Barbette ship

Illustration of several barbette ships from the 1880s, showing the degree of experimentation with armament arrangements

The barbette ship was a type of ironclad warship that was built by several navies between the 1860s and 1890s. The defining characteristic was the use of armored barbettes to partially protect the ship's main battery guns, rather than heavy gun turrets or inflexible box batteries.

Development

Following the introduction of ironclad warships in the early 1860s, naval designers grappled with the problem of mounting heavy guns in the most efficient way possible. The first generation of ironclads employed the same broadside arrangement as the old ship of the line, but it was not particularly effective for ahead or stern fire. This was particularly important to designers, since the tactic of ramming was revived following its successful employment at the decisive Austrian victory at the Battle of Lissa in 1866. Ramming required a ship to steam directly at its opponent, which greatly increased the importance of end-on fire. Designers such as Cowper Phipps Coles and John Ericsson designed the first gun turrets in the 1860s, which gave the guns a wide field of fire. These turrets were exceedingly heavy, which required them to be placed low in the ship to reduce top-weight—and produced a dangerous tendency to capsize in heavy seas, amply demonstrated by the loss of HMS Captain and Coles himself with the ship in a gale in 1870. ^{[1] [2] [3]}

In the 1870s, designers began to experiment with an en barbette type of mounting. The barbette was a fixed armored enclosure protecting the gun. The barbette could take the form of a circular or elongated ring of armor around the rotating gun mount over which the guns (possibly fitted with a gun shield) fired. The barbette system reduced weight considerably, since the machinery for the rotating gun mount, along with the mount itself, was much lighter than that required for the gun house of a turret. ^[4] The savings in weight could then be passed on to increase armor protection for the hull, improve coal storage capacity, or to install larger, more powerful engines. ^[5] In addition, because barbettes were lighter, they could be placed higher in the ship without jeopardizing stability, which improved their ability to be worked in heavy seas that would have otherwise rendered turrets unusable. This also permitted a higher freeboard, which also improved seakeeping. ^[6]

Ironclads equipped with barbettes were referred to as "barbette ships" much like their contemporaries, turret ships and central battery ships, which mounted their heavy guns in turrets or in a central armored battery. ^[7] Many navies experimented with all three types in the 1870s and 1880s, including the British Admiral-class battleships, ^[8] the French Marceau-class ironclads, ^[9] the Italian Italia-class battleships, ^[10] and the German Sachsen-class ironclads, all of which employed barbettes to mount their heavy guns. ^[11] All of these navies also built turret and or central battery ships during the same period, though none had a decisive advantage over the other. ^[12] The British and the Russian navies experimented with using disappearing guns afloat, including on the British HMS Temeraire and the Russian ironclad Vice-Admiral Popov. They were not deemed particularly successful and were not repeated. ^[13]

Replacement

In the late 1880s, the debate between barbette or turret mounts was finally settled. The Royal Sovereign class, mounted their guns in barbettes, but the follow-on design, the Majestic class, adopted a new mounting that combined the benefits of both kinds of mounts. A heavily armored, rotating gun house was added to the revolving platform, which kept the guns and their crews protected. The gun house was smaller and lighter than the old-style turrets, which still permitted placement higher in the ship and the corresponding benefits to stability and seakeeping. This innovation gradually became known simply as a turret, though the armored tube that held the turret substructure, which included the shell and propellant handling rooms and the ammunition hoists, was still referred to as a barbette. These ships were the prototype of the so-called pre-dreadnought battleships, which proved to be broadly influential in all major navies over the next fifteen years. ^{[14] [15]}

Use in service

Sketch of Dingyuan and Zhenyuan at the Battle of the Yalu River during the First Sino-Japanese War

Ships equipped with barbette mountings did not see a great deal of combat, owing to the long period of relative peace between their appearance in the 1870s and their obsolescence in the 1890s. Some barbette ships saw action during the British Bombardment of Alexandria in 1882, ^[16] and the French ironclad Triomphante participated in the Battle of Fuzhou during the Sino-French War in 1884. ^[17] The two Chinese ironclads, Dingyuan and Zhenyuan, that took part in the Battle of the Yalu River during the First Sino-Japanese War in 1894, carried their main battery in barbettes, though they were equipped with extensive gun shields that resembled turrets. The shields were nevertheless only proof against small-arms fire. ^[18] Three of their opponents at the Yalu River, the Japanese Matsushima-class cruisers, also mounted their guns in open barbettes. ^[19]

Those barbette ships that survived into World War I were typically used only for secondary purposes. For example, the French Marceau was used as a repair ship for submarines and torpedo boats, ^[20] while the German Württemberg was employed as a torpedo training ship. ^[11] A handful of barbette ships did see action during the war, including the British Revenge, which bombarded German positions in Flanders in 1914 and 1915. ^[21]

Notes

1. Beeler 2001, p. 91
2. Sondhaus, pp. 79–80
3. Beeler 1997, p. 114
4. Beeler 2001, p. 139
5. Beeler 2001, p. 164
6. Hodges, p. 10
7. Beeler 2001, pp. 159, 164
8. Gardiner, p. 29
9. Gardiner, p. 292
10. Gardiner, p. 341
11. Gröner, p. 8
12. Sondhaus, pp. 80–88
13. "The Moncrieff System of Disappearing Gun Carriages, p. 122
14. Hodges, p. 33
15. Burt, p. 85
16. Wilson, p. 287
17. Wilson, p. 5
18. Wilson, pp. 62–63
19. Wilson, p. 58
20. Feron, p. 72
21. Burt, p. 82

References

• Beeler, John (2001). Birth of the Battleship: British Capital Ship Design, 1870–1881. London: Chatham. ISBN   1-86176-167-8.
• Beeler, John (1997). British Naval Policy in the Gladstone-Disraeli Era, 1866–1880. Stanford University Press. ISBN   0-8047-2981-6.
• Brown, D. K. (1979). Roberts, John (ed.). "Shells at Sevastopol". Warship. III. London: Conway Maritime Press: 74–79.
• Burt, R.A. (1988). British Battleships 1889–1904. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN   0-87021-061-0.
• Feron, Luc (1985). "French Battleship Marceau". Warship International. XXII (1). Toledo: International Naval Research Organization: 68–78. ISSN   0043-0374.
• Gardiner, Robert, ed. (1979). Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1860–1905 . Greenwich: Conway Maritime Press. ISBN   0-8317-0302-4.
• Gröner, Erich (1990). German Warships 1815–1945. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press. ISBN   0-87021-790-9.
• Hodges, Peter (1981). The Big Gun: Battleship Main Armament, 1860–1945. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press. ISBN   0870219170.
• Sondhaus, Lawrence (2001). Naval Warfare, 1815–1914. London: Routledge. ISBN   9780415214780.
• "The Moncrieff System of Disappearing Gun Carriages". The Illustrated Naval and Military Magazine. III. London: W. H. Allen & Co.: 120–124 1886. OCLC   220760873.
• Wilson, Herbert Wrigley (1896). Ironclads in Action: A Sketch of Naval Warfare from 1855 to 1895, Volume 1. London: S. Low, Marston and Co. OCLC   1111061.