On becoming First Sea Lord in October 1904, therefore, Fisher took advantage of his position to press his views and, as a first step, submitted to the Cabinet a comparative evaluation of the 10in gunned design by Armstrong against his alternative design, HMS ‘Untakeable’, which now provided on the same displacement (17,000 tons) eight 12in guns, six of which would bear over the same end and broadside arcs as any ten of the sixteen 10in guns of the Armstrong design. It also embodied Captain Bacon’s argument in support of the 12in gun, which Fisher regarded as conclusive, and stressed both their ideas in respect of armour, internal protection and speed (21 knots), the importance of the two latter items being strongly emphasized.
Admiralty approval for the essential features of the proposed design was secured by December 1904, and it was suggested that such a radical departure from conventional practice would probably encounter considerable opposition from the more conservative members of any committee. On 22 December 1904 a Design Committee was appointed for the purpose of examining these designs, and Fisher invited membership from those known to be in favour of the ‘all-big-gun’ school, naval experts and scientific officers alike. The Committee, chaired by Fisher, was required to act in an advisory capacity only, but its deliberations were to cover all points of design, including the arrangement of armament, fire control, protection, underwater integrity, torpedo net defence, machinery, fuel, communications, boat stowage and accommodation. The Committee members included: Rear-Admiral Prince Louis of Battenberg (Director of Naval Intelligence), Engineer Rear-Admiral Sir John Durston (Engineer-in-Chief of the Fleet), Rear-Admiral Sir Alfred Winsloe (Commander Submarine and Torpedo Flotillas), Captain H. B. Jackson (Controller), Captain J. R. Jellicoe (Director of Naval Ordnance), Captain C. E. Madden (Naval Assistant to Controller), Captain Reginald Bacon (Naval Assistant to First Sea Lord), Philip Watts (Director of Naval Construction), Professor J. H. Biles (Glasgow University), Lord Kelvin, Sir John Thornycroft, Alexander Gracie (Fairfield Shipbuilding), R. E. Froude (superintendent of Admiralty Experimental Works, Haslar) and W. H. Gard (Chief Constructor, Portsmouth Dockyard). J. H. Narbeth acted as Secretary to the DNC and was responsible for working out details of the various designs.
DREADNOUGHT
Preliminary Layouts
The Committee met for the first time on 3 January 1905 and was issued with instructions from the Admiralty stipulating that: the new vessel must be capable of docking at Portsmouth, Devonport, Malta and Gibraltar, but not at the smaller dock at Chatham. Armament was to consist of the maximum number of 12in guns practicable to any given design, all to be carried above main deck level and supplemented by an anti-torpedo battery heavy enough to counter destroyers. Under consideration were eight basic designs, all closely linked, differing only in armament layout and machinery. Some of the designs featured the latest turbine plant which had just come into service, in place of reciprocating machinery.
The procedure for design consideration was very complicated, but according to Professor Biles it went as follows: ‘A’ designs were progressively modified as far as ‘F’ and then reduced to ‘G’ which was thrown out because its low freeboard meant that elements of the main armament were too near the water-line. The final order of consideration was: ‘A’ reduced to ‘B’ to ‘C’ to ‘D’ to ‘E’ and then enlarged to ‘F’ and finally reduced to ‘G’. Further modifications were called for and, as a result, it was one of the ‘H’ designs that went forward for final approval. The author has been unable to locate full sets of figures concerning all of the designs which were put before the Committee and it is doubtful if these are still in existence.
After long debate, the Committee recommended that the following elements be included in the design:
1. Retention of the 12pdr 18cwt gun as anti-torpedo armament.
2. Provision of armoured screens abreast magazines and shell rooms with all main watertight bulkheads solid (no doors).
3. Turbines instead of reciprocating machinery.
On an increase of 1,400 tons displacement, it was found that the basic comparisons of Dreadnought with Lord Nelson were:
1. Weight of broadside 28 per cent heavier (6,000lb against 5,300lb); greater destructive power with simpler fire control.
2. Vertical hull armour reduced in area and maximum thickness, but deck and internal protection stronger.
3. Nominal speed three knots higher.
4. Maximum fuel capacity slightly greater, but nominal extreme radius of action considerably less.
Innovations included such features as the raised forecastle deck, with strong flare, carried well aft; detachable mounts for some of the 12pdr guns; longitudinal armoured screens for magazines and shell rooms; location of the foremast abaft the forefunnel; detachable bridge wings; and a reversed accommodation plan, placing officers forward and ratings aft. The final design was criticized on the grounds that protection was sacrificed somewhat to armament and speed and, although it had been regarded as ‘adequate’ by the Committee, the reduction from the scale of armouring that had been considered essential when the Lord Nelson design was prepared (1902–3) was later admitted, officially, as a weak point, and was to be a common fault in all of the 12in-gunned dreadnoughts that served in the Royal Navy.
Exceptional measures were taken to ensure that Dreadnought’s displacement and cost be kept to a minimum in order that the anticipated opposition to the type could not be based on these factors. After the Committee had delivered its deliberations on 22 February and reported their findings in March 1905, the ship was laid down on 2 October 1905, but as the design was experimental it was decided that further building would be deferred until after her trials. Secrecy and speed of construction were considered essential in order to gain a lead over foreign Powers. To this end, there was no official intimation that the design was in any way different from usual constructions, but the building slip was screened off from prying eyes. The whole of Portsmouth Dockyard’s resources were mustered in the interests of speedy construction, with every possible time-saving procedure being employed. The 12in guns being made for the Lord Nelson class were allocated to the new ship. This greatly delayed the Nelsons, but they were considered to be of less importance. An excellent rate of construction was achieved, and the ship was ready for sea one year and a day after being laid down.
Armament
The Committee was well aware of the need to give the new ship a suitable main armament, their instructions having been to procure the maximum practicable number of guns on the given displacement. A number of alternative plans and sketches were considered, including proposals for superfiring and triple turrets, the primary objective being to secure a high percentage of ‘all round’ as well as broadside fire together with freedom from blast between individual turrets. The problem of blast, which restricted the total number of guns that could be effectively carried, featured prominently in all of the plans discussed. The use of triple turrets was discussed by the Committee, but there is no record of any actual design embodying these having been prepared and considered. Captain Bacon recorded that neither triple nor superfiring turrets were thought practicable by the Admiralty at that time. Their future adoption was by no means ruled out, but at this juncture there was insufficient time for the trials such fittings would entail.
At the first two meetings Philip Watts suggested two alternative sketches based on the Lord Nelson layout, but with increased numbers of 9.2in guns. Their distribution was: Sketch 1, four 12in main armament and eighteen 9.2in, three in casemates; Sketch 2, four 12in main armament and sixteen 9.2in in eight twin turrets mounted amidships. The sketches were quickly discarded.
Some of the most promising designs are listed here for comparison:
1. Twelve 12in in six twin centreline turrets, three forward and three aft, the inner turrets in each group superfiring over the outer. This design, which embodied Fisher’s ideas in respect