The birth of the British Navy may be said to have taken place in the
reign of King Alfred. That great and good king, whose wisdom and
foresight were only equalled by his valour, had a fleet of upwards of
one hundred ships. With these he fought the Danes to the death, not
always successfully, not always even holding his own; for the Danes at
this early period of their history were a hardy race of sea-warriors,
not less skilful than courageous. But to King Alfred, with his beaked,
oared war-ships, is undoubtedly due the merit of having laid the
foundation of England's maritime ascendency.
England under the Normans does not seem to have greatly desired to excel
in maritime enterprise, but it was otherwise during the Plantagenet
period. Henry the Second possessed a most formidable fleet, numbering
some five hundred vessels of war. During the reign of his successor a
novel artifice in naval warfare was resorted to by the English which
merits notice. The English admiral caused a number of barrels of
unslaked lime to be placed in his ships. Having brought his fleet to
windward of the enemy--the French--he ordered water to be poured on the
lime. This of course raised a great and dense smoke, which, being blown
by the wind into the very faces of the French, prevented the latter from
seeing on what quarter they were being attacked. A panic arose, and
spread, among the French vessels, and the victory fell easily to the
English.
The navy of Edward the Third numbered eleven hundred ships when he
undertook the invasion of France. But the great majority of these were
not properly men-of-war--in fact, there were only five fully equipped
warships; the rest were for the most part merchant vessels converted
into fighting ships and transports for the time being. The navy of King
Philip of France, though numerically weaker, far surpassed that of the
English king in point of equipment. Of the four hundred ships of which
it consisted, no fewer than one hundred had, been built purposely for
war, according to the best principles of naval architecture then known.
Bows, catapults, javelins, and weapons of a like description were the
engines of offence used on both sides, and with these much havoc was
wrought at close quarters. The English were victorious, notwithstanding
the more scientific equipment of their foes. The French ships were
boarded, and the flower of King Philip's naval force must that day have
perished.
Henry the Seventh did much for the improvement of the English navy. It
was during his reign that the _Great Harry_ was built, which was really
the first large ship built directly for the Royal Navy. Hitherto the
vessels employed by England for national defence or offence had been
supplied by certain maritime towns; but the _Great Harry_ was the
property of the people. She was built in 1488, and had port-holes for
cannon in the lower deck, being the first vessel thus constructed. The
_Great Harry_ was subsequently far surpassed by another of King Henry's
ships, the _Grace de Dieu_, which was no less than one thousand tons
burden, and carried seven hundred men and one hundred and twenty-two
guns, (some writers mention only eighty guns) the largest of which were
but eighteen-pounders. The _Grace de Dieu_ was a four-masted vessel,
and was built in 1515.
An epoch in England's maritime history, which was in some respects the
most brilliant and momentous, now falls to be mentioned; a period when
England's name became a synonym on the seas for everything that was most
intrepid and successful in maritime enterprise; an era of daring
adventure and splendid achievement, which at length established England
as the first naval power among the nations of Europe.
Not without long and fierce struggle, however, was this supremacy won.
The French, Spanish, and Dutch each and all in turn disputed England's
claim to the sovereignty of the seas. It is unnecessary to repeat here
the oft-told tale of the defeat of the Spanish Armada, nor yet the
almost as familiar story of our frequent naval encounters with the Dutch
in the days of Admiral Blake and the great Dutch Admiral Van Tromp.
Long and desperate those conflicts were, and nothing but indomitable
courage and stubborn perseverance could have secured the victory for the
English ships, for in almost every instance our foes were numerically
the stronger.
In the thrice famous days of Nelson, it was still our "wooden walls"
which carried the flag of England on from triumph to triumph. At the
battle of Trafalgar the _Victory_ and the French ship the _Redoubtable_
were brought up close alongside of each other, and in this position
poured volley after volley upon each other's bulwarks, until water had
to be thrown over the ships' sides to prevent them igniting. The
_Victory_ was a grand ship in her time, yet she was not more than two
thousand tons burden, and her guns were but one hundred and two in
number.
But at last the day arrived when it became manifest that the glory of
our "wooden walls" had set. In the prime of his intellectual and
physical strength, the Emperor Louis Napoleon was a man of active and
subtle brain, and it was to his ingenious invention that the first
ironclad ship of war owed its birth. Floating batteries protected with
iron plates were first employed during the Crimean War. It was becoming
manifest that the great strides which were being made in the manufacture
of cannon must necessitate an improved system of defensive armour for
ships of war. No wooden vessel that could be constructed could be proof
against the new guns that were now coming rapidly into use.
The French, as has been just indicated, were the first in the field with
the new style of war-ships. _La Gloire_ was built, and was quickly
followed by our own _Warrior_. The frame of _La Gloire_ was constructed
of wood, but covered with an iron plating four and a half inches in
thickness. The _Warrior_ was built on an iron frame, and her
armour-plating is of the same thickness as that of _La Gloire_; the
lining is of solid teak eighteen inches thick, which is again backed by
an inner coating of iron. The length of the _Warrior_ is three hundred
and eighty feet, but only about two-thirds of this is iron-plated.
At this time--the early days of ironclads--the heaviest shot that could
be thrown by any gun was a sixty-eight pounder. Guns of this calibre
the _Warrior_ and her class were proof against. But the guns increased
rapidly in size and power, and the thickness of the armour with which
the ships were protected had to be increased in proportion. The class
of war-vessels which succeeded the _Warrior_ were entirely cased with
iron plates, whose thickness has from time to time been increased.
Since the first ironclad was built, then, a contest--for only such it
can be called--has been going on between the cannon-maker and the
ship-builder, the one striving to construct a gun which shall pierce the
thickest armour which the ship can carry, the other adding inch upon
inch to his armour plates, to the end that they may be shot-proof; and
this contest may be said to be going on at this hour.
Will there ever be the same romance about the warships of the present
day,--what those of the future will be like we do not care to
speculate,--and the old "wooden walls" whose prowess on the high seas
founded England's maritime glory? Will a Dibdin ever arise to sing a
_Devastation_ or a _Glatton_? Can a _Devastation_ or a _Glatton_ ever
inspire poetic thoughts and images? One would say that the singer must
be endowed in no ordinary degree with the sacred fire whom such a theme
as a modern ironclad turret-ship should move to lyric utterance. It has
been said that all the romance of the road died out with the old
coaching days; and certainly a locomotive engine, with its long black
train of practical-looking cars, makes hardly so picturesque a feature
in the landscape as one of the old stage-coaches with its red-coated
driver, horn-blowing guard, and team of mettled greys; but a railway
train is an embodiment of poetry compared with a turret-ship. But if it
be true that poetry and romance must more and more cease to be
associated with our navy, we must just accept the fact, for nothing is
more certain than that, whatever the warships of the future _may_ be, we
can never again return to the days of the old wooden ships.
Several opposing difficulties have now to be met in the construction of
ironclads. Invulnerability as regards the enemy's guns, protection to
the men on board, speed, and the quality of being easily managed at
sea,--all these points have to be carefully considered; and the
difficulty is that one quality wars against another. A ship might be
built which was proof against any guns that could be devised, and then
might be found utterly unmanageable and unsafe at sea. A balance of
qualities has therefore to be struck, and this perfect equipoise has by
no means been as yet attained. Every year--we might say every month--
witnesses the birth of some new type of armour-plated war-ship, built in
every case at an enormous cost. The new sea-monster looks formidable
enough in all conscience; but the question that arises the instant she
quits the dock is, Is she sea-worthy? And with the fate of the
_Captain_ and the _Vanguard_ in our memories, the question may well
arise. The story of modern war-ships has, up to this, been one of
mingled success and failure. Does not the epigram on our war-ships--our
"sub-marine fleet"--owe its point and sting, in a measure, to its truth?
Of the various types of modern war-vessels, the most formidable yet
devised are undoubtedly the _steam-rams_ and _turret-ships_. The
steam-ram is armed with a strong steel beak, with which it charges an
enemy in much the same way as the war-galleys of ancient times charged a
foe, or as a sword-fish attacks its adversary. The turret-ship carries
one or more shot-proof circular turrets, in which one or more guns are
worked by the crew, the guns being capable of being turned and pointed
in any direction. Both turret-ships and steam-rams are, of course, iron
plated.
Vessels of this description were first employed by the Americans in the
great civil war. The careers of the _Merrimac_ and _Monitor_ may be
said to have become a part of American national history. The _Merrimac_
was the first iron-plated steam-ram. She was originally a wooden
frigate; was cut down, coated with iron, and furnished with a ram. In
her famous encounter with the _Congress_ and the _Cumberland_, two
wooden frigates of the Federals, she steamed alongside the former,
delivered a raking fire, and then, turning upon the _Cumberland_,
attacked that vessel with her ram. Of the _Cumberland_ she made quick
work; for having torn a gaping rent in her side, she poured a damaging
fire into the gap, hanging on by the sharp iron beak with which
steam-rams are furnished.
Then withdrawing to a short distance, she again charged her adversary,
and delivered a second terrible fire, until the _Cumberland_ finally
sank. The Merrimac then turned her attention to the _Congress_, whose
fate she sealed in about half an hour. The first shot caused fearful
destruction, killing every man at one of the guns, blowing away the
bulk-heads, strewing the deck with a carnage too horrible to dwell upon,
and finally setting the ship on fire. The _Congress_ at last struck her
colours, but during the night she blew up.
This formidable vessel had subsequently to haul down her colours before
the _Monitor_--in a figurative sense, that is, for she did not actually
surrender, but retreated after a contest of some hours. In this notable
struggle the _Merrimac_ sustained much damage, without succeeding in
inflicting on her enemy anything like the same amount of injury; in
fact, the _Monitor_ came out of the action scathless.
The changes that are taking place in the construction of war-ships are
so various and so rapid, that we cannot attempt to do more here than
take note of a few of the principal; and even what are mentioned as
novelties now, before these pages appear may have ceased to be
novelties.
Iron is now employed in almost every part of a war-ship, the masts
themselves being in many cases of iron--hollow tubes through which the
running rigging may be let down when there is danger of its being
damaged by the enemy's fire. The majority of modern ironclads are built
in compartments, with this advantage that, if damage is sustained in one
part of the vessel, and the water rush in through the gap made by shot
or any other cause, the ship will still float until the water can be let
out again.
The American ironclad turret-ship _Monitor_ has given her name to a
whole class of vessels built within recent years for the English navy;
but in many respects our vessels are superior to their American
prototype. All these ships--which are characterised by low free-boards
and absence of masts and sails--fight their guns from turrets. They are
sometimes known as "coast-defence ships," from the circumstance that
they were constructed mainly for home service.
Of these "English monitors," four--the _Cyclops_, _Gorgon_, _Hecate_,
and _Hydra_--are built on identically similar principles. In appearance
they may be best compared to a raft with a battery on top of it, from
which fortress or battery rise various funnels and a flag-staff. The
deck is but three feet and a half above the level of the sea. While the
ships are in port the deck is roofed in with an awning and railed round;
but both awning and railing are removed when the vessels put to sea.
The battery or fortress is in the centre of the ship, and fills up about
one-third of her length and three-fourths of her breadth. The
surrounding deck is flush, its surface being broken only by the
skylights, which are three in number. The skylights allow but a scant
and dim light to penetrate to the officers' and seamen's quarters below;
but even this is wanting in time of action, when a shot-proof shield
takes the place of the glass windows.
The deck of the dass of war-ships we are describing is composed of
twin-layers of iron plating half an inch each in thickness, supported on
iron beams, and of two layers of solid teak lining four inches thick.
The sides of the ships are protected by iron plating of eight-inch
thickness amidships, which is an inch more of iron than the armour
possessed by the majority of our masted sea-going ironclads, many of
which are twice or thrice the size of the _Cyclops_ and her
sister-ships. It will thus be seen that these turret-ships are
practically stronger in defensive equipment than any other class of
ironclad cruisers.
The battery of these vessels is surrounded by a breastwork six feet in
height, plated with nine-inch armour. Entrance is gained to the turrets
themselves from inside this breastwork. In the centre of the turret
there are two cylinders, the one fitting over the other in a manner
which keeps the whole steady even in rough weather. Small steam-engines
placed inside the breastwork serve to turn the turrets, which, however,
can also be worked by manual labour should necessity demand it.
The ports present a striking contrast to those in the old wooden ships,
by reason of their greatly diminished size. They just admit of the
muzzle of the gun peeping through, and no more, being oval in shape, and
about three feet in diameter lengthways. There can be little doubt that
these small ports are an advantage, since they must afford greater
protection to the gunners during action. When it is desired to alter
the direction of the guns, the change is not effected by moving them in
the ports, but by revolving the turret itself. Should it ever happen in
action that the free movement of the turret should become impeded from
some cause, then the only means of changing the direction of the guns
would be to turn the whole ship.
The turrets are armed with two twenty-five ton guns, carrying four
hundred pound shot. The deck being flush, as has been mentioned, the
guns can be fired straight ahead and astern, and command all sides.
Less than one minute is needed to revolve the whole turret. This class
of ships is believed to be able to keep up a constant steady fire
whether in chase or in retreat.
Abaft the funnel in these ships there is an upright oval tube rising
some seventeen feet above the level of the main deck, plated with iron.
The upper plate is pierced with several small horizontal slits, from
which the tube has received the name of the "conning-house," for through
these openings the captain can "con" or note whatever is going on
outside, without himself being exposed to danger. This circular box
just allows the captain to turn himself about in; and here must he stand
in time of action, directing and governing the whole conduct of his ship
by mechanical telegraphs.
Of the many curious and remarkable features in these ships, one of the
most remarkable is the extensive use made of machinery for every
purpose. Engines revolve the turrets, raise the ashes from the
engine-rooms, turn the capstans, work the rudders;--engines do
everything.
Three monitors similar to those just described were built for the
defence of several of our colonies. The colony of Victoria, we believe,
purchased their ironclad, the _Cerberus_, from the home Government; at
any rate, the people maintain her at their own cost. Before the
_Cerberus_ could make the voyage out to Melbourne, her sides had to be
built up with thin iron plating for nearly her whole length. In the
same way the _Cyclops_ and her companion-ships might be made fit to face
any sea or weather.
It may occur to the reader to ask, Why not have sea-going masted vessels
at once? To which it may be answered, first, that the masted ships must
inevitably draw more water than those of which the _Cyclops_ and
_Hecate_ are types. Turret-ships like the _Monarch_, or broadside-ships
like the _Hercules_ and _Sultan_, draw about twenty-five feet of water;
the smaller ships only sixteen, while at the same time they are more
heavily armoured. Thus the latter, if close pressed by an enemy's
sea-going ironclads--the only class from which they have much to fear--
could take shelter up a river out of their reach. In action near the
land these monitors, moreover, could be handled with greater ease.
Secondly, from their much smaller size, the coast-defence ships are
built at a much less cost--an important consideration in days when a
first-class ironclad costs about as much as a small fleet of bygone
days. The vessels we have been describing are of rather more than two
thousand tons burden, as compared with the five thousand tons of the
larger sea-going ships; and, speaking roughly, the expense of
construction is proportionate to the tonnage.
The _Glatton_ turret-ship has several characteristics in which it
differs from the above class of monitors. It has but a single turret,
and its guns throw six hundred pound shot, carrying three miles and a
half. Her water-draught is about six feet more than that of the
_Cyclops_ and _Hecate_, and her armour-plates three inches thicker.
Though she carries fewer guns, the _Glatton_ is a much more powerful
vessel than the other monitors. (Note: The above description of English
monitors is adapted and abridged from an article in Chambers's Journal.)
We shall now briefly describe the _Devastation_, one of the largest and
most powerful of all our ironclads. The _Devastation_ in her after-part
rises but four feet and a half above the water; but to meet bad weather
she is furnished with an armour-plated half-raised forecastle, so that
forward she is nine feet out of the water. The free-board amidships is
still higher, being at this point level with the platform on which the
two turrets are placed. In the centre of the ship rises a circular iron
erection, on the top of which is the hurricane-deck. Through this
structure runs a passage, in which are situated the entrances to the
hatchways and to the hurricane-deck overhead.
From the hurricane-deck rise the ship's two funnels; and here also are
the captain's fighting box, already alluded to in describing the
coast-defence ships, the fire-proof shield for protecting the steering
gear, and the boats. In a gale the hurricane-deck is the only safe
place in ships of this kind--the only place where one would not get
speedily washed overboard. As for the below part of the ship, it is
there almost impossible to breathe, even when air has been pumped in
from above, which is the only means of ventilating this portion of the
vessel.
The _Devastation_ carries two guns in each of her turrets, placed side
by side, each weighing thirty-five tons. The turrets, directly the guns
have been fired, can be wheeled rapidly round, thus turning the exposed
parts away from the enemy.
Ships such as the _Devastation_, the _Thunderer_, and the _Fury_ do not,
at first sight, strike one as particularly well adapted for rough
weather, to put it in the mildest phrase. Nevertheless, the
_Devastation_ has been fairly well tested in this way, having
encountered some pretty rough weather, and, it is affirmed, behaved
satisfactorily. The great danger about all ships of this class is that
they may not rise to the seas, but that the waves, breaking over them,
may press them down and founder them. The _Thunderer_ has been known to
have her forecastle, which is somewhat lower than that of the
_Devastation_, completely submerged, and this, too, when no very high
sea was running. These ships are designed, not for home service and
coast defence merely, but for general action in mid-ocean.
To attempt to describe even a single specimen of each type of modern
war-ships would to a certainty weary the reader, for to any but an
expert there would inevitably be a sense of repetition in the perusal of
such a narrative. But in order to place before our readers something
like an approximate idea, at any rate, of the present state of our navy,
we shall examine briefly one other first-class ironclad, the
_Inflexible_, which may be regarded as a leading example of ironclad
ships, and, at the time of writing, as one of the highest achievements
of modern naval architecture.
The _Inflexible_ is the vast size of 11,400 tons burden, her horse-power
being 8000. The length is 320 feet, her armour-plating from 16 to 24
inches thick, with an inner lining of wood from 17 to 25 inches in
thickness. She is divided into 135 compartments, and her engines are
placed at such a distance from each other that should one be disabled
from any cause the other would still be in working order.
The chief characteristic of the _Inflexible_ is the position of the
turrets. The majority of ships of this description have their turrets
in the middle line, from which it results that only one half of their
guns can be directed on an enemy, whether ahead or astern. The
_Inflexible_ has her turrets on each side--the fore-turret on the
port-side, the after-turret on the starboard. She can thus use the
whole of her guns against an enemy _at the same time_, whether it be
ahead or astern.
It will be seen that the thickness of the armour-plating with which the
_Inflexible_ is protected is enormous; and yet this thickness of iron
has been pierced. The question, then, that immediately suggests itself
is, _Can_ a vessel be constructed to carry much heavier armour-plating
than this? A recent writer in the _Times_ declares not. "So far as the
exigencies of the navy are concerned," he says, "the limit of weight
seems to have already been reached, for the simple reason that the
buoyancy of our ironclads cannot with safety be further diminished by
the burden of heavier armour and armaments."
The following very graphic description of the interior of a turret-ship
was written by an eye-witness of the scene described. It is an extract
from a narrative supplied to the author of "The Sea: its Stirring Story
of Adventure and Peril," from which we take it. The vessel described
was the _Miantonoma_, an American ironclad turret-ship.
"You ascend again through a trap-door, and find yourself in a circular
room, some twelve feet in diameter, padded from top to bottom like the
interior of a carriage. By your side is a huge mass of iron. You are
inside the turret. A glimmering lamp sheds its feeble light on the
moving forms around you, and from below comes the faint whispering of
the men, until the trap is shut and you are again in utter silence.
"`_Prepare_!' The gunner's mate stands on your toes, and tells you to
lean forward and thrust your tongue out of your mouth. You hear the
creaking of machinery. It is a moment of intense suspense. Gradually a
glimmer of light--an inch--a flood! The shield passes from the opening;
the gun runs out. A flash, a roar--a mad reeling of the senses, and
crimson clouds flitting before your eyes--a horrible pain in your ears,
a sense of oppression on your chest, and the knowledge that you are not
on your feet--a whispering of voices blending with the concert in your
ears--a darkness before your eyes--and you feel yourself plump up
against the padding, whither you have been thrown by the violence of the
concussion.
"Before you have recovered sufficiently to note the effects I have
endeavoured to describe, the shield is again in its place and the gun
ready for reloading. They tell you that the best part of the sound has
escaped through the port-hole, otherwise there would be no standing it,
and our gunner's mate whispers in your ears, `It's all werry well, but
they bu'sts out bleeding from the chest and ears after the fourth
discharge, and has to be taken below.' You have had enough of it too,
and are glad that they don't ask you to witness another shot fired."
It must be stated that since the _Miantonoma_ was built a new and
improved principle of turret-firing has been introduced. Electricity is
now employed in discharging the guns, and there is thus no necessity for
anyone being in the turret, which is of course a great advantage.
At the close of the civil war, America possessed a fine fleet of
monitors, of which scarcely any now remain. For the time they seemed
all but impregnable to shot and shell; but they were built by contract,
of unseasoned wood, and in the course of ten or twelve years yielded to
natural decay. But the _Brooklyn_ and the _Ohio_, both fine examples of
naval architecture, still survive to maintain, in so far as two ships
can, America's maritime prestige.
A chapter treating of ironclads would, we think, be incomplete without
allusion made to the loss of the _Captain_, whose terrible fate in 1870
has caused a mournful interest to be attached to that vessel.
The _Captain_ was 320 feet in length and 53 feet broad. Her
armour-plating reached to five feet below the water-line. Opposite the
turrets her plating was eight inches in thickness and seven inches in
other parts. The ship was furnished with two screws, placed side by
side. The screws were available for steering, and thus the vessel could
be governed without the rudder. The _Captain_ was fully rigged, and
could carry a large spread of canvas.
The special characteristic of the ship was her revolving turrets. Each
turret was 27 feet in diameter on the outside and 22 feet 6 inches on
the inside. The walls of the turrets were therefore 2 feet 3 inches
thick; and one half of this thickness was composed of iron. The turrets
were revolved by separate engines, but they could also be turned, if
occasion required, by hand-labour. Two Armstrong twenty-five ton guns,
throwing six hundred pound shot, were placed in each turret. The ship
was built after designs by Captain Coles--the architect also of the
_Monarch_.
On her first sea-voyage the _Captain_ showed, apparently, such excellent
sea-going qualities that her architect and the contractors, the Messrs.
Laird, were quite satisfied as to her safety in mid-ocean. In the
autumn of 1870 she accompanied the fleet on a cruise; and on the 6th of
September, shortly after midnight, foundered off Cape Finisterre. The
whole crew were lost, with the exception of nineteen men, and among
those who perished was Captain Coles himself, Captain Burgoyne, the
commander of the ship, and a son of the then First Lord of the
Admiralty--Mr Childers. It is unnecessary to recall to the memory of
the adult among my readers the deep feeling of pity and gloom spread by
this awful disaster throughout Great Britain.
The night on which the _Captain_ foundered was no doubt a somewhat rough
one, with squalls and a heavy sea on; but it was not merely the force of
the storm which overwhelmed the vessel.
Mr James May, a surviving gunner of the ill-fated ship, gave a
sufficiently clear account of the foundering of the vessel. Soon after
midnight he was awakened from sleep by a noise and a feeling that the
ship was uneasy. Rising, and taking with him a lamp, he proceeded to
the after-turret to see if the guns were all right. Everything was
secure enough there; but he had hardly finished his examination when he
felt the vessel heel steadily over, a heavy sea struck her on the
weather-port, the water rushed into the turret, and May presently found
himself in the water.
He swam to the pinnace, which he perceived floating bottom upwards, and
there he was presently joined by Captain Burgoyne and several others of
the crew. Then he beheld the vessel turn over and go down, stern first;
the whole catastrophe being over in a few minutes. The launch was
drifting a few yards off, and May called out to his comrades, "Jump,
men! it is our last chance." May with three others succeeded in
reaching the boat, in which fifteen of the remainder of the crew also
found a refuge. It is uncertain whether poor Captain Burgoyne remained
in the pinnace or failed to reach the launch.
The nineteen survivors, after a hard row of twelve hours, without food
or drink, landed at Cape Finisterre, where they were hospitably received
and cared for by the people. A court-martial was held in due course to
investigate the cause of the disaster. Into the details of the evidence
it is impossible here to enter, but it was sufficiently proved that
there were grave faults in the _Captain's_ construction,--faults which,
as is unfortunately too often the case, were not discovered by such
calculations as were made before the ship started on what may be said to
have been her first, as it was her last, cruise. It had, however, been
noticed by some that the vessel was about a foot and a half deeper in
the water than she should have been--that her free-board, in a word,
instead of being eight feet above the water, as was designed, was only
six feet six inches; and it needs but a very slight knowledge of marine
matters to understand how this difference would materially prejudice the
stability of such a vessel as the _Captain_.
If it has been the reader's chance, as it has been ours, to visit anyone
of our great naval arsenals--especially Portsmouth or Plymouth--he
cannot have failed of being struck with the gallant and splendid
appearance presented by many of our ships of war; but he must likewise
have been affected with feelings the reverse of admiration by more than
one type of modern ironclads. No one who admires a real ship, be it of
wood or of iron--a stately frigate in full sail before a favouring
wind--can at the same time admire a monitor. Many persons, in truth,
will refuse to regard a turret-ship as a ship at all. It overturns our
every notion of what a ship should look like. A low, black, mastless,
raft-like, cruel-looking machine, without the faintest pretension to
form or comeliness, a turret-ship is simply a fighting-engine, a
floating battery--an ingenious and formidable instrument of death and
destruction, no doubt, but nothing more. Yet these are among the
leading war-ships of the present, and, as far as can at present be seen,
of the immediate future; and on these we must depend for the protection
of our shores should they ever be threatened.
And yet, great as is the annual cost of our navy, and great as is the
amount of ingenuity spent in the construction of new and novel ships of
war--each designed to be more impregnable and more formidable than its
predecessor--our navy is at this moment in somewhat of an unsettled and
transitory state. Changes in the construction of ironclads are every
year taking place, and considerable difference of opinion exists among
our highest naval authorities upon important points in marine
architecture. Ships of war have now to contend with such formidable
enemies in the shape of guns, torpedoes, and other engines of terribly
destructive power, that it is difficult to say at present which will
eventually triumph. One of the old wooden ships placed beside a modern
ironclad is as a child's toy battery compared with Gibraltar; and yet it
can hardly be said that the nation has the same feeling of confidence
and security in our present ships which it reposed in the vessels which
Nelson so often led to victory; for it must be long ere the fate of the
_Captain_ and the _Vanguard_ is entirely forgotten.
Of this, however, we may, we think, at least rest assured, that, however
dubious we may be in regard to some of the novelties and presumed
improvements that are being from time to time introduced in naval
architecture, England is well abreast of the age in maritime matters; if
her ships be not absolutely perfect, and proof against every form of
danger, they are at least equal to those of any other nation. We need a
strong, a very strong navy; and as a fact our naval resources are nearly
equal to the combined naval strength of Europe.
A somewhat different condition of things will need to come about from
that which at present exists among the nations of the world ere England
can afford to decrease her naval armaments; and until the Great Powers
of the world agree to settle their disputes by some other means than by
"wager of battle," and are resolved to "war no more," probably the best
and only way for her is to keep herself as strongly and perfectly armed
as possible. It is this that has probably helped, at any rate, to
secure so long and uninterrupted peace for our shores; and to try a
different and opposite course would, to say the least, be a risk. It is
upon her navy, as all the world knows, that England depends for defence
and security. To be weak in our navy would be to be weak throughout all
our armour. Our navy is at present, we would fain hope, a peace-weapon
in our hands--a shield, not a sword; and while it is such, the stronger
and more flawless it is, the better for us, and perhaps for the world at
large. This may strike the reader as a somewhat vain-glorious,
"spread-eagle" way of putting the case; but if he look at the matter
fairly and impartially, we think he will admit that there is some truth
in our statement.
Before closing this chapter, a word or two must be said descriptive of
that fell foe to ships of war, the torpedo, though space demands that
our reference should be brief. Almost all modern ships of war are
constructed with false bottoms, designed especially to protect them
against torpedoes. There are many different forms of torpedoes,
employed in a variety of ways. A torpedo may be described as a
submarine exploding apparatus. It may contain from thirty to as much as
five hundred pounds of gunpowder; and the explosion is effected either
by means of electricity, or by a spring and a detonating substance when
the engine comes in contact with a ship. Some kinds of torpedoes rest
on the bottom of the sea, while others are anchored and float suspended
in the water. If a vessel strikes against one of these terrible
engines, she is either at once blown to splinters, or a rent is made in
her bottom which causes her rapidly to sink.
One type of torpedoes resembles somewhat a fish, and is impelled rapidly
through the water by a screw and other machinery. Torpedoes are so
constructed as to be able to rise and strike a vessel just at the right
moment. When not filled with gunpowder or gun-cotton, dynamite and
other explosive substances are used instead for charging these submarine
war-engines.
Various methods have been devised to secure ships from torpedoes. Nets
are sometimes extended in front of the ship, which catch the torpedoes
before they can come in contact with the vessel's bottom. This
safeguard was adopted, in many instances with success, by the Federal
war-ships when entering Confederate harbours. But a great deal may be
done to secure a ship against these terrible engines of destruction by
precaution simply, as was proved in the Crimean War, when the Russian
torpedoes did little or no damage to our ships, by reason of the
unceasing watchfulness maintained on board.
During the late war between Russia and Turkey one of the most daring
exploits of the campaign was an attack by a Russian squadron of
torpedo-boats on the Turkish monitor _Hifse Rahman_. The flotilla
comprised four ships, the _Czarevich_, the _Xenia_, the _Czarevna_, and
the _Djirid_. The two first named began the attack, the _Czarevna_ and
the _Djirid_ holding themselves in reserve until their assistance should
be wanted.
The launches were equipped with strong iron awnings which shielded their
crews from the enemy's fire. Each boat was armed with two torpedoes,
fastened to the end of long spars projected over the bulwarks and
working on pivots. The torpedoes could be detached from the spars when
occasion demanded; while long chains were secured to the missiles, by
which they were attached to the enemy's vessel, as well as to the wire
of a galvanic battery fastened round the waist of the commander of the
launch. This battery was the means by which the torpedo was exploded.
The flotilla left the Roumanian side of the Danube on the 25th of June
1877 at about midnight, and in something less than an hour the _Hifse
Rahman_ loomed in sight, a shadowy mass on the dark waters. The
approach of the torpedo-boats was almost noiseless, and the croaking of
the frogs was said to have further favoured the Russians by drowning the
sound of the engines, so that those on board the monitor were not aware
of their enemy's propinquity until the launches were almost alongside.
The sentry at once challenged, when Lieutenant Doubarsoff, the commander
of the _Czarevich_, answered "Friends." But his speech betrayed him;
the alarm was spread; and the _Hifse Rahman_ opened a sharp fire upon
the launches. But Lieutenant Doubarsoff succeeded in attaching his
torpedo-chain to a rope hanging at the monitor's bows, and then rapidly
backed his little vessel and fired the torpedo. A tremendous explosion;
a column of water shot up into the air, and the launch was nearly
swamped! A breach had, however, been made in the _Hifse Rahman's_
bulwarks.
The other monitors were now thoroughly alive to their danger, and the
Russian launches had to sustain a deadly cannonade, upon which
Lieutenant Doubarsoff ordered Lieutenant Schestakoff to bring up his
launch, the _Xenia_, and apply a second torpedo, which the latter was
able to do, attaching the missile amidships of the Turkish vessel. The
fate of the _Hifse Rahman_ was now sealed, and in a few minutes she
sank.
The Russian launches succeeded in getting clear of their enemy again
without losing a single man, and thus ended the first torpedo expedition
ever made against an enemy's ironclads, but which may, as a writer
describing the event says, "end in completely revolutionising our
present system of monster iron walls." The Grand Cross of Saint George
was awarded to Lieutenants Doubarsoff and Schestakoff for this intrepid
and successful exploit.
Space is not left us to do more than revert for a moment to what is
perhaps the deadliest weapon of offensive naval warfare yet devised,--
rams. Some experts maintain that nothing can match the power of the ram
of a modern ironclad skilfully handled; and a well-known naval authority
has declared that the use of the guns in a naval action should be merely
preliminary to that of the ram--in other words, that all effort should
be concentrated upon making an opportunity of using the ram.
We close this chapter by recalling the reader's attention to a feature
in modern war-ships already alluded to, and which indeed the whole
course of our remarks upon this subject points to--the almost universal
use of machinery in modern naval tactics. Most assuredly in modern
sea-warfare it may be said, in the Laureate's words--used by him, of
course, with a very different sense--that "the individual dwindles," so
that the prediction, which some of our readers may remember was once
made by a First Lord of the Admiralty, seems not unlikely one day to
become sober fact--that the time will come when we shall no longer
require sailors, because all that our warships will need will be stokers
and artillerymen. Whether this is a consummation to be desired we are
not careful here to pronounce.