Admiral Aube argued that in the naval war of the future France would

most certainly act on the defensive, and that it was therefore the

business of the nation to prepare, to organise, and to bring to the

highest state of efficiency its weapons of defence. He blamed the

Admiralty for spending the millions which had been voted for the navy in

the creation of “mastodons” which “had neither speed, nor teeth to

bite.”

M. Saissy says that the Admiral’s plans were put on one side and that

his warnings appealed to deaf ears, but the time came when they were

brought to light again.

“On the morrow of Fashoda, after the insolent behaviour of the English,

the Minister of Marine saw his duty plain before him, and set to work

with zeal. M. Lockroy was surrounded by officers to whom the programme

of Admiral Aube was not a chimera. The study of submarine navigation was

actively pushed forward, and if M. Lockroy had remained at the Ministry

we should have at this moment an important number of these weapons of

naval warfare, so precious and so indispensable; but he was superseded

and, according to custom, his successor began to undo the good work of

his predecessor, so that we find ourselves to-day in a most difficult

situation. Our habit is always to act as if we had plenty of time before

us, and the enormous budget of the Navy and its supplementary estimates

will, unless we are on our guard, be wasted in a useless expenditure.

* * * * *

“If war had broken out last year, all our maritime ports and our

arsenals would have been bombarded and burned, before our squadrons

could have attempted to defend them.

“Is the situation better now than it was then? Have the means of defence

been strengthened as they should be?

“The Ministry of Marine is aware of the gravity of the situation. Our

legislators cannot be ignorant of the facts, and yet nothing is done.

Our only hope is in the individual initiative of those honest men of

science who give some thought to what the morrow may bring forth.”

M. Fleury Ravarin in a report written in November, 1900, supporting the

Ministerial programme for the building of large battleships, remarked:—

“If we are now asked what a fighting navy should really be we must say

that it should be capable of fighting upon the high seas with the navies

of rival nations, and that it is the business of the technical boards of

the Navy to indicate the nature and composition of the fleet required

for the purpose. It is for the Parliament to decide if we shall be

content with a modest defensive navy which would be unable, we cannot

repeat too often, to do more than delay defeat in case of war, or

whether on the other hand France is resolved to enforce her position as

a great Power and to make the heavy but remunerative sacrifices

necessary to give weight to her voice in the councils of Europe, thus

attracting to herself commerce and riches, and spreading throughout the

world her influence and her traditional ideal of justice and

generosity.”

Recent French naval activity in ship construction, deepening the

anchorages in home waters and protecting them against torpedo attacks,

organising torpedo stations, enlarging dry docks, creating vast depôts

of coal, war stores, &c., facilitating the rapid coaling of vessels,

providing bases of operation in different parts of the world, &c., is

avowedly aimed at Great Britain, and the idea that was uppermost in the

minds of those who counselled these preparations was that France should

be able, when a favourable moment arose, to strike a swift and sudden

blow at British supremacy.

Writers in France openly acknowledge that all French manœuvres embrace

the idea that the “enemy” is Great Britain, and the manœuvres of 1901

took the form of an attempt to prevent a junction of the British Channel

and Mediterranean squadrons.

Baron de Coubertin has lately warned England in the plainest and most

emphatic way that France will support Russia in any war with England,

and it is now well known that Russia was prepared to support France in

the Fashoda crisis.

Opinion in France is divided on the question of the shipbuilding

programme; whilst, on the one hand, there are those who regard the

construction of large battleships and cruisers as absolutely necessary,

on the other hand, there are others who look upon this type of warship

as inferior to the smaller class of fighting ship.

Just now the former party is in the ascendant. M. de Lanessan has

contrasted the short range of the torpedo with the long range of the

gun, and has deduced from the conditions the necessity for two classes

of vessels (_a_) torpedo craft, and (_b_) battleships and armoured

cruisers. He has explained that in order that the gun should be given

its full value it is essential that the platform should be stable and

that a vessel of considerable dimensions was thus called for. It was

impossible upon such a platform to place many powerful guns, but a

necessary consequence was that these should be protected, and hence came

the need of heavy armouring. In short, the two qualities of offence and

defence were indissoluble, but they were not the only qualities called

for; speed and range in action were also necessary, and these again led

inevitably to the heavy battleship.

M. Fleury-Ravarin, commenting on the fact that many advocates of the

_guerre de course_ had asked if there did not exist a more economical

means of making war than that which consisted in opposing to certain

ships others of a like character, told the French Parliament that it

(the _guerre de course_) had never brought an enemy to submission, and

that in the existing conditions of naval warfare it was very costly,

whilst speed, its essential element, was of all elements at sea the most

elusive. Moreover, the organisation of the _guerre de course_ required

many naval bases so that not only was it more costly in the beginning,

but it demanded greater charges for maintenance. For these reasons this

system of warfare could not be raised to a method; it must remain an

accessory.

There can be no doubt that the popularity of the submarine craft with

ministers, writers, journalists, and populace is due very largely to the

idea that these vessels will in warfare prove capable of meeting and

defeating the battleships and cruisers which Great Britain will send

against France when the “Real Thing” arrives.

A writer who adopts the _nom de plume_ of “_Armour_” points out the

probable course of action in a naval war between France and Great

Britain. British squadrons would be deprived of value by giving them no

object to attack and preventing the possibility of establishing an

effective blockade. The French ships would be withdrawn to the forts,

which would be strongly fortified so as to secure them against attack.

The close watching of a port would be too dangerous to be undertaken,

and at night the squadrons would be obliged to withdraw to great

distances in order to escape the menaces of the submersible boats: and

at the same time the ingress and egress of cruisers—the only large

vessels that would put to sea—would be easy.

In theory the British fleet should be equal in strength to the combined

fleets of any two Powers, and although there are times when our strength

is below the requisite, this ideal standard should be ever before those

responsible for the condition of the navy. In the opinion of a certain

class of Frenchmen the submarine will at a comparatively small expense,

and in a very short space of time, satisfactorily neutralise all that

England can do.

They hold that the use of the torpedo greatly strengthens an inferior

but enterprising enemy, and that the tendency of torpedo warfare is to

reduce the maritime forces of states differing considerably in power to

the level of equals.

The opinions of a few of the most ardent believers in submarines among

Frenchmen may be given here.

A French naval writer commenting on the sums expended by the French

Government on the construction of submarines writes—

“The cruiser which can guard itself from the ordinary torpedo-boat will

be without defence against the invisible enemy slowly creeping up to it

to discharge its torpedo. It will be no longer possible for it to enter

narrow waters and to approach the enemy’s coast. Its only safety will be

in flight, and it will become a relic of the past. The naval battles of

the future will take place not on the surface but in the depths of the

ocean.”

M. Lockroy, in 1899, speaking in explanation of the French navy

estimates, said that whilst formerly France had but one naval rival, she

now had four, and the Triple Alliance could muster but sixty-seven

battleships, while England had ninety-four, and France sixty. Could

France ensure superiority over her rivals? Yes; submarine navigation

ensured her a considerable advantage. The achievements of the _Zédé_

might lead to a revolution in naval equipment and warfare. Meanwhile

France had a terrible weapon—just what she wanted. “Everything,” said

Vice-Admiral Jurien de la Gravière, “which threatens _les colosses_ and

tends to emancipate _les moucherons_ should be warmly welcomed by the

French Navy, for by such means we can double in a few years our forces

and our power.” One might be forgiven for supposing that all French

writers were on the side of the smaller fighting vessel. There are,

however, quite as many who are opposed to this policy and who believe

that France would be better with more battleships and cruisers and less

torpedo craft, but they do not state their views in the emphatic and

picturesque language of the other party, and as a consequence their

influence is less felt. In 1888 Admiral Bourgois in his book on

Torpedoes emphatically stated that the torpedo and the torpedo-boat

could not take the place of the ironclad.

Says another writer: “Qu’on se rappelle les mitrailleuses de 1871. Nous

souhaitons sincerement que le sous-marin après avoir inspiré la meme

confiance exagerée ne cause pas les mêmes déceptions que les

mitrailleuses de 1870!”

Again the same writer reminds his countrymen that a naval battle cannot

be compared to a manœuvre when everything is arranged beforehand. The

submarine cannot venture to sea in foul weather without exposing itself

to dire accidents, but will the enemy wait until the sea is calm before

commencing battle? What would happen if he chose the moment to attack

when a troubled sea forces the submarine to remain in port and no other

defence can be utilised?

The submarine, he says, is still in the rudimentary condition, and the

problem of submarine navigation has not yet been solved.

“Other navies possess submarines and have made experiments, and we

cannot be certain that we are ahead of them, although we make the most

fuss.

“A means of defence from the attack of submarines, if ever they become

really dangerous weapons, will assuredly be found, and the country which

is so imprudent as to rely chiefly on such vessels will be quickly

disarmed by a stronger foe.

“To sum up, submarine navigation, like aerial navigation, is as yet only

in the experimental stage—let us follow its progress carefully and

encourage experiments; but to make a radical transformation in our navy

on the strength of certain manœuvres would be an act of imprudence both

perilous and criminal.”

The attitude of the saner class of Frenchmen may be gathered from the

following extract from a speech delivered in the Senate on the 4th of

December, 1900.

“At the present time we are certainly all of us believers in the

submarines; I am as keen a believer as you, but it must be recognised

that it is still the vessel of the future rather than of to-day.

“The day may come when it will cause all the cruisers to disappear, but

to-day the submarine is a weapon about whose efficiency one cannot be

very certain, or at least whose use in warfare is limited to special

circumstances. For the present, then, we needs must accept the proposals

of the Admiralty and wait to substitute these new engines of warfare for

our present bigger vessels until the future has given to submarines the

power and the value which some already claim for them.”

“It has been the crowning misfortune of France,” said Sir G. Clarke,

“that every fresh invention has resulted to the advantage of the

principal naval Power, from whom it has ever been her ambition to wrest

the command of the sea. A closer study of the problem of the submarine

boat will probably reveal the fact that the boat will be of little use

against moving targets, but, having been convoyed to its destination,

may be of service against fixed targets. The Power able to blockade its

enemy can so convoy the submarine boat without risk, and then it can be

sent on its adventurous enterprise in the crowded harbours of the

enemy.”

It will be only an instance of the irony of fate if submarines come to

be employed by Great Britain against France in the next great war, but

the French writers who declare that England reaps where France has sown

must remember that no nation can hope in these days to possess the

monopoly of any one particular weapon of warfare.

“We have seriously believed,” says a writer in the _Journal de la

Marine_, “that in all the great modifications that have been brought

about in the construction of submarines is the result of the important

changes which the last fifty years of the century have produced in the

art of naval warfare. All these changes have been sought out,

experimented upon, studied, and finally realised by France, who has also

been the first to apply them. These results have established in a

brilliant and incontestable manner the skill of our engineers; but our

rivals have not only appropriated the results of our labours, but they

have not been slow to place themselves on equal terms with us, and

finally to excel us in the application of these discoveries.... We have

been only the humble artisans working for them to establish their

superiority.”

All this, it is added, is due to the industrial supremacy of England.

France built a commerce-destroyer, _D’Entrecasteaux_, of 8,000 tons, and

with a speed of 19 knots. She was to prey on English ships of commerce

like a second _Alabama_. And Great Britain replied to the threat by

building the _Powerful_ and the _Terrible_, each of 14,000 tons and 22

knots, and the efforts of France were thus brought to naught, and the

_Journal_ wearily complains that, “It is easy for England to place three

armed cruisers for service where we can only place one.”

In the question of submarines Great Britain has pursued the same

perfidious conduct. Very quietly the British sat still until France had

done all the preliminary work of experiment and trial, and now, after

something of the nature of a real engine for naval war has been produced

by their engineers, Britain quietly steps in and begins at the point

France had reached.

“The English Government have not chosen to contribute by their own

researches and work to upset a state of things to which the supremacy of

the British Navy is due; the appearance of a boat which will plunge

under the water and act on the offensive within a considerable radius of

action has enlarged the question. At present all they wish is the

protection of coasts and harbours.”

But it was the intention of France to place herself in a position of

offence towards England.

“In the near future the types _Narval_ and _Holland_, being invisible

enemies, would be in a position to operate against the English coasts

and carry destruction into the midst of the naval forces which protect

them. They would be able to seek and hunt out these same forces even in

the harbours and roads where they are lying at anchor.”

But the ability of England to reply with some other equally good engine

and protect herself as she has always done oppresses the writer’s mind.

“On the other hand, if England with any chance of success is able to

oppose with the torpedo destroyer or some other force of an equalising

nature, she will render all this impossible to the submarine. There will

be some other means of defence against these redoubtable engines, though

the solution does not appear to be near. England will find her best

means of protection to attack the coasts of the enemy.... Anyway, she

has five submarines on the stocks, and it is believed that these will be

followed shortly by others.... The English have kept it a great secret.

They have allowed a time of serious observation and attention to pass

not with indifference before entering on the path opened by other

nations.”

The writer takes consolation from the reflection that, although when

England does begin it is easy for her to put three armed cruisers where

France can only put one, yet the start in submarines which France has

will revolutionise the conditions of naval war, and, he hopes, is such

that she need not fear what England can do for a long time to come.

“Doubtless,” he says, “more than a year will pass before the _Holland_

or vessels of that class, however perfect they may be, can really be

placed on service.” Then follows an enumeration of France’s fleet of

submarines:—

“We possess already four submarines in service actually employed on the

same work as torpedo boats—the _Gymnote_, the _Gustave Zédé_, the

_Morse_, and the _Narval_. The _Française_ and the _Korrigan_ will

follow the _Gnome_ and the _Lutin_ at Rochefort. At Cherbourg four are

now on the stocks—the _Silure_, _Triton_, _Sirène_, and _Escapadon_.

During this year twenty-three more will be placed on the stocks, which

will make altogether thirty-seven submarines.”

These will make a most formidable fleet, sporting like porpoises round

the English warships in the Channel and along her shores, and holding

them at the mercy of France. “The fact that England should launch into

their construction shows that they are more menacing to her than to us,”

adds the writer complacently. But France is not to sit down quietly:—

“But since we have made a very real advance in that which concerns the

submarine, let us work without ceasing to preserve this superiority. Our

engineers, who have succeeded so brilliantly, will be able to work for

themselves new improvements while profiting by the experience already

acquired.”

__PART I.__

FRENCH SUBMARINES PROPER, _i.e._ THOSE DEPENDENT ENTIRELY ON ELECTRICITY

FOR MOTIVE POWER.

_Gymnote._

The first submarine built for the French navy was the _Gymnote_. The

original plans of this vessel were worked out by the celebrated

engineer, Dupuy de Lôme, but unfortunately he never lived to execute his

project, for he died just when he had finished the details.

Some years later M. Gustave Zédé, a Marine Engineer, revived the ideas

of his friend, and after making some modifications in Dupuy de Lôme’s

original design, he brought it before Admiral Aube, the Minister of

Marine, who accepted it at once, and signed a contract for its

construction by the Société des Forges et Chantiers de la Méditerranée.

M. Zédé was one of the directors of this society, and thus he was able

to superintend the work, which was carried out under the direction of M.

Romazzotti, then first-class Assistant Engineer of Marine.

The _Gymnote_ is built of steel in the shape of a cigar. It is 59 feet

long, 5·9 feet beam, and 6 feet in diameter, just deep enough to allow a

man to stand upright in the interior; its displacement is 30 tons, a

total weight a little less than the weight of the water displaced by the

boat when completely immersed, and its speed about 6 knots; leaden

plates placed on each side of the boat in two hollows regulate its

draught of water. The top of the vessel affords a narrow platform, and

on this are a manhole and a little cupola, with windows.

The motive power was originally an electro-motor of 55 h.p., driven from

564 accumulators. It was designed by Captain Krebs and built in the

workshops of the Société des Forges et Chantiers at Havre.

It was of extraordinary lightness, weighing only 4,410 lbs., and drove

the screw at the rate of 2,000 revolutions a minute, giving a speed of 6

knots an hour, its radius of action at this speed being 35 knots;

reduced to 4 knots its radius of action was 100 miles.

This motor was afterwards replaced by a much simpler machine.

Immersion is obtained by the introduction of water into three

reservoirs, placed one forward, one aft, and one centre.

The water is expelled either by means of compressed air or by a rotary

Behrens pump worked by an electro-motor.

Two horizontal rudders steer the boat in the vertical plane and an

ordinary rudder steers it on the horizontal. Originally one horizontal

rudder only was carried at the stern, but this did not answer well and

was given up.

The behaviour in the sea of the boat when subjected to the influence of

this rudder was somewhat unsatisfactory. For rather prolonged “dives,”

such as would be necessary, for example, in forcing a blockade, the

instability of the boat became very great, and the man at the helm was

unduly fatigued without succeeding in retaining the mastery of his

craft. On account of this instability no greater speed in submersions

than 6 knots was attained. For this speed the inclination of the axis of

the boat was from three to five degrees forward. The difference in the

draught of water between the bow and the stern was 0·88 metre (about 34

inches) for an inclination of 3 degrees; for 5 degrees it reached 1·50

metres (nearly 5 feet).

[Illustration:

_Photo by_] [_M. Bar_

THE “GYMNOTE.”

]

Another system of “dip” rudder, proposed in 1891, executed in 1893, and

tested towards the end of 1894, consists in the employment of two

horizontal floatboards, placed on each side of the boat at the height of

the midship frame. Their use, combined with that of the stern rudder,

has given better results. The boat is inclined less for the “dive,” dips

more regularly, and lurches or “yaws” less.

When navigating on the surface or when her hull is immersed to the

water-line the _Gymnote_ carries a cupola, or movable shell with

sidelights.

This apparatus is composed essentially of a metal shell provided with

sidelights all round its circumference. A cylinder of strong tarred

canvas fixed on steel springs, which ensure rigidity, bind the shell

itself to the upper part of the hull. Horizontal folds in front permit

this canvas to double up regularly upon itself after the style of a

Venetian lantern, and in such a way that when the doubling up is

complete the height of the shell (or “casque”) comes exactly on a level

with the upper platform of the boat. During navigation at the surface or

on the water-line the whole structure can be raised or lowered by means

of a vertical screw moved by a horizontal hand-wheel of which the

movable nut constitutes the lower part of a vertical frame formed of

metallic uprights, which go to rejoin the hull. When the system is at

the end of an upward course the canvas is completely stretched and the

observatory is at its maximum height; when, on the contrary, it is at

the end of a downward run, the canvas is completely contracted and the

“kiosk” has externally disappeared.

Such a system (as a French writer has pointed out) is very faulty and

dangerous, as may be easily conceived. In the first place, considering

the feeble resistance which a canvas can oppose even when mounted on

steel springs, it was indispensable to protect it against the pressure

of the water during the “dive.” This was believed to have been

accomplished by providing the shell with an indiarubber crown, forming a

sort of beak, which, when the system was completely folded up and

closed, came to rest on another washer of indiarubber placed at the

bottom of a groove, where it formed a watertight joint. This would have

been very good if there had been certitude that the beak or cap fixed on

the shell rested exactly at the bottom of the groove. To make sure of

that there had been arranged a small opening, which ought to give water

when the closure was not sufficient, but this only gave an almost

illusory means of control, the opening being found almost always

obstructed by some detritus, _débris_ of sea-wrack, and other foreign

bodies encountered by the vessel. It will be seen what permanent danger

was created by this apparatus—danger which on two occasions just missed

causing the loss of the craft, an unlooked-for chance alone preventing

it from foundering.

It would further be easy to show that in spite of its danger the movable

shell, with canvas folded in accordion pleats, was almost unusable—that

it could not serve when there was a slight sea on; that it caused, even

during progress on the water-line, infiltrations capable of sinking the

boat; and finally that, even in a calm sea and under the best

conditions, the length of the manœuvre of raising and lowering made the

operations of the “dive” slow and wanting in precision—operations which

demand so much rapidity and delicacy, and to which alone it is allowable

to sacrifice something on a submarine boat. This movable shell was 0·35

metre (about 13½ to 14 inches) in diameter; it was abandoned after all

the Commandants had successively condemned it, and to-day it is never

used.

For use below the surface the _Gymnote_ carries an optical tube with two

inclined mirrors and a periscope, but these have so far given but poor

results.

The _Gymnote_ was first tried on September 24, 1888, in Toulon harbour.

The French Press was enthusiastic about the qualities of the new boat.

According to _Le Temps_ she was a complete success: “She steers like a

fish both as regards direction and depth; she masters the desired depth

with ease and exactness; at full power she attains to anticipated speed

of from nine to ten knots; the lighting is excellent, there is no

difficulty about heating. It was a strange sight to see the vessel

skimming along the top of the water, suddenly give a downward plunge

with its snout and disappear with a shark-like wriggle of its stern,

only to come up again at a distance out and in an unlooked-for

direction. A few small matters connected with the accumulators have to

be seen to; but they will not take a month.”

At the trials which took place before the Maritime Prefect of Toulon in

1888, the _Gymnote_ behaved very well, as far as speed and stability

were concerned, but it was found difficult to keep her at a constant

level when submerged.

The _Gymnote_ was commanded by several officers, and for some time

served as a training school for officers and men in the management of

the new type of craft, and many suggestions and improvements were

suggested by them, and in some cases carried out. She is now used as an

instructional boat.

At first the vessel carried no armament, but afterwards two torpedo

tubes were fitted.

_Gustave Zédé._

The _Gymnote_ being intended merely as an unarmed, experimental craft,

the next step was to construct a larger vessel carrying a submerged

torpedo tube.

M. Barbey, the Minister of Marine, took the initiative in this project

and M. Romazzotti, Naval Constructor, was ordered to draw up the plans

for the boat and to place it on the stocks in the yard of Mourillon.

The construction of the boat (which was to be named the _Sirène_) was

decided upon in 1890.

During the building M. Zédé, the inventor of the _Gymnote_, died, and

the Minister of Marine conceived the happy idea of paying a last tribute

of respect to the famous engineer by giving the name of _Gustave Zédé_

to the first armed submarine of the French fleet.

The _Gustave Zédé_ was launched at Toulon on June 1, 1893; she is 159

feet in length, beam 12 feet 4 inches, and has a total displacement of

266 tons. Her shell is of “Roma” bronze, a non-magnetic metal, and one

that cannot be attacked by sea water.

[Illustration:

_Photo by_] [_M. Bar_

THE “GUSTAVE ZÉDÉ.”

]

The motive power, of 720 h.p. is furnished by two independent

electro-motors of 360 h.p. each of the Thury type, constructed by M.

Sautter-Harlé and fed by accumulators of the Laurent-Cély type. The

screw revolves at the rate of 250 revolutions a minute.

In order to endow the boat with a wide radius of action a battery was

provided composed of 720 cells, each containing 29 plates and having an

output of 400 amperes and a capacity of 1,800 amperes an hour. The

_Gustave Zédé_ had scarcely been placed in the water before the motive

power gave out owing to the short-circuiting of most of the cells.

To remedy this, two plates were removed from each cell in order that

each plate might be wrapped in a “chemise en toile d’amiante.” The

result was no better for the covers, and the ebonite joints burst into

flames and the boat was in danger of being consumed by fire. It was then

decided to reduce it to 360 cells; this gave a speed of eight knots,

though originally it was hoped that sixteen would be obtained.

The successive crews of the _Gustave Zédé_ have suffered much from the

poisonous fumes of the accumulators, and during the earlier trials all

the men on board were ill.

In the bows is a torpedo tube and an arrangement is used whereby the

water that enters the tube after the discharge of the torpedo is forced

out by compressed air. Three 17½ Whitehead torpedoes are carried. In

spite of the fact that a horizontal rudder placed at the stern had not

proved serviceable on the _Gymnote_, such a rudder was fitted in the

_Gustave Zédé_. With this rudder she usually plunged at an angle of

about 5°, but on several occasions she behaved in a very erratic

fashion, seesawing up and down, and once when the Committee and Experts

were on board, she proved so capricious, going down at an angle of

30°–35°, often throwing the poor gentlemen on to the floor, that it was

decided to fix a system of six rudders, three on each side.

Four water tanks are carried, one at each end and two in the middle, and

the water is expelled by four Thirion pumps worked by a little

electro-motor; these pumps also furnish the air necessary for the crew

and for the discharge of the torpedoes.

For steering on the surface there was placed on the _Gustave Zédé_ at

first a movable shell with folded canvas similar to that of the

_Gymnote_. It was found even more dangerous there than on the smaller

boat; it was, therefore, taken away and replaced by a fixed kiosk,

immovably attached to the hull, and of a shape tapering away fore and

aft. The _Gustave Zédé_ possesses, for under-water vision, an optical

tube and a periscope.

The crew consists of an officer and eight men.

The first journey of any length undertaken by the _Gustave Zédé_ was

from Salins d’Hyères to Toulon. The sea was choppy, and a fresh breeze

was blowing, and yet no mishap of any kind occurred. She navigated for

the greater distance at the surface, with her cupola above the water,

but when the water became too rough she plunged under the waves,

occasionally emerging to take bearings. The distance between Toulon and

Salins is short, and so the next journey was from Toulon to Marseilles,

a distance of forty-one miles, and this the _Gustave Zédé_ covered also

in a rough sea without accident of any kind at the rate of six knots.

Although accompanied by a tug, the _Utile_, it had no occasion for its

services. She navigated on the surface all the way, but by reason of the

swell everything was hermetically closed, and for more than seven hours

the crew were kept in conditions exactly the same as if the vessel had

been really under water.

On reaching Marseilles the accumulators had sufficient power left to

perform the return journey.

The trials of the _Gustave Zédé_ resulted in stimulating the interest of

the French in submarine warfare. Writers vied with one another in

extolling the qualities of under-water craft and the popular imagination

saw already the powerful fleets of Great Britain and Germany destroyed

by the attacks of the French submarine flotilla.

“Jamais nous n’aurions trop de sous-marins,” wrote M. V. Guilloux in _Le

Yacht_. “The twelve years of consecutive efforts and studies continued

in order to obtain a solution of the question of submarine navigation

have at length been crowned with success,” said a writer in the

_Moniteur de la Flotte_.

Lieutenant Maurice Loir writing in the _Moniteur_ of a later date

remarked that Frenchmen went too fast in proclaiming that these isolated

trials sounded the knell of the battleships.

He nevertheless believed the submarine boat to be a real element in

naval war because the very fear of its invisible attack would keep at a

distance adversaries who might have an object in approaching the coasts.

So great was the interest taken in France in submarine boats that the

_Matin_ opened a “Patriotic Subscription Fund” in 1898, to raise money

for building submarine boats of the _Gustave Zédé_ type. The journal

itself headed the list with a subscription of 5,000 francs. In a long

article the _Matin_ dwelt on the utility of these engines of warfare,

and asked the French public to furnish the funds necessary for the

construction of at least one more _Gustave Zédé_. It urged the

Government to build a fleet of these boats as an effectual protection

for the French ports and the harbours of the French Colonies, against

the most powerful navies of the world.

The result of the opening of the fund was that two submarines were

presented to the nation—the _Français_ and the _Algerien_—and the sum of

300,000 francs, mostly in small sums, was contributed by the French

nation for these vessels.

The history of the _Gustave Zédé_ shows how much in earnest the French

were in the matter of submarines. When it was first launched it was a

distinct failure in almost every respect, and it was only after some

years during which many alterations and improvements were carried out,

that she became a serviceable craft. At first nothing would induce the

_Gustave Zédé_ to quit the surface, and when at last she did plunge she

did it so effectually that she went down to the bottom in 10 fathoms of

water at an angle of 30°. The Committee of Engineers were on board at

the time, and it speaks well for their patriotism that they did not as a

result of their unpleasant experiences condemn the _Gustave Zédé_, and

advise the Government to spend no more money over these monsters of the

deep.

_Morse._

Before the _Gustave Zédé_ was completed M. Romazzotti prepared designs

for a smaller submarine, which should be intermediary between the

_Gymnote_, displacing 30 tons, and the _Gustave Zédé_ of 266 tons.

This vessel, the _Morse_, is 118 feet long, 9 feet beam, 8 feet 3 inches

diameter, is made of “Roma” bronze, and displaces 146 tons. Amidships is

a circular conning tower rising about 18 in. from the top of the boat.

The sole motive power, as in the _Gustave Zédé_ and the _Gymnote_, is

electricity. The motor is of the Thury type, and develops 350 h.p.,

rotating the screw at 250 revolutions a minute. The current is derived

from a battery of accumulators by the Société anonyme pour le Travail

Electrique des Métaux. It is claimed that a means of recharging the

batteries while at sea has been discovered; it is described as being a

“combination of motors,” doubtless an intentionally vague description of

a method which seems to be like an attempt to solve the impossible

problem of creating energy.

The _Morse_ is submerged and steered in the same way as the _Gustave

Zédé_ in her most improved form. Water is admitted into three separate

compartments until a certain amount of buoyancy has been overcome, and

the boat is then steered below the surface by her horizontal rudders. A

false keel of lead can be detached if necessary from the inside.

The armament consists of a bow torpedo tube and two special carriers on

the side, each holding one torpedo. Her crew consists of a commander and

8 men, and her range of action is 150 miles.

Although the _Morse_ was taken in hand many years previously she was not

launched until the 5th of July, 1899. One of the reasons for this delay

was the question whether an oil engine should be fitted in the vessel

for surface navigation. She has cost in all 648,000 francs.

The _Morse_ is steered on the surface and awash from the conning tower,

and underneath by means of a periscope that rises above the surface and

allows (theoretically) of her seeing everything at a depth of 20 feet.

In fine weather the periscope reflects everything within its field of

vision, and can be turned round so as to cover the whole horizon.

The French naval authorities believe that they have in the _Morse_ a

vessel which fulfils all the conditions of coast defence torpedo-boats,

with the further advantage of invisibility, which makes it a specially

dangerous weapon of attack upon hostile vessels in day-time.

Early in January, 1901, the French Minister of War visited Cherbourg and

went for a trip in the _Morse_.

Although a considerable sea was running outside the harbour the

submarine rolled very slightly. The operation of submerging took but two

minutes. During the voyage four torpedoes were fired, and each was said

to run straight and true.

“The feeling experienced,” says a writer in the _Temps_, “at the moment

the vessel is making her descent is most peculiar; it is one of

expectancy, but nothing happens, one is astonished at the quiet, the

absolute calm, there is no movement, not even a tremble, the waves wash

overhead without causing the least vibration, the motor works silently,

and the vessel glides through the water without causing any bow wave or

leaving any track. Above, the voice of the captain is heard, who,

standing by the periscope, gives his orders for so many degrees of helm

and so many revolutions of the engine. The little vessel is now almost

in equilibrium, and would sink deeper or rise to the surface were it not

for the ‘ailettes’ on each side which serve to prevent this. Before an

instrument which indicates the depth stands a petty officer with his eye

fixed and his attention concentrated on the pointer, and by turning a

wheel he causes the ‘ailettes’ to act so as to maintain the vessel at

the required depth. Should she for any reason continue to descend or

refuse to ascend, a pig of lead ballast can be detached which would

cause her immediately to rise to the surface, but after this the

buoyancy would be so much increased that she could no longer be

submerged even with all her ballast tanks full. Orders had been given to

remain a quarter of an hour under water, and at the expiration of the

time pumps are set in motion and the water is forced out of the ballast

tanks (situated forward, aft, and amidships) and the _Morse_ commences

to rise, the conning tower and the small platform emerge, and the

man-holes are opened. No commotion takes place at the entering of the

external air and no inconvenience has been felt by those on board during

the dive, the act of breathing being as free and regular as in the open

air.

“Trials to ascertain the habitability of the _Morse_ had already been

made, and she has remained for eight hours under water, the crew

experiencing no difficulty in breathing and no buzzing sensation in the

ears, no excitation or inconvenience of any sort, and it was considered

they could have remained double the time if necessary, the chemical

analysis of the air showing also that it would have been possible to

considerably prolong the trial if required.”

M. Calmette, of the _Figaro_, who accompanied General André on the trial

trip of the _Morse_, sent to his journal a long account of his

experiences during the two hours which the trial lasted. He said the

defect of the _Morse_ lay in the fact that the motive power was supplied

by electric accumulators, the premature exhaustion of which might

deprive the vessel of all means of action. A combination had, however,

been effected, which enabled accumulators to be recharged on the spot.

This system would be utilised on the submarines _Français_ and

_Algerien_. As was already known, the commander directed the navigation

of the vessel by means of a periscope, the extremity of which, resting

on the surface, gave him—no matter at what depth—an absolutely faithful

and distinct image of all that was taking place on the surface. The

immersion was effected easily and without shock, in exactly seventy

seconds. Breathing in a submarine was as easy as in an ordinary room.

The vessel could remain in the water for sixteen hours without

inconvenience to the occupants, and could rise to the surface very

rapidly. The correspondent went on to say that after the trial the

_Morse_, in conjunction with the _Narval_, went through a series of

manœuvres lasting eight hours. The _Morse_ discharged a torpedo with

remarkable precision by a process which was a profound secret.

M. Calmette’s account furnishes interesting reading. He says:—

“General André, Dr. Vincent, a naval doctor, and I enter the submarine

boat _Morse_ through the narrow opening in the upper surface of the

boat. Our excursion is to begin immediately; in two hours we are to come

to the surface of the water again three miles to the north to rejoin the

_Narval_. Turning to the crew, every man of which is at his post, the

commandant gives his orders, dwelling with emphasis on each word. A

sailor repeats his orders one by one, and all is silent. The _Morse_ had

already started on its mysterious voyage, but is skimming along the

surface until outside the port in order to avoid the numerous craft in

the Arsenal. To say that at this moment, which I had so keenly

anticipated, I did not have the tremor which comes from contact with the

unknown would be beside the truth. On the other hand, calm and

imperturbable, but keenly curious as to this novel form of navigation,

General André had already taken his place near the commandant on a

folding seat. There are no chairs in this long tube in which we are

imprisoned. Everything is arranged for the crew alone, with an eye to

serious action. Moreover, the Minister of War is too tall to stand

upright beneath the iron ceiling, and in any case it would be impossible

to walk about.

“The only free space is a narrow passage, 60 centimetres broad, less

than two metres high, and 30 metres long, divided into three equal

sections. In the first, in the forefront of the tube, repose the

torpedoes, with the machine for launching them, which at a distance of

from 500 to 600 metres are bound to sink, with the present secret

processes, the largest of ironclads. In the second section are the

electric accumulators which give the light and power. In the third, near

the screw, is the electric motor which transforms into movement the

current of the accumulators. Under all this, beneath the floor, from end

to end, are immense water ballasts, which can be emptied or filled in a

few seconds by electric machines, in order to carry the vessel up or

down. Finally, in the centre of the tube, dominating these three

sections, which the electric light inundates, and which no partition

divides, the navigating lieutenant stands on the look-out giving his

orders.

“There is but one thing which could destroy in a second all the sources

of authority, initiative, and responsibility in this officer. That is

the failure of the accumulators. Were the electricity to fail everything

would come to a stop. Darkness would overtake the boat and imprison it

for ever in the water. To avoid any such disaster there have been

arranged, it is true, outside the tube and low down a series of lead

blades which can be removed from within to lighten the vessel. But

admitting that the plunger would return to the surface, the boat would

float hither and thither, and at all events lose all its properties as a

submarine vessel. To avoid any such disaster a combination of motors has

been in course of construction for some months, so that the accumulators

may be loaded afresh on the spot, in case of their being used up. I

betray no secret in stating that this new scheme is already completed,

and the next submarine vessels, the _Français_, the _Algerien_, and the

_Matin_, will be fitted with the result.

“The _Morse_, after skimming along the surface of the water until

outside the port, is now about to sink. The commandant’s place is no

longer in the helmet or kiosque whence he can direct the route along the

surface of the sea. His place is henceforth in the very centre of the

tube, in the midst of all sorts of electric manipulators, his eyes

continually fixed on a mysterious optical apparatus, the periscope. The

other extremity of this instrument floats on the surface of the water,

and whatever the depth of the plunge it gives him a perfectly faithful

and clear representation, as in a camera, of everything occurring on the

water.

“The most interesting moment of all now comes. I hasten to the little

opening to get the impression of total immersion. The lieutenant by the

marine chart verifies the depths. The casks of water are filled and our

supply of air is thereby renewed from their stores of surplus air. In

our tiny observatory, where General André stations himself above me, a

most unexpected spectacle presents itself as the boat is immersed.

“The plunge is so gentle that in the perfect silence of the waters one

does not perceive the process of descent, and there is only an

instrument capable of indicating, by a needle, the depth to which the

_Morse_ is penetrating. The vessel is advancing while at the same time

it descends, but there is no sensation of either advance or roll. As to

respiration, it is as perfect as in any room. M. de Lanessan, who since

entering office has ordered eight more submarine vessels, has concerned

himself with the question as a medical man also, and, thanks to the

labours of a commission formed by him, the difficulties of respiration

are entirely solved. The crew can remain under water sixteen hours

without the slightest strain. Our excursion on this occasion lasted

scarcely two hours. Towards noon, by means of the mysterious periscope,

which, always invisible, floats on the surface and brings to the vessel

below a reflection of all that passes up above, the captain shows us the

_Narval_, which has just emerged with its two flags near the old battery

Impregnable. From the depths in which we are sailing we watch its

slightest manœuvres, until the admiral’s flag, waving on the top of a

fort, reminds us that it is time to return.”

_Français and Algerien._

Two sister vessels, submarines proper, the _Français_ and the

_Algerien_, designed by M. Romazzotti, were laid down at Cherbourg in

1900. They were built with the proceeds of a subscription opened by the

_Matin_ at the time of the Fashoda dispute. They are almost identical

with the _Morse_, though in some respects they are improvements on their

prototype. They are built of steel, and the sole motive power is

electricity. The cost of each is £32,972. The _Français_ was launched on

January 29, 1901, and the _Algerien_ on February 15, 1901.

_Farfadet Class._

The _Farfadet_ class, designed by M. Maugas, consists of four submarines

all laid down simultaneously at Cherbourg on September 27, 1899, viz.,

_Farfadet_, _Gnome_, _Korrigan_, and _Lutin_.

In size they are between the _Gustave Zédé_ and the _Morse_, the

measurements being—length 135 feet 8 inches, beam and also draught 9½

feet, displacement 185 tons. Each has a single screw, and the sole

motive power is electricity, supplied by accumulators. On the surface

the speed is 12·25, and submerged 9 knots. The complement is a

lieutenant and eight men. The hull is of steel and not of Roma metal,

like the _Gustave Zédé_ and the _Morse_. The armament consists of four

torpedoes carried on the exterior of the vessel.

The cost of each of the _Farfadet_ class is about £32,000. The

_Farfadet_ was launched on May 17, 1901, and the _Korrigan_ on February

2, 1902.

_The Perle Class._

The Budget of 1901 made provision for 23 submarines, 20 of the

“defensive,” 3 of the “offensive” class.

The names of the 20 defensive boats are: (1) _Perle_; (2) _Bonite_; (3)

_Esturgeon_; (4) _Thon_; (5) _Souffleur_; (6) _Anguille_; (7) _Alose_;

(8) _Dorade_; (9) _Truite_; (10) _Grondin_; (11) _Naiäde_; (12)

_Protée_; (13) _Lynx_; (14) _Ludion_; (15) _Loutre_; (16) _Castor_; (17)

_Phoque_; (18) _Otarie_; (19) _Méduse_; (20) _Oursin_.

All these twenty boats (which were laid down in 1901) will be

constructed of steel, will have a displacement of 68 tons, a length of

77 feet, a beam of 7½ feet, and draught 8 feet.

The sole motive power will be electricity supplied by accumulators, and

the motor will actuate a single screw.

The maximum speed will be 8 knots, and their crew will consist of an

officer and four men. The price of each is £14,616, which is less than

any previous submarine boat.

Of these twenty vessels five are building at Cherbourg, six at

Rochefort, and the rest at Toulon. They are to unite all the best points

of the existing vessels, and are intended primarily for harbour and

coast defence.

_PART II._

FRENCH “SUBMERSIBLES,” _i.e._, THOSE FITTED WITH TWO SOURCES OF MOTIVE

POWER, ONE FOR SURFACE, AND ONE FOR SUB-SURFACE PROPULSION.

_The Narval Class._

In February, 1896, M. Lockroy, Minister of Marine, acting in conjunction

with M. Bertin, Director of Material, invited designs for a submarine

torpedo-boat from Frenchmen and foreigners. The commission appointed to

examine the various projects decided in favour of the one sent in by M.

Laubeuf. This decision was approved by the Minister, who ordered the

construction of the vessel to be taken in hand, and awarded a gold medal

to its inventor.

The _Narval_ was commenced at Cherbourg in 1897, and launched on October

26, 1899, but it was not until certain modifications had been made that

it was considered to be (in 1900) in a satisfactory condition to run her

trials.

While the _Gymnote_, the _Gustave Zédé_, and the _Morse_ rely solely on

electricity for their motive power, the _Narval_ can navigate in three

different ways.

1. As an ordinary torpedo-boat, with water, ballast tanks empty.

2. Awash, with the dome and chimney alone above the waves, carrying a

certain amount of ballast.

3. Entirely submerged with tanks full of water.

Some French writers have divided under-water craft into three classes.

The first is the “Submersible”: this type is represented by the _Mute of

Fulton_, the _Stromboli_, the _Spuyten Duyvil_, the _Porter_, &c. Such

boats are never completely submerged, but only take in sufficient

ballast to keep their decks flush with the water.

The second is the “Sous-Marin”: this type, represented by the _Gymnote_,

_Gustave Zédé_, and _Morse_, has no sphere of action except as a totally

submerged craft.

The third is the “Sous-Marin autonome à grand rayon d’action,” and is

represented by the _Narval_ type of vessel. They can be used both as

ordinary torpedo-boats or submarines. We have in our classifications

adopted the terms “submarine” and “submersible.”

In designing the _Narval_ M. Laubeuf aimed at producing a disappearing

vessel, which should correspond with the sea-going torpedo-boat in the

same way as the _Morse_ is partly designed to replace the torpedo-boat

for coast defence.

The _Narval_ possesses various radii of action.

1. On the surface and propelled by its steam engine—

252 miles at a speed of 12 knots for 21 hours

624 miles at a speed of 8 knots for 78 hours

2. Submerged and propelled by electricity—

25 miles at a speed of 8 knots

72 miles at a speed of 5 knots

The hull of the _Narval_ is peculiar, being double. The interior hull is

of thick steel sheets: it has a circular section, and ends in a point at

its two extremities. The outer hull which envelopes it is of thin

sheets; its form is that of the _Gustave Zédé_. The external hull is

pierced with holes above and below, and at the two ends, and the sea

water circulates freely between the two hulls, which allows the ship to

receive a hail of small projectiles without suffering from them, the

rents in its outer hull making no change in its situation.

The boat is brought to the awash condition by taking in water ballast

and is steered below the surface by four horizontal float-board rudders,

arranged systematically on each side of the ship, two towards the bows

and two towards the stern. These “dip-rudders” are manipulated by means

of a hand-wheel placed at the centre of the ship.

The _Narval_ is not cylindrical in shape like the _Morse_, and her upper

works are flat and form a deck.

The principal dimensions of the _Narval_ are as follows:—

Length 111 ft. 6 in.

Extreme beam 12 ft. 4 in.

Displacement { 106 tons when light.

{ 200 tons completely submerged.

The motive power on the surface is supplied by a triple-expansion steam

engine of 250 horse-power constructed by Messrs. Brule and Co. It has a

water-tube boiler of the Seigle type having five injectors for stoking

with heavy petroleum.

In the original project the boat was to have been propelled on the

surface by steam machinery of 300 i.h.p., the stoking being with

compressed coal, but it was afterwards decided to supply liquid fuel.

Submerged the motive power is an electro-motor, the current being

supplied by 158 accumulators of the Fulmen type, which can be recharged

by the motor, worked as a dynamo by the petroleum motor.

Before going below the chimney is to be unshipped and all the openings

are hermetically closed. Sufficient time is allowed for the motor to

cool and for the air to be cleared of the hot gases. The steam engine

has to be replaced by the electric motor and water ballast has to be

pumped in.

At first these operations took at least a quarter of an hour, but the

newer vessels of the _Narval_ class are said to be able to disappear

beneath the waves in some five moments only.

[Illustration:

_Photo by_] [_M. Bar_

THE “NARVAL.”

]

The armament consists of four 17½ inch Whitehead torpedoes, and there

are two Drzewiecki torpedo tubes on each side and towards the upper part

of the boat, which launch the torpedoes in the direction of the beam.

“As long ago as 1893,” says a French writer, “Mr. Drzewiecki invented a

method of firing a torpedo which is quite different from the torpedo

tubes commonly used, and which is, therefore, peculiarly suited for

submarine vessels. By it the torpedo could be fired at any angle from 30

to 120 degrees from the bow, and experiments with it were carried out in

1894 at Cherbourg. The system may be briefly explained as follows: At

the side of the boat a horizontal spar is placed, which works on a hinge

at an angle to the bow. The torpedo is fastened to this spar by two

pairs of clamps, and when not in use lies along the side of the boat in

a recess cut in the side. A swing-out rod, fastened at one end to the

spar and at the other to the boat, enables the desired angle for firing

to be obtained. A lever worked from inside the vessel pushes the spar

and the torpedo away from the side of the boat, and the pressure of the

water stiffens the swing-out rod, and by so doing frees the torpedo from

the clamps, and opens the air lever which sets the torpedo in motion. It

is, therefore, necessary that the vessel should be under way when the

torpedo is fired.

“The principle of the invention is very simple, and at the same time

very ingenious; and the experiments which were made at Cherbourg proved

that torpedoes could be fired by this system with perfect precision.

Since 1894 Mr. Drzewiecki has made alterations in his invention. For

example, he has done away with the spar and the clamps, and by so doing

has greatly lightened his apparatus. The tail of the torpedo is now

seized by two claws, which grip it firmly and hold it in position. The

contrivance is placed on the deck of the submarine boat, which is not

submerged except on going into action. The torpedo rests on cushions

fixed to the deck, with its axis parallel to that of the boat, but as

soon as it is moved by a lever to the position for firing, the water

pressing against it frees the torpedo by opening the air valve. The only

inconvenience of the system is that it is not easy to fire at the exact

angle required, but it has the great advantage of doing away with all

the machinery of valves and safety appliances which are necessary when

submerged tubes are employed. Further experiments will doubtless make

the system still more efficacious.”

Commenting on the _Narval_ class a writer in the _Temps_ said:—

“Their range of action will be large, they will be self-controlling, and

they will realise Admiral Aube’s theory of the empire of the sea,

invisibility, divisibility and number. The estimate for each is 600,000

francs, which is not one-fortieth of the cost of a battleship. Are not

the Mediterranean experiments calculated to lead to changes in our naval

construction, and would not the present situation justify the devotion

of all the efforts of the dockyards to submarine torpedo-boats without

stopping the programme now in progress?”

[Illustration:

THE “NARVAL” AS A SURFACE TORPEDO-BOAT.

]

On the 6th of January, 1901, M. de Lanessan, Minister of Marine, and

General André, Minister of War, visited Cherbourg to witness comparative

trials between the two submarine vessels, _Morse_ and _Narval_, with a

view to determining the relative merits of the two systems for guidance

in the construction of the new under-water vessels provided in the

programme for 1901.

Before embarking the Minister inspected the crews, who wear ordinary

uniform with the addition of a red cap ribbon bearing the words

“_Sous-Marins_.”

M. Calmette, who was allowed to accompany the Minister during the trial,

wrote:—

“The submerging of the _Narval_ is a rather delicate operation: the

motive power has to be changed, the funnel, &c., have to be drawn in,

sufficient time must be allowed for the unused steam to cool down, and a

much greater quantity of water than in the case of the _Morse_ has to be

introduced into the ballast tank to overcome her buoyancy. Great

progress has been made in these respects since her first trial, and the

operation of submerging has been much accelerated, but it still takes

considerably longer than in the case of the _Morse_. On the present

occasion submergence was effected in a quarter of an hour, and when

submerged the only thing visible above the water is the periscope.”

In May, 1901, the _Narval_ made a voyage from Cherbourg to St. Malo.

The _Figaro_ declared that the trip was completely successful. “The

Minister of Marine had ordered a cruise of forty consecutive hours. The

_Narval_ left Cherbourg at 1 o’clock in the afternoon of May 23rd, in a

very heavy sea, caused by strong north-easterly gale. She returned to

St. Malo on the Saturday at 5 o’clock in the morning. That was the sole

departure from her programme. The _Narval_ had been navigated for 40

hours without stopping, covering 260 miles at an average speed of 6½

knots in a very rough sea. During the trip the _Narval_ remained below

the surface for several hours at a time, and twice recharged her

accumulators. On Sunday she left St. Malo, without taking in fresh

provisions, and made Cherbourg. On her arrival there she made excellent

practice with her four torpedoes. It was proved that the torpedo

mechanism, regulated five days previously, had not been in the least put

out of order by the trial. During the return voyage to Cherbourg the

_Narval_ had an accident to her pump, and was towed for three hours by

the t.b. _Zouave_. The damage was repaired, and the submarine returned

with her own motive power. It has to be pointed out, however, that the

crew suffered greatly from discomfort. When fresh trials are conducted

everything will be done to remedy the defects which have been reported.”

The _Figaro_, in conclusion, protested against the decision of the

Ministry of Marine to build henceforth vessels of 68 tons burden and

with a radius of action of 100 miles only, pointing out that such boats

can only be used for defensive purposes, whereas if the tonnage were

increased the radius of action and the accommodation would also be

increased, and the submarine could be employed offensively. On the other

hand, the _Petit Parisien_ said that the results of the recent trial of

the _Narval_ for 48 hours were not satisfactory. “The navigation of the

vessel on the surface was defective and difficult, and she sustained an

accident, in consequence of which she had to be towed back to port. The

crew were suffering from exhaustion and nausea, the cause of which it is

impossible to explain.”

[Illustration:

THE “NARVAL” IN THE “AWASH” CONDITION.

]

The _Narval_ in June, 1901, made the experiment of remaining for twelve

hours under water.

The Ministry of Marine were represented by Naval Surgeon Gibrat, who

wrote a full and detailed report on the condition of the crew after

their twelve hours’ submersion.

From notices published in the French papers it would appear that “the

trial succeeded without incident,” but the impression seems to be

general that the crew were in a more or less exhausted condition after

their prolonged sojourn beneath the waves, which after all is not to be

wondered at.

It appears that after six hours under water the inhaling of artificial

air became difficult; the long exclusion of natural atmosphere caused a

painful irritation of the nerve centres which even the coolest of the

officers could not resist, and anæmia set in accompanied by cerebral

compression and sick headache. Trouble was also caused by the working of

the accumulators, which liberated among the crew salts of lead and

sulphur, causing digestive and intestinal complaints. Dr. Gibrat is

reported to have expressed to them that, in the present condition of

knowledge, 12 hours is the outside limit of efficient work on a

submarine under water.

The _Narval_ class, besides the eponymous vessel, comprises four other

submersibles—the _Sirène_ (launched May 4, 1901), the _Triton_ (launched

July 13, 1901), the _Espadon_ (launched August 31, 1901), and the

_Silure_ (launched October 29, 1901). These four resemble the _Narval_

in most particulars, though in some respects they are improvements on

their prototype.

The outer hull of each is made of steel, but the inner hull is made of

nickel steel. The choice of the metal is a matter of importance, for the

difficulty is to build a hull which possesses sufficient strength to

resist the pressure of the water, and yet at the same time is not too

expensive. Between the two hulls in the interior of the vessel are seven

compartments for water ballast. There are also four water tanks, which

are used to regulate the trim of the vessel by introducing water at the

last moment.

The inconvenient points of the _Sirène_ and her sister vessels are the

same as those of the _Narval_. A few minutes are sufficient to fill the

water-ballast compartments, but, according to a recent article in _La

Patrie_, it takes a good half-hour to empty them in order to rise to the

surface. The operation is begun with compressed air, and continued with

a pump worked by electricity. For steaming on the surface of the sea the

_Sirène_ uses a triple-expansion engine and a Normand boiler heated by

petroleum. For submarine navigation she uses two dynamos connected with

the main shaft. These dynamos recharge the accumulators, which are on

the Laurent Cely system, in less than 7 hours. The vessel can steam on

the surface 21 hours at 12 knots with the petroleum engine, and 625

miles at 8 knots. Under water, making use of the accumulators, she can

do 25 miles at 8 knots, or 70 miles at 5 knots. Her armament consists of

four torpedoes 17¾ inches in diameter, which are fired by the Drzewiecki

system. As the torpedoes are placed on the deck, the vessel must be

under the water in order that they may be fired. The crew consists of

twelve men, including the lieutenant commander and his sub-lieutenant.

The _Sirène_ recently underwent a 24 hours’ trial at Cherbourg. Twenty

hours were devoted to evolutions on the surface, and the remaining four

hours spent under water.

The _Sirène_ afterwards carried out successful experiments in

discharging torpedoes. “The _Sirène_,” said the _Petit Journal_, “is at

present the most perfect of the submarines. She possesses rapidity of

submersion (the time being five minutes), perfect stability and

habitability, wide radius of action, and a powerful armament. In a word,

she is the true type of an independent submarine capable of acting on

the offensive.”

The _Triton_ made a trial trip at Cherbourg in October, 1901. Though the

sea was rough, she totally submerged herself in 6½ minutes, and remained

under water for an hour and a half.

The _Espadon_ made her trial plunge on October 18, 1901. She took 8

minutes to sink to a depth of 26 feet, and she remained submerged for 2½

hours.

The cost of the _Sirène_ was £32,000, of the _Triton_ £21,700.

THE NEW SUBMARINES.

Of the three “offensive” boats provided for in the Budget of 1901 the

first, Q 35, is to be built at Cherbourg, after the plans of M.

Romazzotti, the builder of the _Gustave Zédé_ and the _Morse_. Her cost

is estimated at 19,592 francs.

The second, Q 36, is to be built at Rochefort to the designs of M.

Maugas, the designer of the _Farfadet_ class, and her cost will be

31,973 francs.

The third, Q 37, will be built at Toulon, after the designs of M.

Bertin, Director of the Technical Section of Naval Construction, her

cost being put down as 36,970 francs.

Up to the time of writing the Department of Construction has refused to

divulge the characteristics of these three boats, and has confined

itself to mentioning their cost and the name of the designers.

It has been stated in some of the French service journals that Q 37 will

be driven on the surface by an alcohol motor, and submerged by

compressed air in place of accumulators.

No submarine boats are to be laid down in France in 1902.

In 1903, 13 will be laid down, and by the close of the year 37 are

expected to be in commission. By the year 1906 France should be in

possession of a submarine flotilla numbering 68 vessels.

Q 38–42 and Q 61–68 are to be built at Toulon, Q 43–50 at Rochefort, and

Q 51–60 at Cherbourg.

Of these 31 boats it has been stated that 8 will be submersibles with a

double motive power, _i.e._, a vapour or gas engine and electric

accumulators. They are to have a radius of action a little more extended

than that of the submarine proper, and will plunge more rapidly than the

_Narval_ and _Sirène_, which have to fill the ballast tanks between the

hulls.

APPENDIX IV

SUBMARINES OLD AND NEW

To give some description, even of the briefest nature, of every

submarine boat that has ever been constructed would necessitate a volume

three or four times the size of the present work. There are, however, a

few vessels that demand some notice here.

[Sidenote: Payerne.]

The first inventor to propose a mode of propulsion other than by

hand-operated mechanism, was Dr. Payerne, who in the fifties proposed a

boat which was propelled by a screw driven by a steam engine, furnished

with two boilers, an ordinary boiler-furnished steam for surface

navigation; whilst the other, which he termed a “chaudière

pyrotechnique,” for use beneath the waves, was so arranged as to burn in

hermetically closed furnaces a combustible containing in itself the

oxygen necessary for its combustion. The products of combustion escaped

by raising a plug so devised as to prevent water entering the fire-box.

The combustibles to which Dr. Payerne gave preference were:—

Coke 165

Nitrate of Soda 835

Coke 145

Nitrate of Potash 855

The boat was known by the name of _L’Hydrostat_; but, as its inventors

were not able to work out their ideas satisfactorily, it was turned into

an ordinary diving-bell, and used for submarine excavations at Cherbourg

and at Brest.

[Sidenote: Riou.]

In 1861 Olivier Riou built two models, one driven by steam (generated by

the heat of ether in combustion), and the other by electricity derived

from batteries. This is the first occasion that we find electricity

requisitioned for the propulsion of an under-water vessel.

[Sidenote: Alstitt.]

The submarine of Mr. Alstitt, constructed in 1863 at Mobile, in the

U.S.A., possesses a great interest in that it was the first to be fitted

with two modes of propulsion; the one for navigation on the surface, the

other beneath.

[Sidenote: Bourgois and Brun.]

The _Plongeur_, invented by Captain Bourgois and M. Brun, and built at

Rochefort in 1863, was the most ambitious attempt that had up till then

been made to solve the problem of submarine navigation. It was driven by

an 80 h.p. compressed-air engine, and underwent numerous trials; these

did not satisfy the officials, and it was eventually converted into a

water tank. The armament of the _Plongeur_ was a spar-torpedo.

[Sidenote: Lacomme.]

In 1869 Dr. J. A. Lacomme submitted to Napoleon III. a project for a

submarine railway across the Channel. Rails were to be laid on the floor

of the ocean, and in the event of an accident the submarine car, by

reason of its reserve of floatability, could detach itself from the

track and rise to the surface. M. Goubet has since proposed a similar

“submarine ferry.”

[Sidenote: Halstead.]

The _Intelligent Whale_ was built at Newark in 1872 from the designs of

Mr. Halstead. Its novel features were two doors in the bottom through

which divers could leave the boat when submerged. On one occasion the

boat went down in 16 feet of water and General Sweeney, clad in a

diver’s suit, passed out through the bottom manhole, placed a torpedo

under a scow anchored there for the purpose, and after entering the boat

and moving away to a safe distance, exploded the torpedo by a lanyard

and friction primer, and blew the scow to pieces.

[Sidenote: Constantin.]

During the siege of Paris, André Constantin, a lieutenant in the French

navy, built a vessel which was submerged on an entirely novel principle.

Instead of admitting water to sink his boat he immersed it by the

drawing in of pistons working in cylinders.

[Sidenote: Drzewiecki.]

The Russian inventor, Drzewiecki, built a vessel at Odessa in 1877,

which had two methods of submersion. Whilst in motion a system of

sliding weights inclined the boat either upwards or downwards. To regain

the horizontal position the weights were brought to the centre. When at

rest submersion was obtained by the introduction of water into a central

reservoir.

[Sidenote: Campbell and Ash.]

The _Nautilus_ of these inventors was submerged on the same principle as

the boat of André Constantin, viz., by the drawing in of cylinders. The

submersion was effected by means of four-cylinders on each side of the

vessel, which were drawn in flush and pushed out beyond the side, thus

altering the displacement. The _Nautilus_ underwent some trials in

Tilbury Docks in 1888, and the following account is from the pen of Mr.

Bennett Burleigh: “A few years ago a gentleman invited a number of

officials and specialists down to one of the London docks to see a new

submarine boat, which, like so many gone before, was to achieve marvels.

There were naval men and military men, and journalists there by the

score. Among others were the present chief-instructor of the navy, Sir

W. H. White, and Lord Charles Beresford. The writer was on board, but

felt a strong natural disinclination to go below or permit any of his

friends to adventure. It possibly was an excess of natural timidity.

That craft was warranted ‘extra special safe.’ She had water tanks, a

false keel that could be slipped off, and cylinders or drums which,

pushed out or drawn in from her sides, added or took away from her

displacement and buoyancy. Charming in theory, but hydrostatics present

strange problems, so note the result. The boat, with Sir W. H. White on

board, having made all tight, let water into her tanks, and sank into

the profound oleaginous mud of the dock. She remained invisible beneath

for a protracted period, greater, in truth, than those upon the dock

knew was safe, for she had no air or oxygen storage. We could do nothing

but wait and look at our watches. Finally, to everybody’s intense

relief, she reappeared. It happened that the boat stuck in the mud, and

neither sending out the drums nor unloading the tanks made her rise. Sir

William White suggested, when the light was turning blue, as were some

faces, moving the crew to the higher end of the craft. It had the

desired effect, the boat was lifted from the grip of the mud. Once on

top, the engineer undid the manhole and shouted with elation to his

friends ashore that they were going down again. Several of the visitors

had had more than enough, and the gentleman was pulled down by the legs

to make way for those who wished to escape upon deck and reach _terra

firma_. That ‘famous’ submarine craft also followed the course of its

predecessors, and shortly after passed into the limbo of forgotten

failures.”

It appears that the cylinders declined to out-thrust because the power

for working them, though amply sufficient for working in water, was not

great enough to drive them into mud, and the inventors had not taken

into consideration the adhesiveness of mud.

[Sidenote: Waddington.]

Mr. J. H. Waddington claimed that his vessel the _Porpoise_ (1886) was

the first practical submarine to be propelled by electricity. The

electric motor was worked by 45 accumulators of 660 ampere-hours

capacity; the maximum current taken by the motor was 66 amperes, the

e.m.f. being 90 volts, giving an electrical h.p. of 7·96. The speed was

to be 8 miles an hour.

[Illustration:

THE “PERAL”: SPAIN’S ONLY SUBMARINE.

]

[Sidenote: The Peral.]

This vessel was named after its designer Don Isaac Peral, a Spanish

lieutenant, on whom, in reward for his labours, the Spanish Government

conferred titles of nobility and an indemnity of 500,000 francs. It was

constructed at the Arsenal of Caraca, and launched on October 23, 1887.

It measured 72 feet from stem to stern, and was 9 feet in beam. The

motive power was furnished by two electric motors of 30 h.p. each

driving two screws; 600 accumulators supplied the power for all

purposes. During its trials in 1889 the _Peral_ was ordered to proceed

to sea to blow up an old hull placed at a distance of some two or three

miles from shore in Cadiz Bay, running a long distance under water in

search of the supposed ironclad. The boat was subsequently reported to

have successfully accomplished this feat, and, as a consequence, the

Spanish Government would, it was said, order several vessels of this

type for the defence of the coasts of the Peninsula. A public

subscription was started in Spain. For a time great enthusiasm

prevailed, but as Spain made no use of the _Peral_ during the

Spanish-American War it may be presumed that the interest in under-water

vessels soon died out. On the 28th of June, 1890, a night attack was

made by the _Peral_ against the cruiser _Colon_. The latter, in spite of

its powerful electrical projectors, failed to pick out the submarine,

which advanced within 10 metres of the cruiser to discharge its torpedo.

During the year 1898 several accounts appeared in the papers relating to

a wonderful submarine which the Spanish Government was said to have

purchased. It consisted of a large steel sphere, so solidly constructed

that it could resist the pressure of the water no matter at how great a

depth. Its exterior diameter was 9 feet 9 inches, and the shell measured

4 inches in thickness. It weighed 10 tons, and contained sufficient air

for a crew of three for 48 hours. Electric accumulators drove it at a

speed of 4 to 5 knots. It was suggested that the submarine might be

connected by an electric cable with a battleship and a cruiser, thus

enabling them to steer a safe course through a channel laid with mines.

A “cutter” was fixed in the bows to destroy submarine cables of all

kinds.

[Sidenote: Goubet.]

M. Goubet has built several submarine boats. _Goubet I._ was built at

Paris in 1888, and like all the vessels designed by this inventor, its

weight when submerged equals the weight of the water it displaces. To

prevent it diving to the bottom or rising to the surface, water is

automatically pumped from the forward to the after tank, or _vice

versâ_. The sole motive power of all the Goubet boats is electricity.

_Goubet I._ was only 16 feet long and displaced one ton. The crew

consisted of two men, who sat back to back on a case containing all the

machinery and the air reservoirs. The armament was a torpedo carried on

the outside of the hull and released from the interior. By its reserve

of buoyancy it rose until it caught on to the enemy’s bottom by spikes;

it was then exploded electrically.

_Goubet II._ was 26 feet long, but its speed was only some 5½ knots. In

February, 1901, she underwent some trials in France. According to the

_Echo de Paris_ the results were very poor. Her extreme radius was 25

miles, her greatest speed less than 4 knots, and she never succeeded in

launching a torpedo. In some books of reference it is stated that 300

Goubet boats were ordered by the Russian Government in 1881, and that 50

had been delivered by 1883, but it is very doubtful if Russia has a

single Goubet boat at the present day capable of being used in the event

of war. Brazil is also said to be a possessor of some boats designed by

M. Goubet, who a few weeks ago was reported to have sold his patents to

a British company.

[Sidenote: Italy.]

The Italian navy is credited with possessing at least two submarines,

the _Audace_ and the _Delfino_. The latter cost £12,000, and is

cigar-shaped and of steel. Its length is about 78 feet, and its diameter

9 feet. When wholly immersed its displacement is about 107 tons. The

motive power is an electric battery of 300 accumulators. It is propelled

by a screw, while above are two smaller screws by which the vessel is

immersed or raised. Its armament consists of two torpedo tubes in the

bow. The provision of air is sufficient for a crew of 12 men for a

period of seven to eight hours.[12]

Footnote 12:

In June, 1902, the sum of 800,000 lire was sanctioned for the

construction of a new Italian submarine.

[Sidenote: Russia.]

It has often been stated that the Russian Government some years since

ordered 300 Goubet submarines, the hulls to be built in Russia, and the

engines and mechanism to come from France. Whether any of these are

to-day possessed by Russia is very doubtful.

Last year the construction of a submarine boat, designed by Lieutenant

Kolbassieff and Naval Engineer Konteinikoff, was begun at Cronstadt. She

is cigar-shaped with a piece cut-away along the upper part. On the sides

forward there are blades which are used in sinking or raising the boat.

Six more submarines are said to be building at Cronstadt. Most of the

reports of these are mythical, more especially that which credits one of

these, “a vessel which combines in itself the properties of a submarine

and an ordinary warship,” with a speed of “60 knots on the surface and

30 knots submerged.”

[Sidenote: Brazil.]

Señor Mello Marques, formerly of the Brazilian navy, has invented a new

type of submarine boat, which was tried last year as a model in a tank

in the presence of the President of the Republic, the Minister of

Marine, and others. The propelling power appears to be electricity

solely. It is stated that the Government has decided to have a larger

boat built for the final trials.

[Sidenote: Germany.]

Experiments have been carried out during the past few years with

submarines in Germany, but few details are obtainable. A boat designed

by an ex-lieutenant of the German navy was built to the order of the

Cyclops Company, Messrs. Schwartzkopff and Messrs. Howaldt, in the yards

of the last-named firm. It has been stated that this boat has made 16·5

knots on the surface and 9·5 beneath.

[Sidenote: Norway.]

As some Norwegian naval officers were present at the trials of the

_Fulton_ last autumn, it is thought possible that Norway will shortly

acquire one or more of the _Holland_ type. Admiral Borreseu is reported

to have asked for £35,000 for this purpose.

[Sidenote: Sweden.]

Mr. Euroth, a Swedish engineer, has offered a submarine to the Swedish

Government. Its dimensions are—length, 82 feet; beam, 13 feet; diameter,

11½ feet; displacement (light), 142 tons; (submerged) 146 tons; engines

100 h.p., supplied by two boilers heated by oil; speed 12 knots surface

and 6 submerged. The boilers do no function when the boat is submerged,

the engines being then partly driven by the steam already generated, and

partly by compressed air stored fore and aft.

[Sidenote: Portugal.]

In October last trials were made with a model of a new submarine

invented by Lieutenant Foutes, who designed the _Plongeur_, built in

Portugal, and tried in 1892.

APPENDIX V

THE “LAKE” SUBMARINES

The Right Rev. John Wilkins, from whose book “Mathematical Magick” some

extracts have been given, was far-seeing enough to predict that a

submarine vessel would prove of great value in the discovery of

submarine treasures, “not only,” as he expressed it, “in regard of what

hath been drowned by wreck, 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 fetched up by the

help of this, than by any other usual way of the Urinators.” Could

newspapers and magazines but find their way to the shades, Dr. Wilkins

would be enchanted to find that his dream has been realised, and that a

vessel has actually been constructed for the purpose of harvesting some

of the treasures of the deep.

The _Argonaut_, designed by Mr. Simon Lake, of Baltimore, is a vessel

which rolls along the floor of the ocean as a carriage rolls along the

highway. In this it differs from any other under-water craft either

projected or constructed, for all previous inventors have attempted to

navigate their boats between the surface and the bottom. In the

invention of this type of submarine boat Mr. Lake elaborated an idea

which the United States Patent Office described to be absolutely

original, and the _Argonaut_ has undoubtedly done things that no other

vessel has before accomplished.

Mr. Lake built his first experimental submarine boat, the _Argonaut

Junior_, in 1894. After several successful descents she was abandoned,

and now lies at Atlantic Highlands, half buried in the sand. Her

dimensions were: length, 14 feet, beam 4½ feet, depth 5 feet. _Argonaut

No. 2_ was a much bigger boat, and proved that Mr. Lake’s theories were

substantially correct. She is 36 feet long. Her diameter amidships is 9

feet; her displacement when entirely submerged is about 59 tons; her

draught when at the surface is 10 feet, and when submerged 15 feet. She

is built of steel plates ⅜ inch in thickness, and double-riveted over

strong steel frames. She is provided with a 30 h.p. “White and

Middleton” gasoline engine, which propels her both on the surface and

while submerged, and runs all the auxiliary machinery. She has two

Mannesmann steel reservoirs for the storage of compressed air, which

have been tested to a pressure of 4,000 lbs. per square inch. She is

provided with air compressors, water-ballast pumps, and hoisting

machinery for raising or lowering her two down-haul weights. She is

lighted by incandescent electric lamps throughout, and carries a 4,000

candle-power searchlight in her bows, all run by a dynamo. Machinery for

driving her side driving-wheels and various gauges for determining

depth, rate of speed and air pressure, are also provided, together with

a complete outfit for divers, who are equipped with telephones and

electric lamps.

The following account of his boat was written by Mr. Simon Lake himself,

and we have his permission to reprint it here:—

[Illustration:

THE “ARGONAUT” IN DRY DOCK.

]

The hull of the vessel is mounted on three wheels. Of these E is the

rudder, for surface steering, and is also the guiding wheel when the

vessel is running on the sea bottom; and C is one of the supporting and

driving wheels, of which there are two, one on each side. BB are two

anchor weights, each weighing 1,000 pounds, attached to cables, and

capable of being hauled up or lowered by a drum and mechanism within the

boat: 0000 are water-ballast compartments contained within the boat; H

is the diver’s compartment, situated forward, with an exit door opening

outward in the bottom; while G is an airlock. When it is desired to

submerge the vessel, the anchor weights BB are first lowered to the

bottom; water is then allowed to enter the water-ballast compartments

until her buoyancy is less than the weight of the two anchors, say 1,500

lbs.; the cables connecting with the weights are then wound in, and the

vessel is thus hauled to the bottom, until she comes to rest on her

three wheels. The weights are then hauled into their pockets in the

keel, and it is evident that she is resting on the wheels with a weight

equal to the difference between her buoyancy with the weights at the

bottom, and the weights in their pockets, or 500 lbs. Now this weight

may be increased or diminished as we please, either by admitting more

water into the ballast tanks or by pumping some out. Thus it will be

seen that we have perfect control of the vessel in submerging her, as we

may haul her down as fast or as slow as we please, and by having her

rest in the bottom with sufficient weight to prevent the currents from

moving her out of the course, we may start up our propeller or

driving-wheels and drive her at will over the bottom, the same as a

tricycle is propelled on the surface of the earth in the upper air. In

muddy bottoms, we rest with a weight not much over 100 lbs.; while on

hard bottoms, or where there are strong currents, we sometimes rest on

the wheels with a weight of from 1,000 to 1,500 lbs. Thus the effect of

currents and wave motion, and the maintenance of trim and equilibrium

are not factors in the successful navigation of the vessel; in fact,

navigation becomes surer on the surface, as one is travelling in a

medium which does not constantly change like the surface water from the

effects of winds, waves, and currents. When the divers desire to leave

the vessel they go into the diver’s compartment, located in the forward

portion of the ship, and close the door communicating with the living

quarters. This door closes on rubber packing, and is air-tight. Air is

then admitted into the compartment from compressed-air reservoirs, until

the pressure of air equals that of the surrounding water. The bottom

door may then be opened, and no water will come into the boat, as the

pressure of air contained within the compartment offers an invisible

barrier to its entrance, and the divers may pass in and out as

frequently as they please. The _Argonaut_ is fitted with a White and

Middleton gasoline engine of 30 h.p., which operates the screws the

driving wheels, the dynamo, the air compressors, anchor hoists, and

derrick-operating machinery. She is provided with two Mannesmann steel

tubes, in which sufficient air may be stored, with what is contained in

the boat, to last the crew for twenty-four hours without obtaining a

fresh supply from the surface. In the _Argonaut_, however, and probably

in all such craft used for commercial pursuits, as a usual thing, there

will be a connection with the surface, through which a constant supply

of air may be drawn, either by the masts, as shown in the views, one of

which supplies air to the interior of the vessel, the other being

utilised as an exhaust from the engine, or through suction hose

extending to a buoy on the surface. While the engine is running there is

about fifty cubic feet of air flowing into the boat per minute; and when

the engine is closed down there may be a flow of air maintained by an

auxiliary blower, so that it is possible to remain below for days, or

even weeks, at a time.

The course is directed by an ordinary compass when on the bottom, and it

is found that the needle responds as quickly and is as accurate as when

on the surface. Notwithstanding the fact that the _Argonaut_ is quite a

small vessel, a crew of five men have lived aboard her during an

experimental cruise extending over two months, during which she

travelled over 1,000 miles under her own power, partly on the surface

and partly on the bottom. The trip was made to demonstrate the

practicability of vessels of her type travelling on various kinds of

bottoms; also to demonstrate her seaworthiness and capabilities in

searching the bottom, in working on sunken wrecks, finding and taking up

submerged cables, &c.

We have been in some pretty rough weather, and found that she was

perfectly seaworthy. Of course, being so small and of such weight, the

seas at times would wash clear over her decks. This, however, caused no

inconvenience to those below, as her stability was such that she would

roll or pitch very little, even though the seas were breaking over her

in great volume. We have been cruising on the bottom in rivers, in

Chesapeake Bay and beneath the Broad Atlantic. In the rivers we

invariably found a muddy bed; in the bay we found bottoms of various

kinds, in some places so soft that our divers would sink up to their

knees, while in other places the ground would be hard, and at one place

we ran across a bottom which was composed of a loose gravel, resembling

shelled corn. Out in the ocean, however, was found the ideal submarine

course, consisting of a fine gray sand, almost as hard as a macadamised

road, and very level and uniform.

During this trip we investigated several sunken wrecks, of which there

are a great many in Chesapeake Bay and on the coast adjacent thereto.

The vessels we boarded were coal-laden craft, and of themselves not of

much value; but the coal would pay handsomely for its recovery, which

could be readily accomplished with the proper equipment. We found one

old wreck, said to have gone down some forty years ago near the mouth of

the Patuxent River. There was nothing in sight except a few timbers and

deck beams, and these were nearly consumed by the teredo—a boring worm

which completely honeycombs any timber it may attack. We pulled up some

of the planks of this vessel, which had a numerous growth of oysters,

mussels, and several kinds of submarine vegetation clinging to them. The

portion of the timbers not eaten by the teredo was found to be almost as

hard as iron, and thoroughly impregnated with the dark-blue mud in which

the hull lies buried. After the timbers were hauled to the surface, in

sawing them in two, we noticed a very strong odour of yellow pine, and

so learned that they must be of that wood, though they were as black as

ebony. Toad-fish had evidently found this old wreck a congenial

habitation, and when the diver’s hand comes in contact with the slimy

back of one of these horrible-looking, strong-jawed, big-mouthed fish,

he pulls it back pretty quickly. The piece we pulled up had within it

three of these fish, which had taken up their abode in portions of the

timber that had been eaten away, and one was a prisoner in a recess

which, evidently, he had entered when small, and had grown too large to

get out. In a wreck near Cape Henry, fish were very numerous,

principally bass and croakers, though two or three small sharks were

seen in the vicinity.

It might prove interesting to copy one day’s experiences from our

log-book. This day we submerged for the purpose of discovering how much

weight was necessary to prevent the current from moving the _Argonaut_

in a strong tideway (Hampton Roads), and also to discover if there was

any difference in starting our machinery again under water after it had

been shut down for several hours. I copy verbatim from the log-book

under date of July 28, 1898:—

[Illustration:

THE “ARGONAUT” AWASH.

]

“We spent some hours with Hampton Roads as headquarters, and made

several descents in the waters adjacent thereto; we were desirous of

making a search for the cables which connected with the mines guarding

the entrance to the harbour, but could not obtain permission from the

authorities, who were afraid we might accidentally sever them, which

would, of course, make their entire system of defence useless. It was,

therefore, necessary for us, in order to demonstrate the practicability

of vessels of this type for this purpose, to lay a cable ourselves,

which we did, across the channel leading into the Patuxent River. We

then submerged, and taking our bearings by the compass, ran over the

bottom, with the door in our diving compartment open, until we came

across the cable, which we hauled up into the compartment with a hook

only about 4½ feet long, and we could not avoid the impression that it

would be a very easy thing to destroy the efficiency of the present mine

system. And how many lives might have been saved, and millions of

dollars besides, had our navy been provided with a craft of this type to

lead the way into Santiago, Havana, or San Juan, off which ports

squadrons were compelled to lie for weeks and months owing to fear of

the mines.”

I have frequently been asked my sensations on going beneath the

water—whether I had any fear of not being able to come up again, and

whether it did not require a lot of courage. I usually reply that I have

always been too busy and interested for fears or sensations, and that it

does not require any courage on my part, as I am so thoroughly satisfied

of the correctness of the principles upon which the _Argonaut_ is

constructed and the strength of the structure as to have no doubts or

fears of any kind; but I do think it requires courage on the part of

those who do not understand all the principles involved, and who simply

trust their lives in my hands. Quite a number of people have made

descents in the vessel, but in only one or two instances have I seen

them show any signs of fear.

In one instance, during our trials in the Patapsco, several gentlemen

were very importunate in requesting the privilege of making a descent

the next time we were to submerge. They were accordingly notified when

the boat was to go down. At the appointed time, however, some of them

did not appear, and of those who did not one at the last would venture.

I have no doubt had we made the descent at the time they made the

request all would have gone, but thinking about it for a couple of days

made them change their minds.

On another trip we had a college professor on board who could not

understand exactly how our men could get out of the boat. I told him to

come into the diver’s compartment and I would explain it to him.

Accordingly he reluctantly, as I thought, entered the compartment, which

in the _Argonaut_ is a little room only four feet long and a little

wider. After closing the door I noticed that the colour was leaving his

face and a few beads of perspiration were standing out upon his

forehead, and had he been any one else than a professor or, possibly, a

newspaper man, I would not have gone any further with the experiment.

The door, however, was closed and securely fastened. I then opened the

valve a full turn, and the air began to rush in with a great noise. He

grabbed hold of one of the frames and glanced with longing eyes at the

door we had just entered. I then turned off the air and said, “By the

way, Professor, are you troubled with heart disease?” He said, placing

his hand over his heart, “Why, yes, my heart is a little affected.”

Remarking, “Oh, well, this little depth will not hurt you,” I turned on

the air again after saying to him, “If you feel any pain in your ears

swallow as if you were drinking water.” He immediately commenced

swallowing, and during that half-minute or so we were getting the

pressure on I believe he swallowed enough to have drunk a bucketful of

water. After getting the desired pressure I stooped down and commenced

to unscrew the bolts, holding the door which leads out into the water.

Our professor said, “What are you doing now?” I answered, “I am going to

open this door so that you can see the bottom.” Throwing out his hands

he said, “No, no. Don’t do that. I would not put you to that trouble for

the world.” However, about that time the door dropped down, and as he

saw the water did not come in the colour returned to his face, and he

exclaimed, “Well, if I had not seen it I would never have believed it!”

Mr. Lake declares that as a submarine torpedo-boat his vessel will be

practically invincible. She could, he claims, approach a stationary

enemy on the bottom and rise up under the water and secure a time-fuse

torpedo to her bottom, and she could be fitted with tubes to fire

automobile torpedoes. She could also find cables to repair or cut them,

and could be used for countermining purposes. The _Argonaut_ is,

however, intended not so much for warfare as for recovering treasures

from the deep, and for the coral, sponge, pearl, and similar industries.

It has been calculated that of the cargoes, treasures and vessels lost

in the merchant service the aggregate amounts to over one hundred

millions of dollars per year, and the loss has, of course, been going on

for many years.

“There is every reason to believe,” says a writer, “that the sea is even

richer than the earth, owing to the millions of shipwrecks which have

swallowed up so many a royal fortune; the wealth lying at the bottom of

the ocean transcends the fabulous riches of the Klondyke.”

The recovery of sunken treasure has always exercised a great fascination

over certain minds, and much money has been spent in devising means

whereby it might be brought again to the surface. Hitherto the results

have not been such as might have been desired, but the _Argonaut_ seems

to promise success in the future.

Mr. Lake believes that the majority of the great losses on the ocean

occur in waters in which it will be practical to operate with submarine

boats of the _Argonaut_ type. The bottom around the coast lines of the

United States is principally composed of a hard white or grey sand and

is very uniform. The depth increases from the shore at the average rate

of about 6 feet per mile, and the bottom forms “an ideal roadway.” The

_Argonaut_ can descend to 100 feet below the surface. Needless to say,

there are ocean depths where the pressure would be so great that man

could never live, but Mr. Lake appears to think that exploring the ocean

bed, within certain limits, will become in the near future almost as

common as travelling on the surface.

Mr. Lake’s third under-water vessel, _Argonaut No. 3_, is built of

steel, is 66 feet long and 10 feet wide, and displaces 100 tons; the

motive power is gasoline, and the air chambers contain 13,000 cubic feet

of air. She has four large wheels for running on the bottom and also

twin screws for the surface.

[Illustration:

THE “ARGONAUT” ON THE SEA BOTTOM.

]

The following is taken from a New York paper, and relates to an

entertainment given on _Argonaut No. 3_:—

“Captain Lake, the inventor of the submarine boat _Argonaut_,

participated yesterday with thirteen other guests in one of the most

novel summer entertainments ever devised by the brain of man.

“The party embarked at Bridgeport on Long Island Sound in the boat,

which was then submerged, and travelled along the bottom of the sea for

several miles. While running at a depth of 35 feet a dinner prepared and

cooked on board was served.

“After dinner Captain Lake had the door of the diving compartment

opened, and two divers went out and exhibited the patent diving suits.

Captain Lake then gave an exhibition of his suction pump, which is

designed to raise sunken wreckage. The _Argonaut_ stopped near a sunken

coal schooner, and by means of the pump four tons of coal were sent up

through the water to a coal barge above. The coal was transferred at the

rate of a ton a minute.

“A crew of five men navigated the _Argonaut_ under the inventor’s

direction. Slight headaches were experienced by some of the guests,

otherwise no inconvenience was suffered from the submarine voyage.”

A SHORT BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SUBMARINE WARFARE

_France._

“La Navigation Sous-Marine,” by G. L. Pesce. Paris, 1897.

“Les Bateaux Sous-Marins,” 2 vols., by F. Forest and H. Noalhat.

Paris, 1900.

“La Navigation Sous-Marine,” by M. Gaget. Paris, 1901.

“La Navigation Sous-Marine à travers les Siècles,” by M. Delpeuel.

Paris, 1902.

“Les Torpilleurs autonomes et l’avenir de la Marine,” by G. Charmes.

Paris, 1885.

“Les Torpilleurs, la Guerre Navale et la Defense des côtes,” by

Vice-Admiral Bourgois. Paris, 1888.

_Belgium._

“La Guerre Sous-Marine,” by L. G. Daudenart. Brussels, 1872.

“Les Mines Sous-Marines dans la defense des Rades,” by C. Huët.

Brussels, 1875.

_Germany._

“Die Unterseische Schiffahrt,” by L. Hauff. Munich, 1859.

“Geschichte der Sieminen und Torpedoes,” by F. von Ehrenkrook. Berlin,

1878.

“Die Fisch Torpedoes,” by F. von Ehrenkrook. Berlin, 1878.

_Great Britain._

“Submarine Boats,” by G. W. Hovgaard. London (Spon), 1887.

“Submarine Mines and Torpedoes as applied to Harbour Defence,” by

Major J. T. Bucknill. London, 1889.

“Notes on Submarine Mines, commonly called Torpedoes,” by Capt. H.

Steward, R.E. London, 1886.

“Torpedoes and Torpedo Warfare,” by Lt. C. W. Sleeman (2nd ed., 1889).

Simpkin, London.

“Torpedoes and Torpedo Vessels,” by Lt. G. E. Armstrong. London, 2nd

ed., 1901.

“Submarine Navigation,” a Scientific Quarterly, by Alan H. Burgoyne,

1901.

_United States._

“Torpedo War and Submarine Explosions,” by R. Fulton. New York, 1810.

“Submarine Warfare,” by J. S. Barnes. New York, 1869.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

1. P. 1, added “PART I”.

2. P. 71, changed “advantages over the second” to “advantages over the

first”.

3. P. 179, changed “built in 1795” to “built in 1775”.

4. P. 189, changed “General Washington, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson

dated September 26, 1875” to “General Washington, in a letter to

Thomas Jefferson dated September 26, 1775”.

5. P. 190, changed “In 1787 Fulton” to “In 1797 Fulton”.

6. P. 315, changed “On the 28th of June, 1870” to “On the 28th of June,

1890”.

7. Silently corrected typographical errors and variations in spelling.

8. Archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings retained as printed.

9. Footnotes were re-indexed using numbers.

10. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.