
or
"SHIP AND SHIPBUILDING ( see 24.867). - The period from 1910-21 was marked by great progress in shipbuilding; that progress was in some ways interrupted, in others stimulated, by the World War, which overshadowed every phase of development both in commercial and naval enterprise. The naval strengths during ten years after 1921 of the chief nations were restricted as a result of the decisions summarized in the article Washington Conference.
The great object of the Allied belligerents during the war being to obtain the maximum output both of war material and of merchant ships on which their supplies depended, those responsible for the building of all types of ships naturally turned their attention to standardization. This had the effect of retarding the adoption of new inventions on the one hand; but on the other the novel circumstances and continued development of material by Germany during the war, and the ruthless use made of that war material, continually called for novel devices and new types of ships to meet and defeat the continually changing and ever-increasing intensity of the campaign. This, whilst it produced many new types of warships and countless devices for their improvement in offence and defence, in the case of many classes of warships, but more particularly in the design of merchant ships, had the effect of developing standardized types, both in Great Britain and later in America, in order to increase the numbers of ships for transport purposes of all kinds and so counter the enormous losses due to the German submarine campaign. After the Armistice, although at first there was an enormous demand for ships of all classes, the slump in trade in 1920-1 and the very high prices of ships had the effect of reducing the demand. In Great Britain many of the warships building after the Armistice were broken up and no new ships had in 1921 been started. The output of merchant ships was in 1921 steadily declining, so that it could not be said that shipbuilding had yet resumed that steady advance which was being made before the war.
The outstanding features which have affected the design of all classes of ships specially are the gradual adoption of oil in lieu of coal as a fuel, the further development of the steam turbine, and, for certain classes of vessels, the progress made with internalcombustion engines (see Internal Combustion Engines).
In the British navy, and to a great extent in other navies, during this period, oil most completely superseded coal for steamraising. At first destroyers were the only type of vessel, apart from submarines, in which coal was altogether abolished as a fuel in the British navy. Then in 1912 light cruisers of the "Arethusa " class had oil only. A little later in that year, in the " Queen Elizabeth " class of battleships oil was decided upon as the only fuel for the first time in a capital ship. Subsequently to that, no British warship proper, with the exception of the " Raleigh " class of Io,000-ton light cruisers, which were destined for world-wide work, had anything but oil as a fuel, and in the " Raleighs " seven-eighths of the power was derived from oil. This change was a very momentous one to make, especially when it is considered that in Welsh coal Great Britain possessed the finest a+nd then the cheapest steam coal in the world. In spite of this, however, the advantages of oil were so great that, when in use it had been found satisfactory, coal was relegated to be the fuel of none but special or auxiliary ships in the navy.
The advantages of oil may be summarized shortly as follows: For the same weight it has 50% more thermal value than coal. It occupies less space and can be stowed in spaces inconvenient for coal and other stores. Boilers with oil remain much cleaner for a long period, so that full power can be kept up indefinitely as long as the fuel lasts. Oil can be easily taken on board at any time, thus not calling upon the crew for the great exertion involved in coaling ship hurriedly, perhaps just before their energies are required for fighting an action. The exertion of stoking is entirely done away with and far fewer men are required in the stokehold, which is always clean and comfortable. With oil also much larger boilers can be used, which saves space in the boiler rooms. Though there are other contingent advantages, those named are enough to show that the British Admiralty took a wise course in adopting oil for all fighting ships, and this was amply proved during the war.
Subsequently, owing to the very high price of coal and of wages for firemen, many of the advantages enumerated above induced merchant shipowners to adopt oil in place of coal for high-powered passenger vessels. In low-speed cargo-boats the great economy of internal-combustion engines as compared with steam-engines, makes the advantage of the adoption of oil still more paramount, and the number of these vessels has been largely increased. The comparatively low powers, however, which can be got with internal-combustion engines prevented their being adopted up to 1921 for fast merchant ships or for any warships, except submarines, which generally have comparatively low power and moderate speed. In submarines a much lighter internal-combustion engine than that used for cargo vessels has been developed, with a high number of revolutions.
Another very important advance in marine engines has been gained by the used of toothed gearing. This gear enabling the high number of revolutions in turbines to be reduced, so that large slow-running propellers can be used in conjunction with very quick-running efficient turbines, a much higher efficiency has been secured and increased speed of ship and economy of working has resulted. In its present form this gearing was first introduced in 1910 by Sir Charles Parsons in connexion with the turbine engines of a merchant vessel named the " Vespasian." The success of the trials of this ship led to the further adoption of gearing, and for the British navy it was first tried in destroyers, then in some light cruisers, and was in 1921 gradually coming into use for most war ships and many mercantile ships. The largest ship in which it had been adopted was H.M.S. " Hood." I. British Warships Taking the first most important type of British warship, namely capital ships, the naval actions in the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-5 had demonstrated the capital importance of the heavy long-range gun, while the turbine system of propulsion had been sufficiently tested in high-speed passenger vessels and small warships to justify its adoption, at any rate experimentally, in warships of a larger size. These changes were, no doubt, bold ones, both as regards guns and machinery; but the wisdom of their selection for the design of the first " Dreadnought," in 1905, was sufficiently vindicated by subsequent experience, and by the general acceptance of these two features by other naval Powers.
Laid down in Oct. 1905, the original " Dreadnought " proved so successful that from 1907 onwards the designs of British capital ships moved on progressive lines without departing from the essential principle of the " Dreadnought " type, viz. a ship carrying an all-big-gun armament, adequately protected for taking her place in the line of battle, and of a speed at least equal to that of any foreign ship of similar rank.
The next io years therefore saw a succession of post- " Dreadnought " battleships in which the primary armament passed from the ten 12-in. guns of the " Dreadnought " through the ten 1 3.51n. guns of the " Orion " (all on the centre line of the ship) to the eight 15-in. guns of the " Queen Elizabeth," an increase, within that brief period, of over 126% in the heavy projectile weight of discharge. There was no secondary battery, properly speaking. The " Dreadnought " carried 24 12-pdrs. for repelling T.B.D. attack, but this armament was soon recognized as being too light for the ever-increasing size and power of destroyers, and in subsequent ships up to the " King George V." class (inclusive) batteries of 12 to 16 4-in. guns were mounted as high up as possible to repel the attack of destroyers. In the " Iron Duke " and " Queen Elizabeth " classes 6-in. Q.F. guns were substituted for the 4-in., as the latter weapon was then thought to be insufficient against destroyers and light cruisers.
The speed of these battleships was kept at the uniform level of 21 knots up to and including the " Iron Duke " class. The type of turbine machinery on four shafts, which had proved so satisfactory in the original " Dreadnought," became the standard, but the growth in displacement necessitated a corresponding increase in power to attain the requisite speed. The use of oil fuel in association with coal was maintained until the " Queen Elizabeth " class was reached, when the greater advantages of oil fuel and the improved methods of its combustion finally caused the abandonment of coal as fuel. A noteworthy feature of these remarkable vessels was the advance in speed to 25 knots, necessitating, on a slightly larger displacement than that of their predecessors, an increase of about i 5 o % in the power.
Concurrently with the development of the battleship proper, that of the British battle cruiser may be followed with advantage. Up to the inception of the " Dreadnought " design nothing more ambitious than an armament consisting of 9.2-in. guns associated with 7.5-in. guns (" Warrior " and " Minotaur," 1903-4) had been attempted in armoured cruisers. But the same reasons which caused the evolution of the all-big-gun battleships from the mixed armament of the " King Edward VII." and " Lord Nelson " classes now called for a similar simplification in the armoured cruiser designs. The outcome of this policy was the production of the " Invincible " class of " cruiser battleships," now generally known as " battle cruisers." In these vessels the additional power necessary for their 4 to 5 knots superiority of speed over the " Dreadnought " was obtained at the sacrifice of two 12-in. guns and some loss of armour protection. The value of speed, which in battleships had always been a debatable point, was, of course, incontestable for the battle cruisers, and the development of the type has, both before and since the outbreak of the war, kept pace with the insistent demands of the strategist for the highest speed obtainable. Within the 10-year period referred to above, the increase in speed and power from the "Invincible" (25 knots for 41,000 H.P.) to the "Renown" (32 knots for 120,000 H.P.) required an increase in displacement from 17,250 tons to 26,500 tons, the relative increase in power being over Igo per cent. Finally in the " Hood " a speed of 32 knots with 144,000 H.P. on a displacement of 41,200 tons, an increase of 235% in power was involved.
The wisdom of the policy which initiated this new era in naval construction, relegating temporarily into the background the former British supremacy in capital ships, was naturally the subject of much criticism. But evolution in warship construction is not the property of any one navy, and there is little doubt that, at the conclusion of the Japanese war, the world stood on the threshold of a new era in naval architecture. If British naval supremacy was to be maintained it had to be done by leading the world along the new path of warship design, without waiting for others to utilize the advantages that had been rendered possible by progress in armour, guns and machinery. How great an advance the " Dreadnought " represented on previous ships may be gauged from the particulars given in Table I.
[[Table I]]. - Comparison between. " Dreadnought " and the Best Previous Ships. Other navies were not slow to follow the lead given by Great I This includes pay, victualling, repairs, coal, stores, etc., together with an addition of 15% per annum of first cost, for interest and depreciation, etc Britain. The veil of secrecy in which the new types were closely shrouded whetted the emulation as well as the curiosity of other nations. Germany, ever ready to reap where others have sown, set about preparing for the change, and two years later produced the " Nassau " class, with 12 1 I-in. guns as main armament and 12 6-in. guns as anti-destroyer armament. At the rate of three a year she continued to lay down ships of this type - improved in armament as time progressed - each batch being accompanied by a battle cruiser of corresponding power and speed. Other nations fell into step, and, during the five or six years preceding the outbreak of war, produced, with variants appropriate to their several necessities, all-big-gun ships carrying a main armament of 10 or 12 primary weapons grouped in turrets shielding two, three, or even four guns each.
While the German output of capital ships had, once it got under way, continued with methodical regularity, British naval construction had suffered from the vagaries inseparable from divergent political views and aspirations.
Under the " Cawdor Memorandum " of Nov. 30 1905 it had been laid down that the minimum British requirements would be four large armoured ships a year, and the " Dreadnought " with the three " Invincibles " fulfilled this condition, but in each of the two following years only three battleships (and no battle cruisers) were laid down, while the 1908-9 programme only provided for one battleship (" Neptune ") and one armoured cruiser (" Indefatigable "). Efforts had been made to induce Germany to curtail her naval expansion - " a year's holiday in naval construction " being suggested - but such hopes as were based on this contingency gradually faded before the inexorable German determination to challenge British sea supremacy. In the 190 9 - 10 estimates provision was therefore made for laying down four capital ships, two in July 1909 (" Colossus " and " Hercules ") and two in Nov. (" Orion " and " Lion "), while four " contingent " ships (" Monarch," " Thunderer," " Conqueror " and " Princess Royal ") were to be laid down in April 1910, if the German menace showed no signs of abating. So far from this latter being the case, there was an acceleration in the dates of laying down the German ships, and the programme outlined above was therefore punctually carried out. The 1909-10 programme, it will be seen, was a memorable one in the history of British naval construction, and its adoption enabled Great Britain to maintain her naval supremacy, which otherwise would have been jeopardized.
Notwithstanding the atmosphere of uncertainty created by the delays due to hopes of a reduction of armaments, the rate of progress on warships under construction was well maintained, and, with a few exceptions, Great Britain was able to complete the largest battleships within 24 to 30 months of laying down, a performance which compared favourably with the best achievements abroad, and which not even Germany with her methodical preparations was able to equal.
The disposition of the heavy guns in both battleships and battle cruisers had, during the first five years of this period, undergone several important modifications. In the " Dreadnought," " Bellerophon " and " St. Vincent " classes the five two-gun turrets were placed as in the diagram: - A being on the forecastle deck, the remaining turrets on the upper deck, giving eight guns on each broadside, six ahead and six astern.
The " Invincibles," which carried one turret (X) less, had the two middle turrets P and Q disposed en echelon, and the superstructure amidships was so arranged as to enable all eight guns to fire on either broadside. The middle turrets were, however, placed so near to one another that serious trouble was experienced from gun blast when firing across the deck. In the battle cruisers of the " Indefatigable " class, and the battleships of the " Neptune " and " Colossus " classes, therefore, where a similar arrangement was adopted, the centre pair of turrets were spaced wider apart. A further change in the arrangement of turrets was adopted for the first time in these Dreadnought " (as designed) 10 Ratio [383,000 ,ft.-tonsI Ratio 1,785 £175,000 £ 34,800 21 5,800 4,000 Best Previous Ship 4 I to 2 l (1 45 ,000 ft. -tons I to 2.6 3,750 !'280,000 £ 62,300 19 5,790 3,000 Number of 12 -in. guns carried.. Length of line of battle for equal num ber of 12-in. guns on the broadside Total muzzle energy per broadside of 12-in. guns Length of line of battle for equal 12-in. broadside gun power .
Tons displacement per 12-in. gun.. First cost per 12-in. gun in line of battle. Annual upkeep of ship per 12-in. gun car ried.'. .
Speed (knots) .
Endurance: At economical speed (nautical m.) At 16 knots (nautical m.) .
battleships, where the after-pair were ' disposed at different deck levels to enable X turret to fire over Y. This arrangement, which now became the standard practice, while it introduced some difficulty in providing for stability, was economical of space, and simplified many of the gunnery problems connected with the ship; it gave, moreover, a higher gun platform for some of the armament.
While the offensive qualities of the battleships had continued to increase in successive types, the need for improved defence, particularly against mine and torpedo attack, had not been overlooked.
The adoption of protective bulkheads against under-water attack as carried out in the " Dreadnought " and subsequent capital ships was the outcome of the naval engagements of the Russo-Japanese war. The Russian battleship " Tsarevitch," in particular, had been fitted with a protective deck which, instead of being continued to the side of the ship, was turned down in wake of the magazines, forming a heavy longitudinal bulkhead situated some distance from the ship's side. This protection had enabled her to resist successfully the explosion of several torpedoes. It was decided to incorporate in the " Dreadnought " design some under-water protection to the vitals. Within the limits of displacement available it was not possible to do more than protect the magazines and shell-rooms. These were given 2-in. protective bulkhead plating at the three centre-line turrets, and 4-in. protective bulkhead plating outside the two beam turrets, as the latter, being situated nearer the sides of the vessel, were consequently much more vulnerable.
In the subsequent " Bellerophon " and " St. Vincent " classes this side protection was developed in the form of a continuous longitudinal protective bulkhead terminated by protective transverse bulkheads completely boxing in the magazines and shell-rooms of the five turrets and the main machinery spaces enclosed between them. The thickness varies from t1 in. to 3 in. according to the distance of the bulkhead from the outer shell of the ship. In a vertical direction the bulkhead ran from the outer bottom to just above the lower edge of the side armour. In the " Hercules " and " Orion classes there was a reversion to the original " Dreadnought " system of isolated protection to the various compartments immediately below each of the three groups of turrets, the remainder of the ship's hull below water-line being unprotected. In the " King George V." and " Iron Duke " classes the under-water protection was extended by joining up the portions between the two foremost turrets to those below the centre turret, so that only the ends of the ship and something less than the middle third remained unprotected. Concurrently with the battleships this form of protection was also fitted in the battle cruisers, but limited to the magazines and shell-rooms.
Finally, in the " Queen Elizabeth " (the torpedo menace having increased) the continuous longitudinal protective bulkheads were once more incorporated, and with the transverse protective bulkheads at each end, girdling the ship throughout nearly her entire length, so that not only shell-rooms and magazines, but engineand boiler-rooms had the protection of a bulkhead 2 in. thick some to ft. from the ship's side, with the addition of another longitudinal bulkhead of 17 lbs. plating placed (at a distance of 7 ft. amidships and at varying distances at the ends) on the inner side of the protective bulkhead, further minimizing the risk of damage to the vitals of the ship from the effects of an explosion.
The arrangement of the protective bulkheads in the " Royal Sovereign " class generally followed that of " Queen Elizabeth," but their thickness was 11 inches.
The efficiency of this system of protection, which a series of experiments had established, was demonstrated at Jutland, and it was further improved upon by the later forms of bulge protection.
The construction of British battle cruisers had proceeded concurrently with that of the battleships, although in smaller numbers. The demands made upon the engineering staff to provide for the large increases of power already referred to involved many difficult problems, but the " Indefatigable " was nevertheless completed (in 1911) within two years of laying down, and the later ships, " Lion," " Princess Royal," " Queen Mary," and " Tiger," followed on in succeeding years, each marking some advance in power and speed. Two other battle cruisers of the " Indefatigable " type, viz. " New Zealand " and " Australia," built for the Dominions from whence they took their names, had also been completed and were available for reinforcing the battle cruiser squadrons.
When the World War broke out in Aug. 1914 there were, moreover, four capital ships building in England for foreign Powers - two for Turkey and two for the Chilean Government. The two Turkish ships had just been completed and commissioned, one at Armstrong's and the other at Vickers', and were on the eve of sailing when war was declared. As both vessels were subject to pre e mption in the event of war, the Government promptly took them over and added them to the British fleet under the names of " Agincourt " and " Erin " respectively.
| " Erin " and "Agincourt " (purchased) | | 2 | " Iron Duke " class . | | 2 | " King George V." class. | | 4 | " Orion " class . | | 4 | " Colossus "class | | 2 | " Neptune " . | . | 1 | " St. Vincent " class | | 3 | " Bellerophon " class | | 3 | " Dreadnought " . | | t | Battleships . | | 22 | " Queen Mary " . | | | Lion " and " Princess Royal " . | | 2 | " Indefatigable," " Australia," and " New Zealand " | | 3 | " Invincible," " Inflexible," " Indomitable " . | | 3 | Battle cruisers . | | 9 Of the two Chilean ships building in England at Armstrong's, the "Almirante Latorre " (10 14-in. guns and 16 6-in, guns) was the further advanced, and she was taken over and renamed " Canada." She was completed in Sept. 1915. The " Almirante Cochrane " was taken over in 1918 for conversion into an aircraft carrier, being renamed " Eagle." There were thus at the outbreak of war the following completed capital ships on the offensive British list: The total armament comprised in the above completed ships was as follows: 134 13.5-in. guns; 162 12-in.; 60 6-in.; 360 4-in., of which 18 were anti-aircraft 3; 62 3-in. and 12-pdr., of which 38 were anti-aircraft; 46 6-pdr. and 3-pounder. | " Lord Nelson " class | | 2 | " King Edward VII." class | | 8 | " Swiftsure " class . | | 2 | " Duncan " class . | | 5 | " Formidable " class | | 2 | " Canopus " class . | . | 6 | " Majestic " class . | | 9 Of the older battleships, from the " Majestic " class (1895) onwards, the British navy possessed: These older ships, whose speeds ranged from 17 knots to 191 knots, comprised a total armament of 152 12-in.; 8 to-in.; 52 9.2-in.; 28 7.5-in.; 416 6-in.; 28 14-pdr., and 530 12-pounder. They were, of course, not in a position to meet modern " Dreadnoughts " on equal terms, but they compared favourably in offensive and defensive qualities with contemporary German warships, while being numerically in considerable superiority. They all rendered useful service during the war. The old " Revenge," completed in 1894 (renamed " Redoubtable " in '914), the last available vessel of the old " Royal Sovereign" class, was commissioned and rendered useful service in the Belgian coast bombardments of 1914 and 1915. In addition to the " Tiger " and the two remaining ships of the " Iron Duke " class which were approaching completion, there were five " Queen Elizabeths " in a more or less advanced state of construction, and five " Royal Sovereigns " laid down eight to ten months previously. The " Queen Elizabeth," being the farthest advanced, was pushed on with all possible speed, and by Jan. 1915 she was sufficiently completed to be commissioned and sent out to the Mediterranean, where she took part in the bombardment of the Dardanelles forts. With regard to the design of British capital ships in the past, a most serious limitation had been the restricted width of the gravingdocks in Great Britain. This involved keeping the extreme beam of the ships within about 90 feet. Had wider docks been available, thus making it possible to have had a greater beam, the designs on the same length and draught could have embodied more fighting qualities, such as armour, armament, greater stability in case of damage, and improved under-water protection. This condition subsisted until the completion of the two big floating docks for Portsmouth ' and the Medway, the two locks at Portsmouth, and the large graving-docks at Rosyth; but the shortage of wide docks was a serious handicap during the war, and it was necessary to make use of the Gladstone Dock at Liverpool and the dock at Avonmouth. 1 Two more nearly complete. 2 One more (" Tiger ") nearly complete. 3 The anti-aircraft armament was not provided until after the outbreak of war, when such provision became necessary. 4 Portsmouth floating dock was transferred to Invergordon in 1914, and the Medway Lock to the Tyne in 1915. Even in 1921 there was a great need for more British floating docks of the largest description. This was more especially apparent on the Clyde, where there was no dock, either floating or graving, which could take capital ships. The German ships were not handicapped in this way, and most of their later capital ships had widths of between 90 and Ioo ft., which enabled them to carry more armour, and as far as it is possible to judge, they stood a good deal of battering without showing any lack of stability, while they proved to be good gun platforms, at any rate for work in the North Sea. Immediately after war was declared great pressure was exercised to complete the ships then building for the British navy, and to order such other vessels as could be designed and finished in the shortest possible time. The view held in the early days that the war would only last a year necessarily coloured all that was done in the way of naval design and construction. Generally speaking, therefore, the construction of new battleships was ruled out. With the acquisition of the " Agincourt," " Erin " and " Canada," which were building in England for foreign Governments in private yards, and in view of the certain early completion of the remaining two vessels of the " Iron Duke " class, shortly to be followed by the vessels of the " Queen Elizabeth " class, Great Britain had a great preponderance of heavier capital ships, or Dreadnoughts, over the enemy; and as this class of ship takes longer to design and construct than any other, it was obviously a prudent course to concentrate on such types as were specially needed and could be built more quickly. It should also be remembered that the menace of the submarine, which was from the first beginning to loom as a vital factor in the war, pointed in the direction of large numbers of patrol boats, torpedo-boat destroyers, and smaller types of vessels to deal with this menace. No time, therefore, was lost in placing orders for additional,British destroyers, submarines, light cruisers, sloops, mine-sweepers, patrol boats, etc.; and it very soon became clear that the Royal dockyards and the regular warshipbuilding contractors would not be able to cope with the mass of new construction that was required. Accordingly, orders for many of the last-named classes were placed with builders who had hitherto only been accustomed to mercantile work. With the arrangements that were made, however, for superintending and overseeing the work by the Admiralty, with the assistance of the registration societies-Lloyd's and the British Corporation very little difficulty was experienced in getting the work satisfactorily carried out by the firms new to this class of shipbuilding, and success attended the arrangements made. Table II. gives the number and tonnage of vessels added to the British navy during the war. The total number (including other classes besides those in the table) was 1,513, of approximately 2,356,000 tons displacement. | | Completions | Losses | No. | Approx. Dis- place- ment | No. | Approx. Dis- place- ment | Battleships. ... . | 15 | 395,000 | 13 | 201,000 | Battle cruisers . | 3 | 81,500 | 3 | 63,000 | Cruisers. .. .. . | 3 | 56,500 | 13 | 158,500 | Light cruisers . | 36 | 143,000 | 12 | 46,000 | Monitors. .. . | 40 | 126,000 | 6 | 14,000 | Aircraft-carriers. . | 8 | 67,500 | 3 | 27,500 | Flotilla leaders . | 28 | 45,500 | 3 | 5,000 | Torpedo-boat destroyers . | 255 | 273,000 | 64 | 52,000 | Submarines. ... . | 146 | 151,500 | 54 | 43,500 | P. and P. C. boats . | 63 | 40,000 | 2 | I ,000 | Sloops. ... . | 124 | 155,500 | 18 | 22,500 | Paddle mine-sweepers . | 34 | 27,500 | | | Twin screw mine-sweepers . | 55 | 43,000 | | | Patrol gunboats | 30 | 27,000 | | | Oilers and petrol carriers . | 67 | 436,000 | | | Whalers, trawlers and drifters . | 382 | 173,500 | | [[Table Ii]].-British Warships Completed and Lost Between Aug. 4 19 1 4 and Nov. II 1918. Battleships.-To take ships added to the British navy during the war in the proper order, it is necessary to begin with battleships of the " Iron Duke " class. The particulars of Dreadnoughts built after the " Hercules " are given in Table III. | Vessel | Date of Launch | Length between g perpendiculars;le (length over all | Breadth | Draught | Load Dis- Load placement : p Tons | Speed : Kno ts | Horse Power | Arm ament | Thick- 1 est side of Armour | " Orion " | 1910 | | | | | | | | | " Thunderer " | 1911 | 545 ft. (581 ft.) | 88 ft. 6 in. | 27 ft. 6 in. | 22,500 | 21 | 27,000 | 10- 13.5-in. | 12 in. | " Conqueror " . | 1911 | | | | | | | 16- 4-in. | | " Monarch " | 1911 | | | | | | | 3-21-in. T. T. | | " King George V." | 191 I | | | | | | | | | " Centurion " . | 1911 | 555 ft. (597ft.61n.) | 89 ft. | 27 ft. 6 in. | 23,000 | 21 | 27,000 | 10-13.5-in. | 12 in. | " Ajax " . | 1912 | | | | | | | 16- 4-ill. | | " Audacious " . | 1912 | | | | | | | 3-21-in. T. T. | | " Iron Duke " | 1912 | | | | | | | | | " Marlborough ". | 1912 | 580ft. (622ft.91n.) | 90 ft. | 28 ft. | 25,000 | 21 | 29,000 | 10-13.5-in. | 12 in. | " Emperor of | | | | | | | | 6-in. | | India ". . | 1913 | | | | | | | 4-21-111. T. T. | | ' ` Benbow ". . | 1913 | | | | | | | | | " Queen Eliza- beth " . | 1913 | | | | | | | | | " Warspite " . | 1913 | | | | | | | | | " Barham " . | 1914 | 600ft. (643ft.91n.) | 90 ft. 6 in. | 28 ft. 9 in. | 27,500 | 25 | 75,000 | 8-15-in. | 13 in. | " Valiant ". . | 1914 | | | | | | | 12- 6-in. | | " Malaya ". . | 1915 | | | | | | | 4-21-in. T. T. | | " Royal Sov- ereign " . | 1915 | | | | | | | | | " Royal Oak " . | 1914 | | | | | | | | | " Revenge ". . | 1915 | 580ft. (624ft.31n.) | 88 ft. 6 in. | 28 ft. 6 in. | 25,750 | 23 | 40,000 | 8-15-in. | 13 in. | " Resolution " . | 1915 | | 102 ft. with bulge. | | | | | 14- 6-in. 4-21-in. T. T. | | " Ramillies " . | 1916 | | | | | | | | | " Agincourt " . | 1913 | 632 ft. (671 ft. 6 in.) | 89 ft. | 27 ft. | 27,500 | 22 | 34,000 | 14-12-in.20-6-in | 9 in. | | | | | | | | | 3-21-in. T. T. | | " Erin ". . | 1913 | 5 2 5 ft. (559ft.61n.) | 91 ft. 7 in. | 28 ft. 6 in. | 23,000 | 21 | 26,000 | Io-13.5-in. 16-6-in | 12 in. | | | | | | | | | 4-21-in. T. T. | | " Canada ". . | 1913 | 625 ft. (661 ft.) | 92 ft. | 28 ft. 6 in. | 28,000 | 224 | 37,000 | 10-- 14-in.16-6-in | 9 in. | | | | | | | | | 4-21-in. T. T. | The " Iron Duke " class (see fig. 1), of which there were four, followed the " King George V." class, both in sequence of time and in general characteristics. The same main armament, similarly arranged, with the five turrets all on the centre line of the ship, was adhered to, the chief difference in the " Iron Dukes " being that instead of the 4-in. guns forming the secondary armament, a battery of 12 6-in. guns protected by 6-in. armour was finally decided upon. The protection also was somewhat increased over that of the " King George V.," involving an increase in dimensions over any previous British battleships. Two of the class were laid down in Jan. 1912 and two in May, the four vessels being completed in March, June, Oct. and Nov. 1914, so that two were ready just TABLE III.-Particulars of British Battleships. before, and two shortly after, the declaration of war. Four torpedotubes were carried in lieu of three in the previous ships, and after the battle of Jutland a considerable amount of additional protection was added over the magazines - a course which was practically adopted in all British ships at that time as a precautionary measure. Only in one case was any portion of a shell found to have penetrated below the protective deck; but with the ever-increasing range at which actions were fought, and the increasing penetration of improved shell, the danger of the decks being inadequate had to be considered. Special interest is attached to this class, as the " Iron Duke " was the fleet flagship during the whole time of Adml. Jellicoe's appointment as commander-in-chief, and she was in action at Jutland with her sister ships. FIG. I. The " Marlborough," it should be specially noted, was the only British battleship of the post-" Dreadnought " type struck by a torpedo during the whole war, and the value of the longitudinal protective bulkhead and of the subdivision and arrangements adopted was clearly shown, as the ship was able to remain in the line, no vital damage being done. She was afterwards safely docked in the Tyne and repaired. This is specially interesting, as many of the older ships, some with centre-line bulkheads and with other arrangements not so good for dealing with under-water damage, were sunk in the Dardanelles and elsewhere by enemy torpedoes. FIG. 2. The next type to note is the " Queen Elizabeth " class of the 1912-3 programme (see figs. 2 and 3). Three of these vessels, after taking a little more than two y ears to build, were completed in Jan., March and Oct. 1915. The other two were completed in Feb. 1916. A very considerable departure was made in the " Queen Elizabeth " from any previous " Dreadnoughts," the 15-in. gun taking the place of the 13.5-in., and the designed speed being increased by 4 knots over previous " Dreadnoughts," whilst the secondary armament was similar to that of the " Iron Dukes," consisting of 6-in. guns. Their very great increase of speed involved more than doubling the H.P. of the " Iron Duke " to give the 25 knots desired, and the great increase in the weight of the 15-in. guns and mountings over the 13.5-in. meant accepting only four turrets with eight 15-in. guns, as against five turrets with 10 13.5-in. guns in the previous ships, and even so the armament was considerably heavier. The further great departure from previous practice in battleships was the adoption of oil only as the fuel. This necessitated special arrangements of the oil bunkers, many of which were 30 ft. in height, and required special construction to withstand the head of oil. The armour and protection were fully maintained as compared with previous ships, but all these additions involved increasing the displacement to 27,500 tons. In the battle of Jutland the Fifth Battle Squadron, consisting of four vessels of this class, were heavily engaged for several hours, and although they inflicted and sustained heavy punishment, especially in the case of " Warspite," all the vessels gave a splendid account of themselves and were not seriously damaged or put out of action. After the battle of Jutland additional protection was added to the magazines. The oil fuel proved a complete success in the stress of war conditions, it being found easier to keep up a high sustained speed, with the smaller complement carried. It should be noted that Sir Philip Watts was responsible as. Director of Naval Construction for the design of the " Iron Duke " and " Queen Elizabeth " classes, thus completing a series of 27 battleships of the " Dreadnought " type designed and built during his tenure of office at the Admiralty - in addition to the large number of battle cruisers, light cruisers, destroyers and other vessels built during that period - truly a great record. Following the " Queen Elizabeths " came the " Royal Sovereign " class of the 1913-4 programme (see figs. 4 and 5). These were the first capital ships built by the Admiralty to Sir Eustace d'Eyncourt's designs, he having succeeded Sir P. Watts in Aug. 1912. These vessels were to have the same armament as the " Queen Elizabeth," but as there was some question about the supply of oil fuel when the design was discussed, it was decided to revert to coal, and also to accept the slower speed of 21 knots, which would make them more homogeneous with other " Dreadnoughts." Subsequently, when the vessels were in process of construction and the great advantages of the use of oil fuel with other types of warships became apparent, it was decided to change from coal to oil, so enabling increased power, giving a speed of about 23 knots, to be obtained. When fully laden with about 4,000 tons of oil, the " Revenge " attained 22 knots, which was equal to about 23 knots in the designed load condition. A somewhat different disposition of deck and side armour was also adopted by which the thick protective deck at the FIG. 4. centre of the ship was brought up to the level of the main deck; this portion of the protective deck being thus well above the level of the deep load line, and giving more protected freeboard in the damaged condition than on any of our earlier battleships. This was an important feature, as a somewhat reduced metacentric height was decided upon for these ships with a view to making them steadier gun-platforms than some of the ships with more initial stability. The vessels were provided with good under-water protection, which was later reinforced by adding outside bulge protection. This was done to " Ramillies " before her launch and to the other vessels of the class after they had been in commission some time. The addition of " bulges " was suggested first by Sir E. d'Eyncourt originally for the " Edgar " class, for which this form of protection was added in 1914 after experiments had been made. The results proved the efficiency of the bulges. The three battleships taken over by Great Britain from foreign Governments were of different types. H.M.S. "Agincourt" (see fig. 6) was commenced in Sept. 1911 for the Brazilian Government, from designs got out under Mr. Perrett at Elswick, but modified by Sir E. d'Eyncourt in Rio Janeiro, where he was then representing the Armstrong firm, before his appointment at the Admiralty. The Brazilian authorities, after much discussion, decided upon 14 12-in. guns, twin-mounted in seven turrets. This involved a ship with a length of 632 ft. between perpendiculars and 670 ft. over all. The main armour was somewhat lighter than that of British " Dreadnoughts " and in other respects, such as fuelling facilities, the ship hardly came up to the British standard. However, she was well reported on, and the 14 big guns were liked by the gunnery officers, who preferred a large number of guns for their salvoes. Certain alterations had to be made to fit her for the British service, but in the main she was left as designed. It should be mentioned that in 1914 the " Agincourt " was transferred by Brazil to Turkey and she was on the point of leaving the Tyne for Constantinople when, on the declaration of war, she was taken over by the British Government. The design of the " Erin " was settled by three firms, Armstrong's, Vickers and John Brown, in consultation with the Turkish authorities, for whom the vessel was built, being commenced in 1911. In general characteristics she more nearly followed the " King George V." class than any other British ship, except that the secondary armament consisted of 6-in. guns, as in the " Iron Duke " class. This vessel also was taken over by the British Government in Aug. 1914, and certain modifications made to fit her for the British service. In respect of quantity of fuel carried, the " Erin " was below the standard adopted for vessels designed for the British navy. ? _ The third ship taken over from a foreign Government was ordered and commenced in 1911 at Elswick from designs prepared at Elswick by Mr. Perrett for the Chilean Government. There were two ships of the class, the " Almirante Latorre " (which became H.M.S. " Canada "), and the sister ship the "Almirante Cochrane " (now H.M.S. " Eagle "). The " Canada " had io 14-in. guns, twinmounted, in the centre line, and was originally designed to have 22 4.7-in. as the secondary battery, but this was subsequently altered to 16 6-in. guns. The protection again was somewhat lighter than that of the British " Dreadnoughts," but the speed was rather higher, viz. 224 knots, and as a matter of fact this speed was considerably exceeded on trial. The ship was taken over by the British Admiralty in Sept. 1914, and completed, after certain necessary modifications, a year later. Her fuel consisted of coal, with the addition of a certain amount of oil, as in most British battleships. In 1920 the " Canada " was returned to the Chilean Government under her original name. The sister ship, " Almirante Cochrane," remained in an uncompleted condition on the stocks at Elswick till early in 1918, when she was taken over by the British Government and rearranged as an aircraft-carrying ship. She was renamed H.M.S. " Eagle," and as a compliment to the U. S. navy, she was, at the request of the Admiralty, launched by Mrs. Page, the wife of the then American Ambassador to Great Britain. 1 Battle Cruisers
2 Other Auxiliary Craft and Aircraft Carriers
3 (2) France
4 (3) Japan
5 (5) Italy
6 (8) Argentina
7 (12) Norway
8 (15) Turkey
9 United States
10 Russia
11 Japan
12 Germany
13 Developments in Shipbuilding
14 Ferro-Concrete Ships
15 Welded Ships
16 Isherwood System
17 The "Unsinkable " Ship
18 Cruiser Sterns
19 Research and Experiment
Battle Cruisers As regards the British battle cruisers later than the " Princess Royal," particulars are given in Table IV. The " Tiger " was included in the 1911-2 programme and followed on the " Queen Mary," the general features of the two ships being much alike, the chief differences being that the secondary armament of " Tiger " is 12 6-in. guns in lieu of 16 4-in. in " Queen Mary," and " Tiger " has two submerged torpedo-rooms, whereas " Queen Mary " had only one. The " Tiger " was laid down at Clydebank on June 12 1912, and completed in Oct. 1914. In common with so many ships completed during the war, the early commissioning and joining of the fleet was so imperative that no exhaustive trials in deep water were carried out, but the runs made on the Polperro course showed that the designed power of 108,000 S.H.P. could be obtained with little difficulty, corresponding to a speed of 30 knots. In the early stages of the design the oil-fuel capacity was very largely increased from 1,000 tons originally intended to a maximum oil stowage of 3,480 tons, in addition to the 3,320 tons of coal. FIG. 7. At the commencement of the war two additional battleships of slightly modified " Royal Sovereign " type, viz. the " Renown " and " Repulse " (see figs. 7 and 8), had been laid down, but in view of the long time it would take to complete these ships, the construction was not pressed forward. Immediately after the battle of the Falkland Is., in which the British battle cruisers " Invincible " and " Inflexible," in company with other smaller cruisers, annihilated Von Spee's fleet, the value of the battle cruiser type became very apparent, and on the initiative of Lord Fisher, then First Sea Lord, it was decided to stop the construction of " Renown " and " Re pulse " as battleships and to alter the design completely into that of very fast battle cruisers. given about Christmas Instructions to redesign these ships were 1914. The new design had to give a speed of 32 knots, with the largest number of big guns possible for such a vessel, and with protection similar to that of the " Invincible " class. A modified form of bulge was adopted in these ships to give additional under-water protection against torpedo attack. After the war further additions were made to the bulge protection and to the armour. The general outline design was completed and approved in ten days, and 6 is-in. guns adopted as the main armament, the secondary armament consisting of 17 4-in. guns, of which 15 were mounted in five specially designed triple-gun mountings. It was necessary that the ships should be completed at the earliest possible date, and the " Tiger's " machinery was repeated with some additional boilers, with oil as the fuel, thus increasing the power to 120,000, which, with the extra length given to the ship, made it possible to obtain the desired speed of 32 knots. Lord Fisher also insisted that the ships must be completed within 15 months - an abnormally short time for an entirely new design - this period of completion was not realized, although not greatly exceeded. By Jan. 21 1915 the two firms entrusted with the orders, viz. Messrs. John Brown and Fairfield, were supplied with sufficient information to enable them to proceed with the structure, and both keels were laid on Jan. 25, which was Lord Fisher's birthday. All the drawings and specifications were completed by April and the design finally approved in that month. The arrangement of the whole ship, showing the protection, is given in fig. 7, the plating over the magazines having been considerably increased as a result of the Jutland fight. Repulse was launched in Jan. 1916, less than a year from the laying down, and " Renown " was launched three months later. " Repulse " went through her commissioning trials early in Aug., and " Renown " followed one month later and was completed in September. The speed of " Repulse " on trial was over 311knots in the deep condition, and the " Renown " obtained 32.6 knots mean speed in the normal condition. The construction of these vessels in a little over one and a half years from the first order to get out the design constitutes a record in design and construction of two such important vessels, and reflected great credit, not only upon the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors, but also upon the contractors and all concerned in the construction and completion of the vessels. In fact, the Admiralty conveyed their appreciation of this to Sir E. d'Eyncourt, the Director of Naval Construction, in a letter dated Sept. 1916. The battle cruiser H.M.S. " Hood " (see figs. 9 and io), the latest addition up to 1921 to the capital ships of the British Fleet, was designed early in 1916, and had only just been ordered from Messrs. | Vessel | Date of Launch | Length between perpendiculars; (length over all) | Breadth | Mean Draught | Load dis- placement : Tons | Speed : hnots | Horse Power | Armament | Thick- est side Armour | " Lion ". . | 1910 | 660 ft. | 88 ft. 6 in. | 28 ft. | 26,350 | 28 | 70,000 | 8-13.5-in. | 9 in. | " Princess | ' | | | | | | | 16-4-in. | | Royal ". . | 1911 J | (700 ft.) | | | | | | 2-21 -in. T.T. | | " Queen Mary " . | 1912 | Coo ft.(703ft.61n.) | 89 ft. | 28 ft. | 27,000 | 28 | 75,000 | 8-13.5-in. 16 - 4-in. | 9 in. | | | | | | | | | 2- 21-in. S.T. | | " Tiger ". . | 1913 | 660 ft. (704 ft.) | 90 ft. 6 in. | 28 ft. 6 in. | 28,500 | 30 | 108,000 | 8-13.5-in. | 9 in. | | | | | | | | | 12 - 6-in. | | | | | | | | | | 4-21-in. T.T. | | " Renown " . | 1916 1 | 750 ft. | 90 ft. | 25 ft. 6 in. | 26,500 | 32 | 120,000 | 6-15-in. | 6 in. | " Repulse ". . | 1916 f | (794 ft.) | | | | | | ?7 - 4-in. | | Copyright Statement
These files are public domain. Bibliography Information
Chisholm, Hugh, General Editor. Entry for 'Ship and Shipbuilding'. 1911 Encyclopedia Britanica. https://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/eng/bri/s/ship-and-shipbuilding.html. 1910.
| | | | |
