[Footnote 1: Peterhoff Case, 1866 (5 Wall, 28).]
To meet these measures the South was at first practically without naval resources, and had to turn at once to new methods of war. Its first move was to convert the steam frigate _Merrimac_, captured half-burned with the Norfolk Navy Yard, into an ironclad ram. A casemate of 4 inches of iron over 22 inches of wood, sloping 35 degrees from the vertical, was extended over 178 feet, or about two-thirds of her hull. Beyond this structure the decks were awash.
The _Merrimac_ had an armament of 6 smoothbores and 4 rifles, two of the latter being pivot-guns at bow and stern, and a 1500-lb.
cast-iron beak or ram. With her heavy load of guns and armor she drew 22 feet aft and could work up a speed of barely 5 knots.
Faced with this danger, the North hurriedly adopted Ericsson"s plan for the _Monitor_,[2] which was contracted for on October 4, 1861, and launched after 100 days. Old marlin-spike seamen pooh-poohed this "cheesebox on a raft." As a naval officer said, it might properly be worshiped by its designer, for it was an image of nothing in the heavens above, or the earth beneath, or the waters under the earth. It consisted of a revolving turret with 8-inch armor and two 11-inch smoothbore guns, set on a raft-like structure 142 feet in length by 41-1/2 feet in beam, projecting at bow, stern, and sides beyond a flat-bottomed lower hull. Though unseaworthy, the _Monitor_ maneuvered quickly and drew only 10-1/2 feet. She was first ordered to the Gulf, but on March 6 this destination was suddenly changed to the Chesapeake.
[Footnote 2: So called by Ericsson because it would "admonish"
the South, and also suggest to England "doubts as to the propriety of completing four steel-clad ships at three and one-half millions apiece."]
The South in fact won the race in construction and got its ship first into action by a margin of just half a day. At noon on March 8, with the iron-workers still driving her last rivets, the _Merrimac_ steamed out of Norfolk and advanced ponderously upon the three sail and two steam vessels then anch.o.r.ed in Hampton Roads.
In the Northern navy there had been much skepticism about the ironclad and no concerted plan to meet her attack. Under a rain of fire from the Union ships, and from share fortifications too distant to be effective, the _Merrimac_ rammed and sank the sloop-of-war _c.u.mberland_, and then, after driving the frigate _Congress_ aground, riddled her with sh.e.l.ls. Towards nightfall the Confederate vessel moved dawn stream, to continue the slaughter next day.
About 12 o"clock that night, after two days of terrible buffeting on the voyage down the coast, the little _Monitor_ anch.o.r.ed on the scene lighted up by the burning wreck of the _Congress_. The first battle of ironclads began next morning at 8:30 and continued with slight intermission till noon. It ended in a triumph, not for either ship, but for armor over guns. The _Monitor_ fired 41 solid shot, 20 of which struck home, but merely cracked some of the _Merrimac"s_ outer plates. The _Monitor_ was. .h.i.t 22 times by enemy sh.e.l.ls. Neither craft was seriously harmed and not a man was killed on either side, though several were stunned or otherwise injured. Lieut. Worden, in command of the _Monitor_, was nearly blinded by a sh.e.l.l that smashed in the pilot house, a square iron structure then located not above the turret but on the forward deck.
The drawn battle was hailed as a Northern victory. Imagination had been drawing dire pictures of what the _Merrimac_ might do. At a Cabinet meeting in Washington Sunday morning, March 9, Secretary of War Stanton declared: "The _Merrimac_ will change the course of the war; she will destroy _seriatim_ every naval vessel; she will lay all the cities on the seaboard under contribution. I have no doubt that the enemy is at this minute on the way to Washington, and that we shall have a sh.e.l.l from one of her guns in the White House before we leave this room." The menace was somewhat exaggerated. With her submerged decks, feeble engines, and general awkwardness, the _Merrimac_ could scarcely navigate in Hampton Roads. In the first day"s fighting her beak was wrenched off and a leak started, two guns were put out of action, and her funnel and all other top-hamper were riddled. As was shown by Farragut in Mobile Bay, and again by Tegetthoff at Lissa, even wooden vessels, if in superior numbers, might do something against an ironclad in an aggressive melee.
Both the antagonists at Hampton Roads ended their careers before the close of 1862; the _Merrimac_ was burned by her crew at the evacuation of Norfolk, and the _Monitor_ was sunk under tow in a gale off Hatteras. But turret ships, monitors, and armored gunboats soon multiplied in the Union navy and did effective service against the defenses of Southern harbors and rivers. Under Farragut"s energetic leadership, vessels both armored and unarmored pa.s.sed with relatively slight injury the forts below New Orleans, at Vicksburg, and at the entrance to Mobile Bay. Even granting that the sh.o.r.e artillery was out of date and not very expertly served, it is well to realize that similar conditions may conceivably recur, and that the superiority of forts over ships is qualified by conditions of equipment and personnel.
Actually to destroy or capture sh.o.r.e batteries by naval force is another matter. As Ericsson said, "A single shot will sink a ship, while 100 rounds cannot silence a fort."[1] Attacks of this kind against Fort McAllister and Charleston failed. At Charleston, April 7, 1863, the ironclads faced a cross-fire from several forts, 47 smoothbores and 17 rifles against 29 smoothbores and 4 rifles in the ships, and in waters full of obstructions and mines.
[Footnote 1: Wilson, IRONCLADS IN ACTION, Vol. I, p. 91.]
The capture of Fort Fisher, commanding the main entrance to Wilmington, North Carolina, was accomplished in January, 1865, by the combined efforts of the army and navy. The fort, situated on a narrow neck of land between the Cape Fear River and the sea, had 20 guns on its land face and 24 on its sea face, 15 of them rifled. Against it were brought 5 ironclads with 18 guns, backed up by over 200 guns in the rest of the fleet. After a storm of shot and sh.e.l.l for three successive days, rising at times to "drum-fire," the barrage was lifted at a signal and troops and sailors dashed forward from their positions on sh.o.r.e. Even after this preparation the capture cost 1000 men. As at Kinhurn in the Crimean War, the effectiveness of the naval forces was due less to protective armor than to volume of fire.
_Submarines and Torpedoes_
In the defense of Southern harbors, mines and torpedoes for the first time came into general use, and the submarine scored its first victim. Experiments with these devices had been going on for centuries, but were first brought close to practical success by David Bushnell, a Connecticut Yankee of the American Revolution.
His tiny submarine, resembling a mud-turtle standing on its tail, embodied many features of modern underwater boats, including a primitive conning tower, screw propulsion (by foot power), a vertical screw to drive the craft down, and a detachable magazine with 150 pounds of gunpowder. The _Turtle_ paddled around and even under British men-of-war off New York and New London, but could not drive a spike through their copper bottoms to attach its mine.
Robert Fulton, probably the greatest genius in nautical invention, carried the development of bath mines and submarines much further.
His _Nautilus_, so-called because its collapsible sail resembled that of the familiar chambered nautilus, was surprisingly ahead of its time; it had a fish-like shape, screw propulsion (by a two-man hand winch), horizontal diving rudder, compressed air tank, water tank filled or emptied by a pump, and a torpedo[1] consisting of a detachable case of gunpowder. A lanyard ran from the torpedo through an eye in a spike, to be driven in the enemy hull, and thence to the submarine, which as it moved away brought the torpedo up taut against the spike and caused its explosion. Fulton interested Napoleon in his project, submerged frequently for an hour or more, and blew up a hulk in Brest harbor. But the greybeards in the French navy frowned on these novel methods, declaring them "immoral" and "contrary to the laws of war."
[Footnote 1: This name, coined by Fulton, was from the _torpedo electricus_, or cramp fish, which kills its victim by electric shock.]
[Ill.u.s.tration: BUSHNELL"S TURTLE]
Later the British Government entered into negotiations with the inventor, and in October, 1804, used his mines in an unsuccessful attack an the French flotilla of invasion at Boulogne. Only one pinnace was sunk. Fulton still maintained that he could "sweep all military marines off the ocean."[2] But Trafalgar ended his chances. As the old Admiral Earl St. Vincent remarked, "Pitt [the Prime Minister] would be the greatest fool that ever existed to encourage a mode of war which they who command the sea do not want and which if successful would deprive them of it." So Fulton took 15,000 and dropped his schemes.
[Footnote 2: Letter to Pitt, Jan. 6, 1806.]
[Ill.u.s.tration: FULTON"S NAUTILUS]
Much cruder than the _Nautilus_, owing to their hurried construction, were the Confederate "Davids" of the Civil War. One of these launches, which ran only semi-submerged, drove a spar torpedo against the U. S. S. _New Ironsides_ off Charleston, but it exploded on the rebound, too far away. The C. S. S. _Hunley_ was a real submarine, and went down readily, but on five occasions it failed to emerge properly, and drowned in these experiments about 35 men. In August, 1864, running on the surface, it sank by torpedo the U. S. Corvette _Housatonic_ off Charleston, but went down in the suction of the larger vessel, carrying to death its last heroic crew.
By the end of the century, chiefly owing to the genius and patient efforts of two American inventors, John P. Holland and Simon Lake, the submarine was pa.s.sing from the experimental to the practical stage. Its possibilities were increased by the Whitehead torpedo (named after its inventor, a British engineer established in Fiume, Austria), which came out in 1868 and was soon adopted in European navies. With gyroscopic stabilizing devices and a "warmer" for the compressed air of its engine, the torpedo attained before 1900 a speed of 28 knots and a possible range of 1000 yards. Its first victim was the Chilean warship _Blanco_, sunk in 1891 at 50 yards after two misses. Th.o.r.n.ycroft in England first achieved speed for small vessels, and in 1873 began turning out torpedo boats. Destroyers came in twenty years later, and by the end of the century were making over 30 knots.
Long before this time the lessons of the Civil War had hastened the adoption of armor, the new ships ranging from high-sided vessels with guns in broadside, as in the past, to low freeboard craft influenced by the _Monitor_ design, with a few large guns protected by revolving turrets or fixed barbettes, and with better provision for all-around fire. Ordnance improved in penetrating power, until the old wrought-iron armor had to be 20 inches thick and confined to waterline and batteries. Steel "facing" and the later plates of Krupp or Harveyized steel made it possible again to lighten and spread out the armor, and during the last decade of the century it steadily increased its ascendancy over the gun.
_The Battle of Lissa_
The adoption of armor meant sacrifice of armament, and a departure from Farragut"s well-tried maxim, "The best protection against the enemy"s fire is a well-sustained fire from your own guns." Thus the British _Dreadnought_ of 1872 gave 35% of its displacement to armor and only 5% to armament. Invulnerability was secured at the expense of offensive power. That aggressive tactics and weapons retained all their old value in warfare was to receive timely ill.u.s.tration in the Battle of Lissa, fought in the year after the American war. The engagement ill.u.s.trated also another of Farragut"s pungent maxims to the effect that iron in the ships is less important than "iron in the men"--a saying especially true when, as with the Austrians at Lissa, the iron is in the chief in command.
In 1866 Italy and Prussia attacked Austria in concert, Italy having secured from Bismarck a pledge of Venetia in the event of victory.
Though beaten at Custozza on June 24, the Italians did their part by keeping busy an Austrian army of 80,000. Moltke crushed the northern forces of the enemy at Sadowa on July 3, and within three weeks had reached the environs of Vienna and practically won the war. Lissa was fought on July 20, just 6 days before the armistice.
This general political and military situation should be borne in mind as throwing some light on the peculiar Italian strategy in the Lissa campaign.
Struggling Italy, her unification under the House of Piedmont as yet only partly achieved, had shown both foresight and energy in building up a fleet. Her available force on the day of Lissa consisted of 12 armored ships and 16 wooden steam vessels of same fighting value. The ironclads included 7 armored frigates, the best of which were the two "kings," _Re d"Italia_ and _Re di Portogallo_, built the year before in New York (rather badly, it is said), each armed with about 30 heavy rifles. Then there was the new single-turret ram _Affondatore_, or "Sinker," with two 300-pounder 10-inch rifles, which came in from England only the day before the battle. Some of the small protected corvettes and gunboats were of much less value, the _Palestro_, for instance, which suffered severely in the fight, having a thin sheet of armor over only two-fifths of her exposed hull.
The Austrian fleet had the benefit of some war experience against Denmark in the North Sea two years before, but it was far inferior and less up-to-date, its armored ships consisting of 7 screw frigates armed chiefly with smoothbores. Of the wooden ships, there were 7 screw frigates and corvettes, 9 gunboats and schooners, and 3 little side-wheelers--a total of 19. The following table indicates the relative strength:
-------------------------------------------------------------------- |Armored | Wooden |Small craft| Total | Rifles |Total w"t |--------|--------|-----------|--------|----------|of metal |No.|Guns|No.|Guns| No.| Guns |No.|Guns|No.|Weight| --------|---|----|---|----|----|------|---|----|---|------|--------- Austria | 7| 176| 7| 304| 12 | 52 | 22| 532|121| 7,130| 23,538 Italy | 12| 243| 11| 382| 5 | 16 | 28| 641|276|28,700| 53,236 --------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus in general terms the Italians were nearly twice as strong in main units, could fire twice as heavy a weight of metal from all their guns, and four times as heavy from their rifles. Even without the _Affondatore_, their advantage was practically as great as this from the beginning of the war.
With such a preponderance, it would seem as if Persano, the Italian commander in chief, could easily have executed his savage-sounding orders to "sweep the enemy from the Adriatic, and to attack and blockade them wherever found." He was dilatory, however, in a.s.sembling his fleet, negligent in practice and gun drill, and pa.s.sive in his whole policy to a degree absolutely ruinous to morale. War was declared June 20, and had long been foreseen; yet it was June 25 before he moved the bulk of his fleet from Taranto to Ancona in the Adriatic. Here on the 27th they were challenged by 13 Austrian ships, which lay off the port cleared for action for two hours, while Persano made no real move to fight. It is said that the Italian defeat at Custozza three days before had taken the heart out of him. On July 8 he put to sea for a brief three days" cruise and went through some maneuvers and signaling but no firing, though many of the guns were newly mounted and had never been tried by their crews.
At this time Napoleon III of France had already undertaken mediation between the hostile powers. In spite of the orders of June 8, quoted above, which seem sufficiently definite, and urgent orders to the same effect later, Persano was unwilling to take the offensive, and kept complaining of lack of clear instructions as to what he should do. He was later convicted of cowardice and negligence; but the campaign he finally undertook against Lissa was dangerous enough, and it seems possible that some secret political maneuvering was partly responsible for his earlier delay.[1]
[Footnote 1: In July Persano wrote to the Deputy Boggio: "Leave the care of my reputation to me; I would rather be wrongly dishonored than rightly condemned. Patience will bring peace; I shall be called a traitor, but nevertheless Italy will have her fleet intact, and that of Austria will be rendered useless." Quoted in Bernotti, IL POTERE MARITTIMO NELLA GRANDE GUERRA, p. 177.]
It is significant at least that the final proposal to make a descent upon the fortified island of Lissa came not from Persana but from the Minister of Marine. On July 15 the latter took up the project with the fleet chief of staff, d"Amico, and with Rear Admiral Vacca, but not until later with Persano. All agreed that the prospect of a truce allowed no time for a movement against Venice or the Austrian base at Pola, but that they should strike a swift stroke elsewhere. Lissa commanded the Dalmatian coast, was essential to naval control in the Adriatic, and was coveted by Italy then as in later times. It would be better than trying to crush the enemy fleet at the risk of her own if she could enter the peace conference with possession of Lissa a _fait accompli_.
Undertaken in the face of an undefeated enemy fleet, this move has been justly condemned by naval strategists. But with a less alert opponent the coup might have succeeded. Tegetthoff, the Austrian commander, was not yet 41 years of age, but had been in active naval service since he was 18, and had led a squadron bravely in a fight with the Danes two years before off Heligoland. He had his heterogeneous array of fighting craft a.s.sembled at Pola at the outbreak of war. "Give me everything you have," he told the Admiralty when they asked him what ships he wanted; "I"ll find some use for them." His crews were partly men of Slav and Italian stock from the Adriatic coast, including 600 from Venice; there is no reason for supposing them better than those of Persano. The influence of their leader, however, inspired them with loyalty and fighting spirit, and their defiance of the Italians at Ancona on June 27 increased their confidence. When successive cable messages from Lissa satisfied him that the Italian fleet was not attempting a diversion but was actually committed to an attack on the island, Tegetthoff set out thither on July 19 with his entire fighting force. His order of sailing was the order of battle. "Every captain knew the admiral"s intention as well as the admiral himself did; every officer knew what had to be done, and every man had some idea of it, and above all knew that he had to fight."[1]
[Footnote 1: Laughton, STUDIES IN NAVAL HISTORY, Tegetthoff, p. 164.]
In the meantime the Italian drive on Lissa had gone ahead slowly.
The island batteries were on commanding heights and manned by marines and artillerymen resolved to fight to the last ditch. During the second day"s bombardment the _Affondatore_ appeared, and also some additional troops needed to complete the landing force. Two-thirds of the guns on sh.o.r.e were silenced that day, and if the landing operations had been pushed, the island captured, and the fleet taken into the protected harbor of St. Giorgio, Tegetthoff would have had a harder problem to solve. But as the mist blew away with a southerly wind at 10 o"clock on the next day, July 20, the weary garrison on the heights of the island gave cheer after cheer as they saw the Austrian squadron plunging through the head seas at full speed from the northeastward, while the Italian ships hurriedly drew together north of the island to meet the blow.
The Austrians advanced in three successive divisions, ironclads, wooden frigates, and finally the smaller vessels, each in a wedge-shaped formation (shown by the diagram), with the apex toward the enemy.
The object was to drive through the Italian line if possible near the van and bring on a close scrimmage in which all ships could take part, ramming tactics could be employed, and the enemy would profit less by their superiority in armor and guns. Like Nelson"s at Trafalgar, Tegetthoff"s formation was one not likely to be imitated, but it was at least simple and well understood, and against a pa.s.sive resistance it gave the results planned.
[Ill.u.s.tration: BATTLE OF LISSA, JULY 20, 1866]
"_Ecco i pescatori!_" (Here come the fishermen), cried Persana, with a scorn he was far from actually feeling. The Italians were in fact caught at a disadvantage. One of their best ships, the _Formidabile_, had been put _hors de combat_ by the batteries on the day before. Another, coming in late from the west end of the island, took no part in the action. The wooden ships, owing to the cowardice of their commander, Albini, also kept out of the fight, though Persano signaled desperately to them to enter the engagement and "surround the enemy rear." With his remaining ironclads Persano formed three divisions of three ships each and swung across the enemy"s bows in line ahead. Just at the critical moment, and for no very explicable motive, he shifted his flag from the _Re d"Italia_ in the center to the _Affondatore_, which was steaming alone on the starboard side of the line. The change was not noted by all his ships, and thus caused confusion of orders. The delay involved also left a wider gap between van and center, and through this the Austrians plunged, Tegetthoff in his flagship _Erzherzog Ferdinand Max_ leading the way.
Here orderly formation ended, and only the more striking episodes stand out in a desperate close combat, during which the black ships of Austria and the gray of Italy rammed or fired into each other amid a smother of smoke and spray. The Austrian left flank and rear held up the Italian van; the Austrian ironclads engaged the Italian center; and the wooden ships of the Austrian middle division, led by the 92-gun _Kaiser_, smashed into the Italian rear. Of all the Austrian ships, the big _Kaiser_, a relic of other days, saw the hardest fighting. Twice she avoided the _Affondatore"s_ ram, and she was struck by one of her 300-pound projectiles. Then the _Re di Portogallo_ bore down, but Petz, the _Kaiser"s_ captain, rang for full speed ahead and steered for the ironclad, striking a glancing blow and sc.r.a.ping past her, while both ships poured in a heavy fire. The _Kaiser_ soon afterward drew out of the action, her foremast and funnel down, and a bad blaze burning amidships.
Altogether she fired 850 rounds in the action, or about one-fifth of the total fired by the Austrians, and she received 80 hits, again one-fifth of the total. Of the 38 Austrians killed and 138 wounded in the battle, she lost respectively 24 and 75.
The _Kaiser"s_ combat, though more severe, was typical of what was going on elsewhere. The Italian gunboat _Palestro_ was forced to withdraw to fight a fire that threatened her magazines. The _Re d"Italia_, which was at first supposed by the Austrians to be Persano"s flagship, was a center of attack and had her steering gear disabled. As she could go only straight ahead or astern, the Austrian flagship seized the chance and rammed her squarely amidships at full speed, crashing through her armor and opening an immense hole. The Italian gunboat heeled over to starboard, then back again, and in a few seconds went down, with a loss of 381 men.
This spectacular incident practically decided the battle. After an hour"s fighting the two squadrons drew apart about noon, the Austrians finally entering St. Giorgio harbor and the Italians withdrawing to westward. During the retreat the fire on the _Palestro_ reached her ammunition and she blew up with a loss of 231 of her crew. Except in the two vessels destroyed, the Italian losses were slight--8 killed and 40 wounded. But the armored ships were badly battered, and less than a month later the _Affondatore_ sank in a squall in Ancona harbor, partly, it was thought, owing to injuries received at Lissa.
For a long time after this fight, an exaggerated view was held regarding the value of ramming, line abreast formation, and bow fire. Weapons condition tactics, and these tactics of Tegetthoff were suited to the means he had to work with. But they were not those which should have been adopted by his opponents; nor would they have been successful had the Italians brought their broadsides to bear on a parallel course and avoided a melee. What the whole campaign best ill.u.s.trates--and the lesson has permanent interest--is how a pa.s.sive and defensive policy, forced upon the Italian fleet by the incompetence of its admiral or otherwise, led to its demoralization and ultimate destruction. After a long period of inactivity, Persano weakened his force against sh.o.r.e defenses before he had disposed of the enemy fleet, and was then taken at a disadvantage. His pa.s.sive strategy was reflected in his tactics.
He engaged with only a part of his force, and without a definite plan; "A storm of signals swept over his squadron" as it went into action. What really decided the battle was not the difference in ships, crews, or weapons, but the difference in aggressiveness and ability of the two admirals in command.