were National Archives and Records Administration I and the Library of Congress in Washington D.C., as well as the Naval Historical Collection at the Naval War College in Newport, RI. The main repositories examined in the U.S.
Lords mobile heroes research spee professional#
Most of the chronology is based on primary material from the bodies mentioned above, as well as professional naval journals from both countries. In addition to battlecruisers, the timeline touches on closely related warship classes like aircraft carriers and fast battleships. For most of the period covered, the War College held annual “summer conferences” of mid-level and senior officers. Much of the American material comes from memoranda sent to or from the Secretary and General Board, but a significant amount also comes from the Naval War College.
Under him were the chiefs of the Navy’s bureaus, responsible for administering their spheres, and the General Board, an advisory body of naval officers charged with providing the Secretary with advice, especially on strategy and force structure. Responsibility for the United States Navy was concentrated in the hands of the civilian Secretary of the Navy. Consequently, most of the British material cited was generated by or for the Admiralty Board The two most important positions were the First Lord of the Admiralty, the civilian Cabinet minister placed in charge of the navy, and the First Sea Lord, the admiral responsible for, among other things, the “fighting and sea-going efficiency of the fleet.” The Admiralty Board, usually dominated by the First Lord or the First Sea Lord, depending on the personalities involved, was collectively responsible for the policy and strategy of the Navy. In Britain, most of this development was led by the Admiralty Board, a group of civilians and high-ranking officers that ran the Royal Navy. Instead of fleets of battleships, naval power would be based on small squadrons of battlecruisers, assisted by torpedo-armed light vessels and submarines. The British Navy, of course, introduced the type, and in Admiral Fisher’s original conception, the ships were the centerpiece of a new type of naval warfare. Navy was the last power to start building battlecruisers, by 1912 they had developed a novel battlecruiser doctrine around the missions of scouting, screening, and “distantial” operations, a role substantially different from their use of armored cruisers. The chronology focuses on the United States and the United Kingdom because those two navies went the furthest in developing missions and doctrine for battlecruisers that leveraged their new capabilities. The American battlecruisers Lexington and Saratoga were later completed as aircraft carriers. The United States Navy began building six battlecruisers-the Lexington class-after World War I but those ships, as well as three British and four Japanese battlecruisers, were cancelled under the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty in 1922. Between 19, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan combined to build twenty-seven battlecruisers.
Faster than battleships, with a uniform battery of heavy guns, and thin armor, the new ships set the pattern for a new class of warship that saw extensive service in the First World War. Soon after become First Sea Lord in 1904, Admiral Fisher pushed the development and construction of the first battlecruisers, the three ships of the Invincible class. This chronology details the development of battlecruisers in the United States and the United Kingdom from their genesis with the British Admiral John “Jacky” Fisher to the Washington Conference in 1922.
0 kommentar(er)
