Skip to main content
  • 21 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 19.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Richmond, Evidence to the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Ship-building 5 January 1921, Cab 16/37 Public Record Office, London.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Battle description from ‘An Authentic Narrative’ quoted in Woodward (1965) p. 52; also Gorshkov (1979) p. 75.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 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. Tunstall (1936) p. 173.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Jane (1906) pp. 149–50.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Quoted in Rodgers (1937) p. 241.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Corbett (1918) pp. 104, 154–5.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Quoted in Richmond (1946) pp. 30–1.

    Google Scholar 

  10. These passages owe much to Wilson (1957).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ramatuelle quoted in Rosinski (1977) p. xiii.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Richmond, book review, Naval Review (1933).

    Google Scholar 

  13. de Lanessan (1903).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Such is the argument of Laughton (1875) p. 524.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lewis (1948) pp. 455–536.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Quoted in Puleston (1939) p. 295.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Custance (1907) p. 123–4.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Mahan quoted and discussed in Corbett (1918) pp. 114–136; (1910) p. 250.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Richmond (1946) p. 67.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mahan (1911) p. 422.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mahan quoted in Westcott (1919) p. 156.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ibid. pp. 128–9; Mahan quoted in Puleston (1939) p. 294.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Nelson quoted in Mahan (1899) p. 695; Mahan quoted in Taylor (1920) pp. 234–5.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Quoted in Mahan vol. I (1892) p. 284.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Quoted in Bacon (1936) p. 247.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Bridge (1907) p. 218.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Letter of 17 June 1916, in author’s possession.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Gorshkov (1979) pp. 98–9.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Grenfell (1937) pp. 137, 175 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Custance (1907) p. 113.

    Google Scholar 

  31. In my view there is such a misjudgement in the excellent Schurman (1965) p. 142.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Richmond (1946) p. 67.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Acworth (1935) p. 116.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Corbett vol. I (1920) p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Quoted Sydenham (1931).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Gorshkov (1979) p. 11.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Corbett (1918) p. 143.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Corbett vol. I (1907) pp. 3–4.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Ibid. p. 289.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Corbett (1918) p. 153.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Corbett (1910) p. 94.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Copyright information

© 1982 Geoffrey Till

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Till, G. (1982). The Decisive Battle. In: Maritime Strategy and the Nuclear Age. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-04500-6_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics