2NDHMS~1.QXD:Layout 1
14/1/11
16:45
Page 4
This book is dedicated to the memory of all those involved in the conception, design and construction of HMS Warrior; and to their successors, the team that saved the ship 120 years later and those who continue to care for her today.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A Conway book
I must take this opportunity to thank all those who made this book possible. The original edition of the book depended on the staff of the Warrior Preservation Trust, both at Hartlepool and in London, who were unfailingly helpful, both in dealing with often simple questions and in giving me the benefit of their experience. Their successors on board the ship today, notably Captain Ken Jones and Archivist Andrew Baines, have continued that fine tradition. The team at Conway Publishing made the project possible, and ensured it would be a fitting memorial to a great ship. Sadly many of those who did so much for the first edition are no longer here, but new friends like John Beeler, Howard Fuller and Patrick Louvier have transformed the way we understand the ironclad era, transforming a neglected research backwater into a lively forum. I owe a further debt of gratitude to Zohra, for her unfailing support and enthusiasm across the years that separate this book from the first edition. Without the help of these people this book would not have been written. That said the errors, omissions and failings of the final text are entirely my responsibility.
Copyright © Andrew Lambert 1987, 2011
Andrew Lambert Kew 2011
First published in Great Britain in 1987 by Conway Maritime Press as Warrior: Restoring the World’s First Ironclad This fully revised and updated edition published in 2011 by Conway, an imprint of Anova Books Company Ltd 10 Southcombe Street London W14 0RA www.anovabooks.com To receive regular email updates on forthcoming Conway titles, email conway@anovabooks.com with ‘Conway Update’ in the subject field. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. Andrew Lambert has asserted his moral right to be identified as the author of this work. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data: A record of this title is available on request from the British Library. ISBN
9781844861286
Reproduction by Rival Colour Ltd. Printed and bound by 1010 Printing International Ltd, China.
2NDHMS~1.QXD:Layout 1
14/1/11
16:45
Page 5
Contents Acknowledgements Author’s Note Introduction
4 7 8
CHAPTER 1
Origins
10
CHAPTER 2
In Service
32
CHAPTER 3
Reconstruction
54
CHAPTER 4
Hull and Armour
76
CHAPTER 5
Guns
100
CHAPTER 6
Machinery
124
CHAPTER 7
Rig
144
CHAPTER 8
Detail
166
CHAPTER 9
Warrior’s Return
190
Warrior specification
206 208 220
Conclusion Appendix Bibliography Index Picture Credits
222 224
2NDHMS~1.QXD:Layout 1
14/1/11
16:45
Page 6
2NDHMS~1.QXD:Layout 1
14/1/11
16:45
Page 7
7 AUTHOR’S NOTE
ometimes the human spirit can imbue mere machines with the grace and beauty to inspire, to render their meaning more clear, and ensure their success. HMS Warrior was one such machine: this is the story of a great ship, and a great achievement. Not only was Warrior the world’s first oceangoing, iron-hulled, armoured warship, but her survival and restoration made her a unique survivor from a lost age. When she entered service in 1861 HMS Warrior instantly rendered every other warship afloat obsolete, and with her combination of size, speed and firepower helped to defeat Imperial France in a major naval arms race. She was the ultimate Victorian deterrent. After a decade as the icon of Victorian power Warrior, now rendered obsolete herself by newer battleships with thicker armour and heavier guns, slipped quietly into the reserve fleet. In 1902 she became an engineering workshop at Portsmouth, and in 1929 a mooring jetty at Milford Haven. In 1979 a rusty old hulk,
S
hardly recognisable as the most beautiful warship of her day, was quietly towed into Hartlepool, to be restored to her former glory. After a decade of hard work Warrior made a triumphant return to Portsmouth, the home of the Royal Navy, to become the icon of the historic dockyard. Along the way the restoration helped to regenerate a once great shipbuilding centre, revive craft skills, prompted a fresh look at the nineteenth century Royal Navy and its’ rivals, and opened a window on a time when the prospects for technological progress seemed endless. The restoration set out to recover the ship as she had been in late 1861, just as she entered service, without modern alterations or additions, without notices or concessions that would spoil the illusion, just like a modern warship open for a public visit. This stark approach to exhibition provides a striking, uncluttered and unusual visitor experience, one that never fails to impress. Warrior will beguile and delight visitors of all ages, and all nationalities, for years to come.
3rd HMS_Warrior_CH1_010_031.qxd:Layout 1
14/1/11
16:47
Page 12
12 HMS WARRIOR
n 1815 the most powerful ships afloat were 120-gun three-decker sailing line of battleships some 20ft longer than the Victory. Their extra length and more practical construction reflected the reforms of Sir Robert Seppings, Surveyor of the Navy 1813–1832, the first great technological innovator of the nineteenth century naval revolution. The dominance of these wooden leviathans was challenged in the 1820s when French artillery expert Henri Paixhans developed a system to fire explosive shells from cannon. If the Paixhans system worked wooden ships would be little more than large inflammable targets. However, the obvious response, to create a defence to keep the shells out, was not considered a practical proposition until the Crimean War (1854-1856). By that time the other ideas that went into Warrior had been brought to fruition.
I
RIGHT: Brunel’s epochal iron screw steamship the SS Great Britain marked the greatest step forward yet seen in the rise of iron shipbuilding, completing for sea in 1845. This early calotype negative shows the ship shortly after her launch.
The advance of steam engines at sea, demonstrated by Isambard Kingdom Brunel’s pioneering Atlantic liners, Great Western and Great Britain, was closely watched by the world’s navies. However, while the paddle wheel remained the only method of propelling ships no battleship would be equipped with a steam engine, because the wheels obscured the broadside of the ship, the focus of her offensive power. Only at the midpoint of the century did the screw propeller and improved engines facilitate the construction of a steam-powered battleship. Dupuy de Lôme’s Le Napoleon and Isaac Watts’ Agamemnon, both 90-gun two-deckers, began a brief Anglo-French Naval race during the 1850s. Between 1850 and 1860 over 100 two and three decked wooden steam battleships were built or converted in Britain and France before the type vanished almost as suddenly as it had appeared.
3rd HMS_Warrior_CH1_010_031.qxd:Layout 1
14/1/11
16:47
Page 13
13 ORIGINS
The length of these ships, and the vibration generated by their massive, unbalanced engines, demonstrated the unsuitability of wood for large steampowered ships. However it would be the threat of improved artillery that finally ended the long reign of the wooden fighting ship. The first iron warships had been built in the mid-1840s, as a response to new technology, and the shortage of quality timber. Just as these iron frigates were nearing completion gunnery experiments revealed that their ½in shell plating made very good shrapnel, once fractured by shot. The ships already built were converted into troopships and the loss of the Birkenhead in 1852 only served to confirm a naval prejudice against iron. Iron would be used for
warships when armour plate was perfected, and this meant that additional buoyancy was required to carry the weight. Too much had been attempted without a thorough trial, a lesson taken to heart by the Admiralty. This resulted in a policy of reacting to foreign developments rather than taking the initiative with any more novel designs. The British response to Le Napoleon was the obvious result. After the Russian Black Sea Fleet had annihilated the Turkish squadron at Sinope Bay on 30 November 1853 Napoleon III decided that warships could not resist shell fire. He therefore proposed a scheme of armoured protection. His original idea, for an iron box full of 6 pound cannon balls, was impractical; once the box had been
ABOVE: The French floating battery La Tonnante in the ice before Kil-Bouroun [Kinburn] during the Crimean campaign. An engraving by Eugene Ciceri, published c.1860.
3rd HMS_Warrior_CH1_010_031.qxd:Layout 1
ABOVE: The French ironclad La Gloire, to port and an Algeciras class wooden steam battleship of 90 guns to starboard, in this lithograph by Parisian printmaker Louis Lebreton.
14/1/11
16:47
Page 14
broken by the first shot the balls rolled away. However, Admiralty Chief Naval Engineer Thomas Lloyd suggested 4 inch thick wrought iron plate. This proved quite adequate to keep out the most powerful shot. France, and later Britain, built floating batteries covered with 4in plates. These slow, ugly and unseaworthy vessels were only intended to bombard the numerous Russian forts. They were not regular seagoing warships. Three of the French batteries, D茅vastation, Lave and Tonnant went into action on 17 October 1855 assisting the Allied fleets to demolish the fort at Kinburn. British, French, Russian and American authorities were all suitably impressed. Only the French were prepared to realise the full implications of the Kinburn action. They stopped ordering wooden battleships, although it must be pointed out that they did so at a time when they had no spare slipways in their dockyards.
Instead the French conducted a series of armour plate trials. Then on 1 January 1857 Stanislas Dupuy de L么me was appointed Directeur du Material (Chief Constructor) of the Imperial Navy. De L么me, already famous as the designer of Le Napoleon, had long advocated iron ships and armour plate. He designed Gloire to carry a complete 4陆 inch belt from stem to stern on a hull only slightly longer than Le Napoleon. She was built of wood because France lacked the iron shipbuilding resources and experience of Britain. One ship of the 1858 programme, Couronne, was built of iron to an alternate design by M Audenet. Although laid down before Warrior, she was not completed until after the British ship, which was the first iron-hulled ironclad sea-going warship. Whatever the merits of Gloire the French decision to lay down six ironclads in March 1858 produced profound alarm in Britain.
3rd HMS_Warrior_CH1_010_031.qxd:Layout 1
14/1/11
16:48
Page 15
15 ORIGINS
ADMIRAL SIR BALDWIN WALKER AND THE IRONCLAD If any one man can take a major share of the credit for the success of Warrior it must be the Surveyor of the Navy (1848-1861), Captain, and from 1859 Rear Admiral Sir Baldwin Walker. Walker was responsible to the Board of Admiralty for the design and construction of all ships built for the Navy. Walker had been appointed to liaise between the Admiralty and the constructors to ensure that the Navy received the best ships. He had been selected as an unrivalled seaman and experienced administrator. While the final decision always rested with the politicians and the professional officers on the Board of Admiralty, Walker’s professional advice carried great weight with almost all First Lords of the Admiralty of the period. As a Cabinet Minister the First Lord represented the Navy in Cabinet, and conveyed the direction of the Cabinet to the Admiralty. Between 1848 and 1858 Walker stabilised design policy, created the steam battlefleet and marshalled the resources of the nation to meet the needs of war with Russia and a simultaneous naval arms race with Britain’s erstwhile ally, Imperial France. In 1856 his career reached its zenith; honoured by Queen and Country and admired and trusted by the nation, the Navy and the politicians. Walker dominated British construction policy. A conservative, methodical man in an age of dramatic innovation Walker remained firmly wedded to the doctrine of evolution rather than revolution in naval technology. Under his control the Surveyor’s Department steadily developed the design of each class of wooden warship. Walker was hardly the man to take a leap in the dark with a revolutionary new concept, yet that was exactly what he did with Warrior.
Under the relaxed direction of Sir Charles Wood (First Lord 1855–58), the Admiralty had investigated armour in the years following the Crimean War. Wood felt that Kinburn had not been a thorough test; the Russian guns had been too small to trouble the armour. However the Admiralty had adopted the floating battery: Britain had built a dozen of these ungainly floating siege engines by 1856. The post-war armour trials were specifically intended to inform the development of a sea-going ironclad. Unlike the French, who had good reasons for wanting to overturn the existing order of seapower at a stroke, the Admiralty was quite happy to consider the implications of armour at leisure. Even so the trials made good progress, and in February 1858 Walker proposed building an experimental ironclad corvette. It is significant that his proposal was sent to the Admiralty Board before Gloire had been laid down. The dimensions and specification of this vessel repay study. Walker’s first wooden-hulled ironclad would have been inferior to Gloire in only two respects: 4 inch as against 4½ inch armour, and a speed of only 10 knots. In reality the former was of little consequence. Armour trials at Woolwich Arsenal between late 1856 and the end of 1857 established that 4 inch plates would resist 68pdr solid shot at 600yd, even if repeated hits demolished the target. The 8 inch bore 68 pounder 95 cwt gun was the most powerful British artillery piece. Furthermore Walker’s estimated speed for the projected ship was very low when compared to other ships of the same size and engine power. The wooden hull reflected his conservatism and a desire to build a ship for worldwide service. Iron hulls were prone to rapid fouling that reduced speed and made them reliant on drydocks for regular cleaning. In essence
ABOVE: Admiral Sir Baldwin Wake Walker, in Turkish service, 1840.
3rd HMS_Warrior_CH1_010_031.qxd:Layout 1
14/1/11
16:48
Page 20
20 HMS WARRIOR
Department of the Surveyor of the Navy
Confidential.
Frigate of 36 Guns cased with Wrought Iron Plates – Designs obtained. 27th January 1859 With reference to the question of Building Ships to be cased with Iron to render them Shot-proof, I beg to state that having given this important subject my beset consideration, and it appearing that the most judicial course would be not only to call on the Master Shipwrights in the Dockyards, but also to request some of the most eminent private shipbuilders who have had considerable experience in Iron Shipbuilding, to furnish designs. I beg to submit that the Parties named in the margin be informed that their Lordships having under their consideration the subject of shot proof vessels would be glad to receive designs and suggestions for vessels of this description, and that the proposed particulars be sent for their information, observing that if they are disposed to furnish a Design not in accordance with these conditions, but which in their opinion would be better calculated to answer the intended purpose, their Lordships would be glad to receive it also. The Design to be for a Frigate of 36 guns cased with 4 ½ inch Wrought Iron Plates from the Upper Deck to 5 feet below the Load Water Line. The Vessel to be capable of carrying the weights as per accompanying statement in addition to Machinery, Boilers, and Water, and Coals for full steaming for at least seven days, with a height of Midship Port of at least 9 feet above the water:– also to possess sufficient stability to enable her Guns to be used effectively both when Coals and Stores are expended, and when fully laden. As Iron appears to be the most suitable material for a ship of this kind both as regards strength and durability, the Design should be for an Iron Ship, but if it is considered by any of the Parties called on that a more satisfactory arrangement could be made with wood than iron, a Plan and the particulars of a wooden ship may be forwarded for consideration; observing that in a wood ship the Armour Plates must necessarily extend from the stem to the stern, whereas in an iron ship it might be considered advisable to limit their extent to about 200 feet of the middle point of the vessel, separating the part cased from the parts not cased by strong athwartship Bulkheads, covered also with 4½ inch Plates to extend down to about 5 feet below the Plates on the sides. If this arrangement be adopted the ends of the ship not cased should have as great a number of watertight compartments as can be conveniently constructed, to afford strength for running down, and security against damage by Collisions or shot.
A full description of the proposed arrangements for this purpose should be given, as well as of the proposed mode of securing the Armour Plates, which in the case of an Iron ship should have a bed or backing of Timbers and planks of hard wood placed between them and the ordinary Plating of the ship, equal in substance and strength to the Timbering and Planking of the Topsides of a Ship of the Line, and the edges of the Armour Plates should be planed and closely fitted. The Main Deck to be of 4 inch Dantzic Oak with Beams sufficient in number and strength to bear the heavy guns and other weights. The Upper Deck to be of Iron 5/8 of an inch thick, and to be covered with Dantzic Fir 3 inches in thickness. The Ship to be Masted and Rigged as an 80-Gun ship and to have sufficient steam power to give a speed of at least 13½ knots under steam alone when fully equipped and with all stores on board. The Horse Power of the Engines to be stated, and the space required for them and the boilers to be shewn on the drawings. I further submit that the Private Shipbuilders be informed that as it is important their Lordships should know the probable cost of such a vessel before coming to any decisions, that it is desirable that an estimate of the cost of building her, and of the time required, be furnished with the Design, and that the information requested should be forwarded on the 1st March next. B W Walker, Surveyor Mr Chatfield Mr Rice Mr Laing Mr Henwood Mr Abthell Mr Peake Mr Cradock The Thames Shipbuilding Company Mr Mare Mr Scott Russell Messrs Samuda Westwood & Baillie Mr Laird Mr Palmer Mr Napier
Deptford Yard Woolwich Yard Chatham Yard Sheerness Yard Portsmouth Yard Devonport Yard Pembroke Yard Blackwall Millwall Millwall Blackwall Millwall Birkenhead Jarrow on Tyne Glasgow
3rd HMS_Warrior_CH1_010_031.qxd:Layout 1
14/1/11
16:48
Page 21
21 ORIGINS
WEIGHTS TO BE RECEIVED ON BOARD THE PROPOSED 36-GUN SCREW FRIGATE TONS Water for 6 weeks for 550 men – including casks Provisions and spirits for 4 months for 550 men Officer’s stores and slops Wood, sand and holystones Officers, men and effects Masts and yards, including spare spars, booms etc. Rigging, blocks and sails Cables and anchors Boatswain’s and Warrant Officers’ Stores: main deck 34 100cwt 68pdr 10ft 0in Guns & Carriages: Upper Deck 2 Pivots 68pdr 10ft 10in Small Arms and Ammunition Powder: 550 cases Shot and shell – 100 rounds, all taken as sold shot Grape and canister shot Galley and condensors Engineers’ stores Spare screw, etc
Total Displacement required fore & aft Main deck ports deep distance between ports lower sill from deck
Walker’s letter set out the key requirements that informed the final design of Warrior. Calling on eight private shipbuilders for designs was unprecedented. During the Wars of the French Revolution and Empire, 1792–1815, private yards had built most of the Navy’s vessels, but this practice stopped at the end of the war. None had ever been invited to submit designs for important ships. However, the Royal Dockyards, where all the major warships of the era were built, had neither the experience nor the facilities to build large iron ships. The iron frigates of 1845 had been contracted out, and any new iron ship would necessarily have to follow that example. By providing space for wooden-hulled designs
124 105 14 16 75 119 70 121 92 215 8 42 109 14 10 15 12 1161 3ft 6in 3ft 10in 12ft 0in 1ft 6in
Walker offered a placebo, one that allowed the Royal Dockyard Master Shipwrights to compete. The private builders he named were all famous for their iron ships, especially John Scott Russell, C J Mare and Robert Napier. Walker realised that some, or all of them would be needed to build iron-hulled warships. It was only common sense to get them involved in the process at an early stage, to supplement the Admiralty’s limited experience of iron shipbuilding. Walker’s design parameters ensured that all the designs submitted were for long ships. With 34 guns to be mounted on the main deck, each with 15 feet between centres for convenient working, and a speed
3rd HMS_Warrior_CH1_010_031.qxd:Layout 1
14/1/11
16:48
Page 26
26 HMS WARRIOR
ABOVE LEFT: The French ironclad Gloire in profile. ABOVE RIGHT: A section through Gloire in the centre of the boiler room, showing her single gun deck, the armour plate outside the hull and the coal bunkers along both sides.
WARRIOR AND HER CONTEMPORARIES
Victory Howe Duncan Orlando Gloire 1st Project 2nd Project Warrior
GUNS
DATE
100 120 100 40 40 26 26 36
1765 1860 1858 1858 1860 1858 1859 1861
CREW
1000 930 600 570
707
LENGTH (OA) (FT)
BREADTH (EXT) (FT)
LENGTH/ BREADTH
186 260 252 336 255 6 280 280 420
52 60 58 52 55 9 58 58 58 4
4.3/1 4.6/1 5.8/1 4.7/1 4.7/1 4.7/1 6.5/1
3rd HMS_Warrior_CH1_010_031.qxd:Layout 1
14/1/11
16:48
Page 27
27 ORIGINS
other respects it was not an inspired design. Despite the exaggerated hopes of the French and the absurd fears of the British, Warrior was a far better ship. Gloire had been constructed to challenge British mastery of the sea: Warrior demonstrated that such hopes were futile. By taking naval architecture into the industrial age the French played into the hands of Britain, already the world’s leading industrial nation. British foundries produced far more iron than those of France, and Britain possessed a massive advantage in iron shipbuilding skills and facilities. Yet if Gloire was the inspiration for Warrior the design had very different origins. In the 1850s the United States Navy abandoned the line of battle ship, building very large steam frigates of the Merrimac class. Walker had responded with the remarkable Mersey and Orlando, the longest, largest and most powerful singledecked wooden fighting ships ever built. Despite Watts’ careful design, and the best construction methods, the ships proved unequal to the strains imposed on them by their engines, demonstrating that the outer limits of wooden construction had been reached. They convinced Walker that a longer ship would need an iron hull. The need for a longer ship arose because Mersey
and Orlando could not fight a steam battleship at close quarters, and lacked any margin of speed to keep their distance where their heavier guns would be an advantage. Warrior rectified Orlando’s faults, and added armour that was effectively invulnerable beyond 400 yards. The new ship was designed in response to a clear tactical doctrine. Being ships with a single covered gundeck, both Gloire and Warrior were often described as frigates. However Gloire was a battleship: the French always intended her to fight in the line of battle, specifically in the Western Mediterranean and English Channel. Therefore she was initially fitted with a light rig that would have done little to economise her use of coal, and she had small bunkers. Warrior, intended to be an ocean-going cruising ship, with a full rig and hoisting screw to allow for long passages under sail, had larger bunkers. Sails provided the strategic mobility. Warrior was not designed as a battleship. As a descendant of Orlando, Walker conceived Warrior as a supplement to the line of battle ships, specifically to counter the new French ships. Warrior symbolised the collapse of the old tactical doctrine of Nelson’s day, when battleships and frigates had clear, distinct
DRAUGHT
21 6 25 10 25 6 21 6 27 10 23 3 26
DISPLACETONS
ENGINES IHP
COAL TONS
SPEED KNOTS
HEIGHT OF MAIN DECK PORTS (FT)
7000 5950 5643 5630 5600 6096 9137
4564 3428 3617 2500 3200 3600 5267
550 520 850 665
13.0 13.0 13.0 12.5 10.0 12.75 14.08
4.5 8 8 9-10 6.25 10 9 9
800
ABOVE: A Punch cartoon of 23 March 1861 satirizing the AngloFrench naval arms race. Napoleon III, seated left, in a game of cards with Palmerston, has laid what he believes to be a trump in the shape of Gloire. Palmerston, however, trumps him in turn with Warrior. Each man has a sack full of francs and sovereigns, respectively, on the floor at his feet. The caption reads ‘Beggar My Neignbour’, and Palmerston asks: ‘Is not your Majesty tired of this foolish game?’.
3rd HMS_Warrior_CH2_032_053.qxd:Layout 1
18/1/11
12:30
Page 32
3rd HMS_Warrior_CH2_032_053.qxd:Layout 1
18/1/11
12:30
Page 33
IN SERVICE
3rd HMS_Warrior_CH2_032_053.qxd:Layout 1
18/1/11
12:31
Page 34
34 HMS WARRIOR
he order for Warrior was awarded to the Thames Ironworks Company, which had taken over the yard and workforce of C J Mare, on 11 May 1859. Their offer to build the ship for £31.50 per ton on the old Builder’s Measurement (approximately two-thirds of the modern displacement) had been the lowest received from the eight firms invited to tender. Warrior was laid down later that year on the east bank of Bow Creek at the point where it joins the Thames. On the 25 May John Penn & Sons of Greenwich had their tender to build the engines and boilers accepted. Trading as C J Mare, Thames Ironworks had built many large iron screw steamers, with Penn engines, for the P & O Line. The 5500-ton Himalaya had been the largest, although another dozen of between 1800 and 2800 tons were built in the 1850s. During the Crimean War the firm built several warships, including the floating batteries Meteor and Thunder and several gunboats. Expertise in large scale iron ship construction and reputation for quality workmanship, established long before Warrior was ordered, secured the order. Most accounts state that Warrior’s keel was laid on the slipway at Thames Ironworks on 25 May 1859. This is incorrect. The slipway was occupied by the P & O liner Seine until June 6th. After the Seine had been launched the slip needed an extensive overhaul to prepare it for the massive Warrior, lengthening and strengthening the slip by driving hundreds of piles into the foreshore. Full scale production of iron for the ship only began in August, which is likely to have coincided with the start of construction. If the ship was actually begun in mid August this would reduce the building time to 16 months, the same time Robert Napier took to build the Black Prince.
T
OPPOSITE ABOVE: A new age of Naval Power; building the Minotaur at Thames Ironworks. Minotaur followed Warrior on the slipway. CENTRE LEFT: The Thames Ironworks shipyard, c. 1864-65, where Warrior was built. The absence of covered working spaces, and the outside piles of timber and iron demonstrate the methods in use at the best contemporary shipyards. BELOW LEFT: Shipyard workers on the upper deck of the Turkish iron cased frigate Sultan Mahmood. Royal Navy orders made Thames Iron Works an attractive proposition for foreign navies seeking first class ironclad tonnage. BELOW RIGHT: The management in their Sunday best, with the bow of another great warship – the aforementioned Sultan Mahmood – in view, and the belching chimneys of the foundry at Thames Ironworks.
The delay mattered. When Warrior was ordered it was intended that she should be launched in eleven months and completed for sea in another three; that is by July 1860. These dates were hopelessly over optimistic: they reflect Walker’s concern to complete the ship at the same time as Gloire. As a wooden ship Gloire should have taken at least three years to build, to allow the structure to season as it was completed. Hasty construction effectively guaranteed a short career, due to fungal infestations of the timber. However the French accepted the risk. Laid down in March 1858 Gloire was launched on 24 November and completed in August 1859. While an iron ship could have been built more quickly, in theory, various design alterations, allied to the sheer novelty of the project caused unexpected delays. Much of the delay can be attributed to Walker’s concern to outclass Gloire. Rather than building a simple response to the French ship he favoured something superior. Warrior was officially named on 5 October 1859. The name was significant: only one ship had carried it before, a long lived and justly famous 74. The new ship had been ordered only two years after the old one had been demolished. Although no longer First Lord Sir John Pakington was given the honour of performing the launch ceremony, although the very low temperature experienced on 29 December 1860 meant that it took the combined efforts of six tugs to pull her down the frozen slipway, a most inauspicious start. Once safely afloat the hull was towed into the massive Victoria Dock basin, where Penn’s installed her machinery. With the engines and boilers in place the Chatham Dockyard sheer hulk was towed up to Victoria Dock laden with masts, yards and ropes to rig the ship. The heavy wooden
3rd HMS_Warrior_CH2_032_053.qxd:Layout 1
18/1/11
12:31
Page 35
3rd HMS_Warrior_CH2_032_053.qxd:Layout 1
18/1/11
12:31
Page 36
36 HMS WARRIOR
ABOVE LEFT: Warrior’s first captain, Arthur Cochrane, third son of the famous Lord Cochrane, tenth Earl of Dundonald. ABOVE RIGHT: Already a celebrity long before she was launched, the media made frequent visits to the yard to see Warrior on the stocks at the Thames Ironworks shipyards, Blackwall. This contemporary engraving from the Illustrated London News details the progress of construction.
lower masts were lifted in by the hulk’s sheer legs, the remaining spars were hoisted in using the lower masts. On 31 May 1861 Captain Arthur Cochrane was appointed to command. He commissioned the ship with a crew from Woolwich Dockyard, mostly Londoners, on August 1st 1861. Then Warrior moved down the Thames to Greenhithe, where warships usually embarked their guns and gunpowder, and any other necessary stores. The Navy took advantage of the stop to open their new prestige warship to the public. Among the visitors was Portsmouth born novelist and newspaper man Charles Dickens, who lived at nearby Rochester. In All the Year Round he reported ‘Yonder, a few hundred yards across the water, a black, vicious ugly customer as ever I saw. Whalelike in size, and with as terrible a row of incisor teeth as ever closed on a French frigate!’ Dickens foresaw the impact of mechanised military industrial power would change the way wars were fought:
‘Our ships are now great machines…. Mere dogged bravery and reckless bulldog courage will not do now; we shall want science and more comprehensive schemes… The next war will show us that all sorts of new elements are introduced into the next fight and woe betide those who are slowest to learn the lessons’. These new machines needed new men. Just like the ship in which they served Warrior’s men were a new breed. As the specialist demands of naval service, especially gunnery and engineering made the old reserve of merchant seafarers less and less relevant to modern war, the Royal Navy introduced Continuous Service for ratings in 1853. Under the new regime men now joined the Navy for a period of ten or twenty years, and qualified for a pension, or service in the Coast Guard. Hitherto men had only joined a ship for the duration of her commission. The new ratings were better paid, more highly trained and soon became the ultimate icons of Victorian working class
3rd HMS_Warrior_CH2_032_053.qxd:Layout 1
18/1/11
12:31
Page 37
37 IN SERVICE
masculinity; tough, brawny figures; mature men with full beards dressed in the new blue uniform. When the old Queen went to her final rest it would be the men of the fleet who pulled her coffin. So popular were these new sailors that a sailor suit became the standard dress of the children of the elite, and naval men were used as the emblems on branded goods, to emphasise reliability and strength. Warrior finally completed for service only on 24 October 1861, which gave Gloire the prestige of being the first sea-going iron-clad. It also gave rise to a series of increasingly intemperate letters from the Surveyor’s Department to the builders and subcontractors. Walker’s state of mind had not improved by widespread public reports that Warrior would not fulfil the hopes placed in her. Frequent design changes during construction, and a fair degree of Admiralty prevarication ensured Thames Ironworks made a considerable loss on the contract. They were awarded £50,000 to keep the firm solvent, largely to secure the
goodwill of the industry as Anglo-French relations spiralled down towards war. In June 1859 Lord Derby’s Tory Ministry had been replaced by the Liberal Government of Lord Palmerston. The change of personnel on the Admiralty Board threw Walker’s careful policy into confusion, replacing his carefully conceived twin track programme of wooden and iron ships with a plethora of conflicting developments that suggested the Navy had lost confidence in the Surveyor. The first hint of the looming crisis came when the second ironclad, Invincible, later renamed Black Prince to avoid confusion with one of Gloire’s sisters, was not ordered until October. Influenced by artillery expert Sir Howard Douglas, Palmerston was in favour of regaining a decisive edge in wooden ships and only keeping pace with the French in ironclads. His First Lord, the Duke of Somerset, found himself besieged by so-called ‘experts’, most of them ignorant amateurs, not least Palmerston. This dramatically reduced Walker’s influence over construction policy.
ABOVE LEFT: Minotaur and Valiant completing in the Victoria docks. ABOVE RIGHT: Warrior fitting out at Greenhithe. She has her topmasts and her topgallants, so this photograph is likely to date from early September 1861.
3rd HMS_Warrior_CH3_054_075.qxd:Layout 1
18/1/11
12:38
Page 74
74 HMS WARRIOR
To control the temperature on board, largely for the benefit of visitors the gunports were glazed, replicating one feature of her days as a hulk. The original ventilation system (see chapter 8) was restored and adapted to modern needs with electric motors to circulate air, and when necessary, provide warmth.
RIGHT: Warrior’s triumphant return to Portsmouth, 16 June 1987.
PORTSMOUTH As Warrior was intended to secure her long term future through visitor revenue the choice of her final location would be critical. Although many sites around the country were considered Portsmouth was always the favourite. The original contract under which the Navy handed Warrior to the Trust had specified London or Portsmouth. Already home to Victory, Mary Rose and the expanding Royal Naval Museum, Portsmouth had been Warrior’s home port for much of her career: as a Channel Fleet Ship Warrior had been refitted at Portsmouth. She also spent many years there with the Vernon establishment. With the Naval Dockyard shedding jobs the city needed alternative employment, and tourism was an obvious candidate. Under the leadership of Councillor John Marshall, then Mayor of the City, Portsmouth Council actively canvassed for the ship and, once they had secured the prize, spent £1½ million building the jetty and dredging the berth. Warrior now forms a major part of the world’s finest naval historical collection. The slow evolution of the collection into a harmonious and cohesive unit, offering a single point of entry, shared ticketing and other facilities took some time. With Warrior standing at the front door, easily visible from the Harbour Railway station and the Hard, the Victorian deterrent had finally come home.
3rd HMS_Warrior_CH3_054_075.qxd:Layout 1
18/1/11
12:38
Page 75
75 RECONSTRUCTION
2nd HMS_Warrior_CH4_076_099.qxd:Layout 1
11/1/11
16:37
Page 99