Chapter 1 of 7 · 8778 words · ~44 min read

I.

THE BARNABY ERA.

The characteristic _motif_ of the Barnaby designs has been described as a “maximum of offensive power and the minimum of defence.” This is not altogether correct; though as a generalization it is no very great exaggeration. In every Barnaby design proper, offence was the first thing sought for, but defence as then understood was by no means overlooked as to-day it appears to have been.

The bed rock “Reed idea” was to produce a ship which could attack and destroy the enemy without much risk of being damaged in doing so. The “Barnaby idea” was that “the best defensive is a strong offensive”; and a strict subordination of defence to what might best serve the attack on the same displacement.

The first big armoured ship to be laid down at all on Barnaby principles, the _Inflexible_, was built under somewhat peculiar circumstances. In the year 1871 a Committee was appointed. One of its findings was as follows:--

“As powerful armament, thick armour, speed, and light draught cannot be combined in one ship, although all are needed for the defence of the country; there is no alternative but to give the preponderance to each in its turn amongst different classes of ships which shall mutually supplement one another.”[1]

Amongst the Committee’s suggestions had been the abolition of the complete belt, and its concentration amidships. This recommendation was mainly intended to refer to cruising ships rather than to ships definitely intended for the line of battle; but the idea soon spread.

These suggestions had already been embodied in a modified form in the _Shannon_, of which particulars will be found later on. The _Shannon_, however, was frankly a “belted cruiser,” and no idea had then been entertained of adapting a similar system for heavy armoured ships.

In the year 1874, however, it transpired that the Italians were evolving an entirely new type of battleship, the _Duilio_ and _Dandolo_, and adopting a central box system. By this means they were able to protect the citadel with 22-inch armour and mount four 100-ton guns in two turrets _en échelon_, so that all four could bear ahead and astern as well as on either broadside. The seriousness of the situation was increased by the fact that in most of the tactical ideas of the day, end-on approach figured largely.[2]

Compared with these Italian designs, the most powerful British ironclad of those days, the _Dreadnought_, with a belt of only 14-inch to 11-inch armour, and bearing but two of her four 38-ton guns end-on, cut a sorry figure.

[Illustration:

_Photo_] [_Ellis_.

THE _INFLEXIBLE_, AS ORIGINALLY COMPLETED, 1881.]

It was deemed essential to build a “reply.” The largest gun actually available at the time was, however, the 81-ton M.L.; so this was adopted for the new ship. The _Inflexible_ being frankly an adoption of Italian ideas, she can hardly be described as the design of any one man; Sir N. Barnaby having been tied down to an extent with which (from his subsequent writings) he did not, it would appear, altogether agree. A smaller central citadel than that of the Italian ships was adopted, but the thickness was carried to 24-inch, the thickest armour ever introduced into an ironclad either before or since. The bulkheads were 20-in. The freeboard of the central redoubt was 10ft. Round about it, fore and aft, on an armoured raft-body were built a bow and stern, with superstructures curtailed to the centre line sufficiently to allow of unimpeded end-on fire from the big guns, which, like those of the Italians, were placed in échelonned turrets.

With a view to satisfying the “masted turret-ship” ideal, an absurd brig rig was fitted to the _Inflexible_. With this it was possible for the ship to drift before the wind, haystack-fashion, but the rig was so much of the “placebo” order that it was designed to be taken down and thrown overboard in case of action! At a later date it was removed altogether and a military rig substituted.

The _Inflexible_ was crammed with novelties. Like the _Devastation_ she was the “_Dreadnought_” of her time. Chief among her innovations were the adoption of submerged torpedo tubes (of which she had two), the mounting of Nordenfeldts as a definite anti-torpedo-boat armament, and an ingenious anti-rolling arrangement, whereby water was admitted amidships to counteract the roll. This was very partially successful; but in 1910 the idea re-appeared in a slightly altered form and is now used in certain big Atlantic liners.

An ingenious feature of the _Inflexible_ concerned the big guns. In the _Devastation_ and _Dreadnought_ types these could be run in and loaded inside the turret. With the much larger guns of the _Inflexible_ this was impossible, without a very considerable increase of the size of the turrets. Outside loading without protection was recognised as unsuitable and practically impossible. A special glacis was, therefore, designed, which admitted of outside loading under cover, and at the same time ensured that, in the event of premature discharge, the projectile would emerge above the water-line and not below it.

This device is of special interest as the “last word” of those muzzle-loading guns to which the British Navy adhered so long as it possibly could. Had it been thought of earlier, the British Navy might perhaps have adhered to muzzle-loaders even longer than it did. As things were, the _Inflexible_ device came too late to stay the tide which had already begun to set strongly in the breechloader direction.

Details of the _Inflexible_ were:--

Displacement--11,880 tons.

Length (between perpendiculars)--320ft.

Beam--75ft.

Maximum Draught--26⅓ft.

Armour--Belt amidships 24--16-inch, beyond that a protective deck only; 22--14-inch bulkhead, all iron; and 17-inch compound armour turrets.

Armaments--Four 81-ton guns (to which eight 4-inch breechloaders were added later on). Two submerged tubes and two above-water launching appliances for torpedoes.

Horse-power--8,010 (I.H.P.).

Speed--13.8 knots.

Coal--1,300 tons = nominal 10-knot radius of 5,200 miles.

Built at Portsmouth Dockyard. Engined by Elder. Completed 1881.

[Illustration:

DUILIO. DREADNOUGHT. INFLEXIBLE.

EARLY TURRET-SHIPS OF THE BARNABY ERA.]

On completion she was sent to the Mediterranean, with Captain Fisher (afterwards Admiral of the Fleet, Lord Fisher) in command of her. He was the chief gunnery officer of those days and the founder of the torpedo school. At the time it was put on record that, asked by a Press interviewer what he would do if the fortunes of war brought it about that he had to encounter a similar “last word” in naval construction, he replied that he would keep away from her till nightfall, and then send in the, then, novel second-class torpedo-boats which the _Inflexible_ carried, to settle the foe. Over which statement the historian of fifty years hence may yet place Lord Fisher among the prophets. To-day, some thirty years later, similar ideas obtain, but have got no further. Fifty years hence----?

In 1882 the _Inflexible_ was the central figure at the bombardment of Alexandria. The damage she did was infinitesimal compared to the ideas which the public had formed of her. Far more actual mischief was done by Lord Charles Beresford in a trivial gunboat, the _Condor_, which steered into close range of the hostile guns and knocked them over. At the time this was regarded as an act of spectacular heroism; but the historian of the future is far more likely to discover in it (as in the Fisher torpedo-boats) something closely akin to the reasoning behind Nelson when he destroyed the French fleet at the Nile or charged into them at Trafalgar. The commonplace expression, “sizing up the other man,” and acting accordingly, is the secret. In peace time we are all too apt to assess hostile weapons at their theoretical potentiality. The victors in war are those who gauge correctly the handling ability of the man behind the weapon and--act accordingly.

About the years 1877–78, towards the close of the Turco-Russian War, an Anglo-Russian war seemed probable, and four foreign ships building in England were purchased for the British Navy.

These were the Brazilian _Independencia_, an improved _Monarch_, designed by Sir E. J. Reed, which went into the British service as the _Neptune_. Save that she carried 38-ton guns instead of 25-ton, she reproduced the _Monarch_ idea almost exactly. After certain vicissitudes she entered the British service, and eventually was fitted with a couple of military masts. The points of special interest about her were that (1) owing to some error her funnels were put in sideways instead of as designed; and (2) in service in any bad weather the sea regularly washed out her wardroom; (3) she was the first ship of the British Navy to carry a bath-room. As an effective warship she never figured to any large extent.

The other three purchased ships had been destined for the Turkish Navy; and all three turned out worse than the _Neptune_. The _Hamidieh_, re-christened _Superb_, more or less duplicated the _Hercules_. She took part in the bombardment of Alexandria a little later, and it was there discovered that her guns could not train at all well in comparison with contemporary British naval ships.

[Illustration:

SUPERB NEPTUNE BELLEISLE

FIRE ZONES OF THE BELLEISLE (4 GUNS)

FIRE ZONES OF THE DEVASTATION (4 GUNS)

FOREIGN SHIPS PURCHASED FOR THE NAVY IN 1877–78.]

Of the fighting value of the other two ships, _Pakyi-Shereef_ and _Boordyi-Zaffir_, which became the _Belleisle_ and _Orion_, the least said the better. They turned out to be nothing but improvements on a type of “coast defender,” already obsolete, diminutives of the original Reed broadside idea applied to a _Hotspur_ type hull. In place of the single 25-ton gun of the _Hotspur_, they carried four similar guns--the old 12-inch 25-ton M.L. These guns were carried in a central raised battery, from which, as in the _Hotspur_, one gun could always bear, and from which two bearing on an exact and unlikely broadside might be looked for.

No useful service was ever performed by these ships. The _Belleisle_ ended her service as a target, the _Orion_ as a hulk. They proved conclusively that the central battery idea was obsolete and so far probably did good service. In the past Sir E. J. Reed had argued, and for that matter proved, that for a given weight of armour and armament eight guns, four on either broadside, could be mounted with equal protection and economy of weight as against two pairs of guns in turrets.[3] The _Belleisle_ gave the lie to this idea, however, when it came to be applied to half the number of guns. The step from that to the same thing with more guns was made easy, and the turret idea assured, out of the _Belleisle_ type. To the _Belleisle_ and _Orion_ more than any other ships may be traced the first real appreciation of “angles in between”--the demonstration that “right ahead” or “right on the broadside” were ideal positions which no enemy would willingly assume.

The _Devastation_ and her sisters had, of course, anticipated this idea; but to the _Belleisle_, at most fighting angles only able to bring a quarter of her battery into action, may be traced most modern developments in gun disposition.

Contemporaneous with the special Barnaby ships, reference may be made to the entirely nondescript _Téméraire_. She may be described as an absolute hybrid--partly Reed, partly Barnaby, partly gun inventors of the era, and partly nothing in particular.

Details of this ship are:--

Displacement--8,540 tons.

Length (between perpendiculars)--285ft.

Beam--62ft.

Draught--27¼ft.

Armament--Four 25-ton 11-inch M.L. (two in barbettes), four 18-ton M.L.--two above water torpedo tubes.

Armour (iron)--Complete 11--8in. belt. Bulkheads 8--5in. Barbettes 10--8in. Battery 10--8in. Horse-power--7,520 = 14.5 knots.

Coal--620 tons = 2,680 miles at economical speed (nominal).

The _Téméraire_ was unique in the world’s navies in that two of her 25-ton guns were carried--one forward, one aft--on special Moncrieff mountings, an adaption for naval purposes of the “disappearing gun,” invented for forts of that era. The gun, loaded under cover, was raised to fire by hydraulic mechanism, and then recoiled to the loading position. The ship was otherwise essentially of the Reed box-battery type; the other two 25-ton guns being in a central main-deck battery, and capable of a good deal of ahead fire. The other big guns (18 tons) were cut off from the 25-ton by an armoured bulkhead, and merely had the ordinary broadside training.

Like the _Inflexible_, the _Téméraire_ had a heavy brig rig. Towards the end of her active service career this was replaced by a military rig; but all her active work was done as a brig. She was built at Chatham Dockyard, engined by Humphrys, and completed for sea in 1877.

In 1882 she was at the bombardment of Alexandria, and there did more execution than any other ship. Her subsequent career was uneventful, and in her own way she was a “monstrosity” as much as the _Polyphemus_ was. She is generally understood to have been a “naval officers’ ideal” ship, rather than the regular production of the Chief Constructor. Whether this be true is, at least, doubtful. Certainly she may equally well be regarded as the forlorn hope of those who looked to see the general principles of the central battery system adapted to suit the new ideas as to ironclads. French ideas[4] also had probably something to do with her peculiar design.

The idea embodied in the _Inflexible_ was so pleasing to the authorities of that period that she was duplicated in two smaller vessels of the same type, the _Ajax_ and _Agamemnon_, though the precise purpose for which these vessels were built is difficult to fathom. They were in every way inferior to the _Inflexible_, and mainly of interest as indicating the definite abandonment of the idea of the masted battleship, and they were also the last ships to mount muzzle-loading guns:--

## Particulars of these ships were:--

Displacement--8,660 tons.

Length (between perpendiculars)--280ft.

Beam--66ft.

Draught (mean)--24ft.

Guns--Four 38-ton M.L., two 6-inch 81-cwt. B.L.

Horse-power--5,440.

Speed--13.25 knots.

These were followed by the _Colossus_ and _Edinburgh_, which were laid down in 1879. In these ships the 12-inch breechloader was adopted, and an attempt at what was then a very considerable speed was made. An auxiliary armament made its first really definite appearance, five 6-inch guns being mounted on the superstructure.

## Particulars of these ships were:--

Displacement--9,420 tons.

Length (between perpendiculars)--325ft.

Beam--68ft.

Draught (mean)--26ft. 3ins.

Guns--Four 45-ton B.L.R., five 6-inch, 89-cwt. do.

Horse-power--7,500.

Speed--15.50 knots.

At and about the same time considerable interest was being taken in rams. This resulted in the laying down of the _Conqueror_, a species of improved _Rupert_, and a type of ship destined to be enlarged upon in the future.

## Particulars of the _Conqueror_ were:--

Displacement--6,200 tons.

Length--270ft.

Beam--58ft.

Draught--24ft.

Armament--Two 45-ton B.L.R., four 6-inch 89-cwt. do., six 14-inch torpedo tubes (above water).

Horse-power--(maximum) 6,000.

Speed--15.5 knots.

Coal--650 tons.

The _Conqueror_ was launched in September, 1881. Some three years later a sister, the _Hero_, was laid down, and launched towards the end of 1885. She differed from the _Conqueror_ only in that all four of her 6-inch guns were mounted on the superstructure, whereas the _Conqueror_ carried two of them on the main deck inside the superstructure.

[Illustration:

TEMERAIRE IMPERIEUSE

BRITISH SYSTEM IDEAL

FRENCH SYSTEM IDEAL

BARNABY BARBETTE SHIPS.]

Although developed from the _Rupert_, the _Conqueror_ differed a good deal in appearance, on account of the whole of the after part of the ship being one huge superstructure. In her, the superstructure, as a very definite feature instead of a mere accessory, may be said to have made its first appearance, to remain as a factor of growing importance for many years.

Contemporaneously with these ships two entirely different types made their appearance. One of these was the “torpedo ram” _Polyphemus_, an absolutely unique vessel, the outcome (though not so designed) of the influence of the torpedo. The ship was never duplicated, and never performed much service, but it would be rash to assert that the future may not see something like her re-appear. She was first projected as a “ram” pure and simple, so long ago as 1873, and designed by Barnaby to suit the specifications of certain naval officers as embodying their ideals of the warship of the future. This is the generally accepted theory, though Sir N. Barnaby[5] has made public a somewhat different view of the matter, and according to him, Admiral Sir George Sartorius, the naval officer principally concerned, lost his interest in the _Polyphemus_ when it was decided to give her an armament of torpedo tubes and some quick-firers against torpedo attack. So far as can be gauged, the torpedo tubes were likewise a naval innovation with which Sir N. Barnaby was also not much in sympathy. At any rate, he has put on record the view[5] that:--

“The introduction of torpedoes made the ship far more costly than she need have been, and it is possible that the type would have been continued and improved had the simplicity of the ram been adhered to.”

The _Polyphemus_ performed little useful service; her life on the Navy List was short; and she is always spoken of as a “failure.” Officers who served in her were, however, invariably enthusiastic about her, and had war occurred during the time that she was in existence there is no telling what she might have accomplished or how profoundly she might have affected naval construction.

In essence the _Polyphemus_ was a semi-submerged craft, those parts of her which were above water being merely a light superstructure for the accommodation of her crew in peace time.

She was of 2,640 tons displacement, length 240ft. between perpendiculars, beam 40ft., and a normal mean draught of 20ft. In form she was cigar-shaped, plated with 3-inch armour on the upper part of her curved sides. With 5,520 I.H.P. she had the then very high speed of 17.8 knots. She carried 300 tons of coal, sufficient for a nominal radius of 3,400 miles at economical speed.

Her principal feature, however, was the fitting of five submerged tubes, one in the bow the others on the broadside. For repelling a torpedo attack she carried six 6-pounders and a couple of machine guns.

[Illustration:

POLYPHEMUS. ALARM. KATAHDIN.

SOME FAMOUS RAMS.]

It is here of interest to relate that some years later the U.S. Navy created a species of _Polyphemus_ imitation in the “ram” _Katahdin_. To a certain extent they had anticipated her likewise in the _Alarm_, 720 tons, launched in 1873, which carried a 15-inch smooth-bore gun _under water_ in her ram, and the _Intrepid_ (launched 1873), of 1,123 tons, of which no details ever transpired, and it may be said that she was “strangled at birth.” But the _Polyphemus’s_ ancestry is undoubtedly American. The _Katahdin_ (first produced as the “ram” _Ammen_) was not launched till 1893. She was of 2,050 tons and seventeen knots, and having no torpedo tubes, being a “ram” pure and simple, exactly reproduced the Sartorious-Barnaby idea. She soon disappeared from the U.S. Navy List, and she never did anything. She doubled the armour of the _Polyphemus_, whilst lacking her torpedo armament. Since then, the idea has found expression in three small U.S. “semi-submerged” boats, with the torpedo as their main armament; but these three boats never got beyond the “designed” stage. No other nation ever exhibited the least interest in the _Polyphemus_ idea.

Reference has already been made to the _Shannon_, which was the first armoured cruiser of the British Navy. She was launched towards the end of 1875 and completed two years later. In substance she was a development of the idea which first found expression in the _Inconstant_, heavy armament being preferred to the protection of the guns. A narrow belt of armour with a maximum thickness of 9-ins. protected three-quarters of the water-line. This belt commenced at the stern and ended in a bulkhead some 70ft. from the bow. Forward of this bulkhead was an under-water protective deck, and a certain amount of armour was concentrated on the ram under water. The bulkhead, which was from 9in. to 8in. thick, rose to the upper deck, and afforded protection to a couple of 18-ton muzzle-loaders, capable of right-ahead fire. The remainder of her armament consisted of seven 12½ton guns, and was entirely unprotected.

Other details of the ship are as follows:--

Displacement--5,390 tons.

Length--260ft.

Beam--54ft.

Draught--23ft. 4in.

Horse-power--3,370.

Speed--12.35 knots.

Coal carried--580 tons = nominal economical radius of 2,260 miles.

The speed of the _Shannon_ was so low, even in those days, that it is a little difficult to surmise for what purpose she was designed, especially as this design was more or less contemporary with the re-designing of the _Dreadnought_.[6] It found favour, however, since she was almost immediately followed by two larger replicas, the _Nelson_ and the _Northampton_, details of which were:--

Displacement--7,630 tons.

Length (between perpendiculars)--280ft.

Beam--60ft.

Draught (maximum)--26ft. 6in.

Armour--Belt amidships, 9in. to 6in., compound: bulkhead ditto. Armour deck only, at ends.

Main Armament--Four 18-ton M.L.R., eight 12-ton M.L.R., two above-water 14-inch torpedo tubes.

Horse-power--6,640.

Speed--14.41 knots.

Coal carried--1,150 tons = nominal radius of 3,850 miles.

These ships differed from the _Shannon_ in that the armour belt was confined to a water-line strip amidships, while the after guns were also protected by a bulkhead. The most curious, and to modern ideas, eccentric feature of these ships, was that they were fitted with triangular rams, which, “for the sake of safety,” could be removed in peace time and merely put on for war purposes! As a matter of fact, the ships always carried their rams without rendering themselves dangerous to anybody. On the other hand, shortly after construction, the _Northampton_ was run into by a small trading schooner, which cut her down to the water’s edge. The ships, therefore, started with an unfavourable reputation, which the _Northampton_ followed up by a total inability to make even her moderate designed speed. The _Nelson_, on the other hand, proved herself a comparatively good steamer, so much so that at a later date she was to a certain extent modernised. Both ships were originally heavily masted, the idea being to perform most of their peace service when convenient under sail. The _Nelson_ sailed moderately well, but the _Northampton_ very badly. It was possibly with some view to remedying this that some years later, when it was decided that the _Imperieuse_, originally built as a brig, should be given a military rig, her lofty iron fore and mainmast were taken out of her and substituted for the two equivalent masts in the _Northampton_. The change, however, was not satisfactory, as thereafter she sailed if anything worse than ever.

At and about this year protected cruisers made their first appearance in the _Comus_ class. Of these altogether eleven were built, the best known of these being the _Calliope_, which in the early nineties became famous through steaming out of Samoa Roads in the teeth of a hurricane, which utterly destroyed every foreign vessel anchored there at the same time. The _Comus_ class consisted of the _Calliope_, _Calypso_, _Canada_, _Carysfort_, _Champion_, _Cleopatra_, _Comus_, _Conquest_, _Constance_, _Cordelia_, and _Curacoa_. They averaged 2,380 tons displacement, though the first mentioned, which were the last to be built, were slightly larger. The original armament consisted of two 6-ton muzzle-loaders and twelve 64-pounders. This was afterwards varied by the substitution of breechloaders. The ships generally had a speed of about thirteen knots, and were completed between the years 1877, for the earliest, and 1884 for the latest. They had a 1½-inch protective deck for the engines amidships. These ships, which were generally officially known as the “C” class cruiser, were undoubtedly diminutives of the _Shannon_, or, at any rate, inspired by a similar idea.

Besides growing downwards the idea also grew upwards, and resulted in the building of six ships of the “Admiral” class, of which the first was the _Collingwood_. These, which were the apotheosis of the Barnaby idea, represented an absolute revolution in naval construction, so far as big ships were concerned.

The “Admirals” were not all identical, as they formed four different groups in the matter of displacement and three in armament. In all, however, the integral idea was the same. Amidships was a narrow belt, 150ft. long by 7½ft. wide, which sufficed to protect engines, boilers, and communication tubes of the barbettes. This belt varied in thickness from 18ins. to 8ins, of compound armour. The ends of the belt were closed up by 16-inch bulkheads. Forward and aft was merely a curved protective deck; there was also a flat protective deck on top of the armour belt. The ships were of low freeboard, forward and aft, but had a large superstructure built up amidships. At either end of the superstructure, with their bases unprotected by armour except for the communication tubes already referred to, were many-sided barbettes with plates set at an angle of about forty-five degrees. These barbettes were about 11½ins. thick, and carried each a couple of the heaviest guns then available. These were 12-inch breechloaders in the _Collingwood_, and 13.5-inch in the other ships, except the _Benbow_, which mounted one 16.5 inch 110-ton in each barbette instead. An auxiliary armament was mounted inside the superstructure. The speed of these ships was about seventeen knots, and was considerably in excess of the average for the period.

=====================+====================+=====================+=====================+==================== Name. | _Collingwood._ | _Rodney_, | _Anson_, | _Benbow._ | | _Howe._ | _Camperdown._ | ---------------------+--------------------+---------------------+---------------------+-------------------- Displacement, tons | 9,500 | 10,300 | 10,600 | 10,600 | | | | Length (_p.p._) ft.| 325 | 325 | 330 | 330 | | | | Beam, ft. | 68 | 68 | 68½ | 68½ | | | | Draught (_mean_) ft. | 26¾ | 27¼ | 26¾ | 27¼ | | | | H.P. | 9,500 | 11,500 | 11,500 | 11,500 | | | | Nominal Speed, | | | | knots | 16.5 | 16.7 | 17.2 | 17.5 | | | | Armament | 4--12in., 6--6in. | 4--13.5, 6--6in. | 4--13.5, 6--6 in. | 2--16.25, 10--6in. | | | | Built at | Pembroke Yard | _Rodney_, | _Anson_, | Thames, I.W. | | Chatham Yd. | Pembroke Yd. | | | _Howe_, Pembroke Yd.| _Camperdown_, | | | Chatham Yd. | Por’th. | | | | | Engines by | Humphrys | _Rodney_, Humphrys | _Anson_, Humphrys | Maudslay | | _Howe_, Humphrys | _Camperdown_, Maud’y| | | | | Armour belt | 18in.-8in. | 18in.-8in. | 18in.-8in. | 18in.-8in. | | | | barbettes | 14in.-12in. | 11½in.-10in. | 16in.-6in. | 12in.-4in. | | | | bulkheads | 16in.-6in. | 16in.-6in. | 14in.-12in. | 18in.-6in.* | | | | Armament | 4--12in., 6--6in., | 4--13.5, 6--6in., | 4--13.5, 6--6in., | 2--16.25, 10--6in., | and smaller, | and smaller, | and smaller, | and smaller, | 2 sub. and 4 | as _Collingwood_ | as _Collingwood_ | as _Collingwood_ | above water tubes | | | =====================+====================+=====================+=====================+====================

As compared with the _Colossus_ and _Edinburgh_ class of the same date and era of design, the “Admirals” were somewhat inferior in armour protection, but because of that secured a far better speed and a greatly superior big gun command.

In all the “Admiral” class the armour weighed about 2,500 tons--say, 20 per cent. of the displacement. This proportion has never been very greatly varied from either before or since, and the popular idea that Barnaby designs sacrificed armour weight for other features is entirely incorrect. The real Barnaby ideal is better described (the conditions of his own time being kept in mind) as an attempt to put into practice “everything or nothing,” so far as protection was concerned. To-day, a compromise is in fashion, and Barnaby is very much out of date. It may well be but a phase in the cycle of naval design. Properly to appreciate the _Admiral_ class ideal, we have to translate it into the ideal which obtains to-day. Thus put, the _Admirals_ would be somewhat swifter than our existing battle-cruisers, their vitals would be invulnerable and their armaments superior to that of any potential enemy. They would not, in fact, very greatly differ from Admiral Bacon’s conception (published some five years before the present war) of the battleship of the future, in which he predicted the disappearance of much of the side armour of to-day.

[Illustration:

_Photo_] [_Symonds & Co._

THE _BENBOW_--A SHIP OF THE “ADMIRAL” CLASS.]

The coming of the medium calibre quick-firer soon rendered the “Admirals” obsolete and even ridiculous. The medium calibre quick-firer profoundly modified design until the development of the big gun enabled it to act well beyond the effective range of the medium gun, and incidentally enabled it to fire nearly as fast as the elementary quick-firers were built to do. Thus we have come back to something very akin to the condition under which the Barnaby ships were designed.

These ships could not, perhaps, be described as an absolutely original idea, save in so far as the British Navy was concerned, since the Italian _Italia_ was launched in the same year that the _Collingwood_, the first of the “Admirals” was laid down. The _Italia_, equally abnormally fast (or faster) for the period, carried four 100-ton guns échelonned in one large heavily armoured barbette amidships, but had no water-line belt whatever, and relied entirely upon an armour-deck to protect the motive power. In the “Admirals” the motive power was thoroughly protected by the vertical belt amidships, while flotation otherwise depended upon internal sub-divisions.

The “Admiral” class idea was re-developed into armoured cruisers in a somewhat curious fashion. At that time the French Navy was second in the world, and French ideas of construction commanded a great deal of respect. French notions at that era ran largely to single gun positions, four guns being separately disposed in four barbettes placed one ahead, one astern, and one on either side. The particular point of this arrangement was that while British designs accepted two or four big guns bearing, the French system allowed for a definite mean of three. More practically put, this may be translated into a conception that an enemy would use every effort to avoid positions in which four big guns could be brought to bear on him, and seek those in which he was exposed to two only. A gun-arrangement which gave three big guns bearing in _any_ position seemed therefore far more reasonable on paper.

It stands to the credit of Sir N. Barnaby (or else to the credit of the Admiralty of the era) that he recognised the impossibility of any such manœuvres in fleet actions, but at the same time he also realised how heavily it might tell in cruiser duels. Out of which the _Imperieuse_ and _Warspite_ were born.

Details of these ships:--

Displacement--8,400 tons.

Length (between perpendiculars)--315ft.

Beam--62ft.

Draught (maximum)--27⅓ft.

Armament--Four 9.2 24-ton B.L., six 6-inch, 89cwt., six torpedo tubes.

Horse-power--10,000=16.75 knots.

Coal--1,130 tons = nominal radius of ten knots of 7,000 miles.

Armour--Belt amidships of 10in. compound, with 9-inch bulkheads, 8-inch barbettes. No armour to lesser guns. 3-inch protective deck fore and aft, and on top of belt.

[Illustration:

SHANNON. NORTHAMPTON. ADMIRAL class. “C” class. ORLANDO class.

CHARACTERISTIC BARNABY SHIPS.]

The _Imperieuse_ was built at Portsmouth Dockyard and engined by Maudslay. The _Warspite_, built at Chatham, was engined by Penn. Both were completed in 1886 at a total cost of about £630,000 each. They were copper sheathed, and (like the _Inflexible_) originally were to carry a heavy brig-rig. This was removed at an early stage, and a single military mast between the funnels substituted. The _Imperieuse’s_ masts were subsequently put in the _Northampton_ (which see). Both proved faster than anticipated; but the coming of the quick-firer placed them in the semi-obsolete category almost as soon as they were completed. The type was never repeated. Till recently the _Imperieuse_ still existed as a depot ship for destroyers; the _Warspite_ has long since gone to the scrap heap. Years after their conception a modernised version of them was to some extent reproduced in the _Black Prince_ class. In their own day, however, they appeared and that was all.

The “battleship of the future” ideal of those days had to some extent been foreshadowed in the _Benbow_, with her couple of 110-ton guns. The monster gun was “the vogue” and no way of carrying it on existing displacements allowed of more than two such pieces being mounted.

The idea of the moment became the mounting of guns capable of delivering deadly blows, and (corollary therewith) protection to ensure that that deadly blow could be delivered with relative impunity. Since the secondary gun had now come in, auxiliary guns and a secondary battery were a _sine quâ non_; but the ideal ship was to be one incapable of vital injury from such weapons. On lines such as these the _Victoria_ class was designed.

The call was for an improved _Benbow_. The armament was to be no less and, if possible, more; while better protection was an essential feature.

Details of the _Victoria_ type, of which only two were built, are as follows:--

Displacement--10,470 tons (approximately that of the _Benbow_).

Length (between perpendiculars)--340ft.

Beam--70ft.

Draught (maximum)--27¼ft.

Armament--Two 110-ton guns (in a single turret), one 9.2 (aft), twelve 6-inch; twenty-one anti-torpedo guns, and six torpedo tubes (14-inch).

Armour (compound)--18-inch to 16-inch belt amidships, redoubt and bulkheads, 18-inch turret, 2-inch in battery. Armour deck, and heavily armoured conning tower.

Horse-power--14,000 = 16.75 knots.

Coal--1,200 tons = 7,000 miles at 10 knots.

The _Victoria_ was built at Elswick and engined by Humphrys; launched in 1887 and completed for sea in 1889. The _Sanspareil_, engined by the same firm, but built at Blackwall (Thames Ironworks) was launched a year later, but completed about the same time.

The design of these ships closely approximated to the _Conqueror_, of which they were merely enlarged editions with a heavily increased battery.

[Illustration:

RUPERT. CONQUEROR. VICTORIA. DREADNOUGHT. TRAFALGAR.

TURRET SHIPS OF THE BARNABY ERA.]

The _Victoria_ on completion became the flagship in the Mediterranean of Admiral Sir George Tryon. In the course of evolutions off the coast of Syria on June 22nd, 1893, she was rammed and sunk by the _Camperdown_. The disaster, which cost the lives of the Admiral and 321 officers and men, teaches no useful lesson, saving the danger of transverse bulkheads. Water-tight doors were shut too late. The sea entered. The ship gradually turned over, then suddenly “turned turtle” and capsized.

The mystery of her loss has never been fully explained. Admiral Tryon gave an order for the fleet, then in two lines, to turn inboard sixteen points, while at six cables apart. This manœuvre, with turning circles as they were, was bound to create a collision. This was pointed out to Admiral Tryon, who, however, took no notice of the representations. It has since been assumed that he went suddenly mad. A more reasonable explanation is that he intended the ships to “jockey with their screws” (a manœuvre which he never employed as a rule), and forgot to mention the fact, though details of evidence in the court-martial hardly bear this out.

The exact signal as made was:--

“Second division alter course in succession sixteen points to starboard, preserving the order of the Fleet.”

“First division alter course in succession sixteen points to port, preserving the order of the Fleet.”

This signal was capable of more than one interpretation. Along one of them each ship in the two squadrons might easily have rammed the other in succession, according to some interpretations. Using screws, both divisions might have closed in very closely but quite safely. Acting other than simultaneously they might anyway have effected the manœuvre without disaster. At eight cables (a distance which was suggested to the Admiral an hour before) it might have been done quite safely. There have been other explanations also.

In the Fleet at the time everything was believed, except the “blunder” theory which has gone down to history. To this day that is accepted with reservation. But the rest is mystery.

The _Camperdown_, in turning, crashed into the _Victoria_, striking her forward, curiously enough directly on a bulkhead, just as the _Vanguard_ was struck when she was rammed.

It was not expected that the _Victoria_ would be sunk. Had the water-tight doors been closed during the manœuvre, instead of at the last moment, she would probably have remained afloat. As things were, it was impossible to close many at the time the order was given, but her low-freeboard also played a part. The sea invaded the door on the starboard side of the superstructure and thence got everywhere on that side of the ship. It was that which threw her over and capsized her, but the chance circumstance of the blow on the lateral bulkhead should not be forgotten. The _Victoria_ was struck just on one of the points where all the odds were against her being struck.

The _Sanspareil_ had an uneventful career, and was eventually sold out of the Service somewhat suddenly under the “scrap-heap” policy of Admiral Fisher in 1904.

Following upon the _Imperieuse_ type, an entirely new class of armoured cruisers, the _Orlandos_, were designed. Just as the _Victorias_ were improved and enlarged _Conquerors_, so the _Orlandos_ were “improved _Merseys_.” Particulars of these ships, of which seven were built altogether, are as follows:--

Displacement--5,600 tons.

Length (between perpendiculars)--300ft.

Beam--56ft.

Draught (maximum)--22½ft. (actually more).

Armament--Two 9.2in. B.L.; ten 6in.; and six torpedo tubes.

Armour (compound)--Belt amidships 10in., with 16in. Bulkheads. Protective deck at ends. All guns protected by shields only.

Horse-power--8,500 = 18 knots.

Coal (maximum)--900 tons = nominal radius of 8,000 miles.

[Illustration: BOARDING A SLAVE DHOW]

They were built as follows:--

They were laid down in 1885 and 1886. The _Orlando_ was completed in 1888, all the others in 1889. They were launched in 1886 and 1887, and some of them, fitted with wooden guns (“Quakers”), served to swell the Fleet at the great Jubilee Review of 1887. All made over their designed speeds on trial, but they did their trials “light.” In service all proved fairly useful, and the _Undaunted_, with Lord Charles Beresford as her captain in the Mediterranean, “made history” to the extent of first creating an Anglo-American _entente_, beginning with the U.S.S. _Chicago_, captained then by the now universally known naval author, Admiral Mahan. Beresford first achieved fame in the _Condor_ at Alexandra, in 1882; but it was in the _Undaunted_ that he first “made history” by ending the previously existing hostility between the British and U.S. Navies; and establishing the naval brotherhood of those who speak the same language.

The _Orlandos_ were the last of the essentially Barnaby ships. Barnaby was associated with the Navy thereafter; but the _Nile_ and _Trafalgar_, though produced under his régime, were not “Barnaby ships,” and differences of opinion with the Admiralty about them eventuated in his resignation.

The tide of naval opinion was then setting back in the old _Dreadnought_ direction. More complete protection was being demanded. The quick-firer was just coming in and its potentialities seemed enormous. The secondary battery had to be protected. Destruction of communications on board began to take on a fresh and more serious aspect. In a word, the Admiralty reverted to Reed ideas, and in reverting exaggerated them. In such circumstances the general idea of the _Trafalgars_ was born.

Sir N. Barnaby totally dissented from the Admiralty line of thought. In his view the size of a ship could not legitimately be increased unless her offensive powers increased in proportion; in the _Trafalgar_ idea both speed and armament were reduced as compared to the _Admiral_ class, and over a thousand odd tons added entirely to carry extra defensive armour. Over which dispute he resigned his position.

Details of the _Nile_ and _Trafalgar_ as built are:--

Displacement--11,940 tons.

Length (between perpendiculars)--345ft.

Beam--73ft.

Draught (mean)--27½ft.

Armament--Four 13.5-inch, six 4.7 Q.F., also smaller guns, and four 14-inch torpedo tubes, of which two were submerged.

Armour (compound)--Belt, 230ft. long (_i.e._, 80ft. longer than in the _Admirals_ and _Victorias_), 20--16in., with 16--14 inch bulkheads, protective deck at ends and over main belt.

Over this a redoubt 141ft. long, 18in. thick. Above the redoubt a battery, 4in. thick. Turrets, 18in.

Horse-power--12,000 = 17 knots.

Coal--(normal) 900 tons; (maximum) 1,200 tons = 6,500 miles at 10 knots.

[Illustration:

_Photo_] [_Russell & Sons._

SIR N. BARNABY.

A recent photograph.]

The _Nile_ was built at Pembroke and engined by Maudslay. She was laid down in April, 1886, launched in March, 1888, and completed some two years later. The _Trafalgar_ was laid down at Portsmouth in January, 1886, and launched in September, 1887. Her machinery was supplied by Humphrys. The armour of these ships weighed no less than 4,230 tons, _i.e._, some 35 per cent. of the displacement instead of the more usual 25 per cent. or so. The then first Lord of the Admiralty took the occasion of the launch to remark that the days of such armoured ships were over, and that probably these were the last ironclads that would ever be built--the future would lie with fast deck-protected vessels! As, for three years, no more armoured ships were laid down, he at least enunciated a definite policy when these heavily armoured successors of the _Admiral_ class were put afloat. They differed from the _Admirals_ in that turrets were reverted to instead of barbettes, and, as already mentioned, they were really nothing but modernised versions of the old low freeboard _Dreadnought_.

At a later date 6-inch Q.F. were substituted for the 4.7’s; but no other schemes of modernising the ships ever came to a head.

_PROTECTED CRUISERS OF THE BARNABY ERA._

Four ships of the _Amphion_ Class--_Amphion_, _Arethusa_, _Leander_, and _Phæton_, of which the first (_Arethusa_) was laid down in 1880--represented the first Barnaby idea of the protected cruiser. They were of 4,300 tons displacement, and 16.5 knots nominal speed. They carried ten 6-inch guns, and a 1½-inch deck amidships. According to the ideas of those days they were heavily over-gunned. They always steamed well; but it is doubtful whether Barnaby, left to himself, would ever have produced them. Incidentally, they were always bad sea-boats.

In 1883, completed about the same time as the _Victoria_, the _Mersey_ class--_Mersey_, _Thames_, _Severn_, and _Forth_--of 4,050 tons displacement, and carrying two 8-inch and ten 6-inch, were commenced: practically early essays at the _Orlando_ class idea which followed. The _Orlandos_, on only a thousand or so tons more displacement, carried 9.2’s instead of 8-inch, had armour-belts as well as protective decks, and were a good knot faster. Both the _Amphions_ and _Merseys_ may be described as representing strictly naval Admiralty ideas--the _Orlando_, Barnaby ones. Each type was quickly rendered obsolete by the coming of the quick-firer; but the Barnaby type of cruiser, for 20 per cent. extra displacement, certainly offered better chances than any rival proposition, if only we consider matters in the light of what existed in those days and what promised best at that time.

So ends the Barnaby era. Barnaby’s constructional ideas were blown to mincemeat by the advent of the quick-firer. Even to-day his ideas seem somewhat obsolete. Yet a few years hence (if big ships survive) they stand every chance of being reverted to, because to-day the big gun has more or less come back to where it was in 1875–1885. Barnaby, though he worked into its era, never realised the preponderance or possible preponderance of the “secondary gun.” In his era it fired too slowly to count for very much; in our own, range neutralises whatever it may have accomplished in the rapidity of fire direction.

Likely enough, the reversion to Barnaby ideals, which is reasonably probable for the immediate future, will be merely a phase; and casual historians will ever put him down as the naval constructor who was least able to anticipate the years ahead of his creations. But a hundred years hence Barnaby may come into his own in a way little suspected to-day. A hundred years hence, when all the most modern ideas are ancient history, Barnaby may stand with Phineas Pett, and the Navy which he created stand for something infinitely more than the scrap heap to which a later age swiftly relegated it. Only the historian of the distant future can estimate him at his real value. His own generation never placed much faith in his ships; the generation that followed generally regarded them with scorn. It was probably wrong, but only the future can prove it to have been so.

_GUNS IN THE ERA._

The guns which especially belong to the Barnaby era were as follows:--

======+=======+========+==========+==========+=========+================ | | | | | | Penetration | Weight| Length | Weight | Muzzle | Muzzle | 2000 yds. Cal. | in | in |projectile| velocity | energy +-------+-------- ins. | tons. | cals. | lbs. | f.s. | ft. | iron. | comp. ------+-------+--------+----------+----------+---------+-------+-------- M.L. | | | | | | | 16 | 81 | 18 | 1684 | 1590 | 29,530 | 22 | 15 ----- +-------+--------+----------+----------+---------+-------+-------- B.L. | | | | | | | 16.25 | 110 | 30 | 1800 | 2148 | 57,580 | 29 | 19 13.5 | 67 | 30 | 1250 | 2025 | 35,560 | 26 | 17 12 | 45 | 25 | 714 | 2000 | 18,060 | 19 | 12½ 9.2 | 22 | 25 | 380 | 1809 | 8622 | 15 | 10 8 | 14 | 30 | 210 | 2200 | 7060 | 14 | 9 6 | 5 | 26 | 100 | 1960 | 2665 | 8 | 5 ======+=======+========+==========+==========+=========+=======+========

In the early part of the period, guns of the Reed era, down to the 10-inch 18-ton M.L., were also made use of; but generally speaking, the Barnaby designs coincide with early breechloading types. It is interesting to note that the 81-ton gun figured in one ship only (the _Inflexible_), and that after this the 38-ton 12.5 M.L. was reverted to, to be replaced in later designs by the 45-ton 12-inch B.L.

The M.L. guns available for early Barnaby designs were considerably superior to earlier examples of their type; as after the fiasco of the _Glatton_ trials,[7] copper gas checks were introduced. These were affixed to the base of the projectile and expanded on firing. They led to a certain increased power and accuracy; but, even so, only of a relative nature compared with the better results obtained from breechloaders. The _Thunderer_ gun disaster, which after many experiments was found to have been caused by doubly loading the gun, added another argument to the anti-muzzle-loader cause.

The 12-inch, which was the first large B.L. to be introduced, compared as follows with the 12-inch M.L.:--

==========+========+======+=======+==========+=========================== | | | | | Penetration of iron at |Length |Weight|Muzzle |Weight of +--------------------------- Gun. |in cals.| tons.|energy |projectile|Muzzle.|1000 yds.|2000 yds. | | | ft. | lbs. | in. | in. | in. ----------+--------+------+-------+----------+-------+---------+--------- 12in. M.L.| 13½ | 35 | 9470 | 706 | 16 | 15 | 13 12in. B.L | 25 | 45 |18,060 | 1250 | 30½ | 28 | 26 ==========+========+======+=======+==========+=======+=========+=========

The enormous difference in efficiency was of course traceable to other causes than the adoption of the breechloader instead of the old M.L.; but this was, equally naturally, overlooked; which, perhaps, was just as well--otherwise the muzzle-loader might have persisted to quite recent times. Though the _Thunderer_ disaster showed that a M.L. could be loaded twice over by accident, this was an obviously unlikely thing to occur again. The impression was made by the fact that the 12-inch B.L. was far more powerful than the old 16-inch M.L. It was possibly this which directly led to the “monster-gun craze” of the Barnaby era, the way to which had already been shewn by the 16-inch M.L. Incidentally it is interesting to note that the present monster gun era is the third in which, after a period of adhesion to a 12-inch gun, greatly increased calibres have suddenly and more or less generally been resorted to.

_THE COMING OF THE TORPEDO._

Reference has been made in the past chapter to Sir E. J. Reed’s recognition of the possibilities of the torpedo; and floating mines were, of course, well known. It was not, however, till 1874 that either mine or torpedo came to be regarded at all seriously.

The earliest Whitehead “fish torpedo” was produced in 1868; though it was then little more than a curiosity. It was a crude weapon, although it embodied, with two notable exceptions, most of the features that it possesses to-day. Its motive power was compressed air; it carried an explosive head with a sensitive pistol.

The secret was bought by the British Government at an early stage. It was made strictly confidential; indeed, to the present day, the internal mechanism of a torpedo is more or less sacred. Most other nations purchased the secret also, and guarded it with like care!

It is but fair to add that this ridiculous situation was brought about by the inventor, who particularly specified that the balance chamber must not be revealed even to admirals commanding fleets, but only to specially selected officers.

A main difficulty with the torpedo was how to discharge it. For some while only two methods existed: the first, a mechanism of catapult type which hurled the torpedo into the water; the other, by a crude application of dropping gear, suitable, of course, for launches only. In either case, especially the former, there was a strong element of uncertainty as to the direction the torpedo would take; for one to describe a circle and return to the firer was not unknown.[8]

The charge was inconsiderable, and range and speed were both very small.

An instrument called the Harvey torpedo was more or less contemporaneous with the Whitehead. It was a very primitive idea, consisting as it did merely in attempting to tow explosives across the course of an enemy. It was too obviously cumbersome to cause disquietude, and with the invention of torpedo tubes passed into oblivion.

The advantages of the torpedo tube were quickly recognised; and though the range was still little over a hundred yards or so--at any rate, so far as any probability of hitting was concerned--the torpedo quickly became a part of the armament of all important ships. So much was this the case that the submerged tube was developed with sufficient celerity to be adopted into the equipment of the _Inflexible_, of 1874 design.

None the less, however, the possible results of torpedo attack remained uninvestigated till 1874, and even then only came to be inquired into after the _Oberon_ experiments, which were primarily if not entirely brought about by the advent of the observation mine as a practical thing.

The mine’s arrival counted for little; the automobile torpedo being at the moment much in the public eye, the point that the _Oberon_ experiments were primarily designed to test the effect of mines got somewhat lost sight of. The essential fact is that by 1874 the fact of other enemies to the ship than the gun was established. For a long time it affected ship design no further than the gradual introduction of an anti-torpedo-boat armament; but this was mainly due to Sir E. J. Reed having in the _Bellerophon_ design endeavoured to anticipate torpedo effect. In 1874, and onward therefrom for some time, the double bottom, combined with water-tight bulkheads, was considered a suitable “reply” to the “new arm,” and it was not for many years that torpedo nets were in any degree appreciated.

In the later eighties some torpedo experiments were conducted against the old ironclad _Resistance_, in which the Bullivant net defence system proved altogether superior to the cumbersome old wooden booms which were in use: but, despite this, nothing was done for many a year, and the old pattern was adhered to.

_ESTIMATES IN THE ERA._

===============+=============+=========== Financial Year.| Amount. | Personnel. ---------------|-------------|----------- 1869 | 9,996,641 | 63,000 1870 | 9,370,530 | 61,000 1871 | 9,789,956 | 61,000 1872 | 9,532,149 | 61,000 1873 | 9,899,725 | 60,000 1874 | 10,440,105 | 60,000 1875 | 10,825,194 | 60,000 1876 | 11,288,872 | 60,000 1877 | 10,971,829 | 60,000 1878 | 12,129,901 | 60,000 1879 | 10,586,894 | 58,800 1880 | 10,566,935 | 58,800 1881 | 10,945,919 | 58,100 1882 | 10,483,901 | 57,500 1883 | 10,899,500 | 57,250 1884 | 11,185,770 | 56,950 1885 | 12,694,900 | 58,334 ===============+=============+===========