The British battle fleet, Vol. 2 (of 2) : $b its inception and growth throughout the centuries to the present dayJane, Fred T. (Frederick Thomas)
History
The British battle fleet, Vol. 2 (of 2) : $b its inception and growth throughout the centuries to the present day
Jane, Fred T. (Frederick Thomas)
Great Britain -- History, Naval; Great Britain. Royal Navy -- History; Warships -- Great Britain -- History
U.S. ROANOKE.
British. ROYAL SOVEREIGN.
Russian. ADMIRAL LAZAREFF.
French. AMIRAL BAUDIN.
German. BRANDENBURG.
U.S. S. CAROLINA.
CENTRE-LINE SHIPS OF VARIOUS DATES.]
One of the earliest advocates, if not the first of modern advocates, of
the centre-line in England was Admiral Hopkins. Discussing the original
Cuniberti ideal, Admiral Hopkins pointed out that although for an
absolute right-ahead or astern fire wing-turrets gave an advantage, a
very slight yaw entirely altered the proportion, and that circumstance
in which the enemy was dead right-ahead necessitating such a yaw were
likely to occur very rarely indeed in war. He leaned, therefore, to the
opinion that a fewer number of guns all in the centre line would be
equally as efficacious, practically, as a larger number disposed partly
in wing turrets.
The échelon system, of course, renders practically no assistance
here, the arc of the guns firing across the deck being necessarily
restricted, even with the best échelon arrangement. While, therefore,
the échelon system is good for absolute end-on, or for more or less
absolute broadside firing, any intermediate and more probable position
renders it less efficient than a centre-line arrangement.
Another defect of the échelon system is that with it, except exactly
end-on, one side of the ship is necessarily more efficient than the
other, and that this is reversed according to whether the enemy is
ahead or astern, twenty-five per cent. of the big-gun armament being
affected thereby in a four turreted ship.
Though attention never seems to have been drawn to the matter, it is
a fact worthy of some attention that the _Von der Tann_, which is to
be regarded as Germany’s “answer” to the _Invincibles_, has (like all
German[34] ships on the same system) her échelonned turrets exactly in
reverse order to British ones. All British ships have the port turret
foremost; all German ones the starboard. The net result of this is that
(as the diagram indicates) there are two worst and two best positions
for either design. An _Invincible_ getting and keeping a _Von der
Tann_ upon her starboard bow or port quarter would have a twenty-five
per cent. superiority over her, while, supposing the German type to
maintain a position on her starboard quarter or port bow she would be
to the same extent over-matched, and to a certain extent “in chancery.”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account