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
But small progress was made. One reason alleged was that the shape of
hull which the Surveyor had made peculiarly his own was ill-adapted for
steam machinery. “Nothing more unpropitious,” observed a later writer,
“for Sir William Symond’s mode of construction than the introduction of
steam can be conceived. His sharp bottoms were the very worst possible
for the reception of engines; his broad beam and short length the most
unfavourable qualities that could be devised for steam propulsion. As
much as he could, he adhered to his principles.... Rather than yield
to the demands of the new power, he sacrificed the armaments of his
vessels, kept down the size of their engines, and recklessly exposed
the machinery to shot should they go into action.”[149] There doubtless
was something in this criticism. And yet, as we have seen, experience
in America led to a form of hull for paddle steamers in many respects
approaching that condemned as being favoured by the Surveyor!
Another and more valid reason for the slow progress made lay in the
inherent unsuitability of the paddlewheel steamer as a substitute
for the large sailing warship. Not only did the paddlewheels offer a
large and vulnerable surface to destruction by enemy shot, but the
wheels and their machinery could not be embodied in a ship design
without interference with its sails and sailing qualities and, still
more, without serious sacrifice of broadside armament. The machinery
monopolized a large section of the midship space, the huge wheels
covered the sides and interfered with the training of those guns for
which room remained. The problem of arming steam-vessels was novel and
difficult of solution. The guns must be few and therefore powerful.
Hence it appeared that paddlewheel steamers, notwithstanding the
advantages they possessed of speed and certainty of motion, could only
sustain a small concentrated armament, consisting of the heaviest
and most powerful ordnance: guns of large calibre, which possessed
large power of offence at ranges where the broadside cannon would be
deprived of much of their efficiency. Hence in ’31 a 10-inch shell gun
of 84 hundredweight was expressly designed and cast for this purpose;
and all the classes of steamers in early use in the navy were armed
with it until, in ’41, it was displaced by the 68-pounder pivot gun,
which then became the principal pivot gun of the service. Thus the
development of paddlewheel machinery reacted on the development of
artillery. The steamer was a stimulus to the development of large
ordnance worked on the pivot system. And this form of armament in
turn influenced the form of the ship. The main weights--those of the
propelling machinery--were already concentrated in the waist of the
vessel, and it was now possible so to place the few pivot guns that the
ends of the vessel were left very lightly loaded. Thus it was possible
to give unprecedentedly fine lines to the new steamers, a sharp and
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