Читать книгу The British Battleship - Norman Friedman - Страница 14

CHAPTER 5

FOLLOW-ON DREADNOUGHTS

THE 1905–6 programme included four armoured ships (Dreadnought and three Invincibles). In November 1905 the Tory Government called an election. On 30 November 1905 the outgoing First Lord Cawdor, who had succeeded Selborne, produced a memorandum on future building programmes which could be viewed as an election manifesto.¹ This Cawdor Memorandum presumably reflects not only First Lord’s own views, but even more strongly those of Fisher. Cawdor pointed out that even though Japanese victory over Russia might seem to have ended the need to build new capital ships, technology was changing and it was vital to maintain superiority in each new type which appeared. That clearly referred to the way in which HMS Dreadnought had in effect reset the standard of sea power. Cawdor therefore proposed a policy: ‘build few – build fast, each improving on the last’. Through 1908 he envisaged an annual programme of four armoured ships. ‘Inasmuch as the armoured cruisers will be equal in offensive strength to any battleships then completed, they may fairly be counted on as equivalent to battleships.’ Moreover, it was now possible to build ships much more quickly: for the first few years the output of new ships would be at least double that of past programmes and far beyond what any foreign power could achieve. Cawdor also envisaged a merger of the battleship and armoured cruiser, referring to an idea closely examined by the French only three years earlier and also to the Italian Regina Elena class. On this basis the 1906–7 programme was sketched in the autumn of 1905.

New Zealand shows wartime modifications in a photograph taken in 1919, when she visited Australia with Admiral Jellicoe on board for his survey of Empire naval requirements. She had been refitted specifically for the tour between December 1918 and February 1919. The range dial on her foretop was removed and the deflection scale on ‘A’ turret painted out. The lower 4in gun in the forward group on each side was removed, the forward superstructure enlarged to provide accommodation and the flying-off platforms atop ‘P’ and ‘Q’ turrets were removed. Surviving wartime changes included the director bracketed to the foremast under the foretop, the large foretop rangefinder (presumably in a stabilised Argo mounting like those mounted atop the conning towers of later ships), the rangefinder atop the roof built over the compass platform and the relocated searchlights, all 36in rather than twin 24in. (Alan C Green via State Library of Victoria)

HMS Bellerophon was the first battleship following Dreadnought; she appeared to be simply an improved version of the latter. That hid the reality that she was quickly designed once it became clear that it was impossible to build the alternative ‘fusion’ design, X4. She is shown in June 1909. The apparently greater height of the fore-funnel is deceptive.

HMS Temeraire shows a range indicator on the fore side of her foretop. All three ships were fitted with these indicators soon after completion, but by 1914 they were gone.

It seems likely that Fisher initially envisaged construction of a fusion (battleship/cruiser) design, which was apparently pursued as Design X4 (presumably for four turrets). It is described in the first Folio in the Bellerophon Class Cover, the relevant legend being dated 2 December 1905, X4. Fusion meant battleship armour but battlecruiser speed (25 knots). To remain within acceptable dimensions, it adopted a new main battery layout: four rather than five turrets, the two waist turrets (en échelon) being triples. This was the origin of the design initially adopted for the 1907–8 programme. The 13.5in gun was apparently considered as an alternative weapon. X4 also had a mixed secondary battery of eight 4in QF and eighteen 12pdrs (the type in HMS Dreadnought). To achieve speed plus armour plus guns required, unsurprisingly, much greater power, nearly double that of HMS Dreadnought – 45,000 IHP equivalent, compared to 23,000 IHP in Dreadnought. The ship would have displaced 22,500 tons (580ft × 83ft × 27ft 6in, 623ft overall), which must have seemed a great deal in 1905, but was far surpassed within a few years. This design also featured improved torpedo protection in the form of a complete torpedo bulkhead 1½–2in thick. There were two tripod masts, boats being worked from the mainmast. Unit cost would have been four-thirds that of a repeat dreadnought.

As of 26 December 1905 the projected 1906–7 programme was four dreadnoughts, two to be built by contract and one each by Royal Dockyards (one Devonport, one Portsmouth). By that time the Conservatives had lost the November 1905 election. The incoming Liberal Party had pressed for reductions in military spending to fund social programmes. Cawdor was replaced by Lord Tweedmouth. In the past, the naval members of the Board of Admiralty had been replaced when the government changed, but that practice had been abolished and Admiral Fisher and his colleagues remained. In retaining them the incoming administration was endorsing Fisher’s reforms, which many in the navy had hoped would be repudiated. For his part Fisher clearly considered the reforms, such as fleet redistribution and personnel policy (such as nucleus crews and issues of naval education), far too important for him to leave on a point of policy, such as the details of the building programme.

This photograph of HMS Superb shows that there were no 4in guns atop ‘X’ turret. The superstructure had four 4in guns on each side in open embrasures, for a total of sixteen such guns. The ship is shown before her 1914 refit, when her topmasts were cut down. Note the original positions of the forward searchlights: one in the bridge wings and two on the shelter deck atop the fore part of the superstructure.

Bellerophon shows experimental modifications made in 1914, mainly to improve searchlight performance. The lights were concentrated on her foremast and her mainmast and they were raised as high as possible to limit interference with gun crews. In addition to the four lights clearly visible on the foremast, two more were mounted on lattice platforms just abaft the bridge structure (abreast the forefunnel). The two searchlights on the after structure were moved forward to the mainmast. The two 4in guns atop ‘A’ turret were moved to the top of the forward deckhouse. The wing turrets were given glare screens, presumably because of the two lights now moved to the mainmast legs. Concentration amidships was intended to make it difficult for a night attacker to judge the ship’s course. The compass platform was extended forward, presumably to take it out from under the new searchlight platforms. In 1914 Superb was similarly modified, but work was incomplete on the outbreak of war. Thus new searchlight platforms were built abreast the forefunnel, but they were not occupied, the searchlights remaining on the bridge. Temeraire was also modified, but with a somewhat less extended compass platform. After Jutland all three ships had their searchlights relocated again and their funnels were given clinker screens.

Fisher probably realised that the new Government would never buy four X4s. He appointed a committee to advise on what armoured ship he should build under the 1906–7 programme.² The committee advised in favour of a repeat dreadnought, on the grounds that in the face of the new German dreadnought programme it was vital to build up numbers. The committee seems to have been an exercise in Fisher’s deviousness, since one of its arguments (that if the British built a fusion ship, the Germans would simply outgun it later) could have been levelled against Dreadnought herself. The key argument was that, for the same amount, the Royal Navy could have four repeat Dreadnoughts but only three fusion ships. Presumably Fisher could have sold four ‘fusion’ ships to the previous Government but not to the new one. Fisher had presumably initiated the fusion project in the first place (the Cover gives a Legend but no explanation of the origin of the design). The same Fisher Papers document which includes both the committee report and a description of X4 includes a note from DNI offering evidence that the French thought fusion ships were inevitable. A printed marginal note, presumably Fisher’s, points out that armoured cruiser and battleship ‘are very nearly assimilated into each other now in the Dreadnought and Invincible types’, and directs the reader to the attached extract from French Navy Estimates at the end of the paper.

Photographed from aft in 1915–16, Bellerophon shows the 4in guns retained atop ‘X’ turret (but not the others) and the 6pdr anti-aircraft gun mounted atop the former stub searchlight platform between ‘Q’ and ‘X’ turrets. Note the revised searchlight position first used in Bellerophon, but then in all three ships. Note also the absence of the lattice searchlight tower alongside the forefunnel. (© National Maritime Museum N.16812)

Superb in 1915–16. Note the 4in director (the short squat cylinder on the after part of the compass platform) and the windscreen on the fore part of the compass platform. The main-battery director is the larger cylinder on the platform below the spotting top on the foremast. The top conceals a 9ft rangefinder. Another 9ft rangefinder has been installed in an armoured hood at the rear of ‘A’ turret, which is barely visible against the forward superstructure. (© National Maritime Museum N.16604)

In proposing four repeat Dreadnoughts for the 1906–7 programme Controller (Captain H B Jackson) added that ‘in preparing the design of the large fast armoured vessel, Fusion type, for future adoption, the dimensions should be such that they can be readily transported and shifted in existing basins in our dockyards and for this reason are not to exceed 600ft in total length’. That suggests that Jackson thought the fusion design was being shifted to the 1907–8 programme, not abandoned.

The 1905 election came so late in the programme cycle that the incoming Liberal Government felt unable to change the 1906–7 programme.³ The expensive fusion design seems to have been abandoned some time in the spring of 1906. That summer, the Cabinet cut the programme to three ships, based on the state of foreign shipbuilding and also on the apparent balance of naval power as measured in battleships, both pre-dreadnought and dreadnought.⁴ The tempo of new construction in future programmes would also be limited to three ships. The Liberal Government continued to use this balance (including pre-dreadnoughts) to justify its programmes up to 1908. They hoped for deeper cuts. A Peace Conference was about to convene at the Hague in 1907. In hopes that a general understanding might be arrived at among the sea powers, the Cabinet postponed the third ship of the 1907–8 programme until the conference had concluded.⁵ No understanding was reached; the British naval attaché in Germany reported particular hostility to what Germans described as an attempt to enforce permanent British superiority.⁶ Tirpitz seems to have seen it as an attempt to derail his carefully-crafted building programme. The British offer could be seen quite differently, as an attempt to preclude a building race in dreadnoughts, in which the Germans had started nearly even with the British. A further consideration in 1907–8 was a Cabinet decision to stop financing naval works by loan (to be repaid out of Navy Estimates over thirty years). That increased the direct cost of the 1907–8 programme.

Given what it saw as limited capital ship construction in foreign yards, the Liberal Government felt that it could further reduce the 1908–9 programme to one battleship and one battlecruiser, plus smaller units, the appropriation (vote) for new construction being the lowest for many years. In fact completion of German dreadnoughts was beginning to accelerate to the point where it seemed that the Germans might soon have more than the British. The first German dreadnoughts (Nassau class) were not completed until 1910, but four more ships (Helgoland class) followed in 1911–12 and five Kaisers in 1912–13. In September 1911 the British had eight dreadnoughts compared to seven German ships, not counting battlecruisers (four to one).

Changes in the programme left little time to design the 1906–7 ships. Unsurprisingly, they were largely repeat Dreadnoughts (Bellerophon class). The choice to repeat the previous design seems to have been taken about May 1906; an early Folio in the Cover is a 21 May 1906 memo on an invitation to tender for 12in/45 mountings for two repeat Dreadnoughts to be built in the Royal Dockyards. The third ship was built by Elswick (Armstrong). Outline sketches were apparently sent to the Board on 1 June 1906. The repeat ship showed some features of the abandoned ‘fusion’ design: a 4in anti-torpedo battery and two tripod masts (with boats handled from the mainmast).

A Legend dated 1 June showed 10in to 5in rather than 11in to 4in side armour, with 10in rather than 11in gun shields. Sixteen 4in guns replaced the previous twenty-seven 12pdr. The new ship would have the same dimensions as Dreadnought, but she would displace somewhat more (18,400 tons rather than 17,900 tons). On 16 June DNC ordered a revised Legend in which 11in armour was substituted for 10in on side and barbettes. This change was expected to cost 100 tons. Another change was to continue the inner bottom up to the slope of the protective deck, the torpedo bulkhead being moved inboard. DNC seems to have submitted the modified design to the Board on 11 July 1906. At that point displacement was 18,500 tons, dimensions matched those of Dreadnought and the extra displacement had been obtained by deepening the ship 6in. By this time the heaviest armour had been reduced back to 10in, but the belt was of uniform thickness instead of tapering to 7in at the bottom. Also, it was carried to 3ft 6in above load waterline, rather than 2ft as in Dreadnought. Gun shields were maintained at Dreadnought thickness, 11in. Side armour at the ends was thickened. About half the forward 6in armour was increased to 7in and the whole of the 4in armour aft was increased to 5in. The whole protective deck was now the same thickness (1¾in); in the past, the slopes had been 2¾in thick. As partial compensation, the torpedo bulkhead was reduced.

Bellerophon is shown in December 1915, with her distinctive enlarged angled compass platform. The most evident war modification is the anti-aircraft gun on the stub structure between the two centreline turrets aft. (John Roberts)

Bellerophon in Scapa Flow, 1917–18, shows post-Jutland modifications (‘coffee box’ searchlight towers around the after funnel) and a 4in gun atop ‘Y’ turret rather than right aft (it was moved in 1918). In 1917 most of the earlier dreadnoughts had their secondary batteries reduced to thirteen 4in guns to release weapons to arm small craft. Two empty casemates are visible here, one just abaft ‘P’ turret and one just forward of it (one was not removed on the other side). The St Vincent class was similarly modified. Stern torpedo tubes were removed from this class in April 1917. The identification is based on the details of the searchlight towers around the after funnel (Superb and Temeraire had three searchlights on each side in a single wrap-around structure). (Photo by Commander H L Pencew USN via US Naval History and Heritage Command)

The most obvious changes were an entirely new rig (two tripods, both keeping fire-control tops clear of funnel smoke) and the substitution of 4in/50 QF guns for the 12pdr (3in) anti-torpedo (boat) guns of HMS Dreadnought. The latter was ordered after tests against the old destroyer Skate raised questions about the lethality of the 12pdr. It seems likely, too, that the more powerful anti-destroyer gun was wanted in view of increasing torpedo ranges.

A revised Legend dated 6 August 1906 received the Board Stamp on 7 August.⁷ It showed a displacement of 18,600 tons. In the usual accompanying memo, Watts pointed out that in view of recent experiments, the ship had been given torpedo bulkheads throughout the length of the machinery and magazine spaces, whereas in HMS Dreadnought they covered only the magazines. These bulkheads had been kept at least 11ft from the ship’s side, in some cases further.⁸ Thickness varied from 1in to 3in according to distance from the ship’s side. On the grounds that shells hitting the upper deck would probably explode before reaching the barbettes, there was no particular reason to vary the barbette thickness; instead barbettes would be of uniform thickness, at least 8in, below the upper deck. It was desirable to make barbettes thicker above the upper deck, but the width involved (2½ft) was so narrow that this would be impractical. Barbettes would therefore be of uniform thickness from the main deck up. ‘B’ and ‘C’ barbettes (waist mountings) were made thicker (10in) on the grounds that they might be hit directly. For all the barbettes, armour below the main deck was 5in thick. The design received the Board Stamp on 7 August 1906; ships were to be built in two years from 1 January 1907, one at Portsmouth, one at Devonport and one under contract.

The Hague Conference failed to agree on naval arms control. The British naval attaché in Berlin reported that the Germans refused to contemplate any change in their Navy Laws, claiming that any agreement would freeze them in a position of gross inferiority. Their press published claims that the British had a preposterously large margin of superiority. That was true of bare numbers of capital ships. However, if indeed Dreadnought and Invincible had made all existing capital ships obsolete, the British had given up their previous margin. If the Germans built aggressively enough, they might, it seemed, achieve superiority in this key type of ship. The 1907–8 programme was kept to the previously agreed three ships per year, the only question being which types to build.

For 1907–8 the Board proposed an armoured cruiser and battleships, both conceived as leaps beyond their 1905–6 predecessors. The two new possibilities were a more powerful 12in gun (12in/50 rather than 12in/45) and a triple turret. Slightly further off was a more powerful gun, a 13.5in/50 (not the 13.5in/45 later adopted). It offered a much heavier shell (1250lb compared to 850lb for a 12in) and a higher muzzle velocity than the existing 12in/45 (2850ft/sec rather than 2735ft/sec). The new 12in/50 Mk XI offered the same muzzle velocity as the 13.5in, as understood at this stage. A twin 13.5in turret was expected to weigh about as much (revolving weight) as a triple 12in/45 and somewhat less than a triple 12in/50. Both new designs incorporated 12in/50 guns.

There was interest in a more powerful anti-torpedo gun. DNO (Jellicoe) obtained designs of 5in guns from Coventry Ordnance (COW).⁹ This gun could easily be mounted on turret tops, but any positions in the superstructure would be cramped due to its size. Jellicoe decided that the 4in gun was quite adequate to deal with future destroyers, but he wanted the number increased to twenty to provide four ‘re-inforcing guns’ to any group which might have to deal with more than one attacking destroyer.

The battleship began as a series of alternative Design Js (soon redesignated Design F, to show a relationship with battlecruiser Design E described below); J indicated a relationship with Dreadnought (Design H).¹⁰ Both it and the battlecruiser were to have roughly the turret arrangement of the Invincibles. In Battleship F (J4) the twin end turrets were replaced by triples, to give a total of ten 12in/50 guns. Armour was the same as that of the Bellerophons. An alternative J6 had three triple turrets on the centreline; J7 had four. The additional turret cost about 1000 tons. Conversely, the reduction to three turrets in J6 saved about 1800 tons compared to F (17,800 tons). All the other alternatives had about the same displacement as F(J4). The battleship designs all had the same protection and speed as the ‘New Dreadnought’ (Bellerophon). Compared to Battlecruiser E, the hull of Design F was shorter (500ft × 83ft 6in × 27ft, 19,800 tons excluding Board Margin) and power was reduced to 25,000 IHP equivalent to give the usual battleship speed of 21 knots. Design E was expected to cost £2,035,000 compared to £1,835,000 for Design F.

Bellerophon shows wartime modifications in this 1918 photograph taken at Scapa Flow. The added searchlight platforms on her foremast remain, but the platforms abreast her forefunnel are gone and ‘coffee box’ searchlight platforms have been built up around the after funnel. Her foretop had been enlarged to house a rangefinder, but a larger-base one was later added atop it. A director (with coaming for splinter protection) has been added on a new platform under her foretop. Her foretopmast was landed and her maintopmast cut down, to make it more difficult for an enemy to estimate her course at long range. Note that all 4in guns are now in the superstructure, in embrasures above the original ones. This work was done in three stages. First the two 4in atop ‘A’ turret were moved to the superstructure when the searchlights were rearranged. Then the guns from the waist turrets were moved and finally the two from ‘Y’ turret. Two 4in anti-aircraft guns are visible aft. The gun right aft was originally atop ‘Y’ turret, then relocated to the quarter deck in 1918. Note the prominent funnel cap (clinker screen) and the empty casemate for 4in guns on the fore end of the after superstructure (this gun was removed in 1914–15).

A Board discussion (12 December 1906) concentrated on J4(F) and J6. Design F offered seven guns firing end-on, ten on the beam and five on the bow and quarter. Of the ten, two had arcs of training probably not exceeding 70°. J6 offered three guns firing end-on but nine on the beam and all nine would have arcs as good as those offered by eight of the ten guns of Design F. DNO stated that recent experiments showed that fire control was more difficult with four than with three turrets. He also suspected that there would be blast interference between the two waist turrets firing broadside. By way of contrast, the turrets in J6 were well separated and would not suffer blast interference. The ship would be smaller and less expensive, with shallower draught. The main objections were weak ahead and astern fire. Also, the ship would lose a greater percentage of her battery if one of her turrets was disabled. Moreover, the triple turret was very much an experimental proposition. If it failed, J6 would be reduced to six guns, but F would still have eight.

Temeraire shows all wartime modifications, at the surrender of the Russian Black Sea Fleet to the Allies, 26 November 1918. The most prominent changes visible here are the redistribution of searchlights ordered after Jutland. The raised foremast searchlight position survived from the 1914 modifications, but her compass platform did not project as far forward as in Bellerophon. (Dr David Stevens, RAN Seapower Centre)

Bellerophon in 1919, with flying-off platforms on ‘A’ and ‘Y’ turrets.

Even though end-on fire was not considered vital, it was considered undesirable to go so far as J6. Apart from increased displacement, there would be no more objection to using only triple turrets in F than to using all triples in J6, but that would give a twelve-gun ship. That might be entirely worthwhile. Watts formally submitted details of the two 1907–8 designs on 5 December 1906 and Controller told him to proceed with drawings. Design F was approved at an 11 December 1906 Board Meeting. DNO (Captain Jellicoe) asked the two gun-mounting builders, Elswick and Vickers, for designs for triple 12in turrets. On 12 December 1906 Jellicoe provided estimates of the difference in weight between twin and triple turrets. Including both fixed and rotating elements, a triple turret would weigh 1033 tons, a twin (as in Lord Nelson), 792 tons.¹¹

The battlecruiser began as an improved Invincible with larger training arcs for the two waist turrets, so that they could fire across deck over wider arcs (60–70°) and with heavier armour.¹² The first Legends were dated 21 November 1906. The design was discussed at a 22 November conference and DNC had modified it as desired at the time. The main changes were the 12in/50 and increased power to regain the 25 knots of the Invincibles.

The initial version (A) was simply lengthened (from 530ft to 550ft) to offer the larger arcs (18,100 tons), but an improved version (B) had 9in armour amidships (over a 200ft length). B might be considered an approach to a fusion design, but it (and later versions) retained the thin turret and barbette armour of the original Invincible. A further version (C) added 4in stern armour (Invincible and the others had none). It would have displaced 18,900 tons. Since the new design had the same powerplant as the original, the extra features cost speed: half a knot in A and B, three-quarters in C. At this point Invincible was still credited with 12pdr anti-torpedo guns, but the alternative designs showed sixteen 4in. None of these designs incorporated the new 12in/50 gun. A slightly later Legend added the new gun. The ships were further lengthened to 560ft, the alternatives being 9in, 6in and 4in side armour (A) and 10in, 8in and 4in side armour (B). On this basis A displaced 19,700 tons and B displaced 19,900 tons; each lost a knot compared to Invincible. A further design (C) had 10in and 8in side armour and would have been lengthened (to 565ft) to retain its 24-knot speed without extra power. This ship would have displaced 20,700 tons. A later Legend shows a slightly modified but heavier (20,900 tons) Design D.

The next step (E) was an attempt to gain back speed by increasing power from 41,000 IHP to 48,000 IHP (equivalent) and reducing the side armour to 9in. Compared to Invincible, Design E had more powerful guns (12in/50) and better protection: a 9in belt (with 7in above it to the main deck), the belt tapering forward, with a 4in bulkhead 50ft from the bow; 1½in armour was added aft. Torpedo bulkheads protected machinery and magazines, as in the Bellerophons. The ship was lengthened by 25ft (to 565ft; length overall would not exceed 600ft). She would displace 21,300 tons, 700 tons more than the Design D which had been discussed at a Sea Lords conference. Compared to D, E was faster (25 knots rather than 24 knots) and had an inch less side armour (but a longer belt). Design E was also approved at the 11 December 1906 Board meeting.

The Battleship F design was submitted to the Board in February 1907. At that point the ship would have displaced 19,750 tons and would have required the equivalent of 24,250 IHP, compared to 23,000 in the previous generation of dreadnoughts. There would be twenty 4in anti-torpedo guns. The main belt, 10in thick, extended further fore and aft than in previous ships, so as to completely protect the magazines of the guns of the triple turrets at the ends of the ship. Extending forward to the cable locker was a 7in belt closed by a 5in to 4in armour bulkhead, with 2½in armour forward of that (the cables themselves would add protection in the bow). Abaft the after end of the 10in belt the ship had 2½in armour. The lower protective deck aft was 3in thick from armour bulkhead to stern, compared to 2in flat and 3in slopes in the previous class. The main deck was made 1½in thick from the forward armour bulkhead to the forward barbette, compared to ¾in in the previous class.

On 27 April Controller set out the dates by which the Board had to approve drawings: 16 July 1907 for the contract ship (Battlecruiser E) and 1 July 1907 for the battleship (F), which was to be built by Royal Dockyards. One battleship was to be laid down in November 1907 at Portsmouth, the other at Devonport in December.

As the designs evolved, by June 1907 the estimated displacement of Battlecruiser E was 22,000 tons, about that of the earlier fusion design. Plans changed dramatically after a 12 June 1907 Board meeting intended to discuss the 1908–9 programme. Dreadnought and the three 1906–7 ships formed a homogeneous squadron. The Board decided that it wanted a second homogeneous squadron, which would consist of all three 1907–8 ships and one 1908–9 ship. The projected 1907–8 battlecruiser was therefore dropped in favour of a third battleship.¹³ That killed Battlecruiser E. Some time late in June DNO became convinced that the triple turret should not be adopted. On 4 July the Board decided to revert to the earlier arrangement of five twins. The improved armour distribution and the 12in/50 gun would be retained. Overtime was approved to get the new drawings out (they were already late, given Controller’s timetable).

HMS St. Vincent as completed. Compared to the previous Bellerophon class, she could be distinguished by her smaller forefunnel (in the previous class, the forefunnel was narrower, but as long as the after funnel). She also had longer 12in guns. The single 36in searchlights of earlier classes were replaced in this ship and in her successors by double 24in searchlights, as trials showed they were more effective.

The entirely new design was designated F’’. It was conceived from the outset as an enlarged Dreadnought with the same gun arrangement.¹⁴ Work proceeded very rapidly, the drawings being submitted for Board approval in August 1907. Compared to Bellerophon, the new ship had a 12in/50 main battery and twenty rather than sixteen 4in anti-torpedo guns (total armament weight grew by 400 tons).¹⁵ Power was increased to 24,150 IHP equivalent. Disposition and thickness of armour was the same as in Design F submitted on 4 July. Estimated unit cost was £1,900,000, £5000 more than the estimated cost of Design F. Three ships of this St Vincent class were built under the 1907–8 programme. In appearance they closely resembled the Bellerophon class, although they were considerably larger.

HMS Vanguard had the 4in guns atop ‘A’ turret moved to the top of her forward superstructure, replaced by a rangefinder built into the turret roof (it is the ridge visible towards the rear of the turret roof).

St Vincent as in 1910. Note the glare screens atop the end and wing turrets, to protect gunners from searchlight glare at night. They appear to have consisted of pipe frames covered by cloth. The as-fitted plan shows guns only atop ‘A’ turret, but conical pedestals atop the others. Note that the wing turrets show their 4in guns staggered atop the turret, so to use them the turrets had to be trained outboard about 45° abaft amidships. The arcs of fire of the light guns are limited to about 30° to either side for each pair, the guns being grouped to give all-round coverage. The plan view shows the coaling winches, also used to handle the torpedo nets (some of them could be interchanged with cargo davits as needed). Soon after completion, the two guns atop ‘A’ turret were replaced by a large exposed rangefinder near the back of the turret. The ship apparently came out heavy, since she floated much deeper than the designer’s waterline shown on the plans. Note, too, the absence of a stern walk, because, like Dreadnought, this ship had her officers forward (her admiral’s quarters were on the main deck forward of ‘A’ turret and took up almost the entire volume of the structure under the forecastle except for anchor-handling machinery and hawse pipes). Ratings were aft. (A D Baker III)

The 12 June 1907 Board meeting sketched the 1908–9 Estimates. On the basis that the fourth improved battleship would complete the two battleship squadrons, the Board decided that the other two armoured ships of the programme should be large cruisers (the ‘New Cruiser’). After considering several alternatives, it fastened on something smaller and less expensive than an Invincible, armed with eight 9.2in guns and capable of 25 knots, with 6in armour (as in Invincible).¹⁶ This a mini-Invincible was fast enough to press home reconnaissance because it was faster than any foreign ship, yet capable of fighting the older German battleships. The only foreign cruiser it could not fight was the single German battlecruiser (Von der Tann) – and three Invincibles could surely deal with her. Other recent foreign cruisers with more powerful weapons (Japanese ships and Rurik) were much slower than the projected cruiser.

Watts’ design proposal was discussed and generally approved at a 12 November Sea Lords meeting. He submitted a formal Legend, comparing his design to an Invincible, on 26 November.¹⁷ Given Controller’s approval, he expected to have full drawings available in mid-March 1908. The twin 9.2in/50s were arranged much as in Invincible, except that the two en échelon gun houses were further apart, giving the guns 60° rather than 35° arcs on the opposite sides (this foreshadowed the change made in the Indefatigable the next year). Mountings were analogous to those in Invincible, with 100 rather than 80 rounds per gun. As in contemporary battleships, the low-velocity 4in guns of the Invincibles were replaced by high-velocity weapons. Despite the cut in armament (weight reduced from 2540 tons to 1690 tons), this was still a large ship: 525ft × 74ft × 25ft (15,750 tons) and it needed almost as much power (40,000 rather than 41,000 equivalent IHP). Side armour was roughly that of Invincible – i.e., the usual armoured cruiser suit. Estimated cost was £1,454,000. Moving the waist guns together (Design A) and reducing protection to that of Minotaur would reduce length to 525ft (14,000 tons). An alternative B design (produced to answer a 30 October 1907 query) had three rather than four twin 9.2in guns; length was reduced to 510ft and displacement to 13,000 tons. Cost would have been cut to £1,000,000. Watts also produced two more designs, C and D. At least one of the designs showed five rather than four twin turrets. It fed into the project for an ‘Improved St Vincent’ class battleship described below. This design probably had her two after turrets superfiring (as adopted for the new battleship), but that is not certain.

When the 1908–9 programme was submitted, the two smaller cruisers were replaced by one modified Invincible, HMS Indefatigable.¹⁸ The shift was probably made because the Germans had ordered a second battlecruiser, indicating that the 9.2in ship was not sufficient. Nothing in the Cover explains what happened, but the urgency of the change suggests why Indefatigable was a modified Invincible rather than some version of Design E (the ship is sometimes incorrectly credited with features of Design E, such as 12in/50 guns).¹⁹ Apparently there was some question as to whether the new battlecruiser would be armed with 50-calibre guns; only on 24 October 1908 did DNO (Jellicoe) write that ‘it has been definitely decided that the armoured cruiser for the current year’s programme shall carry eight 12in 45 calibre guns’.²⁰

DNC submitted the Legend on 31 March 1908, with the comment that the waist guns had been placed more en échelon to enable them to fire through wider cross-deck arcs (70° rather than the 35° of the earlier ships). Unlike Battlecruiser E, this ship retained the 45-calibre guns of the earlier Invincible. Other changes were high-powered 4in anti-torpedo guns instead of the lower-powered weapons of the Invincibles, rearranged torpedo tubes (two aft instead of two forward, two aft and one astern) and some rearrangement of armour (though thicknesses were the same as in Invincible). Outside the citadel, the protective deck was 2in thick fore and aft, instead of 1½in forward and 2½in aft. In a departure from the previous design, this one had uptake protection (1in athwartships, 1½in in the fore and aft direction). These apparently minor changes (and a longer citadel) increased total armour weight from 3260 tons to 3800 tons. The ship would be 25ft longer (555ft) and 2ft broader, with 6in more draught and 1135 tons more displacement, but she was expected to make the same 25 knots as the earlier ships (on 43,000 rather than 41,000 equivalent IHP). The design received the Board Stamp on 19 November 1908.

HMS Collingwood is shown at Scapa Flow some time after August 1917, identifiable by her two clinker screens (the other ships had screens only for their forefunnels). She is listing, probably for a post-refit inclining experiment (hence the absence of anti-aircraft guns). As yet there is no additional rangefinder atop her foretop. She shows the redistributed searchlight positions ordered after Jutland and clinker screens atop both funnels. All three ships of this class had the enlarged compass platforms and foremast searchlight platforms tested on board Bellerophon. They could be distinguished by their double searchlights. This photograph was identified as Vanguard, but apparently she had only the one clinker screen. (Dr David Stevens, RAN Seapower Centre)

New Zealand as built. She and other early British battlecruisers (up to the Lions) had circular stairways (ladders) for the use of the captain and any flag officer aboard to get up to the bridge from their quarters under the forecastle. This feature was omitted in Queen Mary, because the officers’ quarters were aft in that and later ships. (A D Baker III)

Collingwood as seagoing cadet training ship, 1919 or 1920, with her funnel caps removed. Her after control top had already been removed in 1918. Note that her double 24in searchlights had been replaced by single 36in lights by this time. The two 24in lamps atop her bridge replaced 36in lights previously placed there. Part of a range dial is evident on the face of her foretop. Note that the objects atop it were not rangefinders, but the ship did not have 4in directors. (Dr David Stevens, RAN Seapower Centre)

St Vincent is shown in August 1919. The clinker screen on her forefunnel has been cut down and her anti-aircraft guns removed. Her turret roofs show the bulges of built-in rangefinders.

Neptune was fitted with an experimental director (the vertical cylinder visible under her foretop). In 1912 her compass platform was extended forward slightly so that an open rangefinder could be mounted on it (as shown here). Some time after September 1913 she was modified for searchlight trials much as was Bellerophon. Of the two paired 24in searchlights on either side of the forward superstructure, one was raised onto a platform above the compass platform, the other onto a slightly higher platform around the fore leg of the foremast. Another pair on each side, taken from the after searchlight platform, was mounted on a high lattice platform on either side of the forefunnel. The two mainmast pairs were raised onto separate platforms on each of the sloped mainmast legs. The upper guns atop the forward superstructure, visible here in open embrasures, were protected by casemates.

HMS Neptune finally broke away from the Dreadnought arrangement. The earlier practice of mounting anti-torpedo guns atop turrets was dropped, probably because it was now accepted that the Germans might use their destroyers (fleet torpedo boats) during a day action. The structure amidships, though often described as a flying bridge, was actually open girder work to support boats. She was armed with sixteen 4in guns: two in casemates and four in open mountings above them near her bridge, two in casemates and two in open mountings above them near her second funnel, four in casemates (on two levels) and two in open mountings above them forward of ‘X’ turret, in the after superstructure. In 1914–15 the fore part of the ‘flying bridge’ was removed (Hercules and Colossus had the after part removed). By 1916 Neptune had a prominent clinker screen on her raised forefunnel and her superstructure (forward, amidships and aft) had been built up a level to house the upper 4in guns in casemates. The guns in the centre superstructure around her after funnel were relocated to fire aft rather than forward. Prior to this there were single-level casemates in both places, with open 4in mountings above them. By April 1917 the centre and lower group of after 4in guns had been removed to arm small escorts.

Neptune as built. Note that this ship, as well as Colossus and Hercules and Agincourt, did not have solid ‘flying decks’ or ‘flying bridges’ on which boats were stowed. Rather, they had beams (often arched like bridge beams, as in Neptune) supporting open girder work which in turn supported boats. In Neptune, the forward set of girders supported a broader ‘admiral’s walk’ on the starboard side. Neptune and contemporary Royal Navy dreadnoughts had four 3pdrs, which were mounted behind shutters, hence were obviously intended for combat and not simply for saluting. (A D Baker III)

At the 1909 Colonial Conference, the Admiralty pressed the governments of the British Dominions (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and India) to contribute to Empire seapower by building and maintaining fleet units. Each unit would help protect trade by running down raiders. Together the units could form a Pacific Fleet to deal with any concentrated threat. A unit would comprise a battlecruiser of current type, three light cruisers and destroyers and submarines for local defence. Of the Dominion governments, only Australia’s decided to build a Fleet Unit, including a battlecruiser of current – meaning Indefatigable – type. She became HMAS Australia. New Zealand decided to buy a second such ship and present her to the Royal Navy: HMS New Zealand. The South Africans decided that because their government was being reorganised (to become the Union of South Africa) it would be inappropriate to consider forming a fleet or subsidising a capital ship. The Canadians formed a local navy and began to consider subsidising capital ships, but without results for several years. Australia was not quite a repeat Indefatigable. Her protection was modified and her conning, spotting and signal tower rearranged as in HMS Hercules and later designs, bridges being rearranged.²¹

Given the decision at the 12 June 1907 Board meeting, the single battleship of the 1908–9 programme should have been a repeat St. Vincent. Instead she was a completely new design. On 4 May 1908 Controller (Captain Henry B Jackson) asked DNC to improve the St Vincent class without a material increase of beam, with a length not to exceed 600ft overall. The new ship could be armed with 12in guns mounted as in the New Cruiser design (five turrets) or 13.5in guns.

The battlecruiser equivalent to Neptune was HMS Indefatigable, shown in July 1911 as completed. Note that in contrast to the Invincibles, her compass platform did not extend well forward. (Broadside forward view from Dr David Stevens, RAN Seapower Centre)

By early June Watts had produced a series of studies of ships armed with either 12in/50 or 13.5in/50 guns. His first (A) was arranged as in Dreadnought except that the two waist guns were en échelon, firing 40° before and 30° abaft the beam on the opposite side of the ship. That considerably lengthened the ship (to 565ft, 21150 tons). Design B saved length by having ‘X’ turret superfire over ‘Y’ (520ft, 20,250 tons). Both A and B offered ten-gun broadsides rather than the eight of all earlier British dreadnoughts. Nothing in the Cover explains the sudden departure from the blast limitations which had shaped Dreadnought and Invincible, but a casual mention of periscopic sights (rather than sights in hoods) probably provides the explanation. The report of gun trials shows that periscopic sights were indeed fitted to the 1908–9 battleship (Neptune).

C was a ten-gun 13.5in ship with turrets arranged as in Dreadnought. The much larger turrets required a longer hull: 530ft (21,100 tons). Arranging 13.5in turrets as in Design A (Design D) required a much longer hull (575ft, 22,500 tons). Limiting overall length to 600ft made the design somewhat cramped; Watts thought she should be 15–20ft longer. E was a 13.5in version of B, superfiring saving some length (545ft, 22,000 tons).

Since the 13.5in gun was so much more powerful than the 12in/50, Watts offered eight-gun designs based on the Invincible arrangement. On this basis F was 520ft long (19,750 tons). In G, the forward broadside turret was moved up onto the forecastle and moved closer to ‘A’ turret. In Design H, the after broadside turret was moved closer to ‘X’ turret. Like F, these ships would have been 520ft long (20,050 tons). Both G and H were considered inferior to F because of blast interference. Arcs would be affected by the guns and rear of the adjacent turret. In F, the turrets were almost equally spread out, so there was a minimum chance of one shell knocking out more than one turret. Moving the waist turrets towards the ends in H would exacerbate pitching and there were problems with the run of the propeller shafts under the after waist turret (‘P’).

None of the eight-gun designs seems to have been acceptable, so in Design I Watts returned to the conditions Controller laid down. He took St Vincent, lengthened it by 10ft and made ‘X’ and ‘Y’ superfiring (but did not place the two waist turrets en échelon, thus saving length). All 4in guns were removed from the turret tops and the additional athwartships bulkhead was provided. He allowed for a total displacement of 20,000 tons. Of the additional 750 tons, 550 tons would be absorbed by the changes, leaving 200 tons for either increasing the side armour forward (to the height of the main deck) and aft to 4in or raising the top of the 8in side armour (upper belt) to 2ft above the main deck. J was the 13.5in equivalent. It would require a foot more beam on a maximum draught of 31ft and total fuel load would have to be limited to 3000 tons. The ship would lose a quarter-knot of speed compared to St Vincent.

The Sea Lords now asked for a combination of the two most attractive alternatives, B and I, with all 4in guns removed from turret tops and the additional engine room bulkhead. Controller added that, in view of the improvements being achieved in AP shells, the ship should have better internal protection against bursts. That might mean either a doubled main deck (1½in) or a raised upper (8in) belt. In the latter case, the upper belt might be thinned to 7in up to about 3ft from the upper deck, so that the main deck could be lighted through scuttles.

Watts returned with Designs K and L. In K the after echelon turret was given a greater training angle abaft than before the beam, as in the Improved Invincible (Indefatigable); in L the reverse was the case. Doubling the main deck would add about 280 tons in K and 300 in L; the altered upper belt would add 330 tons to K and 350 to L. Watts preferred the thicker main deck, which would add less weight but would also add strength (the thicker upper belt would not). Watts had also considered adding 4in armour at the ends (Design I), which would add another 200 tons.

Controller chose K; on 29 June he asked Watts for a ‘fairly comprehensive comparison’ between it and St Vincent. Blast was apparently much less of a concern than before, presumably thanks to periscopic sights. Watts claimed that both waist turrets could fire right ahead or astern without interference from gun blast (presumably because they were well separated fore and aft), so the ship would have six guns available for end-on fire (assuming ‘X’ turret could not fire over ‘Y’). It might be possible to fire both turrets using periscopic sights, ‘but this has yet to be proved by experiment’. On 7 July Controller wrote Watts that the Sea Lords concurred with him in choosing K.

Controller attached Watts’ Legend (dated 17 July 1908) for an alternate Design M, which had ten 13.5in guns similarly arranged to those in K. They could be accommodated on the same length as K (520ft, but with 87ft rather than 85ft beam; 21,500 tons rather than 20,350 tons). This somewhat larger ship would require 26,000 IHP equivalent to make the required 21 knots, compared to 25,500 IHP for K and 24,500 IHP for St Vincent.

Watts submitted a Legend and rough outline drawing for the K Design (Improved St Vincent) on 27 July.²² To meet the wishes of First Lord (presumably to cut costs), length was reduced from 520ft to 510ft. To do that, the ram form of bow used in Dreadnought was readopted (in effect a bulbous bow, for greater hydrodynamic efficiency despite the reduced length), the positions of ‘X’ and ‘Y’ gunhouses were slightly altered and ‘A’ gun house was moved slightly closer to the bow. This design also offered better subdivision (four rather than two engine rooms). The turret-top 4in guns were eliminated, all twenty guns being in the superstructure or under the forecastle. Watts pointed out that K offered 25 per cent more broadside than St Vincent at only 2.25 per cent more cost.

The Bellerophon class traded a thinner waterline belt and protective deck for a complete torpedo bulkhead, this choice reflecting the considerable weight then accorded to the underwater threat. Neptune added a protective upper deck atop the belt and splinter protection inboard. In theory the upper armour deck should have burst AP shells arriving at shallow angles, coming over the belt. (John Roberts)

HMS Australia and New Zealand were near-repeats of Indefatigable, but with enlarged bridges (note that the compass platform curves and comes well forward of the charthouse). Like the other 1909–10 ships, they had only a single control top, but in their case the mainmast was retained to handle boats. New Zealand is shown as completed. Australia could initially (but not later) be distinguished by the rudimentary platform atop her mainmast. (Alan C Green via State Library of Victoria and [view from aft] Dr David Stevens, RAN Seapower Centre)

Eliminating the new transverse engine-room bulkhead (reverting to the earlier machinery arrangement) would save 260 tons and £25,000. Watts pointed out that eliminating the bulkhead would leave the ship no better or worse off than seven dreadnoughts currently under construction. However, a handwritten note by Controller (Jackson), on the Legend in the Admiralty file argues otherwise: ‘I consider the additional bulkhead in the Engine Room one of the principal improvements in the general design of Dreadnought type, its absence in the vessels of that type now under construction being, in my opinion, rather a weak spot in that design. I have looked for an opportunity of introducing it and consider it well worth the extra cost involved.’ Jackson later added that further consideration of turbine arrangement might make it possible to add the bulkhead on the same displacement. Even without the bulkhead, he considered K a great advance over St Vincent at a relatively small increase in displacement and cost. This version was designated K2.²³

Given the tight schedule, the sketch design had to be approved immediately. It was already late in the year to produce building drawings. Tenders for machinery had to be called for in September 1908, so it was proposed that this step should be taken immediately even though formal Board approval of the drawings had not been given. Since the ship had already been approved, she should be laid down before the end of the Financial Year (by the end of February 1909, from a later Minute). The sketch design was approved on the understanding that displacement at Legend draught should not exceed 20,000 tons (when Controller approved the design on 1 August 1908, he limited displacement to 19,750 tons, even though Watts pointed out that further cuts in displacement would require undesirable reduction in protection. This battleship was HMS Neptune.

Photographed shortly before Jutland, Indefatigable shows early wartime changes, principally cut-down topmasts and casemate protection for the 4in guns in the after superstructure. Note also the anti-aircraft gun atop the after superstructure. The other two ships had their after superstructures cut away around the mainmast at this time. By this time she had a director bracketed to her foremast under her foretop, but it is not visible here.