Tennessee-class cruiser
USS North Carolina
| |
Class overview | |
---|---|
Builders |
|
Operators | United States Navy |
Preceded by | Pennsylvania class |
Succeeded by | None |
Built | 1903–1906 |
In commission | 1906–1946 |
Completed | 4 |
Lost | 1 |
Scrapped | 3 |
General characteristics | |
Type | Armored cruiser |
Displacement |
|
Length | 504 ft 6 in (153.8 m) |
Beam | 72 ft 10 in (22.2 m) |
Draft | 25 ft (7.6 m) |
Installed power | 23,000 ihp (17,150 kW) |
Propulsion |
|
Speed | 22 knots (41 km/h; 25 mph) |
Complement | 887 officers and enlisted |
Armament |
|
Armor |
|
The Tennessee-class cruisers were four armored cruisers built for the United States Navy between 1903 and 1906. Their main armament of four 10-inch (254 mm) guns in twin turrets was the heaviest carried by any American armored cruiser. Their armor was thinner than that of the six Pennsylvanias which immediately preceded them, a controversial but inevitable decision due to newly imposed congressional restraints on tonnage for armored cruisers and the need for them to be able to steam at 22 knots (41 km/h; 25 mph). However, the fact their armor covered a wider area of the ship than in the Pennsylvanias and their increased firepower caused them to be seen by the Navy as an improvement.
The Tennessees were the largest and last American armored cruisers built, a response to foreign developments and the changing notion of the armored cruiser from fast scout, convoy escort and commerce raider to auxiliary capital ship in a battle line, despite its thin armor protection compared to that of battleships. The Battle of Tsushima in 1905 was seen to validate this concept. While they were being built, questions remained in U.S. naval circles over whether they possessed enough speed, armament or armor to perform their intended duties adequately. They were generally considered armed and protected strongly enough to combat an enemy armored cruiser successfully. Even so, it was generally conceded that with this class a limit had been reached and that the modern armored cruiser no longer exemplified the logical principles of attack and defense in warship design, which meant using the most efficient weapon to its desired end. The appearance of the British Invincible-class battlecruisers, with their greater speed and firepower, ensured their obsolescence as fighting units.
All four ships in this class were given the hull classification symbol CA (armored cruiser) when the Navy adopted that system in 1920, and renamed by then so their original names could be used for new battleships.
Background
Cruiser race; Japanese rumblings
A race to build armored cruisers to protect maritime trade, attack commerce and maintain a presence at foreign stations had been taking place since the 1890s, with ships built with larger guns and an arrangement of guns and armor similar, at least in overall design if not in degree, to that of battleships.[1] The Royal Navy had pursued an extended period of armored cruiser construction as part of the arms race between it and the Imperial German Navy and to have enough ships to safeguard the vast British Empire. Beginning with the Cressy class in 1898, it had laid down or was planning seven classes of armored cruisers, a total of 35 ships.[2][clarification needed][3][clarification needed][4] The last of these, the Minotaur class, would displace 14,600 tons, be capable of 23 knots (43 km/h; 26 mph) and be armed with four 9.2-inch (234 mm) and 10 7.5-inch (191 mm) guns. This would give Great Britain the largest armored cruiser force in the world.[5][clarification needed][6][7] France was building a series of increasingly large armored cruisers for scouting and commercial warfare, beginning with the 11,000-ton Jeanne d'Arc in 1896, protected with a 6-inch (152 mm) belt and armed with 7.6-inch (193 mm) and 5.5-inch (140 mm) guns, and culminating with the 14,000-ton Edgar Quinet class, slightly faster at 23 knots, armed with 14 7.74-inch (197 mm) guns and armored with up to 6.7 inches (170 mm) on their belts, almost 4 inches (100 mm) on their decks and 6 inches (150 mm) on their turrets.[8][clarification needed][9][clarification needed] Germany, as part of its Second Naval Law, began a series of 14 armored cruisers envisioned for use on overseas stations. Between 1897 and 1906 they would lay down eight, the initial two armed with 9.44-inch (240 mm) guns, the other six with more modern 8.2-inch (208 mm). The final pair, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, would displace 12,781 tons, steam at 23.5 knots, carry 6 inches (152 mm) of belt and 2 inches (51 mm) of deck armor and carry eight 8.2 inch guns.[6]
Then there was
To keep up with these developments and better protect the large sea areas the U.S. had recently won in the
Development
Several design issues on the new cruisers had to be worked out by C&R before a proposed design could be finalized. Bowles was concerned over what he considered inadequate protection in the Pennsylvanias, especially the thin deck armor near the main magazines. British designs placed these magazines well below the ship's waterline and far back from her sides but tended to be much smaller than in US designs. Since US cruisers generally carried heavier armament than their British counterparts, this necessitated magazines with greater volume to ensure adequate ammunition. In his 14,500 proposed design labeled "F," Bowles extended the casemate armor to include the turrets and increased the ship's beam slightly to compensate for the added weight. He also wanted to make the side armor one inch thinner than in the Pennsylvanias and concentrate the 6-inch guns at the ends of the ships to increase the areas covered by their protection.[19]
There was also the question of whether any new armament should be included in the proposed cruiser. New weapons under consideration included a 10-inch (254 mm) heavy gun and a 7-inch (178 mm) secondary gun. The 7-inch gun was especially scrutinized since its shell was the heaviest that could be handled manually. Proposed design "G" included both these weapons; however, Bradford suspected that, due to the issue of weight, the 8-inch cannons used in the Pennsylvanias might be more practical as main armament. The weight of four 10-inch and 16 7-inch guns was such that the armor over the casemates would have to be reduced to 1.5 inches (38 mm) for flat surfaces and by 1 inch (25 mm) for the outside slopes. Proposed design "H," armed with four 10-inch and 16 6-inch (152 mm) guns, offered better protection, with 5 inches (127 mm) of casemate armor extended from top to bottom between the two turrets to protect ammunition for the 3-inch (76 mm) anti-torpedo boat guns. This was the design submitted to the Secretary of the Navy on 31 July 1901 with a request to include two additional 3-inch guns and greater isolation of the 6-inch battery.[20]
Meanwhile, Congress had become concerned about the growing size of new Navy ships of all ratings and set a firm limit of 14,500 tons, the same as the Pennsylvanias, for armored cruiser project to be considered for the 1902 naval building program. This limit paralleled one that Congress had previously set for battleships. The estimated weight for proposed design "H" was 14,700 tons. Also, Engineer in Chief
The issue of reducing engineering weight reemerged when Bowles asked for 200 extra tons to increase deck armor. Even with the decrease, he argued, the ships would still be able to make 22 knots. Bradford sided with Bowles but Melville claimed he could save only 50 tons; the other 140 tons could be saved by reducing the amount of coal the ships carried on trials from 900 to 750 tons. This, Bowles replied, would make the new cruisers a "fake design." Nor was it entirely clear whether they really needed 25,000 horsepower to attain their designed speed. Model testing, then new, was apparently something in which Melville did not believe and none of the Pennsylvanias had yet run trials. Melville cited British cruisers of the same size as the new design, which used 30,000 horsepower to steam at 24 knots. After heated discussion the board agreed on 23,000 indicated horsepower and a design speed of 22 knots.[22]
The first pair of these cruisers, Tennessee and Washington, were approved by Congress under the 1902 Naval Building Program. The other pair, North Carolina and Montana, were approved in 1904.[22]
Design
In the Navy's view, the evolution of the armored cruiser from the New York and Brooklyn to the Tennessee class was a progression toward "what was in reality a battle-cruiser." As such, it claimed, the Tennessees "excelled in battery power and protection any armored cruiser built, building, or designed, in the world at that time." The issue of speed did not go away and the Tennessees were criticized within the Bureau of Construction and Repair for being slower than their British and French counterparts. Engineer in Chief Melville stated in his minority report, "I cannot believe that Congress did not intend that these vessels should be equal to or superior to any of their class, that class being armored cruisers, and not battleships where very high speed may not be so essential; and I am not at all certain that an additional knot and the power for it should not have been insisted upon in the first place."[23]
General characteristics
The Tennessee- and Pennsylvania-class cruisers were nearly identical in overall size. They shared a length of 504 ft 6 in (153.77 m), and draft of 25 ft (7.6 m). With a beam of 72 feet 10 inches (22.20 m), the Tennessees were only 3 ft 1 in (0.94 m) wider and displaced just over 800 tons more for a total of 14,500 long tons (14,733 t) standard, 15,712 long tons (15,964 tonnes) full load. While their hull designs were essentially the same, the Tennessees benefited from improved underwater lines; this plus a beamy waterline plane made these ships extremely steady at maintaining speed and allowed them, even with their increased weight, to steam at 22 knots with no increase in horsepower specifications over the Pennsylvanias. They tended to pitch rather than roll in heavy seas but were basically considered good sea boats. Freeboard at the line of the main deck was 18 feet (5.5 m) amidships, 24 feet (7.3 m) forward and 21.5 feet (6.6 m) aft. The conning tower, located on the lower bridge, was one deck higher than in the Pennsylvania class.[24]
Propulsion
Although Melville had argued for triple screws (for which he had advocated since the 1890s), the twin-screw arrangement of the Pennsylvanias was retained. Two four-cylinder vertical
Design speed was 22 knots (25 mph; 41 km/h).[26][27] Despite Melville's concern about insufficient power, all four ships performed higher than expected during trials in both horsepower and speed.[28] Each ship went through its speed trials in two stages, a four-hour run at flank speed and a 24-hour endurance run at the maximum maintainable speed.
Name | Four-hour IHP | Four-hour speed | 24-hour IHP | 24-hour speed |
---|---|---|---|---|
Tennessee | 25,892 | 22.16 knots (41.04 km/h) | 21,600 | 21.28 knots (39.41 km/h)[25] |
Washington | 26,862 | 22.27 knots (41.24 km/h) | --- | --- |
North Carolina | 26,038 | 22.48 knots (41.63 km/h) | 19,802 | 20.6 knots (38.2 km/h)[29] |
Montana | 27,489 | 22.26 knots (41.23 km/h) | 19,102 | 20.48 knots (37.93 km/h)[29] |
Armament
Barring USS Maine's original designation as an armored cruiser, the Tennessees carried the heaviest-caliber ordnance of any American cruiser until the Alaska class appeared during World War II. Their armament represented increases of 29.7 percent in ordnance and a 47.5 percent in broadside weight over the Pennsylvania class. With very few exceptions, they outgunned every foreign armored cruiser either afloat or then being built.[30] In "The Seapower of the Nations" section of Army & Navy Illustrated, columnist John Leyland cites Admiral O'Neill's annual ordnance report to Congress that the aim of the US Navy "has always been ... to build vessels of all classes with great gun-power ... that they should be superior to foreign vessels of like classes in that respect." To illustrate this point, Leyland supplies a table comparing firepower and broadside weight of comparative foreign cruisers. Broadside weight includes main and secondary weapons [31]
Name | Country | Displacement (tons) | Armament | Weight of discharge | Speed |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Good Hope | Britain | 14,100 | 2 × 9.2-inch (234 mm), 16 × 6-inch (152 mm) | 2,560-pound (1,160 kg) | 23 knots (43 km/h) |
Tennessee | US | 14,500 | 4 × 10-inch (254 mm), 16 × 6-inch (152 mm) | 3,900 pounds (1,800 kg) | 22 knots (41 km/h) |
Jules Ferry | France | 12,550 | 4 × 194-millimetre (7.6 in), 16 × 164-millimetre (6.5 in) | 2,260 pounds (1,030 kg) | 22 knots (41 km/h) |
Fürst Bismarck | Germany | 10,650 | 4 × 240-millimetre (9.4 in), 12 × 150-millimetre (5.9 in) | 3,200 pounds (1,500 kg) | 19 knots (35 km/h) |
Tsukuba | Japan | 13,750 | 4 × 12-inch (305 mm), 12 × 6-inch (152 mm), 12 × 4.7-inch (119 mm) | 4,400 pounds (2,000 kg) | 20.5 knots (38.0 km/h) |
Main guns
The Tennessees' main armament consisted of four
The Mark 3 was the last 10-inch gun built for the U.S. Navy, with a tube, jacket, locking ring and screw box liner manufactured from
The main guns benefited from their placement when compared to those of foreign armored cruisers. The British mounted the majority of 9.2-inch guns on its Duke of Edinburgh, Warrior and Minotaur-class cruisers athwart their forecastles on the main deck. This made the guns very wet and practically useless in less than moderate seas. The 10-inch guns of the Tennessees, on the other hand, were 30 feet (9.1 m) above the waterline. In comparing these ships, theoretician and chief constructor for the Royal Danish Navy, Commander William Hovgaard, considered the Tennessees' placement "beyond question, the best gun position in a ship. The arc of fire is more than twice that which can be obtained on the broadside, the field of view is entirely free, and a combination of longitudinal and broadside fire on both sides is obtained, which is alone possible in the end positions."[30]
Secondary and light guns
The secondary armament comprised sixteen
The Mark 8 six-inch gun was used originally to arm American pre-dreadnoughts in the late 1880s. Many of these guns were reassigned as coastal artillery when the vessels to which they had been previously assigned had been scrapped as a result of the Washington Naval Treaty, the guns were then used as coastal artillery. Some were also mounted on older auxiliary vessels during World War II. Built entirely of nickel steel, the Mark 8 deviated from standard Navy practice in that its nominal caliber length was their actual overall length.[35]
The anti-
For smaller weapons, the Tennessees carried 12 3-pounder semi-automatic guns, two 1-pounder automatic guns, two 1-pounder rapid-fire guns, two 3-inch field pieces, two .30-caliber machine guns and six .30-caliber automatic guns. These were mounted on the upper deck, bridges, in the tops, and wherever else they could secure the most commanding positions. They were to be ready at all times for repelling torpedo boat attacks and for inflicting damage upon the unprotected portion of an enemy's ship.[36][38]
Protection
Armor
Despite reduced thicknesses in belt and deck armor compared to the Pennsylvania class, the Tennessees carried 30 percent more weight in armor and related protective systems and boasted the heaviest, most comprehensive protection of any U.S. cruiser until the
The main waterline belt, 5 inches (127 mm) thick amidships and tapered to 3 inches (76 mm) at the ends, extended from the upper deck to 5 feet (2 m) below the waterline. Transverse protective bulkheads of 5-inch (127 mm) armor extended from the gun deck to the armored deck across the fore and aft ends of the belt armor. Similar bulkheads fitted on the gun deck in wake of the 10-inch barbettes form the fore and aft limits of the side armor between the main and gun decks. Above the gun deck, 2-inch (51 mm) nickel steel was fitted in wake of the 3-inch battery. The 6-inch guns on the gun deck were isolated by splinter bulkheads of 1.5-inch (38 mm) nickel steel. The bulkheads extended continuously across the ship, while 2-inch (51 mm) nickel steel extended fore and aft.[40][38]
Turret armor was 9 inches (229 mm) on the sloping face, 7 inches (178 mm) on the sides, 5 inches (127 mm) in the rear and 2.5 inches (64 mm) on top. For the first time in U.S. cruiser design, proper barbettes for the turrets were fitted. The armor for these was 7 inches (178 mm) in front, tapered to 4 inches (102 mm) at the back and below the gun deck, behind the belt and casemate armor. This enclosed the 10-inch ammunition tubes completely and corrected a glaring flaw in the protective system of the Pennsylvania class.[41] Deck armor, 1.5 inches (38 mm) over flat surfaces and 3 inches (76 mm) over sloped, extended to the bottom of the belt armor fore and aft. A 30-inch (1 m)-thick cofferdam fitted between the protective and berth decks to the ends of the vessel, were filled with water-excluding material to aid in buoyancy in case of damage below the waterline.[40] Conning tower armor was 9 inches (230 mm) on the sides, 2 inches (51 mm) on the roof, and signal tower armor 5 inches (127 mm).[38]
Subdivision
While the Tennessees and Pennsylvanias shared the same number of transverse bulkheads, the Tennessees were built with a greater amount of longitudinal subdivision.[42][43] The inner bottom, subdivided into 35 watertight compartments, extended from the keel to the protective deck at each side and fore and aft to the knuckle of the keel. Underwater protection was further increased by continuing this subdivision up the complete side of the subsurface hull to the lower edge of the armored deck slopes. Twenty-eight electrically operated Long-Arm watertight doors and five armored hatches helped maintain watertight integrity beneath the armored deck.[44]
Modifications
Before North Carolina and Montana were laid down, the Bureau of Construction and Repair (C&R) made some minor design changes in light of experience gained from the Russo-Japanese War. Their main traverse bulkheads remained unpierced below the armored deck and some armor was rearranged. Armor on the barbettes was increased 1 inch (25 mm) on exposed surfaces. Deck armor over the magazines was thickened from 40 pounds (18 kg) to 60 pounds (27 kg) over the magazines; to make up for this weight, side armor abeam was reduced slightly. The magazines were rearranged to allow 20 percent additional 10-inch and 6-inch ammunition without sacrificing coal capacity. Rearranging the berth and gun decks amidships increased coal capacity by 200 tons. Coal bunkers were also modified to allow trimming directly from the upper bunkers to the fire rooms, which was considered potentially advantageous in battle. Throughout this review process, the Bureau sought to save weight whenever possible. For example, cellulose was omitted as water-excluding material as its utility after being packed a number a years had come into question.[28]
In service, the Tennessees went through less refitting than the Pennsylvanias, as many features retrofitted to the latter, such as automatic ammunition hoist structures and longitudinal turret bulkheads, had already been built into the former from the outset. Their power plants were standardized, with Babcock & Wilcox boilers instead of the less reliable Niclausse that had to be removed from two of the Pennsylvanias. Also, since the Tennessees were commissioned up to three years after the first units of the Pennsylvania class, they reached obsolescence earlier in their careers.[45]
Built originally with pole masts fore and aft, these ships were fitted with lattice masts forward and modernizing the bridges in 1912. In early 1917, Washington (by then renamed USS Seattle) was fitted with a seaplane catapult and one other Tennessee-class cruiser, probably Montana, was scheduled to receive one. While the plane was seen as a potential aid in reconnaissance, the catapult precluded use of the aft main guns. This program was cancelled and the catapult removed before the United States entered World War I. During the war, the 6-inch and 3-inch armament was removed and the corresponding ports sealed. This was done to provide guns for arming merchant ships and auxiliaries and to improve watertightness under North Atlantic conditions.[46][47]
Reevaluation
Even before HMS Invincible was built, questions arose in US Navy circles about the overall effectiveness of armored cruisers such as the Tennessees and what kind of ship might be built to replace them. The 1903 annual summer conference report, which included a staff memorandum on all-big capital ships, also mentioned a new type of fast armored cruiser that would be armed and armored much like a battleship. The following year, the summer conference considered tactics for a ship armed with four 12-inch guns, twenty-two 3-inch guns, four submerged torpedo tubes and armored like a battleship. Ships such as these were essentially Tennessee-class vessels in which the 6-inch battery had been traded for heavier main guns and protection and figured in Naval War College studies for several years. The 1906 summer conference report on a US building program advocated strongly the construction of such ships. The justification for them was two-fold: first, their use in scouting and as a fast wing in a fleet action; and second, their much greater ability over the Tennessees to stand up to 12-inch gunfire.[48]
The appearance of the British Invincible-class battlecruisers in 1908 and the larger, faster ships of her class that followed reduced the viability of the Tennessee class as fighting units drastically. While some Navy circles considered the Pennsylvania and Tennessee classes the only ones "dignified enough to bear the name of armored cruiser," it was also generally agreed after the
The college tested its proposed armored cruiser against the Invincibles and other ships like them. By 1908, it had come out in favor of battlecruisers. The Secretary of the Navy requested designs from C&R for battlecruiser equivalents of the Wyoming-class ships then being considered. The Navy General Board retained these sketches but did not recommend construction. With the laying down by Japan of its Kongō-class battlecruisers in 1911, C&R was asked to return its attention to like projects, which led to its series of Lexington designs.[51][52]
Post-WWI Role and Potential Rearmament
With the end of World War I in 1918, the Navy began a sharp reduction in personnel. By 1919, the Navy Board had decided to keep four of the eight remaining Pennsylvania and Tennessee-class cruisers in full commission and the other four in reserve with 65 percent of their crews on board. The ships kept in service would become flagships in foreign stations such as the Asiatic Fleet and "show the flag" at various ports. However, these ships were seen as completely outmoded, with most of their foreign equivalents either lost during the war or removed from service afterwards.[53]
In December 1919, the Bureau of Ordnance pressed for the restoration of full armament for these ships. C&R replied with three reasons not to do so. First, restoring full armament to ships of their then-current age was not justifiable. Second, since they would serve in peacetime, their current armament would suffice. Finally, even with their 6-inch gun ports closed, they were wet ships in North Atlantic winter seas; Captain W.C. Cole, who had formerly commanded the Pennsylvania-class cruiser USS Frederick (formerly USS Maryland), remembered seeing men up to their waists in water. Whatever medium-caliber guns had been restored after the war were removed by the late 1920s.[54]
Modernization plans
After the
Modernization was considered again in 1928. This would include the installation of 8-inch/55 guns, an anti-aircraft battery, fire controls, oil-fired boilers and torpedo bulkheads. The estimated cost of $6 million did not include new engines. It was argued that, despite the 1922 study, a significant increase in speed would be prohibitive in cost as "the underwater lines of these ships do not lend themselves to these increases." It was conceded that without an increase in speed, the ships had little tactical value and the war plans division of
The main issue turned out to be political, with War Plans concerned that reconstruction of the Tennessees might disrupt the building of new cruisers and with doubts about whether they would compare to more modern ships, even with their superior tonnage. Costs had escalated to $17 million and it did not seem profitable to modernize ships that would be between 25 and 28 years old once modernization was complete. Also, the Bureau of Ordnance did not consider replacing their guns practical. This meant that, if these ships were kept in service 15 years after modernization, they might eventually face weapons over 40 years more advanced than their own. Despite these developments, detailed studies continued.[56]
C&R found it could install a 58,000–
Ships
Original name | Laid down
|
Launched | Commissioned | Renamed | Renaming date | Reclassified | Reclassification date |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
USS Tennessee (ACR-10) | 9 February 1903 | 3 December 1904 | 17 July 1906 | Memphis (ACR-10) | 25 May 1916 | sunk before reclassified | N/A |
USS Washington (ACR-11) | 10 February 1903 | 18 March 1905 | 7 August 1906 | Seattle (ACR-11) | 9 November 1916 | Seattle (CA-11) | 17 July 1920 |
USS North Carolina (ACR-12) | 21 March 1905 | 6 October 1906 | 7 May 1908 | Charlotte (ACR-12) | 7 June 1920 | Charlotte (CA-12) | - |
USS Montana (ACR-13) | 29 April 1905 | 15 December 1906 | 21 July 1908 | Missoula (ACR-13) | 7 June 1920 | Missoula (CA-13) | 17 July 1920 |
USS Tennessee
In November 1906, USS Tennessee escorted
USS Washington
With USS Tennessee, USS Washington escorted USS Louisiana and President Roosevelt to Panama and participated the Jamestown Exposition. She and Tennessee visited France and returned to run speed trials. She and Tennessee then joined the Pacific Fleet; en route, the two armored cruisers called at
USS North Carolina
After carrying President-elect William Howard Taft to inspect the Panama Canal in January and February 1909, USS North Carolina cruised the Mediterranean with USS Montana to protect American interests during the aftermath of the
USS Montana
Assigned to the Atlantic Fleet, USS Montana sailed in January 1909 for the Caribbean, then to the Mediterranean to protect American interests in the aftermath of the
See also
Bibliography
Notes
- ^ The Russian Baltic Fleet's poor mechanical condition and inability to refuel while sailing halfway around the world to fight the Japanese, only to be defeated at the Battle of Tsushima, was a huge motivation in sending the Great White Fleet. Roosevelt felt, in light of that victory and Great Britain's withdrawal of many of its naval units to its home waters, that the Navy's ability to perform a similar scenario in the Pacific and maintain battle-readiness needed reassessment, should the likelihood arise.[13][14]
References
- ^ Hovgaard 1905, p. 111.
- ^ Brown, p. 157–8.
- ^ Lambert, pp. 20–22.
- ^ Osborne 2004, pp. 61–2.
- ^ Brown, p. 158.
- ^ a b Conway's 1979, p. 142.
- ^ Osborne 2004, pp. 62, 74.
- ^ Roberts, p. 128.
- ^ Ropp et al, pp. 296–7.
- ^ Conroy's, p. 223.
- ISBN 0-87021-192-7.
- ^ Marolda 2001, pp. 3–4.
- ^ Dalton 2002, p. 333.
- ^ Symmonds & Clipson 1995, p. 122.
- ^ O'Brien 2007, pp. 28–9.
- ^ Cooper 2009, p. 208.
- ^ a b c "ACR-10 Tennessee / CA-10 Memphis". GlobalSecurity.org. 22 July 2011. Retrieved 20 April 2012.
- ^ Friedman 1984, pp. 45, 49–52.
- ^ Friedman 1984, pp. 50, 52.
- ^ Friedman 1984, pp. 52–3.
- ^ Friedman 1984, p. 53.
- ^ a b Friedman 1984, pp. 53–4.
- ^ "The Speed of Armored Cruisers". The Engineering Magazine: An Industrial Review. December 1902. Retrieved 23 April 2012.
- ^ Musicant 1985, pp. 149–50.
- ^ a b U.S. Armored Cruiser Tennessee. American Society of Naval Engineers. February 1906. Retrieved 23 April 2012.
- ^ Brassey 2011, p. 62.
- ^ a b Friedman 1984, p. 54.
- ^ a b "U.S. Armored Cruisers North Carolina and Montana". The Navy. United States Navy. July 1908. Retrieved 23 April 2012.
- ^ a b Musicant 1985, p. 152.
- ^ Leyland, John, "The Seapower of the Nations." In Navy & Army Illustrated, Volume 15, 29 November 1902. Accessed 16 April 2012.
- ^ 380 lb shell, with 103 lb cordite Mk I propellant size 44 (originally) (Text Book of Gunnery 1902), or 120 lb cordite MD size 37 (1914 onwards). Hogg & Thurston 1972, p. 165
- ^ Hogg & Thurston 1972, p. 165.
- ^ a b c "ACR-10 Tennessee / CA-10 Memphis - Armament". GlobalSecurity.org. 22 July 2011. Retrieved 19 April 2012.
- ^ "United States of America 3"/50 (7.62 cm) Marks 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8". NavWeaps.com. 12 February 2012. Retrieved 16 April 2012.
- ^ a b c Friedman 1984, p. 467.
- ^ Musicant 1985, pp. 156–8.
- ^ a b "ACR-10 Tennessee / CA-10 Memphis - Armor Protection". GlobalSecurity.org. 22 July 2011. Retrieved 19 April 2012.
- ^ Musicant 1985, p. 158.
- ^ "U.S.S. Pennsylvania: Class of Eight Armored Cruisers (1905)". cityofart.com. Retrieved 17 April 2012.
- ^ "USS Washington 1907 plan". cityofart.net. Retrieved 17 April 2012.
- ^ Musicant 1985, p. 150.
- ^ Musicant 1985, pp. 98, 170.
- ^ Friedman 1984, pp. 57, 59–60.
- ^ Musicant 1985, p. 170.
- ^ a b Friedman 1984, p. 61.
- ^ Treatise on Ammunition, 1915
- ^ Burr 2008, pp. 7–8.
- ^ Friedman 1984, pp. 61–2.
- ^ Morison & Polmar 2003, p. 70.
- ^ Friedman 1984, p. 59.
- ^ Friedman 1984, pp. 59–60.
- ^ a b Friedman 1984, p. 60.
- ^ Friedman 1984, pp. 60–1.
- ^ "USS Tennessee (Armored Cruiser # 10), 1906-1916. Renamed Memphis in May 1916". DANFS. 27 January 2005. Archived from the original on March 13, 2012. Retrieved 22 April 2012.
- ^ "Washington". DANFS. 4 February 2004. Retrieved 22 April 2012.
- ^ "North Carolina". DANFS. 9 January 2004. Retrieved 22 April 2012.
- ^ "Montana". DANFS. 4 February 2004. Retrieved 22 April 2012.
Sources
- "The Tennessee Accident". Service Items. The Navy. Washington DC: Navy Publishing Company. June 1908.
- Brassey, Thomas Allnutt, ed. (2011). Brassey's annual: the armed forces year-book, Volume 1901. Nabu Press. ISBN 978-1-248-25595-7.
- Burr, Lawrence (2008). US Cruisers 1883–1904: The Birth of the Steel Navy. Osprey Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84603-267-7.
- Cooper, Michael L. (2009). Theodore Roosevelt: A Twentieth-century Life. New York: Viking. ISBN 978-1-101-16278-1.
- Dalton, Kathleen (2002). Theodore Roosevelt: A Strenuous Life. New York: Vintage Books. ISBN 0-679-76733-9.
- Friedman, Norman (1984). US Cruisers: An Illustrated History. Naval Institute Press. ISBN 0-87021-715-1.
- Gardiner, Robert, ed. (1979). Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1860–1905. Naval Institute Press. ISBN 0-87021-907-3.
- Hogg, I.V.; Thurston, L.F. (1972). British Artillery Weapons & Ammunition 1914–1918. London: Ian Allan. ISBN 0-7110-0381-5.
- Hovgaard, William (1905). "The Cruiser". Transactions: The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. Vol. 13. New York: Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers.
- Marolda, Edward J. (2001). Theodore Roosevelt, the U.S. Navy, and the Spanish–American War. New York: Palgrave. ISBN 0-312-24023-6.
- Morison, Samuel Loring; Polmar, Norman (2003). The American Battleship. St. Paul, Minnesota: MBI. OCLC 50478540.
- Musicant, Ivan (1985). U.S. Armored Cruisers: A Design and Operational History. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 0-87021-714-3.
- O'Brien, Philip (2007). Technology and Naval Combat in the Twentieth Century and Beyond. Routelege. ISBN 978-0-415-44936-6.
- Osborne, Eric W. (2004). Cruisers and Battle Cruisers: An Illustrated History of Their Impact. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 1-85109-369-9.
- Symmonds, Craig L.; Clipson, William J. (1995). The Naval Institute Historical Atlas of the U.S. Navy. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1-55750-984-0.
External links
Media related to Tennessee class cruiser at Wikimedia Commons