15541_Warship_2014_p001-092 21/02/2014 17:28 Page 2
15541_Warship_2014_p001-092 21/02/2014 17:28 Page 3
WARSHIP 2014
Editor: John Jordan Assistant Editor: Stephen Dent
15541_Warship_2014_p001-092 21/02/2014 17:29 Page 4
Frontispiece: HMS Ark Royal in the 1970s, with her key aircraft, Buccaneers (nearer camera), Phantoms and Sea Kings on deck. The same aircraft would have operated from the projected carrier CVA-01, which is the subject of a major feature article in this year’s annual – see pp.29-48. (MoD, courtesy of John Jordan)
NEW TITLES FROM CONWAY.
The Lifeboat Nelson, Navy & Nation Courage on our Coasts The Royal Navy and the British Photographs by Nigel Millard People 1688-1815 Edited and with text by Edited by Quintin Colville and Huw Lewis-Jones James Davy 9781844862177 £25.00 9781844862078 £20.00
The D-Day Kit-bag The Ultimate Guide to the Allied Assault on Europe Martin Robson 9781844862320 £16.99
New in Paperback Anatomy of the Ship: The Battleship Dreadnought John Roberts 9781844862061 £16.99
For further information relating to these titles and many other books on military, naval and maritime history please visit www.conwaypublishing.com
To sign up for Conway’s monthly reader newsletters, regular updates, news, special offers and to give feedback on our publications please visit: www.conwaypublishing.com © Conway 2014 First published in Great Britain in 2014 by Conway, an imprint of the Pavilion Books Group, 10 Southcombe Street, London W14 0RA www.conwaypublishing.com Twitter: @ConwayBooks All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A record of this title is available on request from the British Library. ISBN: 9781844862368 Printed and bound in China by 1010 Printing International Ltd.
15541_Warship_2014_p001-092 21/02/2014 17:29 Page 5
CONTENTS Editorial
6
FEATURE ARTICLES The Armoured Cruisers of the Amiral Charner Class
8
Luc Feron writes about the conception and careers of four early French armoured cruisers.
CVA-01: Portrait of a Missing Link
28
Utilising material held in the National Maritime Museum, Ian Sturton provides a detailed technical description of the only big carrier to receive final Board approval in the sixty years following the Second World War.
The Last of the Line: The German Battleships of the Braunschweig and Deutschland Classes
49
Aidan Dodson looks at the long careers of the final two classes of German predreadnought battleships, whose last operational units fired the first shots of the Second World War.
Armoured Cruisers of the Imperial Japanese Navy
70
Kathrin Milanovich describes the powerful armoured cruisers ordered from abroad prior to the Russo-Japanese War, which were a key element in the fleet which fought in the Battle of Tsushima.
CAVOUR: A MULTI-ROLE AIRCRAFT CARRIER FOR THE ITALIAN NAVY
93
Michele Cosentino traces the development of the new Italian aircraft carrier Cavour from conception to completion.
The Turret Frigates of the Admiral Lazarev and Admiral Spiridov Classes
112
Stephen McLaughlin recounts the complex history of the ‘turret frigates’, which represented a significant step forward in Russian naval construction and formed the backbone of the Baltic Fleet’s defensive force for almost two decades.
The IJN Light Carrier Ryûjô
129
Hans Lengerer investigates the design, completion and two subsequent reconstructions of the carrier Ryûjô, an attempt by the IJN to circumvent the quantitative constraints imposed by the Washington Treaty.
Post-war Fire Control in the Royal Navy
146
Peter Marland describes and assesses the Royal Navy’s post-war efforts to produce effective fire control systems for its ships.
The Escape of the Jean Bart
163
John Jordan recounts one of the most remarkable – and one of the least well known – episodes of the Second World War: the escape of the incomplete French battleship Jean Bart from Saint-Nazaire in 1940.
Warship Notes
176
Naval Books of the Year
185
Warship Gallery
203
John Jordan and Philippe Caresse present a series of photographs depicting the construction of the French battleship Liberté at Sainte-Nazaire, 1903-1908.
15541_Warship_2014_p001-092 21/02/2014 17:29 Page 28
WARSHIP 2014
22 November for the overhaul of one group of boilers. She left Saigon for home on 26 April 1909. While transiting the Suez Canal she collided with the Italian steamer Nilo, and arrived at Toulon on 2 August. On 14 August 1909 Bruix was placed in reserve for a series of repairs and alterations which were repeatedly postponed due to a shortage of dockyard personnel at Toulon. With the situation still unchanged in April 1911, Bruix was towed to Sidi-Abdallah dockyard (Bizerta) by the naval tug Goliath on 8 June 1911. The work was completed in January 1912, after which Bruix remained in reserve. Recommissioned on 13 May, Bruix was assigned to the Levant Division as station ship in Crete, left Toulon on 5 July and arrived at Suda Bay on the 9th to relieve Amiral Charner. Bruix remained on the Cretan station for two years in a period troubled by the Balkan wars, involving many calls at Syrian, Cypriot and Greek ports as well as Port Said and Constantinople. On 8 November 1912 she assisted in refloating the Russian cruiser Oleg. On 14 January 1913 she was officially assigned to the Tunisian Division. Docked at Bizerta 6 April-8 May, she returned to Suda Bay and assisted in refloating the steamer Sénégal, which had sunk at Smyrna after striking a mine laid by the Italians during their war with Turkey. Bruix finally returned to Bizerta on 25 April 1914 and entered the dockyard on the 28th for extensive repairs to her boilers and the removal of her military masts; this was completed in July.
19 April, but disturbances on the Waldeck-Rousseau (2629 April) sparked some unrest on the ship. Her captain managed to maintain order and no charges were brought against any of her crew. Bruix sailed for Constantinople on 5 May and left there on 22 May. On arrival at Toulon she was placed in 2nd class reserve and virtually decommissioned. In September a proposal that she be used as accommodation for the Port Captain of Marseille and his staff was quickly abandoned as impractical, as was a proposal to convert her for use as a merchant ship. Stricken on 21 June 1920, Bruix was sold on 21 June 1921, together with the coast-defence ship Requin and the torpedo-boat T 269 to Société du Matériel Naval du Midi for a total of 436,000 francs. Acknowledgements: The material contained in this article originally appeared in 2000-2002 as a series of seven articles by Luc Feron in Nos.22-28 of the French magazine Marines published by Marines Editions S.A. of Nantes; additional material has been provided by the author from other sources. This article has been abridged, edited and translated by Jean Roche.
Footnotes: 1.
2.
War Service On 1st August 1914 Bruix, together with Pothuau, Latouche-Tréville and Amiral Charner, was assigned to the Special Division engaged mainly in convoy escort and patrol duties. After docking at Toulon at the end of 1914 she left there on 5 January 1915 for Bizerta, where she was again in dockyard hands from the 10th to the 18th. The Special Division was disbanded on 5 February 1915, and Bruix and Latouche-Tréville were assigned to the Dardanelles squadron. At Suez and in the Canal until early March, she was then based at Navarino until early May. Following a call at Malta (10-19 May) she was transferred to Mudros. She underwent further repairs at Bizerta (30 September-30 November), then transferred to Salonika and resumed patrols in the Aegean. Whilst docked at Malta (30 July-25 August 1916) the inner plating under the stokeholds was found to be badly corroded, but repairs to this were deferred ‘until a more convenient time’. Based at Milos, she made occasional movements between Piraeus and Salamis between 1st January and early July 1917. She was placed in reserve at Salonika on 31 January 1918 and was still there when hostilities ended. On 29 November she recommissioned and sailed for Constantinople, assigned to the armoured cruiser division of the 2nd Squadron which assembled there on 2 December. Between March and May 1919 she was on surveillance duties in the Black Sea: she took part in the evacuation of allied troops and the German garrison from Nikolaiev 12-16 March, and the evacuation of Odessa 3-6 April. Bruix and her crew were not involved in the mutinies which occurred on some French ships at Sevastopol on
3.
4.
5.
28
Mélinite was a high-explosive based on picric acid (trinitrophenol) discovered by the French chemist Turpin; the British equivalent was known as Lyddite At the time these ships were built, the calibre of guns over 100mm was usually expressed to the nearest centimetre, and this practice has been retained in this article. The exact calibres of those mentioned are: 19cm = 194mm; 16cm = 164mm; 14cm = 138.6mm Jules César Claude Thibaudier (1839-1918) entered the Ecole Polytechnique on 1st November 1858, and studied marine engineering from 1st October 1860. He became Assistant Engineer 3rd class on 29 May 1862, and was promoted to 1st and 2nd class on 29 May 1864. In 1867 he was engaged in the establishment of Yokosuka dockyard in Japan. Thibaudier became Chief Engineer 2nd class on 26 April 1881, was promoted to 1st class on 22 December 1885, and was appointed director of construction at Rochefort. He became Head of the Marine Engineering Department on 1st October 1893, and was subsequently Director General of Naval Construction on 22 July 1896. Prior to the Charner class cruisers he had designed the cruisers Isly, Alger and Jean-Bart and went on to design the armoured cruiser Pothuau and the battleships Charlemagne, Gaulois, Saint-Louis, Iéna and Suffren. The breech-block was recovered and examined by the naval ordnance department. Its findings led the commission of inquiry to conclude that the probable cause of the accident was that the regulation precaution of withdrawing the priming tube and securing the firing bolt before opening the breech had not been observed, and that while the breech was being opened the firing lanyard had accidentally snagged on an obstruction and triggered the firing mechanism, which had ignited the propellant charge (report in Le Yacht, 24 October 1908). One of the casualties was the wardroom piano; when Latouche-Tréville returned to Toulon for repairs a patriotically minded piano dealer presented the ship with a new piano in exchange for the damaged instrument, which he proudly exhibited in his showroom window until the end of the war.
15541_Warship_2014_p001-092 21/02/2014 17:29 Page 29
CVA-01: PORTRAIT OF A MISSING LINK Fifty years ago, the name Queen Elizabeth was approved by Her Majesty for the very large projected carrier designated CVA-01,1 cancelled in February 1966. Ian Sturton has used the five volumes of the Ship’s Cover and accompanying drawings in the National Maritime Museum for a detailed technical description of this often overlooked giant, the only big carrier to receive final Board approval in the sixty years following the Second World War.
E
agle and Ark Royal, the largest carriers building in 1945,2 followed the later wartime carrier pattern, with two lifts, double closed hangars and armoured flight deck. The next type, the carriers of the Malta (1943) class, ordered in July 1943 but never begun, were very different, adopting American ideas for rapid operation of a large number of aircraft; they would have had a single open hangar, four lifts (two deck-edge) and only splinter protection for the flight deck.
Jet aircraft had entered service at sea from 1945. High launch and landing speeds implied large ships, as did their high levels of fuel consumption. Three inventions essential for their satisfactory carrier operation, the steam catapult, the angled deck and the mirror landing sight, followed within a few years.3 Carriers in service or building in 1945 had not been designed for jets, and these innovations were introduced piecemeal, as refits or prolonged construction periods permitted. In 1952-53, studies for a
Eagle (foreground) and Ark Royal at sea after 1967-70 ‘special refit’ of Ark Royal and before decommissioning of Eagle. (Ian Sturton collection) 29
15541_Warship_2014_p001-092 21/02/2014 17:29 Page 30
WARSHIP 2014
a
100ft
Finally, there was the question of the national economy and finances, which would ultimately override strategic priorities to terminate the British position east of Suez (and cancel the purchase of the land-based carrier substitute, the US F-111B). CVA-01 was designed against a shifting and uncertain backdrop, her size, cost and very necessity repeatedly subjected to intense scrutiny.
b
General Design Features
c
By late 1962 to early 1963, design studies, which had initially ranged over carriers of 42,000 tons to 68,000 tons deep load displacement, were centred on design study No.53, an 870ft (265.2m) ship of 53,000 tons. This study would be refined into the sketch design and then the final design. A special working party investigated all aspects of the proposed ship. After careful consideration, a parallel deck arrangement with the landing runway at a small angle to the centre line was preferred to the usual angled deck (see Fig.2). The advantages of the new arrangement were real and substantial. During continuous flying operations, the extra width permitted aircraft on deck to circulate round the island; after landing, they would fold wings and taxi aft inboard of the island to an arming and refueling point on the starboard side aft before going forward along the ‘Alaska Highway’ outboard of the island to the catapult launch position. The total deck area increased by 2.8%, while the useful parking area, clear of landing and take-off operations, increased by 15%; two additional aircraft could be parked clear of the landing area and forward catapult. Night landings would be easier, as the ship’s phosphorescent wake was more closely aligned with the axis of the landing area. These advantages more than offset the loss of one Sea Dart system. A true parallel deck with separate landing and take-off areas would have been preferred, but the ship was too small for this, and a small angle – 2.5° in the design study, 3° in the sketch design – had to be accepted. Details of the sketch design (see p.32) are listed in Tables 1 and 2; the design was approved by the Admiralty Board (17 July 1963), and the Government’s decision to construct the ship was announced on 30 July. Length had risen to 890ft (271.3m), deep displacement remained at 53,000 tons. The main advances between sketch and final designs were the substitution of the F-4 Phantom fighter for the Sea Vixen and the incorporation of a Commando ship facility. On the other side of the balance, the A/S Ikara system and the provision for Mk 7 arrester gear were deleted, and the amount of QT35 steel greatly reduced. The effect of these changes was to increase deep displacement to 54,500 tons; details of the final design, dated December 1965, are listed in Tables 1, 2, 3 and 7-9.
d
e
f
Fig.1 Flight Deck Development (a) Eagle (as completed, 1951, ‘straight deck’); (b) Malta (1943, ‘straight deck’); (c) Victorious (as reconstructed, 1958, 8.75° angled deck); (d) Forrestal (CVA-59) (1955, 10.75° angled deck); (e) CVA-01 (final design, 1965, 3° ‘parallel’ deck); (f) Ark Royal (after ‘special refit’, 1970, 8.5° angled deck). (c) and (d) adapted from Chapman, Trans. I.N.A., 1960. [IAS]
55,000-ton carrier with an angled deck, three lifts and three steam catapults progressed as far as sketch designs. In November 1958 the first step was taken towards an eventual replacement for the reconstructed Victorious, the first British carrier fully equipped for the jet age. The RN planned to operate five carriers during the 1960s: Victorious, Hermes (completed 1959), Eagle (reconstructed 1959-64), Ark Royal (completed 1955) and the less capable Centaur (completed 1954). By 1963, this figure had fallen to three; Centaur would go, and CVA-01 would replace both Victorious and Ark Royal. Two further new ships would, it was hoped, eventually replace Hermes and Eagle. Several interrelated questions needed answers before a new carrier could be approved. There was the question of perceived need: could shorebased aircraft replace carriers? The RAF had lost out to the RN over the independent nuclear deterrent and had no intention of losing again.4 There was also the question of size and cost: the larger the carrier, the proportionately greater the aircraft capacity,5 but the higher the price, and the greater the construction and docking problems.
Structural Arrangements In order to maximise aircraft capacity and operating ability, CVA-01, unlike Eagle, was voluminous rather than heavily armoured, a high proportion of the weight 30
15541_Warship_2014_p001-092 21/02/2014 17:29 Page 31
CVA-01: PORTRAIT OF A MISSING LINK
100ft
P 1
a
P
S S
1
2 3
W
W P
b
P S S
1 2
3 W W Fig.2 CVA-01, alternative flight deck layouts, November 1962 (a) 8° angled deck, adapted from Admiralty Drawing DGS A1/NC/2094; (b) 2.5° parallel deck, adapted from Admiralty Drawing DGS A1/NC/2095. The artist’s impression released officially in July 1963 showed the angled, not the parallel, deck arrangement. [IAS] Key (to both): P, P Port wheel track line S, S Starboard wing-tip line W, W Weapons lifts
_ _ _ _ _ Outline of hangar _ _ _ _ Centre line of ship
1 Sea Dart launchers 2 Crane 3 Ikara launchers
TABLE 1: GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS Displacement (action condition): Displacement (deep): Length (pp and wl): Length (oa, hull): Length (oa, incl. bridle arrester boom): Beam (wl): Beam (max.): Flight deck (max.): Deep draught (fwd): Deep draught (aft): Deep draught (mean): Depth, keel to flight deck: Height, mack above flight deck: Height, top main radar above flight deck: Height, topmast above flight deck: Angled deck:
Sketch design (07.63) 50,500 tons 53,000 tons 890ft (271.3m) 925ft (281.9m) 122ft (37.2m) 189ft (57.6m) 29ft 6in (8.99m) 33ft 0in (10.1m) 31ft 3in (9.5m)
3 degrees
Final design (12.65) 53,000 tons 54,500 tons 890ft 925ft 963ft 3in (293.6m) 122ft 231ft 4in (70.5m) 189ft 31ft (9.45m) 33ft 4in (10.2m) 32ft 2in (9.8m) 84ft (25.6m) 94ft (28.7m) 113ft (34.4m) 132ft (40.2m) 3 degrees
TABLE 2: STATEMENTS OF WEIGHTS (TONS) Hull, armour and protection: Machinery, incl. water and lubricating oil: Armament: Equipment, general: Equipment, aircraft Fuel (FFO and dieso for ship): Reserve feed water: Board margin or disposable weight: Deep displacement (total):
Sketch design (07.63) 33,500 2900 1250 3300 5500 5820 330 400 53,000
31
Final design (12.65) 33,900 3650 1050 3500 5425 6200 375 400 54,500
15541_Warship_2014_p001-092 21/02/2014 17:29 Page 48
WARSHIP 2014
CGI of Queen Elizabeth (III) and Prince of Wales at sea, showing the STOVL configuration envisaged before October 2010 and after May 2012. (Aircraft Carrier Alliance, Ian Sturton collection)
9.
10.
11.
12. 13.
14.
15. 16. 17.
aircraft, and in addition the much higher forces transmitted by the wheels in landing on. The Phantom F-4K and Buccaneer S.2 had similar maximum take-off and landing weights (approximately 62,000lb [28,000kg] and 35,000-36,000lb [15,900-16,300kg]) but different speed and acceleration/deceleration requirements. Wet accumulators (one per catapult) supplied steam to the catapult piston and smoothed out the effect of successive launches on boiler pressure. US wet accumulators were 16,000-gallon (60,600-litre) capacity pressure vessels filled initially with about 8000 gallons (30,300 litres) of boiler feedwater (steam-generated feedwater in nuclear-powered carriers). Each DAG arrester wire was attached to two pistons, which ran in very long, narrow, perforated water-filled pressure tubes. Energy from the landing aircraft was absorbed in pressurising the water and then forcing it to spray from the perforations. The pressure tubes were enclosed in larger mild steel water-filled tubes. See J Thomlinson, USNI Proceedings (Feb 1967), pp.142-145. For the constructors, the big unknown factor was the behaviour of the combined piston rod and main reeve rope. For the equivalent US arrester gear, steam catapults and jet blast deflectors, see the unclassified training manual Navedtra 14310 of July 2001. These data give different figures for the hangar area. Using Eagle data, the area is 49,360 sq ft (4590m2), using Victorious data 54,720 sq ft (5080m2). Measurements on the actual hangar deck plan give an area of approximately 49,000 sq ft, suggesting error in the Victorious percentage. The smaller scissors-type lifts in the Invincible class were initially very unsatisfactory. Development of the subsonic P.1127, later named Kestrel and then (Sea) Harrier, continued. The idea came from the hurried adaptation at Aden of HMS
Centaur to take a RM Commando and two RAF Belvedere helicopters (January 1964). The ship’s ASW helicopters were modified for the assault role. Fixed-wing aircraft could not be operated unless almost all helicopters were airborne; the assault, on Dar es-Salaam, was unopposed. 18. Tactical nuclear weapons – the coded reference was ‘2000lb Target Marker Bomb’. Red Beard Mk.2 (actual weight 1750lb, yield c25kT), the first naval weapon, was in service from 1962 to 1971, the second-generation WE177A from 1969 to 1992. CVA-01 could stow up to twenty weapons, type unspecified. See R Moore, The Royal Navy and Nuclear Weapons (Frank Cass, London 2001). 19. Sea Dart timeline: initial development began August 1962; full development contract awarded May 1963; test firings began 1965; to sea in Bristol 1973; fully operational 1978. 20. Medium Anti-submarine Torpedo-Carrying Helicopters: radar-guided helicopters armed with homing torpedoes. 21. The digitalised ADA (introduced in Eagle, 1964) was the successor to the analogue Comprehensive Display System (CDS) in Victorious (1958). 22. The same test results were utilised in Ark Royal (1937). 23. Details of Enterprise (CVN-65) were unavailable. 24. Details of US ships and systems are from papers in the Ship’s Cover. American records have not been searched. 25. The figures for CVA-67 were 10psi (0.70 kg/cm2) positive overpressure with a positive phase duration of 2.1sec. An attempt was made to design for blast in Enterprise but not in CVA-66. 26. Blast overpressures of 10psi (0.70 kg/cm2) and 3.5psi (0.25 kg/cm2) corresponded to the explosions of one-megaton bombs at distances of 2.6 and 5.7 miles (4.2 and 9.2 km) respectively. 27. Louis J Rydill, obituary notices, The Times (8 May 2009) and The Daily Telegraph (27 May 2009).
48
15541_Warship_2014_p001-092 21/02/2014 17:29 Page 49
THE LAST OF THE LINE: The German Battleships of the Braunschweig and Deutschland Classes Aidan Dodson looks at the final two classes of German predreadnought battleships, whose careers were to long exceed the majority of their foreign contemporaries, and whose last operational units fired the first shots of the Second World War and provided Germany’s very last surviving battleship.
T
The Tirpitz Era
he German armoured battlefleet was established in 1865, when the turret-ship Arminius1 and the exConfederate ram Prinz Adalbert2 were commissioned. Both were very much coast defence vessels, but between 1867 and 1875 a series of seagoing broadside,3 central battery4 and turret5 ships were commissioned. Nevertheless, the German Navy was still fundamentally intended for service in the North Sea and Baltic, the following innovative barbette ships of the Sachsen class6 and central battery ship Oldenburg7 being expressly designed for coastal defence purposes.8 The accession of Wilhelm II in 1888 led to a significant expansion of the navy, which the new emperor saw as part of Germany’s progress towards becoming a truly global power.9 As part of this, the navy’s first modern oceangoing battleships (Linienschiffe = ‘ships of the line’) were laid down in 1890, the 10,013-tonne four-ship Brandenburg class.10 Compared with the four big guns carried by most contemporaries (e.g. the British Royal Sovereigns and the American Indianas), they carried six (of 28cm calibre) in twin turrets, although the midships turret had 35-calibre guns, rather than the end mountings’ 40-calibre weapons, diminishing the main battery’s overall effectiveness. The bore of the guns was also significantly below that found on the Brandenburgs’ foreign contemporaries (13in/33cm or 13.5in/34.3cm); a preference for rapidity of fire over sheer weight of shell would be seen in German capital ships until the commencement of the Bayerns in 1913. In parallel with the Brandenburgs were built the first of a series of further coast-defence ships, of the 3,500/3,550tonne Siegfried and Odin classes,11 a new class of fullyfledged battleships not being begun until 1895, with the laying-down of the first of the five Kaiser Friedrich IIIs. Although larger than the Brandenburgs, their four-gun main batteries consisted of 24cm (9.4in) weapons, the reduction in calibre being to achieve a greatly increased rate of fire. This reflected the fire control doctrine introduced in 1892, which saw rate of fire as a crucial factor.12 The following five Wittelsbachs,13 laid down in 1899/1900, were similarly armed, as were the roughly contemporary Austro-Hungarian Erzherzog Karl class – while the same weapon also formed the main armament of the armoured cruisers Fürst Bismarck and Prinz Heinrich.
Alfred von Tirpitz (1849-1930) had been appointed State Secretary for the Navy in 1897, and through two Naval Laws in 1898 and 1900 he placed Germany’s naval strength on a statutory basis. Under the First Naval Law, there were to be (inter alia) nineteen battleships by 1st April 1904, to be replaced automatically every 25 years. As the navy list then carried twelve battleships,14 seven vessels needed to be procured, comprising the last two Kaiser Friedrichs and the Wittelsbachs. The Second Naval Law,15 however, raised the battleship total to no fewer than 38, with two fleet flagships leading three active and one reserve squadron of eight ships each. The first ships to be ordered against this new target, the Braunschweig class, laid down in 1901/2, marked a significant advance on the previous two classes. They were some 1500 tonnes larger, and had not only a significantly heavier 28cm (11in) main battery, but also a larger calibre secondary armament: 17cm (6.75in) as against the 15cm (5.9in) weapons found previously. This trend towards a heavier secondary battery was to be found elsewhere at this time, in the American Connecticut, Vermont and Mississippi classes, which had 7in weapons (as well as an 8in intermediate battery). Such guns were, however, a qualified success as, although having greater hitting power than the ‘standard’ c.6in weapon, their ammunition was at the upper limit of what could be hand-loaded and they were thus less effective weapons than had been anticipated. The Braunschweigs differed externally from their immediate predecessors in being flush-decked, with the main battery at forecastle deck level, rather than one level above, and in having three funnels, rather than two: those of Lothringen were 2.5m shorter than those of her sisters. These took the smoke from eight Schulz-Thornycroft watertube and six cylindrical coal-fired boilers in three boiler rooms: a maximum coal capacity of 1670 tonnes gave a range of 5200 kilometres at 10 knots. This was significantly below the 9000 and 15800 kilometre ranges of the contemporary British London and US Virginia classes, reflecting the very different outlooks of the three navies, the latter two with a worldwide horizon, contrasting with the North Sea and Baltic theatres in which German warships were expected to fight. 49
15541_Warship_2014_p001-092 21/02/2014 17:29 Page 50
WARSHIP 2014
Three sets of vertical three-cylinder triple-expansion reciprocating engines, driving two three- and one fourbladed screws, produced 16,000ihp, giving a designed 18kts; all exceeded these designed figures on trials, the fastest reaching 18.7kts. Military masts were rigged fore
and aft, with a searchlight at each crosstree, boat handling being undertaken by a pair of goose-necked cranes just abaft the third funnel. The four main guns16 were 40 calibres long; they were mounted in DrhL C/01 twin turrets fore and aft and could
Kaiser Karl der Grosse, photographed on a visit to Devonport prior to 1909. (Abrahams, courtesy World Ship Society via Richard Osborne)
Z채hringen, photographed at the same time as Kaiser Karl der Grosse. (Abrahams, courtesy World Ship Society via Richard Osborne) 50
15541_Warship_2014_p001-092 21/02/2014 17:29 Page 51
THE LAST OF THE LINE: THE GERMAN BATTLESHIPS OF THE BRAUNSCHWEIG AND DEUTSCHLAND CLASSES
TABLE 1: CHARACTERISTICS Braunschweig class as built Displacement: Design Full load Dimensions: Length wl Length oa Beam Draught Machinery: Boilers
Armament:
Protection:
Complement:
Engines Horsepower Speed Main guns Secondary guns ATB guns Torpedo tubes Main belt Deck Turrets Conning tower Flagship Private ship
Deutschland class as built Displacement: Design Full load Dimensions: Length wl Length oa Beam Draught Machinery: Boilers
13,208 tonnes 14,394 tonnes 126.0m (wl) 127.7m (oa) 22.2m 7.62/8.16m 8 Schulz-Thornycroft w/tube + 6 cylindrical boilers 3-shaft VTE 16,000ihp 18 knots 4 x 28cm/40 14 x 17cm/40 18 x 8.8cm/45 6 x 45cm 140-225mm 40-67mm 50-280mm 300mm 822/847 743
Armament:
Protection:
Complement:
elevate to 30 degrees, giving a maximum range of 18,830m, with a provision of eighty-five 240kg rounds per gun. The fourteen secondary weapons, firing a 64kg shell, were mounted in ten MPL C/02 main-deck casemates and four upper-deck DrL C/01 enclosed mountings; the casemate mountings had a maximum elevation of 22 degrees, giving a maximum range of 14,500m, the upper-deck mountings 30 degrees and 17,000m. An anti-torpedo-boat (ATB) battery of eighteen 8.8cm guns, with a maximum range of 10,700m, was mounted partly in eight main-deck embrasures at the bow and stern and partly in open positions around the superstructure. Four 8mm machine guns were also carried, which could be installed in the military tops of the two masts if required. Six 45cm (17.7in) submerged torpedo tubes, one at each of the bow and stern with two on each beam, were installed. Protection comprised the usual complex mix of thicknesses found at this period (see drawing), but the main belt was 225mm
13,200 tonnes 14,218 tonnes 125.9m (wl) 127.6m (oa) 22.2m 7.7/8.25m 12 Schulz-Thornycroft w/tube [except Deutschland – as Braunschweig] Engines 3-shaft VTE Horsepower 17,000ihp [D: 16,000ihp] Speed 18 knots Main guns 4 x 28cm/40 Secondary guns 14 x 17cm/40 ATB guns 20 x 8.8cm/45 Torpedo tubes 6 x 45cm Main belt 170-240mm [D: 150-225mm] Deck 40-102mm Turrets 50-280mm Conning tower 300mm Flagship 822/847 Private ship 743
thick, thinning to 100mm fore and aft, with a 40mm armoured deck extending across the whole hull, thickened on the slopes. The lead ship, Braunschweig, was launched in December 1902. She commissioned in October 1904 and replaced the coast defence ship Odin in the 2nd Squadron, where she was joined by her sisters over the next two years. The last of them, Lothringen, was followed on the slip by Deutschland, built specifically as a fleet flagship. Deutschland relieved Kaiser Wilhelm II on completion and became flagship of the new High Seas Fleet when it was established on 16 February 1907. While similar to the earlier ships in most key aspects, Deutschland had a number of differences that included: an enhanced protective scheme (see drawing); a stern-walk; the four upper deck secondary guns mounted in casemates; the ATB battery expanded by two guns and rearranged, and the forward four main deck guns mounted in ‘swallows’ nest’ embrasures; and – most noticeably – only part-cased funnels. Deutschland’s four sisters differed from her slightly, having their cranes set slightly farther aft, with a uniform set of twelve watertube boilers rather than the mixed set used hitherto, with a slightly lower coal capacity and range, but engine power increased by 1,000ihp. Main belts were 25mm thicker and (except for Pommern) they were fitted with smaller conning towers instead of Deutschland’s two-storey affair. All but Hannover also had lower after superstructures, with the 8.8cm guns upon it in open mountings, rather than having two in embrasures. By 1909, all ten ships had had their rigging altered by the addition of topgallant masts and a small spotting position at the new upper crosstrees. This modification was applied across the battlefleet, together with a major increase in night-fighting capability through the enhancement of searchlight batteries. In the Braunschweigs, the searchlight from the after crosstree was
Braunschweig as built, without upper controls and topmasts. (Leo van Ginderen collection) 51
15541_Warship_2014_p001-092 21/02/2014 17:29 Page 52
WARSHIP 2014
Schematic sections showing the layout and main armour scheme of the Braunschweig class; armour thicknesses are in millimetres. (Drawn by the author)
Schematic sections showing the layout and main armour scheme of the Deutschland class; armour thicknesses are in millimetres. (Drawn by the author)
Deutschland in 1910, showing enlarged conning tower and modified bridge as fleet flagship. (Leo van Ginderen collection)
moved to a platform halfway up the foremast, with two new pairs added: one abreast the forefunnel and a second on a revolving platform above the aft military top. The same modification was extended to the Deutschlands, in some cases while still fitting out, with the exception that in Hannover, Schlesien and Schleswig-Holstein the lower foremast searchlight was installed lower down, directly above the military top. The addition of the searchlights abreast the forefunnel necessitated the heightening of its outer casing in the Deutschlands, to protect those operating them from contact with the hot smoke-pipe.
The ships of these two classes progressively joined the 2nd Squadron of the High Seas Fleet on completion, although Hannover and Schleswig-Holstein were detached to the 1st Squadron in September 1908. They participated in various visits and exercises, including the fleet’s transatlantic cruise in July/August 1909. However, even before the last of the Deutschlands had been completed, the advent of HMS Dreadnought made them already obsolescent, the follow-on ships being radically re-cast as the Nassau class, with no fewer than twelve 28cm/45, which entered service from 1909. The succeeding Helgoland 52
15541_Warship_2014_p001-092 21/02/2014 17:29 Page 53
THE LAST OF THE LINE: THE GERMAN BATTLESHIPS OF THE BRAUNSCHWEIG AND DEUTSCHLAND CLASSES
Principal modifications to the Braunschweig class over time. (Drawn by the author)
To War
class, with a 30.5cm/50 main battery, commissioned during 1911/12, the two new classes re-equipping the 1st Squadron, replacing the Kaiser Friedrichs and Wittelsbachs, while the delivery of the turbine-driven Kaiser class during 1912/13 meant that even the Braunschweigs – still under a decade old – could begin to be paid off. In addition, the advent of the Kaiser-class Friedrich der Grosse in January 1913 meant that Deutschland lost her status as Fleet Flagship; instead she became flagship of the 2nd Squadron, a role she would fulfil for the remainder of her operational career.
Deutschland replaced Braunschweig in the 2nd Squadron, the latter having been demoted from the main fleet on the arrival of König Albert in July 1913, and was reduced to reserve. There she joined Elsaß, which had transferred to the 1st Squadron in October 1911, but had been replaced by the new Oldenburg on 29 April 1912; having served with a reduced crew from September that year, she paid off into the Baltic Reserve Division at Kiel in May 1913. However, both ships recommissioned at the end of July 53
15541_Warship_2014_p176-208 21/02/2014 17:41 Page 202
WARSHIP 2014
Defence, Black Prince and Warrior) caused the deaths of a high percentage of their complements. Thus, Friedman has missed a good opportunity to relate these losses to the presence of centreline bulkheads, lack of protection against underwater weapons, unstable cordite, and poor tactical appreciation. Another criticism concerns the illustrations. A quarter of the photographs run across two pages, with the inevitable loss of parts of the picture into the gutter, and some images have been over-enlarged for no apparent reason. However, despite these defects, this is an important book with a wealth of detail, which adds significantly to the published literature on this subject; it is good value for money, and is highly recommended. Richard Osborne
David K Brown and George Moore Rebuilding the Royal Navy: Warship Design Since 1945 Seaforth Publishing, 2012; soft back, 208 pages, 167 B&W illustrations and 70 line drawings; price £19.99. ISBN 978-1-84832-150-2
First published in 2003 and appearing now in a new paperback format, this book is a sequel to David K Brown’s earlier works on British warship design, and brings the story up to the present era (at least as far as the Official Secrets Act allows). It also happens to cover the period of my own career at the centre of warship design, when I was lucky enough to work under DK (as he was known) for a number of years. After a comprehensive foreword and introduction, the book consists of 14 chapters, each on a particular topic such as Aircraft Carriers, Destroyer designs, etc. These are followed by six appendices on pertinent topics, a bibliography, glossary and index. Naturally I looked for the era that included my involvement in ship design and soon realised that this was not as easy as might be imagined; because the chapters are thematically organised, putting the various proj-
ects into chronological sequence involves the reader in a lot of ‘to-ing and fro-ing’. There is a surprising error in the frigate section of the book: the gun on the Batch III T22 was already designed in well before the 1982 Falklands campaign. My own recollection of events suggests that it was 1979 at the very latest when the design was accepted for production. Another small omission is the computer design tool that predated GODDESS (mentioned in the Introduction), which I recall was called Dominic. This proved something of a blind alley, but led eventually to the much more useable GODDESS. The ‘Castle’ Class was the last vessel to be designed without the use of computer, the parallel Dominic essay producing rubbish, while the T22 was probably the last major warship to be designed totally in-house, apart from submarines. The book is most illuminating in its coverage of the politics of the period, and of the alarming escalation in costs and the often difficult debates with the Treasury and the other armed forces, much of which goes unnoticed by the man on the drawing board who was usually busy just keeping up with the latest demand from on high. I still have a copy of DK’s brusquely negative response to a request to design a SWATH OPV, probably in 1978 in the middle of ‘Castle’ class work, when we had absolutely no information on which to base such a design. In the end an estimate was cobbled together using submarine scantlings, and a sketch of
202
the result appears here on page 109! The other aspect that is well covered is the mismatch between weapons development times and those for the ship on which they were to be mounted. Quite often the ship designers made preparations to include a new piece of kit only to find that it had grown like Topsy or that it had been cancelled because it couldn’t do what it was intended to do. It seemed to me at the time that a lot of the electronic side of weaponry was driven by a vastly inflated estimation of what the ‘other side’ could do, so we ought to be able to do better. Post-Glasnost we know now that they were no better than us, with the same reliability problems. Perhaps inevitably, we invariably find mention by name of the Chief Constructors, Constructors and occasionally Assistant Constructors, but rarely anyone more junior. Indeed, it is not until the last chapter that there is mention of the draughtsmen who were fundamental to the smooth working of the design department. Men such as Bob Westlake, who accompanied me on many ‘Ton’ class inclining experiments, Don Keech, who led the ‘Castle’ class structural design team, and Ray Bettney, leading a similar team for the T22 Batches II and III, had an enormous amount of experience to bring to the design process, often adding that extra piece of information that solved a tricky problem. The book concludes with what was in effect a look ahead, which, with the benefit of hindsight, is not quite accurate, but is not bad for all that. It will be interesting to see if anyone has the desire or wherewithal to bring the story up to date with the next release of papers under the Thirty Year Rule. All in all, this book provides a good coverage of an interesting, if ultimately frustrating, period in Royal Navy warship design. It also charts the path from in-house design by experienced naval constructors to the industry-led designs of today, paralleled by a ferocious escalation in costs. The only criticisms are that the editing is a little patchy: there are several duplicated sentences and margin notes that suggest a rushed completion. W B Davies
15541_Warship_2014_p176-208 21/02/2014 17:41 Page 203
WARSHIP GALLERY The Building of the French Battleship Liberté
L
iberté was one of six 15,000-ton battleships laid down by the French during the first years of the 20th century. Ordered from the Société de la Loire, SaintNazaire, she was laid down in 1903, launched on 19 April 1905, and completed on 16 March 1908. Armed with four 30.5cm guns in twin turrets fore and aft, and with a secondary armament of ten 19.4cm, of which six were in single turrets amidships and four in casemates, she had a top speed of 18 knots. On 25 September 1911, barely three years after she entered service with the Marine Nationale, Liberté would be completely destroyed by a magazine explosion while anchored in the Toulon roadstead.
All except one of the photographs published in this year’s Gallery are from a series of contemporary postcards published by the local photographer Delaveau, and form part of the personal collection of regular Warship contributor Philippe Caresse. They show the various stages in the construction of the ship, from just before her launch at Saint-Nazaire, through fitting out, to trials and the ship’s departure for Brest Naval Dockyard, where her main and secondary guns would be installed. John Jordan
Bow view of the hull of Liberté on the slipway shortly before her launch. Note the wooden backing for the main and upper armour belts. The main belt would have a maximum thickness of 280mm. There were two strakes of cemented plates, the upper strake tapering slightly towards its upper edge, the lower strake tapering more sharply to 80-100mm below the waterline; the plates were secured to a teak backing 80mm thick, which in turn was secured to a double thickness of 10mm steel. The main belt extended from the bow to the main transverse bulkhead aft, and stopped short of the stern. The upper belt forward (cuirasse mince) comprised seven plates of 64mm special steel on either side; it was secured to a 58mm teak backing on a double thickness of 8mm steel. Note the greater depth of the backing for the main belt, and the prominent ram. These would be the last French battleships to feature a ram bow; their immediate successors of the Danton class would have a straight stem. 203
15541_Warship_2014_p176-208 21/02/2014 17:41 Page 204
WARSHIP 2014
Above: Stern view of Liberté on the slipway shortly before her launch. The three shafts are prominent; the single axial rudder would be fitted after launch. The teak backing for the main armour belt stopped short of the stern, where the belt was ‘closed’ by a transverse armoured bulkhead 200mm thick on a double thickness of 10mm steel.
204
15541_Warship_2014_p176-208 21/02/2014 17:41 Page 205
WARSHIP GALLERY
Left and above: Three views of the launch of LibertĂŠ on 19 April 1905, which was attended by crowds of local people as well as the usual dignitaries. Once off the slipway, the hull was towed into the River Loire. In the second photo, the ship is rounding the pier which encloses the inner basins of Saint-Nazaire; in the third she is being turned ready for entry into the fitting-out basin. Note the steam pinnace in the foreground. 205