Alternate Terminology – Naval Gazing Part 5: Steam and Steel

[AndyC]

Discuss @Thande 's latest article here

 

[Thande]

This one got very long and I could still have said more, but I do find it a fascinating period.

 

[Tabac Iberez]

Destroyers are a remarkable case of an almost happenstance event having a huge cultural impact. Look at any military science fiction (or steampunk fantasy) series and you will find mentions of destroyers. Star Wars, famously, has Imperial Star Destroyers. It is often used almost as a generic term for warship, especially if operated by the bad guys as in the latter case, because it sounds nasty. But in fact the term has a very specific origin: Fernando Villaamill of the Spanish Naval Ministry designed a fast ship with the sole mission objective of destroying the feared torpedo boats before they could take out a cruiser or battleship. Destructor (Spanish for ‘destroyer’) was commissioned in 1887 and heralded a wave of improved imitators elsewhere. Early Torpedo Boat Destroyers (TBDs) were intended to be fast, relatively lightly armoured, and equipped with small but quick-firing guns of a new design. Torpedo boats have long since been obsoleted as a major threat to capital ships, yet the term ‘destroyer’ has stuck around in both fact and fiction.

This is... well, both historically accurate and logically flawed. Aside from the existance of HMS Rattlesnake and the slightly later Grasshopper class, along with the Bainbridge class that was developed pretty much interdependently of European construction, the fact of the matter is that there would always be a fleet asset designed to counteract the threat of the torpedo-boat. Considering their absolutely devastating use during the Ruso-Turkic war and the Chilean Civil War, there's no getting around their existence- the only question is what form the counter-asset will take. Using a heavier ship- such as a protected cruiser- as the counterasset is both overly expensive and deprives other taskings (raiding, convoy escort, interdiction patrols) of a seriously needed ship. The battleships themselves can't reliably carry a counter-asset: there's not enough space and manpower to effectively operate the needed weight of gun to engage in effective fires that would force the enemy torpedo boats to stand off outside of torpedo range. (An interesting note is that Jackie Fisher, yes that one, was obsessed with torpedoes and as a point of order worked near-tirelessly on Warrior when he was a gunnery officer there to increase the range of effective fire. With constant drill, the light battery could engage out to near twice their previous range. And, as with all things tied to the Royal Navy, the minute he stopped looking things started degrading.)

Note the phrasing of that last sentence: the weight of gun, engaging in accurate fires, outside of torpedo range. Imagine, however, you had an asset that could be risked at close range (and is therefore cheap). By pressing closer, you need less guns to engage in effective fires- even though effective fires at this point in time was about 4-6% hits. Half the range to target, halve the number of guns you need; from eight to four. Press in closer still, and you can use lighter guns as well as fewer guns.

A cheap hull with four to six light guns? That's a very easy design to get behind, because it's cheap. The most expensive part- and the part that gives Destructor the title of 'first destroyer'- is actually doing the engineering for seamanship and building the thing.