Post by director on May 2, 2017 8:37:02 GMT -6
babylon218 - I do mostly agree with you, except to say that he was ferociously loyal and could inspire great devotion from subordinates. His clashes with the 'old navy' set (principally Lord Charles Beresford) were bitter, in part because Fisher was such a bad winner - he never stopped praising himself for being right.
Fisher got a lot of technical matters right - he was one of the few senior officers of the Royal Navy at the time who seems to have been genuinely interested in technology. He had an ability to persuade, enough passion for ten men, and a whim of iron. But he believed utterly in his own rightness and saw any deviation as heresy. Indeed, Fisher's greatest problem was theological - his Holy Trinity featured himself as a prominent member. And when he got something wrong - or only partially right - the results were very bad. On the plus side, he gave Britain the lead in all-big-gun ships and coined the memorable class-name dreadnought for them. He invented the term destroyer, promoted aviation and submarines, worked tirelessly to improve gunnery and general efficiency of the fleet. He recognized the threat from Germany, reduced the 'gunboat fleet' and concentrated on building a modern, powerful battlefleet.
But he believed that turbine-powered ships could at least partially dispense with armor, using their superior speed to hold open the range and their big guns to destroy an enemy at ranges from which he could not effectively reply. This was absolutely true - for a few years and until other powers built dreadnoughts and battlecruisers of their own. if Fisher deserves credit for the idea of the dreadnought then he also bears direct responsibility for the lives of the 3300 crewmen lost in the explosion of HMS Indefatigable, Princess Royal and Invincible.
From 'A Special Providence' comes my take on a Beresford Admiralty:
Fisher got a lot of technical matters right - he was one of the few senior officers of the Royal Navy at the time who seems to have been genuinely interested in technology. He had an ability to persuade, enough passion for ten men, and a whim of iron. But he believed utterly in his own rightness and saw any deviation as heresy. Indeed, Fisher's greatest problem was theological - his Holy Trinity featured himself as a prominent member. And when he got something wrong - or only partially right - the results were very bad. On the plus side, he gave Britain the lead in all-big-gun ships and coined the memorable class-name dreadnought for them. He invented the term destroyer, promoted aviation and submarines, worked tirelessly to improve gunnery and general efficiency of the fleet. He recognized the threat from Germany, reduced the 'gunboat fleet' and concentrated on building a modern, powerful battlefleet.
But he believed that turbine-powered ships could at least partially dispense with armor, using their superior speed to hold open the range and their big guns to destroy an enemy at ranges from which he could not effectively reply. This was absolutely true - for a few years and until other powers built dreadnoughts and battlecruisers of their own. if Fisher deserves credit for the idea of the dreadnought then he also bears direct responsibility for the lives of the 3300 crewmen lost in the explosion of HMS Indefatigable, Princess Royal and Invincible.
From 'A Special Providence' comes my take on a Beresford Admiralty:
To challenge the Royal Navy you have to mount a challenge and be seen as a challenger. Had Beresford kept the confidence of King Edward VII and been in charge instead of Fisher, the Royal Navy would have gone only reluctantly into the battleship (as opposed to ironclad) age. Had Wilhelm II been less of a publicity-loving, tone-deaf chowderhead, Tirpitz might have gotten into better striking range before Britain woke up. So it goes - the 'ifs' accumulate.
The British don't get the pre-dreadnought tech (in this game of Victoria) until around 1889 or 1890. The US gets it in 1883 or so. Given that the game says the US is building pre-dreadnoughts, what could those be? Devastation and ships like her - capital ships recognizable as battleships and not central-battery or sail-equipped ironclads. I know that isn't a particularly good place to draw the line and it certainly isn't where I would choose, but - the game says the US is building battleships in 1883, and Devastation is just about the best tech available.
In the history of 'Providence', the jeune ecole has triumphed in Britain, where the Royal Navy is busily building light ships for commerce protection. As several of you have pointed out, the lack of any serious challenger has allowed the Royal Navy to get by on very small budgets. It seems likely to me that the best and brightest officers would have left the Navy or given up and become drones, so if anything the Royal Navy of 'Providence' is even more reactionary and hide-bound than it was in real life.
As to the American answer, Devastation dates from 1873 and the Admiral class from 1887. The revolutionary Duilio and Dandolo likewise date from 1880. With a little creative jiggering we can have 'battleships' displacing 10,000 tons with modest freeboard (no masts or sails) making 15 knots under steam alone, with 4-12" breech-loading rifles in two turrets or barbettes and boasting 14-16" armor. Add in a battery of 6 to 8x6" quick-firing guns and these look like battleships. Their guns and armor would be sufficient to blow a protected cruiser out of the water.
Essential here is that we assume the Royal Navy made a complacent, budget-bound decision to put commerce and colonies over battle fleets. They believe that two (or four) British protected cruisers could out-fight a battleship. In such a closed-in, self-centered, reactionary service no British admiral would assume otherwise. The big American ships would be derided as wasteful, inefficient freaks (as the big American frigates were viewed before 1812).
(Author's note: later in the story Britain does declare war on the US. Using bases in the Canaries the US seizes the Channel Islands and literally sweeps the old ironclads and armored cruisers of the Royal Navy out of the Channel in two shattering sea-fights. The US can't blockade Britain but it can stop up the major ports and wreck her commerce. However it is the virtual destruction of the Royal Navy and the American occupation of Canada that brings the war to a close.
The British don't get the pre-dreadnought tech (in this game of Victoria) until around 1889 or 1890. The US gets it in 1883 or so. Given that the game says the US is building pre-dreadnoughts, what could those be? Devastation and ships like her - capital ships recognizable as battleships and not central-battery or sail-equipped ironclads. I know that isn't a particularly good place to draw the line and it certainly isn't where I would choose, but - the game says the US is building battleships in 1883, and Devastation is just about the best tech available.
In the history of 'Providence', the jeune ecole has triumphed in Britain, where the Royal Navy is busily building light ships for commerce protection. As several of you have pointed out, the lack of any serious challenger has allowed the Royal Navy to get by on very small budgets. It seems likely to me that the best and brightest officers would have left the Navy or given up and become drones, so if anything the Royal Navy of 'Providence' is even more reactionary and hide-bound than it was in real life.
As to the American answer, Devastation dates from 1873 and the Admiral class from 1887. The revolutionary Duilio and Dandolo likewise date from 1880. With a little creative jiggering we can have 'battleships' displacing 10,000 tons with modest freeboard (no masts or sails) making 15 knots under steam alone, with 4-12" breech-loading rifles in two turrets or barbettes and boasting 14-16" armor. Add in a battery of 6 to 8x6" quick-firing guns and these look like battleships. Their guns and armor would be sufficient to blow a protected cruiser out of the water.
Essential here is that we assume the Royal Navy made a complacent, budget-bound decision to put commerce and colonies over battle fleets. They believe that two (or four) British protected cruisers could out-fight a battleship. In such a closed-in, self-centered, reactionary service no British admiral would assume otherwise. The big American ships would be derided as wasteful, inefficient freaks (as the big American frigates were viewed before 1812).
(Author's note: later in the story Britain does declare war on the US. Using bases in the Canaries the US seizes the Channel Islands and literally sweeps the old ironclads and armored cruisers of the Royal Navy out of the Channel in two shattering sea-fights. The US can't blockade Britain but it can stop up the major ports and wreck her commerce. However it is the virtual destruction of the Royal Navy and the American occupation of Canada that brings the war to a close.