HMS Hero and her
sister, HMS Conqueror, both commissioned in the late 1880s, were described by
Dr.Oscar Parkes, the ultimate authority on British battleships, as “two of the most useless turret sips ever
built for the Navy”. Despite this damning evaluation, which was supported by
many officers during her lifetime, HMS Hero
was to achieve a bizarre degree of fame for over another century. The reason
for this had little to do with the unfortunate vessel herself and depended on
her being named on the cap-band of the seaman featured in the logo of Player’s
Navy Cut cigarettes. In late Victorian uniform, the sailor’s head and torso
were seen though a life-belt, with two poorly-defined ironclads in the background,
that on the right possibly HMS Hero
herself.
The cigarettes were launched by the tobacco company John
Player Ltd. in the same period as the ship herself. These were years in which
there public pride and interest in the Navy was growing – and would continue to
do so up the Great War – as evidenced by the popularity of HMS Pinafore and of sailor suits for
children. In the early years the sailor in the logo was apparently sometimes
bearded, sometimes clean-shaven, but the bearded version seems to have been
standardised in 1907 and has continued up to our own day. The name "Navy Cut" originated from a sailors’
practice of binding a mixture of tobacco leaves and leaving them to mature
under pressure. A slice of this slab came to be known as a "cut".
|
Player's Navy Cut dominates world markets in a late Victorian advestisment |
Commercially
successful and widely recognised as the cigarette brand was, the ship associated
with it was to have a much less stellar career. Both Hero and her sister Conqueror
were designed in a period of transition, when there were conflicting views on
how line-battleships should be armed and armoured. Large calibre breech-loading
rifles were coming into their own, breakthroughs in metallurgy were providing
much more effective armour, and compound steam engines were promising greater
power and fuel-efficacy. Smaller-calibre quick-firing guns, up to 6”, were proving their potential and
there was intense debate as to whether the ram was still a viable weapon in
action. Allied to this was the question of tactics – no fleet action had been
fought with such ships and theories abounded as to how to employ them. The
problem was not the availability of technology but rather how disparate available elements were to be integrated into a single concept which would function
efficiently in line with an agreed tactical doctrine.
|
HMS Hero at sea - and taking on a lot of water |
The controversies of the 1880s were to be resolved in the
next decade with the appearance of the Royal
Sovereign class which was to set the line of evolution that almost all
battleships would thereafter follow, not only in Britain but elsewhere as well.
Getting to this point however involved pursuing number of technical and
tactical dead ends, the most notable being perhaps HMS Hero and HMS Conqueror.
Their basic design premise was that they would combine large calibre guns (two 12”)
in a singl rotating turret, strength enough for ramming, a substantial secondary
armament (four 6” quick-firers), six above-water 14” torpedo tubes, a plethora
of small-calibre weapons, heavy armour and, for good measure, a small torpedo-boat
carried on deck which could be lowered to launch its own separate attacks.
|
HMS Conqueror soon after completion |
These maritime camels
(“horses designed by a committee”) tried to do everything and succeeded in
nothing. With 6200 tons on a 270 ft. hull the freeboard was inevitably low (9.5
feet) and seakeeping was going to abysmally poor. Parkes writes “When HMS Benbow was rolling 5° in a moderate
swell the Conqueror worked through 18° to 20°. In the 1890 manoeuvres
she actually rolled 35° one way so that the cutter stored at bridge level was
washed from its davits” Service on these ships in such conditions must have
been terrifying and living conditions little better since “the bows were
usually buried in a cataract of foam and the mess deck on the main deck forward
became uninhabitable in anything of a seaway due to leaky forecastle fittings.”
The offensive capability was equally inadequate. The 12” weapons in the turret
could not be fired on a bearing of more than 45° to either side of the central
axis due to blast damage to the superstructure. This was underlined in a report
on the 1889 manoeuvres which stated that “What they would have become after the
big guns had been fired over them a few times is at present left to the
imagination.”
|
HMS Hero in an exercise to repel torpedo-boat attack |
Happily this poor seakeeping capability was recognised by the
navy and except for manoeuvres (always in sight of land) these expensive ships
were relegated to duties that kept them in port. Conqueror became the tender to the gunnery training school Cambridge at Devonport in 1889, two
years after launch, and was paid off in 1902. Hero led a similar existence at the
gunnery school Excellent at
Portsmouth, ending up as a target ship and sunk on the Kentish Knock in 1908.
Despite their humdrum lives both ships looked magnificent in Victorian livery and
Hero was to gain immortality of a
sort on the Player’s Navy Cut logo.
And an afterthought – given that all ships are female,
should this misconceived vessel have been named HMS Heroine?