THE ANTIDOTE TO SUBMARINES
Mr. John P. Holland, in an article which he contributed to the _North
American Review_ for December, 1900, wrote as follows:—
“When the first submarine torpedo-boat goes into action she will
bring us face to face with the most puzzling problem ever met in
warfare. She will present the unique spectacle, when used in attack,
of a weapon against which there is no defence. You can pit sword
against sword, rifle against rifle, cannon against cannon, ironclad
against ironclad; you can send torpedo-boat destroyers against
torpedo-boats, and destroyers against destroyers, but you can send
nothing against the submarine boat, not even itself. You cannot
fight submarines with submarines. The fanciful descriptions of the
submarine battle of the future have one fatal defect. You cannot see
under water. Hence you cannot fight under water. Hence you cannot
defend yourself against an attack under water except by running
away. If you cannot run away you are doomed. Wharves, shipping at
anchor, the buildings in seaport towns, cannot run away, therefore
the sending of a submarine against them means their inevitable
destruction. No; as nearly as the human mind can discern now, the
submarine is indeed a ‘sea-devil’ against which no means that we
possess at present can prevail. It is no use for the defence to
mine, for the submarine would countermine, and torpedo nets would be
of no use, for it would blow a hole through them, and any attempt to
discover the position of the boat when below the surface is about as
promising a pursuit as dredging with a butterfly-net for a
half-dollar that had been thrown into New York Bay.”
In the present state of the science of submarine warfare it is certainly
impossible to fight submarines with submarines, and it is recognised
that the best chance of destroying an under-water vessel is when it
comes to the surface to take a momentary glance at the position of its
victim before launching its torpedo.
When a means of distinguishing objects beneath the waves has been
evolved then it will be time enough to discuss the possibility of
constructing a submarine boat destroyer which shall itself go beneath
the surface and seek out the submarine to deal it its deathblow.
Every advance in military and naval science that tends to strengthen the
attack has been met by some invention or device calculated to enable the
defence to withstand it.
In the early days men went into battle wearing heavy armour, but
nowadays, although bullet-proof cuirasses and bullet-proof shields have
been suggested, the foot soldier carries no protection on his person,
but relies instead upon entrenchments and fortifications.
It may be remembered that when the hostilities in South Africa
commenced, certain experts declared that the new lyddite shells would
annihilate the Boers in a very short space of time. The capabilities of
the enemy for defending himself had been underestimated by these
gentlemen, and the terrible slaughter which was predicted at Paardeberg
did not occur owing to the wonderful entrenchments beneath which the
Boers and their families sheltered.
Any system of entrenchment is of course impossible upon the high seas,
and therefore men-of-war have to carry armour plate to protect their
sides from the effects of shell and shot.
But no sooner had metallic armour been applied to the sides of war
vessels than the manufacturers set to work to increase the size and
destructive capacity of the shot, and for years past a duel has been in
progress between the projectile and the plate; each improvement in the
one has led to an improvement in the other, and all the resources of
science have been requisitioned to render the projectile more deadly and
the plate more impervious to its attack and lighter than before.
The advent of the torpedo as an effective weapon of attack brought about
the “torpedo-boat,” which was met first by the “torpedo-catcher,” and
then by the “torpedo-boat destroyer;” while as protection against the
torpedo itself, nets and crinolines have been devised for the purpose of
foiling the objects of the attack. A net-cutter on the bows of the
torpedo has, however, made its appearance, and it is now considered
unlikely that nets will be of much protection to a ship, even when
stationary.
“The practice of “Submarine Mining” has led to “Counter-mining,” and the
adoption of the searchlight on shipboard has caused the invention of a
device whereby the rays of light are reflected away from the attacking
vessel, thus enabling it to advance unobserved.”
The destructive effects of explosive shells have been met by the
shipbuilders by the subdivision of the air space of a warship into
watertight compartments, and the desire of the enemy’s gunners to
inflict injury upon the boilers, the engines, or the propellers, has led
numerous inventors to devise a type of warlike craft that shall be
almost entirely destitute of armour, but constructed on such a
principle-both as to hull and machinery—that she can be raked fore and
aft and shot through in all directions without becoming either
water-logged or deprived of her motive power.[6]
Footnote 6:
See “Twentieth Century Inventions,” by G. Sutherland, 1901.
So far as we are aware the only nation that has seriously taken up the
question of an antidote to submarines is Great Britain. At present the
submarine boat, owing to its slow speed and narrow radius of action, is
more suited for defence than attack, though as it is year by year
improving it may soon become a valuable attacking weapon. France has
preferred to build torpedo-boats and Great Britain destroyers, and on
January 15, 1901, France had 235 torpedo-boats and 9 destroyers, and
Great Britain had 95 torpedo-boats and 89 destroyers, and in the same
way while France is rapidly constructing a flotilla of submarines, Great
Britain, although building a few submarines, is also devoting attention
to the best method of meeting under-water attack.
The means of attack against submarines at present are:—
1. By quick-firing guns.
2. By firing shells full of high explosive, which bursting in the water
near the boat, will beat it in.
3. By firing explosives at the end of a spar.
When running awash, the submarine presents a very small target; the hull
is 3 to 5 feet below the surface, which would deflect all projectiles
from machine guns, and the armoured conning tower, which is alone
visible, would be a difficult object to hit.
After running awash for some distance the submarine will submerge
herself, but in spite of periscope and optical tube she will most
probably have to come to the surface once or twice to take a short sharp
look round before firing her torpedo. This is the moment when the attack
must be made upon the diving vessel, and the idea is to destroy her
either by firing a shell from a gun, or an outrigger torpedo from a
swiftly moving vessel. In so much as it is difficult to make a shell
burst with certainty at the right instant, the second method is the one
that seems most to commend itself to the authorities.
The Lords of the Admiralty in the course of their visit to Portsmouth in
June, 1901, witnessed the working of a method of destroying submarines
that had been devised by the _Vernon’s_ staff. The trials took place at
a considerable distance from shore, and were confidential, and therefore
no official account of what took place has appeared. Still from various
sources it is possible to piece together a “story,” the moral of which
(according to some writers) seems to be that a satisfactory method of
destroying the enemy’s submarine boats has been found, and that
henceforth the British fleet has nothing to fear from the attacks of
these “marine devils.”
In the present state of the science, they say, a submarine attacking a
ship is bound to come to the surface to take bearings or else to betray
her presence by optic tube or periscope. With the new invention that has
been evolved on the _Vernon_, the sighting of a submarine entails her
almost certain destruction. Sighting is said to be now practically
certain, though it is not to the public benefit that the means which
will be employed should be stated, as the principle has other and varied
uses.
The experiments were made with H.M. torpedo-boat destroyer _Starfish_.
On the starboard side certain plates had been strengthened, and above
there was a crutch upon which worked a spar or outrigger torpedo. A
spar-torpedo is really a movable observation mine. In the present
instance it consisted of a stout pole some 42 feet in length, at the end
of which was an explosive charge of 32 lbs. of wet gun-cotton,
explodable by an electric current by the crew in the boat. Normally this
boom stows inboard and forward, but on going into action it is slung out
well forward and immersed in the water in the proper moment. This
immersion carries the boom end downward and aft, and it is exploded
directly the submarine is past. The idea is that the speed of the
destroyer will carry her past the centre of the explosion before the
full effects reach her. Her strengthened plates add to her safety, and
it is thought that in any case destroyers are too light and “cork-light”
to be seriously affected. As for the submarine below the waves, the men
of the _Vernon_ make out a pitiable case for her. She will experience
the full force of the terrific concussion. Within from 50 feet to 100
feet or more of the centre of explosion, according to the charge
employed, the sides of the submarine _should_ be compressed sufficiently
to cause fatal leaks, while even at a greater distance stability
_should_ be destroyed.
At the Portsmouth experiment the “dummy” submarine consisted of a barrel
sunk some 10 feet below the surface of the water to represent a
submerged boat. This was attacked and destroyed by the torpedo-boat
destroyer _Starfish_ in the following way. When within striking distance
of the barrel, the boom was dropped and the gun-cotton exploded by
electrical contact. The officers who carried out the experiment are
reported to have said that any submarine within an area of 60 feet of
the outrigger boom when the explosion occurred must infallibly have been
annihilated by the bursting of the charge, and that if a submarine came
up to within a 1,000 yards of a boom-fitted destroyer, it would
certainly be done for.
[Illustration:
EXIT SUBMARINE.
]
It was stated that the single experiment carried out at Portsmouth was
not enough to indicate exactly the best position for the boom, and the
first boats to be fitted will probably vary somewhat between having it
in the quarter or right aft. The additional weight of the boom is
slight; in the case of the _Starfish_, the destroyer experimentally
fitted, the weight had been more than compensated for by fitting her
with aluminium, instead of the usual torpedo tubes.
To say that if a submarine rises anywhere near a destroyer armed with a
spar, her destruction is absolutely certain, is, we think, going too
far. To blow up a stationary barrel is not a very difficult task, but it
must not be forgotten that if the destroyer sights the submarine, the
submarine will also sight the destroyer and will endeavour to launch a
torpedo at the destroyer before the latter can explode its weapon.
Besides this the submarine having sighted the destroyer can dive and
make off in a direction which the latter cannot foretell, and there
would seem to be a good chance of her escaping.
Submarines will probably act in conjunction with torpedo-boats and
destroyers, and the object of these vessels will be to ward off the
attacks of hostile torpedo-boats and destroyers.
It has been said that in action the moral effect of the submarine would
probably outweigh its practical effect, and it is now urged that the
moral influence of this new antidote to submarines will be very great.
“The risks of ordinary submarine work,” says a writer, are not so great
as many people imagine; and they can in a great measure be overcome by
practice. But the deadly spar will quite alter this. The men in the
submarine cannot acquire familiarity with this in peace; not till war
will it operate. Then, whenever they are rising, they will know that a
destroyer _may_ be within reach, and that, if so, absolute annihilation
is _certain_, and annihilation in a particularly horrible form.
“Excitement may sustain them; they may figure it out that their chances
of life and death are on a par with those of the soldier in a frontal
attack, but it is at least doubtful. It is difficult to make the
analogy; and, moreover, there is the chill of the water to consider.
Nerves and courage both suffer from cold, and the interior of a
submarine has always the chill of a tomb. Inside it men sit, and may not
move without endangering the craft’s stability. It will need a high
courage thus to sit absolutely without means of knowing whether a
painful annihilation is coming in a few minutes; it will certainly
render it difficult to take careful observations—and careful
observations are a vital necessity. And the Frenchman, of all races of
men, seems least fitted to be calm under such circumstances. It must
further be remembered that if a destroyer is within a thousand yards she
will be easily able to steam up and destroy the boat, for a thousand
yards a minute is now destroyer speed. The boat, on the other hand,
cannot, save under favourable circumstances, see a distance of a
thousand yards, certainly not in a hasty rise and plunge again. She
might just distinguish a big ship, but that is about all. On the verge
of a frightful death it will take a very cool man even to see that.”[7]
Footnote 7:
“Our preparations for attacking submarines with spar torpedoes fitted
to torpedo-boats or destroyers are exciting the ridicule of those
foreign nations which from experience know what submarines are like.
We claim that our specially rigged spar-torpedo can reach a submarine
at a depth of 10 feet below the surface, but why a submarine should
run at 10 instead of 30 or 40 feet does not appear. The truth seems to
be that if the submarine can be reached at all by the spar-torpedo she
could, at least in the vast majority of cases, be reached much more
expeditiously and certainly by means of the gun” (W. LAIRD CLOWES, at
Institution of Naval Architects, 1902).
The French appear to have considered the possibility of some “antidote,”
for the submersible _Narval_ has a double hull, and in the space between
the two, sea water is allowed to circulate freely. Whether this device
will enable the boat to resist the force of an explosion is a question
which can only be satisfactorily decided in actual warfare. Meanwhile
the bomb-proof hull will certainly receive attention.
So far the periscope and the optical tube have not done away with the
necessity for the submarine to come to the surface to correct her course
and take her bearings, but there are those who claim that even if the
necessity were removed, the whereabouts of the submarine would be
revealed by tell-tale foam and bubbles.
Many inventors have lately been devoting their attention to the steering
of torpedoes without the need of connecting wires, and some consider
that wireless torpedoes would be an efficient antidote to submarine
boats. That such weapons can be produced there is little doubt, but that
they will be sufficient to drive submarines from the seas, appears
extremely doubtful—at any rate just at present.
The possibility of a battleship or a cruiser being able to inform
herself of the advance of a submarine vessel must be considered. Water
is an excellent conductor of sound, and a microphone or some similar
apparatus could be arranged to give notice of the approach of an
invisible ship, even when it was some way away. The ironclad could then
surround herself with her torpedo nets, or steam away leaving the
submarine powerless to overtake her.
The French are very naturally watching with intense interest the
attitude of the British navy towards submarine boats, and the
experiments that have lately been carried out by the officers of H. M.
S. _Vernon_ with a view to discovering the most effective method of
destroying under-water craft, have been carefully followed by our
neighbours over the channel.
According to a recent article in _Le Yacht_ we are endeavouring to get
submarines prohibited as unfair weapons, but being doubtful of such a
“happy result,” have devised a torpedo that is fired the instant one is
sighted. We have also perfected a “Röntgen ray device” whereby the
British sailor will be enabled to scan the ocean depths and sight the
submarine even if it lurk at a depth of 20 feet below the surface. _Le
Yacht_, however, thinks this device would cut both ways, and would
enable the submarine to find its prey without coming to the surface at
all. No official information regarding the Röntgen ray device has up
till now been vouchsafed, and it may after all exist nowhere else than
in the heated imagination of French writers who hate perfidious Albion
more than ever since she has considered the question of accomplishing
the destruction of France’s submarine flotilla.
M. Lockroy, in a recent article in the _Matin_, suggested that it would
only be possible to fight against submarines when the steering of
balloons had been discovered, the black form of the vessel being very
easily distinguished in the water from a certain height.
PART II
CHAPTER IX
THE EARLY HISTORY OF SUBMARINE WARFARE
Although no mention of a submarine vessel having been actually
constructed can be found earlier than the seventeenth century, and
although the torpedo and the mine were not invented till still later,
the art of submarine warfare and subaqueous exploration dates back to a
very much earlier period.
The earliest form of under-water attack was carried out by divers long
before explosive compounds were invented, and the old writers have
strange stories to tell of fierce fights beneath the waves.
“The first divers learned their art,” says John Beckmann, in his
“History of Inventions and Discoveries,” “by early and adventurous
experience, in trying to continue under water as long as possible
without breathing, and indeed it must be allowed that some of them
carried it to very great perfection. This art, however, excites little
surprise, for, like running, throwing, and other bodily dexterities, it
requires only practice; but it is certain that those nations called by
us uncultivated and savage excel in it the Europeans who through
refinement and luxury have become more delicate and less fit for such
laborious exercises.”
In early times divers were employed for peaceful as well as for hostile
purposes. They were kept in ships to assist in raising anchors and to
recover goods thrown overboard in times of danger, and by the laws of
the Rhodians they were allowed a share of the wreck, proportional to the
depth at which they had gone in search of it. “The pearls of the Greek
and Roman ladies,” writes Beckmann, “were fished up by divers at the
great hazard of their lives, and by the like means are procured at
present those which are purchased as ornaments by our fair.”
In the operations of war divers were used for many purposes. Beckmann
tells us that when Alexander was besieging Tyre, divers swam off from
the city under water to a great distance and with long hooks tore to
pieces the mole with which the besiegers were endeavouring to block up
the harbour.
We learn from Herodotus (viii. 8) that when the fleet of Xerxes was
advancing to the invasion of Greece, “there was in the force one
Skyllias, a Skionaian, the best diver of his time, who in the shipwreck
off Pilîon had saved many things for the Persians and had also obtained
many things himself.” This diver deserted to the Greeks and gave them
the benefit of his skill as well as of recent intelligence concerning
their enemy. He was the means of destroying a number of the Persian
ships by a curious kind of submarine attack. Accompanied by his daughter
Kyane, whom he had instructed in his art, he dived during a storm and
“cast off” the cables from the anchors which held the vessels, the
result being that they were driven on shore and wrecked.
Thucydides (iv. 26) gives an instance of a case of divers being employed
as subaqueous auxiliaries during the siege of Syracuse.
“The besieged had driven piles into the water before their old docks,
that their vessels might be in safety behind them and the Athenians be
unable to stand in amongst them and do any damage to the shipping.” The
latter endeavoured to remove this species of nautical entrenchment, and
for this purpose they constructed a raft on which were turrets and
parapets to cover the men who embarked on it. It was towed up to a line
of piles and used as a kind of covering battery for the crews of boats
who removed the piles which had been “sawed off close to the bottom by
divers.” A serious obstruction was offered by some piles driven in till
their heads were below the surface of the water in the hope that the
besieging ships might run upon it. But the divers, by persevering
efforts, succeeded in sawing them through, thus enabling the besiegers
to remove them.
The Chronicles of the early Middle Ages supply instances of the
employment of divers in naval warfare. The Baltic, we read, was so
infested with pirates that a Swedish force was sent against them. The
Swedish admiral, observing that the pirate vessels lay at anchor in a
certain bay, sent in at night men from his own fleet to dive beneath
them and make holes in their bottoms. The following day he engaged them.
In the action the leaks made by the subaqueous assailants during the
night proved so serious that the piratical crews had to turn their
attention chiefly to stopping them and to baling out their vessels. The
number available to fight their enemy was in consequence so reduced that
the Swedes gained a complete victory and the power of the pirates was
annihilated.
Again at the siege of Malta by the Turks in the sixteenth century some
furious under-water fighting occurred. The Maltese were excellent divers
and the Knights took advantage of their skill to assist in the erection
of a barricade across the mouth of one of the creeks which indent the
shores of the Grand Harbour. This obstruction the Turkish besiegers
endeavoured to remove, and accordingly they made upon it a series of
determined attacks. The divers left their work to drive them off and a
terrible and weird struggle ensued, frequently below the surface of the
water, which finally ended in the repulse of the infidel assailants.
One must accept _cum grano salis_ the stories told by writers regarding
the time that divers were able to continue under water. Beckmann said
that the divers of Astrakhan employed in the fishery there could remain
for seven minutes under water. The divers in Holland seem to have been
very expert, for an observer, during the time they were under water, was
obliged to breathe at least ten times. “Those who collect pearl-shells
in the East Indies can remain under water a quarter of an hour, though
some are of opinion that it is possible to continue longer; and Mersenne
mentions a diver, named John Barrinus, who could dive under water for
six hours.” Beckmann evidently found it a little difficult to swallow
this, so he adds, “How far this may be true I shall leave others to
judge.”
An account of a Sicilian diver, Nicolo Pesce, given by Kircher, is yet
more marvellous than any of those just cited. So great was his skill
that he carried letters for the king from Sicily to Calabria. The story
goes that the king offered him a gold cup if he would explore the
terrible Gulf of Charybdis. He remained for three-quarters of an hour
amidst the foaming abyss and on his return described all the horrors of
the place to the astonished monarch, who requested him to dive once more
to further examine the gulf. For some time he hesitated, but upon the
promise of a still larger cup and a purse of gold he was tempted to
plunge again, with the melancholy result that he never came to the
surface again.
A history of the art and practice of diving, although it would present
many points of interest, is foreign to our subject, and attention must
be confined to the question of submarine warfare.
Some writers on this subject, whilst making such statements as “The
confinement of gunpowder in watertight cases and its submarine explosion
for the destruction of floating and other bodies is almost as old as
villainous saltpetre itself,” or “The ancients understood the
manufacture of subaqueous explosives or at least combustibles,” do not
trouble to give any particular instances. A French writer is reported to
have collected accounts of the use of such devices against ships below
the water-line, but a diligent search has failed to reveal the name of
the author.
“The fact that some under-water explosive compound,” said Admiral
Cyprian Bridge, in an article he contributed to _Fraser’s Magazine_ many
years ago, “had been known in ancient times was not lost sight of in the
stirring intellectual revolution of the Renaissance, which, amongst
other legacies, bequeathed to mankind the outlines of the modern art of
war. It is not surprising, therefore, that we should meet with the use
of such an agent in the wars of the sixteenth century. The most
celebrated instance of its employment was by the Italian Giannibelli
(_sic_) at Antioch during the siege of the city by the Prince of Parma.”
Perhaps the Admiral is referring to what Lieutenant Sleeman says is the
earliest record of the employment of a torpedo (_i.e._, a case of
explosion possessing the power of aggression). In 1585 an Italian
engineer named Zambelli invented a floating mine and succeeded in
destroying a bridge built over the Scheldt by the Prince of Parma.
Zambelli’s mine consisted of a flat boat filled with gunpowder arranged
in it so as to secure the maximum effectiveness, and provided with a
long sulphur metal rope and clockwork for its ignition.
A few years before this feat (in 1578) an Englishman, by name William
Bourne, published a book entitled, “Inventions or Devices.” He suggested
in his seventeenth article, “How for to sink a ship that hath laid you
aboard without shooting of ordnance.” William Bourne is in some books
said to have actually invented a plunging apparatus for use in warfare,
but no circumstantial account of such a vessel is extant.
The Marquis of Worcester, in his “Century of Inventions” (1663),
describes in section 9 “An engine, portable in one’s pocket, which may
be carried and fastened on the inside of the greatest ship, _Tanquam
aliud agens_, and at any appointed minute, though a week after, either
by day or night it shall irrecoverably sink that ship.” The smallness of
the engine suggests some explosive missile connected with clockwork as
the only means to insure its being compact and operating on a precise
day at a stated point of time. Section 10 is as follows: “A way from a
mile off to dive and fasten a like engine to any ship so as it may
punctually work the same effect either for time or execution.”
In 1596 John Napier of Merchiston wrote a statement of four “Secret
Inventions,” concluding with the remark—“These inventions, besides
devices of _sailing under the water_ with divers other devices and
stratagems for burning of the enemies, by the grace of God, and work of
expert craftsmen, I hope to perform.”
Pepys in his “Diary,” under date March 14, 1662, says: “This afternoon
came the German Doctor Knuffler to discourse with us about his engine to
blow up ships. We doubted not the matter of fact it being tried in
Cromwell’s time, but the safety of carrying them in ships, but he do
tell us that when he comes to tell the King his secret, for none but the
Kings successively and their heirs must know it, it will appear to be of
no danger at all.”
The foregoing extracts show that the possibility of a practical method
of submarine attack was beginning to take shape in the minds of
philosophers and inventive geniuses. “Fire and Powder Ships,”
“Machines,” “Internals,” “Catamarans,” and similar devices for
accomplishing the destruction of an enemy were known at this time, and
it is not strange that the idea of making the explosion take place
_beneath_ the water should have suggested itself.
CHAPTER X
EARLY EFFORTS IN SUBMARINE NAVIGATION
Who invented the first boat which was capable of being propelled beneath
the water? Opinions differ as to the correct answer to this question.
David Bushnell’s boat (_circa_ 1773) is the first of which we have any
definite record, but William Bourne (1580), Magnus Pegelius (1605), and
Cornelius Van Drebbel (1620) have all been credited with having
constructed under-water vessels. In the previous chapter it has been
shown that the earliest form of submarine attack was carried out by
divers. The prototype of the submarine boat was undoubtedly the diving
bell, the history of which contrivance, although presenting many points
of interest, it will be impossible to relate here.
According to some writers to William Bourne, the English mathematician,
belongs the credit (in 1580), of operating the first submarine boat as
such, in contradistinction to a diving-bell, but there is nothing to
show that Bourne did more than discuss the question, as did also Magnus
Pegelius, although the latter is reported to have built a small
submarine vessel in the year 1605.
[Sidenote: Drebbel’s Reputed Submarine.]
The Dictionary of National Biography credits Cornelius Drebbel, who was
born in 1572, in the town of Alkmaar, in Holland, and who died in London
in 1634, with the invention of a submarine boat “which was navigable
without the use of artificial light, from Westminster to Greenwich.” We
have spent some time in endeavouring to verify this assertion, but the
references to the boat are vague and unsatisfactory. However, as Drebbel
is by some accounted the “Father of Submarine Navigation,” it seems
scarcely fitting to dismiss him without further thought.
In that curious old volume entitled “New Experiments Physico-mechanical
touching the Spring of the Air and its Effects,” by the “Honourable
Robert Boyle, Esq.,” mention is made of Drebbel’s boat, and it may be
interesting to transcribe the passage. It occurs, on p. 188 of the
second edition, published at Oxford in 1662.
[Illustration:
THE EARLIEST KNOWN PICTURE OF AN UNDER-WATER VESSEL.
]
“But yet on occasion of this opinion of Paracelsus, perhaps it will
not be impertinent if before I proceed, I acquaint your lordship
with a Conceit of that deservedly Famous Mechanician and Chymist,
_Cornelius Drebell_, who among other strange things that he
performed, is affirmed (by more than a few credible Persons) to have
contrived for the late learned King _James_, a vessel to go under
Water; of which tryal was made in the _Thames_ with admirable
success, the vessel carrying twelve Rowers besides Passengers; one
of which is yet alive, and related to an excellent Mathematician
that informed me of it. Now that for which I mention this story is,
That having had the curiosity and opportunity to make particular
Enquiries among the Relations of _Drebell_, and especially of an
ingenious Physitian that marryed his daughter, concerning the
grounds upon which he conceived it feasible to make men unaccustomed
to continue so long under Water without suffocation, or (as the
lately mention’d Person that went in the Vessel affirms) without
inconvenience, I was answered that _Drebell_ conceived, that ’tis
not the whole body of the air but a certain Quintessence (as
Chymists speake) or spirituous part of it that makes it fit for
respiration, which being spent the remaining grosser body, or
carcase (if I may so call it) of the Air, is unable to cherish the
vital flame residing in the heart: so that (for ought I could
gather) besides the Mechanicall contrivance of his vessel he had a
Chymicall liquor, which he accounted the chief secret of his
Submarine Navigation. For when from time to time he perceived that
the finer and purer part of the Air was consumed or over-clogged by
the respiration, and steams of those that went in his ship, he
would, by unstopping a vessel full of the liquor speedily restore to
the troubled air such a proportion of vital parts as would make it
again for a good while fit for Respiration. Whether by dissipating
or precipitating the grosser exhalations, or by some other
intelligible way, I must not now stay to examine, contenting myself
to add, that having had the opportunity to do some service to those
of his Relations, that were most intimate with him, and having made
it my business to learn what the strange liquor might be, they
constantly affirmed that _Drebell_ would never disclose the Liquor
unto any, nor so much as tell the matter whereof he made it, to
above one Person, who himself assured me what it was.”
It is much to be wished that fuller accounts were extant respecting
Drebbel’s boat, and the methods he employed to enable his passengers to
breathe under water. W. B. Rye in one of the notes to his work “England
as seen by Foreigners” (1865, p. 232), gives a carefully compiled
account of Drebbel’s inventions and quotes from a Dutch Chronicle of
Alkmaar, by C. van der Wonde (1645), a passage relating to his submarine
boat.
“He built a ship in which one could row and navigate under water
from Westminster to Greenwich, the distance of two Dutch miles; even
five or six miles, or as far as one pleased. In this boat a person
could see under the surface of the water and without candle-light,
as much as he needed to read in the Bible or any other book. Not
long ago this remarkable ship was yet to be seen lying in the Thames
or London river.”
As to what Drebbel’s “Chymicall Liquor” really was there is no chance of
discovering. Professor W. P. Bradley has pointed out that the name
“Quintessence of Air” is very suggestive of oxygen. The life-giving
component of air (not discovered until a century and a half after
Drebbel’s time) is volumetrically the “quintessence,” the fifth part of
air. “Is it possible,” he asks, “that Drebbel had discovered some liquid
which easily disengaged the then unknown oxygen gas and thus was able to
restore to vitiated air that principle of which respiration deprives it?
Undoubtedly not. It is much more likely that he possessed a solution
capable of absorbing the carbonic acid gas which is produced by
respiration, and that the name given it was entirely fanciful and
without special significance. But even if Drebbel’s claim was a piece of
pure quackery with no substantial basis at all, it is nevertheless not
without interest, for it shows, as we might have anticipated, that the
problem of ventilation, one of the most important with which the
inventors of submarines have to deal, was at least appreciated by
Drebbel the pioneer.”
A writer of the period, one Harsdoffer, tells how Drebbel was led to the
construction of his boat:—
“One day when walking along the banks of the Thames Drebbel noticed
some sailors dragging behind their barques baskets full of fish; he
saw that the barques were weighed down in the water, but that they
rose a little when the baskets allowed the ropes which held them to
slacken a little. The idea occurred to him that a ship could be held
under the water by a somewhat similar method and could be propelled
by oars and poles. Some time afterwards he constructed two little
boats of this nature, but of different sizes, which were tightly
closed with thick skin, and King James himself journeyed in one of
them on the Thames. There were on this occasion twelve rowers
besides the passengers, and the vessel during several hours was kept
at a depth of twelve to fifteen feet below the surface.” This royal
excursion under water terminated, we read, “fort hereusement.”
The Abbé de Hautefeuille, in a brochure which appeared in 1680 entitled
“Manière de respirer sous l’Eau,” writes thus:—
“Drebbel’s secret was probably the machine which I had imagined
consisting of a bellows with two valves and two tubes resting on the
surface of the water, the one bringing down air and the other
sending it back. By speaking of a volatile essence which restored
the nitrous parts consumed by respiration Drebbel evidently wished
to disguise his invention and prevent others from finding out its
real nature.”
Ben Jonson, in his comedy, “The Staple of News,” first acted by His
Majesty’s servants in 1625, has a hit at certain inventions of the time,
and amongst these is the boat of Master Drebbel. Thomas, Act III., Scene
I., says:—
“They write here one Cornelius’ son
Hath made the Hollanders an invisible eel
To swim the tavel at Dunkirk and sink all
The shipping there.
_Pennyboy, junior._ But how is’t done?
_Grabal._ I’ll shew you, sir,
It is an automa, runs under water
With a snug nose, and has a nimble tail
Made like an auger with which tail she wriggles
Betwixt the costs of a ship and sinks it straight.
_P., jun._ Whence have you this news?
_Fitton._ From a right hand I assure you.
The eel-boats here, that lie before Queen-hythe
Came out of Holland.
_P., jun._ A most brave device
To murder their flat bottoms.”
That Ben Jonson should class the submarine boat of Drebbel with such a
proposal as that of bringing an army over seas in corkshoes—
“All his horse
Are shod with cork, all fourscore pieces of ordnance
Mounted upon cork carriages, with bladders
Instead of wheels, to run the passage over
At a spring tide.”
and with the discovery of perpetual motion—
“By an ale-wife in St. Katherine’s
At the sign of the Dancing Bear,”
gives one an idea of how the world in general viewed Drebbel’s
invention, and yet the inventor found favour in the eyes of James I.,
who bestowed money upon him, gave him a lodging in Eltham Palace, took a
great interest in his experiments, and when his life was in danger at
Prague, owing to a revolution, succeeded in obtaining his release by
personal intercession.
In return for his Majesty’s favour Cornelius invented an “ingenious
machine” for producing perpetual motion, which became one of the
wonderful sights of the day. According to a description in the
_Biographie Universelle_ it consisted of a globe of glass in which by
means of the four elements Drebbel imitated perpetual motion. In the
space of twenty-four hours one could behold the course of the sun, the
planets, and the stars. By means of this marvellous globe he showed “the
cause of cold, of the ebb and flow of the sea, of storms, of thunder, of
rain, of the wind, _enfin tout le mecanisme de la nature_.”
In the diary of Lewis Frederick, Prince of Wurtemberg, under date
Tuesday, May 1, 1610, occurs the passage, “His Excellency went to Elham
Park to see the perpetual motion; the inventor’s name was Cornelius
Trebel, a native of Alkmaar, a very fair and handsome man, and of very
gentle manners, altogether different from such-like characters; we also
saw there Virginals, which played of themselves.”
Undoubtedly Drebbel was ahead of his time, but one cannot credit him
with all the wonders he is reported to have achieved. Some of his
biographers state that he invented a telescope, a microscope, and a
thermometer; an incubator for hatching fowls; an instrument for showing
pictures of portraits of people not present at the time, and a method of
producing at will the most extreme cold. Drebbel was evidently highly
thought of at the Courts of James I., Rudolph II., and Ferdinand II.,
but this was perhaps due more to his being “a very fair and handsome man
of very gentle manners,” than to his scientific attainments.
One of his biographers refers to him thus: “Cornelius van Drebbel, ein
Charlatan,” and others have dubbed him alchemist, empiric, magician, and
professor of the Black Art.
Mr. Rye’s estimate is perhaps the truer:—
“But however extravagant and improbable some of the following
descriptions may appear, yet, allowing as we ought to do for the
crude state of physical science and the credulity of the times in
which he lived, as well as the then prevailing tendency to clothe
scientific investigation and experiment with an air of mystery,
Cornelius Drebbel is entitled, we think, to hold a respectable
position among the ingenious inventors and mechanicians of the early
part of the seventeenth century.”
[Sidenote: Bishop Wilkins on Submarine Navigation.]
Drebbel’s boat attracted the attention of the Right Reverend John
Wilkins, whose mathematical and philosophical works were published in
London in the year 1708.
John Wilkins was a remarkable man, considerably in advance of his day in
scientific speculation. As few people nowadays read his books a brief
extract from his “Mathematical Magick: or the Wonders that may be
perform’d by Mechanical Geometry” may be read with interest and
amusement.
The book is divided into two parts, the first entitled “Archimedes, or
Mechanical Powers,” the second, “Doedalus, or Mechanical Motions.”
Chapter V. of Part 2 deals with “the possibility of framing an Ark for
Submarine Navigation: the Difficulties and Consequences of such a
Contrivance.”
“It will not be altogether impertinent,” says the author, “with the
Discourse of these gradient _Automata_ to mention what Mersennus
doth so pleasantly and largely descant upon concerning the making of
a ship wherein men may safely swim under the water. That such a
Contrivance is feasible, and may be effected, is beyond all
question, because it hath been already experimented here in
_England_ by _Cornelius Dreble_; but how to improve it unto Publick
Use and Advantage, so as to be serviceable for remote Voyages, the
carrying of any considerable Number of Men, with Provisions and
Commodities, would be of such excellent Use, as may deserve some
further enquiry.”
The difficulties are divided into three heads:—
1. “The letting-out or receiving in anything as there shall be
occasion without the admission of Water. If it hath not such a
convenience these kind of Voyages must needs be very dangerous and
uncomfortable both by Reason of many noisome and offensive Things
which should be thrust out, and many other needful Things which
should be received in. Now herein will consist the Difficulty, for
to contrive the opening of the Vessel so that anything may be put in
or out, and yet the Water not rush into it with much Violence as it
doth usually in the leak of a Ship.”
The learned Doctor’s remedy is as follows: “Let there,” he says, “be
certain leather bags made of several bignesses, long and open at
both ends, and answerable to these let there be divers windows made
in open places in the frame of the ship round the sides, to which
one end of these bags might be fixed, the other end coming within
the ship. The bag being thus fastened and tied close about towards
the window, then any thing that is to be sent out might be safely
put into that end within the ship: this being again close shut, and
the other end loosened, the thing may be safely sent out without the
admission of any water.”
In taking anything in, it was to be first received into that part of
the bag towards the window, which being close tied down at the other
end may then be safely opened.
[Illustration:
A CONCERT IN A SUBMARINE.
The _Diable Marin_ of W. Bauer.
(1855.)
]
“It is easy to conceive, how by such means as these a Person may be
sent out or received in, as there shall be occasion; how the water
which will perhaps by Degrees leak into several parts may be emptied
out again, with divers other like advantages. Tho’ if there should
be a leak at the bottom of the vessel, yet very little Water would
get in, because the Air would get out.”
The fate of the unhappy Person thrust out of the Vessel by means of
the leather bags is too dreadful to contemplate, and the sailors
called upon to man a modern war submarine may congratulate
themselves that this convenient contrivance imagined by the
ingenious prelate has not come into use. As to the taking in of
things into the boat one does not quite gather how they would get
into the bag, or how the bag would be first untied and then tied
again by those inside the vessel.
The second difficulty in such an Ark is “the Motion or fixing of it
according to occasion: the directing of it to several places as the
Voyage shall be designed, without which it would be very useless, if
it were to remain only in one Place, and were to remove only
blindfold, without any certain Direction: And the Contrivance of
this may seem very difficult because these submarine Navigators will
want the usual advantages of Wind and Tide for Motion, and the sight
of the Heavens for direction.”
The progressive motion of the boat would be effected by the help of
several oars made to contract and dilate like the fins of a fish,
the holes through which they pass into the ship being tied about
with the afore-mentioned Leather Bags.
“It will not be convenient, perhaps, that the motion in these
Voyages should be very swift because of those Observations and
Discoveries to be made at the Bottom of the Sea, which in a little
space may abundantly recompense the slowness of the Progress.”
Dr. Wilkins had grasped the fact that if the Ark were so ballasted
as to be equal weight with the like magnitude of Water, it would
then be easily movable in any Part of it.
As for the ascent and descent of the craft this was to be
accomplished by “some great Weight at the Bottom of the Ship (being
Part of its Ballast), which by some Cord within may be loosened from
it. If this Weight is let loose so will the Ship ascend from it (if
need be) to the very Surface of the Water; and again as it is pulled
close to the Ship, so will it descend.”
The idea of taking in Water-ballast for sinking the Ark does not
seem to have occurred to the Author.
For directing the course of the Vessel the Mariner’s Needle would be
employed, but the patent difficulty of all is this, “How the Air may
be supplied for Respiration, How constant Fires may be kept in for
light and the Dressing of Food, how those Vicissitudes of
Rarefaction and Condensation may be maintained.”
While our author will not go so far as to say that a man may by
custom, “which in other things doth produce such strange incredible
effects,” be enabled to live in the open Water as do the fishes, yet
he thinks that long use and custom may strengthen men against many
such inconveniences of this kind which to inexperienced persons may
prove very hazardous: thus it will not perhaps be so necessary to
have the air for breathing so “pure and desecated” as is required
for others.
The difficulty of respiration under water may be met in several
ways. “The submarine ark should be of such a large capacity that as
the air is corrupted in one part so it may be purified and renewed
in the other: if the mere refrigeration of the air would fit it for
breathing, this might be somewhat helped with bellows, which would
cool it by motion: it is not altogether improbable,” says the
doctor, “that the lamps and fires in the middle of it like the
reflected beams in the first region rarefy the air and the
circumambient coldness towards the sides of the vessel like the
second region, cooling and condensing of it would work such a
Vicissitude and change of air as might fit it for all its proper
uses.”
Finally, if none of these conjectures will help, the author mentions
that there is in France one Barrières, a diver, who hath found out
the art whereby a man might easily continue under water for six
hours together, “whereas Ten Cubical Feet of Air will not serve
another Diver to breathe in for Half an Hour, he by the help of a
Cavity not above one or two Foot at most will have Breath enough for
six hours and a Lanthorne scarce above the usual size to keep a
candle burning as long as a Man please. Which (if it be true and
were commonly known) might be sufficient help against the greatest
difficulty.”
Dr. Wilkins makes no mention of the “Chymicall Liquor” which Drebbel
is reported to have discovered for the purifying of the air inside
the boat when under water, and it is probable that he attached
little value to the accounts of this remarkable substance.
Having so far dealt with the difficulties of submarine navigation
and their remedies, the author proceeds to discuss the many
advantages and conveniences of such a contrivance.
_First of all_, says he—“’Tis private; a Man may thus go to any
Coast of the World invisibly without being discovered or prevented
in his journey.”
Certainly this would be a convenience to the criminal fleeing from
justice, to a deposed ruler wishing to escape from his conquerors,
and to others desirous of effacing themselves for a time.
_Secondly_—“’Tis safe from the Uncertainty of Tides and the Violence
of Tempests, which do never move the Sea above Five or Six paces
deep, from Pirates and Robbers which do so infest other Voyages.
From Ice and great Frosts, which do so much endanger the Passages
towards the Poles.” Could Bishop Wilkins but have perused Mr. John
Holland’s article in the _North American Review_ for December, 1900,
in which proposals for a submarine passenger service across the
Channel are put forward, he would have been gratified to find the
inventor of a practical under-water vessel of the same opinion as
himself regarding the “advantages and conveniences” of travelling
beneath rather than on the waves.
M. Goubet also has imagined a submarine cross-Channel service.
_Thirdly_—“It may be of very great advantage against a Navy of
Enemies, who by this means may be undermined in the Water and blown
up.”
Sixty-seven years after these words were written David Bushnell
launched his submarine boat, which carried a torpedo charged with
130 lbs. of gunpowder to be affixed to the side of the vessel to be
blown up. In 1864 the _David_, owned by the Confederates, blew up
the _Housatonic_, and though this is the only occasion on which a
submarine has done any damage to the foe in an actual real
encounter, it is more than likely that in the next great naval war
under-water vessels may “be of very great advantage against a Navy
of Enemies.”
_Fourthly_—“It may be of special use for the Relief of any Place
that is besieged by Water to convey unto them Invisible Supplies;
and so likewise for the Surprizal of any Place that is accessible by
Water.”
_Fifthly_—“It may be of unspeakable Benefit for Submarine
Experiments and Discoveries, as—The several Proportions of Swiftness
betwixt the ascent of a Bladder, Cork, or any other light Substance,
in comparison to the descent of Stones or Lead. The deep Caverns and
Subterranean Passages where the Sea Water in the course of its
circulation, doth vest itself into other Places and the like. The
Nature and Kinds of Fishes, the several Arts of Catching them, by
alluring them with Lights, by placing divers nets about the sides of
this Vessel, shooting the greater sort of them with Guns, which
might be put out of the ship by the help of such Bags as were
mentioned before, with divers the like Artifices and Treacheries,
which may be more successfully practised by such who live so
familiarly together. These fish may serve not only for food but for
Fewel likewise, in respect of that oil which may be extracted from
them; the Way of Dressing Meat by Lamps being in many Respects the
most convenient for such a Voyage. The many fresh springs that may
probably be met with at the Bottom of the Sea, will serve for the
Supply of Drink and other Occasions.”
Dr. Wilkins is, however, convinced that, above all, his Ark will be
most valuable in the discovery of submarine treasures, “not only in
regard of what hath been drowned by Wrecks, but the several precious
Things that grow there; as Pearl, Coral Mines; with innumerable
other Things of great Value which may be much more easily found out
and fetch’d up by the help of this than by any of the usual ways of
the Urinators.” For the better fulfilment of this purpose, the
author suggests that there should be some lesser cabins tied about
the Great Ark at various distances, where several persons as Scouts
might be lodged for the taking of observations according as the
Admiral should direct them. Dr. Wilkins’ prediction has been
realised, and in Mr. Simon Lake’s _Argonaut_ there exists a machine
which is bound to play an important part in “the discovery of
Submarine Treasure.”
In the penultimate paragraph of the chapter on the Submarine Ark Dr.
Wilkins waxes enthusiastic over the immense possibilities latent in
such a contrivance. “All kinds of Arts and Manufactures may be
exercised in this Vessel. The Observations made by it might be
written and (if need be) Printed here likewise. Several Colonies may
there inhabit, having their Children born, and bred up, without the
knowledge of land, who could not chuse but be amazed with Strange
Conceits upon the Discovery of this Upper World.”
In conclusion the author writes:—
“I am not able to judge what other Advantages there may be
suggested, or whether Experiment would fully answer these Notional
Conjectures. But, however, because the Invention did unto me seem
ingenious and new, being not impertinent to the present Enquiry
therefore I thought it might be worth the mentioning.”
[Sidenote: Mersenne.]
“Mersennus,” to whom the learned Bishop refers, was a monk of the order
of the “Minims,” who lived from 1588–1648, and was the chief friend and
literary agent of Des Cartes. He gave in his writings some attention to
submarine navigation. He proposed that the shell of a boat which he
projected, but never built, should be of copper or some other metal, and
that in shape it should resemble a fish, and in order to avoid its
turning round both ends should be pointed.
In time of war the boat would destroy the keels of the enemy’s ships. At
the port-holes were placed big cannon. An arrangement of packing with a
plug valve prevented the introduction of water. At the moment of firing
the guns were brought close to the openings and the plug-valve was
raised; after the shot had been discharged the plug fell automatically
back to its place. In order to replenish the air pneumatic machines and
ventilators would be used; for steering, the compass would act as well
beneath the waves as on the surface; for lighting, phosphorescent bodies
would be used. The boat was to have wheels and was to be moved by means
of oars. Mersenne was the first to affirm that even the most violent
tempests could not be a source of danger to the submarine vessel as the
disturbance was felt but a little distance below the surface.
[Illustration:
RACING THE “CAMPANIA.”
Apostoloff’s Proposed Submarine.
]
Another monk of the same order, Father Fournier, about the year 1640
gave to the world his ideas on the problem of navigating beneath the
water.
In the year 1653 a Frenchman, whose name we have been unable to
discover, is said to have built and operated a submarine boat at
Rotterdam. It was 72 feet long, 12 feet high, and 8 feet broad. It was
traversed down its entire length by a system of very solid girders whose
extremities projecting beneath the bottom were covered with iron.
Ordinarily the boat was not meant to be submerged lower than the “awash”
condition, but the part above the water was made to slope with the idea
of turning aside the projectiles aimed at it. In the centre of the boat
was a kind of paddle wheel, but the inventor was careful to keep many
details secret regarding its propulsion and its method of attack. For
some little time he showed his invention for a small pecuniary
remuneration, but it failed to attract the notice of those in authority.
In the _Annual Register_ of the year, 1774, at page 245, there appears
an authentic account of a late unfortunate transaction with respect to a
diving machine at Plymouth. This relates to the death of a Mr. Day who
lost his life in a boat of his own construction in Plymouth Sound.
[Sidenote: Day.]
It appears that Mr. Day, “the sole projector of the scheme, and as
matters have turned out, the unhappy sacrifice to his own
ingenuity,” planned a method of sinking a vessel under water with a
man in it, who should live there for a certain time, and then by his
own means only bring himself up to the surface. He tried his project
in the Broads near Yarmouth, fitting a Norfolk market-boat for his
purpose, and succeeded in sinking himself thirty feet under water,
where he continued during the space of twenty-four hours. Elated
with this success, he then wanted to avail himself of his invention.
He conversed with his friends, perfectly convinced that he had
brought his undertaking to a certainty; but how to reap the
advantage of it was the difficulty that remained.
[Illustration:
THE “INTELLIGENT WHALE” OF HALSTEAD.
(1892.)
]
That this vessel might serve some useful purpose, whether peaceful
or warlike, does not seem to have occurred to Mr. Day, who was
content seemingly to construct a diving boat capable of sinking and
rising again to the surface, without furnishing it with any method
of propulsion. A friend of the inventor suggested that if he
acquainted the sporting gentlemen with the discovery and the
certainty of the performance considerable “betts” would take place
as soon as the project should be mentioned in Company. Struck by
this happy idea, Mr. Day looked into the “Sporting Kalendar” and
finding therein the name of Blake decided that it was to this
gentleman that he ought to address himself. Accordingly, in
November, 1773, Mr. Blake received the following letter:—
“SIR,—I have found out an affair by which many thousands may be won.
It is of a paradoxical nature, but can be performed with ease;
therefore, sir, if you chuse to be informed of it, and give me £100
for every £1,000 you shall win by it, I will very readily wait upon
you, and inform you of it. I am, myself, but a poor mechanic and not
able to make anything of it without your assistance.
“Yours, &c.,
“J. DAY.”
Mr. Blake naturally had no conception of Mr. Day’s design, nor was he
sure that the letter was serious. He wrote, however, to the inventor,
and appointed an interview, when the latter announced his project. He
declared “that he could sink a ship one hundred yards deep in the sea
with himself in it, and remain therein for the space of twenty-four
hours, without communication with anything above; and at the expiration
of the time rise up again in the vessel.”
Mr. Blake was not a little staggered at this dare-devil proposal, but
agreed to advance money for the construction of a model. This having
proved satisfactory Mr. Blake advanced a further sum for the building of
a practicable vessel. This, it would appear, had a false bottom,
“standing on feet like a butcher’s block, which contained the ballast;
and by the person in the vessel unscrewing some pins, he was to rise to
the surface leaving the false bottom behind.”
The boat was at length built and in the presence of Mr. Blake a trial
descent was made. The day fixed for the test which was to decide the bet
arrived, but Mr. Blake reduced the depth of water from one hundred yards
to one hundred feet, and the time from twenty-four to twelve hours.
“The vessel was towed to the place agreed upon; Mr. Day provided himself
with whatever he thought necessary, went into the vessel, let the water
into her, and with great composure retired to the room constructed for
him and shut up the valve. The ship went gradually down to twenty-two
fathom water at 2 o’clock on Tuesday, June 28 (1774), in the afternoon,
being to return at 2 o’clock the next morning. He had three buoys as
messengers which he could send to the surface at option to announce his
situation below; but none appearing Mr. Blake, who was near at hand in a
barge, began to entertain some suspicions. He kept a strict look-out,
and at the time appointed, neither the buoys nor the vessel coming up,
he applied to the _Orpheus_ frigate, which lay just off the barge, for
assistance. The captain with the most ready benevolence supplied them
with everything in his power to seek for the ship. Mr. Blake in this
alarming situation was not content with the help of the _Orpheus_ only;
he made immediate application to Lord Sandwich (who happened to be at
Plymouth) for further relief. His Lordship with great humanity ordered a
number of hands from the dock-yard, who went with the utmost alacrity
and tried every effort to regain the ship, but unhappily without
effect.”
According to Admiral Hichborn (U.S.N.) J. Day has the unique distinction
of being the only known victim of the dangers of submarine navigation.
This distinction, says the Admiral, depends upon the supposition that
reports of submarine accidents were much more reliable two hundred and
forty years ago than they have been for the last forty years, during
which period there have been _authentic_ newspaper reports of the loss
of eighty-two lives in attempting submarine navigation in the United
States. “Fifty of these lives were not lost at all, and the other
thirty-two, though lost in a boat designed to operate as a submarine,
were all lost when, and apparently because, she was not so operating.”
This refers to the _David_, which in the American Civil War destroyed
four crews of eight men each.
Mr. Charles Babbage in his article on the Diving Bell in the
“Encyclopædia Metropolitana,” describes Day’s under-water boat. He
writes:—
“Having purchased a sloop of 50 tons it was prepared by building an
air-tight chamber in the middle 12 feet long, 9 feet broad, and 8 feet
deep, and capable of containing 75 hogsheads of air. Considerable pains
were taken to make this as strong and as secure as possible. In the
middle of the top of this chamber was a square hole, a scuttle just
sufficiently large to admit a man; it was bevelled outwards, in order
that the valve which was to close the chamber might be driven in more
tightly. Screws were applied to this valve, in order to screw it home,
and it, as well as the scuttle, was lined with flannel. On the decks of
the vessel three buoys of different colours, white, red and black, were
fixed by plugs in such a manner that they were to be disengaged by
driving another plug from the inside of the chamber. These were designed
as signals to indicate the state of health of the adventurer during his
stay under water. The white was to denote his being very well, the red
indifferent, and the black his being very ill. The ballast of 20 tons,
by which the vessel was to be sunk and by disengaging of which it was to
be raised again, was fixed to four iron rods passing through tubes into
the chamber. The vessel was ballasted internally with 10 tons, which
with the twenty suspended from her would, it was imagined, cause her to
sink when full of water. Thus perished a man whose intrepidity resulted
from his ignorance of the dangers he encountered, and who fell a victim
to his obstinate confidence in the success of a plan concerning which
his knowledge was totally insufficient to enable him to judge. The depth
of water in which the vessel sank was 22 fathoms; the pressure of more
than four atmospheres thus produced, in all probability crushed in the
sides of the chamber soon after it reached the bottom.”
[Illustration:
ALVARY TEMPLO “AQUAPEDE.” (1826.)
]
CHAPTER XI
DAVID BUSHNELL
The originator of the modern method of submarine warfare was David
Bushnell, a native of Saybrook (now Westbrook) in the State of Maine,
U.S.A., who in the latter part of the eighteenth century conceived the
idea of destroying the British ships of war which were employed upon the
coasts of North America by exploding gunpowder, contained in a magazine,
beneath their bottoms. In order the better to fix the charge to the
ships, Bushnell built in 1775 the first practical submarine boat, and
the first of which any detailed account is extant.
In a letter written in October, 1789, to Thomas Jefferson, the Minister
Plenipotentiary of the United States at Paris, David Bushnell gives a
very interesting description of his vessel and its achievements. This
deserves to be printed here in full in view of the many quite remarkable
devices (considering the period) which the inventor originated.
The external shape of the submarine vessel bore some resemblance to
two upper tortoise shells of equal size, joined together, the place
of entrance into the vessel being represented by the opening made by
the swell of the shells at the head of the animal. The inside was
capable of containing the operator and air sufficient to support him
thirty minutes without receiving fresh air. At the bottom, opposite
to the entrance, was fixed a quantity of lead for ballast. At one
edge, which was directly before the operator, who sat upright, was
an oar for rowing forward or backward. At the other edge was a
rudder for steering. An aperture at the bottom, with its valve, was
designed to admit water for the purpose of defending, and two brass
forcing pumps served to eject the water within when necessary for
ascending. At the top there was likewise an oar for ascending or
descending, or continuing at any particular depth. A water-gauge or
barometer determined the depth of descent, a compass directed the
course, and a ventilator within supplied the vessel with fresh air
when on the surface.
The entrance into the vessel was elliptical, and so small as barely
to admit a person. This entrance was surrounded with a broad
elliptical iron band, the lower edge of which was let into the wood,
of which the body of the vessel was made, in such a manner as to
give its utmost support to the body of the vessel against the
pressure of the water. Above the upper edge of this iron band there
was a brass crown or cover, resembling a hat with its crown and
brim, which shut watertight upon the iron band; the crown was hung
to the iron band with hinges so as to turn over sidewise when
opened. To make it perfectly secure when shut it might be screwed
down upon the band by the operator or by a person without.
There were in the brass crown three round doors, one directly in
front and one on each side, large enough to put the hand through.
When open they admitted fresh air. Their shutters were ground
perfectly tight into their places with emery, hung with hinges, and
secured in their places when shut. There were likewise several small
glass windows in the crown for looking through, and for admitting
light in the day-time, with covers to secure them. There were two
air-pipes in the crown. A ventilator within drew fresh air through
one of the air-pipes and discharged it into the lower part of the
vessel; the fresh air introduced by the ventilator expelled the
impure light air through the other air-pipe. Both air-pipes were so
constructed that they shut themselves whenever the water rose near
their tops, so that no water could enter through them, and opened
themselves immediately after they rose above the water.
The vessel was chiefly ballasted with lead fixed to its bottom; when
this was not sufficient a quantity was placed within, more or less
according to the weight of the operator; its ballast made it so
stiff that there was no danger of over-setting. The vessel, with all
its appendages and the operator, was of sufficient weight to settle
it very low in the water. About 200 lbs. of lead at the bottom for
ballast could be let down 40 or 50 feet below the vessel; this
enabled the operator to rise instantly to the surface of the water
in case of accident.
When the operator would descend he placed his foot upon the top of a
brass valve, depressing it, by which he opened a large aperture in
the bottom of the vessel, through which the water entered at his
pleasure; when he had admitted a sufficient quantity he descended
very gradually; if he admitted too much he ejected as much as was
necessary to obtain an equilibrium by the two brass forcing pumps
which were placed at each hand. Whenever the vessel leaked or he
would ascend to the surface he also made use of these forcing pumps.
When the skilful operator had obtained an equilibrium he could row
upward or downward, or continue at any particular depth, with an oar
placed near the top of the vessel, formed upon the principle of the
screw, the axis of the oar entering the vessel; by turning the oar
one way he raised the vessel, by turning it the other way he
depressed it.
A glass tube 18 inches long and 1 inch in diameter, standing
upright, its upper end closed, and its lower end, which was open,
screwed into a brass pipe, through which the external water had a
passage into the glass tube, served as a water-gauge or barometer.
There was a piece of cork with phosphorus on it put into the
water-gauge. When the vessel descended the water rose into the
water-gauge, condensing the air within, and bearing the cork with
its phosphorus on its surface. By the light of the phosphorus the
ascent of the water in the gauge was rendered visible, and the depth
of the vessel under water ascertained by a graduated line.
An oar, formed upon the principle of the screw, was fixed in the
forepart of the vessel; its axis entered the vessel, and being
turned one way, rowed the vessel forward, but being turned the other
way rowed it backward; it was made to be turned by the hand or foot.
A rudder, hung to the hinder part of the vessel, commanded it with
the greatest ease. The rudder was made very elastic, and might be
used for rowing forward. Its tiller was within the vessel, at the
operator’s right hand, fixed at a right angle on an iron rod which
passed through the side of the vessel; the rod had a crank on its
outside end which commanded the rudder by means of a rod extending
from the end of the crank to a kind of tiller fixed upon the left
hand of the rudder. Raising and depressing the first-mentioned
tiller turned the rudder as the same required. A compass marked with
phosphorus directed the course, both above and under the water, and
a line and lead founded the depth when necessary.
The internal shape of the vessel, in every possible section of it,
verged towards an ellipsis, as near as the design would allow, but
every horizontal section, although elliptical, yet as near to a
circle as could be admitted. The body of the vessel was made
exceedingly strong, and to strengthen it as much as possible a firm
piece of wood was framed, parallel to the conjugate diameter, to
prevent the sides from yielding to the great pressure of the
incumbent water in a deep immersion. This piece of wood was also a
seat for the operator.
Every opening was well secured. The pumps had two sets of valves.
The aperture at the bottom for admitting water was covered with a
plate perforated full of holes to receive the water and prevent
anything from choking the passage or stopping the valve from
shutting. The brass valve might likewise be forced into its place
with a screw if necessary. The air-pipes had a kind of hollow sphere
fixed round the top of each to secure the air-pipe valves from
injury; these hollow spheres were perforated full of holes for the
passage of the air through the pipes. Within the air-pipes were
shutters to secure them should any accident happen to the pipes or
the valves on their tops.
[Illustration:
BUSHNELL’S SUBMARINE
]
Wherever the external apparatus passed through the body of the
vessel the joints were round and formed by brass pipes, which were
driven into the wood of the vessel, the holes through the pipes were
very exactly made, and the iron rods which passed through them were
turned in a lathe to fit them; the joints were also kept full of oil
to prevent rust and leaking. Particular attention was given to bring
every part necessary for performing the operations, both within and
without the vessel, before the operator, and as conveniently as
could be devised, so that everything might be found in the dark
except the water-gauge and the compass, which were visible by the
light of the phosphorus, and nothing required the operator to turn
to the right hand or to the left to perform anything necessary.
_Description of a Magazine and its Appendages designed to be conveyed
by the Submarine Vessel to the bottom of a Ship._
In the forepart of the brim of the crown of the submarine vessel was
a socket, and an iron tube passing through the socket; the tube
stood upright, and could slide up and down in the socket 6 inches.
At the top of the tube was a wood screw (A), fixed by means of a
rod, which passed through the tube, and screwed the wood screw fast
upon the top of the tube; by pushing the wood screw up against the
bottom of the ship and turning it at the same time it would enter
the planks; driving would also answer the same purpose. When the
wood screw was firmly fixed it could be cast off by unscrewing the
rod, which fastened it upon the top of the tube.
Behind the submarine vessel was a place above the rudder for
carrying a large powder magazine. This was made of two pieces of oak
timber, large enough when hollowed out to contain 150 lbs. of
powder, with the apparatus used in firing it, and was secured in its
place by a screw turned by the operator. A strong piece of rope
extended from the magazine to the wood screw (A) above mentioned,
and was fastened to both. When the wood screw was fixed, and to be
cast off from its tube, the magazine was to be cast off likewise by
unscrewing it, leaving it hanging to the wood screw; it was lighter
than the water, that it might rise up against the object to which
the wood screw and itself were fastened.
Within the magazine was an apparatus constructed to run any proposed
length of time under twelve hours; when it had run out its time it
unpinioned a strong lock resembling a gunlock, which gave fire to
the powder. This apparatus was so pinioned that it could not
possibly move till, by casting off the magazine from the vessel, it
was set in motion.
The skilful operator could swim so low on the surface of the water
as to approach very near a ship in the night without fear of being
discovered, and might, if he chose, approach the stem or stern above
water with very little danger. He could sink very quickly, keep at
any depth he pleased, and row a great distance in any direction he
desired without coming to the surface, and when he rose to the
surface he could soon obtain a fresh supply of air. If necessary he
might descend again and pursue his course.
_Experiments made to prove the nature and use of a Submarine Vessel._
The first experiment I made was with about two ounces of gunpowder,
which I exploded 4 feet under water, to prove to some of the first
personages in Connecticut that powder would take fire under water.
The second experiment was made with 2 lbs. of powder enclosed in a
wooden bottle and fixed under a hogshead, with a 2–inch oak plank
between the hogshead and the powder. The hogshead was loaded with
stones as deep as it could swim; a wooden pipe descending through
the lower head of the hogshead and through the plank into the powder
contained in the bottle, was primed with powder. A match put to the
priming exploded the powder, which produced a very great effect,
rending the plank into pieces, demolishing the hogshead, and casting
the stones and the ruins of the hogshead, with a body of water, many
feet into the air, to the astonishment of the spectators. This
experiment was likewise made for the satisfaction of the gentlemen
above mentioned.
I afterwards made many experiments of a similar nature, some of them
with large quantities of powder; they produced very violent
explosions, much more than sufficient for any purpose I had in view.
In the first essays with the submarine vessel I took care to prove
its strength to sustain the great pressure of the incumbent water
when sunk deep before I trusted any person to descend much below the
surface, and I never suffered any person to go under water without
having a strong piece of rigging made fast to it, until I found him
well acquainted with the operations necessary for his safety. After
that I made him descend and continue at particular depths, without
rising or sinking, row by the compass, approach a vessel, go under
her, and fix the wood screw mentioned in No. 2, and marked A, into
her bottom, &c., until I thought him sufficiently expert to put my
design into execution.
I found, agreeably to my expectations, that it required many trials
to make a person of common ingenuity a skilful operator. The first I
employed was very ingenious, and made himself master of the
business, but was taken sick in the campaign of 1776 at New York
before he had an opportunity to make use of his skill, and never
recovered his health sufficiently afterwards.
After various attempts to find an operator to my wish, I sent one
who appeared more expert than the rest from New York to a 50–gun
ship lying not far from Governor’s Island. He went under the ship
and attempted to fix the wooden screw into her bottom, but struck,
as he supposes, a bar of iron which passes from the rudder hinge,
and is spiked under the ship’s quarter. Had he moved a few inches,
which he might have done without rowing, I have no doubt but he
would have found wood where he might have fixed the screw, or if the
ship were sheathed with copper he might easily have pierced it; but
not being well skilled in the management of the vessel, in
attempting to move to another place he lost the ship. After seeking
her in vain for some time, he rowed some distance and rose to the
surface of the water, but found daylight had advanced so far that he
durst not renew the attempt. He says that he could easily have
fastened the magazine under the stem of the ship above water, as he
rowed up to the stern and touched it before he descended. Had he
fastened it there the explosion of 150 lbs. of powder (the quantity
contained in the magazine) must have been fatal to the ship. In his
return from the ship to New York he passed near Governor’s Island,
and thought he was discovered by the enemy on the island. Being in
haste to avoid the danger he feared, he cast off the magazine, as he
imagined it retarded him in the swell, which was very considerable.
After the magazine had been cast off one hour, the time the internal
apparatus was set to run, it blew up with great violence.
Afterwards there were two attempts made in Hudson’s River, above the
city, but they effected nothing. One of them was by the
afore-mentioned person. In going towards the ship he lost sight of
her, and went a great distance beyond her. When he at length found
her the tide ran so strong that, as he descended under water for the
ship’s bottom, it swept him away. Soon after this the enemy went up
the river and pursued the boat which had the submarine vessel on
board, and sunk it with their shot. Though I afterwards recovered
the vessel, I found it impossible at that time to prosecute the
design any farther. I had been in a bad state of health from the
beginning of my undertaking, and was now very unwell; the situation
of public affairs was such that I despaired of obtaining the public
attention and the assistance necessary. I was unable to support
myself and the persons I must have employed had I proceeded.
Besides, I found it absolutely necessary that the operators should
acquire more skill in the management of the vessel before I could
expect success, which would have taken up some time, and made no
small additional expense. I therefore gave over the pursuit for that
time, and waited for a more favourable opportunity, which never
arrived.
In the year 1777 I made an attempt from a whale-boat against the
_Cerberus_ frigate, then lying at anchor between Connecticut River
and New London, by drawing a machine against her side by means of a
line. The machine was loaded with powder, to be exploded by a
gunlock, which was to be unpinioned by an apparatus to be turned by
being brought alongside of the frigate. This machine fell in with a
schooner at anchor astern of the frigate, and concealed from my
sight. By some means or other it was fired, and demolished the
schooner and three men, and blew the only one left alive overboard,
who was taken up very much hurt.
After this I fixed several kegs under water, charged with powder, to
explode upon touching anything as they floated along with the tide.
I set them afloat in the Delaware, above the English shipping at
Philadelphia, in December, 1777. I was unacquainted with the river,
and obliged to depend upon a gentleman very imperfectly acquainted
with that part of it, as I afterwards found. We went as near the
shipping as we durst venture; I believe the darkness of the night
greatly deceived him, as it did me. We set them adrift to fall with
the ebb upon the shipping. Had we been within sixty rods I believe
they must have fallen in with them immediately, as I designed; but,
as I afterwards found, they were set adrift much too far distant,
and did not arrive until, after being detained some time by frost,
they advanced in the day-time in a dispersed situation, and under
great disadvantages. One of them blew up a boat with several persons
in it who imprudently handled it too freely, and thus gave the
British that alarm which brought on the battle of the kegs.
[Illustration:
BUSHNELL’S SUBMARINE.
A A. Oars. B. Rudder. C. Seat. D. Immersion tank. E. Pipe. F.
Conning tower. G. Safety weight. H. Torpedo.
]
The above vessel, magazine, &c., were projected in the year 1771,
but not completed until the year 1775.
The above account appears in the fourth volume of the Transactions of
the American Philosophical Society, and also in the fourth volume of
Nicholson’s Journal of Natural Philosophy (1801).
Disappointed in the failure of his submarine boat to accomplish the
things of which he felt sure it was capable, Bushnell went to France,
and finally settled in Georgia, where he lived under the pseudonym of
Dr. Bush until the year 1826, when he died at the ripe age of ninety.
General Washington, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson dated September 26,
1775, described Bushnell as “a man of great mechanical powers, fertile
in inventions, and master of execution.” With regard to the submarine
vessel he says, “I thought, and still think, that it was an effort of
genius, but that too many things were necessary to be combined to expect
much from the issue against an enemy who are always upon guard.”
Bushnell was undoubtedly the first inventor who combined in his design
submarine navigation and torpedo warfare, and his invention, crude
though it was, was the embryo of the modern diving torpedo-boat. The
principles on which it was built may be traced in almost all the later
submarine craft, and the improvements that have taken place have been
mostly due to the general progress of engineering; the “oar placed near
the top of the vessel” may be compared with Mr. Nordenfelt’s vertical
screws.
CHAPTER XII
FULTON’S SUBMARINE BOATS
“What will become of navies, and where will sailors be found to man
ships of war, when it is a physical certainty that they may at any
moment be blown into the air by means of diving-boats, against which
no human foresight can guard them?”—M. ST. AUBIN (in 1802).
Robert Fulton was born in 1765 in Little Britain, Pennsylvania, and died
at New York on February 24, 1815. In the year 1796 Fulton went to Paris,
residing at the house of Joel Barlow, then resident minister for the
United States, for seven years. While in Paris two projects occupied a
large portion of his time. The first was a carcass, or box, filled with
combustibles which was to be propelled under water and made to explode
beneath the bottom of a vessel.
The second was a submarine boat. In 1797 Fulton submitted his vessel to
the approval of the Government of the Directory, promising to furnish
them with an agent by which they could dispose of their enemies,
particularly British, in all parts of the world. A Commission appointed
to examine his ideas reported favourably on them, but the Minister of
the Marine would have nothing to do with them. Fulton then made a model
of his submarine, which met with the approval of another Commission, but
again the Minister of Marine was obdurate. Fulton now tried the Dutch
Government, but they did not look with any favour on the new methods of
under-water warfare.
Three years later (in 1800), Fulton approached Napoleon, who appeared to
think well of his schemes, for he appointed La Place, Mouge, and Volney
to examine them, and also gave him 10,000 francs to carry out
experiments.
In May, 1801, Fulton built his first submarine boat, the _Nautilus_. She
made her first trial on the Seine opposite the Invalides. Fulton and one
sailor formed the crew and with nothing but a candle to light the
interior, they remained submerged twenty minutes. On coming to the
surface they found that the current had carried them some considerable
distance down the river, so again sinking beneath the surface Fulton
steered his vessel to the point of departure. On July 3, 1801, Fulton
embarked with three companions on board his “plunging boat” in the
harbour of Brest; the four men descended in the _Nautilus_ a depth of 23
feet, which seemed to be the greatest depth the boat would stand. They
remained below in total darkness for one hour. At subsequent descents
Fulton tried to employ candles, but found they destroyed the vitality of
the air. Bulls-eyes were then inserted in the top of the boat, and these
alleviated, to a certain extent, the prevailing gloom.
Once Fulton with three persons is said to have stayed for six hours at a
depth of 5 feet by the aid of a copper globe of 1 cubic foot capacity
“containing 200 atmospheres”; on another occasion he sailed out of the
harbour, then quite suddenly lowered his mast, and disappeared from
view, showing how quickly he could submerge his craft.
The _Nautilus_ was a cigar-shaped boat about 7 feet in diameter. The
hull was of copper, but supported by iron ribs. It had one mast, a
mainsail, and a jib, which moved her at the rate of two miles an hour on
the surface, and were stowed in two minutes when preparing to dive.
Under the water the vessel was moved by the exertions of two men, the
“propelling engine” consisting of a wheel rotated by a hand-winch, at
the rate of 2½ miles an hour. A third man steered from a small conning
tower while Fulton governed the position of the boat by regulating the
machine which kept her balanced and determined her depth below the
surface. She was 21 feet 4 inches long, and was furnished with a keel
under the whole length of the hull.
Having proved that man could exist for some time beneath the surface in
a vessel and could steer it, Fulton made experiments with a torpedo or
case of explosive. On the first occasion he blew a small ship to
fragments with 20 lbs. of powder.
As he had shown his ability to blow up old hulks in French waters,
Fulton proposed to build a large submarine vessel, but failed to attain
official support, partly because those in authority considered that
submarine explosions were not legal warfare. One of these writes that
“this type of warfare carries with it the objection that those who
undertake it and those against whom it is made, will all be lost. This
cannot be called a gallant death.”
[Illustration:
THE “NAUTILUS” OF ROBERT FULTON.
]
Fulton asked a reward for each vessel he destroyed, the re-imbursement
of the price of his ship (40,000 francs), and lastly a patent giving
himself and his crew the quality of belligerents, so that if they were
captured they would not be hanged as pirates.
That submarine warfare was considered by some “immoral” at the time is
evident from the statement of Admiral Pleville le Pelle, the Minister of
Marine. “It seems impossible to serve a Commission for belligerency to
men who employ such a method of destroying the fleet of the enemy.”
As Fulton was equally unsuccessful in his effort to interest Napoleon in
steam navigation, the disappointed inventor crossed the Channel in order
to discover whether the English would show themselves any readier to
grasp new ideas, and would prove capable of foreseeing the possibilities
of his inventions.
It was in May, 1804, that Fulton came to England, and from some accounts
it would appear that the English Government, alarmed at Fulton’s plans,
invited him, at the suggestion of Earl Stanhope, to lay his ideas before
them. The inventor explained to the naval authorities that his system
rendered above-water fleets unnecessary, but they did not at all relish
the idea of fighting beneath the waves.
Mr. Pitt, however, then Prime Minister, was very much taken with the
American and his torpedoes, and appointed a Commission to watch certain
experiments. The Commission consisted of Mr. Pitt, Lords Mulgrave,
Melville, and Castlereagh, Sir Joseph Banks, Mr. Cavendish, Admiral Sir
Howe Popham (the only naval man in the Commission), Major Congreve, and
Sir John Rennie.
Although Mr. Pitt and some few others were disposed to look with favour
on Fulton’s devices, the Commission as a whole were of the same opinion
as Admiral Earl St. Vincent, who remarked that it was foolish for Pitt
to encourage “that gimcrack, for so he was laying the foundation for
doing away with the Navy, on which depended the strength and prestige of
Great Britain.”
Thus Fulton’s plans were declared to be unpracticable by the Commission.
Mr. Pitt still refused to relinquish his faith in Fulton, and on October
15, 1805, he caused an experiment to be made on an old Danish brig which
was blown to pieces by 170 lbs. of powder. Even this wonderful result
failed to appeal to those in authority, for while they recognised that
torpedoes and submarine boats might prove useful to weaker nations, and
might be used with effect by them, they declared that such weapons of
warfare could have no place in the naval equipment of the Mistress of
the Seas. It is said that Fulton was offered a large sum of money to
suppress his inventions, but this is doubtful. Full details of Fulton’s
boat and various confidential reports are said to be amongst the secret
papers of the Record Office.
In the year 1806 Fulton returned to New York and made overtures to the
United States Government. Receiving some encouragement he succeeded,
after many unsuccessful efforts, in blowing up a vessel which had been
prepared for the purpose. Admiral Porter in 1878 wrote, “A Midshipman
nowadays at our Torpedo School at Newport, would consider himself
disgraced if he failed to destroy a ship of the line in ten minutes with
less explosive powder, especially if the ship lay at anchor and gave him
every opportunity to operate upon her.” The admiral seems to forget that
Fulton was a pioneer, and laboured under every possible disadvantage in
prosecuting his work.
In 1810 Congress appropriated 5,000 dollars to assist Fulton in
developing his ideas. After many trials, most of which were failures,
the United States brig _Argus_ was prepared for Fulton’s final
experiment. By order of Commodore Rodgers, the vessel had been so
protected with spars and netting reaching to the bottom as to be
practically unassailable, and the attempt to blow her up by a submarine
torpedo was unsuccessful, as Fulton himself acknowledged, though he
could not refrain from adding that “a system then in its infancy, which
compelled a hostile vessel to guard herself by such extraordinary means,
could not fail of becoming a most important mode of warfare.”
Could Fulton have foreseen the manner in which his crude devices were to
develop into the Whitehead torpedo and submarine boat of to-day, he
would have had something to cheer him in his hours of depression.
After the failure of the _Argus_ experiment, Fulton devoted his
attention to steam navigation, and was more successful in this line than
in his efforts to introduce torpedo warfare, though he considered the
latter a matter of greater moment than the former.
In a letter to Joel Barlow, dated New York, August 22, 1807, Fulton
says, after describing his celebrated steam voyage up the Hudson:—
“However, I will not admit that it (steam navigation) is half so
important as the torpedo system of defence or attack, for out of this
will grow the liberty of the seas—an object of infinite importance to
the welfare of America and every civilised country. But thousands of
witnesses have now seen the steamboat in rapid movement and they
believe; but they have not seen a ship of war destroyed by a torpedo,
and they do not believe. We cannot expect people in general to have
knowledge of physics or power to reason from cause to effect, but in
case we have war and the enemy’s ships come into our waters, if the
Government will give me reasonable means of action, I will soon convince
the world that we have surer and cheaper modes of defence than they are
aware of.”
Referring to the failure of Fulton to induce the various Powers to adopt
his submarine boat and torpedo, Admiral Porter said (in 1878) that naval
men seventy years ago, whether in this country or abroad, saw no
prospect in the success of Fulton’s scheme but the destruction of the
service which was then their pride and glory, and it was hardly to be
wondered at that all plans to destroy ships by other means than the
legitimate eighteen-pounder were looked upon with disfavour. So the
torpedo slept, but in time it reappeared invested with such deadly
attributes that no nation could afford to disregard its claims as the
most destructive implement of naval warfare yet devised. During the
“Second War of Independence” (1812–1814) some unsuccessful attacks were
made by a diving vessel on British men-of-war, and this is generally
understood to be one of Fulton’s vessels.
The following extract is from a work published by James Kelly in 1818.
“About this time—that is the summer of 1813—some infamous and
insidious attempts were publicly encouraged for the destruction of
the British men-of-war upon the coasts of America by torpedoes and
other explosive machinery, as will appear from the following extract
from the American newspapers.
“‘A gentleman at Norwich, U.S., has invented a diving boat, which by
means of paddles he can propel under water at the rate of three
miles an hour, and ascend and descend at pleasure. He has been three
times under the bottom of the _Ramilies_ off New London. In the
first attempt, after remaining under some time, he came to the top
of the water like the porpoise for air, and as luck would have it,
came up but a few feet from the stern of the _Ramilies_.
“‘He was observed by a sentinel on deck who sang out “Boat ahoy!”
immediately on hearing which, the boat descended without making a
reply. Seeing this an alarm gun was fired on board the ship and all
hands called to quarter, the cable cut and the ship got under weigh
with all possible despatch, expecting to be blown up by a torpedo.
“‘In the third attempt he came up directly under the _Ramilies_, and
fastened himself and his boat to her keel, where he remained half an
hour and succeeded in perforating a hole through her upper, but
while engaged in screwing a torpedo to her bottom the screw broke
and defeated his object for that time. So great is the alarm and
fear on board the _Ramilies_ of some such stratagem being played
upon them, that Commodore Hardy has withdrawn his force from before
New London and keeps his ship under weigh all the time instead of
lying at anchor as formerly.’”
This “dishonourable attempt,” evidently made under the sanction of the
American executive, induced Sir Thomas Hardy to address letters to the
public authorities of New London, and to the Government of the States of
Connecticut on the subject. In these Sir Thomas Hardy states that “he is
fully apprised of the efforts to destroy the _Ramilies_, and that he
shall do all in his power to defeat them, but he thinks it right to
notify publicly that since the attempt he had ordered on board from
fifty to a hundred American prisoners of war, who in the event of the
efforts to destroy the ship by torpedoes or other infernal inventions
being successful, would share the fate of himself and his crew. That in
future whenever a vessel was taken, the crew would be kept on board
until it has ascertained that no snare was laid for the destruction of
British seamen, and that the regulations would be observed when a vessel
was boarded and abandoned by her crew.”
Sir Thomas adds that his example would be followed by all the commanders
of his squadron.
These representations had some effect on the American public, for on the
contents of the letter being known a public meeting was held, and as
many of the citizens had relations and friends prisoners of war on board
the British squadron, it was determined to present a remonstrance to the
American executive against the further employment of torpedoes in the
ordinary course of warfare.
Admiral Porter says that these submarine attacks were mostly
unauthorised by the U.S. Government, and disapproved by the navy, “who
preferred the more chivalric method of sinking vessels with eighteen and
twenty-four pounders, or mowing down their crews with grape and
canister.”
It is almost certain that the submarine craft that attacked H.M.S.
_Ramilies_ as she lay off New London was one of Fulton’s boats.
In the year 1814 Fulton constructed the _Mute_, a huge submarine capable
of holding a hundred men, and deriving its name from the silent engine
that propelled it. The _Mute_ was 80 feet 6 inches long, 21 feet wide,
and 11 feet deep. It was armoured on the top with iron sheets, beneath
which was a wood lining almost a foot in thickness. Before the trials
could be completed Fulton died, and thus the story of this ardent
inventor’s notions concerning submarine warfare comes to a close.
In 1810 Fulton published at New York a book, “Torpedo War and Submarine
Explosions,” in which he gives an account of the various devices he had
contrived for blowing up ships, piers, &c., and of the actual
experiments he had made. He seems to have elaborated his submarine boat
after his torpedo had been invented, and his idea was that an
under-water vessel would be useful in discharging torpedoes. His method
of attack was to float the torpedo down to the object to be attacked,
and to guide and even explode them by means of lines. He seemed not to
have thought of the use of the spar torpedo as we know it to-day.
CHAPTER XIII
SUBMARINES DURING THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR
From the death of Robert Fulton down to the commencement of the American
Civil War no very startling developments in under-water warfare are to
be chronicled. During the Schleswig-Holstein War of 1848–50 the modern
subaqueous explosive mine first came into use in actual warfare, and
mines were also employed during the Crimean War; in 1859 by the
Austrians at the time of the threatened attack on Venice by the French,
and by the Chinese in 1857–58 to defend the streams in the neighbourhood
of Canton.
The mine and the torpedo both played their part in the American Civil
War, and since then both these weapons have been adopted as valuable
factors of offence and defence by all the great Powers. When the
Southern Confederacy seceded from the United States in 1861, one of the
first steps of its naval department was to form a torpedo section to
protect approaches to places liable to attack by the Northern fleet. It
was during the war that the idea was applied of taking the mine to the
hostile ship by means of a boat, for the mine, besides being immovable,
was liable to be picked up or cut adrift by the enemy. A charge of
powder was placed at the end of a long pole carried in the bows of the
boat; when darkness came on the boat crept up to the enemy, the pole and
charge were run under water until in contact with the hull of the enemy,
and the explosive was then ignited by means of electricity. Thus came
into being the “spar” or “outrigger” torpedo, a weapon which still finds
a place in the armament of the British fleet. The Confederates affixed
the spar torpedo to at least one ironclad ship and many small steam
vessels, and much damage was inflicted on the enemy by its employment.
It must be remembered that automobile or fish torpedoes had not been
invented at this time, and that the only under-water weapons used on
both sides were fixed mines and spar torpedoes.
It was in order to use the spar torpedo to the greatest advantage that
the diving torpedo-boat was employed, and in this chapter we shall have
to deal with a very famous incident in the history of submarine
navigation, namely, the sinking of the Federal frigate _Housatonic_ by a
submarine boat manned by the Confederates and armed with a spar torpedo.
Early in the war the Federal or Northern Government entered into
negotiations with a Frenchman, whose name we have been unable to
discover, to build and operate a submarine boat against the Confederate
or Southern vessels. In particular the North desired to blow up the
Confederate _Merrimac_ in Norfolk Harbour. It has been stated that
$10,000 were to be paid for the boat when finished, and $5,000 for each
successful attack with her. The boat was apparently constructed at the
Navy Yard at Washington, and paid for by the Federals, but before they
could learn the art of navigating the vessel the Frenchman, taking his
gains with him, left the country. Whether the boat would have proved of
much value is to be doubted, and the probability is that the inventor
would have been as unsuccessful as were the Federals in working the
craft.
Admiral Hichborn terms it “an absurd arrangement of duckfoot hand-worked
paddles in an age when the screw-propeller was in common use.”
It was 35 feet long and 6 feet in diameter, and was built up of
steel plates. Immersion was obtained by the admission of water, and
the mode of propulsion on the surface or below the water was by
eight pairs of oars or paddles which opened and shut like the leaves
of a book, and were worked by sixteen men placed half on the port
and half on the starboard. The maximum speed was 2½ knots on the
surface. Fresh air was produced by two machines—one consisted of a
bellows passing air over a chamber of lime, the other produced
oxygen. The armament was a spar torpedo. According to one account it
was towed round by a steamboat to Port Royal and foundered in a
storm of wind off Cape Hatteras.
Early in 1863 the Confederates cut down a gunboat at Charleston and
converted it into a half-submerged torpedo-boat. It does not appear to
have done any mischief, but Mr. H. W. Wilson, in his “Ironclads in
Action,” says that it may have been the vessel which on the night of
April 19, 1864, approached the _Wabash_. The Northern vessel was at
anchor when something was seen near her in the water and challenged. She
slipped her cable and went ahead, opening a heavy fire upon the strange
craft, after which it disappeared, whether as the result of a shot or
not is uncertain.
On the night of October 5, 1863, an attack was made upon the United
States’ ironclad, _New Ironsides_, of 3,486 old American tons, carrying
twenty guns, at anchor in the midst of the blockading squadron off
Charleston, by a submarine vessel owned by the Confederates. This boat
was built by Theodore Stoney at Charleston, and was called the _David_,
a name given by the Southerns to some subsequent under-water craft in
memory of the fight between the lad David and the giant Goliath.
This first _David_ was 54 feet long and at her widest depth 6 feet in
diameter. She was cigar-shaped, and was propelled by a screw driven by
steam power. When in action she lay almost flush with the water, her
funnel and steering chamber alone projecting above the surface. (Another
report says that she was so far submerged that only about 10 feet in
length of the hull was visible 2 feet above the water.) Her armament
consisted of a single spar torpedo with a 60 lb. charge of gunpowder,
which was folded alongside when not in use, and only run out on an iron
bar to a distance of 10 feet for the actual attack, ignition being
effected by an acid fuse rendered active by a collision nearly end on.
Her maximum speed was 7 knots an hour.
“With a crew of volunteers Lieut. Glassell took her out, and, a
little after nine in the evening, the _Ironsides_ watch saw her
approaching. She looked to them like a plank, since all that could
be seen was the coaming of her hatchway. Several officers were on
deck, and the _David_ was at once hailed. Her only answer was a
volley of musketry which mortally wounded one Federal officer. An
instant later the ironclad received a violent blow from the
explosion of a torpedo containing 60 lbs. of powder, which threw up
a column of water, shook the ship severely and broke one man’s leg
on board her. After the smoke and spray had cleared away the
_Ironsides_ was found to be uninjured and the boat had disappeared.
Her crew jumped overboard at the moment of firing the torpedo, and
Glassell, as he swam about, hailed a Northern coal schooner, on
board which he was taken, whilst a second man escaped to the
_Ironsides_. The engineer of the _David_, however, after the
explosion swam back to the boat, to which he found the pilot
clinging for dear life, as he was unable to swim. Helping him on
board he discovered that the _David_ could yet float, though the
explosion had put out the fires, and together the two took her back
to Charleston.”
In a paper on “Offensive Torpedo Warfare,” read before the Royal United
Service Institution in 1871, Commander W. Dawson, R.N., writes of the
attack as follows:—