Mariners-L Archives

Archiver > Mariners > 2001-06 > 0993380028


From: Paul Benyon <>
Subject: Re: [Mar] Photos
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 11:53:48 +0100
References: <003401c0fb3b$1d6b7e00$0101a8c0@pavilion> <uif7jt075ieuapfpiogap7vkk6a9379hp2@4ax.com> <003501c0fbfb$2e5a3240$0101a8c0@pavilion>
In-Reply-To: <003501c0fbfb$2e5a3240$0101a8c0@pavilion>


Hi Shirley

As someone once said the simple questions are often the most difficult
;-)

At the time that your grandfather served we are into a period of
enormous change: almost every year someone or some country moved the
goal posts as the designers and shipyards improved on what they were
capable of building.

At the same time we have the political element ie what the politicians
wanted or perhaps in the case of the Royal Navy, what Their Lordships at
the Admiralty eg Jackie Fisher et al wanted, and what they managed to
persuade the politicians what they wanted ie we were in an arms race,
with a brand new toy, which no one had yet developed to its full
potential.

So regarding battleships we move quickly from 1860s and the first
British iron-clad battleship ie the 9,000 ton HMS WARRIOR with its brand
new breach loaded guns, sail and steam powered, and armament arrayed in
broadsides, to 40 years later when we have 12 - 15,000 ton vessels such
as the GLORY, in which your gf was to serve, which looked nothing like
the WARRIOR: they had lost their sails and were powered solely by
steam, had turreted guns etc

As the arms race heated up so did the development of Battleships, so
that we move very quickly again from the still experimental vessels of
the 1890s through to HMS DREADNOUGHT of 1905 which made all other
warships obsolete, so that by the time 1915 arrived they were designing
what some have described as they most beautiful battleship of them all
ie HMS HOOD, albeit with shortcomings that dated back to well before
WW1. So in summary I suppose you could say that the battleship was a
large seagoing platform, ie the largest it was possible to build and man
at the time, on which you placed the largest guns available, whilst
still maintaining the capacity to control the vessel.

Cruisers are or were the frigates of Nelson's day: lighter and faster
than battleships they were well armed vessels which were used for
scouting, shadowing in the days before radar, where speed and handiness
were essential. Often resembling their big brothers, the battleship in
outline, but with a reduced firepower.

The Battle Cruiser was something of a compromise between the two ie
bigger and better armed than a cruiser, but still fast and
manoeuverable. But, after the Great War we enter another period of
change where political treaty and intrigue led to some countries calling
vessels one thing when they were patently something else ie Germany was
building battleships, but was calling them battle cruisers :-)

The destroyer was an entirely new concept: originally called the
torpedo boat catchers, chasers or destroyers, this was a small, fast,
well armed vessel designed in the first instance, as its name implies to
meet and destroy the increasing threat from across the Channel of the
increasing numbers of torpedo boats that were being developed.
Subsequently known as just a destroyer, torpedo tubes were incorporated
and the vessel took on an all round capability and was to form an
essential part of the fleet or battle group acting as a screen and
scouts for their big brothers, and with the ability to launch torpedoes
etc as required.

The light cruiser was perhaps more like the destroyer that was still
evolving and was a designation that was to be change to destroyer after
WWI as the purpose and design of the two vessels came together.

As a serviceman's career developes and he is sent to new ships so he
developes new skills and acquires more knowledge, which is probably
backed up by being sent away on courses to learn the basics for the new
skills: the Navy often likes to take advantage of this situation and
once a rating has acquired a certain skill, rather than waste money
retraining other people, they will often send a man from destroyer to
destroyer, especially if they use the same plant or machinery and you
will often hear of people who have spent much of their time on small
ships eg minesweepers.

Circumstances can occur when this is not possible and personnel have to
develop new skills as new equipment becomes available or the number of
billets doesn't meet the skills available in the navy and it is
therefore often necessary to move from one type of vessel to another.

During his years as a Stoker 2nd and 1st Class your gf may well have
shovelled coal amongst other things, but as his career developed he
would have been advanced and would take on a supervisory role, which
would require not only the ability to supervise those under him, but the
technical knowledge necessary to run the engineroom during a watch and
to ensure that all the proper maintenance was carried out eg ensuring
that essential bearings etc were properly lubricated and weren't
overheating: that associated ancillary equipment around the ship was
working properly etc.

So that by the time he was a Chief Stoker his career would have
developed to the stage where he probably worked days only: would have
seen little of the actual engineroom as he would have been arranging
watch bills, looking after the welfare of his workforce, in
co-ordination with their Divisional Officers, and a multitude of other
tasks which befall an experienced person in his position, which is
essential to the efficient running of a department that is on the go 24
hours a day.

Regards

Paul
Portland

On Sat, 23 Jun 2001 16:42:19 +0100, you wrote:

>Hi again guys
>
>I have been pondering and a being complete bozo on Navy matters I wondered
>if someone could help me again - what is the difference between the
>different classes of Navy vessels? i.e. Battleship, Battle Cruiser, Light
>Cruiser, Destroyer etc etc and was it normal to transfer between these
>different classes during a period of service - as my grandfather was a
>Stoker I know that he shovelled coal into the fires and I suppose shovelling
>coal on one ship was pretty much the same as shovelling coal on another -
>would it have been different if serving in another capacity.
>
>Please excuse the ignorance but if I don't ask I won't know!
>
>Regards
>
>Shirley



This thread: