Cruiser Policy and Programmes

THE CRUISER QUESTION

In the 1890s the cruiser question was rather more complex than might be thought. In some ways it is more important and significant than the big battleship programmes. In 1887 the term ‘cruiser’ was adopted for the smaller naval vessels; just as the term ‘battleship’ replaced the term ‘ironclad’, the change in nomenclature gave the new-age steel-built ships a sharpened focus in the public mind. To gain any proper understanding of the late Victorian Navy in the years after the passing of the Naval Defence Act the balance between battleship and cruiser programmes needs close examination; and there also needs to be a comparison between the Royal Navy and the navies of the other powers, particularly France and Russia. Between 1879 and 1907 Britain built 62 pre-dreadnought battleships to a Franco-Russian total of 61. The British advantage lay in their lower unit costs; the British ships cost £63 million to a Franco-Russian total of £68.81 million. The tonnage of the respective battleship fleets was also in Britain's favour, 857,729 tons to a Franco-Russian total of 744,940 tons, reflecting the larger and more heavily armed British ships.

Assessing cruiser strength is more difficult. Some sources talk of armoured cruisers and protected cruisers, with a further differentiation into first-, second-, and third-class cruisers. The confusion deepens when cruiser classes are compared. For example, the Orlando class armoured cruisers are obviously important, for the very good reason that they were armoured.