painting: sea battleTHE BATTLE OF THE NORE, JUNE 1653, BETWEEN THE ENGLISH AND DUTCH
But his triumph was short-lived. The British eventually got the upper hand, and their claims to the sovereignty of their seas were formally admitted by the Dutch in 1654. Once again the question was fought out in the days of Charles II, and once again the Dutch were compelled to agree to strike their sails to even a single ship flying the King's flag. This was in 1674. Not long before the first Dutch War the Swedes also wished to question British rights. In 1647 Captain Owen of theHenrietta Maria, having with him only theRoebuck, a small craft, with a crew of forty-five men all told, was refused the salute by a fleet of three Swedish men-of-war and nine or ten merchant-vessels off the Isle of Wight. The usual "weighty arguments" were ignored, and the Swedes got away and anchored in Boulogne Roads. Captain Owen was unable to keep in touch with them, as they had shot away his tiller, but he got into Portsmouth and reported the matter, and the Parliament at once ordered theSt. Andrew,Guardland,Convertine, andMary Rose, which were lying in the Downs, to attend to the matter. Captain Batten, of the first-named ship, who was in command, at once put to sea, and found the Swedes still at anchor off Boulogne, but flying no colours at all. Batten sent for the Swedish commanders to come on board—and they came, but declared that if their flagshadbeen up they would not have taken them in, as they had been expressly ordered not to do so. It was rather a difficult situation. Captain Batten, however, dealt with it by ordering the Swedish vice-admiral to "come with him", and took him back to the Downs. He told the remainder to "run away home". However, they followed the English and their prisoners to the Downs, as their commanders said that they dare not go home without the vice-admiral. The affair was then considered by "the Committee of Lords and Commons for the Admiralty and Cinque Ports", who eventually gave an order for the release of the culprit.
Other nations from time to time attempted to exact salutes from foreign ships in certain places, but apparently without much success. Thus the Spanish demanded that a French fleet under the Duke of Guise when passing Gibraltar in 1622 should strike their flags. The Duke refused, though he said that they had told him that British ships were in the habit of doing so, and he asked Sir E. Herbert to write and ask the Duke of Buckingham whether this was true or not. But Herbert smelt a rat; and though he complied with Guise's request, he wrote: "Be well advised what answer you return, for I believe that he intends that the French king should exact the same acknowledgements on the coasts of this country, which you will never permit, as to the prejudice of the sovereignty that the Kings of England have always kept in the narrow seas." As regards the Mediterranean, it was laid down by James II, to prevent disputes with "the most Christian King",[34]"That whensoever His Majesty's ships of war shall meet any French men-of-war in the Mediterranean, there shall no salutes at all pass on either side". William III's orders were—after the usual directions to make foreigners pay the customary salute in the English seas—"And you are further to take notice, that in Their Majesties' Seas, Their Majesties' Ships are in no wise to strike to any; and that in other parts, no ship of Their Majesties' is to strike her flag or top-sail to any foreigner unless such foreigner shall have first struck."
A final incident must bring this chapter to a close. It indicates a slightly farther step towards the evacuation of the original position which we had taken up. This was in the year 1730. Lieutenant Thomas Smith, R.N., happened to be in temporary command of H.M.S.Gosport, which was lying in Plymouth Sound. In came a French frigate, which, either onaccount of ignorance or of design, omitted to strike her top-sails. Smith, having so many precedents to guide him, though possibly not very recent ones, sent the usual intimation by hulling her with a cannon-ball. It was at a time of profound peace, and on the demand of the French ambassador he was tried and dismissed the Service. Plumleigh and Pennington must have turned in their graves! But he was re-appointed to the Navy on the very next day, with the rank of captain, and for the rest of his life was known as "Tom of Ten Thousand".
The old regulations remained in force up to the end of the eighteenth century, but were omitted from those that were published about the Trafalgar period. The orders given by William III for guidance of officers whenoutsideEnglish seas were made universal, so that for some unknown reason we finally abandoned our claims at the very time we were in a better position to enforce them than we had ever been before. The old system rather partook of the way the proverbial Irishman in search of "divarsion" asks "if any gintleman will be good enough to thread on the tail of his coat", but it had its advantages. Had it been now in force it is practically certain that some German commander would have challenged it long before the German fleet had reached its present proportions, after which there would have been no German fleet. Again, there could have been no difficulties with neutral nations about contraband or conditional contraband. As the whole sea from Norway to Finisterre would have been recognized as British, no one could have disputed our right to close it to anybody or anything that suited our book. When it comes to fighting, other nations do not thank us for having played "Uriah Heep" beforehand. It has possibly induced them to fight instead of settling the dispute in some other way.
"Striking the sail" is now a thing of the past, but it is customary for merchant-vessels to "dip" their flags to kings' ships. As for men-of-war, they no longer exchange salutes of this kind when they meet at sea.
The Evolution of Naval Gunnery
"It was great pity, so it was,That villanous salt-petre should be digg'dOut of the bowels of the harmless earth,Which many a good tall fellow had destroy'dSo cowardly; and, but for those vile guns,He would himself have been a soldier."Hotspur describing his meeting with a "popinjay" after a battle.Shakespeare.King Henry IV.Act I, Scene iii.
"Earth and air were badly shakenBy thy humane discovery, Friar Bacon."Byron.Don Juan.VIII, 33.
"The hand-spikes, sponges, rammers, crows,Were well arranged about;And to annoy Old England's foes,The Great Guns were run out."—Old Verses.
"Whoinvented gunpowder?" There is only one definite and reliable answer to this question, and that is that nobody knows. It has been stated, but I think that it may be dismissed as a "galley yarn", that the first mention of artillery is to be found in an account of a naval engagement between the Phœnicians and Iberians in the year 1100B.C.—just eighty-seven years after the siege of Troy.
The Phœnician war-vessels, it is said, came out of Cadiz—or Gades, as it was then called—with what their opponents took to be brazen lions at their bows. These turned out to be some kind of machine from which enormous flames of fire were projected by explosives, to consume and destroy the ships of the Iberians. But the most generally accepted theory now is that gunpowder was invented in China some centuriesbefore the Christian era and gradually found its way to Europe by way of India, Arabia, and Africa. As for the stories that it was invented either by Roger Bacon (1214-92) or by the German monk, Barthold Schwartz, in 1320, they must be certainly rejected, since there is evidence that cannon of some kind were in use long previous to Roger Bacon's birth. Doubtless he wrote something about the composition of gunpowder, but so might anyone to-day. That would not make him its inventor.
Much less, then, can this invention be attributed to the German monk. It is probably correct that, in pounding certain ingredients in a mortar, he nearly blew himself "into the middle of next week"—as very many would-be chemical investigators have done at a much more recent date—and it may be that the sight of his pestle flying through the ceiling suggested to him that a mortar might be made of military use.[35]He may possibly, on this account, be credited with the invention of the muzzle-loading cannon, for it seems probable that the guns in use previous to 1320 were merelycannae, or tubes open at each end. The famous battery of three guns, which is said by some historians to have been used by the English at Crécy, was probably of this kind. Whether the guns were used there or not, it would not have been the first time such weapons made their appearance in European warfare, as seems to be assumed by some writers.
More than 100 years previously cannon were employed by the Moors at the siege of Saragossa, in 1118. The Spaniards were not slow to adopt the invention, and in 1132 they built what is stated to have been a "culverin" throwing a 4-pound shot. "Culverin", which is a term, belonging to Tudor times, for a special type of gun, is evidently used as a general term for "cannon". Like the "Joe Chamberlain" and "Bloody Mary",[36]manned by the Naval Brigade in the Boer War,and other prominent specimens of the gun-maker's art, this first European cannon received a special name. It was christened "Salamonica". I have said that the Spaniards "built" this weapon. I wrote this advisedly, for all the earlier cannon were "built up" of staves of iron, or even wood, strongly hooped together with wrought-iron rings.
It was a long time before cannon were "founded" or "cast", and now, strange to say, we have gone back to the original method of manufacture, which, thanks to modern science and workmanship, has absolutely ousted what was at its inception considered a wonderful advance in the art of cannon-making. The early guns, open at both ends, were probably loaded at the breech, which was then closed by a block of stone or big stake driven into the ground, close to which the gun itself was fixed in some kind of a framework. Such guns are to be seen in a picture in Froissart'sChroniclesrepresenting the siege of Tunis by the Crusaders in 1390, and it is from this that the often-reproduced drawing of the guns said to have been used at Crécy in 1346 would appear to have been taken.
What is said to be the earliest representation of a cannon in England is to be found in a manuscript of 1326 in the Christ Church Library at Oxford. It is of quite a different appearance from those just described. It is in the shape of a fat vase or bottle, and could not well have been a breech-loader. It is loaded with a big "garot" or dart fitted with a wooden haft which seems to fit tightly into the neck of the weird "cannon", which lies on a very rickety looking table. The gunner, clad in what looks like a suit of Crusader's chain-mail, is an unwary person who is holding a lighted match to the touch-hole while standing directly behind the gun. As there is not the slightest indication of anything whatever to stop the recoil, it seems about three to one that the discharge would be more disastrous to him than to the enemy. It is noteworthy that "metal cannons" and "iron balls" wereordered to be made in this same year at Florence, and in 1331vaseappears to have been the usual term for the cannon made in Italy, while in France they were termedpots de fer.
diagram or drawing of old cannon type gunA "Vase" or "Pot-de-fer"The "garot", or heavy dart, to be fired from this early gun was provided with a wooden plug made to fit the bore. The type of "garot" shown on the right was intended to be fired from a large cross-bow on a stand.
A "Vase" or "Pot-de-fer"The "garot", or heavy dart, to be fired from this early gun was provided with a wooden plug made to fit the bore. The type of "garot" shown on the right was intended to be fired from a large cross-bow on a stand.
The "garot", or heavy dart, to be fired from this early gun was provided with a wooden plug made to fit the bore. The type of "garot" shown on the right was intended to be fired from a large cross-bow on a stand.
This brings us to the earliest indication that I can find of the use of guns afloat. It is a document dated 1338, in which Guillaume du Moulin, of Boulogne, acknowledges to have received from Thomas Fouques, the custodian of the enclosure for the King's galleys at Rouen, apot-de-ferto throw "fire garots", together with forty-eight garots in two cases, 1 pound of saltpetre, and ½ pound of sulphur "to make powder to fire the said garots". Now it seems more than probable that thispot-de-ferorvasewas very similar to that in the Oxford manuscript and that it was intended for use afloat, or it would not have been among the stores belonging to the galleys. The recipient being at Boulogne, we mayfairly assume that it was required by him for use on shipboard. "Garots", we know, were very commonly used in naval actions at this date, either thrown by hand from the tops or propelled from espringalds. Moreover, it is evident that the gun open at both ends would be a great source of danger on board ship. The system of breech-closing on shore was singularly rough and ineffective; there must have been nearly as much "back-fire" at the breech as flames from the muzzle. This would be a constant danger afloat, and, unless a fewvaseslike those described were sometimes used, it is probable that cannon were not adopted for sea service until some more regular and effective breech-closing apparatus had been evolved. But for this seamen had not very long to wait.
The progress of gun-making was now proceeding apace, especially in Germany and Flanders. At first, and for some time, there do not seem to have been any what we may call "moderate-sized" cannon, or, at any rate, they are not so much in evidence as the very large ones and the very small ones. The latter were not bigger than very heavy muskets, and it was with weapons of this kind that the many-gunned ships of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth century were principally equipped, though, as time went on, heavier pieces were added. To show how very small these little cannon were, it is only necessary to quote from Monstrelet'sChronicles, in which he tells us that, in 1418: "The Lord of Cornwall . . . crossed the Seine . . . having with him in askiffahorse loaded with small cannons". When one reads of the extraordinary numbers of guns which are said to have been used in some mediæval battles and sieges, one should always bear this passage in mind.
As for the big guns, they were giants when compared with their smaller brothers. Old Froissart, whom I have already quoted more than once, tells of a very notable specimen employed by the "men of Ghent" to attack Oudenarde: "A marvellous great bombarde, which was fifty feet long,and threw great heavy stones of a wonderful bigness; when this bombarde was discharged, it might be heard five leagues by day, and ten at night, making so great a noise in going off, that it seemed as if all the devils in hell were abroad". All traces of this monster have disappeared, but an 18-feet gun of probably an exactly similar type is still to be seen at Ghent—unless the Germans have stolen it. This gun dates from about 1384, and has a bore something like 25 inches in diameter. As perhaps none of us are likely to be in Ghent for some time, we can see a rather smaller but almost duplicate weapon in Edinburgh—the celebrated "Mons Meg". Though she is supposed to have been built 100 years later, it is quite possible that both were turned out at the same manufactory. The Scots gun evidently came from Mons in Flanders, and the Flemish gun is also called "Meg", i.e. theDulle Grieteor "Mad Margery" or "Meg". Another bigger and more handsomely finished gun of the same type, dating from 1464, is to be seen at the Royal Artillery Museum at Woolwich. This is a Turkish piece, and is said to have been "cast", while "Mons Meg" and her sisters are all built-up guns, as can be at once seen on inspection by the most amateur eyes. There are several others on the Continent, notably the two "Michelets" which were left at Mont St. Michael when the siege of that place was abandoned by the English in 1427. The siege began in 1423, so they may date from a good many years earlier. As the English batteries were erected on the Isle of Tombelaine, which is 3000 yards distant from the mount, some idea may be obtained of the distance to which these early cannon could hurl their granite projectiles.
photo children standing by large cannon in a cityPhoto by the AuthorTHEDULLE GRIETEAT GHENTThis gun dates from 1384, and is very similar to the "marvellous great bombard" mentioned by Froissart as employed by the men of Ghent to attack Oudenarde.
Photo by the AuthorTHEDULLE GRIETEAT GHENTThis gun dates from 1384, and is very similar to the "marvellous great bombard" mentioned by Froissart as employed by the men of Ghent to attack Oudenarde.
Photo by the Author
This gun dates from 1384, and is very similar to the "marvellous great bombard" mentioned by Froissart as employed by the men of Ghent to attack Oudenarde.
drawing of a cannonThe Gun with which we won the Great War with FranceObserve the heavy breeching-rope attaching the gun to the ship's side; the tackle and block for running in and out; the wooden wheels, and the "quoins" or wedges for elevating the gun.
The Gun with which we won the Great War with FranceObserve the heavy breeching-rope attaching the gun to the ship's side; the tackle and block for running in and out; the wooden wheels, and the "quoins" or wedges for elevating the gun.
Observe the heavy breeching-rope attaching the gun to the ship's side; the tackle and block for running in and out; the wooden wheels, and the "quoins" or wedges for elevating the gun.
Such cannon were all built up of long rectangular bars of iron upon which heavy rings of the same material were shrunk, the whole weapon, on completion, forming a heavy and extremely tough cylinder of wrought iron. The chambers, or breech-pieces, for the reception of the powder-charge, were built separately, with much thicker sides and smaller bores than the rest of the gun, into which they were screwed. The guns must not, I think, be therefore considered breech-loaders; for though it may be possible that they were screwed in and out at each discharge, I think it more probable that, as they were such heavy masses of metal, the breech-pieces were left screwed up and the charges inserted at the muzzle. But when cannon came to be made of more moderate dimensions—big enough to be effective against walls and the sides of ships, and small enough to be transported with reasonable facility—some system of breech-loading was almost universal. I say "almost", because guns began to be cast in brass in Germany at a comparatively early date, and such guns were probably often muzzle-loaders, since cast brass would not have been strong enough for the breech-closing methods in vogue. These were comparatively simple. The breech of the gun, which was built up much in the same way as Mons Meg and others of the same kidney, terminated in a species of trough. Into this trough fitted an iron cylinder which contained the charge of powder and was called a "chamber". The muzzle of the chamber was bevelled off or turned down so as to fit into the breech end of the bore of the gun itself, and was held in position by iron wedges, generally at the rear end, but sometimes across the top. In some of the larger types the trough was made in the huge block of tough oakto which the gun was fastened. In the Tower of London you can see a gun of this kind that was fished up from the wreck of theMary Rose. As most guns were provided with at least two "chambers", one would imagine that a fairly rapid fire could have been kept up, at any rate with the smaller guns. This, however, would not seem to have been the case, for the French account of the battle off St. Helens (when theMary Rosecapsized), which lasted for two hours, and in which a considerable number of ships were engaged, mentions that 300 rounds were fired as a fact indicating the uncommon fierceness of the fighting. And yet theHenri Grace à Dieualone carried over 100 guns of various sizes!
But at first, even at a time when artillery of one kind or another was in common use on land, very few guns were carried afloat. Very likely the reason was that few were suitable; they were either too big, too small, or, as before suggested, could not be safely closed at the breech. Thus in the reign of Henry IV, 1399-1413, theChristopher, a rather important man-of-war, only carried "three iron guns with five chambers, one hand-gun, and one small barrel of powder". The bargeMary(Marie de la Tour) carried one iron gun with two chambers and one brass gun with one chamber. AnotherMary(of Weymouth) had also one brass and one iron gun, theBernardhad two iron guns, and a ship referred to as theCarrakeone. TheChristopher'sguns are said to have been "stoked". This may possibly mean fitted with "stocks" or oaken beds, like those previously referred to, in which case her guns were probably larger and heavier than those in the other ships. The invention of port-holes was probably coincident with the adoption of really heavy artillery afloat. Before then it would not have been safe to have carried such heavy weights on the upper decks of the kind of ship then existing. TheGreat Michaelmay possibly be taken as an exception, for she could hardly have had port-holes cut in her 10-foot thick sides. At the same time, since herheavy guns were probably breech-loaders, they may have been practically built into her sides, since at that time there was no such thing as training a heavy gun right or left on board ship.
With the numerous batteries of small guns also carried on board ships of this period, it was quite a different matter. They were mounted on swivels on the gunwale, or in openings or ports in the fore- and after-castles as well as in the tops. Others, and among them certain wide-mouthed pieces known as "murderers", were distributed in what were known as the "cubbridge heads", or those sides of the fore- and after-castles which faced inboard and commanded the waist of the ship. Here it was to be expected an enemy's boarders would make their assault, and here—the crew having retired fore and aft—they would be mowed down by charges of all sorts of iron fragments from the "murderers". The same system of dealing with boarders lasted some time after the disappearance of the lofty "castles" at bow and stern; strong athwart-ships bulkheads being provided at bow and stern both on the upper and main decks.
It was in Henry VIII's time that the manufacture of cast-iron guns, for which England soon became famous, began in this country. One Ralph Hogge,[37]at Buxted, in Sussex, cast the first iron cannon. This is said to have been in 1543, and it is stated that the house in which this was done is still standing near the church of that village, and that it has the figure of a hog with the date 1581 carved over the door. There is another story to the effect that this early gunfounder's name was John Howe, and that there is the following distich, cut in stone, still extant in Buxted:—
"I, John Howe, and my man John,We two cast the first cannon".
This invention may be said to have sealed the fate of the heavy breech-loading gun for some centuries, though thesystem remained in vogue for small pieces for another 200 years. A cast-iron or brass muzzle-loading gun could be made so much more easily, rapidly, and cheaply than a built-up wrought-iron breech-loader of the same calibre that with the growing demand for guns afloat there is little wonder that the former drove the more expensive weapon clean out of the field. It must be remembered, too, that the casting of bronze guns had already reached great perfection on the Continent. What is known as "Queen Elizabeth's pocket pistol" at Dover is a standing witness to this. It is supposed to have been cast at Utrecht, and to have been presented to Henry VIII by the Emperor Charles V in 1544. It is 24 feet long, and is a very fine piece of workmanship. Its bore is 58 calibres long—that is to say, it is fifty-eight times as long as its diameter, a proportion not very unlike that upon which some of our most modern weapons are designed.
drawing or diagram of another cannonEarly Breech-loading CannonThe first was an Armada weapon. This type of gun remained in use afloat well into the eighteenth century
Early Breech-loading CannonThe first was an Armada weapon. This type of gun remained in use afloat well into the eighteenth century
The first was an Armada weapon. This type of gun remained in use afloat well into the eighteenth century
But to return to our early naval cannon. As I have already pointed out, the casting of bronze guns in Germany and Flanders had reached a great pitch of perfection long before anything of the sort was made in England. Germany, in fact, may be said to have led in gunnery for a considerableperiod. The master gunners in most armies seem to have been Germans, and at the accession of Queen Elizabeth we were buying our powder from the German Hansa Company established in the Steel Yard in London, instead of making sufficient for ourselves. There were many brass guns afloat in Henry VIII's navy besides the wrought-iron breech-loaders. Some of fine workmanship were found in the wreck of theMary Rose, as well as those of the latter class which have been already mentioned. As an indication of the cost and labour expended on such weapons, it may be instanced that a bronze gun cast in Germany in 1406 took from Whitsuntide to Michaelmas to finish, and required 52½ hundredweight of copper and 3½ hundredweight of tin. The metal cost 422 florins, while the master gun-founder received 86 florins for his pains.
The heaviest weapon afloat in Tudor times was the curtall or curtow, generally of brass, and firing a 60-pound shot. The culverin was rather lighter and longer. There were a whole host of fancy names—and doubtless fancy types—for ordnance at this time, several of which have already been referred to as forming the armament of theGreat Michael. Space forbids further enumeration or description, which, in any case, would be impossible on account of the very different guns which are called indiscriminately by the same name. But by the Armada days the following were the principal guns used afloat:—
Name.Bore.Weight of Shot.Double cannon8½inches66poundsWhole cannon8"60"Demi-cannon6½"32"Whole culverin5½"17"Demi-culverin4½"9"Saker3½"51"Minion3"4"Falcon2½"2"Falconet2"1½"Robinet1"1"[38]
The "double cannon" is sometimes called a "cannon royal" or a "carthoun". The "saker" is often spelt "sacre". The "culverin"—a name that occurs rather more frequently than any other at this time—was so called from the lugs or handles for hoisting it in and out of its carriage, which were made in the form of an ornamental serpent.[39]
Although the English cast-iron cannon almost at once achieved such a reputation that they sold in Amsterdam for £40 a ton, for £60 in France, and for no less than £80 in Spain, though costing only £12 a ton in this country; and though they were bought so freely at these high prices by foreigners that in 1574 their export was totally forbidden, yet it would appear that the Royal Navy was then using nothing but brass guns, except perhaps in the case of the smaller pieces. But the merchantmen used iron guns. Thus when James I sent an expedition of six men-of-war and a dozen armed merchant-ships against the Algerines in 1620, all the former carried brass and all the latter iron guns. The men-of-war were heavily gunned, so much so, indeed, that it was not unusual for their captains to dismount a few of their heaviest pieces and stow them as ballast for the safety of the ship. ThePrince Royal, for instance, carried a battery of two "cannon perriers" (i.e. throwing stone shot), six demi-cannon, twelve culverins, thirteen sakers, and four light pieces. The famousSovereign of the Seasin the next reign mounted twenty cannon, eight demi-cannon, thirty-two culverins, and forty-two demi-culverins—all brass guns—and probably some small iron falconets as well. On each gun was engraved the rose and crown, the sceptre and trident, anchor and cable. The engraving cost £3 per gun, but we must remember that theSovereignwas a "show ship".
According to an artilleryman who wrote in the first half of the seventeenth century, three shots an hour was about as much as an ordinary gun would stand, "always provided thatafter 40 shots you refresh and cool the piece[40]and let her rest an houre, for fear lest 80 shots should break the piece". But I think we may credit our seamen with being able to fire their guns a bit faster than that. Constant running out of powder seems to have been the great trouble in the English fleet engaged in the discomfiture of the "Invincible" Armada. And not only did the English ships carry heavier ordnance and fire heavier broadsides than the Spaniards, so that the British cannon "lacked them through and through", but our gunners are said to have fired their pieces three times to the Spaniards' one. This is a Spanish estimate, and it is abundantly evident that our gunnery proved at least as superior as it did over that of the Germans in Sir David Beatty's victory off the Friesland coast in January, 1915. Later on, at the battle of La Hogue (1692) the British ships were able to fire three broadsides to every two of the French.
drawing first rotating gunEarly Attempts at Maxim GunsIn all probability each barrel of the first gun had to be loaded separately and fired by hand, one after another. In the second case, the eight little cannon are apparently secured to a kind of turntable, to be revolved by hand.
Early Attempts at Maxim GunsIn all probability each barrel of the first gun had to be loaded separately and fired by hand, one after another. In the second case, the eight little cannon are apparently secured to a kind of turntable, to be revolved by hand.
In all probability each barrel of the first gun had to be loaded separately and fired by hand, one after another. In the second case, the eight little cannon are apparently secured to a kind of turntable, to be revolved by hand.
Coming to the navy of the Commonwealth, we find the same curiously named guns in use. Here is the battery of theNaseby:Nineteen cannon, nine demi-cannon, twenty-eight culverins, thirty demi-culverins, and five sakers. The same classification lasted till the time of George I, when it became the custom to designate guns by the weights of their projectiles. Thenceforward we find ship-armaments reckoned in 42-pounders, 32-pounders, 24-pounders, 12-pounders, and 6-pounders. The old 60-pounder had disappeared, and before long the 42-pounder followed it into temporary oblivion, so that at Trafalgar our heaviest gun was a 32-pounder.[41]It was not until nearly 1840 that it reappeared, and was followed by a 68-pounder.
During the period between Elizabeth and Trafalgar there were innumerable attempts to invent and introduce improved forms of ordnance, including shell-guns and machine-guns. The idea of the latter was extremely ancient. There are severalmanuscript illuminations and old wood-cuts of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries showing attempts at a "Maxim" gun. The "orgue", consisting of a large number of very small guns or musket-barrels fixed in rows, or revolving rings, or bundles, was a common weapon in those centuries—at least on shore. Then there was something of the kind for which William Drummond was given a patent in 1625, and which he termed a "thunder carriage". Again, there was one Puckle, who in 1781 invented a regular revolving gun mounted on a tripod. It was made in two patterns—one to fire ordinary round bullets, the other to fire square ones—against the "unspeakable Turk". Puckle thought these infidels ought to get as nasty a wound as possible. With his specification he issued a doggerel which ran as follows:—
A DEFENCE!
"Defending King George, your country and LawesIs defending yourselves and Protestant Cause".
The invention did not "catch on", and under a picture of theweapon which appeared on the eight of spades in a pack of cards of the period was another attempt at poetry:
"A rare Invention to destroy the CrowdOf Fools at Home, instead of Foes Abroad.Fear not, my Friends, this terrible Machine;They're only wounded that have Shares therein".
Neither machine-guns nor shell-guns were to appear before the Victorian Era, the reason probably being that there was no machinery capable of turning them and their component parts out in payable quantities. As for shell-guns, mortars were found to answer very well; no navy wanted to introduce a form of warfare that would be absolutely destructive of wooden shipping, and so we find that they did not long precede the appearance of the modern ironclad. But towards the end of the eighteenth century a new and practical weapon was invented by General Melville with the idea of producing a gun which should fire a comparatively large projectile for its weight. To effect this, something, of course, had to be sacrificed, and this was length, both of the gun itself and of its range and also penetration. But, as naval actions then took place at close quarters, this did not count for much, and what was lost in penetration was more than made up for by the smashing effect of the heavy shot. In fact, the gun itself was at first termed a "smasher", but, from the fact that most of them were cast at the famous Carron foundry in Scotland, they soon became universally known as "carronades".
In the days of wooden ships the "carronade" became a most useful weapon. The smaller kind were light, took up little space, and were just the things for merchant-men and small craft; while the bigger class—generally 68-pounders—were valuable auxiliaries to the batteries of our line-of-battle ships. The carronade was essentially a British gun, and its efficiency was never more conspicuous than in the fight between H.M.S.Glatton, a converted East Indiaman, and aFrench squadron of four frigates and two corvettes, which took place off the coast of Flanders on 15th July, 1796.
cannons in shipPhoto. Symonds & Co.THE MAIN GUN DECK ON H.M.S.VICTORYTypical of a ship's battery in the palmiest days of our Wooden Walls. The thick rope "breechings", the blocks and tackles for running the guns in or out, and securing them for sea, are clearly shown. So also are the "trucks" or wheels, and the "quoins" or wedges for elevating or depressing the guns. Overhead are suspended the Sponge, Rammer, and Worm, for each gun. The latter is the implement with a double corkscrew for withdrawing a cartridge.
Photo. Symonds & Co.THE MAIN GUN DECK ON H.M.S.VICTORYTypical of a ship's battery in the palmiest days of our Wooden Walls. The thick rope "breechings", the blocks and tackles for running the guns in or out, and securing them for sea, are clearly shown. So also are the "trucks" or wheels, and the "quoins" or wedges for elevating or depressing the guns. Overhead are suspended the Sponge, Rammer, and Worm, for each gun. The latter is the implement with a double corkscrew for withdrawing a cartridge.
Photo. Symonds & Co.
Typical of a ship's battery in the palmiest days of our Wooden Walls. The thick rope "breechings", the blocks and tackles for running the guns in or out, and securing them for sea, are clearly shown. So also are the "trucks" or wheels, and the "quoins" or wedges for elevating or depressing the guns. Overhead are suspended the Sponge, Rammer, and Worm, for each gun. The latter is the implement with a double corkscrew for withdrawing a cartridge.
The British ship, whose armament consisted of a main battery of 68-pounder carronades, with 32-pounders on her upper deck—fifty guns in all—completely defeated and drove off her six assailants, who retreated to Flushing with their decks ripped up, besides other terrible damages, one of them being so badly mauled that she sank on arrival in port. Had not theGlattonbeen a very slow sailer she could have destroyed the lot. As it was, she effected her victory with only two casualties—Captain Strangeways of the Marines mortally, and a private marine slightly wounded.
It may be interesting to note the armament carried by Nelson'sVictoryat the Battle of Trafalgar, in order that it may be compared with that of some earlier ships of which particulars have been given and with those of our modern battleships, which will be found in a later chapter.
On that memorable day the famous old three-decker which still swings at her buoy in Portsmouth harbour mounted—
On her lower deck, thirty 32-pounders;On her middle deck, thirty 24-pounders;On her main deck, thirty-two 12-pounders;On her upper deck, eight 12-pounders, and four 32-pounder carronades.
The upper-deck 12-pounders were 2 feet shorter than those on the main deck, and only weighed 21 cwt., as against their 34, but the 32-pounder carronades only weighed 17 cwt. This will give an idea of the comparative lightness of these weapons. The guns at this period, and indeed since Elizabethan times, were mounted on carriages formed of two wooden sides or cheeks strongly connected together by timber cross-pieces or "transoms", and placed on four solid wooden wheels or "trucks". They were secured to the ship's side by thick ropes or "breechings" passing round the breech of the gun, and long enough to allow of a certain recoil on being fired. The gun was run out again by blocks and tackles, which could also be used to haul it inboard without its being fired, in order to secure it for sea and close the port. It was trained from side to side by means of hand-spikes or levers placed under the rear of the carriage, and elevated in a similar manner, the hand-spikes being used to raise or lower the breech of the gun, while the "quoin", or wedge, supporting it was being adjusted. Similar carriages remained in use in our navy far into the 'eighties of last century, being used for the "converted 64-pounder", which was the old smooth-bore 68-pounder lined with a rifled steel tube. I have drilled at such guns myself. It was fine exercise, and it was necessary to be pretty smart and have all one's wits about one to get outside the breeching, if a loading number, before the gun was run out. The 13·5-inch gun of to-day is, thanks to hydraulics, manipulated with a tithe of the exertion required to serve a truck gun. Here are the orders for "Exercise at the Great Guns" which obtained in 1781, and are considerably simpler than those previously in vogue:
1. "Silence."2. "Cast loose your guns."3. "Level your guns."4. "Take out your tompions."5. "Run out your guns."6. "Prime."7. "Point your guns."8. "Fire."9. "Sponge your guns."10. "Load with cartridge."11. "Shot your guns."12. "Put in your tompions."13. "House your guns."14. "Secure your guns."
"Tompions" are a species of plug used to close the muzzle of a gun when not in action. In the "days of wood and hemp" they were usually painted red, but in modern guns they are generally faced with gun-metal, decorated in some cases with the badge of the ship. "Prime" means to place loose powder in the pan after having pierced the cartridge with a "priming wire" thrust through the touch-hole or vent. To "house" was to haul the gun inboard ready for securing.
The smooth-bore gun remained the naval weapon right upto the Crimean War, though explosive shells gradually began to be used as well as the old solid round shot. The rifling of muskets and cannon had often been suggested by inventors as far back as Tudor times, and occasionally a few experimental rifled muskets were made. But in the war with Russia, in which most of the combatants were armed with muzzle-loading rifles, rifled cannon began to make their appearance. The Lancaster gun, with a twisted oval bore, was the first rifled naval gun, and was thought a great deal of in its day. Then came the breech-loading Armstrong guns. These were very finely turned out weapons with poly-groove rifling, and closed at the breech by a species of block which lifted in and out and had somewhat the appearance of a carriage clock. It was held in position by a hollow screw through which the charge and projectile were loaded into the gun, and which was screwed up tight against the breech-block before firing. This was not a very satisfactory system, since, if not properly screwed taut, the block had a habit of blowing out, sometimes with unfortunate results. It was probably for this reason that none of these guns was made bigger than a 100-pounder. The projectiles for the Armstrong gun were covered with leaden jackets in order to take the rifling. This jacket every now and again flew off, which rendered these guns very unsafe to use over the heads of our own troops.
paiinting men firing cannonNAVAL GUNNERY IN THE OLD DAYSAn 18-ton gun in action at the bombardment of Alexandria. The gun has just recoiled after firing. No. 1 is "serving the vent". The sponge end is being passed to be thrust out of the small scuttle in the middle of the port (which is closed as soon as the gun is fired), so that the big wet end can be placed in the gun.
NAVAL GUNNERY IN THE OLD DAYSAn 18-ton gun in action at the bombardment of Alexandria. The gun has just recoiled after firing. No. 1 is "serving the vent". The sponge end is being passed to be thrust out of the small scuttle in the middle of the port (which is closed as soon as the gun is fired), so that the big wet end can be placed in the gun.
An 18-ton gun in action at the bombardment of Alexandria. The gun has just recoiled after firing. No. 1 is "serving the vent". The sponge end is being passed to be thrust out of the small scuttle in the middle of the port (which is closed as soon as the gun is fired), so that the big wet end can be placed in the gun.
The consequence was that while the Germans went in for the Krupp breech-loading system, in which the breech is closed by a sliding block across it, and the French for the interrupted-screw breech-closing plug, the prototype of our present system, we gave up breech-loaders and went in for built-up, muzzle-loading guns. Their advocates claimed for them simplicity, comparative cheapness, and other virtues, but, as a matter of fact, we were entirely on "the wrong tack" and were gradually being left behind in gun-construction by other nations. These big muzzle-loaders were formed by shrinking successive jackets over a steel tube which formed the bore. They were rifled with a few wide, shallow grooves, their projectiles being fitted with gun-metal studs intended to travel along the rifling and so give them the spinning movement requisite for accuracy. The biggest guns of this class constructed in this country were the 80-ton guns carried by theInflexibleat the bombardment of Alexandria, though the Italians, who followed us in sticking to muzzle-loaders for a time, had guns of 100 tons. Of course the biggest guns had special hydraulic mountings, but the broadside guns of 7-, 8-, 9-, or 10-inch bore were mounted on carriages invented by a Captain Scott. These consisted of a pair of iron brackets, or sides, supporting the gun, which ran in and out on slides made of iron girders that could be trained to the right or left by means of tackles, or in most cases by cog wheels working on curved and cogged racers. The carriage on which the gun was mounted had rollers beneath it with eccentric axles, so that, unless these were raised by levers supplied for the purpose, the carriage itself rested on the slide. This helped to check the recoil, further restrained by a system of interlocking plates on the carriage and slide which could be compressed together by a hand-wheel and screw.
After the gun had recoiled inboard and had been reloaded, the compressors were slackened and the gun-carriage put on its rollers, so that it ran down the slightly-sloping slide to its firing-position. But for all its simplicity there were very many disadvantages attendant on the muzzle-loader. One very important one was the impossibility of preventing the gases caused by the explosion of the powder from escaping past the projectile, so that part of the force of the explosion was wasted. In breech-loading guns the projectile fits the rifling closely—it could not be forced through the gun by the rammer from the rear—being provided with a copper driving-band of slightly bigger circumference than the bore.When the gun is fired, this is driven into the grooves of the rifling, rotates the shot, and at the same time stops any escape of gas and consequently of energy. Thus, size for size, a breech-loading gun must have greater range and penetration than a muzzle-loader. A breech-loader can be made much longer than a muzzle-loader into the bargain, as it is not necessary to get to the muzzle to load it. This also makes for accuracy and penetration.