The Ram in Action and in Accident

From The Dreadnought Project
Revision as of 11:28, 11 May 2008 by Simon Harley (talk | contribs) (Created page.)
Jump to navigationJump to search

By William Laird Clowes, Fellow of the King's College, London.

I have heard naval officers, of all ranks from the lowest to the highest, and in this theatre as well as elsewhere, express themselves in very sanguine tones concerning the future of the ram in naval warfare. I do not by any means intend to imply that all naval officers appear to believe to the same extent in the efficacy of this weapon. But I have known many, and among them officers of great experience at sea, who by their utterances suggest that, given slight superiority of speed and good handling, one ship can, without much difficulty, be made to ram another, even when the other is under full control and has plenty of sea-room in which to manœuvre. This view of the capabilities of the ram has always, though in a loose and vague kind of way, been widely held; and I venture to think that the number of those who hold it has increased of late, and especially since last June, when the country had to lament the terrible and dramatic fate of the Victoria, and of so many of her gallant officers and men.

It would be undue presumption on my part to evolve, as it were, from my inner consciousness, any opinions and theories as to the employment of the ram, and to put them forward here, before a meeting composed almost entirely of naval officers and practical men, as views worthy of serious consideration. But, recollecting as I do that naval officers and practical men have but little leisure for the study of the past, and that, nevertheless, they all agree that the teachings of the past are of the utmost value to them, I am encouraged to lay before them a number of facts which I have assembled, and, with all deference, to indicate certain conclusions which those facts seem to force upon the mind of a very devoted,and I trust wholly unprejudiced, student of recent, as well as of ancient, naval history. I do not, in a word, ask you to listen to me, but to pay attention to the voice of events, which, though by-gone, have not ceased to be instructive.

The following is a detailed list of 74 cases of attempted ramming in what may be called modern naval warfare. I have included here all the cases, since the outbreak of the American War of Secession, on which I have been able to lay my hand. The list must not, therefore, be regarded as a list of selected examples. No doubt I have omitted some cases, but I have intentionally omitted none.

In the first column I have numbered the cases to facilitate future reference. In the second I have given the date. In the third I have specified whether the scene of the occurrence was in narrow waters (N.) where manœuvring was difficult if not impossible, or in some locality (S.) which afforded a reasonable amount of sea-room. In the fourth column is the name of the would-be rammer. In the fifth is the name of the craft which it was endeavored to ram. In the sixth column I have shown the condition of the would-be rammer after the manœuvre had been executed or had failed. By U., I mean that the ship was, so far as the operation was concerned, uninjured; by Da., that she received slight or moderate damage; by S. Da., that she received serious damage sufficient to greatly impair her immediate fighting powers; by R. A., that she missed her mark and ran ashore; and by S., that she sank in consequence of the collision. In the seventh column I have indicated whether the ship intended to be rammed was at that moment under steam (S.), at anchor (A.), or unmanageable, on account of accident either to her machinery or to her steering gear (Un.). In the eighth and last column I have noted the condition, in consequence of the attempt, of the vessel intended to be rammed; U. signifying uninjured; Da., slight or moderate damage; S. Da., serious damage; Di., disabled; and S., sunk.

1.



2.
Date.


3.
Nature of
Locality.

4.
Rammer.


5.
Rammed.


6.
Subsequent
condition of
rammer.
7.
Previous
condition of
rammed.
8.
Subsequent
condition of
rammed.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Oct. 11, 1861
Feb. 10, 1862
Mar. 8, 1862
Mar. 9, 1862
Mar. 9, 1862
Apr. 24, 1862
Apr. 24, 1862
Apr. 24, 1862
Apr. 24, 1862
Apr. 24, 1862
May 10, 1862
May 10, 1862
May 10, 1862
June 6, 1862
June 6, 1862
June 6, 1862
June 6, 1862
June 6, 1862
July 18, 1862
July 22, 1862
July 22, 1862
Jan. 1, 1863
Jan. 1, 1863
Jan. 1, 1863
Jan. 31, 1863
Feb. 24, 1863
Feb. 24, 1863
Feb. 24, 1863
Feb. 24, 1863
Feb. 24, 1863
Feb. 24, 1863
Feb. 24, 1863
Oct. 7, 1863
Nov. 9, 1863
Apr. 18, 1864
Apr. 18, 1864
Apr. 18, 1864
N.
N.
S.
S.
S.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
S.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
S.
N.
N.
N.
Manassas
Commodore Perry
Virginia
Monitor
Virginia
Manassas
Manassas
Manassas
Governor Moore
Stonewall Jackson
General Bragg
General Price
General van Dorn
Queen of the West
Beauregard
Beauregard
Price
Monarch
Arkansas
Essex
Queen of the West
Harriet Lane
Neptune
Bayou City
Keystone State
Queen of the West
Webb
Webb
Queen of the West
Queen of the West
Queen of the West
Webb
Wachusett
Niphon
Albemarle
Albemarle
Albemarle
Richmond
Sea Bird
Cumberland
Virginia
Monitor
Pensacola
Mississippi
Brooklyn
Varuna
Varuna
Cincinnati
Cincinnati
Mound City
Lovell
Queen of the West
Monarch
Monarch
Beauregard
Carondelet
Arkansas
Arkansas
Bayou City
Harriet Lane
Harriet Lane
Palmetto State
Indianola
Indianola
Indianola
Indianola
Indianola
Indianola
Indianola
Florida
Elle and Anne
Miami
Southfield
Miami
S. Da.
U.
Da.
U.
Da.
U.
U.
U.
U.
U.
U.
U.
U.
U.
U.
U.
U.
U.
U.
U.
Da.
Da.
S.
Da.
Da.
U.
Da.
U.
U.
U.
U.
U.
U.
Da.
U.
U.
U.
A.
A.
A.
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
A.
A.
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
A.
S.
S.
S.
Da.
S.
S.
U.
U.
U.
S. Da.
S. Da.
S. Da.
S.
S. Da.
S.
Di.
S.
Di.
U.
U.
S.
U.
Da.
Da.
Da.
Da.
Da.
U.
Da.
U.
Da.
U.
U.
Da.
S.
Da.
Da.
Da.
S.
U.