The Evolution of Naval ArmamentRobertson, Frederick Leslie
History
The Evolution of Naval Armament
Robertson, Frederick Leslie
Naval art and science -- History; Ordnance, Naval -- History; Warships -- History
That little was done for years to improve the truck gun equipment, is
evident from a letter, written in 1825 by Captain S. J. Pechell and
addressed to the Commander-in-Chief of the Mediterranean squadron,
deploring the defective equipment of ships’ guns. Even at this date,
it appears, few of the guns were properly disparted, few had sights
or scales fitted to them. No arrangements had yet been generally
adapted for permitting horizontal, or what Captain Broke had called
“blindfold” firing; or for laying all the guns together by word of
command. The truck carriages still gave insufficient depression,
preventing a ship from firing her weather guns at point-blank when
listed more than four degrees. The quantity of powder and shot allowed
for exercise only amounted to one shot for each captain of a gun in
seven months. No instruction was given in sighting or fixing sights, no
system of instruction in principles was followed. And once again, as
in the seventeenth century, the disadvantage under which naval gunnery
laboured by reason of the dual control in all matters pertaining to the
ordnance was strongly felt. “It is singular,” wrote Captain Pechell,
“that the arming of a ship is the only part of her equipment which has
not the superintendence of a Naval Officer. We have no sea Officer at
the Ordnance to arrange and decide upon the proper equipment of Ships
of War; or to carry into effect any improvement which experience might
suggest. It is in this way that everything relating to the Ordnance
on board a Man of War has remained nearly in the same state for the
last thirty years; and is the only department (I mean the naval part
of it) that has not profited by experience or encouraged Officers
to communicate information. Much might be done now that the Marine
Artillery are stationed at Portsmouth. At present it is not even
generally known that a manual exercise exists.... If some such system
were adopted, we should no longer consider the length of an action at
its principal merit; the _Chesapeake_ was beat in eleven minutes!”
Captain Pechell was a firm believer in the desirability of developing
to its utmost British material. He had an enthusiastic belief,
moreover, in the possibilities of his personnel; and stated his
conviction that officers were only too anxious to be given the chance
of instruction, prophesying an emulation among them and as great a
desire to be distinguished “in gunnery as in Seamanship.” His advocacy
of a system of gunnery training bore fruit later in the establishment
of the _Excellent_ at Portsmouth. The scheme for the development of a
corps of scientific naval officers, which had been foreshadowed by Sir
Howard Douglas in his classic treatise on Naval Gunnery and which was
formulated later in detail by Captain Pechell, was one of the reforms
brought to maturity by Sir James Graham in the year 1832.
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