The Evolution of Naval ArmamentRobertson, Frederick Leslie
History
The Evolution of Naval Armament
Robertson, Frederick Leslie
Naval art and science -- History; Ordnance, Naval -- History; Warships -- History
water. Thus all the advantage arising from a longer citadel was more
than destroyed by this lowering of the armour, and, so great was the
consequent danger of the vessel capsizing, that he hesitated to regard
the _Collingwood_ as an armoured ship.
The _Collingwood_ was laid down in July, 1880. But what was there to
show that her design would be in any degree permanent? Was it safe to
consider it sufficiently satisfactory to form the master-pattern for a
number of new ships, urgently required?
For a short time there was uncertainty. “The French type, where there
were isolated armoured barbette towers generally containing single
heavy guns placed at the ends and sides of the ships upon the upper
deck, with broadside batteries of lighter guns, entirely unprotected
by armour, upon the deck below, did not commend itself to the English
naval mind, yet, in the sort of despair which possessed us, the new
Board turned somewhat towards the French system. The _Warspite_ and
_Impérieuse_ were laid down in 1881, and were again a new departure in
British design.... It was intended to adhere to sail power in these
new types, and it was only after they were approaching completion that
the utter incongruity of the proposal was realized, and sail power was
given up in the last of the armoured ships to which it was attempted to
apply it.”
But the Admiralty still wished, without alarming the public, to regain
as soon as possible a safe balance of armoured construction over that
of France. “There was no design before the Board which was more likely
to perpetuate itself than that of the unlaunched _Collingwood_. Suppose
a bold policy were adopted? Suppose it were assumed that the time had
come when diversities of type were to cease, would it be made less
likely by the frank abandonment of sail power?”
The bold step was taken. Four more ships to the _Collingwood_ design
were laid down in ’82, the five being thereafter spoken of as the
“Admiral” class. “At the time, little note was taken of this very
great step in advance. Even at this day it is scarcely remembered
that this is the step which made possible, and led up to, our
present great battle fleet, and that never before had so many as
five first-class ironclads of a definite type been on the stocks
together.... In the Admiral class there was the definite parting with
sail power, the rejection of the tactical ideas brought to a climax
in the _Inflexible_, and, above all, the definite adoption of the
long-barrelled breech-loading rifled gun. Without question, we must say
that we owe the Admiral class, and all that has followed, in great part
to the enterprising and yet well-balanced mind that then governed the
naval part of the Council at Whitehall.”
§
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