The British Battle Fleet, Volume I (of 2)

In substances they were ordinary “wooden frigates,” built of iron instead of wood, with armour to protect most (but not all) of the guns. This was done by a patch of armour amidships, covering about 60% of the side. It was deemed advisable to protect the engines; otherwise as like as not the armour would have been over the battery only. Waterline protection was entirely unrealised, the steering gear of the Warrior being at the mercy of the first lucky shot.

This, as Sir N. Barnaby has pointed out, was due to accepting existing conditions:—

“The tiller was necessarily above the water-line and was outside of the cover of the armour. The wooden line-of-battle ships, with which the designers of these first iron-cased ships were familiar, had required no special water-line protection, and when wheel ropes or tiller were shot away the ship did not cease to be able to fight. The line-of-battle ships, which they knew so well, had a lower, or gun deck about four feet above the water-line, and an orlop deck about three feet below the water-line. Between these two decks the ship’s sides were stouter than in any other part, and shot did not easily perforate them. When a shot did enter there, between wind and water, as it was called, ample provision was made to prevent the serious admission of water.

“In this between-deck space the sides of the ship were kept free from all erections or obstructions. The ‘wing passages’ on the orlop were clear, from end to end of the ship, and they were patrolled by the carpenter’s crew, who were provided with shot plugs of wood and oakum and sail cloth with which to close any shot holes. As against disabled steering gear there were spare tillers and tiller ropes, and only injury to the rudder head itself was serious.”

It is easy to-day to indicate where the old-time designers erred; and later on they realised and repaired their error with commendable promptitude. The really interesting point is that British designers evolved the ideal thing for the day, while the French evolved the idea of the ideal thing for the to-morrow. Unhappily for the latter, their evolution was unable to survive its birth till the day of its utility. La Gloire, the first French ironclad, was broken up more years ago than any can remember; the Warrior and the Black Prince, though long ago reduced to hulk service,91 still float as sound as when in 1861 the Warrior first took the water. To the French belongs the honour of realising what armour protection might mean; but to England goes the credit of reducing the idea to practical application.

The Warrior was designed by Messrs. Scott Russell and Isaac Watts, the Chief Constructor. Her length between perpendiculars was 380 feet. She carried originally a uniform armament of forty-eight 68-pounders smooth bores, weighing 95cwt. each. These fired shell and cast-iron spherical shot. The guns were carried as follows:—Main deck, thirty-eight, of which twelve were not protected by armour. On the upper-deck, ten, also unprotected.

This armament was subsequently changed to two 110-pounder rifled Armstrongs on pivot mountings, and four 40-pounders on the upper-deck; while the main-deck battery was reduced to thirty-four guns. At a later date it was again altered to four 8-inch 9-ton M.L.R., and twenty-eight 7-inch 6½-ton M.L.R.

In addition to her armour the Warrior was divided into 92 watertight compartments, fore and aft. She had a double bottom amidships, considerably subdivided (fifty-seven of the compartments), but no double bottom in the modern sense.

The Warrior’s engines, by Penn, were horizontal single expansion. On trial they developed 5,267 I.H.P., and the then excellent speed of 14.079 knots.92 Her six hours’ sea speed trial resulted in a mean 5,092 H.P. and 13.936 knots.

Save for her unprotected steering gear, the Warrior may be described as a brilliant success for her era. She was launched on December 29th, 1860, and completed in the following year. The Black Prince was completed in 1862.

The Warrior and Black Prince, under a system which long endured in the British Navy, were followed by a certain number of diminutives, of which the first were the Defence and Resistance, of 6,150 tons, with speeds of just under 12 knots, and an armament of 16 guns. The armour was the same, but the battery protection was extended fore and aft, so that all guns were inside it. These ships were completed in 1862.

Three more ships were projected, of which the Hector and Valiant, completed in 1864 and 1865, were of precisely the same type as the Resistance, but displaced 6,710 tons, with about a knot more speed, and carried a couple of extra guns.

A third ship, originally intended to have been of the same class, was the Achilles, but, mainly owing to the influence of Mr. Reed (of whom more anon), who pointed out the danger of unprotected steering gear, her design was altered and a complete belt of 4½-inch armour given to her instead of a partial one.

Those changes in the design, together with an increased horse-power which produced on trial 14.32 knots, advanced the displacement of the Achilles to 9,820 tons, while the armament was brought up to fourteen 12-ton guns and two 6½-ton. The weight of armour was 1,200 tons.

The Achilles, like many another ship that was to follow her, was the “last word” of her own day. No expense was spared in seeking to secure a maximum of efficiency in her. As originally completed she was a ship-rigged vessel, but with a view to improving her sailing efficiency, this was subsequently altered to a four-masted rig, which proved so little successful that eventually she reverted to three masts again.

In the meantime the authorities were so pleased with the Achilles that three improved editions of her were designed. They were not completed until a new type of ship, which was completed before they were, replaced them; but chronologically they followed close upon the Achilles. They were laid down in 1861, and designed by Isaac Watts. They were named Agincourt, Minotaur, and Northumberland. They differed in minor details, but in substance were all about 1,000 tons more than the Achilles, and their increased displacement mostly went in one inch extra armour protection (5½-inch against 4½-inch).

As originally designed they were intended to mount seven 12-ton and twenty 9-ton guns, but at a very early date the first two were given a uniform armament of seventeen 12-ton. A small portion of this armament of the upper deck was provided with armoured protection for right-ahead fire.

In appearance they were magnificent ships, fitted with five masts. Being 400 feet between perpendiculars they were the largest ships of their time, and at sea always proved very steady under both sail and steam.

These ships were the subject of violent disputes between the Controller of the Navy and their constructor. The Controller insisted that they were extravagantly large ships, as compared to French ships. The constructor insisted that it was essential that for any given power and protection a British ship must be larger than a foreign one, because of her more extended probable duties, and the consequent necessity of a larger coal supply.93

At and about this period there were a number of wooden ships-of-the-line building, which had been laid down from the year 1859 onwards. Following the French fashion, they were converted into ironclads. These ships, displacing from 6,100 to 6,830 tons, were the Repulse, Royal Alfred, Zealous (laid down 1859), Caledonia, Ocean, Prince Consort, Royal Oak (1860).94

The upper-decks of these ships were removed, and they were fitted with side armour, which was 4½ inches in the earliest to be treated, and 5½ inches in the latest. All of them carried sixteen 9-ton guns and four 6½-ton, with provision for ahead fire.

The experiment, though useful as a temporary expedient, was very expensive, and several of the ships had to be lengthened before anything could be done to them. None of them were very successful, and most of them disappeared from the Navy List at an early date.

This ends the period of “broadside ironclads”; of the best of which it may be said that they were nothing but efforts to adapt new ideals to old methods.