The Evolution of Naval Gunnery
"It was great pity, so it was,
That villanous salt-petre should be digg'd
Out of the bowels of the harmless earth,
Which many a good tall fellow had destroy'd
So cowardly; and, but for those vile guns,
He would himself have been a soldier."
Hotspur describing his meeting with a "popinjay" after a battle.
SHAKESPEARE. _King Henry IV._ Act I, Scene iii.
"Earth and air were badly shaken
By thy humane discovery, Friar Bacon."
BYRON. _Don Juan._ VIII, 33.
"The hand-spikes, sponges, rammers, crows,
Were well arranged about;
And to annoy Old England's foes,
The Great Guns were run out."
--_Old Verses._
"WHO invented gunpowder?" There is only one definite and reliable answer
to this question, and that is that nobody knows. It has been stated, but
I think that it may be dismissed as a "galley yarn", that the first
mention of artillery is to be found in an account of a naval engagement
between the Phoenicians and Iberians in the year 1100 B.C.--just
eighty-seven years after the siege of Troy.
The Phoenician war-vessels, it is said, came out of Cadiz--or Gades, as
it was then called--with what their opponents took to be brazen lions at
their bows. These turned out to be some kind of machine from which
enormous flames of fire were projected by explosives, to consume and
destroy the ships of the Iberians. But the most generally accepted
theory now is that gunpowder was invented in China some centuries
before the Christian era and gradually found its way to Europe by way of
India, Arabia, and Africa. As for the stories that it was invented
either by Roger Bacon (1214-92) or by the German monk, Barthold
Schwartz, in 1320, they must be certainly rejected, since there is
evidence that cannon of some kind were in use long previous to Roger
Bacon's birth. Doubtless he wrote something about the composition of
gunpowder, but so might anyone to-day. That would not make him its
inventor.
Much less, then, can this invention be attributed to the German monk. It
is probably correct that, in pounding certain ingredients in a mortar,
he nearly blew himself "into the middle of next week"--as very many
would-be chemical investigators have done at a much more recent
date--and it may be that the sight of his pestle flying through the
ceiling suggested to him that a mortar might be made of military
use.[35] He may possibly, on this account, be credited with the
invention of the muzzle-loading cannon, for it seems probable that the
guns in use previous to 1320 were merely _cannae_, or tubes open at each
end. The famous battery of three guns, which is said by some historians
to have been used by the English at Crécy, was probably of this kind.
Whether the guns were used there or not, it would not have been the
first time such weapons made their appearance in European warfare, as
seems to be assumed by some writers.
More than 100 years previously cannon were employed by the Moors at the
siege of Saragossa, in 1118. The Spaniards were not slow to adopt the
invention, and in 1132 they built what is stated to have been a
"culverin" throwing a 4-pound shot. "Culverin", which is a term,
belonging to Tudor times, for a special type of gun, is evidently used
as a general term for "cannon". Like the "Joe Chamberlain" and "Bloody
Mary",[36] manned by the Naval Brigade in the Boer War, and other
prominent specimens of the gun-maker's art, this first European cannon
received a special name. It was christened "Salamonica". I have said
that the Spaniards "built" this weapon. I wrote this advisedly, for all
the earlier cannon were "built up" of staves of iron, or even wood,
strongly hooped together with wrought-iron rings.
It was a long time before cannon were "founded" or "cast", and now,
strange to say, we have gone back to the original method of manufacture,
which, thanks to modern science and workmanship, has absolutely ousted
what was at its inception considered a wonderful advance in the art of
cannon-making. The early guns, open at both ends, were probably loaded
at the breech, which was then closed by a block of stone or big stake
driven into the ground, close to which the gun itself was fixed in some
kind of a framework. Such guns are to be seen in a picture in
Froissart's _Chronicles_ representing the siege of Tunis by the
Crusaders in 1390, and it is from this that the often-reproduced drawing
of the guns said to have been used at Crécy in 1346 would appear to have
been taken.
What is said to be the earliest representation of a cannon in England is
to be found in a manuscript of 1326 in the Christ Church Library at
Oxford. It is of quite a different appearance from those just described.
It is in the shape of a fat vase or bottle, and could not well have been
a breech-loader. It is loaded with a big "garot" or dart fitted with a
wooden haft which seems to fit tightly into the neck of the weird
"cannon", which lies on a very rickety looking table. The gunner, clad
in what looks like a suit of Crusader's chain-mail, is an unwary person
who is holding a lighted match to the touch-hole while standing directly
behind the gun. As there is not the slightest indication of anything
whatever to stop the recoil, it seems about three to one that the
discharge would be more disastrous to him than to the enemy. It is
noteworthy that "metal cannons" and "iron balls" were ordered to be
made in this same year at Florence, and in 1331 _vase_ appears to have
been the usual term for the cannon made in Italy, while in France they
were termed _pots de fer_.
[Illustration: A "Vase" or "Pot-de-fer"
The "garot", or heavy dart, to be fired from this early gun was provided
with a wooden plug made to fit the bore. The type of "garot" shown on
the right was intended to be fired from a large cross-bow on a stand.]
This brings us to the earliest indication that I can find of the use of
guns afloat. It is a document dated 1338, in which Guillaume du Moulin,
of Boulogne, acknowledges to have received from Thomas Fouques, the
custodian of the enclosure for the King's galleys at Rouen, a
_pot-de-fer_ to throw "fire garots", together with forty-eight garots in
two cases, 1 pound of saltpetre, and 1/2 pound of sulphur "to make
powder to fire the said garots". Now it seems more than probable that
this _pot-de-fer_ or _vase_ was very similar to that in the Oxford
manuscript and that it was intended for use afloat, or it would not have
been among the stores belonging to the galleys. The recipient being at
Boulogne, we may fairly assume that it was required by him for use on
shipboard. "Garots", we know, were very commonly used in naval actions
at this date, either thrown by hand from the tops or propelled from
espringalds. Moreover, it is evident that the gun open at both ends
would be a great source of danger on board ship. The system of
breech-closing on shore was singularly rough and ineffective; there must
have been nearly as much "back-fire" at the breech as flames from the
muzzle. This would be a constant danger afloat, and, unless a few
_vases_ like those described were sometimes used, it is probable that
cannon were not adopted for sea service until some more regular and
effective breech-closing apparatus had been evolved. But for this seamen
had not very long to wait.
The progress of gun-making was now proceeding apace, especially in
Germany and Flanders. At first, and for some time, there do not seem to
have been any what we may call "moderate-sized" cannon, or, at any rate,
they are not so much in evidence as the very large ones and the very
small ones. The latter were not bigger than very heavy muskets, and it
was with weapons of this kind that the many-gunned ships of the late
fifteenth and early sixteenth century were principally equipped, though,
as time went on, heavier pieces were added. To show how very small these
little cannon were, it is only necessary to quote from Monstrelet's
_Chronicles_, in which he tells us that, in 1418: "The Lord of Cornwall
... crossed the Seine ... having with him in a _skiff_ a _horse loaded
with small cannons_". When one reads of the extraordinary numbers of
guns which are said to have been used in some mediæval battles and
sieges, one should always bear this passage in mind.
[Illustration: _Photo by the Author_
THE _DULLE GRIETE_ AT GHENT
This gun dates from 1384, and is very similar to the "marvellous great
bombard" mentioned by Froissart as employed by the men of Ghent to
attack Oudenarde.]
As for the big guns, they were giants when compared with their smaller
brothers. Old Froissart, whom I have already quoted more than once,
tells of a very notable specimen employed by the "men of Ghent" to
attack Oudenarde: "A marvellous great bombarde, which was fifty feet
long, and threw great heavy stones of a wonderful bigness; when this
bombarde was discharged, it might be heard five leagues by day, and ten
at night, making so great a noise in going off, that it seemed as if all
the devils in hell were abroad". All traces of this monster have
disappeared, but an 18-feet gun of probably an exactly similar type is
still to be seen at Ghent--unless the Germans have stolen it. This gun
dates from about 1384, and has a bore something like 25 inches in
diameter. As perhaps none of us are likely to be in Ghent for some time,
we can see a rather smaller but almost duplicate weapon in
Edinburgh--the celebrated "Mons Meg". Though she is supposed to have
been built 100 years later, it is quite possible that both were turned
out at the same manufactory. The Scots gun evidently came from Mons in
Flanders, and the Flemish gun is also called "Meg", i.e. the _Dulle
Griete_ or "Mad Margery" or "Meg". Another bigger and more handsomely
finished gun of the same type, dating from 1464, is to be seen at the
Royal Artillery Museum at Woolwich. This is a Turkish piece, and is said
to have been "cast", while "Mons Meg" and her sisters are all built-up
guns, as can be at once seen on inspection by the most amateur eyes.
There are several others on the Continent, notably the two "Michelets"
which were left at Mont St. Michael when the siege of that place was
abandoned by the English in 1427. The siege began in 1423, so they may
date from a good many years earlier. As the English batteries were
erected on the Isle of Tombelaine, which is 3000 yards distant from the
mount, some idea may be obtained of the distance to which these early
cannon could hurl their granite projectiles.
[Illustration: The Gun with which we won the Great War with France
Observe the heavy breeching-rope attaching the gun to the ship's side;
the tackle and block for running in and out; the wooden wheels, and the
"quoins" or wedges for elevating the gun.]
Such cannon were all built up of long rectangular bars of iron upon
which heavy rings of the same material were shrunk, the whole weapon, on
completion, forming a heavy and extremely tough cylinder of wrought
iron. The chambers, or breech-pieces, for the reception of the
powder-charge, were built separately, with much thicker sides and
smaller bores than the rest of the gun, into which they were screwed.
The guns must not, I think, be therefore considered breech-loaders; for
though it may be possible that they were screwed in and out at each
discharge, I think it more probable that, as they were such heavy masses
of metal, the breech-pieces were left screwed up and the charges
inserted at the muzzle. But when cannon came to be made of more moderate
dimensions--big enough to be effective against walls and the sides of
ships, and small enough to be transported with reasonable facility--some
system of breech-loading was almost universal. I say "almost", because
guns began to be cast in brass in Germany at a comparatively early date,
and such guns were probably often muzzle-loaders, since cast brass would
not have been strong enough for the breech-closing methods in vogue.
These were comparatively simple. The breech of the gun, which was built
up much in the same way as Mons Meg and others of the same kidney,
terminated in a species of trough. Into this trough fitted an iron
cylinder which contained the charge of powder and was called a
"chamber". The muzzle of the chamber was bevelled off or turned down so
as to fit into the breech end of the bore of the gun itself, and was
held in position by iron wedges, generally at the rear end, but
sometimes across the top. In some of the larger types the trough was
made in the huge block of tough oak to which the gun was fastened. In
the Tower of London you can see a gun of this kind that was fished up
from the wreck of the _Mary Rose_. As most guns were provided with at
least two "chambers", one would imagine that a fairly rapid fire could
have been kept up, at any rate with the smaller guns. This, however,
would not seem to have been the case, for the French account of the
battle off St. Helens (when the _Mary Rose_ capsized), which lasted for
two hours, and in which a considerable number of ships were engaged,
mentions that 300 rounds were fired as a fact indicating the uncommon
fierceness of the fighting. And yet the _Henri Grace à Dieu_ alone
carried over 100 guns of various sizes!
But at first, even at a time when artillery of one kind or another was
in common use on land, very few guns were carried afloat. Very likely
the reason was that few were suitable; they were either too big, too
small, or, as before suggested, could not be safely closed at the
breech. Thus in the reign of Henry IV, 1399-1413, the _Christopher_, a
rather important man-of-war, only carried "three iron guns with five
chambers, one hand-gun, and one small barrel of powder". The barge
_Mary_ (_Marie de la Tour_) carried one iron gun with two chambers and
one brass gun with one chamber. Another _Mary_ (of Weymouth) had also
one brass and one iron gun, the _Bernard_ had two iron guns, and a ship
referred to as the _Carrake_ one. The _Christopher's_ guns are said to
have been "stoked". This may possibly mean fitted with "stocks" or oaken
beds, like those previously referred to, in which case her guns were
probably larger and heavier than those in the other ships. The invention
of port-holes was probably coincident with the adoption of really heavy
artillery afloat. Before then it would not have been safe to have
carried such heavy weights on the upper decks of the kind of ship then
existing. The _Great Michael_ may possibly be taken as an exception, for
she could hardly have had port-holes cut in her 10-foot thick sides. At
the same time, since her heavy guns were probably breech-loaders, they
may have been practically built into her sides, since at that time there
was no such thing as training a heavy gun right or left on board ship.
With the numerous batteries of small guns also carried on board ships of
this period, it was quite a different matter. They were mounted on
swivels on the gunwale, or in openings or ports in the fore- and
after-castles as well as in the tops. Others, and among them certain
wide-mouthed pieces known as "murderers", were distributed in what were
known as the "cubbridge heads", or those sides of the fore- and
after-castles which faced inboard and commanded the waist of the ship.
Here it was to be expected an enemy's boarders would make their assault,
and here--the crew having retired fore and aft--they would be mowed down
by charges of all sorts of iron fragments from the "murderers". The same
system of dealing with boarders lasted some time after the disappearance
of the lofty "castles" at bow and stern; strong athwart-ships bulkheads
being provided at bow and stern both on the upper and main decks.
It was in Henry VIII's time that the manufacture of cast-iron guns, for
which England soon became famous, began in this country. One Ralph
Hogge,[37] at Buxted, in Sussex, cast the first iron cannon. This is
said to have been in 1543, and it is stated that the house in which this
was done is still standing near the church of that village, and that it
has the figure of a hog with the date 1581 carved over the door. There
is another story to the effect that this early gunfounder's name was
John Howe, and that there is the following distich, cut in stone, still
extant in Buxted:--
"I, John Howe, and my man John,
We two cast the first cannon".
This invention may be said to have sealed the fate of the heavy
breech-loading gun for some centuries, though the system remained in
vogue for small pieces for another 200 years. A cast-iron or brass
muzzle-loading gun could be made so much more easily, rapidly, and
cheaply than a built-up wrought-iron breech-loader of the same calibre
that with the growing demand for guns afloat there is little wonder that
the former drove the more expensive weapon clean out of the field. It
must be remembered, too, that the casting of bronze guns had already
reached great perfection on the Continent. What is known as "Queen
Elizabeth's pocket pistol" at Dover is a standing witness to this. It is
supposed to have been cast at Utrecht, and to have been presented to
Henry VIII by the Emperor Charles V in 1544. It is 24 feet long, and is
a very fine piece of workmanship. Its bore is 58 calibres long--that is
to say, it is fifty-eight times as long as its diameter, a proportion
not very unlike that upon which some of our most modern weapons are
designed.
[Illustration: Early Breech-loading Cannon
The first was an Armada weapon. This type of gun remained in use afloat
well into the eighteenth century]
But to return to our early naval cannon. As I have already pointed out,
the casting of bronze guns in Germany and Flanders had reached a great
pitch of perfection long before anything of the sort was made in
England. Germany, in fact, may be said to have led in gunnery for a
considerable period. The master gunners in most armies seem to have
been Germans, and at the accession of Queen Elizabeth we were buying our
powder from the German Hansa Company established in the Steel Yard in
London, instead of making sufficient for ourselves. There were many
brass guns afloat in Henry VIII's navy besides the wrought-iron
breech-loaders. Some of fine workmanship were found in the wreck of the
_Mary Rose_, as well as those of the latter class which have been
already mentioned. As an indication of the cost and labour expended on
such weapons, it may be instanced that a bronze gun cast in Germany in
1406 took from Whitsuntide to Michaelmas to finish, and required 52-1/2
hundredweight of copper and 3-1/2 hundredweight of tin. The metal cost
422 florins, while the master gun-founder received 86 florins for his
pains.
The heaviest weapon afloat in Tudor times was the curtall or curtow,
generally of brass, and firing a 60-pound shot. The culverin was rather
lighter and longer. There were a whole host of fancy names--and
doubtless fancy types--for ordnance at this time, several of which have
already been referred to as forming the armament of the _Great Michael_.
Space forbids further enumeration or description, which, in any case,
would be impossible on account of the very different guns which are
called indiscriminately by the same name. But by the Armada days the
following were the principal guns used afloat:--
Name. Bore. Weight of Shot.
Double cannon 8-1/2 inches 66 pounds
Whole cannon 8 " 60 "
Demi-cannon 6-1/2 " 32 "
Whole culverin 5-1/2 " 17 "
Demi-culverin 4-1/2 " 9 "
Saker 3-1/2 " 51 "
Minion 3 " 4 "
Falcon 2-1/2 " 2 "
Falconet 2 " 1-1/2 "
Robinet 1 " 1 "[38]
The "double cannon" is sometimes called a "cannon royal" or a
"carthoun". The "saker" is often spelt "sacre". The "culverin"--a name
that occurs rather more frequently than any other at this time--was so
called from the lugs or handles for hoisting it in and out of its
carriage, which were made in the form of an ornamental serpent.[39]
Although the English cast-iron cannon almost at once achieved such a
reputation that they sold in Amsterdam for £40 a ton, for £60 in France,
and for no less than £80 in Spain, though costing only £12 a ton in this
country; and though they were bought so freely at these high prices by
foreigners that in 1574 their export was totally forbidden, yet it would
appear that the Royal Navy was then using nothing but brass guns, except
perhaps in the case of the smaller pieces. But the merchantmen used iron
guns. Thus when James I sent an expedition of six men-of-war and a dozen
armed merchant-ships against the Algerines in 1620, all the former
carried brass and all the latter iron guns. The men-of-war were heavily
gunned, so much so, indeed, that it was not unusual for their captains
to dismount a few of their heaviest pieces and stow them as ballast for
the safety of the ship. The _Prince Royal_, for instance, carried a
battery of two "cannon perriers" (i.e. throwing stone shot), six
demi-cannon, twelve culverins, thirteen sakers, and four light pieces.
The famous _Sovereign of the Seas_ in the next reign mounted twenty
cannon, eight demi-cannon, thirty-two culverins, and forty-two
demi-culverins--all brass guns--and probably some small iron falconets
as well. On each gun was engraved the rose and crown, the sceptre and
trident, anchor and cable. The engraving cost £3 per gun, but we must
remember that the _Sovereign_ was a "show ship".
According to an artilleryman who wrote in the first half of the
seventeenth century, three shots an hour was about as much as an
ordinary gun would stand, "always provided that after 40 shots you
refresh and cool the piece[40] and let her rest an houre, for fear lest
80 shots should break the piece". But I think we may credit our seamen
with being able to fire their guns a bit faster than that. Constant
running out of powder seems to have been the great trouble in the
English fleet engaged in the discomfiture of the "Invincible" Armada.
And not only did the English ships carry heavier ordnance and fire
heavier broadsides than the Spaniards, so that the British cannon
"lacked them through and through", but our gunners are said to have
fired their pieces three times to the Spaniards' one. This is a Spanish
estimate, and it is abundantly evident that our gunnery proved at least
as superior as it did over that of the Germans in Sir David Beatty's
victory off the Friesland coast in January, 1915. Later on, at the
battle of La Hogue (1692) the British ships were able to fire three
broadsides to every two of the French.
[Illustration: Early Attempts at Maxim Guns
In all probability each barrel of the first gun had to be loaded
separately and fired by hand, one after another. In the second case, the
eight little cannon are apparently secured to a kind of turntable, to be
revolved by hand.]
Coming to the navy of the Commonwealth, we find the same curiously named
guns in use. Here is the battery of the _Naseby_: Nineteen cannon, nine
demi-cannon, twenty-eight culverins, thirty demi-culverins, and five
sakers. The same classification lasted till the time of George I, when
it became the custom to designate guns by the weights of their
projectiles. Thenceforward we find ship-armaments reckoned in
42-pounders, 32-pounders, 24-pounders, 12-pounders, and 6-pounders. The
old 60-pounder had disappeared, and before long the 42-pounder followed
it into temporary oblivion, so that at Trafalgar our heaviest gun was a
32-pounder.[41] It was not until nearly 1840 that it reappeared, and was
followed by a 68-pounder.
During the period between Elizabeth and Trafalgar there were innumerable
attempts to invent and introduce improved forms of ordnance, including
shell-guns and machine-guns. The idea of the latter was extremely
ancient. There are several manuscript illuminations and old wood-cuts
of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries showing attempts at a "Maxim"
gun. The "orgue", consisting of a large number of very small guns or
musket-barrels fixed in rows, or revolving rings, or bundles, was a
common weapon in those centuries--at least on shore. Then there was
something of the kind for which William Drummond was given a patent in
1625, and which he termed a "thunder carriage". Again, there was one
Puckle, who in 1781 invented a regular revolving gun mounted on a
tripod. It was made in two patterns--one to fire ordinary round bullets,
the other to fire square ones--against the "unspeakable Turk". Puckle
thought these infidels ought to get as nasty a wound as possible. With
his specification he issued a doggerel which ran as follows:--
A DEFENCE!
"Defending King George, your country and Lawes
Is defending yourselves and Protestant Cause".
The invention did not "catch on", and under a picture of the weapon
which appeared on the eight of spades in a pack of cards of the period
was another attempt at poetry:
"A rare Invention to destroy the Crowd
Of Fools at Home, instead of Foes Abroad.
Fear not, my Friends, this terrible Machine;
They're only wounded that have Shares therein".
Neither machine-guns nor shell-guns were to appear before the Victorian
Era, the reason probably being that there was no machinery capable of
turning them and their component parts out in payable quantities. As for
shell-guns, mortars were found to answer very well; no navy wanted to
introduce a form of warfare that would be absolutely destructive of
wooden shipping, and so we find that they did not long precede the
appearance of the modern ironclad. But towards the end of the eighteenth
century a new and practical weapon was invented by General Melville with
the idea of producing a gun which should fire a comparatively large
projectile for its weight. To effect this, something, of course, had to
be sacrificed, and this was length, both of the gun itself and of its
range and also penetration. But, as naval actions then took place at
close quarters, this did not count for much, and what was lost in
penetration was more than made up for by the smashing effect of the
heavy shot. In fact, the gun itself was at first termed a "smasher",
but, from the fact that most of them were cast at the famous Carron
foundry in Scotland, they soon became universally known as "carronades".
In the days of wooden ships the "carronade" became a most useful weapon.
The smaller kind were light, took up little space, and were just the
things for merchant-men and small craft; while the bigger
class--generally 68-pounders--were valuable auxiliaries to the batteries
of our line-of-battle ships. The carronade was essentially a British
gun, and its efficiency was never more conspicuous than in the fight
between H.M.S. _Glatton_, a converted East Indiaman, and a French
squadron of four frigates and two corvettes, which took place off the
coast of Flanders on 15th July, 1796.
[Illustration: _Photo. Symonds & Co._
THE MAIN GUN DECK ON H.M.S. _VICTORY_
Typical of a ship's battery in the palmiest days of our Wooden Walls.
The thick rope "breechings", the blocks and tackles for running the guns
in or out, and securing them for sea, are clearly shown. So also are the
"trucks" or wheels, and the "quoins" or wedges for elevating or
depressing the guns. Overhead are suspended the Sponge, Rammer, and
Worm, for each gun. The latter is the implement with a double corkscrew
for withdrawing a cartridge.]
The British ship, whose armament consisted of a main battery of
68-pounder carronades, with 32-pounders on her upper deck--fifty guns in
all--completely defeated and drove off her six assailants, who retreated
to Flushing with their decks ripped up, besides other terrible damages,
one of them being so badly mauled that she sank on arrival in port. Had
not the _Glatton_ been a very slow sailer she could have destroyed the
lot. As it was, she effected her victory with only two casualties--Captain
Strangeways of the Marines mortally, and a private marine slightly
wounded.
It may be interesting to note the armament carried by Nelson's _Victory_
at the Battle of Trafalgar, in order that it may be compared with that
of some earlier ships of which particulars have been given and with
those of our modern battleships, which will be found in a later chapter.
On that memorable day the famous old three-decker which still swings at
her buoy in Portsmouth harbour mounted--
On her lower deck, thirty 32-pounders;
On her middle deck, thirty 24-pounders;
On her main deck, thirty-two 12-pounders;
On her upper deck, eight 12-pounders, and four 32-pounder carronades.
The upper-deck 12-pounders were 2 feet shorter than those on the main
deck, and only weighed 21 cwt., as against their 34, but the 32-pounder
carronades only weighed 17 cwt. This will give an idea of the
comparative lightness of these weapons. The guns at this period, and
indeed since Elizabethan times, were mounted on carriages formed of two
wooden sides or cheeks strongly connected together by timber
cross-pieces or "transoms", and placed on four solid wooden wheels or
"trucks". They were secured to the ship's side by thick ropes or
"breechings" passing round the breech of the gun, and long enough to
allow of a certain recoil on being fired. The gun was run out again
by blocks and tackles, which could also be used to haul it inboard
without its being fired, in order to secure it for sea and close the
port. It was trained from side to side by means of hand-spikes or levers
placed under the rear of the carriage, and elevated in a similar manner,
the hand-spikes being used to raise or lower the breech of the gun,
while the "quoin", or wedge, supporting it was being adjusted. Similar
carriages remained in use in our navy far into the 'eighties of last
century, being used for the "converted 64-pounder", which was the old
smooth-bore 68-pounder lined with a rifled steel tube. I have drilled at
such guns myself. It was fine exercise, and it was necessary to be
pretty smart and have all one's wits about one to get outside the
breeching, if a loading number, before the gun was run out. The
13·5-inch gun of to-day is, thanks to hydraulics, manipulated with a
tithe of the exertion required to serve a truck gun. Here are the orders
for "Exercise at the Great Guns" which obtained in 1781, and are
considerably simpler than those previously in vogue:
1. "Silence."
2. "Cast loose your guns."
3. "Level your guns."
4. "Take out your tompions."
5. "Run out your guns."
6. "Prime."
7. "Point your guns."
8. "Fire."
9. "Sponge your guns."
10. "Load with cartridge."
11. "Shot your guns."
12. "Put in your tompions."
13. "House your guns."
14. "Secure your guns."
"Tompions" are a species of plug used to close the muzzle of a gun when
not in action. In the "days of wood and hemp" they were usually painted
red, but in modern guns they are generally faced with gun-metal,
decorated in some cases with the badge of the ship. "Prime" means to
place loose powder in the pan after having pierced the cartridge with a
"priming wire" thrust through the touch-hole or vent. To "house" was to
haul the gun inboard ready for securing.
The smooth-bore gun remained the naval weapon right up to the Crimean
War, though explosive shells gradually began to be used as well as the
old solid round shot. The rifling of muskets and cannon had often been
suggested by inventors as far back as Tudor times, and occasionally a
few experimental rifled muskets were made. But in the war with Russia,
in which most of the combatants were armed with muzzle-loading rifles,
rifled cannon began to make their appearance. The Lancaster gun, with a
twisted oval bore, was the first rifled naval gun, and was thought a
great deal of in its day. Then came the breech-loading Armstrong guns.
These were very finely turned out weapons with poly-groove rifling, and
closed at the breech by a species of block which lifted in and out and
had somewhat the appearance of a carriage clock. It was held in position
by a hollow screw through which the charge and projectile were loaded
into the gun, and which was screwed up tight against the breech-block
before firing. This was not a very satisfactory system, since, if not
properly screwed taut, the block had a habit of blowing out, sometimes
with unfortunate results. It was probably for this reason that none of
these guns was made bigger than a 100-pounder. The projectiles for the
Armstrong gun were covered with leaden jackets in order to take the
rifling. This jacket every now and again flew off, which rendered these
guns very unsafe to use over the heads of our own troops.
[Illustration: NAVAL GUNNERY IN THE OLD DAYS
An 18-ton gun in action at the bombardment of Alexandria. The gun has
just recoiled after firing. No. 1 is "serving the vent". The sponge end
is being passed to be thrust out of the small scuttle in the middle of
the port (which is closed as soon as the gun is fired), so that the big
wet end can be placed in the gun.]
The consequence was that while the Germans went in for the Krupp
breech-loading system, in which the breech is closed by a sliding block
across it, and the French for the interrupted-screw breech-closing plug,
the prototype of our present system, we gave up breech-loaders and went
in for built-up, muzzle-loading guns. Their advocates claimed for them
simplicity, comparative cheapness, and other virtues, but, as a matter
of fact, we were entirely on "the wrong tack" and were gradually being
left behind in gun-construction by other nations. These big
muzzle-loaders were formed by shrinking successive jackets over a
steel tube which formed the bore. They were rifled with a few wide,
shallow grooves, their projectiles being fitted with gun-metal studs
intended to travel along the rifling and so give them the spinning
movement requisite for accuracy. The biggest guns of this class
constructed in this country were the 80-ton guns carried by the
_Inflexible_ at the bombardment of Alexandria, though the Italians, who
followed us in sticking to muzzle-loaders for a time, had guns of 100
tons. Of course the biggest guns had special hydraulic mountings, but
the broadside guns of 7-, 8-, 9-, or 10-inch bore were mounted on
carriages invented by a Captain Scott. These consisted of a pair of iron
brackets, or sides, supporting the gun, which ran in and out on slides
made of iron girders that could be trained to the right or left by means
of tackles, or in most cases by cog wheels working on curved and cogged
racers. The carriage on which the gun was mounted had rollers beneath it
with eccentric axles, so that, unless these were raised by levers
supplied for the purpose, the carriage itself rested on the slide. This
helped to check the recoil, further restrained by a system of
interlocking plates on the carriage and slide which could be compressed
together by a hand-wheel and screw.
After the gun had recoiled inboard and had been reloaded, the
compressors were slackened and the gun-carriage put on its rollers, so
that it ran down the slightly-sloping slide to its firing-position. But
for all its simplicity there were very many disadvantages attendant on
the muzzle-loader. One very important one was the impossibility of
preventing the gases caused by the explosion of the powder from escaping
past the projectile, so that part of the force of the explosion was
wasted. In breech-loading guns the projectile fits the rifling
closely--it could not be forced through the gun by the rammer from the
rear--being provided with a copper driving-band of slightly bigger
circumference than the bore. When the gun is fired, this is driven into
the grooves of the rifling, rotates the shot, and at the same time stops
any escape of gas and consequently of energy. Thus, size for size, a
breech-loading gun must have greater range and penetration than a
muzzle-loader. A breech-loader can be made much longer than a
muzzle-loader into the bargain, as it is not necessary to get to the
muzzle to load it. This also makes for accuracy and penetration.
[Illustration: _Photo. Cribb, Southsea_
13.5-INCH GUNS ON H.M.S. _CONQUEROR_
The muzzles of the monster cannon are closed by plugs or "tompions" with
handsome designs in burnished gun-metal. Above the higher turret is seen
a "Barr & Stroud" range-finder in a canvas case.]
It was a considerable time before those in this country who had stuck to
the muzzle-loading system through thick and thin could be brought to see
the error of their ways, but after 1880 breech-loaders much of the
French type were introduced into the navy, till we reached the monster
110-ton guns carried in the _Benbow_, _Sanspareil_, and the ill-fated
_Victoria_. As I have already mentioned, the French guns were closed at
the breech by an "interrupted screw". What this is may be shortly
explained. Imagine a screw plug about one and a half times as long as
its diameter, with a close thread to it. Now, to screw this in and out
of the breech of the gun would be a matter taking an appreciable time.
Suppose, now, that we take this screw plug and divide the outside of
it--the screw part--perpendicularly into six equal parts. Then, if we
cut away the thread of the screw on every other sixth, we shall have
three-sixths smooth and the other three-sixths with the screw-thread
still standing out upon them. If now we treat the corresponding
screw-thread in the breech of the gun itself in a similar manner, and
then insert the plug with the three threaded portions in line with the
three smooth portions cut in the gun, we can push it directly in to its
full length, after which a sixth of a turn will lock the threaded parts
together and securely close the breech. This has proved amply strong
enough to resist the immense strain imposed by the explosion of the
charge; but while the principle has been retained in all our
cannon--except the small 3- and 6-pounder Hotchkiss guns, which have a
sliding block--it has been so improved that the locking of the breech
is still stronger, and in all but our very big guns it can be opened and
closed with just about as much ease as a cupboard door. Of course, in
monsters like the 12-, 13·5-, and 15-inch guns, hydraulic machinery is
brought into play, by means of which their immense breech-blocks are
manipulated with the greatest ease by the movement of various levers.
Machine-guns at one period were introduced into the naval service for
the special purpose of defence against torpedo-boats, but smaller
rifle-calibre weapons were also supplied for use in the tops, boats, and
in landing operations. The first-mentioned were "Nordenfeldt" guns,
firing steel projectiles of 1 inch diameter in volleys of two or five.
These proved too small to deal with the torpedo-boat, which grew bigger
and bigger and was superseded by the destroyer; and were replaced
successively by 3-, 6-, and 12-pounder rapid-fire guns. But at the
present time a 4- or 6-inch shell is required to be really effective
against the big destroyers which are now in commission. The
rifle-calibre guns were at first Gatlings with revolving barrels, then
Gardner and Nordenfeldt volley-firing guns, and lastly the well-known
Maxim. Some of these are still carried on board ship but are not now of
use in a naval action, though they are most valuable when bluejackets
and marines are landed for shore service, and, upon occasion, in the
boats.
FOOTNOTES:
[35] In the Civil War, according to Warburton's _Memoirs of Prince
Rupert_, apothecaries' mortars were sometimes used in emergencies.
[36] In Henry V's expedition to Harfleur he took with him, among others,
two big guns known as the "London" and "the King's Daughter".
[37] Sometimes called Hugget.
[38] Compiled from five authorities, who differ slightly.
[39] Lat., _coluber_, a serpent.
[40] In 1586 "gunners were provided with milk and vinegar to cool their
pieces".
[41] There may have been some 68-pounder _carronades_ in action.