The Ideal Warship for Fisher
By Stephan Redbeard
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some historians point to Admiral Fisher apparently having very little confidence in traditional warships, like battleships and armoured cruisers. He wanted to replace them with revolutionising designs using the latest technology. In Fisher’s time frame (1904-10 and 1914-15) that was torpedoes (on destroyers and subs), all-big-guns with centralised fire control, and turbines for high speed. The combination of the last two gave rise to the battlecruiser (Invincible), which when opposing its contemporary AC’s and predread’s could use it’s superior speed to choose the time, place and range of the action, and from there outgun any opponent(s). At the time when Fisher took office the first time the British could see that even with their excellent pre-WWI economy, it would not be possible to keep the British naval supremacy simply by outbuilding the potential enemies in AC’s and battleships.

So, seen from 1904, a fleet of Invincibles in numbers and cost being less than the existing fleet of pre-dreads and AC’s, would have a fair chance of defeating any of Britains potential enemy fleets before they could unite. In this context I clearly see why he wasn’t interested in armour. Heavily protected but slow ships would only be interesting if you could count on having enough to always, anywhere, outnumber the enemy, or if the enemy would for certain come to you. Fisher could count on neither superior numbers nor the enemy coming by himself, but superior speed and firepower would give the decisive local superiority, even with inferior numbers in total. Be strong where the battle is, and don’t give a damn about all the other places. That is I believe a good way to success in all warfare, love and business

The world is never static however, and by the time of Fisher’s second office (1914-15) the main enemy weapon was not predreads and AC’s any longer, but fleets of all big-gunned dreadnoughts and super-dreadnoughts (incl. BC’s). That obviously left the original BC concept without the superiority it had had against the AC’s and pre-dreads, but Fisher still didn’t have the option of for ever outbuilding any likely combination of enemies in ships individually equal to those of the potential enemies. So he had to be looking again for ways to ensure his inferior numbers the ability to be locally superior. By 1914-15 technology that would be by going for even faster and even more heavily armed battlecruisers. In this context the Incomparable design study from Fisher’s second reign is interesting, as it was made to seek out the potentials and limits of the battlecruiser to fulfil the Fisher dogma. The result was a true monster with a 1000’ hull, 50.000 tons, six 20” guns, 35 knots, long range and marginal armour. Such ships would necessarily be very costly, and even if counting on the armour protection not being as important as the Jutland experience apparently showed, it is a good question if six 20” would give the necessary superiority over all big-gunned dreadnoughts. With centralised fire control guns much smaller than 20” were already reaching to the practical limit for any gunnery, no matter how long the gun could fire it’s shell. I guess wire-less and air-observation would have born some hopes to utilise the over-the-horizon range of the biggest guns, but it would be overly optimistic to hope for hit-rates at those ranges high enough to enforce a decision - even with 20" shells. And enforcing a decision on enemies in detail was (IMHO) exactly the point behind the Fisher dogma. I have no sources upon Fisher’s reaction to this design, but I have often wondered if it’s shortcomings as a superior weapon system was the real motive behind his resignation in 1915. With the technology available in 1915 it just wasn’t possible to get the weapon he and Britain needed. And the problem wasn’t skinny armour but guns and gunnery having reached a limit of development.

Fisher died in 1920, but if we now imagine that the Fisher spirit is kept alive and intact in the admiralty, would a weapon system being true to the Fisher spirit show up?

Obviously yes – the aircraft carrier. Not the armoured British version, that approach owed its origin more to the German BC operating only in confined and heavily contested waters, and without the killer-punch needed for enforcing the decision. The kill still relied on the ridiculously short reaching battleships, a strange compromise certainly not being in the Fisher spirit.

The ideal Fisher weapon would be something like the Essex class CV. With 100 state-of-the art naval aircraft it had a weapon system out ranging and out fighting any battlefleet, and only very little displacement or space was wasted on silly armour plates being penetrable by any serious weapon anyway. Speed and range was of course superb, in itself making it a difficult target, especially for torpedoes, but also giving the necessary operational versatility. Defence counted mainly on active devices like radar directed CAP and AAA (and of course good damage control). Don’t just sit there and let the enemy hit you, knock ‘em out before they reach you – that’s the true Fisher spirit.

No navy could of course count on having a monopoly on aircraft carriers, but had the RN after WWI seriously invested in naval airpower from a Fisher perspective it could probably have kept it’s supremacy for a decade or two longer. It is much disputed when the aircraft became a serious naval weapon, but IMHO a combination of heavy scouting capacity (BC’s) and numerous torpedocarrying aircraft from CV’s would be fatal to any battleline before the advent of radar directed CAP from big CV’s. The aircraft of the 20’s and 30’s might have been flimsy, but try and look at the AAA of the contemporary battleships or their TDS – they have practically none!

Someone once said that the battleship didn’t become obsolete because it was vulnerable, but because it was inferior in inflicting damage upon the enemy. That is also true for the battlecruiser, but you may argue that it lasted a little longer because it’s better speed (and bigger hulls) gave it a greater operational versatility.

But the armour really was of very little significance.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard