Difference between revisions of "Pacific Station (Royal Navy)"

From The Dreadnought Project
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 24: Line 24:
 
'''September, 1885:'''{{NLOct85|p. 189}}
 
'''September, 1885:'''{{NLOct85|p. 189}}
  
*H.M.S. ''Conquest''.
+
*H.M.S. ''Conquest''
*H.M.S. ''Constance''.
+
*H.M.S. ''Constance''
*H.M.S. ''Cormorant''.
+
*H.M.S. ''Cormorant''
*H.M.S. ''Heroine''.
+
*H.M.S. ''Heroine''
*H.M.S. ''Liffey''.
+
*H.M.S. ''Liffey''
*H.M.S. ''Pelican''.
+
*H.M.S. ''Pelican''
*H.M.S. ''Satellite''.
+
*H.M.S. ''Satellite''
*H.M.S. ''Triumph''.
+
*H.M.S. ''Triumph''
*H.M.S. ''Wild Swan''.
+
*H.M.S. ''Wild Swan''
  
 
'''June, 1890:'''{{NLJul90|p. 189}}
 
'''June, 1890:'''{{NLJul90|p. 189}}
  
*H.M.S. ''Amphion''.
+
*H.M.S. ''Amphion''
*H.M.S. ''Champion''.
+
*H.M.S. ''Champion''
*H.M.S. ''Daphne''.
+
*H.M.S. ''Daphne''
*H.M.S. ''Espiegle''.
+
*H.M.S. ''Espiegle''
*H.M.S. ''Liffey''.
+
*H.M.S. ''Liffey''
*H.M.S. ''Nymphe''.
+
*H.M.S. ''Nymphe''
*H.M.S. ''Pheasant''.
+
*H.M.S. {{UK-1Pheasant}}
*H.M.S. ''Warspite''.
+
*H.M.S. ''Warspite''
  
'''February, 1886:'''{{NLMar96|p. 193}}
+
'''February, 1896:'''{{NLMar96|p. 193}}
  
*H.M.S. ''Comus''.
+
*H.M.S. ''Comus''
*H.M.S. ''Icarus''.
+
*H.M.S. ''Icarus''
*H.M.S. ''Liffey''.
+
*H.M.S. ''Liffey''
*H.M.S. ''Pheasant''.
+
*H.M.S. {{UK-1Pheasant}}
*H.M.S. ''Royal Arthur''.
+
*H.M.S. {{UK-RoyalArthur}}
*H.M.S. ''Satellite''.
+
*H.M.S. ''Satellite''
*H.M.S. ''Wild Swan''.
+
*H.M.S. ''Wild Swan''
  
 
==Footnotes==
 
==Footnotes==

Revision as of 20:49, 6 October 2014

In September, 1901, Andrew Bickford referred in a letter to the Admiralty to "the dangerously weak state of the Squadron."[1] He also requested improvements in the garrison at Esquimalt, an increase of destroyers to defend the coaling station at Nainamo and a significant increase in the squadron to act as a deterrent. The Director of Naval Intelligence, Reginald N. Custance commented, "this letter shows, when considered in connection with the calls upon us of other stations, how impossible it is to think of attempting to meet the U.S. on equal terms on the Pacific coast of North America."[2]

In November, 1902, the Admiralty announced that it had decided to abolish the Liffey, Staff Commander J. D. Moulton, as storeship at Coquimbo, Chile as it had been decided that a storeship in the south of the Pacific Station was no longer needed. The Liffey was directed to be sold.[3]

Commanders-in-Chief

Dates of appointment given:

Composition

September, 1885:[14]

  • H.M.S. Conquest
  • H.M.S. Constance
  • H.M.S. Cormorant
  • H.M.S. Heroine
  • H.M.S. Liffey
  • H.M.S. Pelican
  • H.M.S. Satellite
  • H.M.S. Triumph
  • H.M.S. Wild Swan

June, 1890:[15]

  • H.M.S. Amphion
  • H.M.S. Champion
  • H.M.S. Daphne
  • H.M.S. Espiegle
  • H.M.S. Liffey
  • H.M.S. Nymphe
  • H.M.S. Pheasant
  • H.M.S. Warspite

February, 1896:[16]

  • H.M.S. Comus
  • H.M.S. Icarus
  • H.M.S. Liffey
  • H.M.S. Pheasant
  • H.M.S. Royal Arthur
  • H.M.S. Satellite
  • H.M.S. Wild Swan

Footnotes

  1. Letter of 17 September, 1901. Quoted in Bourne. Britain and the Balance of Power in America. p. 375.
  2. Bourne. Britain and the Balance of Power in America. pp. 375-376.
  3. "Naval & Military Intelligence" (Official Appointments and Notices). The Times. Thursday, 20 November, 1902. Issue 36930, col D, p. 10.
  4. The Navy List. (January, 1880). p. 188.
  5. Clowes. The Royal Navy. Vol. VII. p. 87.
  6. Clowes. The Royal Navy. Vol. VII. p. 88.
  7. Clowes. The Royal Navy. Vol. VII. p. 88.
  8. Clowes. The Royal Navy. Vol. VII. p. 88.
  9. Clowes. The Royal Navy. Vol. VII. p. 88.
  10. Clowes. The Royal Navy. Vol. VII. p. 88.
  11. Clowes. The Royal Navy. Vol. VII. p. 88.
  12. Clowes. The Royal Navy. Vol. VII. p. 88.
  13. Clowes. The Royal Navy. Vol. VII. p. 88.
  14. The Navy List. (October, 1885). p. 189.
  15. The Navy List. (July, 1890). p. 189.
  16. The Navy List. (March, 1896). p. 193.

Bibliography