Queen Elizabeth Class Battleship (1913)

From The Dreadnought Project
Jump to: navigation, search
Overview of 5 vessels
Citations for this data available on individual ship pages
Name Builder Laid Down Launched Completed Fate
Barham John Brown 24 Feb, 1913 31 Oct, 1914 1 Oct, 1915 Torpedoed 25 Nov, 1941
Malaya Armstrong 20 Oct, 1913 18 Mar, 1915 28 Jan, 1916 Sold 20 Feb, 1948
Queen Elizabeth Portsmouth Royal Dockyard 21 Oct, 1912 16 Oct, 1913 22 Dec, 1914 Sold 19 Mar, 1948
Valiant Fairfield 31 Jan, 1913 4 Nov, 1914 13 Jan, 1916 Sold 19 Mar, 1948
Warspite Devonport Royal Dockyard 31 Oct, 1912 26 Nov, 1913 8 Mar, 1915 Wrecked 23 Apr, 1947

Contents

Design

The Queen Elizabeths were designed under a heavy veil of secrecy, as shown by the following note in the class's cover:

This design is to be regarded as secret, and neither the design as a whole nor any features of it should be mentioned, either inside or outside of this office, to anyone whatever except people actually engaged on the design.[1]

In an undated 1913 memorandum the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston S. Churchill, wrote:

It is proposed that the 3 Canadian ships, the Malay, and the 5 ships of this year shall also be of this design.[2]

The battleships of the 1913-1914 programme became the Revenge class. The Canadian battleships, to have been built in Britain but paid for by Canada, were never ordered.[3] In November, 1912, the Prime Minister of Canada, Robert L. Borden, had suggested that these three ships might be called Acadia, Ontario, and Quebec.[4]

In a paper of 5 December, 1913, Churchill referred to:

The argument for the design of the 'Queen Elizabeths' was fully explained to the Cabinet last year, and no doubt can be entertained of the decisive military advantages inherent in the creation of a fast division of vessels of the maximum fighting power. The fact that oil-burning ships can refuel at sea, and thus avoid the growing submarine menace which will await them near their coaling bases, is a newly realised advantage of first importance.[5]

The third battleship of the 1914-1915 programme, to be laid down at Portsmouth, was to have been another Queen Elizabeth. On 11 May Churchill asked the Third Sea Lord, A. Gordon H. W. Moore, what increase of cost and decrease of armour would be required to raise her speed to that of the Tiger.[6] On 24 August the new Third Sea Lord, Frederick C. T. Tudor, inquired of the First Lord and First Sea Lord as to whether this ship, to have been named Agincourt, and the other dockyard-built ship of that year's programme would be proceeded with. On 26 August Churchill replied, "Neither of the two ships will be proceeded with."[7]

Soon after Queen Elizabeth was completed, Sir Francis Bridgeman, who had been First Sea Lord when she was designed, wrote to his friend Jack Sandars that "I regard her & her sister ships as my special children."[8] This pronouncement is interesting in light of his 1912 suggestion that the 1912 programme should be repeat Iron Dukes, and that the Queen Elizabeths be deferred until 1913.[9]

Machinery

Generators

Two 150 kw oil generators and two 200 kw steam generators, with an additional 200 kw steam generator added in 1916 or later.[10]

Radio

According to the ambitions of 1909, these ships had Service Gear Mark II wireless upon completion.[11]

Armament

Main Battery

This section is sourced by The Sight Manual, 1916 except as otherwise noted.[12]

The 15-in guns were Mark I 42 calibre in Mark I mountings able to elevate 20° and depress 5°.

The sights were cam-worked and capable of 15° elevation, but the central sights had "20 degree super-elevation strips". The range dial was 20 inches in diameter rather than 14 inches as in some other sights to permit more precise setting, and the distance between 1,000 yard marks was 1 716 inches at 17,000 yards. The deflection gearing constant was 56.25 with 1 knot being 2.56 arc minutes. Range drums were graduated for 2400 fps for full charge and 2025 fps for 3/4 charge, as well as for 6-pdr sub-calibre and .303-in aiming rifle. There were no half-charge drums provided. MV was corrected by adjustable scale plate and deflection calibrated for 2450 fps at 5000 yards. Drift was allowed for by effectively inclining the periscope carrier 2.5°. The central sighting scopes were 61 inches above and 46 inches aside the bore, and the side scopes were 43 inches above and 51.5 inches aside. There was also a temperature corrector fitted.

The trainer's sight could be made a free sight by releasing a clamp; the trainer then could vary the scope in pitch by shoulder supports. O.O.Q. Open Director Sights were fitted with settings for all but the .303-in aiming rifle.

The guns were capable of continual aim in all but heavy weather. Gunlayer and turret trainer each used a single hand wheel. Elevation was at 5° per second was achieved by just a single revolution of the hand wheel.[13][Inference]

The guns had 100 rounds each plus six shrapnel. Each gun was also provided a 6-pdr sub-calibre gun for practice.[14]

Secondary Battery

In April 1915, fourteen 6-in guns were arranged with two on the forecastle deck and twelve on the upper deck except in Queen Elizabeth, which had four on the main deck and twelve on the upper deck.[15]

The guns were Mark XII on P. IX mountings with (A) type sights.[16][17]

Deflection gearing constant was 53.7 and 1 knot equal to 2.68 arc minutes (2825 fps at 5000 yards). The range dials provided were full charge at 2750 fps, reduced charge at 2075 fps, 3-pdr sub-calibre, and 1-in and .303-in aiming rifles. Adjustable pointers permitted M.V. correction of +/- 150 fps. Drift correction was achieved by inclining the sight 1.75° and by additionally setting 4 knots left deflection in reduced charge firings. The scopes were 19.5 inches above the bore.

The mounts could elevate 14° and depress 7°. The range dial was graduated to 14,500 yards, or ° 10' elevation, and the sights were limited to 12+5° elevation (the sight arms could use an alternate roller that provided 5° of super-elevation). By 1919 at least, the sights, had super-elevation attachments.[18]

The sights were cam-worked with equal-spaced range dials and F.T.P. receivers; the eyepieces of the scopes coincided with the trunnion, reducing operator fatigue when tracking a target in roll. There was no "C" corrector fitted, but there were temperature and M.V. correctors.

One 3-pdr sub-caliber gun for practice was provided for every two 6-in guns. Each gun was provided 150 rounds.[19]

The original storage was 130 rounds per gun,[20] but after the Battle of Jutland, when alterations to increase protection forced weight-savings to compensate, the ammunition allotment for these guns was to be reduced to 110 rounds per gun and 6 shrapnel rounds.[21]

Torpedoes

Four Service Bar 21-in submerged broadside tubes depressed 2°. Forward bearing 80°, aft 100°.[22]

In 1917, these tubes were firing 21-in Mark IV torpedoes.[23]

In 1920, it was ordered that they should have their Mark II through 21-in Mark II**** torpedoes replaced with 21-in Mark IV* torpedoes with the 500 pound "B" warhead, a change that required alterations to their stowage.[24]

Fire Control

Range Dials

As of 1920, all five ships were equipped with two Range Dials Type A.[25]

Rangefinders

The ships ere completed with five 15-foot Barr and Stroud F.T. type R.Fs. in the turrets and the G.C.T. and two 9-foot models in the T.C.T. and fore top.[26] The rangefinder in the T.C.T. was a 9-foot F.T. 24 on an M.Q. 10 mounting.[27][28][29]

Sometime, likely not before 1918, these were to be upgraded to 15-foot instruments, probably also F.T. 24, with new armoured hoods and racers and training driving the hood directly rather than through the rangefinder mounting. These rangefinders lacked hand-following gear to facilitate in transmission of range cuts, and when it was considered as an addition around 1917, space concerns were causing issues.[30] It appears that Valiant did not get this upgrade until 1921-2.[31]

By 1919, the rangefinder outfit was:[32]

  • Two 30-ft in "B" and "X" turrets
  • Three 15-ft in "A" and "Y" turrets and gun control tower
  • One 9-ft in spotting top (18-ft in Warspite)
  • One 9-ft on fore bridge platform abaft funnel
  • One 6-ft 6-in H.A. on fore bridge
  • Two 9-ft on secondary director towers (Valiant only, in 1919)

In 1919, the 30-foot R.F.s were added to "B" and "X" turrets in Malaya, Queen Elizabeth and Warspite. In 1921-1922, this change was made in the other 2 ships.[33]

In 1925-6, Valiant had a 9-foot[Inference] RF moved from her CT to a position over her bridge. A 2m F.T. 29[34] high angle RF appeared on control tops on all:[35]

  • Malaya (1926)
  • Queen Elizabeth (May 1926 - Aug 1927)
  • Valiant (Apr - Jul, 1927)
  • Barham (Feb-Jul 1928)

Phones

Navyphones directly wired:

  • a 3330 in the T.S. to a 3331 in the T.C.T.
  • a 3330 in the T.S. to a 3331 in the C.T.
  • a 3331 in the G.C.T. to a 3331 in the T.C.T.
  • a 3331 at each tube to a 3331 with 2465 at the T.C.T.
  • a 3331 at each tube to a 3331 with 2465 at the C.T.
  • a 3331 in the T.C.T. to a 3331 in the C.T.
  • a 3331 in the lower space of "X" turret to a 3330 in the T.S. (this had a 6-cell battery for power)
  • a 3333 in the bow spotting position to a 3330 in the T.S.

Each turret had a single, redundant circuit to a 3334 within the T.S., connecting each to a 3333 with telaupads and a 3334 within the turret. "X", due to its directing gun had an additional 3333 on this circuit.[36]

The armoured director tower and the light aloft director tower each had a 3331 with telaupads wired to the T.S.'s exchange board. The T.S. exchange was also wired to a pair of 3331's in the spotting top and another in the G.C.T.

The T.S.'s exchange board had four 3330s for operators. Presumably, these could be plugged to call any of the phones not hard-wired as above.

By mid-1918, it was approved to fit Pattern 3331 Navyphones with loud-sounding bells in the auxiliary machinery compartments of Lion and Orion classes and later where existing navyphones have proven ineffective.[37]

Evershed Bearing Indicators

All 5 units were likely fitted with this equipment before late 1914.[Inference][38]

Details likely resembled those for the King George V class.

In 1917, it was approved that capital ships of Dreadnought class and later should have Evershed equipment added to their C.T., able to communicate with either the fore top or the G.C.T.. If there were not enough room in the C.T., a bearing plate with open sights and 6-power binoculars would be added to the C.T..[39]

Also in 1917, it was decided that all directors were to be fitted with receivers and, "as far as possible", ships were to have fore top, G.C.T. and controlling turrets fitted to transmit as well as receive, though this was noted as being impossible in some earlier ships. While it would have been nice to have the C.T. able to transmit bearings to the 6-in guns, it was decided not to do this for reasons of space.[40]

Mechanical Aid-to-Spotter

At some point, all ships in this class were equipped with four Mechanical Aid-to-Spotter Mark IIs:

  • one on each side of the foretop, driven by flexible shafting from the Evershed rack on the director
  • one on each side of the Gun Control Tower employing an electrical F.T.P. system.

As the need for such gear was apparently first identified in early 1916, it seems likely that these installations were effected well after Jutland.[41]

In 1917, it was decided that these should probably all have mechanical links from the director and pointers indicating the aloft Evershed's bearing.[42]

Gunnery Control

The control arrangements were almost certainly developed along lines similar to the King George V class, outlined here as follows.[Inference]

Control Positions

The 15-in guns had a spotting position in the bow and the following control positions:[43]

  • Gun control tower inside conning tower
  • Armoured gun director tower atop conning tower
  • Spotting top
  • Gun director tower aloft
  • "X" turret
  • Transmitting Station

The 6-in guns originally had four control positions:[44]

  1. 6-in Gun Control Tower (P & S)
  2. Transmitting Station
  3. Alternative Position (A) in spotting top
  4. Alternative Position (B), A.K.A. "Deck Alternative Position"

In 1917, it was decided that these ships could better work their 6-in guns from the fore top, and these positions were to receive combined range and deflection repeat receivers, one on each side and wired to the 6-in circuits so they could serve as the primary control positions.[45]

Control Groups

The four 15-in turrets were each a separate group with a local C.O.S. so that it could be connected to

  • Transmitting Station
  • Local control from officer's position within turret

In 1915, the 6-in guns on Queen Elizabeth were divided into 3 groups on each broadside:

  1. 3 guns
  2. 3 guns
  3. 2 guns

but this was soon to change along with a pattern already established in Warspite: removal of number 3 group, returning 2 guns and moving the others to the foredeck, presumably with some or total loss in fire control cohesion for that weapon.[46]

Directors

Main Battery

These ships were fitted with 2 cam-type tripod-mounted directors, a primary one in a light aloft tower sitting prominently atop the spotting top, and introduced the practice of mounting a second one in a 29 ton Armoured Tower atop the G.C.T. and capable of traversing by hydraulic or manual means to 150° across either beam.[47] There was also a directing gun (in "X" turret?).[48]

The main battery was divisible into two groups, fore ("A" and "B") and aft ("X" and "Y").[49] A C.O.S. in the TS offered the following options:[50]

  • All guns on aloft director
  • All guns on armoured director
  • All guns on directing gun
  • Forward group on aloft director, aft group on armoured director
  • Forward group on armoured director, aft group on directing gun

Each gun had a local C.O.S. with 3 positions:

  • Gunlayer's firing (local trigger circuits connected)
  • Director 1 (director main to local main, director aux to local aux)
  • Director 2 (director main to local aux, director aux to local main)
Henderson Gear[51]
Wiring as in the Queen Elizabeth and Revenge classes.
Sometime in 1916 or thereafter, it was likely that the directors in these ships were augmented by the addition of Henderson Firing Gear, as the initiative was underway that all main battery directors should be so endowed.[52]

The turret Elevation Receivers were Pattern H. 5, capable of 20° elevation. The Training Receivers were the double dial type, pattern number 9 in all but Queen Elizabeth, which had single dial types, pattern number 8.[53]

Secondary Battery

Diagram of 6-in Director Firing Circuits
As shown in Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1915.

All units except Queen Elizabeth had a pair of pedestal-mounted directors for their secondary batteries. Queen Elizabeth's 6-in guns were supported by a pair of tripod-mounted directors.[54]

The secondary directors were situated port and starboard high on her forward superstructure.[55] The broadside-mounted secondary guns were in port and starboard groups, and either were laid and fired locally or under the control of the director on their side. The system in the follow-on Revenge class was so similar that the Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1915 saw fit to document the two together.[56]

The Elevation Receivers on the guns were 6-in P. VIII Type, Pattern F.C. 1, capable of 14° elevation. They featured electrical tilt correction except in the case of Queen Elizabeth, whose receivers had hand tilt correctors. The Small Type Training Receivers were pattern number 17 in Barham and Queen Elizabeth and 18 in the other units.[57]

Transmitting Stations

Following evolutionary lines of development which were firming up in the King George V class, these ships probably had a TS for the main battery (with a Dreyer Table), and one for the 6-in guns (likely without a Dreyer table, or just a Turret Control Table).[Inference]

Dreyer Table

Each ships had a Mark IV* Dreyer Table, although it is possible that Queen Elizabeth was originally given a Mark IV Dreyer Table which was later upgraded to the Mark IV* standard.[58]

Each ship also had 4[Inference] Dreyer Turret Control Tables.[59]

Fire Control Instruments

Fire Control Systems
As shown in Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1914.

Continuing the pattern established in the Colossus class, all five ships used Mark III Vickers F.T.P. receivers on the gun sights, connected to a variety of transmitter Marks III (in the turrets, for local control) and Mark III* or IV* in the T.S. for working through cross-connecting gear.[60][61][62]

These ships were the first to employ the new Barr and Stroud Mark I fall-of-shot instruments. Queen Elizabeth was given transmitters in the bow spotting position (soon abolished and resited in "A" turret) and in "X" turret. These worked receivers in the T.S., spotting top and the 15-in G.C.T..[63]

Barr and Stroud Fire Control Instruments of a variety of Marks (III and IV, primarily) were used for other purposes.[64]

Each turret and the spotting top could transmit ranges to the T.S. via Barr & Stroud Mark III single range transmitters and receivers. There is also a curious and perhaps confused mention of a similar pair between T.S. and armoured director tower, with the director tower being the transmitting end. Bearings could be transmitted the T.S. from either the G.C.T. or from "X" turret over Barr & Stroud equipment. Range and deflection transmitters were Vickers Mark III* in the T.S., with Vickers Mark IIIs in the turrets for local control. "X" turret and a bow spotting position were fitted with a Fall of Shot transmitters with tell tale receivers based on Barr & Stroud Single Order Mark I equipment to send directly to receivers in G.C.T., spotting top and the T.S.. "X" had a Barr & Stroud Mark III* rate transmitter with tell tale and a Mark III* combined transmitter with tell tale receiver. Each turret had a Barr & Stroud Mark III rate receiver, workable from transmitters in either the T.S. or from the plotting table.[65]

Two C.O.S.es were provided, one for "A" and "B", and one for "X" and "Y". Each had two positions, connecting turret receivers to T.S. transmitters or to those at the plotting table. There were Captain's cease fire bells, turret fire gongs and lamp indicating circuits similar to contemporary designs.[66]

The 6-in broadside batteries each had separate cease-fire gong circuits, each with a push in the conning tower. The gongs for the two sides were made to sound quite different in tone, and each gun had a gong, as did both 6-in control towers. The 6-in TS had 1 gong of each type.[67] The range and deflection receivers at the guns were Vickers F.T.P. Mark III, and the transmitters in T.S. and 6-in gun control towers were Mark IV and IV*. The alternative control position in the spotting top had Vickers' combined range and deflection transmitters with tell-tale receivers in a single case, illuminated for use at night. The repeat receivers in T.S. and gun control tower are Vickers' combined range and deflection counter drum types Mark IV.

The ships also had Gun Ready signals in the T.S. and control positions, but had no Target Visible signals.[68]

In 1916, it was approved that the ships should have a range rate transmitter/receiver pair between T.S. and spotting top for the main armament. Additionally, it was ordered that Lion and King George V classes and later should receive instruments such that the fore top could be interchangeable as a gun control position with the G.C.T..[69]

Torpedo Control

Torpedo Control[70]

By the end of 1915, Warspite and Queen Elizabeth were fitted with a Torpedo Control Plotting Instrument Mark I in the T.C.T..[71] The other three ships were fitted some time before mid 1917.[72]

Torpedo Control Tower[73]

The arrangements for torpedo control are documented in the Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1914. They note right off that these ships differ from the Iron Duke by the fact that the TS contains no torpedo control equipment.[74]

The ships had two control positions: the C.T. and the T.C.T.. Each had 4 sets of equipment for commanding the four torpedo tubes. Each such set contained:

  • Mark I Torpedo Order instrument
  • Mark II Angled gyro instrument
  • A firing pistol
  • A firing gong

The torpedo control tower exercised authority over the conning tower, however, in that it was equipped with a pair of Mark III single-range transmitters and a pair of Mark I course and speed transmitters while the conning tower had the receivers. Presumably, this was because the T.C.T. had a 9-foot rangefinder for the express purpose of torpedo control. The control positions also each had a device called an "order instrument" wired directly to that in the other control position. This arrangement may be the same as that illustrated below, which was being prescribed for all 21-in torpedo-armed capital ships in 1917-1918.

Each tube had a two-way C.O.S. to select which control position's corresponding firing key would be connected to electromagnetically drop its firing ball. The order and gyro angle instruments, however, did not pass through a C.O.S. at all; the indications from both control positions were continually indicated by a duplicate set of instruments at each tube.

Navyphones for Torpedo and Fire Control

It is not clear to me why each torpedo tube has four fire gongs near it, or why the torpedo control positions have fire gongs. Also, the "speed indicator" in the plan of the T.C.T. is not explained. It is possible that it may have been a means of seeing whether the torpedoes were set for low or high speed, or

In 1916, a number of further changes were decided upon:[75]

  • Navyphone communication between C.T. and aft torpedo flat and T.C.T. and fore torpedo flat
  • removal of secondary director hoods
  • "transfer of instruments in the secondary positions" to the C.T. and T.C.T.. I presume that "secondary positions" means the secondary director hoods.
  • it was approved that the ships should have a transmitters in the T.S. and receivers in T.C.T. and C.T. so that gunnery data for range, course and speed could be shared with the torpedo control group.
  • arrangements were to be made that all capital ships with 21-in torpedoes to receive transmitters and receivers so that the T.C.T. could pass the plotted torpedo deflection to the C.T., which could then use a reciprocal set of equipment to send the T.C.T. a deflection to be placed on the sight and range to open fire.

By 1917-1918, a number of common Torpedo Control equipment packages were to be provided to those ships not already sporting them. Those for the 21-in torpedo ships follow.

Torpedo Control Data between C.T. and T.C.T..[76]

The data instruments to be wired between C.T. and T.C.T. to share range, order and deflection data provided a single deflection transmitter in the T.C.T. so that the results of the torpedo plot to be sent to the single deflection receiver in the C.T. for the information of the Torpedo Control Officer. Conversely, a combined range and deflection transmitter forward allowed the T.C.O. to send back the deflection and intended firing range to the secondary T.C.O. in the T.C.T..[77]

Torpedo Control Evershed[78]

The 21-in torpedo ships were also to be provided with Evershed transmitters in the C.T. and a receiver at the torpedo rangefinder in the T.C.T. in order to ensure that it was obtaining data on the intended target. Limited "slit space" in the C.T. required that the customary binocular-based transmitters be foregone in favour of placing the transmitter on or below the floorboards and to drive it by a shaft from a Torpedo Deflection Sight Mark IV. A control key on the transmitter allowed it to indicate when it was controlling the remote rangefinder or not.[79]

Finally under the 1917-1918 mandate, sufficient instruments were to be provided to permit the Fore Bridge to communicate with the tubes.[80]

In mid-1920, it was decided that each ship should receive a Renouf Torpedo Tactical Instrument Type B,[81] and a single Torpedo Control Disc Mark III* with a pair of mounting brackets to be installed in her primary torpedo control position. Spare deflection discs had been allotted in case these ships were provided 21-in Mark V torpedos.[82]

Alterations

In 1916, it was approved that an additional 200 kw steam dynamo be added to the Revenge, Queen Elizabeth, Renown and (possible) Furious classes, as the loss of any of the other four sets could impose an undue burden on the remaining generators, especially in a night action. Prior to the addition, the Queen Elizabeth class could generate 700 kw or 3,100 amperes.[83]

The demand for electricity in a night action for the Queen Elizabeth class was outlined as follows. Curiously, the total seems well above the stated capacity of the ships as built, which might imply that the capacity was conservatively stated or that some systems would have to be browned out.[84]

Item Amperes
Searchlight motor generators 500
Low-power motor generators 80
Isolaters 20
Main wireless 90
Hummer motor alternators 30
Fresh-water and sanitary pumps 40
Magazine cooling and refrigerator 200
50-ton bilge pumps 450
Lifts 90
Ammunition hoists 40
Dredger hoists 40
Steering motor 200
Ventilation fans, 5-in 20
Ventilation fans, 7.5-in 90
Ventilation fans, 12.5-in 370
Ventilation fans, 17.5-in 250
Ventilation fans, 20-in 70
Ventilation fans, 35-in 360
Torpedo bar motors
Lighting 850
Radiators 280
Total 4,070

See Also

Footnotes

  1. Constructor E.N. Mooney, 'Battleship design. 1912-13 Programme. Secrecy.', 4 May 1912. D.N.C. Papers. National Maritime Museum. Ships Cover 294 (Queen Elizabeth Class), f. 2.
  2. "Increase in the main cost of Capital Ships." Churchill Papers. Churchill Archives Centre. CHAR 13/6A/110.
  3. The saga of the Canadian battleships can be found in Tucker. I. pp. 173-213.
  4. Tucker. I. p. 188.
  5. Gilbert. Winston S. Churchill: Companion Volume II Part 3. p. 1822.
  6. Minute of 11 May, 1914. "First Lord's Minutes. Third Series—December 1913 to June 1914." pp. 54-55. CHAR/25/2.
  7. Minute of 24 August, 1914. Fisher Papers. Churchill Archives Centre. FISR 1/15/56. Our thanks to Professor Christopher Bell for a copy of this document.
  8. Bridgeman to Sandars, 8 March 1915, f. 52, MS.Eng.hist.c.768, Sandars Papers, Bodleian Library.
  9. Bridgeman to Churchill. Letter of 21 May, 1912. Churchill Papers. Churchill Archives Centre. CHAR 13/9/51.
  10. Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1916. pp. 120-121.
  11. ARTS 1908 Wireless Appendix, p. 13.
  12. The Sight Manual, 1916. pp. 7, 20-22, 108-109.
  13. Brooks. Dreadnought Gunnery and the Battle of Jutland, pp. 45-46. I am inferring the performance.
  14. All mount designations, ammunition allotments and sub-calibre gun data taken from List of H.M. Ships Showing Their Armaments, April 1915 (ADM 186/164), pp. 2, 3.
  15. List of H.M. Ships Showing Their Armaments, April 1915 The National Archives. ADM 186/164, pp. 2, 3.
  16. The Sight Manual, 1916. pp. 61-2, 110.
  17. I am inferring that these ships had type A sights and that the Revenge class had type B, given the table on page 110 of The Sight Manual.
  18. The Technical History and Index, Vol. 3, Part 23. p. 36.
  19. All mount designations, ammunition allotments and sub-calibre gun data taken from List of H.M. Ships Showing Their Armaments, April 1915 The National Archives. ADM 186/164, pp. 2, 3.
  20. Burt. British Battleships of World War One. p. 284.
  21. Grand Fleet Gunnery and Torpedo Orders. No. 167, part 5.
  22. Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1915. p. 36.
  23. Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1917. p. 61.
  24. Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1920. p. 7. (C.M.O. (T) 198/20).
  25. Manual of Gunnery (Volume III) for His Majesty's Fleet, 1920. p. 44.
  26. The Technical History and Index, Vol. 3, Part 23. p. 33.
  27. Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1917. p. 198.
  28. Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1918. p. 175.
  29. Inferences M.Q. 10 and F.T. 24
  30. Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1917. p. 198. (C.I.O. 481/17).
  31. Burt. British Battleships of World War One. p. 263.
  32. Burt. British Battleships of World War One. p. 257.
  33. Burt. British Battleships of World War One. pp. 262-3. I assume "long base" means these are the 30 footers.
  34. length and type inferred from reported 6-ft 6-in base length and knowledge of B&S RFs.
  35. Burt. British Battleships of World War One. p. 263. No clear mention of H.A. R.F. in Warspite.
  36. I am interpreting "D.F." in Plate 46 to mean "director firing"
  37. Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1917. p. 233.
  38. not listed in pertinent section in Handbook for Fire Control Instruments, 1914
  39. Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1917. p. 230.
  40. Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1917. p. 230.
  41. The Technical History and Index, Vol. 3, Part 23. pp. 25-6.
  42. Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1917. p. 230.
  43. Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1914. p. 74.
  44. Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1915. p. 227.
  45. Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1917. p. 230.
  46. Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1915. pp. 226-7.
  47. The Director Firing Handbook. pp. 41, 142.
  48. The Director Firing Handbook. p. 88.
  49. The Director Firing Handbook. p. 88.
  50. The Director Firing Handbook. p. 88.
  51. Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1916. Plate 87.
  52. Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1916. p. 152.
  53. The Director Firing Handbook. pp. 144-6.
  54. The Director Firing Handbook. p. 143.
  55. The Director Firing Handbook. p. 91.
  56. Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1915. p. 232.
  57. The Director Firing Handbook. pp. 144, 146.
  58. Handbook of Captain F. C. Dreyer's Fire Control Tables, 1918. p. 3.
  59. Handbook of Captain F. C. Dreyer's Fire Control Tables, 1918. p. 3.
  60. Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1914. Plate 47.
  61. Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1915. pp. 226-7.
  62. Handbook for Fire Control Instruments, 1914. p. 20.
  63. Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1915. p. 250.
  64. Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1914. p. 74 & Plate 47.
  65. Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1914. p. 74. & Plate 47.
  66. Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1914. p. 75. & Plate 47.
  67. Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1915. p. 227.
  68. Handbook for Fire Control Instruments, 1914. p. 11.
  69. Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1916. p. 145.
  70. Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1914. Plate 45.
  71. Handbook of Torpedo Control, 1916. p. 38.
  72. Handbook of Torpedo Control, 1916. p. 38.
  73. Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1914. p. 73.
  74. Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1914. p. 73 & Plates 45-6.
  75. Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1916. p. 145.
  76. Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1917. Plate 71.
  77. Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1917. p. 208. (T.O. 29/17.).
  78. Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1917. Plate 72.
  79. Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1917. p. 208. (C.I.O. 4585/17.) .
  80. Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1917. p. 208. (C.I.O. 1644/17, 3706/17.).
  81. Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1919. p. 119.
  82. Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1919. p. 113.
  83. Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1916. pp. 120-121.
  84. Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1916. p. 120. (S. 0489/16).

Bibliography

  • Admiralty, Gunnery Branch (1914). Handbook for Fire Control Instruments, 1914. G. 01627/14. C.B. 1030. Copy 1235 at The National Archives. ADM 186/191.
  • Admiralty, Gunnery Branch (1917). The Director Firing Handbook. O.U. 6125 (late C.B. 1259). Copy No. 322 at The National Archives. ADM 186/227.
  • Admiralty, Gunnery Branch (1918). Handbook of Captain F. C. Dreyer's Fire Control Tables, 1918. C.B. 1456. Copy No. 10 at Admiralty Library, Portsmouth, United Kingdom.
  • Admiralty, Technical History Section (1919). The Technical History and Index: Fire Control in H.M. Ships. Vol. 3, Part 23. C.B. 1515 (23) now O.U. 6171/14. At The National Archives. ADM 275/19.
  • Brooks, John (2005). Dreadnought Gunnery and the Battle of Jutland: The Question of Fire Control. Oxon: Routledge. ISBN 0714657026. (on Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk).
  • H.M.S. Vernon. Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1914. Copy 5 at The National Archives. ADM 189/34.
  • H.M.S. Vernon. (Jan 1916) Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1915. C.B. 1166. Copy 1025 at The National Archives. ADM 189/35.
  • Tucker, Gilbert Norman, Ph.D. (1962). The Naval Service of Canada: Its Official History. Volume I: Origins and Early Years. Ottawa: King's Printer.


Queen Elizabeth Class Dreadnought
Barham Malaya Queen Elizabeth Valiant Warspite
<– H.M.S. Erin Battleships (UK) Revenge Class –>
Personal tools
Google AdSense