The gun most in favour at the close of the eighteenth, and a_Two Centuries of Shipbuilding by the Scotts at Greenock

opening of the nineteenth, centuries was the cast-iron, smooth-bored,

muzzle-loader: first the 32-pounder and later the 68-pounder.

Carronades were used for "smashing" rather than for penetrating the

skin or structure of ships. Although the 68-pounders were improved by a

lining of wrought iron being inserted in the bore, whereby the energy

at 1000-yards range was increased from 290 to 600 foot-tons, little

progress was made until after the Crimean War, when chemists undertook

the investigation of the action of explosives and metallurgists sought

to produce stronger metals.

The general idea as regards the powder used as a propellant was

that the ignition was instantaneous, and that the more violent the

explosion the greater would be the velocity of the projectile. Under

such conditions short weapons naturally found favour; and indeed,

with a light, spherical, ill-fitting projectile, there was very

little advantage to be gained by lengthening the bore. But with the

introduction of rifled cannon, much heavier and better-fitting shot

became possible, and a rapid-burning powder gave rise to dangerous

pressures in the gun. It was then realised that it was not an explosion

that was wanted, but a continuous pressure acting on the base of a

shot for a relatively considerable period. This needed a slow-burning

explosive, and led to the manufacture of powder as pebbles or prisms;

the enlargement in the late 'seventies of the chamber of the gun, and

the provision of air spaces for the expansion of the powder, greatly

added to the velocity with which the shot left the gun, and therefore

augmented its carrying power.[62]

Gun-makers had meanwhile improved the strength of the weapon by a

recognition of the fact that wrought iron was twice as strong in the

direction of the fibre as across it; and thus in the 'sixties they

began to coil the central tube, surrounding it by hoops, welded or

shrunk on. The full advantages of fibre were thus secured for resisting

circumferential strain. The bore was rifled to give the shot that

rotatory motion which prevents irregularity in flight and conduces to

accuracy of fire at long range. The smooth-bore gun was effective up to

only 1000 yards range, as compared with the 6000 yards and 7000 yards

for the modern weapon. Breechloading was first introduced into the Navy

in the 'sixties, but discarded because the details for closing the

breech end proved unsatisfactory. Finally, it was reintroduced in 1878,

a satisfactory mechanism having been devised.

These various improvements gradually increased the power of the

gun. The length and weight had enormously grown, as is shown by the

particulars of successive large Naval guns, shown in Table IV. on the

next page; but the increase in energy up till the 'eighties was not

commensurate with the augmentation of the weights of the projectile and

charge.

The advance from the 38-ton gun of 1870 to the 110-1/2-ton gun in

1887 involved the multiplying by five of the charge of powder, which

quadrupled the energy of the gun, but the carrying power of the shot

was still deficient. The velocity had increased in twenty years

from 1600 to 2000 ft. per second, slower-burning powder having been

introduced.

TABLE IV.

PARTICULARS OF THE SUCCESSIVE LARGE NAVAL GUNS, 1800 TO 1905.

-----+--------+---------+-------+--------+-----+-----+--------+-------

| | | | | | |Muzzle |1000

-----+--------+---------+-------+--------+-----+-----+--------+-------

| |tons cwt.| in. | in. | lb. | lb. |ft.-tns.| in.

1800 |Cast- | 2 12 | 114 | 6.4 | 32 | 10 | 400 | --

| | | | | | | |

1842 |Ditto | 4 15 | ... | 8.12 | 68 | 16 | 700 | --

| | | | | | | |

1865 |Woolwich| 4 10 | ... | 7 | 115 | 22 | 1400 | 7

| | | | | | | |

1870 |Built-up| 38 0 | 200 | 12.50 | 810 | 200 | 13,900 | 17

| | | | | | | |

1880 | Ditto | 80 0 | 321 | 16 |1700 | 450 | 27,960 | 22-1/2

| | | | | | | |

1887 |Built-up| 110 10 | 524 | 16.25 |1800 | 960 | 54,390 | 32

| | | | | | | |

1895 |Wire- | 46 0 | 445.5 | 12 | 850 | ... | 33,940 | 34.6

| | | | | | | |

1900 |Ditto | 51 0 | 496.5 | 12 | 850 | 210 | 36,290 | 35.4

| | | | | | | |

1905 |Ditto | 58 0 | 540 | 12 | 850 | ... | 49,560 | 42

-----+--------+---------+-------+--------+-----+-----+--------+-------

Attention was further directed to the improvement of explosives;

and ultimately, instead of gunpowder having a potential energy of

480 foot-tons per pound, modified gun-cotton was introduced, with

an energy of 716 foot-tons per pound, and still later there were

evolved explosive compounds of which the potential energy per unit of

weight was fourfold greater than in the case of gunpowder, namely,

1139 foot-tons per pound. Finally, the explosive has taken the

form of cordite, which ensures slow burning, great expansion, and,

consequently, augmented propelling power behind the projectile, without

material addition to the maximum strain upon the weapon. But in any

case the constructional strength of the modern gun is enormously

superior to the earlier built-up weapons, as around the inner tubes

there is coiled something like 120 miles of wire, which itself has a

breaking-strain of between 90 and 110 tons per square inch, and is

put on under a tension of from 54 tons per square inch on the inner

wires to 32 tons per square inch on the outer wires,[63] so that the

ultimate resistance to strain consequent upon the firing of the gun

is enormously increased. Velocities of 2600 ft. per second are thus

realised, and even more is quite feasible, so that penetration of

wrought iron at 1000 yards range has now been increased to 42 in.

If we compare the 12-in. gun to-day with the weapon of the same

calibre of twenty years ago, when there was no widened chamber for

the explosive, when prismatic powder of low expansive power was used,

it is found, as shown in the Table opposite, that the penetration

at 1000 yards has been doubled, and the possible effective range

multiplied fivefold. There has also been an enormous gain in quicker

fire by improved breech mechanism and efficient hydraulic and electric

mountings, whereby the gun and all its loading, elevating, and training

machinery is rotated.

The metallurgist has also been successfully occupied, and it is

probable that the armour plate of to-day is still invulnerable.

The earlier wrought-iron plates were increased from 4-1/2 in. in

thickness on the _Warrior_ of 1861, to the 24 in. on the _Inflexible_

of 1881; the area protected being almost proportionately reduced.

The artillerist with improved projectiles ultimately defeated this

heavy cleading on the ships; but compound armour, first made in 1879,

enabled the maximum thickness on the broadside to be reduced to 18 in.,

permitting a greater area to be covered for the same weight. At first

the 80-ton gun failed in its attack, but heavier weapons, with improved

projectiles, prevailed. The next step was the introduction of

all-steel armour in 1890. Two years later there was introduced the

super-carburising and subsequent chilling of the face of plates made of

an alloy of nickel steel. In 1897 the process of hardening was still

further developed, and now the 9-in. plate on the modern battleship is

equal in resistance to a 26-in. wrought-iron plate of the 'sixties,

or a 20-in. compound-plate of the 'eighties, or a 13-in. plate of the

early-hardened type. For the present, therefore, the armour seems to

have secured the victory, as at 5000 yards range 9-in. armour can

scarcely be defeated by even the 12-in. gun.

With the increased resistance of armour and the consequent reduction

in its thickness, the naval designer can spread his protecting plates

over a much wider area, so that the whole broadside of ships like the

_Prince of Wales_, or the cruisers _Argyll_ and _Defence_, is clad with

armour of satisfactory resisting power. At the same time the gun-power

and speed of ships have been greatly increased without making the

displacement inordinately high. On the opposite page a Table gives the

main features of representative ships at different epochs, which will

show this at a glance.

The growth in the size of battleships has been steady, with the

exception of the class represented by the _Barfleur_ and _Canopus_,

both of which were engined by the Scotts. These vessels are embodiments

of a desire to check the advance in the size and cost of the

battleship. The deficiency in the number and calibre of their guns

was partly compensated by the introduction, for the first time in

battleships, of quick-firing weapons of large calibre. The _Barfleur_

had four 12 in. breechloaders and ten 4.7 in. quick-firers; while the

_Canopus_ had four 10 in. breechloaders and ten 6 in. quick-firers. But

opinion has again strongly grown in favour of having in each British

ship the best that can be achieved; and thus the _Prince of Wales_

has a displacement greater than any previous ship, while in the _King

Edward_ and the _Lord Nelson_ classes there has been a further growth

in every element of power. The probabilities, too, are that we have

not yet by any means seen the end of this advance.

[Illustration: Plate XIX. _From a Photograph by West and Son, Southsea._

HIS MAJESTY'S BATTLESHIP "PRINCE OF WALES," 1902.]

TABLE V.

SIZE AND FIGHTING QUALITIES OF BRITISH BATTLESHIPS OF DIFFERENT PERIODS.

------------+---------------------------------------------------------

| Date of Completion.

| +----------------------------------------------------

| | Displacement.

| | +----------------+------+---------+-----------

------------+----+------+----------------+------+---------+-----------

| | | | | |

_Warrior_ |1861| 9,210| 4-1/2-in. |14-1/2| 3800 | 61,476

| | | | | |

_Hercules_ |1868| 8,680| 9-in. to 6-in. |14 | 5400 | 70,200

| | | | | |

_Alexandra_ |1877| 9,490| 12-in. to |15 | 5426 | 71,400

| | | | | |

_Inflexible_|1881|11,880| 24-in. to |13 | 6936 | 123,120

| | | | | |

_Benbow_ |1888|10,600| 18-in. |16.75 | 4600 | 135,560

| | | | | |

_Royal |1892|14,150| 18-in. and |17.5 | 5800 | 159,610

| | | | | |

_Barfleur_ |1894|10,500| 12-in. |18.5 | 2450 | 67,670

| | | | | |

_Canopus_ |1900|12,950| 6-in. hardened |18.25 | 4600 | 178,720

| | | | | |

_Prince of |1902|15,000| 9-in. |18.25 | 4600 | 194,400

| | | | | |

_King |1904|16,350| 9-in. |18.50 | 5920 | 270,040

| | | | | |

_Lord |1905|16,500| 10-in. |18.50 | 7960 | 413,900

------------+----+------+----------------+------+---------+-----------

As to the machinery made by the Scotts for these battleships, the

_Barfleur_ had three-cylinder, triple-expansion twin-screw engines, to

run at 108 revolutions, and to develop 13,000 indicated horse-power. On

her trials the power was 13,163 indicated horse-power. There are eight

single-ended, return-tube, cylindrical boilers, working at 155 lb.

pressure. Other details are given in the Table on page 53.

The engines of the _Canopus_ are illustrated on page 49 by a drawing

taken from a Paper read at the Institution of Civil Engineers, by Sir

John Durston and Admiral H. J. Oram.[64] This was the first type of

British battleship fitted with water-tube boilers. She was followed

soon after by the _Prince of Wales_.[65]

The _Argyll_, which was built and engined by the Scotts, and the

_Defence_, which is being built in one of the Royal Dockyards, and is

having its machinery constructed by the Scotts, signalise progress in

cruiser design. The hardening of armour, increasing its resistance,

permits of a reduction in weight for a given measure of protection, so

that it has been possible to effectively defend the modern cruiser,

while at the same time giving an enormously increased gun-power and a

speed far in excess of that possible ten years ago. The _Argyll_ is a

vessel of 10,850 tons displacement, being 450 ft. long, 68 ft. 6 in.

beam, and having a draught of 25 ft.; while the _Defence_ is a vessel

of 14,600 tons displacement, having a length of 490 ft., a beam of 74

ft. 6 in., and a draught of 26 ft. In both ships the greater part of

the broadside, from 5 ft. below the water-line to the upper deck, is

armoured, and a very large proportion of the area thus clad has 6-in.

hardened plates.

[Illustration: Plate XX. PROPELLING ENGINES OF H.M.S. "ARGYLL."]

In the late 'nineties it was assumed that quick-firing artillery was

best suited to the work of a cruiser, and thus the 6-in. gun was

exclusively adopted. But since then Naval strategists have developed

their ideas as to the function of armoured cruisers, and now anticipate

their use in the line of battle; so that not only has the defensive

quality been improved, but the offensive power has been materially

increased. In the _Defence_, and the other ships of the class, the

6-in. gun has been entirely discarded in favour of an installation of

9.2-in. and 7.5-in. weapons. Owing to the perfection of the hydraulic

and electric mountings, little has been forfeited in respect of

rapidity of fire, while much has been gained in the striking energy at

a given range of each projectile. Thus, while the 6-in. gun five years

ago had an energy equal to penetrating 6 in. of wrought iron at 3000

yards' range, the 7.5-in. weapon now may perforate 6-3/4 in., and the

9.2-in. gun 9 in. of the hardest armour at corresponding range. The

total weight of projectiles fired from the present-day cruiser in a

minute is double, and the muzzle energy quadruple, the results attained

by the cruisers designed at the close of the nineteenth century.[66]

The modern cruisers steam at 23 knots, the power of the machinery in

the _Argyll_ being 21,000 indicated horse-power, and in the _Defence_

27,000 indicated horse-power. The machinery of the _Argyll_, which is

typical, consists of four sets of triple-expansion engines, arranged

in separate watertight compartments. The diameters of the cylinders

are: high-pressure, 41-1/2 in.; intermediate-pressure, 65-1/2 in.;

and the two low-pressure, each 73-1/2 in., all having a stroke of 42

in. At full power, developed with 138 revolutions, the piston speed

is 966 ft. per minute. The cylinders are fitted with liners, and are

steam-jacketed; forged steel is used for the liners of the high-

and intermediate-pressure cylinders, and cast-iron for those

of the low-pressure cylinders. The cylinder covers and pistons

are of cast steel, the latter being of conical form. The high-

and intermediate-pressure cylinders have piston valves, and the

low-pressure cylinders flat valves. The cylinders are supported at the

front by eight forged-steel columns, and at the rear by four cast-iron

columns formed with guide-faces, and one forged steel column. The

crankshaft is in four pieces, the high- and intermediate-pressure parts

being interchangeable with each other, and the two low-pressure parts

with one another. The shafts are hollow, and three-bladed propellers

of manganese bronze are fitted to each. The condensers are entirely

separate, and independent air pumps are fitted.

The _Argyll_ had a combination of six cylindrical and sixteen

water-tube boilers, but in the later ships, including the _Defence_,

the boilers are entirely of the water-tube type. The working pressure

of the boiler is 275 lb., reduced at the engines to 250 lb. The trials

of the _Argyll_ were carried through most satisfactorily,[67] and

the vessel, under the new Admiralty conditions, was completed for

commission by the builders. The fact that this armoured cruiser was so

completed at the builder's yard is of itself evidence of the capacity

and efficiency of the plant.

[Illustration: decoration]

[Illustration: Plate XXI. THE "ERIN," OWNED BY SIR THOMAS LIPTON, BART.

(_See page 70._)]

FOOTNOTES:

[52] Charnock's "History of Marine Architecture," vol. iii., page 245.

[53] The "Greenock Telegraph," May 4th, 1849.

[54] Sir Nathaniel Barnaby's "Naval Development of the Century," page

140.

[55] Sennett and Oram's "Marine Steam Engine," page 3.

[56] Fincham's "History of Marine Construction," page 332.

[57] _Ibid._, page 344.

[58] Sir Nathaniel Barnaby's "Naval Development of the Nineteenth

Century," page 113.

[59] Sennett and Oram's "Marine Steam Engine," page 10.

[60] "Proceedings of the Institution of Naval Architects," vol. xxx.,

page 278.

[61] "Proceedings of the Institution of Naval Architects," vol. xxx.,

page 287.

[62] "Encyclopædia Britannica" (1898 edition), vol. xi., page 288.

[63] "Engineering," vol. lxxix., page 577, May 5th, 1905.

[64] See "Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers" (1899),

vol. cxxxviii., part 3.

[65] "The Engineer," vol. xcviii., page 15.

[66] "Engineering," vol. lxxx., page 415.

[67] "Engineering," vol. lxxx., page 420.

[Illustration: decoration]

Yachting and Yachts.

[Illustration: decoration]

Yacht designers and builders, when votaries of the sport, produce much

better results, and in this truism we have some explanation of the

success of the Scotts in the long series of yachts built during the

past century. There are a few misty memories and time-worn traditions

to the effect that yachting of a kind was indulged in on the Clyde in

the closing years of the eighteenth century; but there are no authentic

records antecedent to the nineteenth century. From 1803 onwards the

Scotts have been closely identified with the pastime, and with the

production in the early years of sailing yachts; and, later, of steam

craft.

The first notable Clyde racing yacht, of which there is any record,

was launched by the Scotts in 1803, as already referred to on page

11 _ante_. She was a 45-1/2-ton cutter for Colonel Campbell, an

Argyllshire soldier, and the launching ceremony, the honours of which

were done by Lady Charlotte Campbell, was attended with military

honours. For the twenty years immediately following the launch of

this cutter, yachting made most pleasing progress, and in 1824 the

Royal Northern Yacht Club was formed for the better organisation and

encouragement of the pastime. The club had its origin in the North of

Ireland, and had jurisdiction over that district, as well as over the

West of Scotland up till 1838, when the Irish section was disbanded.

The Royal Northern gave regattas throughout the season, at almost

every suitable port, from Helensburgh on the Clyde to Oban. Amongst

the leaders of the Clyde Division was John Scott, the second of the

name, and a large number of the racing craft owned by the members were

built by him. Indeed, one of the most experienced writers on Yachting

in Scotland, Mr. J. D. Bell, says that "among the old yachting families

of the West of Scotland, the Scotts and the Steeles filled the foremost

place."

Among the best remembered of the yachts built by John Scott were the

cutters _Hawk_ and _Hope_, constructed for himself, and the _Clarence_,

built for his son-in-law, the late Robert Sinclair. The _Hawk_ was a

boat of about 30 tons, the _Hope_ was rather smaller, and was used for

cruising rather than for racing; and the _Clarence_ was about 18 tons.

The _Hawk_ was a successful racer, and secured many cherished prizes,

but the _Clarence_ was her superior, and was the first of a long line

of prize-winners which have brought renown to the Clyde. Indeed, in all

she won over thirty challenge trophies, and in her best season never

suffered defeat. Robert Sinclair, the owner, was himself a keen and

accomplished yachtsman.

[Illustration: Plate XXII. _From a painting at Halkshill._ THE

"CLARENCE": AN EARLY RACING CUTTER.]

In the races held in 1833-34--most prominent years--John Scott,

with the _Hawk_, won the Anglesey Cup at Dublin, and the Oban and

Helensburgh Cups; while Robert Sinclair, with the _Clarence_, won

the Ladies' Cup at Oban, the Kintyre Cup at Campbeltown, the Dublin,

Adelaide, and Booth Cups at Dublin, the Stewart Cup at Greenock, the

Largs Cup and the Dunoon Cup. These two yachts were indeed close

rivals, although the principal honours rested with the _Clarence_.

On one occasion, however, the _Hawk_ unexpectedly defeated the

_Clarence_ in an important race at Dublin, and the owners were anxious

to have the cup in Greenock as soon as possible for a special reason.

Recognising that the _Clarence_ was really the faster boat, they handed

over the trophy to her crew to take to the Clyde port; but the luck

which enabled the _Hawk_ to win the cup stood by her on the passage

home, and she made the port a considerable time before her rival.

The _Clarence_ became a pilot boat, and was unfortunately run down off

Garroch Head, while the _Hawk_ was transferred to the fishing trade.

In later years John Scott, C.B., had the laudable desire to secure as

a relic the vessel his grandfather had owned, but the negotiations

failed; and the boat is probably still at work among the islands of

Scotland.

The Royal Northern Club's fleet in the 'thirties numbered about fifty,

but there were no steam vessels on the list until 1855. Among the

principal boats in the club were the Duke of Portland's ketch, the

_Clown_, of 156 tons; the Duke of Buccleuch's cutter, the _Flower of

Yarrow_, of 145 tons; Mr. John Scott's cutter, the _Lufra_, of 81 tons;

Mr. Robert Meiklem's schooner, _Crusader_, of 126 tons; and Mr. Lewis

Upton's cutter, _Briton_, of 91 tons. The membership was about one

hundred and fifty, the aggregate tonnage of the fleet about 2000 tons,

and its cost, at a fairly generous estimate, about £20,000.

What a contrast is suggested by a review of the fleet of yachts owned

to-day by Clyde yachtsmen! There are now eight clubs in the Firth

recognised by the Yacht Racing Association, and one of the largest of

these--the Royal Clyde--alone has over a thousand members, with a fleet

of over three hundred and seventy yachts, of a collective tonnage of

26,000 tons, and of a first cost of a million sterling. The club-house

at Hunter's Quay, which cost about £20,000, is representative of

the best of its kind. Many of the yachts--sailing and steam--are of

considerable size, and have international repute for their excellence,

either as racers, or as comfortable seaworthy cruisers.

The origin of the Royal Clyde Club in itself affords interesting

suggestion of the development of the pastime on the Clyde. Owing to a

rule enforced by the Royal Northern Club during the earlier period of

its existence, boats smaller than 8 tons could not be enrolled; many

enthusiastic owners of small craft were thus debarred from membership,

and in 1856 they decided to form a new club. This, first named the

Clyde Model Yacht Club, became, a year later, the Clyde Yacht Club;

and, having grown immensely in influence, obtained, in 1872, Queen

Victoria's sanction to the appellation of "Royal." To-day the Royal

Clyde Yacht Club is one of the most important in the Kingdom.

The gun most in favour at the close of the eighteenth, and at the