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 merchant service was in even worse plight. The tonnage rules had
had a deplorable effect upon merchant shipping. The ancient method
of assessing a ship’s burthen was by measuring the product of its
length and breadth and depth, and dividing this by a constant number,
which varied, at different periods, from 100 to 94. Early in the
eighteenth century, however, a simplification was innocently made:
the depth of the average ship being half the beam, a new formula was
approved--length multiplied by half the square of the beam, divided by
94.[34] The result might have been anticipated. Dues being paid only on
the length and breadth, vessels were given great depth of hold, full
lines, and narrow beam. Absolved by the convoy system from trusting to
their own speed for self-protection, English merchantmen became slugs:
flat-bottomed, wall-sided boxes, monstrosities of marine architecture
of which it was said that they were ‘built by the mile and served out
by the yard.’
To raise the skill and status of our builders, the Committee of Naval
Revision of 1806 presided over by Lord Barham advised the establishment
of an official school, in which the more highly gifted apprentices
might study the science involved in naval architecture. In 1811 the
school was opened at Portsmouth, with Dr. Inman, a senior wrangler, as
president. Ships were designed by Dr. Inman and his pupils excellent in
many respects, and generally on an equality with those of the Surveyor
and the master shipwrights. Yet still they were very imperfect. The
official designs were hampered, not only by the hereditary prejudices
and dogmas and by the cautious timidity of the builders themselves, but
by the restrictions still imposed by the Navy Board, who insisted on
a certain specified armament in combination with a totally inadequate
specified tonnage: who laid down incompatible conditions, in short,
under which genius itself must fail of producing a satisfactory result.
The chains were broken in 1832.
In that year, when the whole administration of the navy was in process
of reorganization, the office of Surveyor was offered to and accepted
by a naval officer, Captain W. Symonds, R.N.: accepted by him on the
condition that he should be given a free hand in design and allowed to
decide himself of what tonnage and dimensions every ship should be. Sir
Robert Seppings was superannuated. The school of naval architecture
was abolished. The sensation produced was powerful. “Except on matters
of religion,” said Sir James Graham, when the appointment was being
debated in the House of Commons some years afterwards, “I do not
know any difference of opinion which has been attended with so much
bitterness--so much anger--so much resentment, as the merits of Sir W.
Symonds and the virtues of his ships.”
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