British Battleships, 1889-1904: New Revised Edition

Preface

After the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805, Great Britain enjoyed a naval supremacy that was virtually unchallenged until the turn of the 19th century. During this period, which was more or less free from major sea wars, the battlefleet quickly became a political force as well as a practical one – and never more so than during the reign of Queen Victoria. By 1890 the combined British fleets enjoyed a numerical superiority hitherto unknown; the pride of the British people focused on the Royal Navy, which seemed to embody all that was quintessentially English to the man in the street. No matter what qualities or defects the ships possessed, he saw the battlefleet as the true backbone of the country and the empire.

For an island nation, it was paramount that command of the seas by a superior force be kept in a state of readiness and generally this was accomplished, even if there were periods when it seemed that the lion was asleep.

From about 1900, matters relating to naval affairs, strategy, design of warships and general administration changed somewhat, and the decline of Great Britain as a two-power naval force began. Other nations were beginning to flex their muscles and, looking at the Royal Navy, and what it had achieved over the past fifty years, began to build warships and invest heavily in the development of their own nautical interests. Not to be outdone, however, the Royal Navy showed that the experience gained during the Victorian era had not been wasted, and began a new battleship building programme second to none, but that is another story.

This book deals with the vessels which formed the battlefleet from 1876 through to the innovatory Dreadnought of 1905, and ultimately, the shock of the First World War. Most of the information has been drawn from official sources, although it was found that many of the older documents had either perished, been mislaid or simply destroyed over a period of time; so there is less data available for the Victorian period than for 1920–45. This is a great pity because that era was one of transition and very rapid technological advance.

A rare view taken from Majestic of the assembled fleet as it prepares for the Coronation Fleet Review (HM King Edward VII) in August 1902. This was the last Royal Navy review where all the ships were in Victorian colours. Within months of the review finishing most ships were painted all grey.

Four of the most important personalities in British naval history during the late Victorian period.

1 Sir William Henry White

Born in Devonport 2 February 1845 and educated at the Royal School of Naval Architecture. In 1883 he joined Sir William Armstrong and developed many new techniques within the firm.

He became Director of Naval Construction (DNC) in 1885 and held that post until 1902. While DNC he virtually revolutionized battleship design and created a fleet which was the envy of the civilized world. Made KCB in 1895. He wrote the classic Manual of Naval Architecture and many papers on naval affairs. He left office in 1902, but sustained his naval interest until his death in 1913, never to see how the fleet he created would fare in a world war.

2 John Arbuthnot Fisher (First Baron Fisher of Kilverstone)

Born at Rambodde 25 January 1841 and entered the navy on 12 June 1854, on board the Victory at Portsmouth, ‘penniless, friendless, and forlorn’, as he once wrote of himself. Active service in Calcutta with the Baltic Fleet during the Crimean War and later in China. Promoted to Captain in 1874, he commanded the battleship Inflexible at the bombardment of Alexandria in 1882, landing there with the Naval Brigade, and using an armoured train which he commanded in several engagements, receiving the CB for his services. In February 1892 he was appointed to the Board of Admiralty as Controller (Third Sea Lord) and held that post until 1897. From 1899 to 1902 he was Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean Fleet where he worked on designs for the ‘all big gunned’ battleship. Responsible for many changes within the system of the Royal Navy and introduced a scheme of entry and training for naval officers which abolished the Britannia (training school) and substituted colleges at Osborne and Dartmouth which trained executive officers, engineers and marines up to the rank of lieutenant. Commander-in-Chief, Portsmouth from 1903 to 1904. Made First Sea Lord 21 October 1904 and held office until 1910. Knighted in 1894.

He pushed home his ideas for a new ‘all big gunned’ battlefleet, introduced oil fuel into large warships, and improved the system of shooting. He was strongly opposed to the Dardanelles campaign and with difficulty was prevented from resigning over the matter. He died 10 July 1920, having retained his vigour of mind and speech to the end.

3 Charles William De La Poer Beresford, Baron

Born 10 November 1846. A naval cadet in 1859, he came to notice when he commanded Condor at the bombardment of Alexandria in 1882. In 1884 he commanded the Naval Brigade in the Nile expedition, fought at Abu Klea and in Sofia he effected the rescue of Sir Charles Wilson. Commanded Undaunted 1893–95 and became Rear-Admiral in 1897. Second in Command, Mediterranean 1900–02; Commander Channel Fleet 1903–05 and Commander, Mediterranean Fleet 1905–07; again Commander, Channel Fleet 1907–09. Made full Admiral in 1906. Entered Parliament in 1874 when he gained Waterford as Conservative and held that seat until 1880. MP for East Marylebone 1885 to 1889. Also a Lord of the Admiralty from 1886 to 1888. MP for York 1897–1900. Worked very hard for the benefit of the navy and always expressed his opinions very strongly when in Parliament (see his memoranda in Naval Defence Act, 1889). Often criticized the administration of the navy and called for a special Board to be set up to deal with war staff and national intelligence.

Wrote many important papers and books including, The Break-up of China, Facts concerning Naval Policy, Administration, Memories. Died suddenly in Caithness 6 September 1919.

4 Sir Percy Moreton Scott

Born 10 July 1853 and educated at University College, London. Entered the Navy in 1886 and became Captain by 1893. His name can be intimately linked with the development of scientific methods in naval gunnery; he was a member of the Ordnance Committee from 1894 to 1896. Came to notice with his excellent shooting record when serving in Scylla and Terrible (see gunnery).

Served in the Ashanti and Egyptian wars and landed with a Naval Brigade in South Africa in 1899, improvising mountings for heavy guns at Ladysmith. Captain of ‘Excellent’, the RN gunnery school, from 1903 to 1905, and inspector for target practice 1905–07; commanded cruiser squadrons, 1907–09. Created KCB 1910, Rear-Admiral in 1905, and Baronet 1913. Specially recognized by government for his numerous inventions towards improving naval gunnery and general shooting at sea. Retired as Admiral in 1913, but rejoined the service on outbreak of war.

Perhaps the most well-known incident in his career was his clash with Lord Charles Beresford, which received extensive coverage in the tabloids of the time.

In 1903 Scott was flying his flag in the cruiser Good Hope, which was anchored just inside the breakwater at Portland. Roxburgh was just outside, some 300 yards away. Both ships received orders from Lord Charles Beresford to paint ship in readiness for the reception of the German Emperor. No order was sent, however, to suspend gunnery practice in which the two cruisers were engaged. Scott sent a message by semaphore to Roxburgh, ‘Paintwork appears to be more in demand than gunnery, so you had better come in, in time to make yourself look pretty by the 8th.’ The reply came, ‘As the weather is suitable, we can red lead the rust marks off our funnels and get ready for painting out here.’

Roxburgh remained outside, and two hours later Beresford arrived, and after anchoring made a signal to Roxburgh, to ‘be out of routine’, and that she was to suspend gunnery and devote her energy to painting. Roxburgh then came inside the breakwater, and to use a very common service phrase, started to make herself ‘look pretty’ which was exactly what Scott had told her to do two hours before Beresford’s arrival. Someone overheard Scott’s remarks and passed them on to Beresford. Without asking for an explanation, Beresford severely reprimanded Scott and requested the Admiralty that he be superseded. Scott offered an explanation, but Beresford would not listen. Scott was later to say that the signal had been, ‘a misrepresentation of fact due to Lord Charles Beresford not having inquired into the facts before he took action’. The affair made good reading for some time after the incident, and was not quickly forgotten.

Introduction

Development of the Battleship

The late 19th-century battleship – now termed the ‘pre-dreadnought’ – had its conception as far back as 1869, when all vessels, whether cruiser, sloop, frigate or battleship, were fitted with masts, yards and sails. In late 1868, the First Sea Lord, Hugh Childers, asked the Chief Constructor (Edward Reed) to prepare a design to ascertain if a seagoing turret ship smaller than Monarch and Captain (then under construction) was practicable. Reed was asked to limit displacement to about 6,100 tons, and to provide sail rig but only on a limited scale. On. 3 February 1869 Reed reported that such a design would be impracticable but quickly submitted a paper with his own proposals showing certain features:

The object of the Admiralty in the preparation of this design has been to produce a warship of great offensive and defensive qualities, adapted for naval warfare in Europe. The capabilities of the ship to cross the Atlantic has also been considered; but the primary object, and that in which view of the qualities of the ship have been regulated, is that of fitness for engaging the enemies’ ships and squadrons in the British Channel, Mediterranean and other European seas. The offensive power has been regulated by the desire to furnish her with guns which would penetrate the armour of the 1st class of Europe, with few or no exceptions, to give these guns an uninterrupted command in all directions, and to so place and work them, that they may be efficient and secure in a sea-way under all but extreme conditions.

1.Displacement 9,035 tons. Low freeboard, semi-monitor type hull with raised breastwork amidships enclosing the turrets, but not carried out to the sides. Freeboard 9ft along forecastle, by 4½ft to upper deck abaft this. Short high superstructure on breastwork through which funnel uptakes and hatches would lead; a flying deck for boat stowage and navigating position, etc. Prominent ram fitted, and sides strengthened against such an attack.

2.Four 12in (25-ton) guns in two twin turrets, both on centre line on breastwork, one forward and one aft.

3.Side armour 12in maximum, decks 2in, turrets 12in.

4.Twin screws fitted in the event of a shaft breakage.

5.No sail rig, only light poles at end of each breastwork.

Devastation in her original black paintwork, 1873–4. Designed by Edward Reed (DNC) with modifications by N. Barnaby after Reed had left office, Devastation represented the initial attempt at producing a seagoing battleship type unobstructed by masts, sail or rigging. On completion, she was the most powerfully armed warship extant.

The latter item has its advantages in the following: A low freeboard type is possible, carrying with it a reduced amount of armour; a clear range for guns all round; half the complement owing to absence of rigging.

The design was actually nothing more than an enlarged edition of the breastwork monitors of the earlier Cerebus class, developed to seagoing proportions within acceptable displacement limits, and resulted in the most controversial warship design ever submitted by the Constructor’s Department to that date.

The adoption of the low-freeboard hull is said to have been influenced to some extent by the visit to Britain of the US monitor Miantonomoh during 1866–7 although Reed’s design was considerably less extreme in this respect. From the point of view of seagoing qualities and habitability it was also the most unsatisfactory, and was subjected to severe criticism as being unsafe.

DEVASTATION

Outboard profile and cutaway, as refitted and rearmed, 1894

Devastation and Thunderer were completely reconstructed during 1890 to 1894 to conform to modern technology. They were re-engined and reboilered with inverted triple-expansion machinery and cylindrical boilers; the IHP was thereby raised to 7,000 for 14 knots maximum speed. A navigating bridge was added over the chart house at the forward end of the hurricane deck and a signal bridge at the after end. The funnels were remodelled, and other minor alterations gave them a fresh appearance when the refits were completed in 1894.

1. Boiler rooms.

2. Engine rooms.

3. Magazines and shell rooms.

DEVASTATION: STEAM TRIALS, 31 OCTOBER 1872

Stokes Bay run

Wind: 2

Sea: smooth, conditions good

Draught: 26ft 4in forward, 26ft 6in aft

Pressure in boilers: 27psi

Revolutions: 76.756

IHP: 6,633

Speed: 13.8 knots.

The design, nevertheless, featured some outstanding innovations, for a seagoing type: low-freeboard, semi-monitor type hull and absence of sail rig. By discarding sail rig, a number of structural and tactical advantages had been secured for the first time in a seagoing ship of such size.

In the 1869–70 programme provision was made for two such ships, Devastation and Thunderer, with a third to be called Fury and laid down in the following year. Following the loss of the rigged turret ship Captain, however, the Devastation type became very suspect, it being held (erroneously) in the service that such ships would probably be similarly overwhelmed and capsize in heavy seas despite the absence of masts and sail.

The severe criticism from both service and public sectors necessitated action to restore confidence in the design and in the technical authorities, and to vindicate the new principles governing naval layouts. A Committee was convened to examine all designs recently laid down, and in particular that of Devastation. At its first meeting, in January 1871, Nathaniel Barnaby (new Chief Constructor, succeeding Reed) proposed modifications to the original Devastation design with a view to improving stability offensive power, protection and habitability:

1.Extension of breastwork right out to sides in the form of a light, enclosed superstructure with wings carried about 30 feet abaft breastwork on each side.

2.Substitution of 12in (35-ton) for the original 12in (25-ton).

3.Increased protection to the horizontal and internal parts of the ship (total of 874 tons added with all improvements).

These modifications, which increased the nominal displacement to 9,900 tons, were approved by the Committee. The additional freeboard provided by the new superstructure resulted in a far more seaworthy and satisfactory design which attained a reputable standard for ships of the semi-monitor type.

Apart from certain general recommendations, which in no way affected the basic principles of the design, the Committee, in a report on Devastation issued in March 1871, expressed great satisfaction with the type in general and approved it as a basis for further development.

COASTAL DEFENCE AND FIRST CLASS EXPERIMENTAL BATTLESHIPS CONSTRUCTED FROM 1870 TO 1886

Cerberus

Breastwork monitor 3,340 tons 4 × 10in

Magdala

Breastwork monitor 3,340 tons 4 × 10in

Abyssinia

Breastwork monitor 2,900 tons 4 × 10in

Glatton

Breastwork monitor 4,900 tons 2 × 12in

Hotspur

Ironclad ram 4,000 tons 1 × 12in, 2 × 64pdrs

Devastation

First seagoing mastless turret ship 9,300 tons 4 × 12in

Thunderer

Turret ship 9,700 tons 4 × 12in

Rupert

Ironclad ram 5,400 tons 2 × 10in, 2 × 64pdrs

Alexandra

Broadside ironclad 9,500 tons 2 × 11in, 10 × 10in

Temeraire

First barbette ironclad 8,500 tons 4 × 11in, 4 × 10in

Cyclops

Coastal defence 3,400 tons 4 × 10in

Gorgon

Coastal defence 3,400 tons 4 × 10in

Hecate

Coastal defence 3,400 tons 4 × 10in

Hydra

Coastal defence 3,400 tons 4 × 10in

Dreadnought

Turret ship 10,800 tons 4 × 12.5in

Inflexible

Central citadel turret ship 11,800 tons 4 × 16in

Ajax

Central citadel turret ship 8,500 tons 4 × 12.5in

Neptune

Turret ship 9,300 tons 4 × 12in, 2 × 9in

Superb

Broadside ironclad 9,700 tons 16 × 10in

Belleisle

Coastal defence 4,800 tons 4 × 12in

Colossus.

Central citadel turret ship 9,150 tons 4 × 12in

Conqueror

Turret ship 6,200 tons 2 × 12in

DEVASTATION AND THUNDERER: PARTICULARS, AS COMPLETED

Construction

Both ships extensively rebuilt 1890–1 and 1893–4 respectively to conform with modern warship technology (guns renewed, re-engined and noticeable appearance changes).

Displacement (tons)

Devastation: 9,190 (load), 9,827 (deep)

Thunderer: 9,380 (load), 9,641 (deep).

Dimensions

Length: 285ft pp, 307ft oa

Beam: 62ft 3in

Draught: 25ft 9in forward, 26ft 6in aft.

Armament

Armour (iron)

Main belt: 12in–10in–9in–8½in

Breastwork: 12in–10in

Bulkheads: 12in–6in–5in

Turrets: 14in–12in

Breastwork deck: 2in

Upper deck: 3in midships, 2in aft

Main deck: 3in

Conning tower: 9in–6in.

Machinery

Two sets horizontal single-cylinder (Thunderer double-cylinder) direct-acting trunk engines, two Griffiths propellers

Cylinder diameter: 88in (Thunderer 77in)

Stroke: 3ft 3in (Thunderer 3ft 6in)

Propellers: 4-bladed

Propeller diameter: 17ft 6in

Propeller pitch: 19ft 6in

Boilers: eight rectangular in two compartments, working pressure 27–30psi

Total heating surface: 17,806sq ft

Total length of engine + boiler rooms: 127ft 11½in

Designed SHP: 5,600 for 12.5 knots

Fuel: 1,350 tons coal normal, 1,800 tons max.

Ship’s boats

Pinnaces (steam): one 37ft, one 28ft

Whale gigs: one 25ft

Gigs: one 30ft, two 28ft, one 26ft

Punts: one 11ft

Dinghies: one 14ft.

Searchlights

None as completed. Two 24in 1880, four more 1893.

Complement

As designed: 250

As completed: 358.

Cost

£361,438 (plus guns £43,780, Thunderer £88,431).

Sold

Devastation: 12 May 1908

Thunderer: 13 July 1909.

Devastation, June 1897. A magnificent view showing the extremely low freeboard. Rather striking in appearance with the long raised breastwork and short high superstructure with hurricane deck above. Replaced Swiftsure (old) at Devonport as Port Guard Ship from 5 December 1893 until January 1898. Present at Diamond Jubilee Fleet Review on 26 June 1897 at Portsmouth, when this photograph was taken.

A majority report recommended also, that no more first class battleships should be built with full sail rig, irrespective of whether the main armament was mounted in turrets or on the broadside. In support of this the report pointed out that it was impossible to combine any real efficiency under sail with a high degree of offensive and defensive qualities, and advanced the following basic objections to sail rig:

1.With a turret armament, full rig restricted arcs of fire, and prevented full benefit being derived from the advantages of turrets in respect of all-round fire, thereby placing rigged turret ships at a distinct disadvantage in engaging even smaller and cheaper mastless types.

2.It represented a hazard in action owing to its inflammable nature, and the risks of falling masts, spars and gear which might obstruct guns and propellers.

3.It absorbed weight which could be expended to advantage in increasing fuel capacity, especially in the case of twin-screwed ships, where the risk of breakdown requiring the use of sail was minimized.

4.It reduced speeds when steaming head to wind and encumbered deck space when topgallant masts and upper yards were struck for going into action.

These objections met with considerable adverse service opinion at the time of their release, however, and the report was completely ignored by the Admiralty in the following designs for Alexandra, Temeraire and Inflexible, which were laid down in 1873–4.

Devastation, 1894–5 during annual manoeuvres. In service, she turned out a satisfactory sea-boat, and a steady gun platform with an easy roll, but could not be driven hard against a head sea because of her low freeboard. Devastation and her sister (Thunderer) were reconstructed and re-armed during 1890–3 when the 12in MLR were replaced by 10in BLR, and the Nordenfelts by six 6pdr and eight 3pdr QF. They were also re-engined and re-boilered.

Despite the early criticism, which was stronger than had been directed at any other British warship, Devastation entirely fulfilled the intentions of the design, and turned out to be a safe, seaworthy ship, although, as in all ships of this type, the low freeboard at the extremities imposed definite limitations on fighting and steaming abilities in a sea-way.

As time went by, service opinion became progressively more favourable and, ten years after commissioning, her all-round fighting qualities were considered higher than those of later ships such as Alexandra, Temeraire, Colossus and even the ‘Admiral’ classes.

Those two vessels, Devastation and Thunderer, with their aggressive names and grim, invincible appearance, were just what appealed to the man in the street; when Messrs. Bryant & May required a warship to typify Britannia’s sea power on their matchboxes, Devastation and Thunderer were the obvious choices. Although now discontinued, if you come across one of these boxes, look with a fresh eye, and imagine how these illustrations were seen by the public in those bygone days of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

The original design for Fury, as prepared by Reed in 1870, was merely an enlarged and faster edition of his Devastation which had been governed by displacement restrictions no longer in force. Compared with Devastation the new design was 35 feet longer and 1,130 tons heavier with the same armament and similar protection except that the belt armour was carried right through to the bows above as well as below the waterline.

The ship was laid down to this design in September 1870, but because of the disturbance caused by the Devastation design, construction was suspended pending the report from the newly appointed Committee.

Barnaby proposed that the draught be increased by at least six inches, and freeboard forward and aft be reduced so as to increase basic stability. Further proposals included:

1.Extension to breastwork at sides giving freeboard of 11ft 6in amidships.

2.Provision of open flying deck, 9 feet above the waterline.

3.Placing the main gun turrets 10–12 feet off centre on opposite sides to enable three guns to fire directly ahead or astern.

4.Extension of belt armour down over the ram forward, and increasing the maximum thickness of the main belt from 12in to 14in.

A further proposal was put forward by Admirals Elliot and Ryder who called for extensions of the breastwork level to bow and stern by light plating, thus providing a flush deck, and removing the vessel from the monitor category.

Barnaby’s plan for the open deck and echelon turrets were rejected by the Committee, but that suggested by the two Admirals was fitted to some extent after Devastation had run her preliminary trials. Later on, the guns were revised, and the 12in 35-ton were changed for 12.5in 38-ton pieces. Most of the revisions took place during 1872, and the ship was renamed Dreadnought. As completed, she turned out as the only battleship built during Barnaby’s reign as DNC that never came in for severe criticism. When the design for Trafalgar was under consideration (1886) the initial layout was almost identical with that of Dreadnought, which had become known as the ‘officers’ ideal’.

The 1873 estimates produced Alexandra, the last central battery type battleship built for the Royal Navy. She was the most powerfully armed (two 11in and ten 10in), most heavily armoured, fastest and most successful of the thirteen ships of this group, built during the period of transition from broadside to turret type. The design, which was quite unique, had nothing even approaching a sister vessel, and represented the apotheosis of broadside central battery theory coupled with the best ideas ever put into practice for combining good all-round fire with full sail rig. Her overall fighting qualities were never equalled by any other British or foreign broadside armed ship. The decision to adhere to the fully rigged ship was taken despite the recommendations of the 1871 Committee on designs, which urged that full rig be abandoned. Alexandra’s rig, although close to perfection in so far as mastless broadside ships were concerned, made her virtually obsolete by the time she was completed in 1877.

Dreadnought cleared for action during a practice run, c.1887–9. Like Devastation, she was designed by Reed and modified by Barnaby and W. White, after Reed had left office. She was in fact an enlarged and improved Devastation, and on completion was the most powerfully armed and completely armoured battleship in service. Her fighting value, however, was rather less than appeared on paper because the volume of fire was limited to one broadside (four rounds) every two minutes.

Laid down in the same year as Alexandra was Temeraire, also a central battery type – but with a difference; she was also given barbettes! The design, which embodied several unique features, was a direct outcome of proposals by Admirals Elliot and Ryder of the 1871 Design Committee, and represented a distinctly hybrid type, combining the central battery system with a separate, and at that time novel, barbette arrangement for securing increased fire end on. A wide frigate-type stern sloping strongly outwards from the waterline was reverted to for the last time in any British battleship. This reversion was probably influenced by current ideas regarding appearance, despite the additional weight involved, and other disadvantages as compared with the more modern pattern. Topgallant, forecastle and poop were fitted, but these were kept as low as possible so as to reduce freeboard in view of the weight of the barbettes.

DREADNOUGHT: PARTICULARS, AS COMPLETED

Construction

Pembroke DY; laid down 10 Sept 1870; launched 8 March 1875; completed 15 Feb 1879.

Displacement (tons)

10,893 (load), 11,486 (deep).

Dimensions

Length: 320ft pp, 343ft oa

Beam: 63ft 10in

Draught: 26ft 3in forward, 26ft 9in aft

Freeboard: 10ft 9in forward, 11ft 6in amidships, 10ft aft.

Armament

Four 12.5in 38-ton MLR

Ten Nordenfelt QF guns added 1884

Two 16in torpedo carriages.

Armour (iron)

Main belt: 14in–8in

Citadel: 11in–14in

Bulkheads: 13in

Turrets: 14in

Conning tower: 14in–8in–6in

Main deck: 2½in

Citadel deck: 3in.

Machinery

Two sets 3-cylinder vertical inverted compound engines, two Griffiths propellers

Cylinder diameter: HP 66in, LP 90in

Stroke: 4ft 6in

Propeller diameter: 20ft

Boilers: twelve cylindrical, back to back in four compartments, working pressure 60psi

Designed SHP: 8,000 for 14 knots (made 14.5 knots with 8,216shp on trials)

Fuel: 1,200 tons coal normal, 1,800 tons max.

Estimated radius of action: 5,650nm at 10 knots.

Searchlights

Two 24in added later: one over charthouse, one on after end of hurricane deck.

Complement

369 (1879)

374 (1882).

Cost

£619,739.

Sold

14 July 1908.

This was certainly a ‘one-off’ vessel, but she was exceptionally steady and well armed. The novel barbette mountings, sited one forward and one aft (two 11in in each), were fitted with the Moncrieff system for raising and lowering the guns; the system had, in fact, been designed for coast-defence guns, and afforded complete protection to gun crews while loading. The principle defects for shipboard use were the excessive weight and the absence of overhead protection to the barbettes.

Admiral Ballard said of Temeraire: ‘In the Temeraire, we could not fire the after barbette guns on any bearing whatever without damage to the fittings and bulkheads under the poop, so quarterly practices with that gun’s crew were carried out in the fore barbette in three out of the annual four. The damage caused by the fourth was not beyond repair, but nevertheless it cost some money to put right again.’

Dreadnought, 1904–5. Seen here towards the end of her active career when she was employed as Depot Ship for destroyers during annual manoeuvres in the Irish Sea.

The barbette central battery arrangement adopted in this ship was never repeated, and she was the last battleship laid down for the British Navy to carry any part of her main armament below the upper deck.

Another vessel to join the ranks of the Royal Navy was Superb which was designed by Reed as the Turkish Hamidieh in 1873. She was completed in 1877, but detained in the United Kingdom because of neutrality obligations during the Russo-Turkish war. She was purchased for the Royal Navy in February 1878 and renamed Superb.

In general design, Superb was merely an enlarged edition of Hercules (1865) with heavier armament, thicker armour and about a knot less speed. She was the last broadside armed battleship ever to enter service with the Royal Navy. She had thicker battery armour than any of the others, and a heavier weight of broadside than any previous British warship.

Temeraire, Malta, 1886. She was a good ship, but pitched heavily in head seas. She was a direct outcome of proposals put forward by Admirals Elliot and Ryder of the 1871 Design Committee.

TEMERAIRE: PARTICULARS, AS COMPLETED

Construction

Chatham DY; laid down 18 Aug 1873; floated out 9 May 1876; completed Aug 1877.

Displacement (tons)

8,550 (load), 8,766 (deep).

Dimensions

Length: 285ft wl

Beam: 62ft

Draught: 26ft 8in forward, 27ft 2in aft.

Armament

Four 11in 25-ton MLR

Four 10in 18-ton MLR

Four 20pdr Armstrong BL

One 9pdr MLR

One 3pdr QF plus MG (boat)

Two 14in torpedo carriages.

Armour (iron)

Main belt: 11in–9in–6in–5½in and 3in

Battery: 8in

Forward bulkhead: 10in

After bulkhead: 5in (between upper and lower edges of belt armour)

Bulkhead: 8in (closing each end of battery)

Forward barbette: 10in

After barbette: 8in

Ammunition trunks: 8in

Upper deck: 1in

Main deck: 1½in.

Machinery

Two sets 2-cylinder vertical inverted compound engines, two

Griffiths propellers

Propellers: 2-bladed

Cylinder diameter: HP 70in, LP 114in

Stroke: 34ft 10in

Boilers: twelve cylindrical back to back in four compartments, working pressure 60psi

Designed SHP: 7,000 for 14 knots (made 14.65 knots on measured mile, six runs)

Fuel: 400 tons coal normal, 620 tons max.

Radius of action: 2,680nm at 8–9 knots (economical speed).

Sail and rig

Two masts, heavy brig rig

Sail area: 25,000sq ft, main truck 169ft above deck

Iron lower mast, all other masts wood

Poor sailer, but owing to short hull, one of the handiest ships in the fleet. Fast in tacking and wore well in eight minutes in a moderate sea.

Searchlights

Two 24in 1884, two more 1895.

Complement

531–581.

Cost

£489,822.

Sold

26 May 1921.

Superb, Malta, 1884. Built at Blackwall as Hamidieh for the Turkish Government. In February 1878 towards the close of the Russo-Turkish war, when a conflict between England and Russia seemed probable, she was purchased for the Royal Navy for £443,000 and renamed Superb. A great deal more was spent on her to bring her into line with Royal Navy requirements, and she did not enter service until 1880.

Although slightly modified for use in the Royal Navy, and proving herself a steady ship in a seaway, she was quite unmanageable under sail. This was not surprising, because she was very much undercanvassed and the weight of her spars and rigging materially reduced her reserve of buoyancy and affected speed against head winds.

Seventy-five per cent of her armament was arranged in a single battery on the main deck, where guns were difficult to fight in a sea-way. This was immediately criticised as a major weak point in the design, and made the ship inferior in fighting qualities compared with the Alexandra despite her heavier broadside.

Her purchase from the Turkish Government was mainly due to political tension with Russia, and also to a belated realization that British building programmes had fallen far behind those of France and Italy, then the second and third naval powers. The modifications to her hull, armament, accommodation, etc., before joining the Royal Navy, took some time, and she did not enter service until 1880, by which time she was bordering on obsolescence.

Leaving aside the coastal-defence ships, the next design prepared in 1873 was more or less a direct reply to the Italian Duilio and Dandolo, and embodied the maximum gun calibre and heaviest armour principle. It marked a milestone in British naval architecture, being a completely radical departure from all previous standards of design in the British Navy.

Alexandra, 1880. A unique design which had no equal in the Royal Navy. She took part in the bombardment of Alexandria, firing the first shot on 11 July 1882. During the day she was hit about 60 times, 24 in the hull, yet sustained only minimal damage and four casualties. In January 1885 she contributed a contingent to the Naval Brigade which fought under Lord Charles Beresford at the Battles of Abu Klea and Metemneh.

SUPERB: PARTICULARS, AS COMPLETED

Construction

Thames Ironworks; laid down late 1873;

launched 16 Nov 1875; completed late 1877;

purchased for Navy 20 Feb 1878 and renamed Superb.

Displacement (tons)

9,173 (load), 9,557 (deep).

Dimensions

Length: 332ft 3in pp

Beam: 59ft

Draught: 24ft 4in forward, 26ft 5in aft.

Armament

Sixteen 10in 18-ton MLR

Six 20pdr Armstrong BL (saluting)

Ten boat guns

Four 14in torpedo carriages.

Armour (iron)

Main belt: 12in–10in–7in–6in–4in

Battery: 12in sides, 10in–7in–6in–5in bulkheads

Upper deck: 1½in

Main deck: 1½in

Conning tower: 8in.

Machinery

One set 2-cylinder horizontal single pressure engines, single propeller

Propeller: 2-bladed, left-hand

Cylinder diameter: 116in

Stroke: 4ft

Boilers: nine box-type, working pressure 30psi

Designed SHP: 7,000 for 13–14 knots (on trials made 13.78 knots with 7,431shp)

Fuel: 600 tons coal normal, 970 tons max.

Radius of action: 1,770nm at 9–10 knots.

Sail and rig

Three masts, barque rig on modified second scale

Sail area: 26,000sq ft approx., main truck 142ft above deck. Very much under-canvassed, sail power being quite inadequate for reliable movement. Very stiff and almost impossible to handle under sail only.

Searchlights

Two 24in 1885.

Complement

623 as completed

655 (1880)

Costs

£443,000 (plus guns and machinery £88,846).

Sold

15 May 1906.

ALEXANDRA: PARTICULARS, AS COMPLETED

Construction

Chatham DY; laid down 5 March 1873; launched 7 April 1875; completed 2 Jan 1877.

Displacement (tons)

9,454 (load), 9,712 (deep).

Dimensions

Length: 325ft pp

Beam: 63ft 8in

Draught: 26ft forward, 26ft 6in aft.

Armament

Two 11in 25-ton MLR

Ten 10in 18-ton MLR

Six 20pdr Armstrong BL

Three 9pdr (boat)

Two Gatling MGs (boat)

Four 16in torpedo carriages.

Armour (iron)

Main belt: 12in–10in–6in

Battery belt: 12in

Upper battery: 8in

After bulkheads: 5in

Main deck: 1in–1½in.

Machinery

Two sets 3-cylinder vertical inverted compound engines, twin Mangin propellers

Cylinder diameter: HP 69in, LP 90in

Stroke: 4ft

Boilers: twelve cylindrical, back to back in four compartments along centre-line, working pressure 60psi (First battleship completed with compound engines)

Designed SHP: 8,000 for 14 knots (trials: 8,610shp for 15.1 knots on Maplin measured mile)

Fuel: 500 tons coal normal, 685 tons max.

Radius: 3,800nm at 8–9 knots.

Sail and rig

Three masts, heavy barque rig on second scale

Iron lower masts, all other masts wood

Sail area: 27,000sq ft (excluding stunsails)

Ship never exceeded 6 knots under sail alone.

Searchlights

Two 24in 1883.

Wireless

Experimental W/T fitted in 1899 manoeuvres, the first big ship to have this. W/T gaff fitted on mizzenmast.

Complement

665 as private ship

674 as flagship (1878)

685 as flagship (1880).

Costs

£538,293.

Sold

8 October 1908.

On a displacement of 10,400 tons, the Duilios, laid down in 1872, were designed to carry four 15in (60-ton) guns in two twin turrets, echeloned amidships to secure nominal all-round fire. They would have a 21½in armour belt and 17in citadel armour, and a designed speed of 15 knots. In 1875, however, the 15in guns were replaced by 17.7in (100-ton) which increased displacement to 11,140 tons. Not only were these Italian ships, as designed, the largest, most powerfully armed, heavily armoured and among the fastest warships projected to that date, but they also represented a distinctly novel type. The principle innovation was the abandonment of the complete waterline belt in favour of a short thick belt and heavily armoured citadel amidships enclosing turret bases, machinery and boilers, with armour protection to the extremities confined to an underwater deck.

The actual fighting value of the Italian ships, however, was rather less than appeared on paper. With the heaviest armament, they were heavily overgunned for their displacement, and the hulls could not have withstood the strain of continuous firing from guns of this calibre. In practice only one gun could be fired at a time, on any bearing, without causing considerable damage to the ship’s structure. The novel character and high paper qualities of the design created a considerable impression, and as the most powerful British battleship in hand was Fury (later Dreadnought), carrying four 12.5in (38-ton) guns with 14in armour, it was considered essential to produce a reply to the Italian threat. This materialized in Inflexible – the only battleship of the 1873–4 programme. Admiralty requirements for such a design, officially known at first as the ‘New Fury’, called for:

1.Dimensions not to exceed those of Fury, with ability to enter docks at Portsmouth, Chatham, Malta and the dry dock at Bombay. Ship must be able to pass through Panama Canal in the light condition.

2.Heaviest available guns, thick armour and maximum possible speed.

3.Greatest possible fuel capacity, and have seaworthiness adequate for operations in the Channel, Mediterranean and Baltic with minimum sail rig consistent with peacetime duties.

4.Cost not to exceed that of Fury.

On 3 June 1873, the Chief Constructor (Barnaby) submitted a preliminary draft plan, together with several alternative sketch plans showing improvements on the Fury layout. It was generally appreciated, however, that with the introduction of guns larger than 12in calibre, it was no longer practicable to provide the complete armouring of the Devastation–Fury types, and that adequate protection to turret bases and machinery could only be secured by adopting the Duilio arrangement of concentrating this in a short, heavily armoured enclosure amidships, with only deck protection and internal sub-division at the extremities. Features of the proposed Inflexible design which were accepted by