British First-Class Cruiser Development 1884 – 1909
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Genesis of a Cruiser Navy: British First-Class Cruiser Development 1884 – 1909 By Scott M. Lindgren Being a thesis submitted for the qualification of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) at the University of Salford School of Humanities, Languages and Social Sciences 2013 Abstract From the middle of the 1880s until the commencement of the Great War 1914-’18 the first-class cruiser was an vital component of the British battlefleet. This was a period in which technology and tactics evolved at an extremely rapid pace, forming the material basis for Sir John Fisher’s ‘Dreadnought Revolution’, in which cruiser qualities of speed, range and offensive power were greatly prized. Throughout this era enormous sums were spent on such types: they were frequently longer than and cost almost as much as their battleship contemporaries, while carrying a near-equivalent armament and possessing significant advantages in both speed and endurance. Despite these capabilities, British first-class cruisers, especially those of the 1890s, are comparatively rarely examined by historians. This thesis fills the gap in the historiography by examining the place and development of the type in the Royal Navy from 1884-1909, and illustrates how they would progress from being a trade-defence vessel, to a genuine alternative to the battleship, and would ultimately form the basic inspiration for all of the service’s first all-big-gun capital ships. It begins by assessing the origins of the type in the mid-Victorian era and considers how the contemporary strategic position and materials drove vessel characteristics, resulting in the development of the first unofficially termed ‘battle-cruisers’ to counter the threat of a Franco-Russian guerre de course employing dedicated raiding types and armed high- speed liners. Following a dramatic advance in the protective capacity of armour that occurred in the mid-1890s, it is shown how the first-class cruiser would gain a fighting ability at least equal to their battleship contemporaries in addition to their continued utility in the trade-defence role, and how latterly, these characteristics would become the cornerstone of Sir John Fisher’s planned radical transformation of the service in the first decade of the 20th Century. Contents List of tables and illustrations ii Acknowledgements iv List of Abbreviations vi Introduction viii CHAPTER 1 Beginnings: the birth of the modern cruiser, politics, strategy & rivals 1 CHAPTER 2 Birth of the battle-cruiser: strategy and design 1888–1894 31 CHAPTER 3 Technology change and the battlefleet paradigm weakened 104 CHAPTER 4 The first-class cruiser in the Far East 1901–1904: a case study 184 CHAPTER 5 ‘Fear God and Dread Nought’: Sir John Fisher and the drive for a cruiser based navy 223 Conclusion 303 Appendix I Naval Estimates 1884-1909 315 Appendix II Diadem and Cressy class cruisers –notes on design 316 Appendix III Drake class cruiser –notes on design 339 Appendix IV British first-class cruisers laid down 1884-1909 364 Bibliography 366 i List of tables and illustrations Figure 1.1: Responding to the Four Attributes of the Sea 12 Figure 1.2: The Use of the Sea Triangle 13 Figure 1.3: Elevation and plan of Orlando class cruisers 27 Figure 2.1: Blake class cruiser deck-plan and side-elevation 55 Figure 2.2: Edgar class cruiser deck-plan, side-elevation and cross-section 60 Figure 2.3: 6in Q.F. gun with shield, projectile and cartridges 66 Figure 2.4: Resistance experiments battery armour 79 Figure 2.5: Resistance experiments casemate armour 80 Figure 2.6: Belted and protected cruiser cross sections, viewed from aft 83 Figure 2.7: Protected cruiser cross sections showing internal deck configurations & example use of ammunition passage 88 Figure 2.8 Plan of Battle of Yalu 17 September 1894 (McGiffin) 93 Figure 2.9: Powerful class deck-plan and side-elevation 97 Figure 3.1: Diadem class cruiser deck-plan and side-elevation 115 Figure 3.2: Belleville type water-tube boiler 124 Figure 3.3: Cross section of a Krupp Cement armour plate 134 Figure 3.4: Cressy class cruiser deck-plan and side-elevation 142 Figure 3.5: Example cruiser Search Curve 1897 Manoeuvres 146 Figure 3.6: Figure 3.6: Movement of First Division battleships & Scouts (including Powerful & Terrible) 1897 Manoeuvres 147 Figure 3.7: Drake class cruiser deck-plan and side-elevation 158 Figure 3.8: Disposition of cruisers in action of Scilly Isles 29 July 1901 Manoeuvres 163 Figure 3.9: Monmouth class cruiser deck-plan and side-elevation 170 Figure 3.10: Devonshire class cruiser deck-plan and side-elevation 174 Figure 5.1: Mean vessel cost by class 1888-1905 Pounds sterling 227 Figure 5.2: Cost of first-class protected and armoured cruisers in millions sterling 227 Figure 5.3: Duke of Edinburgh class cruiser deck-plan and side-elevation 249 Figure 5.4: Warrior class cruiser deck-plan and side-elevation 255 ii Figure 5.5: Yarrow Water-tube type warship boiler 256 Figure 5.6: Minotaur class cruiser deck-plan and side-elevation 262 Figure 5.7: Dreadnought class deck-plan and side-elevation 278 Figure 5.8: Invincible (‘I’) class deck-plan and side-elevation 291 Table 2.1a: Armament of British first-class cruisers 1888-1905 69 Table 2.1b: Armament of British first-class battleships 1888-1905 69 Table 3.1: Example of a simplistic tabular comparison between the basic Features of five cruisers 119 Table 3.2: Penetration of Krupp Cement (KC) plate by common pointed capped (CPC) shell at 5,000yds and 30° impact 180 Table 4.1: Foreign Trade of China 1899 186 Table 4.2: Japanese Admiralty Docking Charges -Mitsubishi Granite Dock, as of 1902 214 Table 5.1: First-class cruiser mean costs per vessel and class costs 1888-1905 226 Map 4.1: The Coastline of China, including neighbouring islands 192 Map 4.2: Naval Stations Showing New Limits 1903 195 Map 4.3: Naval Station boundaries from August 1903 including submarine and overland telegraph cables 196 iii Acknowledgements It is often said that research is a collaborative process, and this thesis has benefited from the assistance of many people without whom it would have been profoundly weaker. First among these is Professor Eric Grove, who as my supervisor was a tireless source of advice, guidance and constructive criticism, and to whom I am greatly indebted. Professor Andrew Lambert also provided considerable valuable feedback, which was much appreciated. I would like to express my sincere thanks to the staff of the various archives and institutions consulted during my research. In particular, Professor David Starkey, Dr. Richard Gorski and Michaela Barnard of the Maritime Historical Studies Centre, University of Hull, gave me free access to their library and collections, and were always happy to offer advice. Jeremy Mitchell and Andrew Choong of the Historic Photographs and Ship Plans collection at the National Maritime Museum unhesitatingly provided considerable assistance during my repeated visits. The staff at the National Maritime Museum Caird Library provided much help with the papers of Admiral Sir Cyprian Bridge, Sir Eustace Tennyson d’Eyncourt, Admiral Sir Alexander Milne, and Admiral Sir Gerard Noel. I also wish to extend my thanks to the staff at the National Archives, the Admiralty Library, the University of Leeds library, and to the Brynmore Jones library, University of Hull for their help with archival and published materials. I bear sole responsibility for any errors in this work. My family and friends have my heartfelt gratitude for their unstinting and unconditional support while I was engaged in my research and writing. To my parents, Jayne and Victor Lindgren, I owe a debt that can never be properly expressed; also to my late grandparents, Joan and Ernest Hemsley. To my friends, who continually provided encouragement I can only say it was hugely appreciated, and encouraged me to keep working even when I felt unequal to the task. I would like to thank in particular Dr. Martin Wilcox, Steve Shiels, Kevin and Cheryl Atterbury, Niall Ransome, Rev. Dr Neil Barnes and his wonderful family, Ben Askew, John Nicholls, Mark and Barbara Robinson, Robert and Katie Newman, Dr. Matthew McCarthy, Gemma Oaten, Emily iv Potter, Ed Swift, Greg Monfort, David Dlugos, Chris Bobiak, Colin Topps and Mark Fenlon. Finally, I would like to thank Sir Andrew Motion and the late James Kirkup for their encouragement, Flora Spencer-Longhurst for much inspiration, and Jenna Reid for the same, and her kind words of support. v List of abbreviations ADM Admiralty AMC Armed Merchant Cruiser AP Armour Piercing (and armour piercing projectile) APC Armour Piercing Capped (projectile) BL Breech Loading gun BLR Breech Loading Rifle Board Board of Admiralty BS Battle Squadron C-in-C Commander in Chief cm. Centimetre (unit of measurement) CO Commanding Officer CPC Common Pointed Capped (projectile) CS Cruiser Squadron CT Conning Tower DNC Director of Naval Construction DNI Director of Naval Intelligence DNO Director of Naval Ordnance E-in-C Engineer-in-Chief FIC Foreign Intelligence Committee First Lord First Lord of the Admiralty FO Foreign Office ft. Foot (unit of measurement) GM Metacentric Height GZ Righting leaver (unit of measurement) Harvey Steel armour face-hardened by the Harvey process HE High explosive (high capacity) HMS Her / His Majesty’s Ship HMSO Her / His Majesty’s Stationary Office Holtzer Brand of forged steel shot (projectile) in. Inch (unit of measurement) ihp. Indicated Horse Power (unit of measurement) INA Institution of Naval Architects JRUSI Journal of the Royal United Service Institution vi KC Krupp Cement armour process or armour plate KNC Krupp Non Cemented armour process or armour plate lb. Pound (unit of measurement) ld.