EXAMINATION OF FULTON’S DESIGN
What the Nautilus accomplished. The British design compared with
that of the Nautilus. Folding propeller. Horizontal propeller.
Details of machinery. Effectiveness of the vessel. Screening the
Channel.
However interesting from an academic point of view may be Fulton’s views
on philosophy, free trade and social problems, and his personal
peculiarities as displayed in his negotiations with government
officials, the animating question of historical bearing relates to the
boat itself. Was the design practical, would it as developed have been
able to serve a useful purpose, or was it only a single step in a long
process of evolution?
The Nautilus, defective as she was in many particulars which Fulton
admitted, clearly demonstrated certain facts: firstly, that a boat could
be made to plunge and rise at will; secondly, that it could remain under
water with a crew of three men for several hours; thirdly, that it could
be manoeuvered and steered by the compass under water as well as on the
surface. These features are the essence of the principle of successful
submarine practice, and so much Fulton accomplished.
It is a far cry from a little vessel like the Nautilus, no bigger than a
ship’s boat that is carried at the davits, to a modern submarine capable
of keeping the seas for many weeks, of crossing and recrossing the ocean
without replenishing either stores or fuel, and of carrying not only
torpedoes and apparatus for their discharge but also a 12–inch
long-range gun firing a projectile weighing nearly one-half ton. Except
as to size, which is not really a basic feature of principle, the modern
submarine differs from Fulton’s proposals in that it possesses an engine
actuated when on the surface by a fuel (oil) whose activity can be
instantly stopped preparatory to plunging, and by a power (electric
storage battery) that neither generates heat nor vitiates the air while
submerged. For that combination of motive power the world had to wait
another hundred years.
The Nautilus, as a matter of fact, was something vastly more than a toy
or experimental model. It possessed real offensive powers, and a fleet
of them, as Fulton proposed and as the British navy officials feared,
would have been able to do real havoc. In estimating the offensive power
of Fulton’s design, the picture of the modern submarine must be kept out
of sight. The latter is called on to meet conditions of mechanical
development and types of hostile vessels that are as much in advance of
those existing when Fulton lived, as is the complicated mechanism of a
present-day submarine over the hand-driven propeller proposed by him.
At the beginning of the last century, a ship-of-the-line was a very
unwieldly affair. She was bluff bowed and high sided and consequently
could be handled satisfactorily only when “off the wind.” Even under
these favorable conditions, speed was comparatively slow. With a light
wind, especially with a light adverse wind, she could make but little
headway. Such a wind rendered capital ships practically helpless. That
they were not destroyed by the opposing force was because at such times
the opposing force was helpless too. A boat that had offensive power of
attack and had means of locomotion enough to overcome tidal currents
would have been an effective menace. As Fulton pointed out, the only
measure of defense by a large vessel at anchor would lie in a cordon of
small boats. But a boat fully, or even partially, submerged would have
had an excellent chance to get through a cordon and destroy her prey. In
spite of the limitation of speed and cruising range that today would
condemn any such boat as absolutely worthless, these limitations were
sufficiently generous when compared with the status of naval
architecture that prevailed in 1800–1806 to make Fulton’s submarine,
when he proposed it, a factor of actual and positive value.
If that can be said of the Nautilus, all the more it is true of the
design that he submitted to the British Government. Between the Brest
experiments in 1801 and his proposals in 1804, as evidenced by his
“Drawings and Descriptions,” it is clear that he had given the matter
considerable thought and to some purpose. The specifications as
submitted to the British agent called for a boat 35 feet long and 10
feet beam as compared with the similar dimensions of the Nautilus of 21
ft. 3 in. and 6 ft. 4 in., respectively, giving at least three times the
tonnage. It was to carry a crew of six instead of three men with
provisions sufficient to enable her to be kept at sea for 20 days. The
offensive capacity was 30 submarine bombs (or mines) as against a single
trailing one with the Nautilus. The vessel designed for the British
Government was a real sea-going boat that could independently navigate
the Channel while the little Nautilus could not venture far from land or
from some large vessel acting as a base.
An examination of the details, particularly those on Plates First and
Second will disclose many improvements over the French prototype, shown
facing page 26. In the first place the hull is that of a seagoing boat,
equipped with a well-developed sail plan for propulsion when on the
surface and not the queer contraption that the French marine architects
condemned. On the surface this boat could have been handled as easily
and she would have sailed as fast as any sloop of the same size. The
mast could have been laid back on the deck and the sails disposed of in
a few minutes preparatory to plunging.
To plunge and again come to the surface of the water, ballast tanks, sea
valves and hand pumps provided ample facilities readily to overcome or
restore excess of buoyancy. The brass cylinder with the hemispherical
ends would suffice to withstand the exterior hydrostatic pressure. The
required thickness of shell was a matter of computation, one readily
made with certainty even in those days.
The difficulty with all early submarines was motion beneath the surface.
In the British plan, Fulton proposed to obtain motion by a manually
operated crank turning a propeller. The boat was larger than the
Nautilus, but so also would have been the crew. For short distances he
could undoubtedly have driven the boat at his estimated speed. The
propeller was a two-bladed affair of modern type. Fulton had now
definitely abandoned the full helical or Archimedes screw that Bushnell
used and which he had himself tried in his first experiments.
Reference to Plate First and its description will show, however, an
exceedingly interesting addition that Fulton had made in the British
boat. He reasoned correctly that a propeller when not turning would
cause a considerable drag to the boat when sailing, and thus reduce her
speed. He, therefore, arranged that his propeller could be folded so as
to lie horizontally. This he proposed to do by a hand crank and gearing
operated from within the boat. On Plate Seventh it will be seen that the
propeller when folded lay well above the water surface and so would not
have been an impediment to the motion of the boat. When it is recalled
that the propeller was not generally adopted as a means of vessel
propulsion until after 1845, when the steamship Great Britain crossed
the ocean between England and New York, the first vessel driven by a
screw propeller to accomplish the feat, and that a propeller that could
be folded or hoisted above water was not introduced until about 1850,
because at that period steam was merely an auxiliary to sails, it will
be seen how far ahead of his time Fulton was in the design that he made
in 1804.
Another radical innovation was a horizontal propeller, Marked _B_ in
Plate First, attached near the bow of the boat. This propeller, also
actuated by a crank from within the boat, was to give the boat vertical
motion when submerged and so enable it to be kept at any depth that
might be desired. This principle of the horizontal propeller is that of
the helicopter, the device now being experimented with by airplane
designers in order to give planes a vertical motion or permit them to
hover stationary in the air. It was precisely those same results in the
water that Fulton undertook to accomplish with his submarine.
The other mechanism in the interior of the boat is simple and
self-explanatory. There were two anchors with windlasses, one anchor to
hold in the usual manner against drifting, the other to regulate depth
when lying stationary. There were pumps for emptying the water ballast
chambers. On deck was a conning tower quite similar to the tower on a
modern submarine, which served when closed as a lookout for the
helmsman, and when open as means of ingress and egress for the crew.
This conning tower had glass windows through which an observer could
watch big prey, or steer his course when the boat was partially
submerged. Plate Fifth shows how the conning tower could be used when it
should be the only part of the vessel above the surface. This particular
plate is of peculiar interest in that Fulton has drawn a picture of
himself looking through the glass-covered ports. In the original drawing
the head is full size.
Attached to the conning tower were two pipes marked _F_ and _G_ in Plate
Second. These pipes led to the interior of the boat and permitted fresh
air to be drawn in, and the vitiated or mephitic air (as Fulton called
it) expelled. These pipes permitted the boat to be submerged so that the
deck was just awash, the only part above the surface being the upper
half of the conning tower and the air pipes. This is the situation as
shown in Plate Fifth. So operated, the boat did not differ materially
from a modern submarine under similar conditions with her periscope out
of water.
From Fulton’s small conning tower he had only direct vision. A periscope
enables the boat to be wholly submerged with vision obtained by
reflecting mirrors. But a boat submerged so as to be just awash, with
only the conning tower showing, and driven by a hand-operated propeller
could have entered at night unseen almost any harbor, because in those
days there were no powerful searchlights to illuminate the surface of
the water at a distance.
The British were right in the secret note that they sent to the naval
commanders that Fulton’s boat, even without the later improvements that
he showed the British Government, could in the hands of the French have
made an attack with very serious results upon an open roadstead such as
the mouth of the Thames.
According to modern phraseology, Fulton’s British boat was a submersible
rather than a submarine. The latter term defines a vessel that has
powers of offense under water by torpedoes that in turn have means of
locomotion. With such a torpedo neither Fulton nor the art was
acquainted. His torpedoes or “bombs” were immobile affairs intended to
be anchored, dragged by a boat or allowed to drift with the tide and to
explode by concussion.
With the Nautilus it is true that he contemplated dragging a “bomb”
beneath the bottom of a ship to be attacked, and in this respect the
Nautilus possessed some feature of a true submarine. The plan that he
proposed for the Nautilus presented many serious difficulties depending
as it did on the fixing of a spike in the bottom of the other vessel.
Fulton himself apparently reached the conclusion that this suggestion
was impracticable, through actual experiments or further study. The boat
that he proposed for the British Government had no such attachment, but
instead was designed to carry “bombs” to be deposited secretly in an
enemy harbor, and there to be anchored so as to remain beneath the
surface when they would come in contact with the bottoms of passing
vessels, or to be released in couples held by bridles and thus to be
carried by tidal currents across the cables of anchored ships when the
“bombs” would be drawn beneath the vessel and explode.
What Fulton called “bombs” are today known as mines. No means are shown
in his plans by which these mines could be placed or released while his
boat was submerged. The capability to submerge and to move beneath the
surface was expected to permit the boat to work into a harbor
unperceived, and there to lie in wait beneath the surface until night
presented the opportunity to rise unseen, when the mines would be placed
or set free. The successful experiment with the Dorothea showed that his
mines could be completely effective and that, therefore, his submersible
mine layer, as perhaps she can be correctly described, could have been
developed into a very effective engine of war.
In Fulton’s bombs, as he calls them, we are not particularly interested
because he has fully described these devices in his book that he wrote
on Torpedo Warfare. It is, however, in view of subsequent events
exceedingly interesting to point out that Fulton foresaw the conditions
that actually obtained in the recent war.
On pages 71–2 of the “Descriptions” he explained how hundreds of such
bombs or mines could be strewn in the channel of the Thames or along the
coast and it would not be in the power of the whole British marine to
prevent such practice. This is precisely what the Germans undertook to
do, forcing the British, even though they had control of the open seas,
to sweep the Channel by daylight, day after day, in order to remove
mines that might have been planted during the night. Furthermore, Fulton
pointed out that a line of such mines could be strung from Calais to
Dover, rendering it “impossible for any vessel to pass without certain
destruction.” When the German submarine attack on British commerce
became seriously acute, the British authorities put into execution that
which Fulton had suggested and strung a line of obstructions across the
Channel from Dover to Calais thereby compelling the German submarines to
pass around the northern coast of Scotland in order to reach the open
sea.
Speaking of the effect of submarines and mines, Fulton’s language is
worthy of repetition because the sinister side of his prophecy became so
nearly realized between 1914 and 1918:
The moment this System or any other reduces the British marine to Boat
fighting, the revered Sovereignty of the Seas will be forever lost;
Colonies must be Abandoned and the whole influence which England holds
in the scale of nations will Vanish. This is the natural and obvious
consequence of this system when reduced to practice and prosicuted by
a powerful nation with energy and Spirit. The Wealth of England and
the existence of her fleets depend on her immense and uninterrupted
commerce, But should France ever possess a means to cut off or
interrupt such trade, England would be obliged to submit to any terms
which Bonapart might think proper to dictate.
Substituting Germany for France and Hohenzollern for Bonaparte, we have
precisely the very situation that existed in 1915, when the naval
authorities of Germany expected to break the power of Great Britain, and
in which attempt they came so perilously near success.
The Commission charged by the Directory to examine the plan of the
Nautilus gave credit in its report on September 5th, 1798, to Fulton for
having invented a terrible means of destruction since it acts in
silence. That description was merited, but it remained no more than an
expression of private opinion. It failed to secure for Fulton the public
support to which his device entitled him. The world, perhaps
fortunately, had to wait a century for the production of this engine of
destruction. In the light of experience an examination of Fulton’s
improved plan as contained in his “Drawings and Descriptions,” fully
confirms the decision of the French Commission in that:
“LE BATEAU SOUS-MARIN IMAGINÉ PAR LE CITOYEN FULTON EST UN MOYEN DE
DESTRUCTION TERRIBLE, PARCE QU’IL AGIT DANS LE SILENCE ET D’UNE
MANIÈRE PRESQUE INEVITABLE.”
-----
Footnote 1:
Au Général Bounaparte,
Citoyen General
Le Cn Perier m’ayant appris que vous desiriez connaître mon Travail
sur le Systême des Petits Canaux, je prends la liberté de vous
présenter une copie de cet ouvrage, trop heureux si vous y trouvez
quelques Moyens d’ameliorer l’industrie de la République Française
* * * * *
Parmi toutes les Causes des Guerres chaque jour, il est vrai, voit
disparaître celles qui tiénnent a l’existence des Rois, des prêtres,
et de ce qui les accompagne. Mais neanmoins les Républiques
elles-mêmes ne seront pas à l’abri de ces funestes querrelles, tant
qu’elles ne se dèferont pas de ces Systêmes erronés de Commerce
_exclusif et de Possessions lointaines_. C’est donc un motif pour tout
homme qui aime ses semblables de chercher a détruire ces erreurs;
l’Ambition même ne doit plus Chercher la gloire qu’en montrant aux
hommes le chemin de la vérité, et en écartant les obstacles qui
empêchent les nations d’arriver à une paix durable; Car, quelle Gloire
peut resister au temps,—si elle ne reçoit la Sanction de La
Philosophie?
Pour affranchir les Nations, Citoyen Général, vous avez exécuté de
vaste entreprises, et la gloire dont vous vous êtes couvert, doit être
aussi durable que le temps; qui donc pourrait seconder d’une
approbation plus efficace des projets qui peuvent Contribuer au bien
Général? C’est dans cette idée que je vous soumets mon Travail,
espérant que si vous y rencontrez quelques vérités utiles, vous
daignerez les appuyer d’une influence aussi puissante que la Vôtre; et
en effet, favoriser des projets dont l’exécution doit rendre des
millions d’homme heureux, peut-il être pour le genie vertueux de plus
delicieuse jouissance? C’est sous ce point de vue que les
améliorations intérieures et la Liberté du Commerce Sont de la plus
haute importance.—
Si le Succés couronne les efforts de la France, Contre l’Angleterre,
il ne tiendra qu’à elle de terminer Glorieusement cette longue Guerre,
en donnant la liberté au Commerce et en faisant Adopter le Systême aux
autres puissances; La liberté politique acquerra ainsi le dégré de
perfection et d’etendue dont elle est susceptible, et la Philosophie
verra avec joie l’olivier d’une paix éternelle ombrager la Carriére
des Sciences et de l’Industrie.
Salut et respect
Robert Fulton
_Paris 12 floreal an 6_
Footnote 2:
Citoyen Ministre
Il y a maintenant vingt mois que je présentai pour la première fois le
plan de mon Nautile à l’Ex-Directeur La Reveillere Lepaux; il le
présenta au Dirèctoire qui eu ordonna le renvoi au Ministre de la
Marine Pléville, et enfin il fut rejeté après cinq mois de
discussions. Reproduit sous l’administration du citoyen Bruix, il eut
le même sort après environ quatre mois d’attente, un accueil si peu
favorable de la part des premiers magistrats de la France, dont le
devoir est d’encourager les découvertes tendantes à propager la
Liberté et à établir l’harmonie entre les nations, me prouve qu’ils
s’étaient fait une idée fausee des effets tant phisiques que moraux de
cette Machine.
* * * * *
Voyons d’abord quels seraient pour la France les effets immédiats du
Nautile. La perte du premier Bâtiment anglais qui serait détruit par
un moyen extraordinaire, jeterroit le Gouvernement Britannique dans le
dernier embarras; il sentiroit que par le même moyen on pourroit
détruire toute sa marine; que par le même moyen il seroit possible de
bloquer la Tamise et de couper tout le commerce de Londres. Quelle
seroit, dans de pareilles circonstances, la consternation de
l’Angleterre? Comment Pitt soudoyeroit-il alors les puissances
coalisées? It en résulteroit que, privée des guinées de Pitt, la
Coalition s’evanouiroit, et que la France, ainsi delivrée de ses
nombreux ennemis, pourrait travailler sans obstacle a l’affermissement
de sa liberté et à la paix.
* * * * *
Après avoir ainsi montré les heureux effets qui résulteroient
immédiatement du succès du Nautile, je passe aux objections aussi
vulgaires que peu philosophiques, élevées contre cette machine. Je
ferai voir ensuite comment le Nautile peut contribuer à propager la
véritable Liberté et à établir l’harmonie entre les peuples.
La première objection est que si la France se servoit du Nautile
contre l’Angleterre, l’Angleterre pourroit également eu faire usage
contre la France; mais il ne me paroit nullement vraisemblable que les
Anglais s’en servent contre la France, car avant qu’ils en connussent
la mécanique, la France pourroit, comme je l’ai dit, bloquer la
Tamise, couper le commerce de Londres et réduire par là le cabinet de
St. James aux termes de la plus entière soumission;
* * * * *
C’est la force navale de l’Angleterre qui est la source des horreurs
incalculables qui se commettent journellement; c’est la marine
anglaise qui soutient le gouvernement anglais, et c’est ce
gouvernement qui, par ces intrigues, a été la cause des deux tiers des
crimes qui ont signalé le cours de la revolution.
* * * * *
Si par le moyen du Nautile on réussissoit à detruire la marine
anglaise, on pourroit, avec une flotte de Nautiles, bloquer la Tamise,
jusqu’à ce que l’Angleterre fut républicanisée; bientôt l’Irelande
secoueroit le joug et la monarchie anglaise seroit anéantie. Une
nation riche et industrieuse viendroit ainsi augumenter le nombre des
républiques de l’Europe, et ce seroit avoir fait un pas immense vers
la liberté et la paix universelle.
Si l’Angleterre adoptait le gouvernement républicain, je ne doute pas
que la France et elle n’ensevelissent dans l’oubli ces vieilles haines
et cette fatale rivalité fomentées par la stupide aristocratie. Les
deux Républiques se traiteroient en soeurs, donneroient à leur
commerce respectif une entière liberté et, dans ce cas, n’auroient
besoin, ni l’une ni l’autre de marine militaire; ainsi l’amitié,
malgré le préjugé vulgaire, uniroit deux grands peuples, et l’humanité
respireroit.
De légères circonstances produisent souvent de grands changemens dans
les opérations des hommes. La Boussole a donné au commerce une
extension sans bornes et a multiplié les lumières; l’invention de la
poudre a changé tout l’art de la guerre, sans en dimineur les
horreurs. J’espère que le Nautile non seulement détruira les marines
militaires, mais en brisant ces instrumens destructeurs dans les mains
de l’aristocratie, servira la cause de la liberté et de la paix. Je
vous ai présenté ici, d’une maniere claire et impartiale une partie de
ses heureux effets, et je suis loin de me faire aucun merité de
l’avoir imaginé le premièr. L’idée pouvoit en venir à tout autre
ingenieur qui cherche avec autant d’ardeur que moi à faire triompher
la cause de l’humanité.
Footnote 3:
Vous me permettrez d’observer, que quoique j’ai le plus haut respect
pour vous et les autres membres du gouvernement, et quoique je
conserve le plus ardent désir de voir abattre la marine Anglaise,
cependant la maniere froide et décourageante dans laquelle toutes mes
exertions ont été traitées depuis trois ans, me forcent à abandonner
l’enterprise en France, si on ne l’accueille pas d’une maniere plus
amicale et libérale.
Footnote 4:
Je viens de lire la proposition du citoyen Fulton que vous m’avez
adressée beaucoup trop tard, _en ce qu’elle peut changer la face du
monde_. Quoiqu’il en soit, je désire que vous en confiiez
immédiatement l’examen à une commission composée de membres choisis
dans les différentes classes de l’Institut. C’est là que l’Europe
savante doit chercher des juges pour résoudre la question dont il
s’agit. Aussitôt le rapport fait, il vous sera transmis et vous me
l’enverrez. Tâchez que tout cela ne soit pas l’affaire de plus de huit
jours.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
1. Silently corrected typographical errors and variations in spelling.
2. All spelling errors were left uncorrected.
3. Footnotes were re-indexed using numbers and collected together at
the end of the last chapter.
4. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.
5. Enclosed bold font in =equals=.
6. Superscripts are denoted by a caret before a single superscript
character, e.g. M^r.