In September 9070, construction began on a cofferdam-type ironclad improved version of the "Ravage", the "Fury", which, due to the early start of the design of the ship, still adopted the protective layout of the full captain's broadside armor. The ship was originally designed by Reed, but due to the sinking of the "Captain", the design scheme was updated and almost redesigned by Barnabey, the new director of naval shipbuilding, at the request of the Admiralty. Recognizing that the relatively narrow, mid-hull cofferdam fort and towering bridge on the Marden were not good for stability, Barnabe widened the cofferdam fort to the same width as the hull to increase stability, and raised the bow and stern freeboard to 10 feet. In order to prevent water ingress on one side and affecting the left and right turbine units at the same time, a waterproof mediastinal wall was set up in the middle of the engine room for the first time (it was later proved that this waterproof mediastinum wall was very easy to make one side of the warship quickly overturn to the inlet side after flooding). Due to the major changes in the design scheme, the ship was simply renamed "Dreadnought".

At this time, the design of a follow-up warship was being initiated. After the design work began on January 18, 9073, the designers were instructed that the design of the new ship should "consider a satisfactory arrangement of heavy armor" and "in accordance with Reed's proposed unprotected head and tail layout." At the same time, consider what will happen if the hull is the size of the Fury, and the water will enter the nose and tail. Specifically, it is to adopt centralized defense, and the width of the hull must be reached to ensure the unsinkability when the unprotected head and tail are broken through from one side and a large water ingress occurs, resulting in a roll of 56.5 degrees and flooding, resulting in water immersion on the upper edge of the ship. The unsinkability at this roll angle was a stability requirement for the original Fury design. After calculation, the hull width of the ship was increased by 11 feet compared to the original "Fury", reaching more than 63 feet.

On January 27, Barnabe made several requests for the New Fury: a speed of 13 knots. Draught 25.5 feet. Carrying 1,200 tons of coal. From this, it can be calculated that the hull width needs to reach 74 feet. in order to meet the stability requirements of the original "Fury" design. But this is already more than the width dimensions of the existing slipway in the UK. If the width is reduced to 70 feet, this problem can be solved, and it can guarantee unsinkability at 50.5 degrees of tilt, which is only a little lower than the original "Fury" indicators, which is acceptable.

A month later, the plan was approved, and then it entered the main gun selection stage. "Before choosing an artillery, keep in mind that it takes four years to build a warship," Banabe said. During this period, naval artillery will greatly improve. The largest artillery that the Royal Woolwich Arsenal and Elsvik could foresee at the moment was a 15-inch 60-ton gun, but "[we] wanted the largest gun that could be built before the ship was completed."

Easier said than done. First of all, the larger the gun, the heavier it is, which will inevitably have an impact on the displacement of the warship. Once the size of the warship was determined, in order to reserve enough weight for the artillery, it was necessary to cut the weight of other parts, including the armor. Secondly, it is foreseeable that the enemy in the future will also be equipped with similar artillery, so that. The armor used had to be able to block artillery of this class. This entered an endless loop, and it was impossible to turn out (even with the 11,000-ton hull of the "Indomitable" later. Nor was it possible to install the largest gun that could be built at the time, and to be equipped with composite armor that could withstand the penetration of such artillery).

If Reed were given the choice, he would not hesitate to meet the second requirement first, and for him, unsinkability is something to be met anyway. He remembered how he had objected to Coles's plan for the low-stability heavy turret of the Captain, and how he had used his skillful communication to persuade the "upper deck" to complete the "Captain" and enter service, only to be killed in the belly of the fish within a few months. In addition to making him feel the pain of his peers, he also deeply realized the importance of safety, even at the expense of artillery power.

For Barnabey, for the Royal Navy, "we don't think [the reduction of unsinkability] will affect the power of the British Navy," and "the warship will be fine if it can withstand the largest guns available." "We believe that British warships should be equipped with the largest guns that can be built and operated as can be foreseen, even if they weigh hundreds of tons, if the materials can be forged."

The disagreement between Reed and Barnabe over ship design was their differing views on the role of the Victorian British Navy. In the final analysis, Reed accepted the strategic idea of "having a fleet," and the primary role of the navy was deterrence. Barnabey, on the other hand, preferred to keep the Royal Navy firmly in control of the seas and continue to fight the world's invincible opponents in the hundred years following the Battle of Trafalgar.

However, for the Royal Navy, which has advocated the supremacy of attack since Nelson, it is still acceptable to sacrifice defense to gain an increase in attack power. Moreover, the 24-inch armor plates could block the fire of the existing guns, and the central armored fort was safe. As for the horizontal protective deck at the bow and stern, since it will still be a close combat for the Navy in the foreseeable future, the ballistics of the shells are relatively straight, and the protection effect is better than that of vertical armor plates of the same thickness. Because the former, even if it is not thick, can form a ricochet to ricochet the shell; The latter, on the other hand, is purely a hard-to-face defense against artillery shells, and it is difficult to protect it.

The original design of the Fury was based on full-length broadside armor belts, heavy armor belts and Coles turrets, forcing the ship to adopt a low freeboard hull. However, in order to avoid the waves on the bow of the ship during navigation affecting the operation of the guns, a cofferdam-type armored fort was built on the upper part of the ship to increase the distance of the turret from the sea surface and protect the base of the front and rear turrets. This is the way to solve this problem since the "Ravage", but in practice it has been found to be ineffective.

In this first design, originally known as the New Fury, the broadside armor protection area was shortened and integrated with the cofferdam-type armor to form the central armor fort, but it was still relatively long, accounting for two-thirds of the total length of the hull. The Coles turret was still arranged at the end of the day, and the pitch in high sea conditions was undoubtedly unavoidable, so it seemed that it could not be equipped with the large-caliber guns favored by Barnabey.

The second option. On the basis of the previous scenario. The same 35-ton gun turret as the Fury was retained. But in the middle of the hull was arranged a single 50-ton gun turret, which could fire at both sides. In this way, the arrangement of a bulky large-caliber gun turret in the middle improved the seafaring performance of the warship.

In the third option, the 50-ton gun turret in the middle of the hull in the second option was changed to 4 open turrets, each with an 18-ton gun. This scheme clearly replaces a single large-caliber gun with the firing density of several medium-caliber guns.

In addition, there was a fourth option, but the four 18-ton guns were reduced to 12-ton guns, with the aim of raising the gun installation position. In order to form straf-fire on enemy ships in battle.

From these design processes, it can be seen that Barnabe has been hesitant to improve seaworthiness and increase the power of the gun, and it can also be seen that the continuation of the design layout of the low freeboard, bow and tail turrets similar to the "Fury", with the state of the art at the time, could not achieve the original intention of equipping the warship with the largest possible guns and perfect armor protection.

Barnabe instead considered the exposed turret. After all, the weight of the Dew turret was much lighter than that of the Coles turret, although it was believed at the time that it was inferior in terms of protection. In the spring of 9073, many other designs were introduced. It even turned up an ironclad scheme that had been designed for the French Emperor Napoleon III, which was more radical than all the previous ironclad ships. That is, 10 35-ton guns, all installed in the open turret. 4 doors are oriented towards the end of the day, and the other 6 doors are arranged in the middle. These six guns have already begun to show the rudiments of "diagonal arrangement". By April, Barnabe had his assistants work out a plan of 14 knots, four main guns, two of which were 50 or 60 tons and two of which were 35 tons, mounted in two 14-inch exposed turrets with 14-inch armoured walls, so that the weight of the turret could be reduced to only two-thirds the weight of the Coles turret of the Fury.

However, the protection of the guns from the open turret was significantly inferior to that of the Coles turret, so Barnabe still had doubts about using the open turret on the capital ship.

It is not known exactly when Barnabe accepted the practice of placing the turrets diagonally in the middle of the hull, similar to the new Italian battleships "Durio" and "Dandolo", but according to Barnabey, it was not so much influenced by the Italian Brin model as it was pressure from domestic parliament and public opinion. They felt that a low freeboard like the "Ravage" would be dangerous for an ocean-going warship. At that time, the parliament in charge of military spending had a great influence on the shape of the new capital ships. That is, the freeboard should be high. As a result of the high freeboard and forerunner, the heavy turrets had to be arranged diagonally in the middle of the ship.

The advantages of placing the turrets diagonally in the middle of the warship are: first, it can greatly shorten the length of the armored protection area, which coincides with the concept of the central armored fort; secondly, after the installation of heavy main guns, it is still possible to raise the bow and stern freeboard in the form of setting up the bow and stern deckhouses; thirdly, damage to the main gun can be avoided when performing the ramming action; Fourth, it avoids the serious pitching of the hull in high sea conditions when the main turret is arranged at the end and end; Fifth, the two main turrets can still fire a salvo from the same side.

This plan was submitted to the Admiralty and agreed. Comptroller Houston? Both Stewart and Ordnance Director Hood appreciated the program. Although the "Ravage", "Thundering" and "Dreadnought" represented the highest level of design for European capital ships so far, both leaders felt that the naval technology race could not be delayed due to rumors that the new Italian battleship would soon be fitted with 60-ton guns and 22-inch thick armor, and rumors of Reed's intention to use a central armored fort on a capital ship designed for Prussia (which later turned out to be a rumor). They fear that in a few years, when these guys with heavy armor and heavy guns spread in the navies of European countries, the existing cofferdam capital ships will not be an opponent. Thick armor and heavy artillery are the way of the future, and the Royal Navy must continue to maintain superiority at sea!

Hood also believes that the higher deck at the bow, in addition to improving seaworthiness, can provide a safe working platform away from the water for sailors who hoist, anchor and anchor the dinghy. However, he also reminded Barnabe that the flaw in this scheme was that he doubted that the four guns could fire a salvo from the same side, because in this case, the shells fired from the opposite turret would pass through the deck of the ship. The air wave of the shot can cause damage to the deckhouse. Other than that. After setting up the bow deckhouse. The forward range of the main gun will be somewhat limited. In this regard, Hood suggested that the part of the deckhouse close to the turret could be designed as an arc transition to facilitate the escape of air waves; Reduced the width of the bow deckhouse by 5 feet to improve forward firing boundaries. In addition, he did not agree with the idea of placing the chimney between the two turrets. In his opinion, it should be arranged along the center line of the hull, before the front turret and after the aft turret. He also made a number of suggestions about the thickness of the armored deck and where it could go below the waterline.

Barnabe took up the recommendations one by one. In addition, the width of the central armor fort was increased to increase the interior space and improve stability. To balance the increase in the thickness of the armor and the weight that comes with increasing the caliber of the artillery. Reduced the ammo reserve for each gun from 170 to 100. At the same time, he plans to install 127 watertight compartments at the end of the nose. The watertight compartments on the side of the ship are heavily filled with cork, which can maintain buoyancy after the hull is broken down, and reduce the amount of water ingress because the space in these compartments has already been occupied beforehand.

In the part below the waterline, the double-layer bottom structure is followed. This structure was first applied by Reed on the "Bellerophon" ironclad ship. At the bottom of the ship there are continuous wide strip-like longitudinal members. Brackets are installed between the longitudinal members to form a box-shaped steel truss to form a double bottom. In his article "The Construction of Iron Ships" published in Naval Science in 9071, Reed pointed out that although the bottom of the Warrior uses Scott-Russell-style longitudinal members, it still relies mainly on transverse members to support armor and withstand shells. Their weight appears excessively large compared to the strength provided by these transverse members. "The 'bracketsystem' uses a curved frame member instead of a long, transverse strip on the 'warrior'. All the necessary lateral strength and hull support can be provided by a lighter and stronger curved frame member than the next door in a Russellian structure. The depth and strength of the longitudinal members will be increased enough to form a complete watertight double bottom. (as opposed to Russell-style longitudinal members) and can make the inner hull plates and longitudinal members thicker. Regardless of whether this added weight is used to improve structural strength or increase watertight security, the total weight of the hull is smaller than that of the Warrior and other older ships. ”

Meanwhile. The Admiralty arranged for Flot to conduct a tank mock-up test of the Indomitable to test the fluid resistance characteristics of the Indomitable hull. In addition to the study of stability, Froude also proved through the tank model test that the influence of the flooded area of the ship on the navigation resistance is much greater than the influence of the hull alignment. This conclusion greatly encouraged Reed and Barnabe to design those thick and short ironclads in the 60s and 70s of the 19th century. After experiments, Flot proved that even though the width was greater than 12 feet of the Dreadnought, the resistance of the new capital ship at 14 knots was only comparable to that of the former. Encouraged by this conclusion, the design committee decided that an 8,000 hp unit would do the trick.

On July 23, 9073, the design of the new capital ship was finally approved by the Admiralty, and it took a total of 7 months from the beginning of the design, including Reed's initial idea, to the approval of the plan. Over the course of seven months, Barnabe and Hood put a lot of effort into the design.

The new ship was later named "Indomitable".

When the design was approved by the Admiralty, Barnabe described his masterpiece in a speech as follows: "Imagine an armored fort 110 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 10 feet above the water; Four main guns could simultaneously fire at the front or rear, and even at the enemy in any direction; Powerful ramming angles; and armor thicker than all previous warships...... Underwater attacks are not a concern, as there are armored decks and 127 watertight compartments divided into them...... All these engineering miracles did not lead to a significant increase in costs. ”

On February 24, 9074, the laying of the keel of the Indomitable began. But at this time, no one expected that it would take not the expected 3 or 4 years, but a long 7 years, for the warship to be completed, and her cost reached 812,000 pounds, which was 30% higher than the cost of the "Dreadnought". It was thought that she would lead the trend of future capital ships, but by the time she completed it, she was already slightly behind and was eliminated in less than 10 years.

The development of naval technology was an important factor that Barnabe and others could not have foreseen in the summer of 1873.

One of the reasons why the construction of the "Indomitable" has been delayed for such a long time is that the leaders of the Admiralty hope to make her "tall, big, and complete" during the construction process, hoping that she can closely follow the update of naval technology, especially artillery technology. As a result, the internal design of the hull was forced to be changed repeatedly. (To be continued......)

PS: The day was not very busy, and a buddy asked me to help write a wedding invitation. I've been writing for a long time, and it feels a little wrong, and I can't tell what's wrong no matter how I look at it.

At this time, the buddy's daughter-in-law came to look at it and said, "Can you change the groom's name, we can't do it."

I......

Collect! Ask for recommendations! Ask for a subscription! Click! Ask for a commuter pass!