EXPERIENCES OF PIONEER INVENTORS OF THE SUBMARINE
The experiences of the pioneer inventors of the submarine, if known in
detail, would undoubtedly afford many amusing incidents as well as some
tragic ones. Some of these have been treated in the previous chapter
on the comedy and tragedy of submarine development. Cornelius Debrell
must have been either something of a joker or else he was much further
advanced in the art of revitalizing the air than are any of our modern
scientists. His experiments attracted much attention during the reign
of King James the First, and, according to the accounts published
at that time, he must have been quite a court favorite, for it is
reported that King James made a trip with him from Westminster Bridge
to Greenwich. The accounts assert that he could remain under water for
long periods of time by simply pouring out a few drops of some secret
liquid from a bottle which he carried with him. The celebrated Ben
Jonson, in one of his works, refers to Debrell and his celebrated boat
in a humorous passage from one of his plays, "The Staple of News,"
acted by "His Majesty's Servants" in 1625.
P. JUN.--Have you no news against him, on the contrary?
NATH.--Yes, sir. They write here, one Cornelius-son hath made the
Hollanders an invisible eel, to swim the haven at Dunkirk and sink
all the shipping there....
P. JUN.--But how is't done?
CYM.--I'll show you, sir. It is an automa, runs under water, with
a snug nose, and has a nimble tail, made like an auger, with which
tail she wriggles betwixt the costs (ribs) of a ship, and sinks it
straight....
P. JUN.--A most brave device, to murder their flat bottoms.
(_Act_ II, _S._ 1.)
Of course, there are no authentic plans of Debrell's boat in existence,
but from the descriptions which were published in regard to it I am
under the impression that probably he did succeed in submerging below
the surface of the water and propelling her with the tide for some
distances. The description tells of some very ingenious arrangements
for submerging the boat, in which he used goatskins sewed together in
the form of bags. The mouth of each bag was nailed over an orifice
opening from the interior of the boat into the sea. These goatskins
were placed between planks, with a sort of a Chinese windlass
arrangement for squeezing the planks together. When he wished to
submerge the boat he allowed the planks to open out, and the water,
rushing into the goatskins, increased the vessel's displacement so
that it sank. When he wished to come to the surface he simply drew
the planks together and squeezed the water out of the goatskins, thus
restoring the vessel's buoyancy. According to description, the boat was
propelled by oars extending through ports opening into the sides of the
boat. Goatskins sewed in the form of cones prevented the water from
entering the vessel, the base of the cone being nailed to the sides of
the boat, the apex of which was cut off and bound around the staff of
the oar. This gave sufficient flexibility to feather the oars and row
under water.
Nearly one hundred years after Cornelius Debrell's experiments an
Englishman by the name of Day built a small wooden submarine and
descended in it under the water. This experiment gave him sufficient
confidence to undertake the construction of a large vessel, and he
proposed to make a profit from its use by making wagers that he could
descend to a depth of one hundred yards and remain there for a period
of twenty-four hours. He built the vessel, placed his wagers, and
descended. He won his wagers but never returned to the surface to claim
them.
[Illustration: BUSHNELL'S SUBMARINE, THE "AMERICAN TURTLE"]
During the Revolutionary War Dr. David Bushnell, a resident of
Saybrook, Connecticut, devised a submarine vessel called the _American
Turtle_. He aimed to destroy the British fleet anchored off New York
during its occupation by General Washington and the Continental Army.
Thatcher's _Military Journal_ gives an account of an attempt to sink
a British frigate, the _Eagle_, of sixty-four guns, by attaching a
torpedo to the bottom of the ship by means of a screw manipulated
from the interior of this submarine boat. A sergeant who operated
the _Turtle_ succeeded in getting under the British vessel, but the
screw which was to hold the torpedo in place came in contact with
an iron strap, refused to enter, and the implement of destruction
floated down stream, where its clockwork mechanism finally caused it
to explode, throwing a column of water high in the air and creating
consternation among the shipping in the harbor. Skippers were so badly
frightened that they slipped their cables and went down to Sandy Hook.
General Washington complimented Doctor Bushnell on having so nearly
accomplished the destruction of the frigate.
If the performance of Bushnell's _Turtle_ was as successful as this,
it seems strange that our new government did not immediately take up
his ideas and make an appropriation for further experiments in the
same line. When the attack was made on the _Eagle_, Doctor Bushnell's
brother, who was to have manned the craft, was sick, and a sergeant who
undertook the task was not sufficiently acquainted with the operation
to succeed in attaching the torpedo to the bottom of the frigate. Had
he succeeded, the _Eagle_ would undoubtedly have been destroyed, and
the event would have added the name of another hero to history and
might have changed even the entire method of naval warfare. Bushnell's
plans did not receive any encouragement, however, and were bitterly
opposed by the naval authorities. His treatment was such as to compel
him to leave the country, but, after some years of wandering, under an
assumed name he settled in Georgia, where he spent his remaining days
practising his profession.
Doctor Bushnell was also the inventor of the submarine mine, with
which he blew up a schooner anchored off New London, Connecticut, and
attempted to sink some British men-of-war in the Delaware River off
Philadelphia by setting them adrift with the tide, expecting them to
float down, strike against the sides of the ship, and then explode.
Fortunately for the ships, none of them happened to strike, but the
fact becoming known that torpedoes were being set adrift in the river
caused great consternation among the British shipping people. When some
wag set a lot of kegs adrift, which floated down the river, it caused
tremendous excitement, the English crews firing at the kegs as they
came floating down the river. This has been recorded in that humorous
poem called "The Battle of the Kegs," by Francis Hopkinson, one of the
signers of the Declaration of Independence.
=Fulton's Attempt.=--Robert Fulton, the man whose genius made steam
navigation a success, was the next to turn his attention to submarine
boats, and submarine warfare by submerged mines. A large part of his
life was devoted to the solution of this problem. He went to France
with his project and interested Napoleon Bonaparte, who became his
patron and who was the means of securing sufficient funds for him to
build a boat which was called the _Nautilus_. With this vessel Fulton
made numerous descents, and it is reported that he covered fifty yards
in a submerged run of seven minutes.
In the spring of 1801 he took the _Nautilus_ to Brest, and experimented
with her for some time. He and three companions descended in the
harbor to a depth of twenty-five feet and remained one hour, but he
found the hull would not stand the pressure of a greater depth. They
were in total darkness during the whole time, but afterward he fitted
his craft with a glass window, one and a half inches in diameter,
through which he could see to count the minutes on his watch. He also
discovered during his trials that the mariner's compass pointed equally
as true under water as above it. His experiments led him to believe
that he could build a submarine vessel with which he could swim under
the surface and destroy any man-of-war afloat. When he came before the
French Admiralty, however, he was met with blunt refusal, one bluff old
French admiral saying, "Thank God, France still fights her battles on
the surface, not beneath it!"--a sentiment which apparently has changed
since those days, as France now has a large fleet of submarines.
[Illustration: ROBERT FULTON'S SUBMARINE]
After several years of unsuccessful efforts in France to get his plans
adopted, Fulton finally went over to England and interested William
Pitt, then Chancellor, in his schemes. He built a boat there and
succeeded in attaching a torpedo beneath a condemned brig provided for
the purpose, blowing her up in the presence of an immense throng. Pitt
induced Fulton to sell his boat to the English Government and not bring
it to the attention of any other nation, thus recognizing the fact that
if this type of vessel should be made entirely successful, England
would lose her supremacy as the "Mistress of the Seas," a prediction
which seems now somewhat verified, judging from the work of the enemy
submarines in the past few months.
Fulton consented to do so regarding other European countries, but
would not pledge himself regarding his own country, stating that if
his country should become engaged in war no pledge could be given that
would prevent him from offering his services in any way which would be
for its benefit.
The English Government paid him $75,000 for this concession. Fulton
then returned to New York and built the _Clermont_ and other
steamboats, but did not entirely give up his ideas on submarine
navigation, for at the time of his death he was at work on plans for a
much larger boat.
Tuck, the inventor of the _Peacemaker_, had an unhappy lot. He spent
a considerable portion of his wealth upon his experiments, and it is
reported that his relatives, thinking he would spend all of his money
in this way, and consequently leave nothing to them, had him adjudged
insane and incarcerated. Some years ago I met a diver who had been
employed by Tuck in his submarine boat experiments. This diver related
to me an incident that nearly caused them to lose their lives. It
appears that the boat had been first submerged in shallow water to
find out if it was tight, which it was under a moderate pressure. They
then took it out in the Hudson River, but on reaching a greater depth,
water started to come in around the gasket of the hatch, the hatch
not being constructed in a manner to increase its tightness as the
pressure on the same increased. The water came in so fast that they
could not rise. He said they tried to caulk the leak by stuffing their
handkerchiefs in between the hatch covering and the combing, but they
could not stop it. Finally one of the men became so hysterical that it
was necessary for the diver to take up a hammer and tap him on the head
with it and threaten to brain him unless he became quiet and did as
he was told. The diver told me that he became satisfied that the only
chance for their lives was to allow the boat to fill, then hold their
breath as it was filling, until the external pressure on the hatch
was equalized, and then open the hatch and swim to the surface. They
followed this plan and escaped safely.
[Illustration: TUCK'S "PEACEMAKER"]
=Holland's Achievements.=--While Mr. John P. Holland and I worked in
adjoining rooms at the Columbian Iron Works, in Baltimore, in the
years 1896 and 1897, at the time he was building the _Plunger_ and I
the _Argonaut_, and saw each other almost every day, we never became
sufficiently intimate to exchange personal experiences. I am therefore
indebted to his son, Mr. John P. Holland, Jr., for the loan of notes
left by his father and compiled by himself regarding his father's early
and later experiences. I quote from the notes:
On the southwest coast of Ireland, a few miles from the famous cliffs
of Mohar, and overlooking the river Shannon, stands the village of
Liscannor. Here was born on February 24, 1841, John P. Holland, later
to become famous as the inventor of the Holland submarine. He was
the second son of John and Mary Holland, who had long been residents
of the place. His father was a coast guard, and from him little John
heard the stories of the sea that inspired in him the love he had for
it in later years. His elder brother, Alfred, was a strong, healthy
boy of great intellect. When John was six years old he was sent to the
Irish Christian Brothers school at Ennistymon, in the same county. He
always credited the Irish Christian Brothers with giving him the early
education that made him capable, later, of achieving results that
scientists of to-day can hardly credit as being true.
In 1853 the family moved to Limerick, causing John to be transferred
to the schools taught by the Christian Brothers at Sexton Street,
that city. He was a very studious boy and made great progress in his
studies. He loved to tell how he was in the habit of rising early in
the morning and going into the fields, where he would climb a tree and
there study his lessons for the day. The family had not resided long
in Limerick when the father was taken from them very suddenly. He had
been suffering from some slight ailment, and mentioned the fact to a
friend. The friend advised that he take a home remedy, composed mostly
of potash. He took the prescribed dose and died within a few hours.
On the death of his father John was compelled to give up school and
seek employment in a tobacco shop. In 1858 he left the position and
became a teacher in the Christian Brothers schools. In 1860 he showed
signs of failing health; accordingly the Brothers transferred him to
one of their schools in Waterford, in the hope that the climate there
would prove more beneficial to his impaired health. However, after
residing in that town for a time it was seen that the looked-for
improvement did not materialize, and he grew worse instead of better.
During the following twelve months he was assured by the best medical
advice available that his health would not permit him to continue his
studies, and that in order that it be restored he would do well to
live in some place having a mild and dry climate, such as is found in
the Madeira Islands. For several reasons this was impracticable, so he
went to Cork to wait until he could find a suitable climate in which to
live. While staying in Cork he lived at Ashburton, at the western end
of Clanmire Hill, for about one year. While here he improved greatly in
health and strength.
The War of the Rebellion in the United States had started a few months
before he came to live in Cork. Toward the end of November, 1862, he
read in the Cork _Examiner_ an announcement of the first combat between
armored ships that had occurred about two weeks previously; that is,
the battle between the _Monitor_ and _Merrimac_ at Hampton Roads, Va.,
in which the little _Monitor_ defeated the _Merrimac_, of twice her
bulk and power, after a short contest. Just before the remarkable duel
the _Merrimac_, ignoring the guns of her opponent, the wooden ship
_Congress_, sank her by striking her with her massive iron stem. The
_Cumberland_, another ship like the _Congress_, lying in the water
near her, did not wait to be similarly rammed, but made haste to run
aground on the nearest shallow place. But this did not save her, as
the _Merrimac_ attacked her and set her on fire with her heavy guns,
while ignoring her fire, which did very little harm. This epoch-making
contest in Virginian waters astonished naval authorities the world
over, especially in England, whose main reliance for the maintenance
of their power was placed in the "wooden walls," and in the bravery
and skill of their seamen. The English nervousness was due to the
demonstration at Hampton Roads that wooden ships could be no more of a
hindrance to an armorclad than the _Cumberland_ and _Congress_ were to
the _Merrimac_, and that if the Yankees built a few more monitors and
sent them across the Atlantic quickly, they could come to London by
water absolutely unhindered and destroy London and all the English navy
within reach. All the English naval depots could, with practically no
hindrance, be treated similarly within a few months, and an end made of
English oppression from which it could never recover.
That this is no wild dreaming will be evident to everybody, when the
action of the English Parliament regarding a proposal made there by a
Lord of the Admiralty was considered and acted upon favorably in rapid
order. A certain Lord Paget, who commanded an English ship at the
bombardment of Sebastopol, proving that he was not without experience
in justifying the assertion, told them that if all the five hundred
and eighty English warships then in existence were sent into the Cork
harbor; and if the little American _Monitor_ were to get in there, too,
at the same time; and also if a suitable chain boom were fixed so as to
enclose the whole lot, that the same little _Monitor_ could send them
all to the bottom within a few hours without being compelled to fire a
single shot. Lord Paget made these assertions in support of a motion he
made before the House of Commons, proposing that the unspent part of an
appropriation of about $75,000,000 designed to build forts to defend
harbors in the South of England for the protection of their fleets
against the French and Yankees should be immediately applied to the
construction of armorclad ships. Without any delay a bill was passed
making the required change in the appropriation bill. Very shortly
after the Admiralty proposed the construction of four ironclads, which
proposal was immediately adopted.
Four large battleships were taken and razed and covered with
armor-plate. They were followed later by many much more powerful
vessels designed especially to carry armor, _until at the present
day the English Navy is competent to engage all the European navies
together_. Mr. Holland, reflecting upon the result of the duel at
Hampton Roads, foresaw this result clearly, because he knew that
England possessed the necessary materials, money, and mechanical skill
required to provide ships enough to maintain her claim to her assumed
title, "Mistress of the Seas," and to enable her to terrorize the
greatest nations of Europe that had persistently shown lack of wisdom
by their neglect to properly provide themselves with the only weapon
that could resist her; that is, a sufficiently powerful navy.
They trusted, to their undoing, to great armies, forgetting that
England had already proved her ability to cause combinations of her
former enemies against any one of them.
But, having carefully noted the development of armored ships in
the American, English, and French navies since the first duels of
armorclads at Hampton Roads, Mr. Holland conceived the notion that it
would be possible to build a vessel that would utilize water cover
as a protection against an enemy's projectiles and thus be capable
of ramming her enemy without exposing herself to attack. The study
of the possibility of designing a practicable submarine boat to
encounter English ironclads in this manner became the most interesting
problem that he had to solve for a considerable time afterward. He
further relates the physical difficulties that had to be overcome;
bad health and hard work hindered consideration of the problem for a
long time, until one day he happened to see in a newspaper an account
of the experiments made with a submarine in New York harbor.[1] The
description of its performances appeared to be incredible when he
remembered the physical difficulties that had to be overcome, as his
former study of the subject revealed them. Reflecting later that
it was foolish and unfair to ridicule and laugh at a project which
was described only by a short notice in the newspaper, and that
described only its success in overcoming the physical difficulties
in its operation, he started on a thorough study of the question in
connection with a design roughly sketched on a sheet of paper; giving
due attention to the essential points concerned in using a submarine
boat so that it would be practical to live and work while completely
submerged even in rough water; so as to propel it, first, at an even
or any required depth; second, to be able to steer it with certainty in
any required direction; third, to have an ample supply of compressed
air on board, as well as the necessary apparatus to renew it when
exhausted.
Fortunately he had sufficient engineering knowledge to determine the
thickness and weight of a spindle-shaped steel shell competent to
endure the external water pressure due to a submergence of two hundred
and fifty feet depth, which was probably the greatest pressure it would
ever be compelled to endure when in action. He was also competent
to provide for a change of trim and for regulating the degree of
submergence, as well as to provide for a slow or a rapid rise to the
surface as circumstances might require. After completing his design,
however, he found there was no one with confidence enough in the idea
to give him backing. He was regarded as a second Jules Verne; in a
word, a dreamer. He accordingly locked his plans in his trunk and for
the time being forgot all about them.
A few years later his mother came to the United States and he decided
to follow her. He landed in Boston in the winter of 1872, and in the
middle of typical New England weather as found at that time of the
year. Everything was covered with ice and snow, quite different from
the mild winters he had known in the little "Green Isle." One morning
after his arrival he was walking through one of the streets of the
"Hub," and, not being possessed of the agility of a mountain goat--so
necessary for a man to navigate one of our American streets during
an icy spell--he had not gone far before he fell and broke his leg.
Passersby helped him home, and he was assured by the physician who set
the fracture that he would not be able to move about for at least two
months. Finding himself with so much idle time on his hands, he decided
to get out his forgotten plans and study them again. The result was
that by the time his convalescence was over he had drawn a new and much
superior design.
But it was not until 1876, when he was teaching school in Paterson, New
Jersey, that he succeeded in securing financial backing for his first
boat. A friend at that time raised the necessary capital, about $6000,
and the building was done at the Albany Street Iron Works, corner of
Albany and Washington Streets, New York, in 1876, in the shop owned
by Messrs. Andrew and Ripley. To their courteous superintendent, Mr.
Dickey, he was indebted for many suggestions toward rendering the
boat practical and useful. Early in 1878 she was removed to Todd and
Rafferty's shop in Paterson, New Jersey; he, being a resident of that
city at that time, could complete her outfit more easily there. Toward
the end of July, 1878, she was taken to a point where she could be
more easily launched, about one hundred yards above the Falls Bridge,
on the right bank of the river. She was taken there late one fine
afternoon and launched from the wagon on which she was moved. Mr.
William Dunkerly, the engineer in charge of the operation, fastened a
strong line on her bow to bring her to when she was afloat; but she
did not float long, for the wagon wheels sank in the made ground where
they launched her, the greater part of the wagon being submerged, as
well as nearly one-half of the volume of the boat, leaving the boat
with the stern considerably elevated. After hard work on the part of
Messrs. Dunkerly and John Lister, the owners of a boathouse above the
bridge she was pulled off the wagon and floated for a few minutes, amid
the cheers of mill operatives who lined the banks and covered every
available spot on the bridge. But the cheering suddenly ceased when
the boat backed a little out in the river, for she settled deeper in
the water and finally sank, to the great disappointment of the crowd,
who expressed their feelings in loud yells until Messrs. Dunkerly and
Lister moved the wagon out of the way, took hold of the boat's painter,
and pulled her out of the water high and dry on the spot previously
occupied by the wagon. It is no exaggeration to say that the natives
were much astounded to see a little iron boat weighing four tons pulled
by two men from the bottom of the Passaic and left standing high and
dry on the bank.
The next day the accidental submergence was explained by the absence
of two five-eighths inch screw plugs from the bottom of the central
compartment in which the operator would be seated while the boat was
in operation. By opening a stop valve while the boat was in operation
under water a sufficient quantity of water would enter, surround the
operator in his diving suit, and render the boat and its contents
heavier than water, so that it would sink as it did after having been
launched with the plug holes open. The reason that it did not sink, and
that it was so easy a matter to pull it ashore, was because the total
weight on board on that occasion was much more than it was designed to
carry. The central space then carried water equal to the weight of the
diver and his suit of armor, as well as the additional quantity that
would fill the space around him, as well as that which would be due
to the distention of the suit by air pressure while it was in action
during diving. The actual practicability of being able to handle the
boat under these conditions was the first important point proved by
experiment on the day following the launch.
"We proved conclusively, a few weeks after, that our estimate of the
quantity of fresh compressed air required to support life comfortably
in the operator was probably a little excessive. The quantity of
compressed air, as well as the pressure required to force all water
out of the boat and to cause her to float light on the surface, was
ample. A few days after the launch, the engine having been given a
slight test, the boat was towed up the river to a point opposite the
old Pennington house. In the launch that towed her were Mr. Dunkerly,
Captain John Lister, and three men prominent in the 'Fenian' movement."
What happened when the boat reached the point for the test is best told
by Mr. Dunkerly: "We fastened ropes to the bow and stern," Mr. Dunkerly
said; "Mr. Holland climbed into the submarine, closed the hatch, and
started the engine. The bow went down first, and before we realized
the fact the boat was under twelve feet of water. The ropes were a
safeguard in case the compressed air should not prove sufficient to
expel the water from the ballast tanks. Holland was also given a hammer
with which to rap upon the shell of the boat should he find himself
in difficulties. After being submerged one hour, Holland brought the
boat to the surface, to the great relief of all who were witnessing the
test. As soon as the boat came up the turret opened and Holland bobbed
up smiling. He repeated his dive several times, and then he invited us
to try it, but we preferred to 'stick to the ropes.' About the third
trip we made up the river a stranger was seen hiding behind the rocks
on the river road. He had a powerful field glass, and it was said
that he was an agent of the British Government. His presence caused
a commotion for a time." From here we will continue in Mr. Holland,
Senior's, own words:
"Continuous submergence trials for various periods were next
undertaken. We had one serious setback that caused no greater
trouble than shortening our experiments by compelling us to omit
all running trials and to confine ourselves to testing matters of
essential importance. This was due to the failure of the misnamed
Braton engine that was installed in the boat. The builders assured
me that it was a Braton engine, but they had improved on Braton's
designs by employing two double-acting cylinders, having both
ends of each supplied with charges from one central combustion
chamber. On trial in the boat this engine failed to develop any
noticeable power, so we were compelled to employ Mr. Dunkerly's
launch, supplying her engines with steam, which was conducted from
the boiler of his launch by way of a hose to the engine of the
submarine, which was now employed as a steam engine. This entailed
a considerable loss of steam, due to condensation, but it produced
enough power to propel the submarine, having Mr. Dunkerly's launch
alongside so as to allow free vertical movement, as when diving,
so that we could test the efficiency of the boat's horizontal and
vertical rudders. The vertical rudders, those that controlled
horizontal motion, proved to be very effective, but the horizontal
rudders, placed on the level of the centre of buoyancy, proved
to be useless. We proved that the boat should move three or four
times more rapidly before they could produce a useful effect. This
experiment showed the folly of attempting to control the degree of
submergence of the boat by the employment of central horizontal
rudders, a method on which so much importance was placed by some of
my predecessors and successors, in attempts at submarining, and,
strange to say, some of them still believe in it, very evidently
because they have never tested them. A good many submarine and
other inventors are satisfied with designs on paper and do not
bother to make experiments. We determined some other very evident
matters that it was necessary to prove by actual experiment; that
is, that it is not practical to cause a boat to lie still at any
given depth without the employment of complicated machinery that
should have no place in a submarine boat. Several other important
points regarding the design, construction, and management of
submarines, which still cause difference of opinion and design,
were determined fairly well. For instance, the modern craze for
'good, big boats,' as well as for large, high conning towers, was
proved to be absurd. Even though our views on these and other
matters were exhibited to the Navy Department Ordnance Bureau,
practically no notice was taken of them. I disliked the idea common
among politicians that my failures to get a government contract was
owing to political influence or 'pull,' but, judging by my short
experience in Washington, I concluded that there was another, and
much more serious, hindrance to the adoption of my ideas.
"The history of the efforts I made to induce the government to
consider the claims of the first submarine boat proposed to them
by me in 1875, as well as the results, reflects no credit on the
officials that had anything to do with it, as can be clearly seen
from what follows.
"The first proposition was made in 1875, through a friend of the
late Secretary of the Navy Robeson, for his consideration. It was
referred by him for a report to the late Admiral Sampson, at that
time commander of the torpedo station at Newport, Rhode Island.
The Admiral reported in good time that the project was practically
impossible, owing mainly to the difficulty of finding in what
direction to steer the boat under water, and the attempt to do so
would be an aggravated case of trying to find one's way in a fog.
Very evidently he had no notion of the possibility of steering
by compass under water. The same incredulity was expressed by a
distinguished Swedish officer whom I afterward met in New York.
"After having determined the correctness of my ideas regarding
submarines, and adding a few points revealed by the experiments
made on the Passaic River, my financial supporters, the trustees of
the Fenian Skirmishing Fund, determined to build a larger boat that
could be employed for breaking blockades.[2] Toward the end of May
I started to design a new boat of about nineteen tons displacement;
in other words, one small and light enough to be carried on
ship's deck and launched overboard whenever her services would be
required. Only three men were required for her crew.
[Illustration: THE "FENIAN RAM"
The first Holland power-propelled submarine boat (built 1881).
Sketch made by the author after measuring the boat
at New Haven, Connecticut, in 1915.]
"She was built at the shops of the Delamater Iron Works, at the foot
of West Thirteenth Street, New York, and launched in May, 1881.
During her construction my curiosity was excited by the apparent
incredulity of some of the engineers in the shop regarding the
practicability of such a boat. Many objections were urged against
her, especially by men who should have known better, but the
trouble with them was almost the same as I encountered later among
the staff officers of the navy, viz., because they were, almost
without exception, of English, Welsh, or Scotch descent, experienced
in all kinds of shipbuilding. They appeared to know by intuition that
the project was absurd. They proposed many difficulties that were not
solved for them. I also noticed that many of the men appeared to take
a deep interest in the progress of the work, even though they never
made any inquiries to my knowledge, yet they observed everything,
because there was no way of preventing them. I also noticed what
appeared to be consequences of this curiosity of foreigners regarding
an American machine.
"During the following twelve months many visitors came to look over
the submarine, mostly Swedes, Russians, Italians, and Germans. I
was much pleased to meet two of them who apparently had no idea of
the jealousy with which some people guard their military secrets,
viz., Ali Ritza and Hassan Effendi. But, very clearly to me,
they had no idea of the importance of what was expected from the
machine, or, much more likely, they had been persuaded by their
acquaintances of English connections that the project would never
amount to anything because it did not originate in England. The
fact that English opinion in naval matters governed the opinion of
every American was made quite clear to me later on.
"This nineteen-ton boat was launched in 1881. She was thirty-one
feet long, six feet beam, seven feet four inches in depth, and was
propelled by a Brayton petroleum engine. Her crew consisted of
three men--the pilot, engineer, and gunner. She laid at the Morris
& Cummings Dredging Company's dock in Jersey City until July 3,
1883, during which time many interesting experiments were made with
her.
"The first run on the surface and while submerged was made in the
basin, or passage, east of the Lehigh Valley Railroad. The first
tests made were the surface runs to test the engine, clutch,
gearing, etc. These proved very successful, and the next in order
was to submerge the boat at the dock and determine whether the
seams were all right, and also to test the efficiency of the
compressed-air tanks for supplying oxygen for breathing and giving
impulses for expelling water from the ballast tanks.
"Accordingly Richards, the engineer, and myself entered the boat
and closed the hatch. This shut us off from the air, and our
breathing now depended entirely on the compressed-air reserve.
After waiting a few moments and finding no ill effects from the
compressed air, I decided to submerge. I drew back the little iron
levers on either side of my head (these operated the Kingston
valves in the bottom, through which water was admitted to the
ballast tanks). Almost immediately the boat began to settle, giving
us the suggestion of slowly descending in an elevator. I now looked
through the ports in the superstructure and observed that the bow
had entirely disappeared and the water was within a few inches of
the glass. A second or two later everything grew dark and we were
entirely submerged, and nothing could be seen through the ports
excepting a dark-green blur.
"Our next suggestion was a slight jar when the vessel struck the
bottom. It might also be mentioned here that we had no light
except the glow that came through the conning tower. This just
about sufficed to read the gauges, but was too poor to be of much
interest to the engineer. The engine was not needed at that time,
however, but we decided to carry a small lantern, to be used when
any adjustment was necessary, but not otherwise, as it consumed too
much of our precious oxygen.
"Richards having made an examination and found everything tight, I
decided to blow out the ballast and come up. Accordingly I opened
the valve admitting air to the ballast tank, and at once heard a
hiss that told me that the air was driving out the water. The green
blur on the ports in the conning tower grew lighter as I gazed
through them until suddenly the light of full day burst through,
almost dazzling me. After blinking my eyes a few times I looked out
again and saw the familiar surroundings of the 'Gap.' I now opened
the hatch and stood on the seat, thus causing my head and shoulders
to protrude from the tower. As soon as I was observed doing this
a cheer burst from the crowd of observers on the dock, among whom
opinion was equally divided as to whether we would ever emerge
alive from our dive or not. We had now demonstrated the fact that
our boat was tight, that our air was sufficient for breathing, and
that our ballasting system was perfect.
"Our next test was to prove that we could dive with our engine
running. Many were the gloomy prophecies advanced as to what would
happen when we attempted to force our exhaust outboard against
the water pressure found at eight or ten feet depth. For this
occasion Richards and I entered the boat, I taking my place in the
conning tower, while he went forward to start the engine. After a
little kicking and sputtering he succeeded in getting it started.
We then let in the clutch and the boat started forward. When we
reached the far side of the basin I turned her around and threw out
the clutch, causing the boat to slow down and stop. Closing the
hatch, we then made sure that everything was tight, and opened the
Kingston valves. When the water reached the observer's ports in the
conning tower, I closed them again. We then proceeded along awash;
that is, with only the little tower showing above the surface.
I found that from this position I could observe objects quite a
distance ahead, and my vision was obscured only occasionally when
a wave washed against the glass. I next threw forward the lever on
the right side of my seat (this was connected with the diving, or
vertical, rudder by a lever action). Immediately the nose of the
boat went down, and before I realized it our gauge showed a depth
of about ten feet. I now drew the lever back to centre, and the
boat straightened out on an even keel. There was very little or no
tendency to buck or be cranky; in a word, I had no difficulty in
preventing her nose from rising or dipping down.
"After running about one hundred yards submerged I steered the boat
up, and in a few seconds the superstructure of the boat was again
above water. I then opened the air valve and expelled my ballast,
causing the boat to rise and assume her normal position. This dive
was practised for some time in order that we might gain facility in
handling the diving and steering gear.
"Captain John Ericsson was at that time preparing to build his
_Destroyer_ in the same part of the shop in which my boat had
been built. Somebody in Delamater's described my boat to Captain
Ericsson and explained the purpose of a nine-inch tube placed in
the axis and having a breech and bow cap. The object of this
fitting was to permit the insertion of a six-foot torpedo that
could be shot out at a target while the boat was under water by
air at a heavy pressure contained in steel flasks connected with
the breech of the gun by a balanced valve. After the torpedo was
ejected the breech and muzzle were closed, and the water contents
of the tube were permitted to flow into two tanks to correct the
position of the centre of gravity.
"Not having any torpedo models ready for experiment when the boat
reached Jersey City, Captain Ericsson very kindly sent me word
that I might build a few like those he proposed to use in his
_Destroyer_. I therefore deferred building any on my own ideas,
and decided to use his, should they prove suitable. The Delamaters
built me two on his models and sent them to Jersey City for trial.
For the trials of Ericsson's torpedo models the boat was set awash
in the water, with the axis of the torpedo placed horizontally and
about three and one-half feet below the water surface. Because
there was a new floating dock lying in the water about one hundred
and fifty yards from the submarine, and in a direct line with it,
the firing pressure was reduced to about three hundred pounds on
the square inch. When the firing valve was opened the projectile
passed out and travelled about six or eight feet beyond the muzzle
of the gun, then it turned upward and arose in the air to perhaps
sixty or seventy feet; then it fell point foremost in the water
and buried itself so deeply in the mud that we could never find it
again. For the second shot the boat was depressed a few degrees and
was swung to port so as to avoid butting the floating dry dock.
It travelled about twice as far as its predecessor, then rose
fifteen feet in the air and passed over the wall limiting the
basin, striking a pile that projected above it, and frightening a
fisherman who was dozing thereon. He was in no danger, however,
as the pile and string-piece of heavy pine afforded him ample
protection.
"While the boat lay at Gorky's repair shop at the point called the
'Gap,' a test was made of the efficiency of the apparatus provided
for using the boat as a diving-bell, viz., a watertight hatch
placed over a hatchway on the bottom, with valves leading from
air-chambers, through which air under pressure was permitted to
flow and fill the space occupied by the operators.
"When employing the boat as a diving-bell everything was closed
tight and air was admitted to the central space until the external
water pressure was exactly balanced, and when the lower hatch
might be opened without any risk of water entering. The first man
to make a test was Mr. George M. Richards, of Erie, Pennsylvania,
my engineer. He sank the boat at high water while she lay at the
dock. When she rested on the bottom he opened the test valves to
make certain that the external water pressure was balanced by the
internal air pressure, admitting an excess of water equal to his
weight to hold her on the bottom. This operation did not consume
more than a minute. He did not actually go out of the boat, but
only dropped his feet on the bottom, passed his hands under the
boat, one on either side, and lifted the boat slowly and with
little exertion about one foot from the bottom. Had I provided the
boat with a diver's outfit he could have gone out and come back
again without trouble or risk. On July 3, 1883, we left the 'Gap'
in Jersey City in order to do some diving in the deep water of the
Narrows.
"The boat went out under its own power, unaccompanied by anybody
save a small colored boy who had managed to drop on the turret when
we were leaving the dock. The first intimation I had that we were
carrying a passenger was shortly after we had passed Robbins's Reef
Lighthouse. Then I found my view of Staten Island and Bay Ridge
became obscured by what seemed to be a pair of brown rags hanging
on either side of the turret and blocking the vision through the
side lights. When we passed Robbins's Reef the water became a
little rougher, so that the water passed up on the hull and washed
over the turret. After the windows had been wet a few times I heard
noises that plainly indicated that we were carrying an uninvited
and unwelcome passenger. Fearing that the waves would wash him off,
I headed the boat upstream, opened the hatch, and invited him to
come inside, as I feared running through rough water with him on
top. He politely refused my invitation, assuring me that he was
'puffectly safe' where he was, and that he would 'hold on like grim
death.' This unfortunate circumstance spoiled my chances of diving
in deep water that day, so we were compelled to abandon it. This
interruption by the young colored gentleman wasted so much time
that it was after sunset when we headed for the Bay Ridge shore,
with which I was unfamiliar, to look for a landing place. Seeing
through the twilight unmistakable signs that the shore was rocky,
I ran the boat out about one hundred yards and then headed her up
toward the Bay Ridge Ferry landing, with the intention of leaving
her there until daylight the next morning. Before starting north
we noticed two boys in a rowboat approaching us from the shore.
We stopped until they came alongside and inquired: 'What is this
thing?' They came on board and inspected her at our invitation,
and expressed great astonishment at the strange boat they had
picked up. But what was much more to the purpose was that when they
found we had no particular landing place in view they very kindly
offered us the hospitality of Mr. Vanderbilt Bergen's dock at Bay
Ridge for as long as we wished to stay there for experiments. Then
they took our 'painter' and towed us into his dock on the site of
the present Crescent Yacht Club station. The two young gentlemen,
Tunis Bergen and his cousin Harry Midgley, also contracted to take
care of our material and help us out during our stay at their dock.
What was of great importance to us was that we learned from Mr.
Vanderbilt Bergen, Tunis's brother, that the place we had happened
upon was by far the most suitable of any within miles for diving
and experiments. We left the boat there over two months, making
experiments to determine the value of our devices and to improve
them wherever possible.
"Every time we went out we took two or more dives of various
lengths, most of these quite across the Narrows, a little below
Stapleton. During these dives I always made certain that there was
no ship of twenty-five or thirty feet draught passing. Ordinarily
we ran at a depth of not less than twenty feet, so that we could
afford to ignore excursion steamers, fishing boats, and small
yachts. The paddles of excursion steamers we could hear a long
distance away, so that we never had any difficulty in avoiding them
by changing our course or running at a greater depth until they had
passed. We had a rather exciting experience on one occasion when we
started to run submerged from Stapleton to Bay Ridge. At starting
there was no large vessel in sight, but when about two hundred and
fifty yards from shore I distinctly heard the paddle of a steamer.
I instantly changed the vessel's course from directly across the
Narrows, heading her upstream and running to twenty feet depth so
as to eliminate any danger of a collision. Running along I listened
for the sound of paddles, but could hear nothing, so I concluded
that the steamer must have passed beyond the range of hearing or
else had changed her course. Therefore I thought it would be safe
to come within fifteen feet of the surface and listen again. I did
so, and, hearing no sound, brought the turret above the surface
to look around, but I could see no steamer. I then resumed my
course back to Bay Ridge. On approaching Mr. Bergen's dock I saw
three or four men jumping around and acting as if demented, so on
landing I asked Bergen the cause of their hilarity. 'Oh,' he said,
'you frightened the d---- out of the _St. Johns_, the Long Branch
steamer. You remember having come near the surface shortly after
you started across and then diving? We didn't see you again until
you rose three hundred yards out at this side.' I said that I
remembered it. 'Well, when you went down that time your propeller
shot a great mass of water out backward, just as big as, or bigger
than, any whale could blow. The _St. Johns_ was about two hundred
yards astern of you, and she stopped instantly, not being able to
tell what the trouble was ahead of her. After a while she started
up and headed into the Staten Island shore, keeping on until I
thought she would run ashore. She ported her helm and kept close
along shore until she passed the Quarantine anchorage, then she
headed straight for New York.'
"Experimental runs were made almost every day during the months of
July and August, and continued until September, when we returned
to the 'Gap' in Jersey City. During our experiments we were never
without a considerable crowd of witnesses, sometimes numbering
hundreds, especially in our runs from the 'Gap' up the Hudson and
return. One morning in July a very patronizing gentleman, who
announced himself as a reporter from the _New York Sun_, requested
permission to go into the boat and examine it, but, much to his
surprise, I was compelled to refuse him permission. The next
morning there appeared in his paper a long report describing the
performances of the _Fenian Ram_, a new name to which I had no
objection excepting its incorrectness. Because public curiosity
was aroused, the same Mr. Blakely Hall seldom missed reporting
every run or experiment we made while at Bay Ridge. He explained
to me that I was foolish in not wishing to advertise my invention,
because the Government would certainly wish to acquire boats of the
same type, as he could see by the newspaper reports that they were
already preparing to build them in France.
"Shortly after our return to the 'Gap,' an amusing incident took
place which is well worth recording. A number of friends and myself
decided to take a trip up the Hudson. There were eight or ten in
the party, and, as the submarine could accommodate only four, a
small sloop was hired to carry the overflow. When we got under way,
the submarine towing the sloop, we found the going rather hard,
owing to cakes of ice floating down the river. When we were off
Hoboken I slowed down to allow a steamer to cross our bow. This,
of course, slackened the towline, with the result that when I got
under way again said line fouled the propeller, held for a second,
and then broke, sending the sloop adrift among the cakes of ice.
The crew of the derelict bark shouted to attract my attention, but
I had the hatch closed and could not hear them. I proceeded about
a mile upstream from the point of the accident before I discovered
that my tow was missing. I turned back and found my unfortunate
mariners had been picked up by a passing boat and towed back to
Jersey City.
"In November, 1883, while returning from a run through the Narrows,
we dove to a depth of sixty feet, remained on the bottom for an
hour, and came to the surface with no more trouble or inconvenience
than if we dove only eight or ten feet. Shortly after this the
_Ram's_ career ended in a rather odd way. I have no intention of
advancing any excuses for the incident, as no official explanation
was ever made to me concerning it. As a result, I never bothered
again with my backers nor they with me, but before recording the
more solemn incident I would like to mention a rather amusing one
that has just come to mind.
"One morning, on going down to board the boat, I was surprised to
find no boat there. I was puzzled for a minute, but, on inquiry of
the bystanders, I found that my engineer, Richards, had decided
to take the boat out for a run by himself. He had proceeded down
stream, but that was about all the witnesses could tell me. I
therefore walked along the wharves until I came to a crowd of men
standing on a pier and pointing out into the river. My attention
was called to a point on the surface about two hundred yards off
the pier head. There a great deal of air was coming to the surface
in countless little bubbles. The man told me that the _Irish Ram_
had just gone down there, owing to the fact that the conning tower
was open when it passed close to a barge and tug. The wash from
the tug passed over the little boat, flooded the hatch, and came
near catching Richards below. He happened to be just below the
hatch, however, and was blown out by the escaping air when the boat
went down. He floundered around in the water for a few minutes and
was finally picked up by the crew of the tug. A few minutes later
Richards appeared, still a bit pale from his rather startling
experience. It cost my backers about $3000 to raise the boat and
put her in shape again.
"The final history of the boat is told in a few words. She was
taken one night from her slip in the 'Gap' and towed to New Haven,
Connecticut. During the trip she was in charge of Breslin, one of
the trustees of the fund. I received no notice of the contemplated
move then, nor was I notified after. I am told that when they
arrived in New Haven they attempted to make dives, but handled
the boat so awkwardly that the harbor master decided that she
constituted a 'menace to navigation' and demanded a bond if any
further trials were to be made. As a result she was hauled out
of the water on the property of Reynolds, another member of the
committee, and there she still is. There is also a rumor that they
have tried to sell her to the Russian Government, but failed, as on
investigation the prospective buyers found that title to her was
not clear.
"After the _Ram_ was taken from me, I had no means of experimenting
further or building another boat. After a time I secured a position
with the Pneumatic Gun Company as a draughtsman. While employed
there I managed to interest some members of the company and some
friends of theirs in a design that I had drawn immediately after
the loss of the _Ram_. I allowed these men to examine my plans,
and they, approving of them, set about to organize a company, known
as the Nautilus Submarine Boat Company.
"During the organizing of the company I became acquainted with
Captain Zalinski, U. S. A., an expert on heavy artillery. Through
Captain Zalinski I met many influential men, who not only helped me
with the project in hand at the time, but were largely instrumental
in having my boat adopted by the United States Navy.
"At the suggestion of Captain Zalinski the boat was built at Fort
Hamilton, as he was stationed there at the time, and, being on the
army active list, could not be away from his post of duty. During
the time of her construction everything was under his supervision.
The boat was fifty feet long, six feet beam, and the hull was
constructed of wood. In 1886 the boat was launched. The launching
ways ran down from the fort wall to the water's edge. This part of
the program was in the hands of a young engineer who had either an
insufficient knowledge of the subject or lacked the ability to put
his knowledge to practical use. The result was, that when the heavy
boat started down the launching ways they suddenly collapsed and
she crashed into some piling near the water's edge, tearing out the
greater part of her side and bottom.
"On investigation it was found that the cost of repairs would
exceed the amount of money still on hand in the company's treasury.
Accordingly the wrecked boat was broken up where she lay, the
engine and fittings removed and sold, and the proceeds used to
partly reimburse the stockholders for the money they had invested.
This accident discouraged my company from any further attempts at
submarine construction. Had this boat been successful, submarines
would have become an accepted success years before they did. This
unfortunate incident held me back at least ten years, as it was
that long before I was able to secure backing to construct another
boat.
"About this time the United States Navy Department was mildly
interested in the performances of submarines in France, where
they had attained some slight degree of success. The designs for
these boats, I am sure, were based on certain fundamental points
of my _Fenian Ram_ design. As I have said previously, there were a
number of foreign officers present at Delamater's Yard from 1879
to 1881, while the boat was in course of construction, and it is
hardly to be expected that they failed to take notes. However, the
knowledge they secured did them very little good, because, while
they secured a lot of valuable data, their inexperience caused them
to disregard the most vital points, with the result that their
boats never attained any degree of success. However, I do not wish
to convey the impression that the United States Navy Department
was at this time considering building submarines as the results of
the French experiments; far from it. Had it not been informed of
the success of my _Fenian Ram_, which was far more interesting and
wonderful than anything the French had done, and still remained
unconvinced? I was totally sick and disgusted with its actions, and
was seriously tempted to abandon all further attempts to convince
and awake it from its lethargy. About this time I wrote an article,
"Can New York be Bombarded?" with the intention of bringing before
the public the pitiable condition of our fleet and coast defences,
and showing how a few submarines would place us in a position to
ward off an enemy's attack from mostly any point on our coast as
effectively as if we had an adequate shore defence and a fleet
equal to Great Britain's."
The article referred to treats of other types of ships. This is not of
interest now, but we quote what he says concerning
"THE SUBMARINE, OR DIVING BOAT
"This boat has a speed of eight miles per hour; she can remain
under water for two days, or longer, without having any connection
with the surface. She can be steered by compass when under water,
and her course may be laid and corrected without obliging her to
remain more than a few moments on the surface. This can be done
without ever appearing over water. She can move at any required
depth, and is more thoroughly under control when completely
submerged than when on the surface. Her horizontal and vertical
motions are controlled automatically or by the pilot.
"The torpedo, carrying a one-hundred-pound charge, can be projected
in a straight line to a distance of eighty or ninety feet,
according to the power employed in expelling it. The method of
attack will probably be as follows: The diving boat, with only her
turret above water, moves toward the ship. When she gets so close
that her presence may be discovered, say half a mile, she descends
a few feet under the surface. Once or twice, after the bearing of
the ship is observed by means of a telescope projected for a few
minutes over the water, corrections are made in the course for
deviations owing to currents.
"When near the vessel she goes deeper, so as to bring her stem ten
or fifteen feet beneath the surface. Netting can thus be avoided.
She can now discharge her torpedo, to explode on contact. As soon
as this strikes, the explosion occurs and a large hole is torn in
the ship's side. The ship will now become unmanageable, and with
assistance may be captured. Experience has shown that in a seaway
she rolls or pitches very little, apparently following the wave
slope in large waves. In short, sharp ones, she seems to rise and
fall bodily with very little tendency to pitching.
"A notion seems to prevail that the proper duty of a diving boat
would be to carry a diver, who could come out and fasten a torpedo
to a ship at anchor, then retire into his boat and move away; also,
that it would be useful in placing and removing stationary mines.
It is very evident that if a diving boat can attain a speed of ten
or twelve miles per hour, fire torpedoes at ships moving at full
speed, and keep to sea for days together, her sphere of usefulness
would be greatly extended. In fact, there is no insuperable
objection to the employment of such vessels for coast defence and
operations against ships. Submarine mines are not so effective
against them as vessels on the surface, because they can pass
them unobserved. They can enter a harbor that may be thoroughly
defended, should it be necessary to destroy vessels inside the
defences. If those on the fleet become aware of their presence it
is more than probable, judging from the action of the French fleet
in 1877-78, that the moral effect of the discovery will be that
they will feel convinced of the foolishness of awaiting an attack
when the time so employed may be more wisely expended in moving to
a safe distance, and in getting there at full speed. Thus, in 1886,
did I try to show by comparison the superiority of the submarine
over the torpedo boats and gunboats, the two arms of defence on
which the Navy placed all its confidence at the time."
From the above words concerning John P. Holland's various efforts
to secure recognition of his inventions, and his years of strenuous
endeavor to devise a weapon capable of providing a means of
defence, there is no question but that it is due to his initiative,
perseverance, and success that the diving type of boat was ever brought
to be manageable and adopted by the United States and England.
Mr. Holland's health broke down in his later years, said to have been
caused by the treatment which he received from some of his associates.
The testimony which Mr. Holland leaves among his notes, and the opinion
given me by his son, would indicate that his name and services were
used to enable others to make large financial gains, and that he
himself received little, if any, benefit from his life's work. His
son is authority for the statement to me that such competence as he
was able to leave for his family was derived from his other business
outside of that of his submarine work, and that his connection with
submarine matters undoubtedly affected his mind and health in later
years and probably shortened his life.
An appeal found among his papers, addressed to the chairman of the
Committee on Naval Affairs of the House of Representatives under date
of February 8, 1906, would appear to bear out this statement. I quote: