Difference between revisions of "The Battle Cruiser in the Royal Navy"

From The Dreadnought Project
Jump to: navigation, search
(Oops.)
(→‎History)
Line 4: Line 4:
 
While Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean, Fisher stated:
 
While Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean, Fisher stated:
  
−
<blockquote>In regard to Cruisers, the fact has been overlooked that no number of unprotected or unarmoured or smaller type of Cruisers can cope successfully with even one thoroughly powerful first-class armoured Cruiser.  An infinite number of ants would not be equal to one armadillo!  The armadillo would eat them up one after the other wholesale!"<ref>Quoted in Mackay.  In light of this statement, it would be interesting to learn Fisher's opinion on the question of ''Goeben'' as a "Superior Force" in comparison to the First Cruiser Squadron in 1914.</ref><blockquote>
+
<blockquote>In regard to Cruisers, the fact has been overlooked that no number of unprotected or unarmoured or smaller type of Cruisers can cope successfully with even one thoroughly powerful first-class armoured Cruiser.  An infinite number of ants would not be equal to one armadillo!  The armadillo would eat them up one after the other wholesale!"<ref>Quoted in Mackay.  In light of this statement, it would be interesting to learn Fisher's opinion on the question of ''Goeben'' as a "Superior Force" in comparison to the First Cruiser Squadron in 1914.</ref></blockquote>
  
 
In July, 1904, he wrote that, "All are agreed that battleships must for the present be continued, and that their characteristic features, distinguishing them from armoured cruisers, are more powerful guns and more armour."<ref>Quoted in ''Fisher Papers''.  '''II'''.  p. 28.</ref> In papers presented to the Earl of Selborne in October, he wrote, "At the present moment ''naval experience is not sufficiently ripe to abolish totally the building of battleships'' so long as other countries do not do so."  Selborne commented, "Indeed not!  The battleship is essential, just as much as 100 years ago.  Ask the Japs."<ref>Quoted in ''Fisher Papers''.  '''II'''.  p. 41.</ref>
 
In July, 1904, he wrote that, "All are agreed that battleships must for the present be continued, and that their characteristic features, distinguishing them from armoured cruisers, are more powerful guns and more armour."<ref>Quoted in ''Fisher Papers''.  '''II'''.  p. 28.</ref> In papers presented to the Earl of Selborne in October, he wrote, "At the present moment ''naval experience is not sufficiently ripe to abolish totally the building of battleships'' so long as other countries do not do so."  Selborne commented, "Indeed not!  The battleship is essential, just as much as 100 years ago.  Ask the Japs."<ref>Quoted in ''Fisher Papers''.  '''II'''.  p. 41.</ref>

Revision as of 12:09, 28 November 2010

This page is a draft.

History

While Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean, Fisher stated:

In regard to Cruisers, the fact has been overlooked that no number of unprotected or unarmoured or smaller type of Cruisers can cope successfully with even one thoroughly powerful first-class armoured Cruiser. An infinite number of ants would not be equal to one armadillo! The armadillo would eat them up one after the other wholesale!"[1]

In July, 1904, he wrote that, "All are agreed that battleships must for the present be continued, and that their characteristic features, distinguishing them from armoured cruisers, are more powerful guns and more armour."[2] In papers presented to the Earl of Selborne in October, he wrote, "At the present moment naval experience is not sufficiently ripe to abolish totally the building of battleships so long as other countries do not do so." Selborne commented, "Indeed not! The battleship is essential, just as much as 100 years ago. Ask the Japs."[3]

One "Large Armoured Cruiser" was included in the 1908-1909 building programme.[4] This was the Indefatigable.

In the 1909-1910 estimates, it was announced that the programme would consist of "4 Battleships (Dreadnought type)", with provision "for the rapid construction of four more large armoured ships, beginning on 1st April of the following financial year [1910]."[5] One of the "4 Battleships" was actually the Lion, laid down on 29 November, 1909. Princess Royal was laid one of the four additional large armoured ships, and was laid down on 2 May, 1910.

The 1910-1911 programme included "5 large armoured ships,"[6] of which one was the Queen Mary, laid down on 6 March, 1911.

Again in 1911-1912, the programme consisted of five large armoured ships.[7] The Tiger formed part of this programme, and was laid down on 20 June, 1912. As detailed by John Roberts, "The debate on the design of the 1911-1912 battlecruiser continued somewhat longer than in the case of earlier ships." The chief delay was the replacement of McKenna as First Lord by Winston S. Churchill in October, 1911. On 20 November Churchill requested that the tender of the armoured cruiser design be delayed while the design was reviewed, and tender wasn't provisionally accepted until 2 March, 1912.[8]

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Quoted in Mackay. In light of this statement, it would be interesting to learn Fisher's opinion on the question of Goeben as a "Superior Force" in comparison to the First Cruiser Squadron in 1914.
  2. ↑ Quoted in Fisher Papers. II. p. 28.
  3. ↑ Quoted in Fisher Papers. II. p. 41.
  4. ↑ Statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty Explanatory of the Navy Estimates, 1908-1909. Cd. 3913. p. 4.
  5. ↑ Statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty Explanatory of the Navy Estimates, 1909-1910. Cd. 4553. pp. 3-4.
  6. ↑ Statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty Explanatory of the Navy Estimates, 1910-1911. Cd. 5063. p. 3.
  7. ↑ Statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty Explanatory of the Navy Estimates, 1911-1912. Cd. 5547. p. 3.
  8. ↑ Roberts. pp. 36-38.

Bibliography

Retrieved from "http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php?title=The_Battle_Cruiser_in_the_Royal_Navy&oldid=18647"