The Decisive Battle

  • Geoffrey Till

Abstract

In 1921, the British Government held an enquiry into the future of naval warfare in general and of battleships in particular. Among the witnesses called to give evidence before it there were several like Admiral S. S. Hall who believed that the day of the battleship was over; for evidence, he pointed to these vessels’ relative inactivity and apparent uselessness in the First World War.

Keywords

Steam Shipping Assure Expense Smoke 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Richmond, Evidence to the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Ship-building 5 January 1921, Cab 16/37 Public Record Office, London.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Battle description from ‘An Authentic Narrative’ quoted in Woodward (1965) p. 52; also Gorshkov (1979) p. 75.Google Scholar
  3. 1.
    Richmond, Evidence to the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Ship-building 5 January 1921, Cab 16/37 Public Record Office, London.Google Scholar
  4. Also Gorshkov (1979) p. 75.Google Scholar
  5. 3.
    Tunstall (1936) p. 173.Google Scholar
  6. 4.
    Jane (1906) pp. 149–50.Google Scholar
  7. 5.
    Quoted in Rodgers (1937) p. 241.Google Scholar
  8. 6.
    Corbett (1918) pp. 104, 154–5.Google Scholar
  9. 7.
    Quoted in Richmond (1946) pp. 30–1.Google Scholar
  10. 8.
    These passages owe much to Wilson (1957).Google Scholar
  11. 9.
    Ramatuelle quoted in Rosinski (1977) p. xiii.Google Scholar
  12. 10.
    Richmond, book review, Naval Review (1933).Google Scholar
  13. 11.
    de Lanessan (1903).Google Scholar
  14. 12.
    Such is the argument of Laughton (1875) p. 524.Google Scholar
  15. 13.
    Lewis (1948) pp. 455–536.Google Scholar
  16. 14.
    Quoted in Puleston (1939) p. 295.Google Scholar
  17. 15.
    Custance (1907) p. 123–4.Google Scholar
  18. 16.
    Mahan quoted and discussed in Corbett (1918) pp. 114–136; (1910) p. 250.Google Scholar
  19. 17.
    Richmond (1946) p. 67.Google Scholar
  20. 18.
    Mahan (1911) p. 422.Google Scholar
  21. 19.
    Mahan quoted in Westcott (1919) p. 156.Google Scholar
  22. 20.
    Ibid. pp. 128–9; Mahan quoted in Puleston (1939) p. 294.Google Scholar
  23. 21.
    Nelson quoted in Mahan (1899) p. 695; Mahan quoted in Taylor (1920) pp. 234–5.Google Scholar
  24. 22.
    Quoted in Mahan vol. I (1892) p. 284.Google Scholar
  25. 23.
    Quoted in Bacon (1936) p. 247.Google Scholar
  26. 24.
    Bridge (1907) p. 218.Google Scholar
  27. 25.
    Letter of 17 June 1916, in author’s possession.Google Scholar
  28. 26.
    Gorshkov (1979) pp. 98–9.Google Scholar
  29. 27.
    Grenfell (1937) pp. 137, 175 et seq.Google Scholar
  30. 28.
    Custance (1907) p. 113.Google Scholar
  31. 29.
    In my view there is such a misjudgement in the excellent Schurman (1965) p. 142.Google Scholar
  32. 30.
    Richmond (1946) p. 67.Google Scholar
  33. 31.
    Acworth (1935) p. 116.Google Scholar
  34. 32.
    Corbett vol. I (1920) p. 2.Google Scholar
  35. 33.
    Quoted Sydenham (1931).Google Scholar
  36. 34.
    Gorshkov (1979) p. 11.Google Scholar
  37. 35.
    Corbett (1918) p. 143.Google Scholar
  38. 36.
    Corbett vol. I (1907) pp. 3–4.Google Scholar
  39. 37.
    Ibid. p. 289.Google Scholar
  40. 38.
    Corbett (1918) p. 153.Google Scholar
  41. 39.
    Corbett (1910) p. 94.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Geoffrey Till 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Geoffrey Till

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations