But at first, even at a time when artillery of one kind or another was in common use on land, very few guns were carried afloat. Very likely the reason was that few were suitable; they were either too big, too small, or, as before suggested, could not be safely closed at the breech. Thus in the reign of Henry IV, 1399-1413, the _Christopher_, a rather important man-of-war, only carried "three iron guns with five chambers, one hand-gun, and one small barrel of powder". The barge _Mary_ (_Marie de la Tour_) carried one iron gun with two chambers and one bra.s.s gun with one chamber. Another _Mary_ (of Weymouth) had also one bra.s.s and one iron gun, the _Bernard_ had two iron guns, and a ship referred to as the _Carrake_ one. The _Christopher"s_ guns are said to have been "stoked". This may possibly mean fitted with "stocks" or oaken beds, like those previously referred to, in which case her guns were probably larger and heavier than those in the other ships. The invention of port-holes was probably coincident with the adoption of really heavy artillery afloat. Before then it would not have been safe to have carried such heavy weights on the upper decks of the kind of ship then existing. The _Great Michael_ may possibly be taken as an exception, for she could hardly have had port-holes cut in her 10-foot thick sides. At the same time, since her heavy guns were probably breech-loaders, they may have been practically built into her sides, since at that time there was no such thing as training a heavy gun right or left on board ship.
With the numerous batteries of small guns also carried on board ships of this period, it was quite a different matter. They were mounted on swivels on the gunwale, or in openings or ports in the fore- and after-castles as well as in the tops. Others, and among them certain wide-mouthed pieces known as "murderers", were distributed in what were known as the "cubbridge heads", or those sides of the fore- and after-castles which faced inboard and commanded the waist of the ship.
Here it was to be expected an enemy"s boarders would make their a.s.sault, and here--the crew having retired fore and aft--they would be mowed down by charges of all sorts of iron fragments from the "murderers". The same system of dealing with boarders lasted some time after the disappearance of the lofty "castles" at bow and stern; strong athwart-ships bulkheads being provided at bow and stern both on the upper and main decks.
It was in Henry VIII"s time that the manufacture of cast-iron guns, for which England soon became famous, began in this country. One Ralph Hogge,[37] at Buxted, in Suss.e.x, cast the first iron cannon. This is said to have been in 1543, and it is stated that the house in which this was done is still standing near the church of that village, and that it has the figure of a hog with the date 1581 carved over the door. There is another story to the effect that this early gunfounder"s name was John Howe, and that there is the following distich, cut in stone, still extant in Buxted:--
"I, John Howe, and my man John, We two cast the first cannon".
This invention may be said to have sealed the fate of the heavy breech-loading gun for some centuries, though the system remained in vogue for small pieces for another 200 years. A cast-iron or bra.s.s muzzle-loading gun could be made so much more easily, rapidly, and cheaply than a built-up wrought-iron breech-loader of the same calibre that with the growing demand for guns afloat there is little wonder that the former drove the more expensive weapon clean out of the field. It must be remembered, too, that the casting of bronze guns had already reached great perfection on the Continent. What is known as "Queen Elizabeth"s pocket pistol" at Dover is a standing witness to this. It is supposed to have been cast at Utrecht, and to have been presented to Henry VIII by the Emperor Charles V in 1544. It is 24 feet long, and is a very fine piece of workmanship. Its bore is 58 calibres long--that is to say, it is fifty-eight times as long as its diameter, a proportion not very unlike that upon which some of our most modern weapons are designed.
[Ill.u.s.tration: Early Breech-loading Cannon
The first was an Armada weapon. This type of gun remained in use afloat well into the eighteenth century]
But to return to our early naval cannon. As I have already pointed out, the casting of bronze guns in Germany and Flanders had reached a great pitch of perfection long before anything of the sort was made in England. Germany, in fact, may be said to have led in gunnery for a considerable period. The master gunners in most armies seem to have been Germans, and at the accession of Queen Elizabeth we were buying our powder from the German Hansa Company established in the Steel Yard in London, instead of making sufficient for ourselves. There were many bra.s.s guns afloat in Henry VIII"s navy besides the wrought-iron breech-loaders. Some of fine workmanship were found in the wreck of the _Mary Rose_, as well as those of the latter cla.s.s which have been already mentioned. As an indication of the cost and labour expended on such weapons, it may be instanced that a bronze gun cast in Germany in 1406 took from Whitsuntide to Michaelmas to finish, and required 52-1/2 hundredweight of copper and 3-1/2 hundredweight of tin. The metal cost 422 florins, while the master gun-founder received 86 florins for his pains.
The heaviest weapon afloat in Tudor times was the curtall or curtow, generally of bra.s.s, and firing a 60-pound shot. The culverin was rather lighter and longer. There were a whole host of fancy names--and doubtless fancy types--for ordnance at this time, several of which have already been referred to as forming the armament of the _Great Michael_.
s.p.a.ce forbids further enumeration or description, which, in any case, would be impossible on account of the very different guns which are called indiscriminately by the same name. But by the Armada days the following were the princ.i.p.al guns used afloat:--
Name. Bore. Weight of Shot.
Double cannon 8-1/2 inches 66 pounds Whole cannon 8 " 60 "
Demi-cannon 6-1/2 " 32 "
Whole culverin 5-1/2 " 17 "
Demi-culverin 4-1/2 " 9 "
Saker 3-1/2 " 51 "
Minion 3 " 4 "
Falcon 2-1/2 " 2 "
Falconet 2 " 1-1/2 "
Robinet 1 " 1 "[38]
The "double cannon" is sometimes called a "cannon royal" or a "carthoun". The "saker" is often spelt "sacre". The "culverin"--a name that occurs rather more frequently than any other at this time--was so called from the lugs or handles for hoisting it in and out of its carriage, which were made in the form of an ornamental serpent.[39]
Although the English cast-iron cannon almost at once achieved such a reputation that they sold in Amsterdam for 40 a ton, for 60 in France, and for no less than 80 in Spain, though costing only 12 a ton in this country; and though they were bought so freely at these high prices by foreigners that in 1574 their export was totally forbidden, yet it would appear that the Royal Navy was then using nothing but bra.s.s guns, except perhaps in the case of the smaller pieces. But the merchantmen used iron guns. Thus when James I sent an expedition of six men-of-war and a dozen armed merchant-ships against the Algerines in 1620, all the former carried bra.s.s and all the latter iron guns. The men-of-war were heavily gunned, so much so, indeed, that it was not unusual for their captains to dismount a few of their heaviest pieces and stow them as ballast for the safety of the ship. The _Prince Royal_, for instance, carried a battery of two "cannon perriers" (i.e. throwing stone shot), six demi-cannon, twelve culverins, thirteen sakers, and four light pieces.
The famous _Sovereign of the Seas_ in the next reign mounted twenty cannon, eight demi-cannon, thirty-two culverins, and forty-two demi-culverins--all bra.s.s guns--and probably some small iron falconets as well. On each gun was engraved the rose and crown, the sceptre and trident, anchor and cable. The engraving cost 3 per gun, but we must remember that the _Sovereign_ was a "show ship".
According to an artilleryman who wrote in the first half of the seventeenth century, three shots an hour was about as much as an ordinary gun would stand, "always provided that after 40 shots you refresh and cool the piece[40] and let her rest an houre, for fear lest 80 shots should break the piece". But I think we may credit our seamen with being able to fire their guns a bit faster than that. Constant running out of powder seems to have been the great trouble in the English fleet engaged in the discomfiture of the "Invincible" Armada.
And not only did the English ships carry heavier ordnance and fire heavier broadsides than the Spaniards, so that the British cannon "lacked them through and through", but our gunners are said to have fired their pieces three times to the Spaniards" one. This is a Spanish estimate, and it is abundantly evident that our gunnery proved at least as superior as it did over that of the Germans in Sir David Beatty"s victory off the Friesland coast in January, 1915. Later on, at the battle of La Hogue (1692) the British ships were able to fire three broadsides to every two of the French.
[Ill.u.s.tration: Early Attempts at Maxim Guns
In all probability each barrel of the first gun had to be loaded separately and fired by hand, one after another. In the second case, the eight little cannon are apparently secured to a kind of turntable, to be revolved by hand.]
Coming to the navy of the Commonwealth, we find the same curiously named guns in use. Here is the battery of the _Naseby_: Nineteen cannon, nine demi-cannon, twenty-eight culverins, thirty demi-culverins, and five sakers. The same cla.s.sification lasted till the time of George I, when it became the custom to designate guns by the weights of their projectiles. Thenceforward we find ship-armaments reckoned in 42-pounders, 32-pounders, 24-pounders, 12-pounders, and 6-pounders. The old 60-pounder had disappeared, and before long the 42-pounder followed it into temporary oblivion, so that at Trafalgar our heaviest gun was a 32-pounder.[41] It was not until nearly 1840 that it reappeared, and was followed by a 68-pounder.
During the period between Elizabeth and Trafalgar there were innumerable attempts to invent and introduce improved forms of ordnance, including sh.e.l.l-guns and machine-guns. The idea of the latter was extremely ancient. There are several ma.n.u.script illuminations and old wood-cuts of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries showing attempts at a "Maxim"
gun. The "orgue", consisting of a large number of very small guns or musket-barrels fixed in rows, or revolving rings, or bundles, was a common weapon in those centuries--at least on sh.o.r.e. Then there was something of the kind for which William Drummond was given a patent in 1625, and which he termed a "thunder carriage". Again, there was one Puckle, who in 1781 invented a regular revolving gun mounted on a tripod. It was made in two patterns--one to fire ordinary round bullets, the other to fire square ones--against the "unspeakable Turk". Puckle thought these infidels ought to get as nasty a wound as possible. With his specification he issued a doggerel which ran as follows:--
A DEFENCE!
"Defending King George, your country and Lawes Is defending yourselves and Protestant Cause".
The invention did not "catch on", and under a picture of the weapon which appeared on the eight of spades in a pack of cards of the period was another attempt at poetry:
"A rare Invention to destroy the Crowd Of Fools at Home, instead of Foes Abroad.
Fear not, my Friends, this terrible Machine; They"re only wounded that have Shares therein".
Neither machine-guns nor sh.e.l.l-guns were to appear before the Victorian Era, the reason probably being that there was no machinery capable of turning them and their component parts out in payable quant.i.ties. As for sh.e.l.l-guns, mortars were found to answer very well; no navy wanted to introduce a form of warfare that would be absolutely destructive of wooden shipping, and so we find that they did not long precede the appearance of the modern ironclad. But towards the end of the eighteenth century a new and practical weapon was invented by General Melville with the idea of producing a gun which should fire a comparatively large projectile for its weight. To effect this, something, of course, had to be sacrificed, and this was length, both of the gun itself and of its range and also penetration. But, as naval actions then took place at close quarters, this did not count for much, and what was lost in penetration was more than made up for by the smashing effect of the heavy shot. In fact, the gun itself was at first termed a "smasher", but, from the fact that most of them were cast at the famous Carron foundry in Scotland, they soon became universally known as "carronades".
In the days of wooden ships the "carronade" became a most useful weapon.
The smaller kind were light, took up little s.p.a.ce, and were just the things for merchant-men and small craft; while the bigger cla.s.s--generally 68-pounders--were valuable auxiliaries to the batteries of our line-of-battle ships. The carronade was essentially a British gun, and its efficiency was never more conspicuous than in the fight between H.M.S. _Glatton_, a converted East Indiaman, and a French squadron of four frigates and two corvettes, which took place off the coast of Flanders on 15th July, 1796.
[Ill.u.s.tration: _Photo. Symonds & Co._
THE MAIN GUN DECK ON H.M.S. _VICTORY_
Typical of a ship"s battery in the palmiest days of our Wooden Walls.
The thick rope "breechings", the blocks and tackles for running the guns in or out, and securing them for sea, are clearly shown. So also are the "trucks" or wheels, and the "quoins" or wedges for elevating or depressing the guns. Overhead are suspended the Sponge, Rammer, and Worm, for each gun. The latter is the implement with a double corkscrew for withdrawing a cartridge.]
The British ship, whose armament consisted of a main battery of 68-pounder carronades, with 32-pounders on her upper deck--fifty guns in all--completely defeated and drove off her six a.s.sailants, who retreated to Flushing with their decks ripped up, besides other terrible damages, one of them being so badly mauled that she sank on arrival in port. Had not the _Glatton_ been a very slow sailer she could have destroyed the lot. As it was, she effected her victory with only two casualties--Captain Strangeways of the Marines mortally, and a private marine slightly wounded.
It may be interesting to note the armament carried by Nelson"s _Victory_ at the Battle of Trafalgar, in order that it may be compared with that of some earlier ships of which particulars have been given and with those of our modern battleships, which will be found in a later chapter.
On that memorable day the famous old three-decker which still swings at her buoy in Portsmouth harbour mounted--
On her lower deck, thirty 32-pounders; On her middle deck, thirty 24-pounders; On her main deck, thirty-two 12-pounders; On her upper deck, eight 12-pounders, and four 32-pounder carronades.
The upper-deck 12-pounders were 2 feet shorter than those on the main deck, and only weighed 21 cwt., as against their 34, but the 32-pounder carronades only weighed 17 cwt. This will give an idea of the comparative lightness of these weapons. The guns at this period, and indeed since Elizabethan times, were mounted on carriages formed of two wooden sides or cheeks strongly connected together by timber cross-pieces or "transoms", and placed on four solid wooden wheels or "trucks". They were secured to the ship"s side by thick ropes or "breechings" pa.s.sing round the breech of the gun, and long enough to allow of a certain recoil on being fired. The gun was run out again by blocks and tackles, which could also be used to haul it inboard without its being fired, in order to secure it for sea and close the port. It was trained from side to side by means of hand-spikes or levers placed under the rear of the carriage, and elevated in a similar manner, the hand-spikes being used to raise or lower the breech of the gun, while the "quoin", or wedge, supporting it was being adjusted. Similar carriages remained in use in our navy far into the "eighties of last century, being used for the "converted 64-pounder", which was the old smooth-bore 68-pounder lined with a rifled steel tube. I have drilled at such guns myself. It was fine exercise, and it was necessary to be pretty smart and have all one"s wits about one to get outside the breeching, if a loading number, before the gun was run out. The 135-inch gun of to-day is, thanks to hydraulics, manipulated with a t.i.the of the exertion required to serve a truck gun. Here are the orders for "Exercise at the Great Guns" which obtained in 1781, and are considerably simpler than those previously in vogue:
1. "Silence."
2. "Cast loose your guns."
3. "Level your guns."
4. "Take out your tompions."
5. "Run out your guns."
6. "Prime."
7. "Point your guns."
8. "Fire."
9. "Sponge your guns."
10. "Load with cartridge."
11. "Shot your guns."
12. "Put in your tompions."
13. "House your guns."
14. "Secure your guns."
"Tompions" are a species of plug used to close the muzzle of a gun when not in action. In the "days of wood and hemp" they were usually painted red, but in modern guns they are generally faced with gun-metal, decorated in some cases with the badge of the ship. "Prime" means to place loose powder in the pan after having pierced the cartridge with a "priming wire" thrust through the touch-hole or vent. To "house" was to haul the gun inboard ready for securing.
The smooth-bore gun remained the naval weapon right up to the Crimean War, though explosive sh.e.l.ls gradually began to be used as well as the old solid round shot. The rifling of muskets and cannon had often been suggested by inventors as far back as Tudor times, and occasionally a few experimental rifled muskets were made. But in the war with Russia, in which most of the combatants were armed with muzzle-loading rifles, rifled cannon began to make their appearance. The Lancaster gun, with a twisted oval bore, was the first rifled naval gun, and was thought a great deal of in its day. Then came the breech-loading Armstrong guns.
These were very finely turned out weapons with poly-groove rifling, and closed at the breech by a species of block which lifted in and out and had somewhat the appearance of a carriage clock. It was held in position by a hollow screw through which the charge and projectile were loaded into the gun, and which was screwed up tight against the breech-block before firing. This was not a very satisfactory system, since, if not properly screwed taut, the block had a habit of blowing out, sometimes with unfortunate results. It was probably for this reason that none of these guns was made bigger than a 100-pounder. The projectiles for the Armstrong gun were covered with leaden jackets in order to take the rifling. This jacket every now and again flew off, which rendered these guns very unsafe to use over the heads of our own troops.