We observed, that, in consequence of there being no reaction in these projectiles on the point of discharge, rockets may be used in the smallest boats of the navy. These rockets carry a quantity of combustible matter, and, according to the ordinary system, would require to be thrown from the largest mortars, and from ships of very heavy tonnage. The 12 and 18 pounder have been fired from a four-oared gig. They may be made to ricochet in the water at low angles. In boarding, they have been recommended, to be thrown into the port holes of the enemy. They have also been recommended for fire-ships, in order to produce an extensive and devastating fire among the ships of the enemy.
Besides the advantages, which rockets possess, and of which we have spoken; namely, that it is a species of projectile, containing within itself the propelling power, by which heavy ordnance is dispensed with, and that an extensive fire may be kept up, by a few men, against any important point; there is another advantage said to be peculiar to them; viz. that they may be employed in a variety of cases, in which the usual artillery, from the nature of the ground, or other impediments, cannot be rendered effective; and that, in several bombardments, in consequence of their trifling reaction, they may be thrown from cutters and small boats, and, therefore, from points, which could never be approached by the vessels, usually employed in that service. With respect to the expense of the formation of war-rockets, calculations have been made, by which it appears, that their cost is less than the usual expense of carcasses.
We are informed on this head, that it is the cheapest of all ammunition, depending on the projectile force of gunpowder. For a 32 pounder carcass rocket costs only 1l. 1s. 11d. complete for service, and its equivalent, the 10 inch spherical carcass, with the charge of powder necessary to convey it 3000 yards, which power is contained in the rocket, costs 1l. 2s. 7d., independent of any charge for the mortar, mortar bed, platform, difference of transport, &c. A vessel of 300 tons will carry 5000 of them at least. But the comparison, as to the expense, is still more in favour of the rocket, when compared with the larger nature of carcasses. The 15 inch spherical carcass costs 1l. 17s. 111/2d. to throw 2500 yards; while its equivalent rocket costs but 1l. 5s. being a saving on the first cost, of 12s. 111/2d.
Notwithstanding all the encomiums, bestowed on the Congreve rockets by the English, the French entertain a different opinion of them. For the following remarks, we are indebted to Ruggeri, (Pyrotechnie Militaire, p. 278), by which it appears, that Congreve was not the original inventor. He acknowledges, however, that they experienced the sad effects of them; and we do not offer this remark with any sort of prejudice, but as an acknowledgment, that the French experienced their "sad effects." Ruggeri says, that the Congreve rocket is nothing more than he described in his Elements of Pyrotechny five years before they were known to the English. It is, therefore, wrong, he adds, that we regard it as an English invention. It was invented, says he, by a naval officer at Bordeaux, and ought not, he further remarks, to be regarded as a useful weapon in war. The reason he gives is, that its utility must depend upon places and circumstances. If it is required, he adds, to attack a fleet, we must employ two or three hundred before making any impression; because we cannot direct a firing rocket, as a cannon or ball. This is certainly a great inconvenience. He makes the cost also much greater than the English calculation; namely, for a single one of them ten times more than for a red-hot shot. Ruggeri, however, is candid enough to say, that, notwithstanding he differs in opinion, he is far from opposing any trials or experiments, made with the view of improving or perfecting it; but is decidedly of opinion, that it can never be employed at sea with the same advantage as bombs and cannon-ball.
Ruggeri published, in the Journal of Paris, in September, 1809, a letter, in reply to a writer, who had published some reflections on incendiary rockets, from which, as it throws some light on this subject, we shall here introduce a few extracts:
"Although Monsieur, the cannonier of Ostend, may not have given the precise construction of the rocket, which we name the sky-rocket, and of which the English have made so criminal a use, I will commence at first by assuring you, that I coincide perfectly with him, in the preference he gives to howitzes, bombs, and other projectiles, which are used by civilized nations. He has very satisfactorily demonstrated their advantages over the Congreve rocket. I will only add, that bombs and howitzes have also the advantage of being one-fifth cheaper, and projected with greater facility.
"The Congreve rocket cannot be of any particular advantage, because it only carries fire to the place where it falls; and if we wish to use them against any vessel whatever, it is impossible to assure ourselves of a direction on a given point, as many difficulties occur in projecting them.
"The merit of the invention of these rockets does not belong to the English.
"This invention was made by a Frenchman, a captain of a privateer, who made the first attempt to use them about seventeen years since, (1795).
"The English have perfected, or rather have modified this rocket.