Welcome to my personal site where you will find my ramblings about all things related to naval history including stories of naval battles, historic warships and the personal stories of the men and women who have served in the world’s navies.
If you are looking for my blog relating more specifically to digital media (photography news, product releases, animation and software) then you will find that at https://newbeltane.blogspot.com/
Thank you for visiting and I hope you enjoy what you find, even if you don’t always agree with what you find. Please be aware that comments are disabled on my site as I have too little time to moderate them.
Yes, in case you are wondering, this is actually Part 2! As the Great War (WW1) was an important time in world history and affected many of us on a personal level, I decided to give it is own post. Personally both my grandfathers fought in WWI and both were wounded. My paternal grandfather served in the Royal Artillery and lost a leg as a result of being wounded in a counter-barrage. My maternal grandfather was also wounded (and gassed) and shipped back to Blighty, being discharged with life-changing injuries. Both men were profoundly affected psychologically and physically by their experiences. Both died when I was young but I clearly remember them and although at the time I didn’t understand (being very young) I realise now that the war scarred them deeply.
In terms of the development of cruisers, especially in the Royal Navy, the First World War had an enormous impact. At the start of the war, the Royal Navy had more than 100 cruisers in service. The Germans had about 40 by comparison. However, many of these cruisers were now 10 or more years old, with 78 having been built prior to 1904. Clearly, there was a need for more modern cruisers to be quickly designed, laid down and to be ready for service.In terms of actual engagements between the British and the German cruiser fleets, it wasn’t long before battle commenced.
Battle of Heligoland Bight
On August 28, 1914, a British force led by Admiral Sir David Beatty entered German home waters and engaged a German force. The Battle of Heligoland Bight was the first naval battle between the two navies. The initial attack consisted of a flotilla of 31 destroyers and two cruisers under Commodore Reginald Tyrwhitt, which was supported by submarines commanded by Commodore Roger Keyes. Further support at distance was provided by six light cruisers commanded by William Goodenough and five battlecruisers commanded by Vice AdmiralDavid Beatty
The operation, from the British perspective, was a success. Caught by surprise the Germans lost three light cruisers and torpedo boats sunk with three light cruisers and torpedo boats suffering damage. The British had just one light cruiser and three destroyers suffering damage. As for the cost of the battle:
Other similar engagements were to follow, though the British didn’t always have things their own way. On 1 November 1914, at the Battle of Coronel, off the coast of Chile, the Germans managed to sink two British armoured cruisers. They were sunk by the newer German ships, the Scharnhorst and the Gneisenau. This was quite a major engagement (regarded by many as the first major one of the war) and pitted Vice Admiral Reichsgraf Maximilian von Spee against Rear Admiral Sir Christopher Cradock.
German naval forces:
SMS Scharnhorst: Armoured (Heavy) Cruiser-completed in 1907-11,600 tons-main armament 8 X 8.2 inch and 6 X 6 inch guns-maximum speed 21 knots.
Admiral Graf von Spee’s flagship the protected cruiser SMS Scharnhorst (https://www.flickr.com/photos/quinet/49824006056)
SMS Gneisenau: Armoured (Heavy) Cruiser-completed in 1907-11,600 tons-main armament 8 X 8.2 inch and 6 X 6 inch guns-maximum speed 24.8 knots.
SMS Leipzig: Light Cruiser-completed in 1906-3,250 tons-main armament 10 X 4.1 inch guns-maximum speed 24 knots.
SMS Dresden: Light Cruiser-completed in 1909-3,600 tons-main armament 10 X 4.1 inch guns-maximum speed 24 knots.
SMS Nürnberg: Light Cruiser-completed in 1908-3,600 tons-main armament 10 X 4.1 inch guns-maximum speed 22.5 knots.
British Naval Forces:
HMS Good Hope: Armoured (Heavy) Cruiser-completed in 1902-14,100 tons-main armament 2 X 9.2 inch and 16 X 6 inch guns-maximum speed 24 knots.
Flagship of Rear Admiral Sir Christopher Cradock the armoured cruiser HMS Good Hope (Public domain image via https://www.iwm.org.uk/)
HMS Monmouth: Armoured (Heavy) Cruiser-completed in 1903-9,800 tons-main armament 14 X 6 inch guns-maximum speed 24 knots.
HMS Glasgow: Light Cruiser-completed in 1911-4,800 tons-main armament 2 X 6 inch and 10 X 4 inch guns-maximum speed 25 knots.
HMS Otranto: auxiliary cruiser (ex-civilian liner)-12,100 tons- main armament 6 X 4.6 inch guns: maximum speed 18 knots.
HMS Canopus: obsolete worn out Battleship-completed in 1897-12,950 tons-main armament 4 X 12 inch and 12 X 6 inch guns-maximum speed 16.5 knots. Canopus was 250 miles from the action and took no part, although a ship of Cradock’s squadron.
The problems for the British were many and in the end, led to disaster. The German ships were newer, better and outgunned the British vessels and this proved decisive. Firstly, it was said that ‘The Good Hope represented one of the worst and most expensive types of ship ever built for the Navy in modern times. She was an immense target and much under-gunned for her displacement. The Monmouth, also of nearly 10,000 tons, carried no gun larger than a 6 inch.’
Source: The Times History of the Great War
Both these ships mounted 6 inch guns in casemates on the sides of the ship. The lower guns could only be used in calm waters and probably were not brought into action at Coronel. In addition, the Canopus was an obsolete pre-Dreadnought and the Otranto was a armed merchant cruiser and too slow to keep up, taking no part in the actual battle! In all, the British were at a great disadvantage in terms of firepower and armour. Not only that, the German force was better trained whilst the British relied mainly on reservists to make up the complement of its force.
It is said that the whole engagement was one that happened by chance and both commanders had not expected to end up facing each other. However, once they met up, it was inevitable that one side would lose badly and that was indeed the British. The germans sank the Good Hope and the Monmouth with the loss not only of the two ships but the loss of 1,660 men including Rear Admiral Sir Christopher Cradock. This was shocking defeat for the British, to say the least! However, the Germans lost no ships and suffered only three men wounded. Of more importance from the German’s perspective was that the battle meant the used up nearly half his ammunition which he couldn’t replace in time for the next, more fateful engagement with the British.
Although the battle had not been intentional, it was inevitable at some point the two forces would meet. The Germans had been harrassing trade between Britain and its colonies in the Pacific and Indian Oceans (India, Australia and New Zealand) with German cruisers such as the German light cruiser named SMS Emdenwreaking havoc on Allied shipping. The story of the Emden is an interesting one. Having served for 4 years in China, at Tsingtao, the East Asian Station of the Imperial German Navy, she was commanded to join Admiral Graf von Spee‘s German East Asia Squadron and sail to the coast of South America to raid allied shipping there. However, her commander, Karl Friedrich Max von Müller, proposed that the Emden should operate alone in the Indian Ocean. This was a very risky proposal but one that Admiral Graf von Spee agreed to. In the end, from the German perspective, this proved to be a. productive decision (if one can ever refer to mayhem and death upon the high seas as ‘productive’ – such is the absurdity of war).
The Emden was swift and well-armed but easily recognised by her three funnels. No problem, the Germans just added a fake one and she now looked like the British cruiser the Yarmouth! With her disguise and the advantage of surprise, she began to wreak havoc on allied shipping sinking several vessels in quick succession. She also engaged in bombardment of the Indian mainland at Madras. Such was the terror she caused that her name even entered the lexicons of Tamil and Malayalam to signify ‘strict and authoritative’, ‘daring and capable’, ‘huge and powerful’, ‘manipulative and crafty’. In addition, songs were written about her to frighten young children! Quite an impact from what was the only time that the Indian mainland experienced the terrors of WWI.
SMS Emden run aground in the Cocos Islands after suffering serious damage November 1914 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/quinet/49779220283)
In the end though, it was the kind heartedness of its commander, Karl Friedrich Max von Müller, that would lead to the ship’s undoing. He was an officer and a gentleman and even though he was cunning and ruthless in his relentless pursuit of allied shipping, he always endeavoured to win without bloodshed, treating the crew and passengers of each ship he sunk with kindness. He also only attacked allied shipping and would let neutral ships go on their way unharmed. One such incident was when he intercepted the Italian ship the Loredano, he let her continue on her way. Unfortunately for the Emden, the Italian Captain broke the code of neutrality and informed the British of his encounter. The British quickly suspended all shipping in the Bay of Bengal and Vice-Admiral Martyn Jerram dispatched Hampshire, Chikuma, Yarmouth, Minotaur, and Ibuki to hunt the Emden down.
It would be a while before the Emden was stopped and in the meantime she continued to sink allied ships on the Colombo-Penang-Singapore and the Aden-Colombo routes. The capture of the Buresk was fortunate as it carried 6,660 tonnes of high-grade Welsh coal; much-needed fuel for the Emden’s boilers. Müller, once again in act of kindness, released her crew and allowed them to depart for Colombo (Ceylon – now Sri Lanka) on the recently captured Gryfevale.
On October 9, there followed a somewhat bizarre incident. The Emden badly needed to put into port so she sailed to Diego Garcia, a British island in the central Indian Ocean, where the crew were welcomed as cousins and given fresh provisions. It seems news of the war had not yet reached the remote island! The Emden was soon on its way the next day and continued its war of attrition against British shipping. Once again however Müller continued to release crew and passengers from the ships he intercepted.
By now the Emden was the scourge of allied shipping in the Indian pacific oceans and the British committed ever more resources hunting her down. Eventually her luck would run out. Müller wasn’t quite finished though and he carried out a daring attack on Penang harbour that stunned the Allies sinking the Zhemchug (a Russian cruiser) and the Mousquet (a French destroyer). The Emden made her escape unharmed. Hubris got the better of Müller and he headed for the Cocos Islands, approximately midway between Australia and Sri Lanka. Despite cutting off radio transmissions from the local authorities, one message did get through, alerting the British to an ‘unknown vessel’. The Sydney, an Australian cruiser, which had been escorting a convoy of troops to Colombo changed course for the Cocos Islands.
Unfortunately for the Emden, Müller had made a fatal mistake in thinking that the Sydney was 250 nautical miles away. In fact she was just over 52 nautical miles away! This left no time to recover the landing party and the two ships engaged. The Emden scored the first hits but soon the higher calibre of the Australian cruiser’s guns proved decisive and the Emden was torn apart. Müller was brave as well as a gentleman and he tried to get within torpedo range, to no avail. In the end he scuttled his ship on the off North Keeling Island and the battle was over. He had lost lost 134 men and had 65 wounded in the battle. The landing party led by Mücke somehow managed to hijack a schooner and escape to Germany whilst Müller was finally repatriated to Germany in October 1918, where he died in March 1923, aged 49.
Remarkably, the Emden had but a short and ‘glorious’ run of just two months, during which she had intercepted 23 merchant and naval ships! Such was the chivalry shown by Müller in this period that even the British recognised his exemplary behaviour and the Admiralty on November 11, 1914 telegraphed ‘Captain, officers and crew of Emden appear to be entitled to all the honours of war… should be permitted to retain swords’.
The Daily Telegraph wrote that “It is almost in our heart to regret that the Emden has been captured and destroyed. We certainly hope that commander Karl von Müller… has not been killed… he destroyed over 74,000 tons of shipping without the loss of a single life. There is not a survivor who does not speak well of this young German;’great praise indeed.
Daily Telegraph 1914
Commander Karl von Müller of the SMS Emden Born 16 June 1873, died 11 March 1923. (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/16363/16363-h/16363-h.htm)
to be continued….
To help cover the costs of running this site I use Amazon affiliate links. If you would like to support me by this method please consider using the related links that I will include from time to time. Many thanks.
Originally, in the days when ships used sails for propulsion, the term “cruiser” was used somewhat loosely. Frigates and other smaller ships were classed as cruisers, based on the idea that they often had to ‘cruise’ independently from the main fleet for long periods. Once sail was replaced by steam and ships started to require significant armour protection, the definition of what constituted a ‘cruiser’ became somewhat more narrow. By the late 19th century the term was generally understood to mean a warship that was of medium size (ie. bigger than a destroyer and smaller than a battleship or dreadnought) and which had a balanced armour layout and strength, as well as being faster than the average battleship but slower than the fastest destroyer. Its armament would consist of a variety of guns and in the late 19th century might include (in Royal Navy cruisers) 6-pounder, 6-inch and 9.2-inch guns. The armour was fairly modest usually being in the region of 9-inches around the waterline with with an armoured deck of perhaps 3-inches. As naval guns became more powerful the armour was increased to offer better protection.
So, for example, the first truly armoured cruiser in the Royal Navy, HMS Shannon (laid down in 1874) had 9-inches of armour around her waterline, with a 3-inch armoured deck. She still had sails though! Later ships such as the Imperieuse (1886) and Warspite (1888) had similar armour layouts and these were the last armoured ships of the Royal Navy to be powered by sail.
In the late 19th century, Britain still had a far-flung Empire and so cruisers were an important part of the fleet, needed to guard important trade routes between Britain and its overseas territories (colonies). In fact, there were three classes of armoured cruisers, First, Second and Third Class protected cruisers. These differed accorded to their tonnage, armament and armour. They all lacked proper side armour but did have a steel deck protecting their engine and boiler rooms as well as the vulnerable magazines. However, Britain’s rivals, although unable at the time to match her mighty industrial power (reflected in the size and firepower of her navy), did not wish to get left behind in this arms race. So, they developed large commerce raiders to challenge the Royal Navy’s dominance of the high seas. This required Britain to respond in kind by increasing the size and capabilities of her First Class protected cruisers.
In fact, some of the resulting cruisers even surpassed contemporary battleships in terms of size (displacement). For example, the Powerful and the Terrible (both laid down in 1895) had a displacement of 14,200 tons. For example, the Royal Sovereign class of 1889 had a displacement of 14,000 tons. Both ships had 6-inch deck armour and were fitted with two 9-inch guns and twelve (later upgraded to sixteen) 6-inch guns.
HMS Powerful, Australian Squadron, Sydney Harbour (Hood, Sam, 1872-1953, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons)
By the time the 20th century came around, Britain’s navy was still the greatest in the world. However, Germany wasn’t happy with the status quo and decided that a change in strategy was required if it was to have a chance of challenging the dominance of the Royal Navy, especially in the North Sea and Atlantic waters. It decided to move on from the strategy of developing commerce raiders and develop ever more powerful cruisers and battleships of its own. In 1899, the German Imperial Admiralty Staff (Admiralstab) replaced the Imperial Naval High Command and thus was set in motion another phase in the arms race between Germany, the rising star of industrial Europe and the old but powerful British Empire.
Rear-Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz was the German State Secretary of the Navy (1897-1916) and his great desire was for the German Navy to rival, indeed surpass, the Royal Navy. As a direct result of policies advocated by Tirpitz, on 10 April 1898 the first Navy Bill was passed by the Reichstag which authorised that a a fleet of 19 battleships, 8 armoured cruisers, 12 large cruisers and 30 light cruisers to be constructed by 1 April 1904. In terms of allowing Germany to challenge Britain and it’s Royal Navy this measure was inadequate, to say the least, but it did get a response from Britain. So it was that Britain set about designing and building it’s second generation armoured cruisers. These would end up having better armour protection using a recent innovation, that of cemented steel plate armour. They also benefited from the new water-tube boilers which meant that significant weight was saved and this allowed the re-introduction of belt armour without speed being adversely affected.
So it was that in 1905 the first ships of the Minotaur cruiser class were laid down. These had a displacement of 14,600 tons, had four 9.2-inch guns, ten 7.5-inch guns (an improvement on the previous 6-inch guns) and could make 23 knots compared to the 22 knots (41 km/h; 25 mph) of HMS Powerful. Eventually, the desire for ever faster and more powerful warships would give rise to the battlecruisers. The pace of change was rapid and the first of the battlecruisers, HMS Invincible, was completed in 1908, the same year that HMS Minotaur was. HMS Invincible was so powerful that immediately all existing armoured cruisers became, in effect, obsolete. With her eight 12-inch guns and a top speed of 25 knots she presented a formidable threat to all lesser ships. However, with a displacement of 17,200 tons the Invincible Class (Invincible, Inflexible and Indomitable) were almost as large as the Dreadnought class of battleships and in fact were equipped with the same 12-inch guns. Subsequently, despite their thinner armour, they were later re-classified as capital ships rather than cruisers.
Following the introduction of the battlecruiser, the old armoured cruisers were not only obsolete in terms of armour and firepower, but also in terms of speed. Britain still needed to protect it’s vital trade routes and so new classes of cruisers were needed. Also, the development of faster and more powerful destroyers even before the introduction of the battlecruiser meant that capital ships (battleships and dreadnoughts) were ever more vulnerable. So six Scout classes of turbine-driven cruisers were built between 1903 and 1913. In order for them to keep up with the fleet and counter the new destroyers they had a displacement of up to 3,400 tons, a speed of 25 knots and for firepower had lighter guns and two torpedo tubes.
The first of these new cruisers were the Sentinel class, consisting of the sister ships the Sentinel (completed April 1905) and the Skirmisher (completed July 1905). They had a displacement of 2,895 long tons (2,941 t) and were 360 feet in length with a beam of 40 feet. They had a draught of 14 ft 9 in when loaded and were equipped with 16,500 ihp (12,300 kW) water-tube boilers. This gave them a top speed of 25 knots (46 km/h; 29 mph) and they had a range of 2,460 nmi (4,560 km; 2,830 mi) at 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph).
Armour consisted of 2-inches at the waterline and 0.625–1.125 in deck armour. Armament consisted of
However, the pace of technological developments meant that even these ‘fast’ cruisers were overtaken by the latest battlecruisers and destroyers. So, along came the next type of cruiser, one that combined oil fuel and turbines in place of coal-fired boilers. However, the old coal bunkers had offered some extra protection so the new Arethusa class of cruisers gained extra armour, with 3 to 4-inch armour belts and 1-inch deck armour.
Initially described as light armoured cruisers they simply became known as light cruisers. They were increased in displacement and armament almost as soon as they had entered service and by 1918, displacement had increased to 4,650 tons, speed to 29 knots and main armament was increased to six 6-inch guns. Under the London Naval Treaty of 1930, light cruisers were officially defined as cruisers having guns of 6.1 inches (155 mm) calibre or less, with a displacement not exceeding 10,000 tons.
This brings us to the end of Part 1, with Part 2 focussing on the First World War (1914-1918) and its impact on the development of the cruiser.
Now I did say this site would focus on naval topics so you may wonder what a post about a ‘city under the sea’ has to do with naval history. Well, please bear with me and I promise you all will become clear.
So, what city am I referring to. Is it the Atlantis of legend or some other mythological city? Nope. It is in fact Dunwich. Now, for those of you unfamiliar with English history let me introduce you to the city of Dunwich.
First of all, you may be wondering where is this ‘city under the sea’ and how did it end up there? Well, Dunwich can be found on the coast of East Anglia in England and yes, some of it is still above water. How long that will remain the case is hard to say (what with climate change and rising sea levels, plus coastal erosion it may have disappeared altogether in less than a century).
You can visit the remains of Dunwich under the sea (if you have the right equipment) but unless you are a qualified diver and archaeologist as well, I doubt you will ever get the chance to visit the bit under the sea. If you want to visit what is left of the once important city then I suggest you do so in the next few years before it is completely swallowed up by the sea.
Now, I did promise to explain why Dunwich is relevant to a site about naval history, so here is the explanation. It is thought that back in Roman times a fort existed at Dunwich to guard the entrance of the Blyth River, an important and vulnerable estuary. If so, it would have part of a known chain of such forts that included Brancaster (Branodunum), Burgh Castle (Gariannonum), Walton (Portus Adurni, near modern-day Felixstowe) and Bradwell (Othona). It is true that no trace of such a fort at Dunwich has been found but that is not surprising given the amount of coastal erosion that has taken place on the East Anglian coast. It has been estimated that the coast in the area has been eroding at around 1 metre each year so that would mean the remains would now be a considerable distance out to sea! In fact in 1884 a piece of Roman masonry was dragged up from the sea bed about 3 1.2 miles out to sea.
After the Romans left Dunwich was still an important settlement and following the Christian ministry of Bishop Felix (died in 647 AD) there were a succession of Bishops at Dunwich. The diocese was then divided into two Sees, one at Dunwich and the other at North Elmham, with Dunwich thought to have been the more important one of the two.
Later on, the Danes (who ruled East Anglia under Danelaw) would have seen Dunwich as an important port with its good access inland via the navigable Blyth River. In the time of Edward the Confessor (1042 – 1066) Dunwich seems to have diminished in importance and the coastal erosion can only have contributed to this.However, good times lay ahead and come the reign of Henry II (1154-1189) Dunwich is quoted as being “a Towne of good note abounding with much riches and sundry kind of Merchandise”.
Such was the importance of Dunwich at this time that it is recorded it had a city wall with brazen gates, 52 churches, chapels, religious houses and hospitals as well as a King’s palace, a Bishop’s seat, a Mayor’s mansion and even a Mint! It is also recorded as having many tall ships and many windmills too. There was also a large forest outside the city walls, which was no doubt important not only for hunting by the King and others, but also for providing timber for shipbuilding and repairs.
So, you can start to see the importance of Dunwich from a naval history perspective, but there is more to the story. In 1173 Henry II had to deal with a rebellious son, Prince Henry, who attempted to dethrone his father. With the support of his mother, Queen Eleanor of France and his father-in-law, Louis of France, the Prince, together with Robert, Earl of Leicester and 3,000 Flemish soldiers, instigated a seaborne invasion of Dunwich! However, for whatever reason, the invasion fleet was unable to land at Dunwich and instead made landing at Walton and then marched on Dunwich. However, the good folk of Dunwich remained loyal to the king and in the end end the invading forces had to withdraw. Eventually, after much destruction and misery inflicted not only upon the ordinary folk of East Anglia but also Normandy and northern England, peace was declared, Henry forgave his son and even Robert, the Earl of Leicester.
Later on, King John (1199-1216) sent three galleys to Dunwich to oppose the French (conspiring with the Barons against John) in 1205 and in 1216, Nicholas of Dunwich was rewarded with the Manor of Westhall for paying the wages of the King’s galley men.
During the reign of Henry III (1216-1272) Dunwich possesed 80 ships. The King even paid for repairs to the port, so important was Dunwich as naval port. Not only was Dunwich a key naval port in terms of the defence of the realm but trade remained very important. Ships from Dunwich even traded as far as Iceland. However, the authorities had to constantly deal with the impact of coastal erosion and silting up of the estuary. Storms also caused much damage to the infrastructure of the port and a severe storm along the coast in January 1286 caused much damage along the east coast, including at Dunwich itself.
In Part II we will continue the remarkable story of Dunwich, the city under the sea.
Recent Comments