Part 16

“But we cannot turn even from this very brief consideration of the improvements in modern cannon without offering a few observations relative to an invention of a different kind, but one that may possibly prove of greater moment than either of the guns that have been described. This is the composition known as ‘Norton’s liquid fire.’ In the terrific character of its effect it rivals all that has been recorded of the old Greek fire; at the same time it is perfectly manageable, and may be projected from an Enfield rifle, from a field-piece, or from heavier ordnance. The composition Captain Norton uses consists of a chemical combination of sulphur, carbon, and phosphorus. He merely encloses this in a metal or even in a wooden shell, and its effect upon striking the side or sails of a ship, a wooden building, or indeed any object at all combustible, is to cause its instant ignition. This ‘liquid fire’ has apparently the property of penetrating or of saturating any substance against which it may be projected, and such is its affinity for oxygen that it even decomposes water and combines with its component oxygen. Water, consequently, has no power to quench it, and if burning canvas, set on fire in this way, be trodden under foot and apparently extinguished it soon bursts again into flames.”

It is not uninteresting to reflect that although Norton’s liquid fire came to nothing, yet the present century has already seen three variations on the idea.

The first instance is the type of big shell used by the Japanese at Tsushima. Little is known as to their exact composition, but they were undoubtedly extremely inflammable. Captain Semenoff in “The Battle of Tsushima” thus describes them:--

“The Japanese had apparently succeeded in realising what the Americans had endeavoured to attain in inventing their ‘Vesuvium.’

“In addition to this there was the unusual high temperature and liquid flame of the explosion, which seemed to spread over everything. I actually watched a steel plate catch fire from a burst. Of course, the steel did not burn, but the paint on it did. Such almost non-combustible materials as hammocks, and rows of boxes, drenched with water, flared up in a moment. At times it was impossible to see anything with glasses, owing to everything being so distorted with the quivering, heated air.

* * * * *

“According to thoroughly trustworthy reports, the Japanese in the battle of Tsushima were the first to employ a new kind of explosive in their shells, the secret of which they bought during the war from the inventor, a colonel in one of the South American Republics. It was said that these shells could only be used in guns of large calibre in the armoured squadrons, and that is how those of our ships engaged with Admiral Kataoka’s squadron did not suffer the same amount of damage, or have so many fires, as the ships engaged with the battleships and armoured cruisers.”

The second instance is the Krupp fire shell designed for use against dirigible balloons. The third is the “Thermite shell,” which, early in 1912, was proposed for adoption in France. It was calculated that one 12-inch A.P. shell exploding would melt half a ton of steel.

The following passage from Hans Busk is of interest:--

“In 1855 Mr. Longridge, C.E., proposed to construct cannon of tubes covered with wire wound round them so tightly as almost entirely to relieve the inside from strain. On the 25th of June of the same year Mr. Mallet read a paper advocating the construction of cannon of successive layers of cylinders, so put together that all should be equally strained when the gun is fired; thus the inside would not be subject to fracture, while the outside would be useless as in a cast mass. His method of effecting this was, as is well known, to have each cylinder slightly too small to go over the one under it till expanded by heat, so that when cool it compresses the interior and is slightly strained itself. Thirty-six-inch mortars have been made on the principle, and if they have failed with 40lbs. of powder, cast-iron must have failed still less. In 1856 Professor Daniel Treadwell, Vice-President of the American Academy, read a paper to that body recommending the same principle of construction; and Captain Blakely has himself for some years been endeavouring to urge its adoption by argument and direct experiments. In December, 1857, some trials were made with guns constructed by that officer; and the result of a comparative trial of a 9-pounder with a cast-iron service gun of similar size and weight gave results proving the soundness of his views; for Captain Blakely’s gun bore about double the amount of firing the service gun did, and being then uninjured, was loaded to the muzzle, and was thus fired 158 times before it burst.”

From these contemporary extracts it will be seen that by 1859 the germ of nearly every modern idea in connection with gunnery existed, and has since developed somewhat on “trial and error” lines for at any rate the greater part of the intervening period.

The contemporary situation as regards defence is also best summed up from the authority from whom the above gunnery extracts are taken:--

“The result of numerous trials appeared to convince those best competent to judge of such matters that iron plates, or, rather, slabs, eleven centimetres (about 4½ins.) in thickness, would offer adequate protection to a ship from the effects of hollow shot. Acting upon this impression, four floating batteries, resembling in most respects those constructed here, were ordered to be built, and notwithstanding the enormous difficulties connected with such an undertaking, these four vessels were turned out, complete in all respects, in ten months--an astonishing instance of the resources of French dockyards and the ability of French engineers.

“From this event may be dated the commencement of a new epoch in naval tactics. The next problem was to determine whether a form better adapted for progression than that of these batteries could not be given to vessels sheathed in a similar manner. Hence originated the iron-plated frigates (_frégates blindées_). The intention of their designer is, that they should have a speed and an armament at least equal to that of the swiftest existing frigates, but their colossal weight, and consequently their great draught of water, must almost preclude the fulfilment of this expectation. Should they prove successful, a number of larger ships of the same kind are to be commenced forthwith. It is difficult to understand how, in the case of these ships being found to answer, it will be possible for us to avert a real “reconstruction” of our Navy, or, how any other nation, aiming to rank as a maritime Power, can avoid the adoption of a similar course. In fact, the necessity has been appreciated, and we are already at work. But a good deal has to be accomplished ere the use of such vessels become universal. If these iron-plated vessels do resist shell, it seems certain, as has been already stated, that solid shot will either perforate at short ranges any thickness of metal that has yet been tried, or will so indent the sheathing at longer distances that the internal lining and rib-work of oak will be riven, shattered, loosened, or crushed to an extent that would almost as speedily put the ship _hors de combat_ as if she had but been built after the old fashion, much, as in days gone by, upon the introduction of gunpowder into warfare, the use of armour was found rather to aggravate, than to ward off, the injuries inflicted by gunshot. It was the result of the operations against Kinburn that more particularly gave rise to the high opinion at present entertained in favour of these _vaisseaux blindées_. Unwieldy and cumbersome as they appeared, they were certainly a great improvement upon the floating batteries used by the French and Spanish against Gibraltar in 1782. Those were merely enormous hulks, destitute of masts, sails, or rigging; their sides were composed of solid carpentry, 6ft. 6ins. in thickness, and they carried from nine to twenty-four guns. When in action, streams of water were made to flow constantly over their decks and sides, but notwithstanding every precaution, such an overwhelming storm of shell and red-hot shot was poured upon them by the English garrison that they were all speedily burnt. Not so the _Devastation_, _La Lave_, and _La Tonnante_ before the Russian fortress above mentioned, on the memorable 14th October, 1855. At 9 p.m. they opened fire, and in an hour and twenty-five minutes the enemy was silenced, nearly all the gunners being killed, their pieces dismounted, and all the ramparts themselves being for the most part demolished. To accomplish this destruction in so short a space of time, the three batteries, each carrying eighteen fifty pounders (supported, of course, by the fire of the English vessels), advanced in very shallow water within 800 yards of the walls, receiving themselves very little damage in comparison with the immense havoc they occasioned.”

From the above extract it is clear that the “impenetrable coat of mail” idea, popularly supposed to have led to the introduction of ironclads, never existed to any appreciable extent. Indeed, when the Committee, alluded to on an earlier page, concluded its labours in 1859, it merely recommended the conversion of nineteen more sailing ships into steamers. It was Sir John Pakington who decided to lay down a couple of “armoured steam frigates,” and to build them of iron instead of wood.

The French _frégates blindées_ were wooden ships, armoured. John Scott Russell is said to have been Pakington’s chief adviser in this matter of building iron armoured ships and disregarding all the laborious conclusions of Captain Chads against iron hulls.

As regards the general recommendations of the committee already referred to, these had resulted in 1861 in there being no less than sixty-seven wooden unarmoured ships of the line building or converting into “screw ships.”

The two iron-plated steam frigates were decided on without any popular enthusiasm concerning them. Now and again retired Admirals paid surreptitious visits to the French “_blindées_” and returned with alarming reports; but, with the possible exception of flying machines, no epoch-making thing ever came in quite so quietly as the ironclad. The wildest dreamer saw nothing in it beyond a variation on existing types. The ironclad was something which, by carrying a great deal of weight, could keep out shell; beyond that no one seems to have had any particular ideals whatever, except perhaps Sir Edward Reed.

Early in 1859 designs for a type of ship to “answer” the French _frégates blindées_ were called for, and fourteen private firms submitted designs. All, however, were discarded.

Details of the designs submitted were as follows:[90]--

=============+=======+=======+==========+======+======+======+====== |Length.|Breadth|Displ’m’t.|Speed.|Wt. of|Wt. of|I.H.P. Designer. | | | Tons. |Knots.|Armour| Hull | of | | | | |Displ.|Displ.| Eng. -------------+-------+-------+----------+------+------+------+------ Laird | 400.0 | 60.0 | 9779 |13½ | .11 | .51 | 3250 Thames Co. | 430.0 | 60.0 | 11180 | | .10 | .58 | 4000 Mare | 380.0 | 57.0 | 7341 | | .13 | .46 | 3000 Scott Russell| 385.0 | 58.0 | 7256 | | .18 | .38 | 3000 Napier | 365.0 | 56.0 | 8000 |13½ | | | 4120 Westwood & | | | | | | | Baillie | 360.0 | 55.0 | 7600 |13½ | .16 | .36 | 4000 Samuda | 382.0 | 55.0 | 8084 |13½ | .16 | .57 | 2500 Palmer | 340.0 | 58.0 | 7690 |13½ | | | 4500 Abethell | 336.0 | 57.0 | 7668 | | | | 2500 Henwood | 372.0 | 52.0 | 6507 | | .18 | .40 | 2500 Peake | 354.9 | 56.0 | 7000 | | .14 | .46 | 3000 Chatfield | 343.6 | 59.6 | 7791 | | .14 | | Lang | 400.0 | 55.0 | 8511 |15 | .14 | .53 | 2500 Cradock | 360.0 | 57.6 | 7724 | | .20 | .42 | 2500 Admiralty | | | | | | | Office | 380.0 | 58.0 | 8625 |14 | | | =============+=======+=======+==========+======+======+======+======

The Abethell and Peake designs were wooden hulled, all the others iron ships.

The two ships, _Warrior_ and _Black Prince_, as actually laid down, differed from the Admiralty design in certain details. The beam was increased slightly, and the displacement rose from 8625 to 9210.

The _Warrior_ was laid down on the 25th May, 1859, at the Thames Ironworks, Blackwall; the _Black Prince_ a little later at Glasgow.

In substances they were ordinary “wooden frigates,” built of iron instead of wood, with armour to protect most (but not all) of the guns. This was done by a patch of armour amidships, covering about 60% of the side. It was deemed advisable to protect the engines; otherwise as like as not the armour would have been over the battery only. Waterline protection was entirely unrealised, the steering gear of the _Warrior_ being at the mercy of the first lucky shot.

This, as Sir N. Barnaby has pointed out, was due to accepting existing conditions:--

“The tiller was necessarily above the water-line and was outside of the cover of the armour. The wooden line-of-battle ships, with which the designers of these first iron-cased ships were familiar, had required no special water-line protection, and when wheel ropes or tiller were shot away the ship did not cease to be able to fight. The line-of-battle ships, which they knew so well, had a lower, or gun deck about four feet above the water-line, and an orlop deck about three feet below the water-line. Between these two decks the ship’s sides were stouter than in any other part, and shot did not easily perforate them. When a shot did enter there, between wind and water, as it was called, ample provision was made to prevent the serious admission of water.

“In this between-deck space the sides of the ship were kept free from all erections or obstructions. The ‘wing passages’ on the orlop were clear, from end to end of the ship, and they were patrolled by the carpenter’s crew, who were provided with shot plugs of wood and oakum and sail cloth with which to close any shot holes. As against disabled steering gear there were spare tillers and tiller ropes, and only injury to the rudder head itself was serious.”

It is easy to-day to indicate where the old-time designers erred; and later on they realised and repaired their error with commendable promptitude. The really interesting point is that British designers evolved the ideal thing for the day, while the French evolved the idea of the ideal thing for the to-morrow. Unhappily for the latter, their evolution was unable to survive its birth till the day of its utility. _La Gloire_, the first French ironclad, was broken up more years ago than any can remember; the _Warrior_ and the _Black Prince_, though long ago reduced to hulk service,[91] still float as sound as when in 1861 the _Warrior_ first took the water. To the French belongs the honour of realising what armour protection might mean; but to England goes the credit of reducing the idea to practical application.

The _Warrior_ was designed by Messrs. Scott Russell and Isaac Watts, the Chief Constructor. Her length between perpendiculars was 380 feet. She carried originally a uniform armament of forty-eight 68-pounders smooth bores, weighing 95cwt. each. These fired shell and cast-iron spherical shot. The guns were carried as follows:--Main deck, thirty-eight, of which twelve were not protected by armour. On the upper-deck, ten, also unprotected.

This armament was subsequently changed to two 110-pounder rifled Armstrongs on pivot mountings, and four 40-pounders on the upper-deck; while the main-deck battery was reduced to thirty-four guns. At a later date it was again altered to four 8-inch 9-ton M.L.R., and twenty-eight 7-inch 6½-ton M.L.R.

In addition to her armour the _Warrior_ was divided into 92 watertight compartments, fore and aft. She had a double bottom amidships, considerably subdivided (fifty-seven of the compartments), but no double bottom in the modern sense.

The _Warrior’s_ engines, by Penn, were horizontal single expansion. On trial they developed 5,267 I.H.P., and the then excellent speed of 14.079 knots.[92] Her six hours’ sea speed trial resulted in a mean 5,092 H.P. and 13.936 knots.

Save for her unprotected steering gear, the _Warrior_ may be described as a brilliant success for her era. She was launched on December 29th, 1860, and completed in the following year. The _Black Prince_ was completed in 1862.

The _Warrior_ and _Black Prince_, under a system which long endured in the British Navy, were followed by a certain number of diminutives, of which the first were the _Defence_ and _Resistance_, of 6,150 tons, with speeds of just under 12 knots, and an armament of 16 guns. The armour was the same, but the battery protection was extended fore and aft, so that all guns were inside it. These ships were completed in 1862.

Three more ships were projected, of which the _Hector_ and _Valiant_, completed in 1864 and 1865, were of precisely the same type as the _Resistance_, but displaced 6,710 tons, with about a knot more speed, and carried a couple of extra guns.

A third ship, originally intended to have been of the same class, was the _Achilles_, but, mainly owing to the influence of Mr. Reed (of whom more anon), who pointed out the danger of unprotected steering gear, her design was altered and a complete belt of 4½-inch armour given to her instead of a partial one.

Those changes in the design, together with an increased horse-power which produced on trial 14.32 knots, advanced the displacement of the _Achilles_ to 9,820 tons, while the armament was brought up to fourteen 12-ton guns and two 6½-ton. The weight of armour was 1,200 tons.

The _Achilles_, like many another ship that was to follow her, was the “last word” of her own day. No expense was spared in seeking to secure a maximum of efficiency in her. As originally completed she was a ship-rigged vessel, but with a view to improving her sailing efficiency, this was subsequently altered to a four-masted rig, which proved so little successful that eventually she reverted to three masts again.

In the meantime the authorities were so pleased with the _Achilles_ that three improved editions of her were designed. They were not completed until a new type of ship, which was completed before they were, replaced them; but chronologically they followed close upon the _Achilles_. They were laid down in 1861, and designed by Isaac Watts. They were named _Agincourt_, _Minotaur_, and _Northumberland_. They differed in minor details, but in substance were all about 1,000 tons more than the _Achilles_, and their increased displacement mostly went in one inch extra armour protection (5½-inch against 4½-inch).

As originally designed they were intended to mount seven 12-ton and twenty 9-ton guns, but at a very early date the first two were given a uniform armament of seventeen 12-ton. A small portion of this armament of the upper deck was provided with armoured protection for right-ahead fire.

In appearance they were magnificent ships, fitted with five masts. Being 400 feet between perpendiculars they were the largest ships of their time, and at sea always proved very steady under both sail and steam.

These ships were the subject of violent disputes between the Controller of the Navy and their constructor. The Controller insisted that they were extravagantly large ships, as compared to French ships. The constructor insisted that it was essential that for any given power and protection a British ship must be larger than a foreign one, because of her more extended probable duties, and the consequent necessity of a larger coal supply.[93]

At and about this period there were a number of wooden ships-of-the-line building, which had been laid down from the year 1859 onwards. Following the French fashion, they were converted into ironclads. These ships, displacing from 6,100 to 6,830 tons, were the _Repulse_, _Royal Alfred_, _Zealous_ (laid down 1859), _Caledonia_, _Ocean_, _Prince Consort_, _Royal Oak_ (1860).[94]

The upper-decks of these ships were removed, and they were fitted with side armour, which was 4½ inches in the earliest to be treated, and 5½ inches in the latest. All of them carried sixteen 9-ton guns and four 6½-ton, with provision for ahead fire.

The experiment, though useful as a temporary expedient, was very expensive, and several of the ships had to be lengthened before anything could be done to them. None of them were very successful, and most of them disappeared from the Navy List at an early date.

This ends the period of “broadside ironclads”; of the best of which it may be said that they were nothing but efforts to adapt new ideals to old methods.

XI.

THE REED ERA.

In 1862 Mr. (afterwards Sir) E. J. Reed, was appointed Chief Constructor, and proceeded at once to produce the type of ship chiefly associated with his name. His ideals ran in the direction of short, handy ships of medium size, as heavily armed as possible, and with a good turn of speed. His arguments in favour of these ideals he afterwards described as follows:--[95]

“The merits of ironclad ships do not consist in carrying a large proportion of weights to engine-power, or having a high speed in proportion to that power; but rather in possessing great powers of offence and defence, being comparatively short, cheap, and handy, and steaming at a high speed, not in the most economical way possible, but by means of a moderate increase of power on account of the moderate proportions adopted in order to decrease the weight and cost, and to increase the handiness.”

Generally speaking, his views were very revolutionary. The greatness of Sir E. J. Reed lay in the fact that he was the first man to conceive of the ironclad as a separate and distinct entity. Previously to him the ironclad was merely an ordinary steamer with some armour plating on her.

His first ship was the _Bellerophon_, of 7,550 tons displacement. She embodied distinct novelties in the construction of her hull, described by her designer in the following passages:--[95]