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
It is not possible, however, for a country desirous of maintaining its
maritime supremacy to wait upon perfection in the manner implied as
the policy of the parliamentary committee. Some drastic and immediate
action was necessary, to redress the advantage accruing to France from
the possession of the _Gloire_ and her sister frigates. Such action was
duly taken; but before proceeding to examine this action it will be
necessary to revert for a moment to a consideration of iron. We have
already sketched the evolution of iron as a protective covering for
warships; we must now glance back and briefly trace its progress as a
constructive material.
Iron vessels had appeared on the canals of England in the latter part
of the eighteenth century. In 1815 a pleasure boat of that material
had sailed on the River Mersey, attracting crowds of people whose
credulity had been severely strained by the statement that an iron ship
would float. Admiral Napier had manifested an early interest in iron
ships; in 1820, in partnership with a Mr. Manby, he had constructed
the first iron steamer, the _Aaron Manby_, and navigated it from
London up the Seine to Paris, where in ’22 it attracted considerable
attention. From this date onwards iron vessels increased in number.
In ’39 the _Nemesis_ and _Phlegethon_ were built by Mr. Laird for the
East India Company, and in the China war of ’42 these gunboats played
a conspicuous and significant part. The grounding of the _Nemesis_ in
’40 on the rocks of Scilly afforded early evidence of the value of
watertight bulkheads (a Chinese invention) when embodied in an iron
hull.
As the size of ships increased, the disabilities attaching to the use
of timber became more and more evident. Though braced internally by
an elaborate system of iron straps, knees, and nutted bolts in iron
or copper, the large timber-built ship, considered as a structure,
was fundamentally weak; in fact the presence of the straps and ties
contributed in no small degree to its inability to withstand continuous
stress. The fastenings did not accord with the materials which they
fastened together, and the wood was relatively so soft that when a
severe strain arose a general yielding took place, the boltheads
sinking into the wood and causing it to give way to the pressure thrown
locally upon it. As tonnage increased the metal fastenings grew more
and more conspicuous, the ship became a composite structure of wood
and iron, with the result that uniformity of elasticity and strength
was lost and the stresses, instead of being distributed throughout
the structure, tended to become localized at certain points. “The
metallic fastenings of a timber-built ship act to accelerate her
destruction so soon as the close connection of the several parts is at
all diminished.” So in 1840 wrote Augustin Creuze, a graduate of the
disbanded school of naval architecture and one of the most gifted and
eminent men of his profession at that day.
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