Twelve years ago the success of Mr. Monck (certainly the first modern improver of ordnance,) led to the unlimited production of undigested plans for changes in gunnery; but, unfortunately for the science, no progress was made on the one great improvement of Mr. Monck.
War found us ill prepared in the field, and out-weighted “afloat,” so that almost as many men were killed by the bursting of mortars, and other ill-constructed guns, as by the fire of the enemy: so critical was our situation, indeed, that but for the general adoption in England’s army of my great invention, the rifle on the expansive or “Greenerian” principle, and its skilful use by our brave soldiers, the war had gone against us. Our rifles were equal in range to our artillery, and this saved us; whilst the enemy, astonished at the effects produced by our bullets, and conscious of their inferiority both in the construction and use of small arms, abandoned the contest: but no doubt with a firm determination to profit by their dear-bought experience.
It is generally admitted that our artillery was never so effective as that of the enemy, and that more is due to the patient and enduring bravery of the British soldier than to our field-pieces and heavy ordnance. That England’s artillery was at this time most disgracefully inefficient, it would be folly to deny. The larger guns were destroyed in an inconceivably short space of time. After five, ten, or fifteen rounds were fired the guns burst, killing the gunners in great numbers.
The readers of my works are already familiar with my opinions on this subject, and their value will now be enhanced by the fact that they have been proved to be the opinions of a “practical man.” Success in the improvement of small arms is a sure encouragement to those anxious for the advancement of projectile science, and it is a coat of mail in which to fight against the prejudices and incompetency of official management.
Who, on reading my work of 1841, believed the prediction I therein made, that small arms would be produced which would render field guns useless? The fact is, however, firmly established, that the best rifles on my principle will out-range by several hundred yards the best “six-pounder” in her Majesty’s service; and that, too, with a repetition of fire wonderfully quick and effective: as the Russians in the Crimea can testify, on more than one occasion.
To endeavour to point out that an improvement may be effected in artillery equal to that which has been effected in small arms, is the object of the following pages.
The author asks a dispassionate perusal and careful study of his work, in justice to himself and to the importance of the subject. Judging of future probabilities by what has already been accomplished, the reader will be prepared for what follows. That great and important changes must take place in artillery cannot be doubted, and should England refuse to avail herself of the improvements to be effected, other nations, and amongst them our late opponent, will be the first to seize and adopt them. In former works I have asked the indulgence of my military readers on account of my scanty military knowledge; but professional men appear to be equally in the dark with the uninitiated: indeed, the lamentable shortcomings of the English artillerists have placed them in the rank of mere “waiters upon providence” for the next step towards improvement. The present time is decidedly propitious; let improvements now be made, and we may surely hope that they will be appreciated by the public, if not by the Government authorities.
What is the best metal for cannon? is a question which has often been asked, and the answers have been very conflicting. Some have advocated mixtures of copper and tin; others have advocated cast iron, and more recently wrought iron; still more recently steel, and, lastly, cast steel, have had their advocates. Arguments as plentiful as summer flowers have been advanced in favour of each, and the argument has been carried on with a vast amount of prejudice and warmth, according to the degree of acquaintance with or attachment to the favourite metal of each individual. It is rare to meet with a mind free from bias, equally well acquainted with the merits of the several metals, and their application to the purposes intended. Still more rare is it to meet with a mind possessing all this metallurgic knowledge, and combining with it an intimate acquaintance with the principles of projectiles, as well as a scientific knowledge of the construction of the engine (the perfection of which consists in its having no points which are weak or unnecessarily strong); and yet it is by such a combination of knowledge and the application of these principles that we must be guided, if we would be successful in the accumulation of projectile power. In the present age we are really alive to the advantage of “playing at long bowls;” and the question now to be determined is, what is the greatest weight of shot and shell we can throw, and how many miles can we project it. The Americans were undoubtedly the first to discover the great advantage of this question with their lesser frigates; the late war has developed it still more; and it now remains to be ascertained how much further can we go. For on this important point the superior efficacy of artillery depends.
At St. Sebastian, in 1813, cast-iron guns threw tons of shot at a range of 1,500 yards; some particular guns firing as many as 3,000 rounds, and yet it is more than probable that had the same guns been used in the Crimea, they would have burst with one-fourth the number of rounds. Experience proves that it is not the great number of rounds fired which strains and destroys the gun, but the high elevation at which these guns are placed, in order to get range; this it is which shakes and disintegrates the crystalline structure of the metal, and thus extreme range is obtained at extreme cost. A gun which at 6° of elevation could stand without a strain 200 rounds, would be likely at an elevation of 30° to burst before 50 rounds were fired. The explanation of this is sufficiently simple. A gun fired at 6° recoils as the projectile is projected forward, in proportion to its relative weight and friction; but when brought up to an elevation above 30° the gun is entirely out of the horizontal, and cannot recoil as it does at an elevation of 6°: the force is now exerted downward, and the gun impinges on its support—i. e., either upon its bed on the deck of the ship, or on the solid earth of the battery, which is comparatively immovable; thus the force which displaced the gun in the first instance is now exerted on the sides of the gun, and the projectile receiving additional force is projected further. But this increased range is obtained at the expense of the gun, which is rapidly destroyed: 50 rounds being sufficient to render it unfit for service. To obviate this rapid destruction of cannon, the metal has been changed from the molecular to the fibrous; that is from cast iron to wrought iron. One object of this chapter is to point out the difficulties which arise in determining what the best metal for cannon really is, and to show the advantages to be gained by attending to the proper construction of projectile engines, without attaching undue importance to the material of which they are made.
Before rejecting cast iron as useless for the construction of large guns, it would be well to assure ourselves that no better quality of metal can be produced than that which is at present manufactured. We must also satisfy ourselves that we have clearly understood the proper shape and form of cannon to resist concussions. These concussions, be it remembered, were more violent in the late than in any previous war; and it is an undoubted fact that we had many more fractures then than on any previous occasion: first, on account of the strain produced by the great elevation required to get increased range; and, secondly, on account of the imperfect shape of the gun. The average number of rounds fired from the 13-inch mortars which burst at the bombardment of Sweaborg was 120, and the fracture in all was peculiarly alike; being at right angles to the supports. Now, that this is due to the form of the gun cannot be doubted; and it will be shown more fully in a subsequent page.