Editing Battlecruiser (section)

==First battlecruisers==
Under the Selborne plan of 1903,{{Ambiguous|date=April 2025}} the Royal Navy intended to start three new battleships and four armoured cruisers each year. However, in late 1904 it became clear that the 1905–1906 programme would have to be considerably smaller, because of lower than expected tax revenue and the need to buy out two Chilean battleships under construction in British yards, lest they be purchased by the Russians for use against the Japanese, Britain's ally. These economic realities meant that the 1905–1906 programme consisted only of one battleship, but three armoured cruisers. The battleship became the revolutionary battleship {{HMS|Dreadnought|1906|2}}, and the cruisers became the three ships of the {{sclass|Invincible|battlecruiser|4}}. Fisher later claimed, however, that he had argued during the committee for the cancellation of the remaining battleship.<ref>Sumida, p. 55</ref>

The construction of the new class was begun in 1906 and completed in 1908, delayed perhaps to allow their designers to learn from any problems with ''Dreadnought''.<ref name="Breyer" /><ref>Roberts, pp. 24–25</ref> The ships fulfilled the design requirement quite closely. On a displacement similar to ''Dreadnought'', the ''Invincible''s were {{convert|40|ft|m|1}} longer to accommodate additional [[boiler (steam generator)|boilers]] and more powerful [[steam turbine|turbines]] to propel them at {{convert|25|kn}}. Moreover, the new ships could maintain this speed for days, whereas pre-dreadnought battleships could not generally do so for more than an hour.<ref>Burr, pp. 7–8</ref> Armed with eight [[BL 12 inch Mk X naval gun|12-inch Mk X guns]], compared to ten on ''Dreadnought'', they had {{convert|6|-|7|in|0}} of armour protecting the hull and the gun turrets. (''Dreadnought''{{'}}s armour, by comparison, was {{convert|11|-|12|in|0}} at its thickest.)<ref>Breyer, pp. 114–17</ref> The class had a very marked increase in speed, displacement and firepower compared to the most recent armoured cruisers but no more armour.<ref name="GG24" />

While the ''Invincible''s were to fill the same role as the armoured cruisers they succeeded, they were expected to do so more effectively. Specifically their roles were:
* '''Heavy reconnaissance.''' Because of their power, the ''Invincible''s could sweep away the screen of enemy cruisers to close with and observe an enemy battlefleet before using their superior speed to retire.
* '''Close support for the battle fleet.''' They could be stationed at the ends of the battle line to stop enemy cruisers harassing the battleships, and to harass the enemy's battleships if they were busy fighting battleships. Also, the ''Invincible''s could operate as the fast wing of the battlefleet and try to outmanoeuvre the enemy.
* '''Pursuit.''' If an enemy fleet ran, then the ''Invincible''s would use their speed to pursue, and their guns to damage or slow enemy ships.
* '''Commerce protection.''' The new ships would hunt down enemy cruisers and commerce raiders.<ref>Roberts, p. 18</ref>

[[File:HMS Invincible (1907) British Battleship.jpg|thumb|left|{{HMS|Invincible|1907|2}}, Britain's first battlecruiser]]
Confusion about how to refer to these new battleship-size armoured cruisers set in almost immediately. Even in late 1905, before work was begun on the ''Invincible''s, a Royal Navy memorandum refers to "large armoured ships" meaning both battleships and large cruisers. In October 1906, the Admiralty began to classify all post-Dreadnought battleships and armoured cruisers as "[[capital ships]]", while Fisher used the term "dreadnought" to refer either to his new battleships or the battleships and armoured cruisers together.<ref>Mackay, pp. 325–26</ref> At the same time, the ''Invincible'' class themselves were referred to as "cruiser-battleships", "dreadnought cruisers"; the term "battlecruiser" was first used by Fisher in 1908. Finally, on 24 November 1911, Admiralty Weekly Order No. 351 laid down that "All cruisers of the "Invincible" and later types are for the future to be described and classified as "battle cruisers" to distinguish them from the armoured cruisers of earlier date."<ref>Admiralty Weekly Orders. 351. – Description and Classification of Cruisers of the "Invincible" and Later Types.  ADM 182/2, quoted at [http://dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php/The_Battle_Cruiser_in_the_Royal_Navy#Tactics The Dreadnought Project: The Battle Cruiser in the Royal Navy.]</ref>

Along with questions over the new ships' nomenclature came uncertainty about their actual role due to their lack of protection. If they were primarily to act as scouts for the battle fleet and hunter-killers of enemy cruisers and commerce raiders, then the seven inches of belt armour with which they had been equipped would be adequate. If, on the other hand, they were expected to reinforce a battle line of dreadnoughts with their own heavy guns, they were too thin-skinned to be safe from an enemy's heavy guns. The ''Invincible''s were essentially extremely large, heavily armed, fast armoured cruisers. However, the viability of the armoured cruiser was already in doubt. A cruiser that could have worked with the Fleet might have been a more viable option for taking over that role.<ref name=GG24>Gardiner & Gray, p. 24</ref><ref name=M494>Massie, p. 494</ref>

Because of the ''Invincible''s{{'}} size and armament, naval authorities considered them capital ships almost from their inception—an assumption that might have been inevitable. Complicating matters further was that many naval authorities, including Lord Fisher, had made overoptimistic assessments from the Battle of Tsushima in 1905 about the armoured cruiser's ability to survive in a battle line against enemy capital ships due to their superior speed. These assumptions had been made without taking into account the Russian [[Baltic Fleet]]'s inefficiency and tactical ineptitude. By the time the term "battlecruiser" had been given to the ''Invincible''s, the idea of their parity with battleships had been fixed in many people's minds.<ref name="GG24"/><ref name=M494/>

Not everyone was so convinced. ''Brassey{{'}}s Naval Annual'', for instance, stated that with vessels as large and expensive as the ''Invincible''s, an admiral "will be certain to put them in the line of battle where their comparatively light protection will be a disadvantage and their high speed of no value."<ref>As quoted in Massie, pp. 494–95</ref> Those in favor of the battlecruiser countered with two points—first, since all capital ships were vulnerable to new weapons such as the [[torpedo]], armour had lost some of its validity; and second, because of its greater speed, the battlecruiser could control the range at which it engaged an enemy.<ref>Friedman, p. 10</ref>