5. Pursuit of an enemy battlefleet, picking up stragglers if possible.
At this juncture the most modern cruisers in the fleet were the Minotaurs and their predecessors, the Warrior and Duke of Edinburgh classes, none of which were adequately armed either for battlefleet work or for dealing decisively with contemporary foreign cruisers, nor were they fast enough to overhaul the large German armed liners, intended for use as commerce raiders in wartime. Another item for consideration was foreign construction: towards the end of 1904 it had become known to the Admiralty that a design for a powerful cruiser had been proposed and accepted by Japan. Tsukuba and Ikoma were to be armed with four 12in and twelve 6in guns on a displacement of 13,750 tons, and as both these ships had been laid down at the same time as Minotaur, it was obvious that the latter was completely outclassed.
Philip Watts was an advocate of mixed calibre armament and particularly favoured the 9.2in gun. He had always opposed the ‘all big gun’ concept and was still of that mind at the time when the Committee was deliberating its efficacy. Not long after his appointment as DNC he had watched battleships of the fleet firing salvoes at an old Orion-class battleship in Polperro Bay, Cornwall. Strangely, all their 12in shells straddled the target without scoring a hit. Then a Drake-class cruiser fired while passing astern of the target. One of her 9.2in shells hit abaft the after turret and penetrated the armour deck. It then deflected horizontally, passed through all the machinery compartments and deflected upwards forward of the 13.5in barbette where it exploded against a heavy steel riding bitt, causing very considerable damage. Watts was tremendously impressed by the extraordinary and eccentric path of this single shell and its ‘smashing’ effect. The 9.2in gun and mounting were immensely popular in service; officers and men delighted in the working of it and regarded it as an excellent weapon from the point of view of aiming.
A further slight to the notion of an ‘all big gun’ ship came when Narbeth submitted sketch designs for such a vessel to Watts. The designs represented the logical expression of definite conclusions reached by serving officers of the fleet, but the step was too drastic and was repugnant to Watts. On impolite insistence by Narbeth, Watts submitted the scheme to the Controller, Sir William May. He was rather amused at the idea, but pleased that some enterprise was being exhibited. He discussed the matter with Narbeth very kindly and very courteously but, Narbeth was later to recall: ‘I remember well how he stood at his desk and, placing his right hand on my shoulder, with a very beneficient smile said he thought we could hardly go in for that at present, and I could almost hear the man at the back of his head saying, “Fancy poor old Narbeth come to that.”’ It can be seen that Sir William May and Philip Watts were in hearty agreement about a 9.2in armament.
The Committee tried to determine the best way to dispose guns in pairs if 12in guns were to be carried, and many rough sketches were made by the Members as they groped their way towards a satisfactory solution. In fact, no satisfaction could be found, either for the battleship or for the armoured cruiser, though it was generally held that the 12in should be adopted for both ships. Watts was rather disgruntled that his pet scheme for a mixed armament of 12in and 9.2in evoked little response.
All the time the Committee was sitting, Narbeth had been doing Watts’s work in the department, but at the same time he prepared a series of designs for ships carrying 12in guns, with speeds ranging from 21 to 25 knots. He made several attempts to persuade Watts to show these to the Committee, but Watts was firmly of the opinion that the Members should find their own way out of their difficulties. One morning, however, when Narbeth was more than usually persistent and Watts less than adamant, he agreed to take the bundle of sketches to the meeting, although assuring Narbeth that he was wasting his time. At the meeting the agenda was called for; the Secretary had to report that there was no agenda. The observations of Fisher on such a situation can well be imagined. At this point Watts produced Narbeth’s drawings and Fisher clutched the straw. The following details and notes led to one of Narbeth’s sketches being accepted as the basis for a battleship and another for the armoured cruiser. The main features of the accepted design as compared to the Minotaur class were:
DESIGNS FOR INVINCIBLE
All to be fitted with reciprocating machinery.
Inflexible fitting-out at John Brown’s shipyard, 1908.‘A’ turret, fore tripod and bridgework seen from forecastle. Blast shields are being built around the 4in secondary guns on top of 12in turret. Also, note detachable wings to bridge.
INVINCIBLE CLASS: FINAL ARMAMENT LAYOUTS
Fisher-Gard Design
Guns: Eight 12in in four twin turrets.
Disposition: Two forecastle; two upper deck aft, all centreline; second and third superimposed over first and fourth.
Provided: Eight-gun broadside, four ahead and astern.
Rejected: Lack of experience with superimposed mountings and anticipated blast effect.
Design ‘1’
Guns: Eight 12in in four twin turrets.
Disposition: Forecastle, two port, two starboard; two centreline aft; one on main deck; third turret superimposed over fourth. Provided: Six-gun broadside, four ahead and astern.
Rejected: Beam turrets too far ahead for good seagoing.
Design ‘2’
Guns: Eight 12in in four twin turrets.
Disposition: Forecastle, two port, two starboard; two port and starboard upper deck aft.
Provided: Four-gun broadside, four ahead and astern.
Rejected: Weak broadside and turrets too far ahead.
Design ‘3’
Guns: Six 12in in three twin turrets.
Disposition: Forecastle, two port, two starboard, but well aft; one centreline upper deck aft.
Provided: Four-gun broadside, four ahead, two astern.
Rejected: Weak broadside and astern.
Design ‘4’
Guns: Eight 12in in four turrets.
Disposition: One forecastle centreline; one upper deck aft centreline; two upper deck amidships, port and starboard.
Provided: Six-gun broadside, ahead and astern.
Design ‘5’
Guns: Eight 12in in four twin turrets. Identical with Design ‘4’, but midships turrets echeloned, allowing offside turret to bear on a limited arc on opposite beam.
Design ‘6’
Guns: Eight 12in in four twin turrets.
Disposition: As in Design ‘5’, but forecastle deck extended aft to give midships turrets higher command.
Accepted.
INVINCIBLE CLASS: FINAL LEGEND, SUMMARY OF WEIGHTS, 10 AUGUST 1905
| Load condition | tons |
| Hull: | 6,200 |
| Armour: | 3,460 |
| Machinery: | 3,300 |
| Armament: | 2,440 |
| Coal: | 1,000 |
| General
|