I. INFLUENCE OF SEA POWER.

The share of navies in the great movements which have moulded human destiny and shaped the world’s progress, although long obscure and undervalued, has met in our time full recognition. Within a decade the influence of sea power upon history has become the frequent theme of historians and essayists who, in clear and striking form, have shown the cardinal importance, both in war and commerce, of the fleet—the nation’s right arm on the sea. It is fitting, therefore, that in the retrospect of a hundred years navies should have their place; that, in looking backward with history’s unclouded vision, we should mark, not only their growth and change, but, as well, their achievement in some of the most memorable conflicts of our race.

The century had but begun when, at Copenhagen, Nelson, with one titanic blow, shattered the naval strength of Denmark and the coalition of the Northern powers. His signal there, ever for “closer battle,” told in few words the life story of the Great Admiral, and foreshadowed his end. Four years later, at Trafalgar, the desire of his eager heart was satisfied, when he met in frank fight the fleets of France and Spain. Amid the thundering cannonade of that last victory his life-tide ebbed, bearing with it the power of France upon the seas and the broken fortunes of Napoleon. In the war of 1812, our disasters upon the land met compensation in victory afloat. The United States was then among the feeblest of maritime powers; and yet Macdonough and Perry on the lakes and our few frigates on the ocean opposed, with success, the swarming squadrons of a nation whose naval glory, as Hallam says, can be traced onward “in a continuous track of light” from the days of the Commonwealth. The oppression of the Sultan was ended for a time when, in 1827, the Turkish and Egyptian fleets were annihilated, in sudden fury, by the allied squadrons in that brief engagement which Wellington termed the “untoward event” of Navarino.

A generation later, the command of the sea enabled England and France to despatch, in unarmed transports, 63,000 men and 128 guns to the Crimea, and to land them, without opposition, for the red carnage of the Alma, Balaklava, Inkerman, and Sebastopol. Following closely upon the disease and death, the fatuity and the glory, of the Crimea, came the great war of modern times, in which the gun afloat played such a gallant part, as the blockade, with its constricting coils, slowly starved and strangled the Confederacy to death, and Farragut, on inland waters, split it in twain. Passing over the sea-fights of Lissa,—in which imperial Venice was the stake,—of South America and the Yalu, we note, lastly, the swift and fateful actions off Santiago and in Manila Bay, which destroyed once again the sea power of Spain, won distant territory for the United States, and opened up for us a noble pathway of commercial expansion to the uttermost island of the broad Pacific and the vast Asian littoral beyond. Who will say, in the retrospect of the century, that the fleets of the world have not had their full share in the making of its history?

II. THE CENTURY’S GROWTH IN NAVAL STRENGTH.

The United States fleet, in the year 1800, comprised 35 vessels, 10 of which were frigates mounting 32 guns or more. In 1812, America entered the lists against a navy of a thousand sail, with a fleet of but 20 ships, the largest of which was a 44-gun frigate. The operations of the Civil War were begun with but 82 vessels, 48 of which were sailing craft. Before the close of that gigantic struggle there were added, by construction or purchase, 674 steamers. In 1898, during the war with Spain, there were borne on the Naval Register, as building or in service, 13 battleships and 176 other vessels, including torpedo craft, with 123 converted merchantmen. The total naval force during hostilities was 22,832 men and 2382 officers, excluding the Marine Corps.

At London, in 1653, there was printed “A List of the Commonwealth of England’s Navy at Sea, in their expedition in May, 1653, under the command of the Right Honorable Colonel Richard Deane and Colonel George Monk, Esquires, Generals, and Admirals.” This quaint record of that early time gives the force afloat as 105 ships, 3840 guns, and 16,269 men. In Britain’s strife for that ocean empire, which is world empire, that fleet had grown, by the year 1800, to 757 vessels, built or building, with an aggregate tonnage of 629,211, and carrying 26,552 guns, 3653 officers, and 110,000 men. The stately three-decker, with its snowy canvas and maze of rigging, has vanished with the past; but, despite time and change, that mighty fleet still dominates the seas. Its strength, on February 1, 1898, was 615 vessels—61 of which were battleships,—carrying a total force of 110,050 officers and men.

Colbert, when the Grand Monarch was at the zenith of his power, found France with a few old and rotten vessels, and left her with a noble fleet of 40 ships of the line and 60 frigates, which, under D’Estrée, Jean Bart, Tourville, and Duquesne, carried her flag to every sea. A state paper of the time gives the force at the beginning of this century as 61 ships of the line, 42 corvettes, and a numerous, although unimportant, flotilla of small craft. With Aboukir and Trafalgar, the maritime power of France wasted away; and, by the year 1839, there were afloat but three effective sail of the line. In 1840, however, the revival began, and during the modern era the French fleet has, at times, been a formidable rival of that of England. It comprised, in 1898, 446 vessels, including torpedo craft, 26 of the total being battleships. The force afloat numbered 70,925, of all ranks and ratings.

Germany’s navy is of modern creation. It began, a little less than half a century ago, with one sailing corvette and two gunboats; and, in 1898, comprised 13 battleships and 179 other vessels of all types, carrying 23,302 officers and men. The fleet of united Italy had its inception, also, within the age of steam. It was on March 17, 1860, that Italian national life began with the ascension of the throne by Victor Emmanuel. From the beginning, the kingdom has been lavish with its fleet, its expenditures within the first six years reaching $60,000,000. In 1898 there were in the Italian navy 265 vessels of all types, 17 of which were battleships. The force afloat was 24,200, of all ranks and ratings.

The Crimean war found Russia but little advanced, either on the Black Sea or the Baltic, in the substitution of steam for sail. Since that time, however, she has re-created her battle fleet, which is now especially strong in torpedo craft and cruisers of great steaming radius. Her navy, in 1898, comprised 20 battleships and 263 other vessels, with a force of 32,477 officers and men. Japan began her fleet in 1866 with the purchase of an armor-clad from the United States. In 1898, she had a total of 145 vessels, built and building—8 of which were battleships—carrying 23,000 men of all ranks and ratings.

Of minor navies little need be said. Austria had, in 1898, a fleet of 115 vessels of all types, including 13 battleships and 79 torpedo craft. Holland’s force was 185 vessels, 3 being battleships and 93 torpedo craft. The fleets of Turkey, Greece, Spain, and Portugal are “paper-navies” mainly. Norway and Sweden have a combined strength of 171 vessels of all types. Denmark, which began the century with overwhelming naval disaster at Copenhagen, has now a force of 3000 men borne on 50 vessels, half of which are torpedo craft. Argentina, Brazil, and Chili have afloat 102 torpedo vessels and 49 of other types. The vast growth in naval armaments during the century may be measured from the fact that the personnel of the leading navies of Europe, with those of Japan and the United States, comprised, in the year 1898, 368,028 officers and men, with a total force of 2749 vessels of all types, including torpedo craft.

III. THE BATTLESHIP,—PAST AND PRESENT.

In tracing the evolution of the modern man-of-war, it will be instructive to compare with her the type of the sailing age. There are two ships of the old time which hold chief places in the memory of the Anglo-Saxon race,—the Victory, Nelson’s flagship at Trafalgar, and the Constitution, whose achievements under Hull, Bainbridge, and Stewart, rang around the world. There were, even before the days of steam, war-vessels twice as large and powerful as “Old Ironsides,” but over no sea, in any age, has there sailed a ship with a more gallant record. Plate I shows her as she was in her prime—before the wind, with all sail set. On Plate II there is given a side view of her hull, which is of historic interest, in that it is reproduced from the original drawing made in October, 1796.

When her power and dimensions are compared with those of the Oregon, our sea-fighter of to-day, one sees what time has wrought. The frigate carried 456 men, the armor-clad, 500; and yet, with this approximately equal force, the Oregon has a displacement 6½ times that of her famed predecessor; and although the number of the guns—44—is the same in each, she discharges a broadside 8.3 times heavier and in energy overwhelmingly superior. The speed of the battleship is one half greater than that of the Constitution, and she carries armor varying from 18 inches to 4 inches thick, which the frigate wholly lacked. The longitudinal section of the Oregon indicates the immense advance in other directions. Her hull is, for safety, minutely subdivided, and is provided with engines for propulsion, steering, lighting, drainage, and ventilation, numbering in all 84, with miles of piping and hundreds of valves. The time-honored frigate was but a sail-propelled gun-platform, whose wants were as few as her construction was simple; the steel-clad battleship is a mass of mechanism, a floating machine-plant, which for full efficiency must be manned by a personnel not only brave and daring as of old, but expert in many arts and sciences, which in the age of sail were but rudimentary or unknown.

IV. THE PROGRESS OF NAVAL ENGINEERING.

“I have just read the project of Citizen Fulton, Engineer, which you have sent me much too late, since it is one which may change the face of the world.”

So, in the beginning of the century, wrote the first Napoleon from his Imperial camp at Boulogne. Wrapped in his day-dream of a descent upon the Thames, he saw, with prophetic vision, in the plans of the American engineer, the future of navigation, and he strove to grasp—but too late—the opportunity which might have made his armada victorious over wind and tide.

His words, however, rang truer than he knew. On the sea, as on the land, the engineer has indeed “changed the face of the world;” and in no department of human progress has his influence been more radical or more far-reaching than in the mechanism, the scope, and the strategy of naval war. Fleets move now with a swiftness and surety unthought of in the days of sail. Over the same western ocean which Nelson, in his eager chase of Villeneuve, crossed at but four knots an hour, the United States cruiser Columbia swept, ninety years later, at a speed nearly four and three quarters times that of his lagging craft. When, in 1898, war came, the great battleship Oregon, although far to the northward on our western coast, was needed in the distant battle-line off the Cuban shore. In 79 days she steamed 14,500 miles, making a run which is without parallel or approach by any warship of any navy in the world’s history. The magnificent manhood, the unconquerable pluck, the engineering skill, which brought her just in time off Santiago, won their reward when the Colon struck her flag. Speed has been a determining factor in many a naval action. It was that which gave the power to take and hold the old-time “weather-gauge.” None knew its value better than Nelson, the chief fighter of the age of sail. Once he said that there would be found, stamped upon his heart, “the want of frigates,” the swift and nimble “eyes of the fleet” in his day. If his career in warfare on the sea had been a century later, he would be found foremost among the advocates of high-speed battleships and quick-firing guns.

It is, however, not only in the speed of warships that steam and mechanism have revolutionized fleets. For example, the displacement of the battleship of to-day is fully three and one half times greater than that of her heaviest ancestor of the sailing age. With due limitation as to length of hull, it is evident that the wind would be, at best, a wholly inadequate and untrustworthy motor for this huge structure with its great weight of armor. It is true that, during the era of transition, sail and steam were both applied to iron-clads—this absurdity reaching its climax in the British Agincourt and her sisters, which were 400 feet long, 10,600 tons’ displacement, and were fitted with five masts. It is said that a merchant steamer narrowly escaped collision at night with one of these vessels, believing from her length and rigging that there were two ships ahead, between which she could pass. What these large displacements mean, in contrast with those of past days, will be, perhaps, best illustrated by the statement that the Italia of 13,600 tons—a ship with which, in her day, Italy challenged the criticism of the world—carries on her deck a weight, in armor and armament, of 2500 tons, or one fourth more than that of Nelson’s flagship Victory.

Again, the largest naval gun in the year 1800 was one firing but a 42-pound shot, while in the United States navy we have now the 13-inch rifle of 60 tons, with a projectile of 1100 pounds, and Great Britain has afloat 1800-pounder breech-loaders which weigh 111 tons. Before monster ordnance such as this, the strength of man, unaided, is but crude and futile. He must call to his help—as he has done—steam as the source of power for the electric, hydraulic, or pneumatic engines, which load, elevate, and train the gun.

In summing up the service of steam, directly or indirectly, to the ship-of-war, it will be seen that the speed of the battleship has been increased by fully 50 per cent., and that of the cruiser has been doubled; that the displacement of the battleship is now three and one half times that of her sailing predecessor; and that, since the century’s birth, the gun has grown to such extent that the projectile for the Oregon’s main battery weighs 26 times that of the heaviest shot in the year 1800. This, however, is not all. Steam acts primarily, as well, to raise the anchor, to steer the ship, and to effect her lighting, heating, drainage, and ventilation. To the genius of James Watt there must be ascribed the possibility for the growth and change which have produced the modern man-of-war.

Closely allied with mechanism in this evolution, has been the transformation of the structural material of the hull, which has passed from the hands of the shipwright in wood to the engineer who works with steel. The reasons for this are not far to seek. They lie, firstly, in the greater strength of the metal construction to withstand the vibration of swift and heavy machinery, and the strains arising from the unequal distribution of massive weights in a hull which pitches or rolls with the waves. With wooden ships, the present proportions would have been unattainable. Again, there is a marked saving in the weight of the hull proper of the steel vessel, which is not only stronger but lighter. This weight in the days of timber averaged fully one half of the displacement; while in the Oregon, whose tonnage, at normal draught, is 10,288, the hull percentage is 44.06, leaving a gain over the wooden vessel of 611 tons to be applied to armor, armament, or equipment. Finally, the durability of the metal vessel, with adequate care, greatly exceeds that of the wooden war steamer, whose average life was but 13 years.

The creation of the steam machinery of navies has been the achievement of the engineers of practically but three great nations. The daring of France, the inventive genius of America, and the wide experience and sound judgment of Great Britain, have united in this work. Our country has led time and again in the march of improvement; although our progress has been fitful, since, more than a generation ago, we turned from the sea to the development of the internal resources of this continent. Limits of space permit but brief review of a history which has had its full share of triumphs, not only in battle, but over wave and wind.

A contemporary authority states that, when British Admiral Sir John Borlase Warren ascended the Potomac River, during the war of 1812, his expedition was reconnoitred by an American steamer. This appears to be the first record of the use of such craft for military purposes. In 1814 the United States built the first steam war-vessel in the world’s history. She was called the Demologos, later the Fulton, and her completion marked truly, as her commissioners said, “an era in warfare and the arts.” She was a double-ended, twin-hulled floating battery of 2475 tons, carrying twenty 32-pdr. guns, protected by 4 ft. 10 in. of solid timber. She was driven by a single central paddle-wheel; her speed was 5½ miles per hour; and she was both handy and seaworthy. France, in 1820, sent a commission to America to report upon steam vessels of war; and in 1830 the French had nine armed steamers afloat and nine building. In 1821, the Comet, a small side-wheeler, was commissioned as the first steam war-ship in the British navy, and in 1840, at the bombardment of Acre, steam vessels fought their first battle.

The growth of steam in navies had been retarded by its application solely to paddle craft, whose wheels and machinery were incapable of protection in action. During the years 1842–43, however, the United States built the sloop-of-war Princeton, of 954 tons. This vessel was the product of the genius of John Ericsson, the ablest marine engineer the world has ever seen. She was the first screw-propelled steam warship ever built, and, in other respects, foreshadowed the advances which were to come. Thus, her machinery was the first to be placed wholly below the water-line beyond the reach of hostile shot; her engine was the first to be coupled directly to the screw shaft, and blowers, for forced draft, were with her first used in naval practice. She was virtually the herald of the modern era.

The Princeton was followed closely by the Rattler, the first screw vessel of the British fleet, and in 1843–44 the French 44-gun frigate Pomone was fitted with propellers. In 1843, also, the English Penelope was the first man-of-war to be equipped with tubular boilers, and the year 1845 was notable for the building of the ill-fated Birkenhead, the first iron vessel of the British fleet. In 1850, when the French constructed the screw line-of-battle ship Napoleon, the English became alarmed, and began with vigor the renovation of their navy with regard to screw propulsion.

France, in 1854, laid the keels of four armored batteries, three of which, forming the first ironclad squadron in history, went into action a year later under the forts of Kinburn in the Crimea. They were of 1600 tons’ displacement, carried 4⅓ inch armor and sixteen 68-pdr. guns, and had a speed of four knots. In 1862, Ericsson launched the famous Monitor, the first sea-going ironclad with a revolving turret, and an “engineers’ ship” from keel to turret top.

The Civil War found us with a sailing navy, and left us one of steam. Passing over its victories, in which steamers played always the chief part on sea and river, we come to that most notable triumph of Chief Engineer Isherwood, the cruiser Wampanoag of 4200 tons’ displacement. This vessel, phenomenal in her day, steamed in February, 1868, from Barnegat to Savannah, over a stormy sea, in 38 hours. Her average was 16.6 knots for the run, and 17 knots during a period of six consecutive hours—a speed which for 11 years thereafter was unapproached by liner or by warship. In 1879, the British despatch vessel Mercury, of 3730 tons and 18.87 knots, wrested the palm from America; but, in 1893, it was won again for the United States by the triple-screw fliers Columbia and Minneapolis of 7475 tons, with speeds respectively of 22.8 and 23.073 knots. The laurels rest now with the Buenos Ayres, which, though built in England in 1895, flies the flag of Argentina. She has a tonnage of 4500 and a speed of 23.202 knots.

The British ironclad Pallas, completed in 1866, was remarkable for having the first successful naval engines on the compound principle, in which the steam is admitted at high pressure to a small cylinder, and passes thence to a larger one which it fills by its expansion. To Great Britain the world owes also the development of triple expansion, i. e., the use of steam successively in three cylinders. This system was inaugurated in naval engines by the British, in 1885–86, and is now universally employed. Prior to 1879, the boilers of all modern war-vessels had been those of the Scotch type, in which the flame passes through tubes fixed in a cylindrical shell containing water. In that year, however, France began a revolution in the steam generators of navies by equipping a dispatch-vessel with the Belleville tubulous boiler, in which the water to be evaporated is contained within tubes surrounded by flame confined in an outer casing. The water-tube principle, also, bids fair to become of universal application. It has had its most noteworthy naval installation in the British cruisers Powerful and Terrible, of 14,200 tons and 25,886 horse-power, completed in 1895.

The use of more than one screw for propulsion dates back to 1853. During our Civil War multiple screws figured, to a small extent, in the “tin clads” and larger monitors. The application of twin screws, in the modern era, begins with the British ironclad Penelope of 1868. France, in the years 1884–85, blazed the way for another naval advance of much importance in conducting a series of trials with the launch Carpe, equipped with triple screws. The system, however, although of much value, from engineering and tactical points of view, was not adopted in large, high-powered vessels until the advent of the French armored cruiser Dupuy de Lôme in 1890, and the protected cruisers Columbia and Minneapolis of the United States navy in 1893. It has now won full approval in the navies of continental Europe, and triple-screw ships, aggregating 500,000 tons, are built or building there.

The limits of space forbid more than a passing note of the triumphs of the engineer in torpedo craft, the light cavalry of the sea. With steamers of normal proportions, the speed and power depend largely upon, and increase with, the displacement. As has been stated, the maximum performance of large cruisers is now 23 knots on a tonnage of 4500. These particulars give a faint glimpse of the extraordinary problem which has confronted the torpedo-boat designer in driving hulls of, at present, about 150 tons at a speed which now approximates to 30 knots. With the brilliant record of success in this task, there will be linked always the names of Yarrow and Thornycroft in England, of Schichau in Germany, and of Normand in France. The achievement but recently of a British inventor, the Hon. Charles Algernon Parsons, in giving the Turbinia of 44.5 tons a speed of over 31 knots, has drawn the attention of engineers the world over to the possibilities of the steam turbine on the sea. This performance is phenomenal with such a displacement. The French Forban, of 130 tons, has made 31.2 knots, and a reported speed of 35 knots gives a Schichau boat her temporary laurels as the fastest craft afloat.

A brief glance at the improvements which have made possible these extreme speeds in cruisers and torpedo craft will be of interest. The progress which has been made has been, firstly, in the economy in the use of steam arising from higher pressures and multiple expansion; secondly, in the reduction of weight, per horse power, due to increase in strength of materials and in engine-speed with the employment of forced draft—which was reintroduced by France—and the water-tube boiler; and, finally, in the application of a more efficient propelling instrument. The advances of half a century in propelling machinery are shown, in some respects, by Plates III and IV, which contrast, on the same scale, the side-wheel machinery of the United States war-steamer Powhatan, of 1849, with the engines of the United States torpedo boat Ericsson of to-day. The data of the former vessel are: horse-power, 1172; steam pressure 15 lbs.; weight of machinery per horse-power 972 lbs.; while, for the Ericsson, the figures are: horse-power, 1800; steam pressure, 250 lbs.; weight of machinery per horse-power, 56 lbs. This comparison, however, must be qualified by the statement that the older engine was for a steamer of about 3760 tons, while the torpedo boat is but 120 tons in displacement. The contrast lies, therefore, only in the reduced weight of material per horse-power developed and in the increased steam pressure, which, however, are in themselves most striking.

V. THE GROWTH OF ORDNANCE.

At Trafalgar, the Victory drifted before the wind into action. In her slow advance, at a speed of one and one half knots through but 1200 yards, she was for half an hour under the prolonged fire of 200 guns, and yet she closed, practically unhurt, with her foes, and lived, not only to win the day, but to bring undying glory to the English flag. What a contrast the latest sea-fight of the century presents in the power of modern ordnance as compared with the puny guns of Nelson’s time! Our battleship Oregon, at a range of nearly five miles, with one 1100-pound shell, drove the Colon, an armored cruiser, not only shoreward, but to surrender, stranding, and wreck.

The largest naval guns in the year 1800 were the long 32 and 42-pounders, smooth-bore muzzle-loaders, with a range of about 1200 yards. Carronades—short pieces with a heavy shot but limited range—found favor also, especially with British sailors, eager for that close-quarter fighting in which the “Smasher”—as General Melville called his carronade—would be most effective in shattering timbers and in sending clouds of splinters among the foe. The projectiles were spherical shot, canister, and grape, the diabolical shriek of the shell being yet unheard. Both gun and shot were of cast metal, and the mount was a wooden carriage on low trucks. The training, or horizontal angle of the gun, was effected by rope tackles, and the amount of elevation of its muzzle depended upon the position of a “quoin,” or wooden wedge, thrust beneath the breech. The recoil was limited by rope “breeching,” passing through the cascabel,—a knob behind the breech,—and secured to ring-bolts in the ship’s side. The gun was harnessed, as a horse is, in the shafts.

Aiming was largely a perfunctory process, since the gun had no sights and the shot had excessive “windage,” its calibre being from one fifth to one third inch less than the bore, making its outward passage a series of rebounds and its final direction a matter of chance. “Windage,” however, was essential to facilitate muzzle-loading and to provide for the expanded diameter of red-hot shot. It is true that in 1801 a proposition to use sights was made to Lord Nelson. He, however, rejected it with the words:—

“I hope we shall be able, as usual, to get so close to our enemies that our shot cannot miss the object.”

His blind courage in this cost his countrymen dearly when, in 1812–14, their shot flew wild, while their ships were hulled and their gallant tars fell before the then sighted guns of the United States.

To ignite the charge the slow-match was still used, as is shown by the sharp words of a sailor of that time. Hailed in the darkness by a British ship and ordered to send a boat, his quick answer was:—

“This is the United States frigate Constitution, Edward Preble, commodore, commanding, and I’ll be d—d if I send a boat!”

Then to his men, silent and eager by the shrouded battle-lanterns:—

“Blow your matches, boys!”

A full crew for a 32-pounder consisted of 14 men. An old rule as to this was one man to every 500-lbs. weight of the gun, which would give the Oregon 1100 men to handle the four 13-inch rifles of her main battery, or more than twice her whole crew. Steam and mechanism have wrought a magic change in this.

The slow-match remained in use until well into the nineteenth century, although, until 1842, the flint lock was generally employed in the British navy, having replaced the priming horn and match in 1780. In 1807 there was discovered a composition which could be ignited by friction or concussion, and in 1839 the French had adopted the percussion lock, which exploded the cap and retracted, uncovering the vent before the backward rush of the gas could strike it. Later, a similar composition was used with “friction-primers,” or tubes filled with mealed powder and capped with composition, the tube forming a train leading to the charge, and the composition being fired by the friction of a rough wire drawn briskly through it. Percussion and friction have been in turn largely displaced by the electric primer, which consists essentially of a fine wire, or “bridge,” passing through a highly inflammable mixture. The bridge offers a resistance to the electric current, is heated thereby, ignites the composition, and fires the gun.

The older type of the cast-iron smooth-bore gun for solid shot reached its ultimate development in the 68-pounder, which endured until the advent of armor. In 1819 the system of firing shells loaded with gunpowder from smooth-bore guns was suggested by General Paixhans, of France. In 1824, it was introduced into the French navy, and about 1840 into that of the United States. At Sinope, in 1853, the terrible effect of shell fire upon wooden ships startled the world, when a Russian fleet destroyed absolutely 11 Turkish vessels, with their force of 4000 men. The Paixhans gun was modified and its form improved by Admiral Dahlgren, U. S. N., and in the late 50’s the armament—designed by him—of United States vessels was superior to that of any other in the world. The 9, 11, and 15-inch Dahlgrens formed the bulk of our guns afloat during the Civil War, the remainder being almost wholly rifles of the Parrott type.

The resistance which spherical projectiles met from the air, their deviation in flight, owing to the frequent lack of coincidence of the centres of gravity and form, their excessive “windage,” and their light weight relatively to calibre, led to the adoption of the rifled gun and the cylindrical projectile. The principle of the former—making the shot act as a screw-bolt and the bore as a screw-thread—is very old, there being at Woolwich a barrel of this type bearing date of 1547. The objects aimed at in rifling are to give a pointed cylindrical shot rotation on its axis that it may keep steady during flight, and secondly, to obtain increased weight in the projectile from its elongated form. As to the latter consideration, it may be noted that the old 32-pounder smooth-bore was of 6-inch calibre, while the United States 6-inch rifle of to-day throws a shot of 100 lbs. weight.

France, during the Crimean War, brought out the first heavy rifled gun. In 1860–61, Armstrong rifles were introduced in the British navy. The labors of Krupp met such success that at Paris, in 1867, he exhibited a rifle weighing 50 tons with a projectile of 1080 pounds. The Parrott rifle was brought out about 1856 in the United States, and was so developed that in 1862 it was the most powerful gun, for its weight and size, in existence. The adoption of rifling was the first great step on the road which engineering had laid toward the growth in power of modern ordnance.

Having thus secured a projectile of great weight and moderate calibre which would bore through the air a true path to the distant mark, there remained to seek but four chief elements in the magnificent advance made within a generation by the naval artillery of our day. These factors were: 1st. Increased strength in the material of the gun. 2d. A method of construction which would not only permit enormous pressures in the powder-chamber, but would make possible the continuous acceleration of the projectile during its passage through the bore. 3d. An explosive which would satisfy the objects of the method of construction; and, 4th. A system of loading which would enable guns of great length to be charged with ease. The mounting of ordnance of any weight, its control, and its rapid and facile handling were but minor matters of engineering.

In a paper such as this, of limited length and addressed to laymen, it is possible to give but a glance at the progress in the various elements of gun-construction which have been noted. Of material, little need be said. The rifle of Crimean days was a cast-iron piece; Parrott ordnance was of cast and wrought iron; and the first Armstrong gun was built of wrought iron and steel. Cast and compound materials, however, have vanished with the past. Steel—hardened and toughened to the last degree by every refinement of manufacture—forms the “reeking tube” for the “iron shard” of the century’s close.

The method of construction is the “built-up” process, shown by the partial section on Plate V., the barrel being reinforced by tubes which are shrunk on—like the tire of a wagon-wheel—so as to produce initial compression. The explosion in the powder chamber strains and expands temporarily the barrel, and the application of the shrinkage principle enables a portion of the strength of the tubes to be employed in preliminary internal pressure. The barrel thus supported can be strained by the charge, not only to its own limit of safety, but to an additional amount equal to this initial compression. The all-steel, built-up gun has a possible rival in wire-wound ordnance, a system which replaces the tubes, to a greater or less extent, by layers of wire, wound while in tension around the barrel.

Powder is the soul of the gun; it transforms the huge inert mass into a flaming engine of death. The great development of explosives began but a generation since. The researches of Robins and Rumford in the last century, and of Hutton in the dawn of this, formed the world’s knowledge of the gun’s internal ballistics until the year 1870. To the genius of Noble and Abel is due the stimulus to growth since then. The powders have kept pace with gun-construction in its advance. The increased strength of the chamber has been met by heavier and slow-burning charges—cocoa, brown prismatic, and the like—which have given not only greater initial velocity, but a continuous acceleration through bores whose maximum length has exceeded 47 feet. Indeed, to the production of this lingering combustion is due the great linear dimension and power of modern guns. Initial pressure had its limit; advance lay only in the subsequent acceleration given by late ignition of a portion of the charge.

Gunpowder, however, after a reign of more than five hundred years, has been dethroned. The “villainous saltpetre” of the monk, with its allies, charcoal and sulphur, yields now to nitro compounds, which produce not only far greater energy, but are as well smokeless. The sea-fights of our war with Spain saw the last contending fleets to be wrapped in a cloud, lingering and baffling, of their own making. Cordite, one of these compounds in use abroad, is prepared in long “cords” from di-nitro-cellulose and nitro-glycerine. The new smokeless “powder” of the United States navy is made from nitro-cellulose dissolved in ether alcohol. France was the first in employing explosives such as these, which, in their offensive and tactical advantages, form one of the signal triumphs of the century’s last years.

The long gun of modern days is of necessity breech-loading. The development of other elements gave, as a resultant, great length; and this, in turn, required a system of charging which would permit protection for the men while loading, and would obviate the intolerable inconvenience of ramming home powder and shot in a long muzzle-loader—an operation which was, in fact, impossible beyond a certain limit of length. The advocates of the older construction, especially in England, urged long and earnestly its simplicity and the superior strength of a solid breech; but the logic of events was against them, and the breech-loader won a complete triumph. It is worthy of note that it, like rifling and the principle of building up, was but a revival. From the warship Mary Rose, sunk in 1545 in action off Spithead, there were recovered in 1836 a number of guns, some of which are of wrought iron, built-up and breech-loading. There are in use two methods of closing the breech when the gun is loaded from the rear. In French, English, and American ordnance an axial screw-plug is inserted; in the Krupp system a cylindro-prismatic breech-block slides in a horizontal opening cut across the bore. The former, or interrupted screw mechanism, was first set forth in the United States’ patent of 1849 to Chambers.

In projectiles the tendency of the modern era has been towards simplification. Bar-shot, chain-shot, and grape have disappeared, while canister and solid shot are becoming obsolete. There remain shrapnel as the “man-killer” of this age, and explosive shell, differentiated into armor-piercing and that for attack on unarmored structures. Lieutenant Shrapnel, in 1796, invented the projectile which bears his name. In its modern form, it consists of a steel case containing lead or iron balls and a light bursting charge of powder, ignited by a time-fuse carried in the head. This projectile is most formidable against bodies of men, boats, and the embrasures of forts, since, when it is ruptured, the balls are dispersed, covering a wide area.

The use of explosive shell in high-angle discharge dates back to the fifteenth century. From Paixhans’ works, “La Nouvelle Arme,” published in 1821, came the stimulus to its development and to its deadly service, in our time, in horizontal fire. The “common shell” for the United States 13-inch rifle is made of forged steel, weighs 1100 pounds, and carries within it a bursting charge of 50 pounds of powder, ignited by a percussion fuse set in its base. It will penetrate 6 or 7 inches of armor and then explode within the ship. The United States “armor-piercing shell” is manufactured from crucible steel, alloyed with chromium; it is tempered to extreme hardness at the point, which carries a cap of soft metal. The function of the latter would appear to be that of a support to the shoulder of the projectile, or as a lubricant thereto, since, without the cap, the shell is broken or deformed in the attack on armor of surface hardened steel. To resist the crushing strain in its passage through massive plate, the walls of this shell must be so thick that no charge of gunpowder will burst it. Hence, as a rule, the shell is fired unloaded, although recently there have been adopted to some extent bursting charges of some high explosive, such as gun-cotton, joveite, or picric acid.

In closing this brief review of the progress of ordnance, but passing mention can be made of matters minor, but in themselves of much importance. Gun carriages, or mounts, are now intricate mechanisms, practically the whole service of large ordnance being performed by electric and hydraulic machinery. The rapid fire principle has been extended to pieces of 6-inch calibre, and bids fair to pass beyond that limit. Its success in increasing largely the number of shots within a given time lies in special breech-blocks, aiming devices, and prepared cartridges. Machine guns of rifle-calibre, partly or wholly automatic, have been so developed as to be capable of firing 1200 rounds per minute. The discharge of high explosives in large quantity was effected with success by the United States steamer Vesuvius off Santiago. The torpedo-gun afloat, however, would appear to be still in a tentative condition.

A brief lapse into technical terms may be permitted in summarizing the gun’s growth in power. The term “muzzle energy” is used to describe the work which the projectile is capable of performing when it leaves the bore. It is expressed in foot-tons, i. e., the number of tons which the energy stored in the shot would lift to a height of one foot. The figures as to this for the 32-pounder of the century’s beginning, for the United States 13-inch rifle and for the 111-ton English gun, are, respectively, 642, 33,627, and 54,690 foot-tons. Again, the round shot from the 32-pounder lost from the resistance of the air, in a range of 1200 yards, 76 per cent of its energy; while this loss, with the United States 13-inch, in a range of 1000 yards, is but 11 per cent. Finally, if the cast-iron shot of the 32-pounder were fired against armor-plate, it would lose, in breaking itself up, two thirds of its remaining energy, leaving at 1200 yards but 51 foot-tons for effective work; while with the modern armor-piercing shell the entire energy left at the end of the range is expended upon the armor-plate.

It will be seen then that the immeasurable superiority of modern guns is owing both to their great increase in energy and to their wiser disposition of that which has been attained. The gun has maintained fully during the century its primacy among naval weapons. It is true that, in theory and on paper, its supremacy has at times been questioned; but as to its two rivals, the ram would seem to be rather the weapon of accident than action, and the torpedo has yet to score in battle against ships in motion, while the precision, rapidity, and power of the gun grow more deadly with every passing year.

VI. THE DEVELOPMENT OF ARMOR.

Armor and the gun are natural and now hereditary foes. The function of the one is to resist, that of the other ever to attack. Since the beginning of the modern era in navies, there has been ceaseless strife for mastery between these two elements of warship design, the gun ever becoming more powerful, and the armor—at first through growing thickness and later through improved material—opposing a steadily more stubborn front. The official report of an English committee made in the year 1860 states that,—

“Vessels clothed in rolled-iron plates of four and a half inches’ thickness are to all practicable purposes invulnerable against any projectile that can be brought to bear against them at any range.”

The advance which forty years have seen may be shown by the single statement that the Krupp 15.7-inch gun develops sufficient energy to penetrate at the muzzle 47 inches of wrought iron. The battleship is at best but a series of compromises, each factor of the structure yielding or growing as the skill or whim of her designer may indicate. In the present stage of this unceasing change, the gun would appear to be the victor, and the power of this mighty 132-ton rifle seems scarcely needed on the sea. The distinguished chief of ordnance of the United States navy, in his annual report for 1898, says:—

“The development of the 12-inch gun has been so great and its power so much increased that the Bureau is of opinion that hereafter it will be the maximum calibre that it will be advisable to install on future battleships.”

With armor, as with the torpedo, the talent of Europe reaped where the genius of America had sown. John Stevens of New Jersey was the first inventor of modern times to suggest the application of armor to a floating battery, his plans being submitted to the United States government during the war of 1812. They received, however, no serious consideration, and to France, forty-two years later, fell the honor of attaining the first practical results in the building of ironclads. Members of the Stevens family, however, continued the experiments of its founder, until by the year 1841 they had determined the thickness of iron necessary to stop spherical projectiles at point blank range, and the comparative resisting powers of iron and oak. These results led to an appropriation by Congress, in 1854, of $500,000 to begin work upon an ironclad,—the Stevens battery,—which vessel, however, never left the ways and was eventually broken up.