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
The order of 1745 was virtually the last of those rule-of-thumb
establishments which had imposed rigorous maximum limits of length,
beam and draught in conjunction with an equally rigorous minimum of
armament weight, and which had been a glaring example of the evil
effects of standardization when unscientifically and unsuitably
applied. The East India service, the contract-built ships of which
were designed by architects untrammelled by the rules which cramped
and distorted the official architecture, provided the clearest proof
that the King’s ships were, as a whole, of poor design. Naval opinion
confirmed it.[26]
For further evidence that it was the system and not the men at fault,
we may note Charnock’s statement that, given a free hand, Englishmen
proved themselves better shipbuilders than foreigners. “It stamps
no inconsiderable degree of splendour on the opinion which even the
arrogance of Spain felt itself compelled to hold in regard to the
superior practical knowledge possessed by the British shipwrights in
the construction and art of putting a vessel together, when brought in
comparison with that of their own people. The builders in all the royal
dockyards and arsenals, the Havanna excepted, were Britons.”
How many, we may wonder, of the ships shattered by Lord Nelson at
Trafalgar were constructed by our countrymen? The _Victory_, which was
to bear his flag, was laid down (we may note in passing) in the year
1759: she was 186 feet in length on the gun-deck, 52 feet broad, and of
2,162 tons burthen.
In 1774 the American war broke out. The colonists, who possessed a
small but efficient frigate navy, were joined soon afterwards by
France, and then by Spain, and Holland. Lord Rodney acknowledged the
superiority of the French in speed, who, though his ships were equally
clean with theirs, yet had the power daily to bring on an action. The
war proved a rough test for our honest but unscientific construction.
“In 1778, assailed by numerous enemies, England put forth all her
naval strength. Powerful fleets had to be found simultaneously for the
Channel, the North Sea, the East Indies, America, and the West Indies.
Five years of such warfare proved exhausting, the ships on paying off
in 1783 were in a terrible state of decay. Several foundered returning
home, owing to their ill-construction and rickety condition; their
iron bolts broke with the working, and the ships were mere bundles of
boards. All this was owing to want of a better system of building, such
as has since been brought to such perfection by Sir R. Seppings.”[27]
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account