works at Manchester to be bored and rifled. In April, 1856,
trial was made with a brass 24-pounder of the construction above
described. The projectiles employed on that occasion varied from
two to six diameters in length, and a very rapid rotary motion
was communicated to them. The gun itself weighed 13cwt.; the
bore, instead of being of a calibre fitted to receive a spherical
24-pound shot, was only of sufficient capacity to admit one of
9 pounds. The hexagonal bore measured 4ins. in diameter, and
was rather more than 54ins. long. It was entirely finished by
machinery, and the projectiles were fitted with mathematical
precision, the spiral in both cases being formed with absolute
accuracy. The gun, externally, had only the dimensions of a
24-pound howitzer, but it projected missiles of 24 pounds, 32
pounds, and 48 pounds each, the additional weight having been
obtained by increased length. Upon this new system, then, it will
be seen that guns capable, under the old plan, of supporting
the strain of a 24-pound ball, may be made with ease to throw
a 48-pound shot; the reduction of the calibre allowing of a
sufficient thickness of metal being left to ensure safety. The
32-pound and 48-pound projectiles used in the above experiments
were respectively 11¾ins. and 16½ins. in length. They were pointed
at the foremost extremity, being shaped and rounded somewhat like
the smaller end of an egg. At the base they were flat, and slightly
hollowed towards the centre. The gun was mounted for the occasion
upon an ordinary artillery carriage, which shows no symptoms of
having been strained, nor of being in any way injured by the
concussions to which it had been subjected.
* * * * *
“Subsequently, some further experiments were made with the same
gun with reduced elevation, when the projectiles, striking the
ground at comparatively short distances, rebounded again and
again till their momentum was expended. The first shot thus fired
weighed 32 pounds, the charge of powder being only 3 ounces, and
the gun having an elevation of 2 degrees. The projectile made its
first graze at a distance of 92 yards, furrowing the ground for
about 7ft., and leaving distinct indications of its rotary axial
motion. It rose again to an elevation of about 6ft., grazing,
after a further flight of 64 yds. The third graze (owing probably
to the hard nature of the soil at the point struck) was at a
distance of 70yds. further; after which it traversed some ploughed
land, grazing several times, coming finally to rest after having
accomplished altogether a distance of 492yds.
“The second shot also weighed 32 pounds; the charge, as before,
consisted of 3 ounces of powder; but this time the elevation given
to the gun was 3 degrees. The projectile first grazed the ground
at a point 108yds. from the muzzle; the second graze was 126yds.
further; but happening to touch the lower bar of an iron fence--a
circumstance which appeared to affect its flight--it dropped
finally after having accomplished 490yds. Some further experiments
were then made with shot weighing 48 pounds each.
“These very reduced charges rendered it necessary to make use of
wooden wads to fill the cavities in the base of the projectiles.
This had a tendency to reduce very much the power of the gun.
“A further trial with the hexagonal gun was made at Liverpool on
the 7th of May. Several shots, varying from 24 to 48 pounds in
weight, were fired. The first, weighing 24 pounds, with a charge
of 11 pounds of powder, attained a distance of 2,800 yards, the
elevation given having been 8 degrees. These experiments could
hardly be said to have exhibited the _maximum_ capacity of the
gun, having been interrupted by the rapid rising of the tide. The
average range of several 48-pound shots was 3,000 yards, but there
is little doubt that a much greater distance will be achieved when
Mr. Whitworth has perfected some guns he is now constructing.
“A good deal of attention having previously been drawn to the
subject of Armstrong’s gun, respecting which few particulars
had been allowed to transpire, on the 4th of March last the
Secretary-at-War made an official statement to the House, and gave
some details as to its alleged capabilities. Without describing
its construction, he stated that one piece, throwing a projectile
of 18 pounds, weighed but one-third as much as the ordinary gun
of that calibre. With a charge of 5 pounds of powder, a 32-pounder
attained a range of 5¼ miles; at 3,000 yards its accuracy, as
compared with that of a common gun, was stated to be in the
proportion of 7 to 1. At 1,000 yards it had struck the target 57
times successively, and after 13,000 rounds the gun showed symptoms
of deterioration. In conclusion, it was said that the destructive
effects occasioned by this new ordnance exceeded anything that
had been previously witnessed, and that in all probability it was
destined to effect a complete revolution in warfare.”
Armstrong’s own statement was:--
“Schemers whose invention merely figure upon paper, have little
idea of the difficulties that are encountered by those who carry
inventions into practice. For my part, I had my full share of
such difficulties, and it took me nearly three years of continual
application to surmount them.... Early last year a committee was
appointed to investigate the whole subject of rifled cannon. They
consisted of officers of great experience in gunnery; and after
having given much time for a period of five months to the guns,
projectiles, and fuses which I submitted to them, they returned
a unanimous verdict in favour of my system. With respect to the
precision and range which have been attained with these guns, I may
observe that at a distance of 600 yards an object no larger than
the muzzle of an enemy’s gun may be struck at almost every shot. At
3,000 yards a target of 9ft. square, which at that distance looks
like a mere speck, has on a calm day been struck five times in ten
shots. A ship would afford a target large enough to be hit at much
longer distances, and shells may be thrown into a town or fortress
at a range of more than five miles. But to do justice to the weapon
when used at long distances, it will be necessary that gunners
should undergo a more scientific training than at present; and I
believe that both the naval and military departments of Government
will take the necessary measures to afford proper instruction, both
to officers and men. It is an interesting question to consider what
would be the effect of the general introduction of these weapons
upon the various conditions of warfare. In the case of ships
opposed to ships in the open sea, it appears to me that they would
simply destroy each other, if both were made of timber. The day
has gone by for putting men in armour. Fortunately, however, no
nation can play at that game like England; for we have boundless
resources, both in the production and application of iron, which
must be the material for the armour. In the case of a battery
against a ship, the advantage would be greatly in favour of the
battery, because it would have a steady platform for its guns,
and would be made of a less vulnerable material, supposing the
ship to be made of timber. But, on the other hand, in bombarding
fortresses, arsenals, or dockyards, when the object to be struck
is very extended, ships would be enabled to operate from a great
distance, where they could bid defiance to land defences.”
After some observations, the author continued:--
“Notwithstanding the high estimation in which Sir William
Armstrong’s guns are held, and deservedly so from their great
intrinsic merit, they have certainly in Mr. Warry’s great invention
a rival that may eventually be found to eclipse them.
“The Armstrong gun cannot be fired oftener than three times a
minute, and the bore, it is said, has to be constantly sluiced
with water; whereas Warry’s admits, as has been affirmed, of being
discharged 16 or 18 times a minute, or 1,000 an hour, without
difficulty, though of course not without heating, as some reporters
have misrepresented. Guns of the former description are expensive,
and must be made expressly by means of special machinery. Mr.
Warry, on the other hand, asserts that he can convert every
existing gun into a breech-loader upon his principle, and at a
moderate outlay: an advantage of the greatest moment at the present
time.
“This gun is fired by means of a lock. On one side of the breech
there is a lever, so contrived that by one motion of the hand it is
made to cock the hammer and to open the chamber. A second movement
closes the charger again, pierces or cuts the cartridge, places a
cap on the nipple, and fires the gun almost simultaneously.
“With a due supply of ammunition, therefore, a destructive torrent
of shot and shell may be maintained _ad libitum_. It is not
difficult to form a conception of the havoc even one such gun would
occasion if brought to bear upon the head of an advancing column.
“The inventor has, besides, made application for a patent for a
new coating he has devised for all kinds of projectiles, in lieu
of any leaden or metallic covering, which has been found very
objectionable in actual practice. The new coating, it is said,
reduces the ‘fouling’ to a minimum.
“But we cannot turn even from this very brief consideration of the
improvements in modern cannon without offering a few observations
relative to an invention of a different kind, but one that may
possibly prove of greater moment than either of the guns that
have been described. This is the composition known as ‘Norton’s
liquid fire.’ In the terrific character of its effect it rivals
all that has been recorded of the old Greek fire; at the same
time it is perfectly manageable, and may be projected from an
Enfield rifle, from a field-piece, or from heavier ordnance. The
composition Captain Norton uses consists of a chemical combination
of sulphur, carbon, and phosphorus. He merely encloses this in a
metal or even in a wooden shell, and its effect upon striking the
side or sails of a ship, a wooden building, or indeed any object
at all combustible, is to cause its instant ignition. This ‘liquid
fire’ has apparently the property of penetrating or of saturating
any substance against which it may be projected, and such is its
affinity for oxygen that it even decomposes water and combines with
its component oxygen. Water, consequently, has no power to quench
it, and if burning canvas, set on fire in this way, be trodden
under foot and apparently extinguished it soon bursts again into
flames.”
It is not uninteresting to reflect that although Norton’s liquid
fire came to nothing, yet the present century has already seen three
variations on the idea.
The first instance is the type of big shell used by the Japanese at
Tsushima. Little is known as to their exact composition, but they were
undoubtedly extremely inflammable. Captain Semenoff in “The Battle of
Tsushima” thus describes them:--
“The Japanese had apparently succeeded in realising what the
Americans had endeavoured to attain in inventing their ‘Vesuvium.’
“In addition to this there was the unusual high temperature
and liquid flame of the explosion, which seemed to spread over
everything. I actually watched a steel plate catch fire from a
burst. Of course, the steel did not burn, but the paint on it did.
Such almost non-combustible materials as hammocks, and rows of
boxes, drenched with water, flared up in a moment. At times it was
impossible to see anything with glasses, owing to everything being
so distorted with the quivering, heated air.
* * * * *
“According to thoroughly trustworthy reports, the Japanese in
the battle of Tsushima were the first to employ a new kind of
explosive in their shells, the secret of which they bought during
the war from the inventor, a colonel in one of the South American
Republics. It was said that these shells could only be used in guns
of large calibre in the armoured squadrons, and that is how those
of our ships engaged with Admiral Kataoka’s squadron did not suffer
the same amount of damage, or have so many fires, as the ships
engaged with the battleships and armoured cruisers.”
The second instance is the Krupp fire shell designed for use against
dirigible balloons. The third is the “Thermite shell,” which, early in
1912, was proposed for adoption in France. It was calculated that one
12-inch A.P. shell exploding would melt half a ton of steel.
The following passage from Hans Busk is of interest:--
“In 1855 Mr. Longridge, C.E., proposed to construct cannon of tubes
covered with wire wound round them so tightly as almost entirely
to relieve the inside from strain. On the 25th of June of the same
year Mr. Mallet read a paper advocating the construction of cannon
of successive layers of cylinders, so put together that all should
be equally strained when the gun is fired; thus the inside would
not be subject to fracture, while the outside would be useless
as in a cast mass. His method of effecting this was, as is well
known, to have each cylinder slightly too small to go over the one
under it till expanded by heat, so that when cool it compresses the
interior and is slightly strained itself. Thirty-six-inch mortars
have been made on the principle, and if they have failed with
40lbs. of powder, cast-iron must have failed still less. In 1856
Professor Daniel Treadwell, Vice-President of the American Academy,
read a paper to that body recommending the same principle of
construction; and Captain Blakely has himself for some years
been endeavouring to urge its adoption by argument and direct
experiments. In December, 1857, some trials were made with guns
constructed by that officer; and the result of a comparative trial
of a 9-pounder with a cast-iron service gun of similar size and
weight gave results proving the soundness of his views; for Captain
Blakely’s gun bore about double the amount of firing the service
gun did, and being then uninjured, was loaded to the muzzle, and
was thus fired 158 times before it burst.”
[Illustration: JOHN SCOTT RUSSELL.]
From these contemporary extracts it will be seen that by 1859 the germ
of nearly every modern idea in connection with gunnery existed, and has
since developed somewhat on “trial and error” lines for at any rate the
greater part of the intervening period.
The contemporary situation as regards defence is also best summed up
from the authority from whom the above gunnery extracts are taken:--
“The result of numerous trials appeared to convince those best
competent to judge of such matters that iron plates, or, rather,
slabs, eleven centimetres (about 4½ins.) in thickness, would offer
adequate protection to a ship from the effects of hollow shot.
Acting upon this impression, four floating batteries, resembling
in most respects those constructed here, were ordered to be built,
and notwithstanding the enormous difficulties connected with such
an undertaking, these four vessels were turned out, complete in all
respects, in ten months--an astonishing instance of the resources
of French dockyards and the ability of French engineers.
“From this event may be dated the commencement of a new epoch
in naval tactics. The next problem was to determine whether a
form better adapted for progression than that of these batteries
could not be given to vessels sheathed in a similar manner. Hence
originated the iron-plated frigates (_frégates blindées_). The
intention of their designer is, that they should have a speed
and an armament at least equal to that of the swiftest existing
frigates, but their colossal weight, and consequently their great
draught of water, must almost preclude the fulfilment of this
expectation. Should they prove successful, a number of larger ships
of the same kind are to be commenced forthwith. It is difficult to
understand how, in the case of these ships being found to answer,
it will be possible for us to avert a real “reconstruction” of
our Navy, or, how any other nation, aiming to rank as a maritime
Power, can avoid the adoption of a similar course. In fact, the
necessity has been appreciated, and we are already at work. But a
good deal has to be accomplished ere the use of such vessels become
universal. If these iron-plated vessels do resist shell, it seems
certain, as has been already stated, that solid shot will either
perforate at short ranges any thickness of metal that has yet been
tried, or will so indent the sheathing at longer distances that
the internal lining and rib-work of oak will be riven, shattered,
loosened, or crushed to an extent that would almost as speedily
put the ship _hors de combat_ as if she had but been built after
the old fashion, much, as in days gone by, upon the introduction
of gunpowder into warfare, the use of armour was found rather to
aggravate, than to ward off, the injuries inflicted by gunshot.
It was the result of the operations against Kinburn that more
particularly gave rise to the high opinion at present entertained
in favour of these _vaisseaux blindées_. Unwieldy and cumbersome
as they appeared, they were certainly a great improvement upon
the floating batteries used by the French and Spanish against
Gibraltar in 1782. Those were merely enormous hulks, destitute
of masts, sails, or rigging; their sides were composed of solid
carpentry, 6ft. 6ins. in thickness, and they carried from nine to
twenty-four guns. When in action, streams of water were made to
flow constantly over their decks and sides, but notwithstanding
every precaution, such an overwhelming storm of shell and red-hot
shot was poured upon them by the English garrison that they were
all speedily burnt. Not so the _Devastation_, _La Lave_, and _La
Tonnante_ before the Russian fortress above mentioned, on the
memorable 14th October, 1855. At 9 p.m. they opened fire, and in an
hour and twenty-five minutes the enemy was silenced, nearly all the
gunners being killed, their pieces dismounted, and all the ramparts
themselves being for the most part demolished. To accomplish this
destruction in so short a space of time, the three batteries, each
carrying eighteen fifty pounders (supported, of course, by the fire
of the English vessels), advanced in very shallow water within
800 yards of the walls, receiving themselves very little damage in
comparison with the immense havoc they occasioned.”
From the above extract it is clear that the “impenetrable coat of mail”
idea, popularly supposed to have led to the introduction of ironclads,
never existed to any appreciable extent. Indeed, when the Committee,
alluded to on an earlier page, concluded its labours in 1859, it
merely recommended the conversion of nineteen more sailing ships into
steamers. It was Sir John Pakington who decided to lay down a couple of
“armoured steam frigates,” and to build them of iron instead of wood.
The French _frégates blindées_ were wooden ships, armoured. John Scott
Russell is said to have been Pakington’s chief adviser in this matter
of building iron armoured ships and disregarding all the laborious
conclusions of Captain Chads against iron hulls.
As regards the general recommendations of the committee already
referred to, these had resulted in 1861 in there being no less than
sixty-seven wooden unarmoured ships of the line building or converting
into “screw ships.”
The two iron-plated steam frigates were decided on without any popular
enthusiasm concerning them. Now and again retired Admirals paid
surreptitious visits to the French “_blindées_” and returned with
alarming reports; but, with the possible exception of flying machines,
no epoch-making thing ever came in quite so quietly as the ironclad.
The wildest dreamer saw nothing in it beyond a variation on existing
types. The ironclad was something which, by carrying a great deal of
weight, could keep out shell; beyond that no one seems to have had any
particular ideals whatever, except perhaps Sir Edward Reed.
Early in 1859 designs for a type of ship to “answer” the French
_frégates blindées_ were called for, and fourteen private firms
submitted designs. All, however, were discarded.
Details of the designs submitted were as follows:[90]--
=============+=======+=======+==========+======+======+======+======
|Length.|Breadth|Displ’m’t.|Speed.|Wt. of|Wt. of|I.H.P.
Designer. | | | Tons. |Knots.|Armour| Hull | of
| | | | |Displ.|Displ.| Eng.
-------------+-------+-------+----------+------+------+------+------
Laird | 400.0 | 60.0 | 9779 |13½ | .11 | .51 | 3250
Thames Co. | 430.0 | 60.0 | 11180 | | .10 | .58 | 4000
Mare | 380.0 | 57.0 | 7341 | | .13 | .46 | 3000
Scott Russell| 385.0 | 58.0 | 7256 | | .18 | .38 | 3000
Napier | 365.0 | 56.0 | 8000 |13½ | | | 4120
Westwood & | | | | | | |
Baillie | 360.0 | 55.0 | 7600 |13½ | .16 | .36 | 4000
Samuda | 382.0 | 55.0 | 8084 |13½ | .16 | .57 | 2500
Palmer | 340.0 | 58.0 | 7690 |13½ | | | 4500
Abethell | 336.0 | 57.0 | 7668 | | | | 2500
Henwood | 372.0 | 52.0 | 6507 | | .18 | .40 | 2500
Peake | 354.9 | 56.0 | 7000 | | .14 | .46 | 3000
Chatfield | 343.6 | 59.6 | 7791 | | .14 | |
Lang | 400.0 | 55.0 | 8511 |15 | .14 | .53 | 2500
Cradock | 360.0 | 57.6 | 7724 | | .20 | .42 | 2500
Admiralty | | | | | | |
Office | 380.0 | 58.0 | 8625 |14 | | |
=============+=======+=======+==========+======+======+======+======
The Abethell and Peake designs were wooden hulled, all the others iron
ships.
The two ships, _Warrior_ and _Black Prince_, as actually laid down,
differed from the Admiralty design in certain details. The beam was
increased slightly, and the displacement rose from 8625 to 9210.
The _Warrior_ was laid down on the 25th May, 1859, at the Thames
Ironworks, Blackwall; the _Black Prince_ a little later at Glasgow.
[Illustration: THE _WARRIOR_, AS COMPLETED, 1861.]
In substances they were ordinary “wooden frigates,” built of iron
instead of wood, with armour to protect most (but not all) of the
guns. This was done by a patch of armour amidships, covering about 60%
of the side. It was deemed advisable to protect the engines; otherwise
as like as not the armour would have been over the battery only.
Waterline protection was entirely unrealised, the steering gear of the
_Warrior_ being at the mercy of the first lucky shot.
This, as Sir N. Barnaby has pointed out, was due to accepting existing
conditions:--
“The tiller was necessarily above the water-line and was outside
of the cover of the armour. The wooden line-of-battle ships, with
which the designers of these first iron-cased ships were familiar,
had required no special water-line protection, and when wheel
ropes or tiller were shot away the ship did not cease to be able
to fight. The line-of-battle ships, which they knew so well, had
a lower, or gun deck about four feet above the water-line, and an
orlop deck about three feet below the water-line. Between these two
decks the ship’s sides were stouter than in any other part, and
shot did not easily perforate them. When a shot did enter there,
between wind and water, as it was called, ample provision was made
to prevent the serious admission of water.
“In this between-deck space the sides of the ship were kept free
from all erections or obstructions. The ‘wing passages’ on the
orlop were clear, from end to end of the ship, and they were
patrolled by the carpenter’s crew, who were provided with shot
plugs of wood and oakum and sail cloth with which to close any shot
holes. As against disabled steering gear there were spare tillers
and tiller ropes, and only injury to the rudder head itself was
serious.”
It is easy to-day to indicate where the old-time designers erred;
and later on they realised and repaired their error with commendable
promptitude. The really interesting point is that British designers
evolved the ideal thing for the day, while the French evolved the idea
of the ideal thing for the to-morrow. Unhappily for the latter, their
evolution was unable to survive its birth till the day of its utility.
_La Gloire_, the first French ironclad, was broken up more years ago
than any can remember; the _Warrior_ and the _Black Prince_, though
long ago reduced to hulk service,[91] still float as sound as when in
1861 the _Warrior_ first took the water. To the French belongs the
honour of realising what armour protection might mean; but to England
goes the credit of reducing the idea to practical application.
The _Warrior_ was designed by Messrs. Scott Russell and Isaac Watts,
the Chief Constructor. Her length between perpendiculars was 380 feet.
She carried originally a uniform armament of forty-eight 68-pounders
smooth bores, weighing 95cwt. each. These fired shell and cast-iron
spherical shot. The guns were carried as follows:--Main deck,
thirty-eight, of which twelve were not protected by armour. On the
upper-deck, ten, also unprotected.
This armament was subsequently changed to two 110-pounder rifled
Armstrongs on pivot mountings, and four 40-pounders on the upper-deck;
while the main-deck battery was reduced to thirty-four guns. At a later
date it was again altered to four 8-inch 9-ton M.L.R., and twenty-eight
7-inch 6½-ton M.L.R.