ARMOURED TRAINS
In the issue of the now defunct London periodical, _Once a Week_, for
August 13, 1859, there was published an article on "English Railway
Artillery: A Cheap Defence against Invasion," in which it was said,
among other things:--
We have hitherto regarded the rail merely as a vehicle
of transport, to carry materials which are not to be set in
work till off the rails. If we look at the rail as part of an
instrument of warfare, we shall be startled at the enormous
means we have at hand, instantly available, from mercantile
purposes, to convert to engines of war.
The writer was William Bridges Adams (1797-1872), an authority on
railways who had grown up with them, had introduced into their operation
many inventions and improvements (including the fish-joint still used
for connecting rails), and was the author of various books and papers on
railways, transport, and other subjects. His new idea, as set forth in
the article in question, was specially directed to the utilisation of
railways for defending the shores of Great Britain against an invader;
and in developing this idea he was, also, as far as can be traced, the
first to suggest the employment of armoured trains.
The immediate reason alike for the writing of the article and for the
making of the suggestion was that in 1859 Great Britain appeared to be
faced by the prospect of invasion by France,--a prospect which, in view
of the then admittedly defective condition of the national defences,
led to the creation of the Volunteer Corps, to the appointment of a
Royal Commission to inquire into the question of coast defence, and
to suggestions being put forward by many different authorities as to
what should be done. Among those suggestions was one by the writer in
question for supplementing any system of coast defence that might be
adopted by the mounting of guns on railway trucks protected by armour,
such trucks being moved from point to point along the coast railways to
meet, as far as possible, the needs of the military situation.
Heavy artillery, wrote Adams, though the most formidable implement of
modern warfare, had the disadvantage of requiring many horses to draw
it. So the problem arose as to how the horses could be dispensed with.
This could best be done, he thought, by putting artillery on "our true
line of defence,--our rails," and having it drawn, or propelled, by a
locomotive. "Mount," he said, "a gun of twenty tons weight on a railway
truck, with a circular traversing platform, and capable of throwing
a shot or shell weighing one hundred to one and a half a distance of
five miles. A truck on eight wheels would carry this very easily, and
there would be no recoil." Such a battery would be "practically a
moving fortress," and, used on the coast railways, which he regarded as
constituting lines of defence, would be "the cheapest of all possible
fortresses--absolutely a continuous fortress along the whole coast."
Communication with coast railways at all strategical points should,
however, be facilitated by the placing of rails along the ordinary
highways. After giving some technical details as to the construction
alike of coast railways and road tramways, he proceeded:--
With these roads communicating with the railroads, the whole
railway system becomes applicable to military purposes.
The railway system is so especially adapted for defence, and
so little adapted to invaders, that it should become at once a
matter of experiment how best to adapt Armstrong or other guns
to its uses. The process of fitting the engines with shot-proof
walls to protect the drivers against riflemen would be very
easy.... Nothing but artillery could damage the engines or
moving batteries, and artillery could not get near them if it
were desirable to keep out of the way.
One gun transportable would do the work of ten which are
fixtures in forts, and there would be no men to take prisoners,
for no forts would be captured.
The more this system is thought of the more the conviction
will grow that it is the simplest mode of rendering the country
impenetrable to invaders at a comparatively trifling cost.
It will be seen that the scheme here proposed included three separate
propositions--(1) the use of railways, as "engines of war," for coast
defence; (2) the mounting of Armstrong or other guns on railway trucks
from which they could be discharged for the purposes of such defence;
and (3) the providing of the engines with "shot-proof walls" for the
protection of the drivers. A similar protection for the men operating
the guns on the trucks was not then, apparently, considered necessary;
but we have here what was clearly the germ of the "armoured train."
Among the other suggestions advanced on the same occasion were some for
the employment of railways in general for strategical purposes, and more
especially for the defence of London; and here, again, the employment of
armoured trains was advocated.
"A Staff Officer," writing in _The Times_ of July 16, 1860, declared
that the most efficacious and the most economical line of defence which
London could have would be a circular railway forming a complete cordon
around the Metropolis at a distance of fifteen miles from the centre,
and having for its interior lines of operation the numerous railways
already existing within that radius. On this circular railway there
should be "Armstrong and Whitworth ordnance mounted on large iron-plated
trucks" fitted with traversing platforms in the way already recommended
by W. Bridges Adams, the trucks themselves, however, and not only the
locomotives, being protected by "shot-proof shields." The circular
railway was to be constructed primarily for strategical purposes; but
during peace the line would be available for ordinary traffic, and in
this way it could be made to yield at least some return on the capital
expenditure.
The writer of this letter, Lieut. Arthur Walker, then an officer of the
79th Highlanders and the holder of a staff appointment at the School
of Musketry, Fleetwood, followed up the subject by reading a paper
on "Coast Railways and Railway Artillery" at a meeting of the Royal
United Service Institution on January 30, 1865.[12] On this occasion
he specially advocated the use of "moveable batteries" for coast
defence in conjunction with railways constructed more or less within
a short parallel distance of the entire coast line. Field artillery,
he recommended, should be mounted on a truck the sides of which would
be "encased in a cuirass of sufficient thickness," while the engine
and tender would also be "protected by an iron cuirass, and placed
between two cupolas for further protection." He considered that "to
attempt to land in face of such an engine of war as this would be simply
impossible." Moving batteries of this kind would be "the cheapest of
all possible fortresses.... We have nothing to do but to improvise
well-adapted gun-carriages for our rails." At the same meeting Mr. T.
Wright, C.E., gave details of a proposed railway train battery for
coast, frontier and inland defence which was designed to carry ten,
twenty or forty guns or mortars.
Another early advocate of the use of railways as an actual instrument
of warfare was Colonel E. R. Wethered, who, in 1872, wrote to the War
Office suggesting that heavy ordnance should be mounted on wheeled
carriages so constructed that they could be moved along any of the
railways, from point to point. In this way the three-fold advantage
would be gained of (1) utilising the railway system for purposes of
national defence; (2) rendering possible a concentration of artillery
with overwhelming force at any given spot, and, (3) by the use of these
moveable carriages for the conveyance of the guns, exposing the men to
less risk.
Colonel Wethered further communicated to _The Times_ of May 25, 1877,
a letter on "Portable Batteries" in which he declared that if, before
an enemy could effect a landing, we were to provide the means of
concentrating, with unerring certainty, on any given points of the
coast, a crushing force of artillery, with guns of heavier calibre than
even the warships of the invader could command, it would be impossible
for the vessels of an invading force to approach near enough to effect
the landing of their men. He continued:--
My proposal is to take the full advantage which our railway
system, in connection with our insular position, affords, and
provide powerful moveable batteries which can be sent fully
equipped in fighting order direct by railway to any required
point; and the recent experimental trials of the 81-ton gun
have proved that the heaviest ordnance can be moved and fought
on railway metals with considerable advantage.... In connection
with our present main lines of railway, which probably would
require strengthening at certain points, I would construct
branch lines or sidings leading to every strategical point
of our coast and into every fort, as far as possible, with
requisite platforms.... These branch lines during peace would,
doubtless, be of some small commercial value.... I would mount
as many of our heaviest guns as practicable on railway gun
carriages so that they could be moved by rail from one face of a
front to another, and from one place to another.
He also recommended that guns thus mounted, fully equipped, and ready
for use, should be kept at three large central depôts which might be
utilised for the defence of London. At each of them he would station (1)
Militia and Volunteer Artillery able not only to work the guns but to
construct, repair or destroy railway lines, and (2) a locomotive corps
specially trained in the working of traffic under war conditions.
By reading a paper at the Royal United Service Institution on April
24, 1891, on "The Use of Railways for Coast and Harbour Defence,"[13]
Lieut. E. P. Girouard, R.E. (now Major-General Sir E. Percy C. Girouard,
K.C.M.G.), made what was, at that time, an important contribution to a
subject on which there was then still much to be learned. Sketching a
detailed scheme comprising the employment of all the coastal railways
for the purposes of national defence, he emphasised the value of
Britain's "enormous railway power" as the strong point of her defensive
position, whether regarded from the point of view of (1) railway mileage
open as compared with the square mile of coastal area to be defended,
or (2) the length of coast line compared with the railway mileage at or
near that coast line, and, therefore, locally available for its defence.
"Why," he asked, "should we not turn to account the enormous advantage
which our great railway power gives us to concentrate every available
gun at a threatened point in the right and the proper time, which the
proper utilisation of our railways can and will do, thereby practically
doubling or quadrupling our available gun power?"
Whilst the subject had thus been under discussion in the United Kingdom,
America, in her _Civil War of 1861-65_, had set the rest of the world an
example by actually introducing armoured-protected gun-carrying trucks
into modern warfare.
Writing from Washington, under date August 29, 1862, to Colonel Herman
Haupt, then Chief of Construction and Transportation in the Department
of Rappahannock, Mr. P. H. Watson, Assistant-Secretary of War,
said:--"An armour-clad car, bullet proof, and mounting a cannon, has
arrived here and will be sent down to Alexandria." A later message, on
the same date added:--"After you see the bullet-proof car, let me know
what you think of it. I think you ought at once to have a locomotive
protected by armour. Can you have the work done expeditiously and well
at Alexandria, or shall I get it done at Philadelphia or Wilmington?"
The car was duly received; but Haupt's comments in respect to it, as
recorded in his "Reminiscences," show that he was not greatly impressed
by the innovation. "P. H. Watson, Assistant-Secretary of War, sent me,"
he says, "an armour-clad, bullet-proof car, mounting a cannon. The
kindness was appreciated, but the present was an elephant. I could not
use it, and, being in the way, it was finally side-tracked on an old
siding in Alexandria."
It would seem, however, that other armour-clad cars were brought into
actual use during the course of the Civil War.
In the _Railway Age Gazette_ (Chicago) for January 22, 1915, Mr.
Frederick Hobart, associated editor of the New York _Engineer and Mining
Journal_, writes, from personal knowledge, of two armoured cars which
were in use in the Civil War. One of these, formed by heavy timbers
built up on a flat car, was put together in the shops of the Atlantic
and North Carolina Railroad Company at Newberne, N.C., in 1862, about
two months after the city had been captured by the Burnside expedition.
The armour consisted of old rails spiked on the outside of the planking
composing the sides and front of the car. Along the sides there were
slits for musketry fire, and at the front end there was a port hole
covered with a shutter behind which a gun from one of the field
batteries was mounted. The second car was similarly constructed, but was
armed with a naval howitzer. The cars were run ahead of the engine, and
were used in reconnoitring along the railroad line west of Newberne. Mr.
Hobart adds that he was quite familiar with the cars, having assisted in
the design and construction of both.
In the _Century Magazine_ for September, 1887 (page 774), there is given
an illustration ("from a photograph") of an armour-clad car described as
"the Union Railroad Battery" which was, apparently, used in connection
with the springing of the mine in front of Petersburg on July 30, 1864.
The car is shown to have consisted of a low truck with, at one end, a
sloping armour plate coming down almost to the rails, and having a hole
through which the gun placed behind it on the truck could be fired. The
sides of the truck were protected from the top of the sloping armour
downwards, but the back was open. The car was, of course, designed to be
pushed in front of the locomotive.
Mr. L. Lodian, also, contributed to the issue of the American
periodical, _Railway and Locomotive Engineering_, for May, 1915, a
communication, under the title of "The Origin of Armoured Railroad
Cars Unquestionably the Product of the American Civil War," in which,
claiming that "our own Civil War" originated those cars, he said:--
Attached is a picture of one in use on the old
Philadelphia-Baltimore Railroad. The illustration appeared in
Frank Leslie's illustrated periodical on May 18, 1864. No better
proof could be furnished of the authenticity of the fact that
such a car was in use at that time.... There appears to be no
great variation even to-day in armoured car design from the
initial effort of half a century ago. Pictures are appearing
in numerous periodicals, at the period of writing, of those in
use by the European belligerents, and in general appearance
and outline they are about the same as the original, the chief
variation in their use being that the war-going locomotive is
also sheathed in armour, whereas that in use in the sixties was
entirely unprotected, except in front, and then only by reason
of the mailclad car being placed in front to do the fighting.
As against this suggestion, there is the undoubted fact that in the
American Civil War the plan was adopted of having the locomotives
of ordinary troop or supply trains protected by armour-plating as a
precaution against attack when there was no armoured car in front of
them. Writing to the Director of Military Railroads on October 8, 1862,
Haupt said:--
I have been thinking over the subject of locomotives. It
is one which, at the present time, and in view of the future
requirements of the service, demands especial attention.
Experience has shown that on engines men are targets for
the enemy; the cabs where they are usually seated have been
riddled by bullets, and they have only escaped by lying on the
footboard. It will be necessary to inspire confidence in our men
by placing iron cabins (bullet proof) upon all or nearly all our
engines, and the necessity will increase as we penetrate further
into the enemy's country.
Again, it is desirable that the smaller and more delicate
portions of the apparatus should be better protected than at
present, and I would be pleased if you would give to the plans,
of which I spoke to you recently, a careful consideration. It
seems to me that they are peculiarly well adapted to military
service.
Haupt adds that "protected locomotives and bullet-proof cabs were soon
after provided, as recommended"; and elsewhere in his "Reminiscences" he
says, on the same subject:--
The bullet-proof cabs on locomotives were very useful--in
fact, indispensable. I had a number of them made and put on
engines, and they afforded protection to engineers and firemen
against the fire from guerillas from the bushes that lined the
road.
In the _Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71_ guns mounted on four
armour-plated trucks, fitted up in the workshops of the Orléans Company,
under the supervision of M. Dupuy de Lorme, Engineer-in-Chief for Naval
Construction, were taken into action on four occasions during the siege
of Paris, namely, at Choisy-le-Roi, for the sortie preceding the one
from Champigny; near Brie-sur-Marne, to support the Champigny sortie;
at Le Bourget, for one of the attempts to recapture that position; and
at La Malmaison, to support the Montretout sortie. The wagons were
protected by a covering which consisted of five plates of wrought
iron, each two-fifths of an inch thick, and giving, therefore, a total
thickness of two inches. The two engines used were also protected by
armour-plating. One or two of the wagons were struck by field-gun shells
without, however, sustaining further damage than the denting of their
plates. The engines escaped damage altogether. On going into action the
armoured wagons were followed by another bullet-proof engine conveying a
party of men with tools and materials to repair any interruption of the
lines that might interfere with the return of the trains; but the only
damage done was so slight that it was remedied in about a quarter of an
hour.[14]
Further use was made of armoured trains in the _Egyptian Campaign of
1882_. One that was put together to assist in the defensive works at
Alexandria is declared in the official history of the campaign[15] to
have "proved most serviceable." Two of the trucks, fitted with iron
plating and sand bags as a protecting cover, carried one Nordenfelt and
two Gatling guns. A 9-pr. was also placed on one of the trucks, together
with a crane by means of which it could be lowered out immediately.
Other trucks, rendered bullet proof by sand bags and boiler-plating,
and carrying a force of 200 bluejackets, with small arms, completed the
fighting force. On July 28, the train took part in a reconnaissance sent
out to ascertain the extent of the damage which had been done to the
railway lines near Arabi's outpost. Shots were fired at the train by the
enemy, but without effect. The reconnaissance was a complete success
inasmuch as it enabled such repairs to be done to the railway as gave
the use of a second line between Ramleh and Alexandria.
So useful had the train been found that it was now further improved
by adding to it a 40-pr. on a truck protected by an iron mantlet. The
locomotive was put in the middle of the train and was itself protected
by sand bags and railway iron. Thus strengthened, the train went into
action in the reconnaissance in force carried out from Alexandria
on August 5, and "the most interesting incident of the engagement,"
according to the official account, "was the good service done by the
40-pr. from the armoured train."
Early in the morning of September 13 the train, consisting of five
wagons, and having, on this occasion, one Krupp gun and one Gatling in
addition to the 40-pr., was sent to support the attack on Tel el-Kebir.
It was followed by another train having 350 yards of permanent-way
materials, with all the necessary tools and appliances for the prompt
carrying out of any repairs that might be necessary. Owing, however, to
the hazy and uncertain light and to the ever-increasing clouds of smoke
that hung over the battle-field, it was impossible to fire the 40-pr.
In the futile attempt made in 1885 to construct a railway from Suakin
to Berber, in support of the _Nile Expedition of 1884-85_, resort was
had to an armoured train for the purpose of protecting the line from
the constant attacks to which it was subjected by the enemy. The train
carried a 20-pr. B.L., which could be fired only either in prolongation
of the line or at a slight angle from it.
At the Camp of Exercise in _Delhi_ in January, 1886, some important
experiments were carried out with a view to testing the practicability
of firing guns at right angles to an ordinary line of railway, the
result being to establish the fact that a 40-pr. R.B.L. could be fired
with perfect safety broadside from (_a_) small empty wagons mounted
on four wheels; (_b_) small empty wagons weighted up to four tons;
and (_c_) empty eight-wheel bogies. These experiments were especially
successful when account is taken of the fact that no attempt was made to
reduce in any way the energy of recoil.
Other experiments, begun in 1885, were successfully conducted during a
succession of years both by the French Government and by private firms
in _France_ in the transport and the firing of guns from railway trucks
with a view to obtaining definite data on the subject, more especially
in relation to firing at right angles to the line.
In _Italy_ a distinguished officer raised the question in the Italian
Parliament, in 1891, as to whether Sicily should not be defended by
means of a coast railway and armoured trains.
Some experiments carried out at _Newhaven, Sussex_, in 1894, were the
more interesting because the results attained were due to the combined
efforts of Artillery Volunteers and of the London, Brighton and South
Coast Railway Company.
Under the Volunteer mobilization scheme of 1891 there were some 300
members of the 1st Sussex Artillery Volunteers to whom no special
duties had been allotted, and there happened to be, at Shoreham, a
40-pr. Armstrong B.L. gun which was then serving no particular purpose.
Inspired by these two facts, the Secretary of the Committee for National
Defence suggested, in November, 1891, that negotiations should be opened
with the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Company with a view
to their mounting the 40-pr. on a specially prepared truck, designed
to form part of an armoured train, experiments in firing the gun from
the truck--in order to test the efficiency of this expedient for the
purposes of coast defence--being afterwards carried out by the Artillery
Volunteers whose services were available for the purpose.
On being approached, the directors of the railway company readily
consented to the fitting up of the truck being carried out at their
engineering and carriage works; they contributed towards the expenses,
and members of their staff entered with great cordiality into the
scheme, Mr. R. J. Billington, the locomotive superintendent, being the
first to suggest the mounting of the gun on a turntable to be fixed on
the truck,--a "bold departure," as it was regarded at the time, and one
expected to produce excellent results. The railway staff were the more
interested, also, in the proposed experiments because a large proportion
of the members of the 1st Sussex Artillery Volunteers consisted of men
employed at the Brighton Company's works.
In commenting upon these facts, Col. Charles Gervaise Boxall, the
commanding officer, said in a paper on "The Armoured Train for Coast
Defence," read by him at a meeting of officers and N.C.O.'s of the
Brigade, held at Newhaven Fort, Sussex, on May 14, 1894:--
When one considers that a railway company is neither
a philanthropic institution nor a patriotic society, the
generous support given to this experiment by so powerful a
body as the directors of the London, Brighton and South Coast
Railway Company is in itself some considerable evidence of
the importance they themselves ascribe to this effort in the
direction of the maintenance of coast defence and protection
from invasion.
Preliminary experiments with the gun were conducted on May 5, 1894,
and they conclusively showed, Col. Boxall said, "that the gun will
require no traversing to correct variation caused by the recoil, while
the muzzle of the gun can be directed to any part of its circumference
by handspike traversing within half a minute." He was evidently proud
of the results even of these preliminary trials. They were the first
occasion on which a heavy gun had been fired broadside on the permanent
way of an English railway, and the truck was the first armour-plated one
on which a turntable, a recoil cylinder, and other inventions introduced
had been employed. So, he further declared:--
We do confidently submit that, having proved that such a
gun as this can be mounted so as to be transportable to any
part of our railway system at a moment's notice, brought into
action, and fired with accuracy either end on, broadside, or in
any other direction, without danger of capsizing, and without
injury to the permanent way, we have become pioneers of a new
departure in artillery which must lead to results of the highest
importance.
This was written prior to the full trials, which took place at Newhaven
on May 19, 1894, in the presence of a distinguished company of military
men and others. An account of the event will be found in _The Times_
of May 21, 1894. The gun and its carriage are described as standing on
a turntable platform pivoted on the centre of the truck, and revolving
on a central "racer." The gun detachments were protected by a plating
six feet high round three sides of the turntable, and the gun was fired
through an aperture in the plating. Drawn by an ordinary locomotive,
the truck on which the gun was mounted was accompanied by two carriages
conveying the Volunteer Artillerymen who were to serve the gun. Several
rounds were fired at a target some 2,500 yards distant, and "the
armoured train passed through the searching and severe ordeal most
successfully, the jar caused being so slight that a stone placed on the
rails remained unmoved by the firing." The truck, it is further stated,
had been provided with some cross girders which could be run out and
supported on blocks in order to secure a broad base when the gun was
fired at right angles to the line, and there was a further arrangement
for connecting the truck to the rails by strong clips; but the truck
remained sufficiently steady without any need for making use of these
appliances.
Finally, as will be told more fully in Chapter XVI, the _South African
Campaign of 1899-1902_ definitely established the usefulness of armoured
trains as an "instrument of war," and led both to the creation of an
efficient organisation for their employment on the most scientific and
most practical lines and to the establishment of certain principles
in regard to such important matters of detail as uses and purposes,
administration, staff, armament, tactics, etc. Published in the
"Detailed History of the Railways in the South African War" which was
issued by the Royal Engineers' Institute, Chatham, in 1905, these
principles were adopted in the _United States_ with modifications to
suit American conditions, and, so modified, are reproduced in Major
William D. Connor's handbook on "Military Railways," forming No. 32
of the Professional Papers of the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army. An
excellent treatment of the subject, from a technical point of view,
will be found in a paper, by Capt. H. O. Nance, on "Armoured Trains,"
published, with photographs and drawings, in "Papers of the Corps of
Royal Engineers," Fourth Series, Vol. I., Paper 4 (Chatham, 1906).
FOOTNOTES:
[12] _See_ the "Journal of the Royal United Service Institution" Vol.
IX., pp. 221-31, 1865.
[13] "Journal of the Royal United Service Institution," Vol. XXXV., 1891.
[14] For detailed description, with diagrams, of the trains here in
question, _see_ "Armour-plated Railway Wagons used during the late
Sieges of Paris," by Lieut. Fraser, R.E. Papers of the Corps of Royal
Engineers, N.S., Vol. XX, 1872.
[15] "Military History of the Campaign of 1882 in Egypt." Prepared by
the Intelligence Branch of the War Office. Revised edition. London, 1908.