Page:EB1922 - Volume 32.djvu/446

428

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 diffi- culty in providing for stability, was economical of space, and simpli- fied 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, particu- larly 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 " Tsareyitch," 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 success- fully the explosion of several torpedoes. It was decided to incor- porate in the " Dreadnought " design some under r 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 " Bellerophqn " and " St. Vincent " classes this side protection was developed in the form of a continuous longi- tudinal 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 frorn ij in. to 3 in. according to the distance of the bulkhead from the outer shell of the ship. In a verti- cal 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 " sys- tem 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 unpro- tected. 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 bulk- heads at each end, girdling the ship throughout nearly her entire length, so that not only shell-rooms and magazines, but engine- ana boiler-rooms had the protection of a bulkhead 2 in. thick some 10 ft. from the ship's side, with the addition of another longitudinal bulkhead of 17 Ibs. plating placed (at a distance of 7 ft. amidships and at varying distances at the ends) on the inner side of the pro- tective 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 l^ inches.

The efficiency of this system of protection, which a series of experi- ments 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 con- currently with that of the battleships, although in smaller num- bers. 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 neverthe- less 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, more- over, 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 preemption 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.

Of the two Chilean ships building in England at Armstrong's, the " Almirante Latorre " (10 i4-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 air- craft carrier, being renamed " Eagle."

There were thus at the outbreak of war the following com- pleted capital ships on the offensive British list:

" Erin " and " Agincourt " (purchased) .... 2 " Iron Duke " class. . . . . . . .2'

" King George V." class 4

" Orion " class 4

" Colossus " class 2

" Neptune " i

" St. Vincent " class 3

" Bellerophon " class 3

" Dreadnought " i

Battleships " . .22

" Queen Mary " i

" Lion " and " Princess Royal " 2

" Indefatigable," " Australia," and " New Zealand ". 3 " Invincible," " Inflexible," " Indomitable ". . .3

Battle cruisers 9

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.

Of the older battleships, from the "Majestic" class (1895) onwards, the British navy possessed:

" Lord Nelson " class 2

" King Edward VII." class 8

" Swiftsure " class 2

" Duncan " class 5

" Formidable " class .2

" Canopus " class 6

" Majestic " class 9

These older ships, whose speeds ranged from 17 knots to igj knots, comprised a total armament of 152 1 2-in.; 8 lo-in. ; 52 9'2-in.; 28 7'5-in.; 4^16 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 numeri- cally in considerable superiority. They all rendered useful service during the war.

The old " Revenge," completed in 1894 (renamed "Redoubt- able " in 1914), the last available vessel of the old " Royal Sov- ereign " 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 far- thest 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 bom- bardment 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 graving- docks 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 sub- sisted until the completion of the two big floating docks for Ports- mouth 4 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.

1 One more (" Tiger ") nearly complete.

3 The anti-aircraft armament was not provided until after the outbreak of war, when such provision became necessary.

1914, and the Medway Lock to the Tyne in 1915.
 * Portsmouth floating dock was transferred to Invergordon in