Conway Maritime Press - Warship 44

Argonaut at sea, demonstrating the
gleat freeboard of the desigru CPtr
fter the Orlando class of 1884,
the Royal Navy ceased to build
true armoured cruisers (those
with vertical side armow) for a number of
years, turning instead to protected
cruisers (with armowed protective decks
but no side armour) or in the smaller
sizes, to unprotected cruisers with no hull
protection other than, in some ships,
appropriately placed coal bunkers. All
three types might have had their
armament protected by shields, turrets or
casemates.
Sir William White, who had returned
to the Admiralty as Director of Naval
Construction (DNC) in 1886, after a
period at Elswick, was a very strong
advocate of the protected system. His
arguments were that with the annour
then available, it was impossible to cover
more than a small and inadequate area of
a cruiser's side with armour thick enough
to be effective unless the ship was very
big, and that under many conditions of
weather and trim, enemy fire could get
under or over the armour and let water in.
2I0
A protected ship, on the other hand,
would have the lower part of her huil
almost sealed off by the deck (which was
at or at about waterline level). which
would never in those days of flat
trajectories, be struck squareon. The
slopes would deflect any waterline hits
upward, and ammunition supply and
communications would be protected by
armoured tubes. The deck would also
keep out splinters from shells exploding
in the 'tween decks. Water might get in
from hits on the waterline but could not
accumulate to any dangerous extent, and
it seems to have been assumed that there
would be hardly anyone in the 'tween
decks during action. Damage control and
fire parties were things ofthe future.
The only large cruisers built between
the Northbrook Programme of 1884 and
the 1889 Naval Defence Act were the
Blake and Blenheim of 9070 tons,
carrying two 9.2in and ten 6in guns at a
speed intended to be 20 knots natural
draft and 22 knots forced draft. This came
down to 19 knots natural draft in
practice. Endurance at 10 knots was
planned as 15,000 miles, but came out at
10,000 miles, still a remarkable figure for
a coal burner. The pair were highly
regarded but suffered from having their
armament increased at a late stage. For
example, their 6in guns were supplied
from ready-use magazines worked in
among the bunkers.
The Naval Defence Act provided for
nine first-class cruisers; the seven -Edgars
and the two related Royal Arthurs. "fhe
Edgars carried the same armament as
the Blakes but were two knots slower,
with 10,000/12,00Oihp against
13,000/20,000; 1250 tons of coal against
1800; Sin,z3in deck against 6 in,zSin and
less gun protection. These changes
brought them down to 7350 tons. The
Royal Arthur pair differed in having long
forecastles, gtving 27.5 feet freeboard at
the bow against 20 feet, the forward 9.2
inches being replaced by two extra 6
inches in side-by-side shields. Tonnage
went up tn 7700, but the higher bow and
extra living space were thought well