Chapter IV: Part 4

His words, however, rang truer than he knew. On the sea, as on the land, the engineer has indeed “changed the face of the world;” and in no department of human progress has his influence been more radical or more far-reaching than in the mechanism, the scope, and the strategy of naval war. Fleets move now with a swiftness and surety unthought of in the days of sail. Over the same western ocean which Nelson, in his eager chase of Villeneuve, crossed at but four knots an hour, the United States cruiser Columbia swept, ninety years later, at a speed nearly four and three quarters times that of his lagging craft. When, in 1898, war came, the great battleship Oregon, although far to the northward on our western coast, was needed in the distant battle-line off the Cuban shore. In 79 days she steamed 14,500 miles, making a run which is without parallel or approach by any warship of any navy in the world’s history. The magnificent manhood, the unconquerable pluck, the engineering skill, which brought her just in time off Santiago, won their reward when the Colon struck her flag. Speed has been a determining factor in many a naval action. It was that which gave the power to take and hold the old-time “weather-gauge.” None knew its value better than Nelson, the chief fighter of the age of sail. Once he said that there would be found, stamped upon his heart, “the want of frigates,” the swift and nimble “eyes of the fleet” in his day. If his career in warfare on the sea had been a century later, he would be found foremost among the advocates of high-speed battleships and quick-firing guns.

It is, however, not only in the speed of warships that steam and mechanism have revolutionized fleets. For example, the displacement of the battleship of to-day is fully three and one half times greater than that of her heaviest ancestor of the sailing age. With due limitation as to length of hull, it is evident that the wind would be, at best, a wholly inadequate and untrustworthy motor for this huge structure with its great weight of armor. It is true that, during the era of transition, sail and steam were both applied to iron-clads—this absurdity reaching its climax in the British Agincourt and her sisters, which were 400 feet long, 10,600 tons’ displacement, and were fitted with five masts. It is said that a merchant steamer narrowly escaped collision at night with one of these vessels, believing from her length and rigging that there were _two_ ships ahead, between which she could pass. What these large displacements mean, in contrast with those of past days, will be, perhaps, best illustrated by the statement that the Italia of 13,600 tons—a ship with which, in her day, Italy challenged the criticism of the world—carries on her deck a weight, in armor and armament, of 2500 tons, or one fourth more than that of Nelson’s flagship Victory.

(Furnished by the Author.)

Length 174 ft. 10½ ins.
Beam 43 ft. 6 in.
Mean Draught 20 ft. 0 in.
Displacement 2200 tons.

WILLIAM DOUGHTY, Fecit. 1796, Oct.

Joshua Humphreys, of Philadelphia, Designer. Cloghorne and Hartley, of Boston, Builders. Launched Oct. 21, 1797.]

Again, the largest naval gun in the year 1800 was one firing but a 42-pound shot, while in the United States navy we have now the 13-inch rifle of 60 tons, with a projectile of 1100 pounds, and Great Britain has afloat 1800-pounder breech-loaders which weigh 111 tons. Before monster ordnance such as this, the strength of man, unaided, is but crude and futile. He must call to his help—as he has done—steam as the source of power for the electric, hydraulic, or pneumatic engines, which load, elevate, and train the gun.

In summing up the service of steam, directly or indirectly, to the ship-of-war, it will be seen that the speed of the battleship has been increased by fully 50 per cent., and that of the cruiser has been doubled; that the displacement of the battleship is now three and one half times that of her sailing predecessor; and that, since the century’s birth, the gun has grown to such extent that the projectile for the Oregon’s main battery weighs 26 times that of the heaviest shot in the year 1800. This, however, is not all. Steam acts primarily, as well, to raise the anchor, to steer the ship, and to effect her lighting, heating, drainage, and ventilation. To the genius of James Watt there must be ascribed the possibility for the growth and change which have produced the modern man-of-war.

Closely allied with mechanism in this evolution, has been the transformation of the structural material of the hull, which has passed from the hands of the shipwright in wood to the engineer who works with steel. The reasons for this are not far to seek. They lie, firstly, in the greater strength of the metal construction to withstand the vibration of swift and heavy machinery, and the strains arising from the unequal distribution of massive weights in a hull which pitches or rolls with the waves. With wooden ships, the present proportions would have been unattainable. Again, there is a marked saving in the weight of the hull proper of the steel vessel, which is not only stronger but lighter. This weight in the days of timber averaged fully one half of the displacement; while in the Oregon, whose tonnage, at normal draught, is 10,288, the hull percentage is 44.06, leaving a gain over the wooden vessel of 611 tons to be applied to armor, armament, or equipment. Finally, the durability of the metal vessel, with adequate care, greatly exceeds that of the wooden war steamer, whose average life was but 13 years.

The creation of the steam machinery of navies has been the achievement of the engineers of practically but three great nations. The daring of France, the inventive genius of America, and the wide experience and sound judgment of Great Britain, have united in this work. Our country has led time and again in the march of improvement; although our progress has been fitful, since, more than a generation ago, we turned from the sea to the development of the internal resources of this continent. Limits of space permit but brief review of a history which has had its full share of triumphs, not only in battle, but over wave and wind.

A contemporary authority states that, when British Admiral Sir John Borlase Warren ascended the Potomac River, during the war of 1812, his expedition was reconnoitred by an American steamer. This appears to be the first record of the use of such craft for military purposes. In 1814 the United States built the first steam war-vessel in the world’s history. She was called the Demologos, later the Fulton, and her completion marked truly, as her commissioners said, “an era in warfare and the arts.” She was a double-ended, twin-hulled floating battery of 2475 tons, carrying twenty 32-pdr. guns, protected by 4 ft. 10 in. of solid timber. She was driven by a single central paddle-wheel; her speed was 5½ miles per hour; and she was both handy and seaworthy. France, in 1820, sent a commission to America to report upon steam vessels of war; and in 1830 the French had nine armed steamers afloat and nine building. In 1821, the Comet, a small side-wheeler, was commissioned as the first steam war-ship in the British navy, and in 1840, at the bombardment of Acre, steam vessels fought their first battle.

The growth of steam in navies had been retarded by its application solely to paddle craft, whose wheels and machinery were incapable of protection in action. During the years 1842–43, however, the United States built the sloop-of-war Princeton, of 954 tons. This vessel was the product of the genius of John Ericsson, the ablest marine engineer the world has ever seen. She was the first screw-propelled steam warship ever built, and, in other respects, foreshadowed the advances which were to come. Thus, her machinery was the first to be placed wholly below the water-line beyond the reach of hostile shot; her engine was the first to be coupled directly to the screw shaft, and blowers, for forced draft, were with her first used in naval practice. She was virtually the herald of the modern era.

The Princeton was followed closely by the Rattler, the first screw vessel of the British fleet, and in 1843–44 the French 44-gun frigate Pomone was fitted with propellers. In 1843, also, the English Penelope was the first man-of-war to be equipped with tubular boilers, and the year 1845 was notable for the building of the ill-fated Birkenhead, the first iron vessel of the British fleet. In 1850, when the French constructed the screw line-of-battle ship Napoleon, the English became alarmed, and began with vigor the renovation of their navy with regard to screw propulsion.

France, in 1854, laid the keels of four armored batteries, three of which, forming the first ironclad squadron in history, went into action a year later under the forts of Kinburn in the Crimea. They were of 1600 tons’ displacement, carried 4⅓ inch armor and sixteen 68-pdr. guns, and had a speed of four knots. In 1862, Ericsson launched the famous Monitor, the first sea-going ironclad with a revolving turret, and an “engineers’ ship” from keel to turret top.

The Civil War found us with a sailing navy, and left us one of steam. Passing over its victories, in which steamers played always the chief part on sea and river, we come to that most notable triumph of Chief Engineer Isherwood, the cruiser Wampanoag of 4200 tons’ displacement. This vessel, phenomenal in her day, steamed in February, 1868, from Barnegat to Savannah, over a stormy sea, in 38 hours. Her average was 16.6 knots for the run, and 17 knots during a period of six consecutive hours—a speed which for 11 years thereafter was unapproached by liner or by warship. In 1879, the British despatch vessel Mercury, of 3730 tons and 18.87 knots, wrested the palm from America; but, in 1893, it was won again for the United States by the triple-screw fliers Columbia and Minneapolis of 7475 tons, with speeds respectively of 22.8 and 23.073 knots. The laurels rest now with the Buenos Ayres, which, though built in England in 1895, flies the flag of Argentina. She has a tonnage of 4500 and a speed of 23.202 knots.

PLATE III.]

The British ironclad Pallas, completed in 1866, was remarkable for having the first successful naval engines on the compound principle, in which the steam is admitted at high pressure to a small cylinder, and passes thence to a larger one which it fills by its expansion. To Great Britain the world owes also the development of triple expansion, i. e., the use of steam successively in three cylinders. This system was inaugurated in naval engines by the British, in 1885–86, and is now universally employed. Prior to 1879, the boilers of all modern war-vessels had been those of the Scotch type, in which the flame passes through tubes fixed in a cylindrical shell containing water. In that year, however, France began a revolution in the steam generators of navies by equipping a dispatch-vessel with the Belleville tubulous boiler, in which the water to be evaporated is contained within tubes surrounded by flame confined in an outer casing. The water-tube principle, also, bids fair to become of universal application. It has had its most noteworthy naval installation in the British cruisers Powerful and Terrible, of 14,200 tons and 25,886 horse-power, completed in 1895.

The use of more than one screw for propulsion dates back to 1853. During our Civil War multiple screws figured, to a small extent, in the “tin clads” and larger monitors. The application of twin screws, in the modern era, begins with the British ironclad Penelope of 1868. France, in the years 1884–85, blazed the way for another naval advance of much importance in conducting a series of trials with the launch Carpe, equipped with triple screws. The system, however, although of much value, from engineering and tactical points of view, was not adopted in large, high-powered vessels until the advent of the French armored cruiser Dupuy de Lôme in 1890, and the protected cruisers Columbia and Minneapolis of the United States navy in 1893. It has now won full approval in the navies of continental Europe, and triple-screw ships, aggregating 500,000 tons, are built or building there.

The limits of space forbid more than a passing note of the triumphs of the engineer in torpedo craft, the light cavalry of the sea. With steamers of normal proportions, the speed and power depend largely upon, and increase with, the displacement. As has been stated, the maximum performance of large cruisers is now 23 knots on a tonnage of 4500. These particulars give a faint glimpse of the extraordinary problem which has confronted the torpedo-boat designer in driving hulls of, at present, about 150 tons at a speed which now approximates to 30 knots. With the brilliant record of success in this task, there will be linked always the names of Yarrow and Thornycroft in England, of Schichau in Germany, and of Normand in France. The achievement but recently of a British inventor, the Hon. Charles Algernon Parsons, in giving the Turbinia of 44.5 tons a speed of over 31 knots, has drawn the attention of engineers the world over to the possibilities of the steam turbine on the sea. This performance is phenomenal with such a displacement. The French Forban, of 130 tons, has made 31.2 knots, and a reported speed of 35 knots gives a Schichau boat her temporary laurels as the fastest craft afloat.

A brief glance at the improvements which have made possible these extreme speeds in cruisers and torpedo craft will be of interest. The progress which has been made has been, firstly, in the economy in the use of steam arising from higher pressures and multiple expansion; secondly, in the reduction of weight, per horse power, due to increase in strength of materials and in engine-speed with the employment of forced draft—which was reintroduced by France—and the water-tube boiler; and, finally, in the application of a more efficient propelling instrument. The advances of half a century in propelling machinery are shown, in some respects, by Plates III and IV, which contrast, on the same scale, the side-wheel machinery of the United States war-steamer Powhatan, of 1849, with the engines of the United States torpedo boat Ericsson of to-day. The data of the former vessel are: horse-power, 1172; steam pressure 15 lbs.; weight of machinery per horse-power 972 lbs.; while, for the Ericsson, the figures are: horse-power, 1800; steam pressure, 250 lbs.; weight of machinery per horse-power, 56 lbs. This comparison, however, must be qualified by the statement that the older engine was for a steamer of about 3760 tons, while the torpedo boat is but 120 tons in displacement. The contrast lies, therefore, only in the reduced weight of material per horse-power developed and in the increased steam pressure, which, however, are in themselves most striking.

V. THE GROWTH OF ORDNANCE.

At Trafalgar, the Victory drifted before the wind into action. In her slow advance, at a speed of one and one half knots through but 1200 yards, she was for half an hour under the prolonged fire of 200 guns, and yet she closed, practically unhurt, with her foes, and lived, not only to win the day, but to bring undying glory to the English flag. What a contrast the latest sea-fight of the century presents in the power of modern ordnance as compared with the puny guns of Nelson’s time! Our battleship Oregon, at a range of nearly five miles, with one 1100-pound shell, drove the Colon, an armored cruiser, not only shoreward, but to surrender, stranding, and wreck.

The largest naval guns in the year 1800 were the long 32 and 42-pounders, smooth-bore muzzle-loaders, with a range of about 1200 yards. Carronades—short pieces with a heavy shot but limited range—found favor also, especially with British sailors, eager for that close-quarter fighting in which the “Smasher”—as General Melville called his carronade—would be most effective in shattering timbers and in sending clouds of splinters among the foe. The projectiles were spherical shot, canister, and grape, the diabolical shriek of the shell being yet unheard. Both gun and shot were of cast metal, and the mount was a wooden carriage on low trucks. The training, or horizontal angle of the gun, was effected by rope tackles, and the amount of elevation of its muzzle depended upon the position of a “quoin,” or wooden wedge, thrust beneath the breech. The recoil was limited by rope “breeching,” passing through the cascabel,—a knob behind the breech,—and secured to ring-bolts in the ship’s side. The gun was harnessed, as a horse is, in the shafts.

Aiming was largely a perfunctory process, since the gun had no sights and the shot had excessive “windage,” its calibre being from one fifth to one third inch less than the bore, making its outward passage a series of rebounds and its final direction a matter of chance. “Windage,” however, was essential to facilitate muzzle-loading and to provide for the expanded diameter of red-hot shot. It is true that in 1801 a proposition to use sights was made to Lord Nelson. He, however, rejected it with the words:—

“I hope we shall be able, as usual, to get so close to our enemies that our shot cannot miss the object.”

His blind courage in this cost his countrymen dearly when, in 1812–14, their shot flew wild, while their ships were hulled and their gallant tars fell before the then sighted guns of the United States.

To ignite the charge the slow-match was still used, as is shown by the sharp words of a sailor of that time. Hailed in the darkness by a British ship and ordered to send a boat, his quick answer was:—

“This is the United States frigate Constitution, Edward Preble, commodore, commanding, and I’ll be d—d if I send a boat!”

Then to his men, silent and eager by the shrouded battle-lanterns:—

“Blow your matches, boys!”

A full crew for a 32-pounder consisted of 14 men. An old rule as to this was one man to every 500-lbs. weight of the gun, which would give the Oregon 1100 men to handle the four 13-inch rifles of her main battery, or more than twice her whole crew. Steam and mechanism have wrought a magic change in this.

The slow-match remained in use until well into the nineteenth century, although, until 1842, the flint lock was generally employed in the British navy, having replaced the priming horn and match in 1780. In 1807 there was discovered a composition which could be ignited by friction or concussion, and in 1839 the French had adopted the percussion lock, which exploded the cap and retracted, uncovering the vent before the backward rush of the gas could strike it. Later, a similar composition was used with “friction-primers,” or tubes filled with mealed powder and capped with composition, the tube forming a train leading to the charge, and the composition being fired by the friction of a rough wire drawn briskly through it. Percussion and friction have been in turn largely displaced by the electric primer, which consists essentially of a fine wire, or “bridge,” passing through a highly inflammable mixture. The bridge offers a resistance to the electric current, is heated thereby, ignites the composition, and fires the gun.

The older type of the cast-iron smooth-bore gun for solid shot reached its ultimate development in the 68-pounder, which endured until the advent of armor. In 1819 the system of firing shells loaded with gunpowder from smooth-bore guns was suggested by General Paixhans, of France. In 1824, it was introduced into the French navy, and about 1840 into that of the United States. At Sinope, in 1853, the terrible effect of shell fire upon wooden ships startled the world, when a Russian fleet destroyed absolutely 11 Turkish vessels, with their force of 4000 men. The Paixhans gun was modified and its form improved by Admiral Dahlgren, U. S. N., and in the late 50’s the armament—designed by him—of United States vessels was superior to that of any other in the world. The 9, 11, and 15-inch Dahlgrens formed the bulk of our guns afloat during the Civil War, the remainder being almost wholly rifles of the Parrott type.

_32pdr 6m Smooth-bore, Muzzle-loader
Weight 3600 lbs. Muzzle Energy, 642 Foot-tons_

_U S (Dahlgren) 440pdr 15m Smooth-bore, Muzzle-loader
Weight 42000 lbs. Muzzle Energy, 7273 Foot-tons_

_Italian (Armstrong) 2000pdr 17in Rifle, Breech-loader
Weight 101.5 tons, Muzzle Energy, 51930 Foot-tons_

_U S Naval 1100pdr 13in Rifle, Breech-loader
Weight 60 tons, Muzzle Energy, 33627 Foot-tons_

PLATE V.]

The resistance which spherical projectiles met from the air, their deviation in flight, owing to the frequent lack of coincidence of the centres of gravity and form, their excessive “windage,” and their light weight relatively to calibre, led to the adoption of the rifled gun and the cylindrical projectile. The principle of the former—making the shot act as a screw-bolt and the bore as a screw-thread—is very old, there being at Woolwich a barrel of this type bearing date of 1547. The objects aimed at in rifling are to give a pointed cylindrical shot rotation on its axis that it may keep steady during flight, and secondly, to obtain increased weight in the projectile from its elongated form. As to the latter consideration, it may be noted that the old 32-pounder smooth-bore was of 6-inch calibre, while the United States 6-inch rifle of to-day throws a shot of 100 lbs. weight.

France, during the Crimean War, brought out the first heavy rifled gun. In 1860–61, Armstrong rifles were introduced in the British navy. The labors of Krupp met such success that at Paris, in 1867, he exhibited a rifle weighing 50 tons with a projectile of 1080 pounds. The Parrott rifle was brought out about 1856 in the United States, and was so developed that in 1862 it was the most powerful gun, for its weight and size, in existence. The adoption of rifling was the first great step on the road which engineering had laid toward the growth in power of modern ordnance.

Having thus secured a projectile of great weight and moderate calibre which would bore through the air a true path to the distant mark, there remained to seek but four chief elements in the magnificent advance made within a generation by the naval artillery of our day. These factors were: 1st. Increased strength in the material of the gun. 2d. A method of construction which would not only permit enormous pressures in the powder-chamber, but would make possible the continuous acceleration of the projectile during its passage through the bore. 3d. An explosive which would satisfy the objects of the method of construction; and, 4th. A system of loading which would enable guns of great length to be charged with ease. The mounting of ordnance of any weight, its control, and its rapid and facile handling were but minor matters of engineering.

In a paper such as this, of limited length and addressed to laymen, it is possible to give but a glance at the progress in the various elements of gun-construction which have been noted. Of material, little need be said. The rifle of Crimean days was a cast-iron piece; Parrott ordnance was of cast and wrought iron; and the first Armstrong gun was built of wrought iron and steel. Cast and compound materials, however, have vanished with the past. Steel—hardened and toughened to the last degree by every refinement of manufacture—forms the “reeking tube” for the “iron shard” of the century’s close.

The method of construction is the “built-up” process, shown by the partial section on Plate V., the barrel being reinforced by tubes which are shrunk on—like the tire of a wagon-wheel—so as to produce initial compression. The explosion in the powder chamber strains and expands temporarily the barrel, and the application of the shrinkage principle enables a portion of the strength of the tubes to be employed in preliminary internal pressure. The barrel thus supported can be strained by the charge, not only to its own limit of safety, but to an additional amount equal to this initial compression. The all-steel, built-up gun has a possible rival in wire-wound ordnance, a system which replaces the tubes, to a greater or less extent, by layers of wire, wound while in tension around the barrel.

Powder is the soul of the gun; it transforms the huge inert mass into a flaming engine of death. The great development of explosives began but a generation since. The researches of Robins and Rumford in the last century, and of Hutton in the dawn of this, formed the world’s knowledge of the gun’s internal ballistics until the year 1870. To the genius of Noble and Abel is due the stimulus to growth since then. The powders have kept pace with gun-construction in its advance. The increased strength of the chamber has been met by heavier and slow-burning charges—cocoa, brown prismatic, and the like—which have given not only greater initial velocity, but a continuous acceleration through bores whose maximum length has exceeded 47 feet. Indeed, to the production of this lingering combustion is due the great linear dimension and power of modern guns. Initial pressure had its limit; advance lay only in the subsequent acceleration given by late ignition of a portion of the charge.

Gunpowder, however, after a reign of more than five hundred years, has been dethroned. The “villainous saltpetre” of the monk, with its allies, charcoal and sulphur, yields now to nitro compounds, which produce not only far greater energy, but are as well smokeless. The sea-fights of our war with Spain saw the last contending fleets to be wrapped in a cloud, lingering and baffling, of their own making. Cordite, one of these compounds in use abroad, is prepared in long “cords” from di-nitro-cellulose and nitro-glycerine. The new smokeless “powder” of the United States navy is made from nitro-cellulose dissolved in ether alcohol. France was the first in employing explosives such as these, which, in their offensive and tactical advantages, form one of the signal triumphs of the century’s last years.

The long gun of modern days is of necessity breech-loading. The development of other elements gave, as a resultant, great length; and this, in turn, required a system of charging which would permit protection for the men while loading, and would obviate the intolerable inconvenience of ramming home powder and shot in a long muzzle-loader—an operation which was, in fact, impossible beyond a certain limit of length. The advocates of the older construction, especially in England, urged long and earnestly its simplicity and the superior strength of a solid breech; but the logic of events was against them, and the breech-loader won a complete triumph. It is worthy of note that it, like rifling and the principle of building up, was but a revival. From the warship Mary Rose, sunk in 1545 in action off Spithead, there were recovered in 1836 a number of guns, some of which are of wrought iron, built-up and breech-loading. There are in use two methods of closing the breech when the gun is loaded from the rear. In French, English, and American ordnance an axial screw-plug is inserted; in the Krupp system a cylindro-prismatic breech-block slides in a horizontal opening cut across the bore. The former, or interrupted screw mechanism, was first set forth in the United States’ patent of 1849 to Chambers.

In projectiles the tendency of the modern era has been towards simplification. Bar-shot, chain-shot, and grape have disappeared, while canister and solid shot are becoming obsolete. There remain shrapnel as the “man-killer” of this age, and explosive shell, differentiated into armor-piercing and that for attack on unarmored structures. Lieutenant Shrapnel, in 1796, invented the projectile which bears his name. In its modern form, it consists of a steel case containing lead or iron balls and a light bursting charge of powder, ignited by a time-fuse carried in the head. This projectile is most formidable against bodies of men, boats, and the embrasures of forts, since, when it is ruptured, the balls are dispersed, covering a wide area.

The use of explosive shell in high-angle discharge dates back to the fifteenth century. From Paixhans’ works, “La Nouvelle Arme,” published in 1821, came the stimulus to its development and to its deadly service, in our time, in horizontal fire. The “common shell” for the United States 13-inch rifle is made of forged steel, weighs 1100 pounds, and carries within it a bursting charge of 50 pounds of powder, ignited by a percussion fuse set in its base. It will penetrate 6 or 7 inches of armor and then explode within the ship. The United States “armor-piercing shell” is manufactured from crucible steel, alloyed with chromium; it is tempered to extreme hardness at the point, which carries a cap of soft metal. The function of the latter would appear to be that of a support to the shoulder of the projectile, or as a lubricant thereto, since, without the cap, the shell is broken or deformed in the attack on armor of surface hardened steel. To resist the crushing strain in its passage through massive plate, the walls of this shell must be so thick that no charge of gunpowder will burst it. Hence, as a rule, the shell is fired unloaded, although recently there have been adopted to some extent bursting charges of some high explosive, such as gun-cotton, joveite, or picric acid.

In closing this brief review of the progress of ordnance, but passing mention can be made of matters minor, but in themselves of much importance. Gun carriages, or mounts, are now intricate mechanisms, practically the whole service of large ordnance being performed by electric and hydraulic machinery. The rapid fire principle has been extended to pieces of 6-inch calibre, and bids fair to pass beyond that limit. Its success in increasing largely the number of shots within a given time lies in special breech-blocks, aiming devices, and prepared cartridges. Machine guns of rifle-calibre, partly or wholly automatic, have been so developed as to be capable of firing 1200 rounds per minute. The discharge of high explosives in large quantity was effected with success by the United States steamer Vesuvius off Santiago. The torpedo-gun afloat, however, would appear to be still in a tentative condition.

A brief lapse into technical terms may be permitted in summarizing the gun’s growth in power. The term “muzzle energy” is used to describe the work which the projectile is capable of performing when it leaves the bore. It is expressed in foot-tons, i. e., the number of tons which the energy stored in the shot would lift to a height of one foot. The figures as to this for the 32-pounder of the century’s beginning, for the United States 13-inch rifle and for the 111-ton English gun, are, respectively, 642, 33,627, and 54,690 foot-tons. Again, the round shot from the 32-pounder lost from the resistance of the air, in a range of 1200 yards, 76 per cent of its energy; while this loss, with the United States 13-inch, in a range of 1000 yards, is but 11 per cent. Finally, if the cast-iron shot of the 32-pounder were fired against armor-plate, it would lose, in breaking itself up, two thirds of its remaining energy, leaving at 1200 yards but 51 foot-tons for effective work; while with the modern armor-piercing shell the entire energy left at the end of the range is expended upon the armor-plate.

It will be seen then that the immeasurable superiority of modern guns is owing both to their great increase in energy and to their wiser disposition of that which has been attained. The gun has maintained fully during the century its primacy among naval weapons. It is true that, in theory and on paper, its supremacy has at times been questioned; but as to its two rivals, the ram would seem to be rather the weapon of accident than action, and the torpedo has yet to score in battle against ships in motion, while the precision, rapidity, and power of the gun grow more deadly with every passing year.

VI. THE DEVELOPMENT OF ARMOR.

Armor and the gun are natural and now hereditary foes. The function of the one is to resist, that of the other ever to attack. Since the beginning of the modern era in navies, there has been ceaseless strife for mastery between these two elements of warship design, the gun ever becoming more powerful, and the armor—at first through growing thickness and later through improved material—opposing a steadily more stubborn front. The official report of an English committee made in the year 1860 states that,—

“Vessels clothed in rolled-iron plates of four and a half inches’ thickness are to all practicable purposes invulnerable against any projectile that can be brought to bear against them at any range.”

The advance which forty years have seen may be shown by the single statement that the Krupp 15.7-inch gun develops sufficient energy to penetrate at the muzzle 47 inches of wrought iron. The battleship is at best but a series of compromises, each factor of the structure yielding or growing as the skill or whim of her designer may indicate. In the present stage of this unceasing change, the gun would appear to be the victor, and the power of this mighty 132-ton rifle seems scarcely needed on the sea. The distinguished chief of ordnance of the United States navy, in his annual report for 1898, says:—

“The development of the 12-inch gun has been so great and its power so much increased that the Bureau is of opinion that hereafter it will be the maximum calibre that it will be advisable to install on future battleships.”

With armor, as with the torpedo, the talent of Europe reaped where the genius of America had sown. John Stevens of New Jersey was the first inventor of modern times to suggest the application of armor to a floating battery, his plans being submitted to the United States government during the war of 1812. They received, however, no serious consideration, and to France, forty-two years later, fell the honor of attaining the first practical results in the building of ironclads. Members of the Stevens family, however, continued the experiments of its founder, until by the year 1841 they had determined the thickness of iron necessary to stop spherical projectiles at point blank range, and the comparative resisting powers of iron and oak. These results led to an appropriation by Congress, in 1854, of $500,000 to begin work upon an ironclad,—the Stevens battery,—which vessel, however, never left the ways and was eventually broken up.

General Paixhans, who revolutionized naval artillery by the invention of the modern shell, prophesied, in an official letter to the French government in 1824, that the new projectile would force the creation of armored ships. In 1841 he recommended officially the clothing of vessels with iron armor, as a protection against his own missiles; and in 1853 his words of warning met complete and terrible fulfillment in the annihilation by shell guns of the Turkish fleet at Sinope. This action was the immediate cause of the introduction of armor in modern navies.

The British admiralty, in 1843, had duplicated the Stevens experiments, using a target of 14 plates of boiler iron riveted together, which gave a total thickness of 6 inches; and experiments on laminated plating had been also at this time carried on at Gavres, in France. In 1845 Dupuy de Lôme, the famous naval architect, submitted to the French government the first European design for an armored frigate. His plans were, however, rejected; and only with the outbreak of the Crimean War was the construction of armored vessels begun. On October 17, 1855, the three French batteries which were the first results of this new departure went into action off Kinburn, in the Crimea, silencing in four hours forts which had held at bay the combined fleets of England and France. Armor had won its first victory, and had shown most signally its position as one of the main factors in the warship design of the years which were to come.

These vessels, with three similar batteries constructed immediately thereafter by the British government, were clad with solid iron plates 4½ inches thick, backed by 27¾ inches of oak, comparative experiments at Vincennes, France, having shown the marked superiority of solid over laminated plating. They were, however, in but a most limited sense sea-going ships, their low speed and other inferior qualities being radical defects as to this. France led in a further advance, beginning in 1857 and completing in 1859 the transformation of the wooden line-of-battle ship Napoleon into the armored vessel of 5000 tons, which, as La Gloire, is famous as the first sea-going ironclad. She carried a strake of 4¾-inch plating at the water line, and 4½-inch plates in wake of the battery. England answered the challenge of her hereditary foe with the Warrior, an iron vessel of 9210 tons, completed in 1861. While her rival had a fully armored side, but 212 of the Warrior’s 380 feet of length carried plating. Its thickness was 4½ inches.

_“La Gloire” (France) 1857.
Side Armor Iron 4½ in. Solid._

_“Warrior” (England) 1859.
Side Armor Iron 4½ in. Solid._

_U.S. Monitor “Passaic” 1862.
Side Armor Iron 3 to 5 in. Laminated.
Turret Armor Iron 11 in. Laminated._

_“Inflexible” (England) 1876.
Belt & Citadel Armor Iron Sandwiched._

_“Duilio” (Italy) 1876.
Belt Armor Steel Solid._

_U.S. Battleship Oregon.
Belt Armor Harveyed Nickel Steel Solid.
13 in. Turret Armor Harveyed Nickel Steel Solid._

PLATE VIII. THE GROWTH OF ARMOR. ]

At the outbreak of the Civil War in the United States, the government appointed a special naval committee to report upon types of ironclads. The conclusions of this board are of interest, in showing the state of armor development at that period. They required rolled armor of solid iron, whose minimum thickness was 4½ inches. Ericsson’s Monitor, however, carried laminated plating from 3 to 5 inches thick on her low sides, and 11 layers, each one inch thick, on her turret. This construction, which the difficulties in the manufacture of solid plate necessitated, made the record of endurance of this type far from good. The defect lay mainly with fastening bolts, which broke frequently, thus loosening or detaching the side armor, and the heads or nuts of which, flying off with violence when the armor was struck by shot, became sometimes fatal missiles against those within the turrets. In contrast with this, the behavior of the New Ironsides, clothed with solid armor, was most excellent. She was a casemated ironclad frigate with unarmored ends, her plating was 4½ inches thick, and inclined throughout the citadel, at an angle of 30° from the perpendicular. For two years she was subjected to the most severe test that a war-vessel must meet, the tossing and straining of blockade duty and the fiery ordeal of close action with fortifications. In one engagement, she sustained alone a fight against the combined fire of the forts in Charleston harbor, and, although struck on her side-armor sixty times, came out of the struggle unhurt. The record of this ship is one which does honor to the flag.

The achievement of the Confederacy during this war, in the matter of armor, was remarkable. With iron worth almost its weight in gold, and with most limited facilities for manufacturing, they yet succeeded in constructing some of the most formidable ironclads of their day. The Merrimac, for instance—with 3-inch armor, in two layers of narrow bars, at an angle of 30° with the horizontal—sustained no material damage to her plating from the fire of the Monitor; although had the full charge of 30 lbs. of powder been used in the 11-inch smooth-bores of the latter, the story would have been different. Every fair blow would have smashed a hole completely through the armor, and driven a shower of splinters about the battery-deck. Again, the armor of the Atlanta and the Tennessee—both casemated ships, with the sides of the citadel inclined at a sharp angle to the horizontal—was sufficiently strong, with the former vessel, to withstand, at 500 yards, the 11-inch projectile fired with a 20-lbs. charge, and, with the latter, the same shot practically at the muzzle, although the 15-inch projectile broke through completely in both cases.

It is unnecessary to follow in detail, through its many tests in peace, the advance of iron armor. Its growth in strength, as the power of the gun developed, came almost solely from increase in thickness, the latter reaching its maximum with the British Inflexible, completed in 1876, which carries from 16 to 24 inches of iron on her belt and citadel. This plating, however, is divided and “sandwiched” with wood, there being, exterior to the skin, 6 inches of teak, then 12 inches iron, 11 inches teak, and an outer 12-inch plate. As armor, iron received its death-blow in the famous tests at Spezia, Italy, during the autumn of 1876, when the 100-ton gun, with a full charge, at a range of 100 yards, attacked solid and “sandwich” targets of iron and solid targets of steel—the single or aggregate thickness of metal in each case being 22 inches. These trials were undertaken through Italy’s desire to build, in the Duilio and Dandolo, the most formidable vessels afloat. Steel won the day, and the roar of that mighty gun, thundering from the Spezia firing ground, sounded the knell of iron armor, deprived the as yet unlaunched Inflexible of her crown of invulnerability, and demanded, with success, a revolution in the armor manufacture of Europe.

As a compromise, compound armor, i.e., iron faced with steel, became popular for a time. As with steel, its beginnings were old, dating back at least to the year 1857. The first perfected compound plate, made by Cammel & Co., of England, was tested at Shoeburyness in 1877. It was composed of 5 inches of iron with a 4-inch face of steel; the iron being raised to a welding heat and the molten steel poured on its top. The great heat partially fused the contact face, the two metals were united, and the combination was assured by immediate rolling. Compound plates sprang in 1877 from obscurity to popularity; by 1879 iron armor had become obsolete with progressive naval powers, and, in 1880, both compound and steel plates had reached such development that they were close rivals, the leading competitors being Cammel in England and Schneider in France. Steel, however, slowly forged ahead during the next decade; and, at its close, compound armor was practically out of the race. In steel’s victory, its alloy with nickel, in minute proportions, has materially aided; the combination imparting hardness without decreasing the toughness of the plate. This material gave superior results from the beginning. Its first plate, tested in 1889, was 9⅓ inches thick; it was pierced by a Holtzer shell, whose body did not pass wholly through and whose energy was 1.6 times that just necessary to perforate a wrought-iron plate of the same thickness. To the increased strength given by nickel there has been added a further gain through the application of face-hardening processes—such as that of the American, Harvey—which produce superficial carbonization, transforming the surface into a high grade of very hard steel, without the pronounced plane of demarcation between the two qualities of metal, as in the weld of the compound plate. A 10¼-inch nickel steel Harveyized plate, tested at the Indian Head Proving Grounds in 1892, showed a strength which previously had never been equaled in the history of armor, and established beyond question the value of the face-hardening process, which, by various methods, is applied to the nickel-steel plating of to-day. The distribution of armor in the development of battleship construction is shown by the shaded sections on Plates VI and VII, and its relative thicknesses, on various vessels during this progress, by Plate VIII.

VII. THE RAM AND THE TORPEDO.

For two thousand years the ram—the razor-edged “beak” of the swift galley—was the chief naval weapon. With the advent of sail-power and the employment of gunpowder, it vanished from the seas; but to reappear when the coming of steam gave again controllable propulsion. In 1859 there was built into the French frigate Magenta a sharp spur,—the first modern ram. British construction of the modern era, from the Warrior down, has also recognized this weapon, and it is to-day a factor, although a minor one, in the design of all vessels of high speed.

The ram has, however, but a scant record of service in action, while in accidental collision it has wrought more than once appalling disaster. The ironclad Merrimac rammed and sank in Hampton Roads, in March, 1862, the United States sailing sloop-of-war Cumberland, which, under the gallant Morris, went down with guns thundering and ensign flying. On July 20, 1866, during the action off the island of Lissa, in the Adriatic, the Austrian flagship Ferdinand Maximilian rammed the Italian armorclad Re d’ Italia, which, with many of her 800 men, sank with a swiftness that chilled the blood of those who watched. Like this, in its sudden tragedy, was the destruction of the British battleship Victoria by her consort, the Camperdown, off Tripoli, Syria, in the summer sunlight of a June day in 1893. The ram of the latter vessel cut a deep and fatal gash in the Victoria, which within ten minutes turned bottom upward and went down, bow first, bearing with her 321 officers and men, whose unfaltering discipline gave a heroic splendor to their end. Despite these occasional instances of its deadly power, the ram holds a secondary place among naval weapons. To strike a modern vessel at high speed will require more than the skill of the swordsman.

The torpedo, like the ironclad, was an American invention, whose neglect by the United States government brought retribution when this deadly engine of war in 1861–65 destroyed not a few war-vessels flying our flag. Bushnell of Connecticut during the Revolution appears to have invented both the submarine boat and the marine torpedo, the latter being fired by clock-work. Fulton also met success in similar work during the period extending from 1801 to 1812. All of the elements of modern torpedo warfare, excepting the use of steam, compressed air, or electricity as a motive power, had been thus conceived by the early dawn of this century. The torpedoes of our day are practically of but two classes: the “mine,” or stationary (either “buoyant” or “ground,” as its position in the water determines), and the automobile, or “fish” torpedo. The former type is fired either by closing an electric circuit in a station on shore, or by the ship herself in contact, or in electric closure. During the Civil War nearly thirty vessels were sunk by mines, usually wooden barrels filled with gunpowder and fired by hauling lines or slow-burning fuses. It was a mine-field over which Farragut charged at Mobile Bay, when he uttered his famous oath and went “full speed ahead,” with the cases of the fortunately impotent torpedoes striking the Hartford’s bottom; it was a mine which, it is claimed, sunk the Maine; and it was a mine-field which kept Sampson’s battleships from entering the harbor of Santiago de Cuba. The stationary torpedo is now charged with gun cotton or other high explosive.

The origin of the most prominent of the automobile torpedoes is due to Captain Lupuis of the Austrian navy, and its development from 1864 onward to Whitehead, an Englishman. It is a cigar-shaped submarine vessel from 14 to 19 inches maximum diameter and from 14 to 19 feet long, which is blown from a torpedo-tube or gun within the ship by compressed air or an impulse charge of gunpowder. Twin-screw engines contained within its hull, and driven by compressed air stored in a reservoir therein, drive it at about thirty knots speed through an effective range of 600 yards. In its nose or “war-head” there is carried a large charge of gun cotton or other high explosive, which is fired by contact with the enemy’s hull. It is provided with both horizontal and vertical rudders, the depth of immersion being regulated by intricate machinery contained in the “balance-chamber.” The Whitehead has a somewhat formidable rival in the United States in the torpedo invented by Rear Admiral Howell, U. S. N. The automobile torpedo has never yet scored in battle against ships in motion. Its position in the naval warfare of the future is yet unfixed. The one certainty is, that its blow when struck home is almost surely fatal to ship and crew. The development of the submarine torpedo-boat, whose weapon is the Whitehead, has in recent years received much attention through the labors of the American Holland and others. France, in the Gustavus Zede, of 260 tons, has a diving boat of this character, for which much is claimed.

VIII. THE UNITED STATES FLEET.

Until the advent of the ironclad, the ships of the United States were equal, if not superior, in seaworthiness and fighting qualities to any in the world. The high standard set by the Constitution and her class of 1797 was maintained for sixty years; and, especially during the period from 1840 to 1860, the officers and men of the United States navy trod the decks of the finest ships afloat. They felt—as their successors feel—that, ton for ton and gun for gun, they had no foe to fear. The early steamers of the Powhatan class built in the late 40’s were a credit to the nation; the five screw frigates of the Merrimac type (1856–57) aroused the admiration and imitation of foreign experts, and the five corvettes which followed them in 1858–59–60, of which the noble Hartford was the chief, bore their full share in the war which was so soon to come. The gallant Kearsarge was the leader of a new class introduced in 1859.

During the Civil War two vessels, the Monitor and the New Ironsides, appeared which have left lasting traces on all battleship construction since their day. The great fleet of monitors, “tin-clads,” “90-day gunboats,” “double-enders,” and the like, which preceded and followed them during those dark years, served their country well. With the ending of that war, in the internal task of reconstruction and development, our maritime power was neglected and our fleet dwindled away. Its _renaissance_ dates from the appointment of the first Naval Advisory Board in June, 1881. The growth since then has been so much a matter of national interest and pride that it needs no detailed recounting here; its results have been summarized previously herein.

The sea-going personnel of the United States navy includes the line, medical, pay, and marine officers, the chaplains and warrant officers—a total on March 1, 1899, of 1589, with an enlisted force of 17,196 blue-jackets and 3166 marines. The officers who serve on shore are the naval constructors, civil engineers, and the professors of mathematics, a total of 69.

Line officers are the commanders, navigators, gunners, and, by recent law, the engineers of our ships of war. Marine officers have charge of the policing of ships and shore-stations and of the guns of light calibre afloat. The duties of the remaining officers are indicated by their titles. The titles of line officers and their relative rank, as compared with that of officers of the army, are:—

NAVY. ARMY.

Admiral General.
Rear-Admiral Major or Brigadier-General.
Captain Colonel.
Commander Lieutenant-Colonel.
Lieutenant-Commander Major.
Lieutenant Captain.
Lieutenant Junior Grade First Lieutenant.
Ensign Second Lieutenant.

Line and marine officers and naval constructors are educated at the United States Naval Academy; all other officers are appointed from civil life. The Academy was founded in 1845 and is located at Annapolis, Md. The course comprises four years at the school and two years at sea on a naval vessel. The number of cadets at Annapolis is usually about 260.

It is by reason of wars that navies exist, and a few words as to our—now happily ended—conflict with Spain, may fitly close this review of naval progress. The military lessons of that struggle have been fully set forth by able writers. More important, by far, than these is its teaching as regard to our state and future as a nation. The world has learned that the people of these United States are stirred still by the same stern and dauntless spirit which, in Revolution and Civil War, has made and kept us a nation. Furthermore, with one swift stroke, the bounds which in theory and in territory circumscribed us have been swept away, and the United States have passed from a continental to a world power. This is not chance. It is but the leading onward to a destiny whose splendor we may not measure now, whose light and peace and prosperity shall traverse a hemisphere. The one note of sadness in it all is the memory of the gallant dead, of the heroes who fell that this might be. To them, in Cuba and the Philippines, Columbia—with a smile of pride and a sob of pain—drinks in the wine of tears to-day, as the smoke of battle fades.

ASTRONOMY DURING THE CENTURY

BY SELDEN J. COFFIN, A.M.,

_Professor of Astronomy, Lafayette College, Easton, Pa._

ITS PROGRESS, ACHIEVEMENTS, AND NOTABLE RESULTS