Chapter 3 of 7 · 2819 words · ~14 min read

III.

THE WATTS ERA.

Sir William White was succeeded by Mr., afterwards Sir Philip Watts, who came to the Admiralty from Elswick, where he had been Chief Constructor. He came with the reputation of “putting in plenty of guns,” and his appointment was favourably received, both inside the Navy and outside.

The armoured cruisers _Duke of Edinburgh_ and _Black Prince_ were the first ships for which he was personally responsible.

Details of these:--

Displacement--13,550 tons.

Length (between perpendiculars)--480ft.

Beam--73½ft.

Draught--(maximum) 27½ft.

Armament--Six 9.2, 45 cal., ten 6-inch, 50 cal.; twenty-two 3-pounders. Torpedo tubes:--Three submerged (18in.).

Horse-power--23,500 = 22.3 knots.

Coal--(normal) 1,000 tons; (maximum) 2,000; also 400 tons of oil.

The former ship was laid down at Pembroke and engined by Hawthorn; the latter was built and engined by the Thames Iron Works. In the matter of armament and its arrangement the ships were to some extent cruiser versions of the _King Edward_; but equally, in the adoption of a number of single gun-houses for big guns, and the jump from two to a larger number of big guns, the influence of the Chilian _O’Higgins_, built at Elswick, may be noticed. The big guns were placed one forward and one aft, two on either beam and two on either quarter. The 6-inch were placed in an armoured battery below. As originally designed, right ahead fire was given to the forward battery guns, but this was dispensed with at a later date. The ships were never good sea boats, and the 6-inch guns were soon found to be well-nigh useless in any sea.

The armour was disposed in generous fashion--a complete belt reaching up to the main deck, 4in. forward, 6in. for some 260ft. amidships, and 3in. aft of that. A 6in. battery (K.N.C.) with bulkheads surmounts the belt-7in. barbettes with 6in. K.C. flat-sided gunhouses.

Both were given a mixed installation of Babcock and cylindrical boilers. A novelty was the standardisation of all their machinery, a very valuable innovation, which has been followed ever since. Parts of any one ship’s machinery can be used for any other of her class, thus facilitating rapid repairs and requiring a considerably reduced stock of spares.

On trials the _Duke of Edinburgh_ did on her eight hours’ full power trial I.H.P. 23,685 = 22.84 knots, the _Black Prince_ 23,939 = 23.6 knots. In service, however, the former has generally proved the better steamer. Another innovation in these ships was the re-appearance of the stern torpedo tube, first introduced in the _Centurions_. As re-introduced it was built submerged, a feature long desired, but which had previously presented innumerable difficulties in design.

[Illustration:

SWIFTSURE.

WATTS ERA. LORD NELSON. BLACK PRINCE. WARRIOR. MINOTAUR.

PRE-DREADNOUGHTS OF THE WATTS ERA.]

For the Estimates of the following year (1903–04) four more ships of the same type were provided--

In these the defect of the low 6-in. battery of the _Black Princes_ was anticipated, and instead of ten 6-inch guns, four 7.5 were mounted in gun-houses on the upper deck amidships. Yarrow and cylindrical boilers mixed were installed. Otherwise no change was made. On trial the _Achilles_ reached a maximum of 23.27, the other three ships all made their contracts or over.

These four, generally known as the _Warriors_, proved to be the finest cruisers as sea-boats ever built for the British Navy. They have always proved most remarkably steady gun platforms. Shooting from them is invariably good--they have always been near the top of the list in gunnery returns. For a single ship in a single commission good shooting is attributable to causes other than the ship; but with four ships and different crews at different times the effect of the design is obvious. Apparently the extra weight on their upper decks is responsible; for their dimensions are identical with those of the unsatisfactory _Black Princes_.

In all these ships, as in the _Devonshires_ which preceded them, raking masts and stumpy funnels were introduced. The latter proved most inconvenient for navigating purposes, and in 1911 all the _Warriors_ had their funnels considerably heightened.

In these four latter the “dove-cot” platform fire-controls first appeared; they were fitted also to the three latest ships of the _King Edward_ class.

The main defect of all six is the trivial anti-torpedo armament. The 3-pounders are perfectly useless against destroyers. Incidentally it may be noticed that the class signalled the scientific placing of such guns for control purposes. In the _Warriors_ some guns were mounted on turret tops also, this being with a view to their survival after an

## action. It was contended that an actual hit was extremely improbable on

any anti-t.b. guns, but that shells bursting underneath might easily disable them. Hence the search for an armoured base. This idea seems to have originated in the German Navy, though the Germans never adopted the turret-top position.

The Estimates (1904–05) provided for two battleships and three armoured cruisers. The latter of these, the _Minotaur_ class, were “improved _Warriors_”; but, as a matter of fact, except for a larger armament, they proved somewhat inferior to their immediate predecessors:--

Details are:

Displacement--14,600 tons (as against 13,550).

Length (between perpendiculars)--490ft., (over all) 525ft.

Beam--74½ft. (but a foot more in _Shannon_).

Draught--(maximum) 28ft. (but a foot less in _Shannon_).

Armament--Four 9.2, 50 cal., ten 7.5, fourteen 12-pounders, five 18in. tubes (submerged).

Horse-power--27,000 = 23 knots.

Coal--(normal) 1,000 tons (950 only in _Shannon_); (maximum) 2,000, also 400 tons oil.

[Illustration: SIR PHILIP WATTS.]

The 9.2 were placed in double turrets fore and aft. For those of the _Minotaur_ electric manœuvring was substituted for the usual hydraulic. The 7.5’s are disposed in ten single gun houses on the upper deck, _Warrior_ fashion. The armour belt is of the same maximum thickness, but only 3in. for 50ft. from the bow. Thereafter it thickens gradually for the next 75ft. then reaches its maximum. Vertical armour above the main deck was given up in order to allow for the increased weight of armament and its protection--a total of 2,073 tons. The _Minotaur_ has Babcock, the other two Yarrow large-tube boilers. No cylindricals were fitted; the opponents of the water-tube system having lost their influence by 1905, when the ships were laid down.

None of these ships came up to expectations on trial, though they developed considerably more than the contract horse-power. The _Minotaur_ just made her speed, the _Defence_ just failed to reach it, the _Shannon_ failed by half-a-knot. This last ship had been varied from the others with an idea that a new form of hull, would produce better speed--an unfortunate surmise. Shortly after completion all had 15ft. added to their funnels. The increased draught added to their power somewhat, but did not materially better their speeds.

Further details of these three ships are:--

All were completed in 1908. Average cost, £1,400,000 per ship. In them solid bulkheads first appear, their engine-rooms having no water-tight doors.

The battleships of the same programme (1904–05) were the _Lord Nelson_ and _Agamemnon_.

Details are:--

Displacement--16,500 tons.

Length (between perpendiculars)--410 ft., (over all) 445ft.

Beam--79½ft.

Draught--(mean) 27ft.

Armament--Four 12-inch, 45 cal., ten 9.2, 50 cal. fifteen 12-pounders, sixteen 3-pounders, five submerged tubes (18in.).

Horse-power--16,750 = 18.5 knots.

Coal--(normal) 900 tons; (maximum) 2,000 tons; also 400 tons oil.

The _Lord Nelson_ was built and engined by Palmer, the _Agamemnon_ by Beardmore and engined by Hawthorn. The former was given Babcock, the latter Yarrow boilers. Both on trial easily exceeded the contract speed, and proved abnormally handy ships. They cost £1,500,000 or only a little more than the _Minotaurs_.

The _Nelsons_ are often counted as “Dreadnoughts”; but their only claim to the position is they do not happen to carry any 6-inch guns. Actually they are nothing but improved _King Edwards_, bearing to those ships very much the same relation as the _Warriors_ to the _Black Princes_. Their comparatively slow speeds and their mixed armaments entirely differentiate them from the swifter “all-big-gun” ship which followed, and, for that matter, caught them up.[23]

The _Nelsons_ were never really successful ships outside the points alluded to above. Eight of their ten 9.2’s were placed in twin turrets, and in many circumstances two 9.2 so mounted proved very little superior in efficiency to a similar single gun in an isolated gun-house.[24]

In the matter of protection the _Nelsons_ far exceeded the _King Edwards_. In place of a 9in. belt amidships they were given a 12in. one, while the 8in. and 6in. strakes above of the earlier ships became a uniform 8in. The bow belt forward was also augmented to 6in. on the water-line, surmounted by 4in., instead of a belt uniformly increasing from 2in. to 6in. further aft. But none of this made them “Dreadnoughts,” and the absence of “Dreadnought” features relegated them to the second line very soon after they were completed.

In these ships the tripod mast, the idea of which dates back to the _Captain_ era, re-appeared. The _Nelsons_ were given as mainmasts the first of those modern tripods which have characterised nearly every British capital ship since built till the _Lion_ was altered.

The idea of the tripod mast is to avoid the many shrouds of an ordinary mast; and so give greater training to the guns. Whether the idea be of use is another matter. Generally speaking ideas abandoned by our forefathers have failed to live long if resuscitated.

In the 1902–03 and 1903–04 Estimates provision was made for four vessels each year of a new type, known as “Scouts.” These were the _Adventure_ and _Attentive_ (Elswick), _Forward_ and _Foresight_ (Fairfield), _Pathfinder_ and _Patrol_ (Laird), _Sentinel_ and _Skirmisher_ (Vickers-Maxim). One was awarded each year to each of the firms mentioned, but all were actually laid down between June, 1903, and January, 1904. The first four to be given out to contract were originally named _Eddystone_, _Nore_, _Fastnet_, and _Inchkeith_.

These vessels came to be built owing to an appreciation of the fact that destroyers had altogether lost their original rôle and had become torpedo-boats, pure and simple. The “Scouts,” though from three to four times the size, were the old “catchers” re-introduced.

They compared with these as follows:--

=========+===============+==========+==================== | Average | Average | | Displacement. | Designed | Armament. | | Speed. | ---------+---------------+----------+-------------------- “Scouts” | 2850 | 25 | 12 to 14--12pdr., | | | 2--14in. tubes[25] Halcyons | 1070 | 18.5 | 2--4.7, 4--6pdr., | | | 5--18in. tubes =========+===============+==========+====================

A 1½ deck on slopes amidships was provided for the “Scouts,” which incidentally were designed for ten 12-pounders only. By the year 1912 it became abundantly clear that, like their predecessors the “catchers,” they were doomed to pass quickly into the “little use” category on account of their weak armaments and small sea-keeping capacity.

_TORPEDO CRAFT._

It has already been mentioned that Sir William White’s period of office saw the coming of the destroyer. The origin of this craft is to be found in a public agitation, which arose out of the tremendous attention paid to torpedo boats by the French, who were then our most likely enemy, and who had an overwhelming superiority in torpedo craft.

Some years before a type of craft, the torpedo gunboats already referred to, which were first known as “torpedo boat catchers” and subsequently as “catchers” had been introduced. It soon, however, became very clear that they were little likely to achieve this end, and the doctrine that “the torpedo boat is the answer to the torpedo boat” was being steadily preached. At that time (1892) the then insignificant navy of Germany was in possession of eight very large torpedo boats, which were known as “division boats.” Austria also had one or two fast craft, capable of dealing with torpedo boats. Upon these existing lines a new type of craft was developed for the British Navy. The first two to be built were the _Havock_ and _Hornet_, which were launched in 1893. In substance they were very large torpedo boats of about 250 tons displacement, designed by Messrs. Yarrow. Their speed of 27 knots was well in excess of that of any existing torpedo boat, and it was confidently expected that they would easily run down and destroy any such. In addition to what was then the very considerable armament of one 12-pounder and three 6-pounders, they were also fitted with torpedo tubes.[26] The original idea of this was that when hostile torpedo boats had been annihilated by them, the destroyers could be used as torpedo boats in case of need.

In 1894 the _Havock_ and _Hornet_ were used in manœuvres and tested by being made to lie by for twenty-four hours in the Bay of Biscay. They underwent the test very well, and to this is probably attributed the realisation of the fact that in them a more or less really effective sea-going torpedo boat had been evolved. A large number of duplicates were ordered; at first of 27 knots. Later this was increased to 30, and in a few boats to a little more.

The whole of these boats were nothing but enlarged editions of existing torpedo boats, and some of them proved rather weak for the service demanded of them. In the year 1902 and onwards, therefore, a type of better sea-going qualities was demanded, and the River class, which totalled about 35 boats, began to be built. A feature of the River class was that they were a blend of the early torpedo gunboats of the Rattlesnake type, with the later and heavier torpedo gunboats. There was a reduction of speed to 25½ knots, with a view to securing better sea-going qualities. On account of their slow speed the River class are verging on the obsolete to-day, but the high forecastle first embodied in them has never been departed from, and the very latest types of destroyers are nothing but swifter and larger editions of them.

It is interesting to note that here again to some extent the Germans led the way. German destroyers had the North Sea to consider, whereas all early British destroyers were built with a view to being used only in the Channel. Consequently and naturally enough the Germans were the first to perceive the necessity for a high forecastle.

The submarine also appeared in the pre-Dreadnought era, but the boats of that time were of such a primitive type that they need hardly be specially mentioned. They will be found alluded to in a later chapter.

_END OF THE PRE-DREADNOUGHT ERA._

So ended the pre-Dreadnought era. It was characterised by a multiplicity of types which had included:--

First class battleships. Second class battleships. Fast intermediate battleships. First rate armoured cruisers. Second rate armoured cruisers. First class protected cruisers. Second class protected cruisers. Third class protected cruisers. Scouts. Torpedo gunboats. Sloops. Gunboats. Destroyers. Torpedo boats. Submarines.

Although the whole of these types were not all building or provided for at any one and the same time, yet towards the end of the period there was a general feeling that too many types of ships were in use. Reductions in this direction were announced, at first indicating that in future programmes provision would be made only for:--

“Armoured ships.” Destroyers. Submarines.

Contemporaneously with this came Admiral Fisher’s famous “scrap-heap policy,” whereby some eighty vessels of one kind and another were struck off the effective list, and either sold or relegated to subsidiary service.

The ships removed included all battleships and armoured cruisers of earlier date than the _Trafalgar_, several ships of the _Apollo_ class, all earlier protected cruisers, some of the “P” class, and the bulk of the small fry in the way of sloops and gunboats.

This action aroused a certain amount of criticism on the grounds that the clearance was excessive. As some of the ships were subsequently restored to the active list, something is undoubtedly to be said for that point of view; especially as no steps were taken to replace the scrapped cruisers. On the other hand, most of the ships removed were of trivial fighting value; though here again the zeal of the reformer somewhat overlooked the fact that the police duties rendered by the small fry had been valuable.

In connection with this policy some of the outlying naval bases were done away with, and there commenced a “reorganisation” of the Fleet which has continued intermittently from that day to this! Certain other considerable changes affecting the _personnel_ will be found dealt with in a later chapter.