Afghan Wars; Crimean War, 1853-1856; Egypt -- History -- British occupation, 1882-1936; India -- History -- Sepoy Rebellion, 1857-1858
It was in 1854 that Lord Armstrong first took up the subject, of which
he has ever since been acknowledged as one of the chief authorities. He
has also rendered good service in the establishment of a manufacturing
arsenal at Elswick, which, in the event of a great war, would become of
national advantage. The first rifled breech-loading guns of his pattern
were adopted in 1859, and gave results in range and accuracy far beyond
anything that had hitherto been achieved. They were followed by the
introduction of others of a larger calibre; and so enthusiastic were
the navy and artillery, that many of our vessels of war and fortresses
were speedily supplied with them. Between 1859 and 1862, two millions
and a half sterling were expended on new armaments.
Notwithstanding their great success and superiority, however, they
developed considerable defects in regard to breech mechanism; and
numerous accidents occurred both by sea and land, due in a measure to
want of skill in their handling. It became evident from experience
in the war in China in 1860, and in Japan in 1862-3, that they were
somewhat delicate weapons.[102]
In 1863 the Armstrong and Whitworth competition took place, in which
both firms were represented on the committee; and after lengthened
trials they reported[103] in 1865 that the breech-loading system was
inferior for purposes of war to that of muzzle-loading, and was more
expensive. Other experiments followed, leading to a similar conclusion,
and as a consequence the latter was adopted, and continued in force
for many years; the guns rising rapidly in size and in weight from
five up to one hundred tons. In 1867 a committee of thirteen artillery
officers, under the late Field-Marshal Sir Richard Dacres, inquired
into the subject as regards field guns, and reported unanimously in
favour of muzzle-loaders. In 1868 the Admiralty were asked whether they
wished the subject re-opened as regards naval guns, but they declined.
Having served in India from 1857 to 1866, I had, of course, no
practical knowledge of the earlier stages of this difficult and
much-debated subject; but on becoming Director of Artillery in 1870,
I found that the two services were in practical unanimity as to the
advantages of the rifled muzzle-loading system--that it was simpler,
better adapted for war, and cheaper than the other. In 1871 the
Admiralty were again consulted on the question, but with the same
result as before. In that year, a German 9-pounder breech-loading field
gun was obtained for comparison with our own; and after a long series
of trials the committee reported that the English gun was superior,
not only in simplicity, but in range and power, and in rapidity of
fire.[104] It was also known that during the great war of 1870 upwards
of two hundred German guns had become unserviceable. All experience,
therefore, appeared at the time to point in one direction; but a change
gradually arose, the causes of which were partly scientific, partly
mechanical.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account