Proposal for a floating dock annex battery in 1868

The (re-)introduction of steam power in the navies, first as auxiliary propulsion next to sailing, but later replacing it, new weapons like the torpedo, ancient weapons like the ram, armoring ships etc. resulted in a tsunami of ideas, patents, (never realized) designs from officers and constructors within the navies and merchant shipping and by private persons like inventors or just those interested in naval affairs. Partly to be trace in newspapers and (scientific) magazines. A nice example is the idea of a certain Mr. John W. Winton living at 13, Gladstone-street who sent 15 May a small letter with sketch to the editors. His idea: dual purpose of the large iron made floating docks. How this is realized he explained in the next text, as far as I can trace (at the moment) nothing is done with thus suggestion.

“The middle compartment of such a structure [floating dock] is merely tot unite the basement with the top chamber, the water simply flowing into the middle chamber, and flowing out again; no pumping, as erroneously supposed, is require to fill or empty this - so I have utilized this space, by forming it into a powerful battery, the great base on platform of the dock enabling me to place therein guns of the heaviest calibre. The dock has a semicircular front, and at the back a caisson is fitted, so as to insure great stability for docking ironclads, the form of the battery resembling an elongated horse-shoe with intended embrasures, so as to be able to fire right ahead, when the dock is securely moored. The design being simply to protect our harbours and mouths of rivers, and as the guns would be heavier that what van possibly be carried ou board ship, I would merely armour-plate the top and sides of mid-chamber, and the top of basement, to protect it from vertical fire, depending on the heavy guns to keep without reach of the enemy’s shot. When the dock is used for docking purposes, the ports would be filled with suitable water-tight doors.”

Source

The Mechanics’ Magazine and Journal of Engineering, Agricultural Machinery, Manufactures and Shipbuilding, dated 22 May 1868, page 396. 

Ultimate fate of Russian battleship Mikhail Frunze still unknown according to report No. 10295 dated 4 January 1939 of the American Military Attaché at Riga, Latvia

Gangut-class battleship©Warshipsresearch.blogspot.com

In his report dated Riga, Latvia 4 January 1939 No. 10295 dealing with the Soviet Baltic Fleet in the Training Season 1938 used the American Military Attaché major G.B. Guenther a so-called reliable source.The hull of the battleship Mikhail Frunze (ex-Poltava) was still lying on the same spot at the Baltic Shipyard, Leningrad. There was none information about her ultimate fate known: refitted or broken up.(1)

Note

1. Part of the Gangut- or Sevastopol-class preceded by Andrei Pervizvanny-class, succeeded by Imperatritsa Mariya-class, laid down by Admiralty Shipyard, Saint Petersburg, Russia on 16 June 1909, launched on 23 July 1911, commissioned on 30 December 1914, in Boshewik hands since 1917, decommissioned in October 1918, used as barracks ship, conversion into an aircraft carrier considered in 1924, proposal to commission her as floating battery and reconstructing her in time as battleship dated 31 January 1930, conversion into a floating battery cancelled on 9 July 1939, renamed Frunze on 7 January 1926, stricken on 1 December 1940 and broken up since 1949.

Source

National Archive. Record Group 165: Records of the War Department General and Special Staffs Series: Security Classified Correspondence and Reports. File Unit. Russia: Navy - MID 2503-16 THRU 2503-265. Roll 1443.

Model of an anonymous floating battery gunboat dated around 1850

The figure head represents the head of a horse. Hull shows”a single row of widely spaced minute portholes”and amidships single superstructure with rounded ends with portholes in all sides. Single four-bladed propellor.

Source

Website Royals Museums Greenwich Collection search. ID SLR2704.

Proposal by William Haggett of the floating battery Prince of Wales A.2 dated 1862

Described in NPC9314 as “Gun deck over one vessel 70 guns with supplemental power fo extra speed and turning round”. Drawing NPC9315 is title ‘Battery with one vessel 70 guns” and shows “a combined deck floating battery, a single deck floating battery and the framing and plating”.Design of architect William Haggrtt from Sherborne, Dorset, England.(2)

Note

1. William Haggett (1808-1887), architect of profession and surveyot. Held some patents including Haggett’s Improved Method of Treating Metals&c. to increase their strength, filed 20 September 1859 and one dated 24 April 1862 for improvements in locomotive engines and carriages for railroads, tram and common roads.

Source

Website Royals Museums Greenwich Collection search. ID NPC9313-9314, See also NPC9315-9317-9318. 

Proposal by William Haggett of the floating battery Victoria A.1 dated 1862

Described as a combines three deck battery. Drawing NPC9310 mentioned a gun deck with 71 guns. Drawing NPV9311 illustrated what was possible if two ships with extra engines were combined: “Combination when more than 1 ship is employed with extra engines to give greater speed”. Drawing NPC9315 is title ‘Battery with one vessel 70 guns” and shows “a combined deck floating battery, a single deck floating battery and the framing and plating”. Design of architect William Haggett from Sherborne, Dorset, England.(1)

Note

1. William Haggett (1808-1887), architect of profession and surveyot. Held some patents including Haggett’s Improved Method of Treating Metals&c. to increase their strength, filed 20 September 1859 and one dated 24 April 1862 for improvements in locomotive engines and carriages for railroads, tram and common roads.

Source

Website Royals Museums Greenwich Collection search. ID NPC9310-9311-9312-9316. See also NPC9315-9317-9318.

Proposal by Peter Borrie for a 19th Century anonymous steam floating battery

Described as an improved safety iron twin steamship by engineer Peter Borrie, No. 3 Crescent, Minories, London, England.

Note

1. PeterBorrie (8 March 1802-South Latch, Abernyte, Perthsire, Scotland-10 January 1856 Middlesborough, England). Came in 1832 with the side connecting rod Borrie engine, designed by himself. Of Peter Borrie&Co., Tay Foundry, Dundee, Scotland producing marine engines for ships, parts of iron ships and locomotives, since 1840, went bankrupt in 1842-1843, apparently inventory sold in April 1846, established a shipyard at Middlebrough, England in 1853. Held a patent for a Safety Iron Twin Steamer dated 1850. Named Gemini was she suitable for transporting good, persons and cattle, mainly built of iron with two separate hulls placed side by side, with them them the paddlle box. At each end of this paddle box were deckhouses positioned. She was to serve on rivers and had a lenght of 157.5 feet, a beam on deck of 26.5 feet, with each hull being 8.5 broad and a space of 9.5 feet between them. If she was to serve at sea was her boam to be increased in proportion to length and the trade.

Sources

Website Royals Museums Greenwich Collection search. ID NPD0516 and 0517.

The Artizan, May 1844, p. 115

Floating armoured turrets were to defend Batavia and Tandjong, Priok, Dutch East Indies in 1892

Source Rapport betreffende de defensie van Nederlandsch-Indië , dated April 1892

The defence of the Dutch East Indies was for 1,5 century a huge problem especially lacking the (financial) resources for such a large area. In her report dated 23 April 1892 a commission Kromhout (1) stated that the defence of Java was the most important issue in case of an enemy attack. The navy was to protect as much as possible the ouposts. If the navy was unablle to perform het duty, the commanding officers of the strongholds along the coasts were to retreat. They were unable to defend themselves against modern artillery. The navy was also responsible for defending Java and was to stop an invasion and/or so-called coups-de-main (2) against the cities along the coastline especially Batavia and Surabaya, then Samarang and more or less Cheribon. Main conclusion was that the state of the navy in the Dutch East Indies was completely insufficient. Rear admiral Kruys said that at least 30 ships and vessels were needed including 4 large warships like the Hr.Ms. Koningin Wilhelmina der Nederlanden, a force to be realized within a few years. To make it possible to cruise independently through the archipelago and to perform her war duties there were two operational bases needed, one on West Java and one on East Java with coal depots and repair facilities. Before strengthening the one at Surabaya, East Java, was tfe far more import one on West Java to be established. For the location preferred the commission Batavia [nowadays Jakarta] and Tandjong Priok instead of the Duizend eilanden. A satisfying defence of the island Onrust was out of the question. If was chosen voor Batavia it would be necessary to keep the enemy of a distance of 3 kilometres of the harbour of Tandjong Priok and the coal depots there, if it became a refugee harbour for merchant shipping then was the distance 6 kilometres. Building forts on the coast was in fact no real option and presumable far too expensive. Eartquakes were considered to be a real threat especially in damaging the rotating devices of the armored turrets. Malaria was another large problem for the health demanding a large number of troops to have enough men available, which was also a logistical problem altogether quite expensive. The commision proposal included two floating armoured turrets in the outer harbour of Tandjong Priok.

Such a battery was made of nickel steel and mounted on a iron ship/vessel and of which the non-armoured parts were protected by dams with a wide of around 12 metres. Dams and batteries had to have the same colors to mislead the enemy artillery. To keep the height of the gun barrels above the dam constant was water pumped out or let in with ebb and flow (0,7 metres). Each turret was armed with 2-21cm/8.27” L/35 guns. When building and arming the turrets was a logistical problem to be taken into account. At the navy yard at Amsterdam was a crane with a capacity of 100 tons available, at Tandjong Priok just a crane with 25 tons, above 25 tons was to be lifted at Onrust.(3) Each floating battery was manned by an artillery officer commanding 50 men including 10 artillerists, For letting in of pumping out the water were forced labourers to be used. In times of war were the men to serve just 8 hours making a needed total of 6 officers, 60 artillerists and 240 infanterists.

The costs of one armoured gun turret with front armour, assembly and all needed parts were according tot a non official tender of the representative of the firm Krupp at Essen, Germany 300,000 mark.

Rate of transport costs for the Department of Colonies at Rotterdam or Amsterdam with as destination the Dutch East Indies 55 guilders/ton, weight colli above 8,000 kilo.

Weight each turret 140,000 kilo, transport costs 2 x 140 x 55 (guilders)-15,400 guilders.

Mounting in the Dutch East Indies would be quite expensive was expected

To prevent disappointment was the price in Europe estimated in German marks for the Dutch East Indies estimated in an equal number of guilders

Total price for both turrets was to be 600,000 guilders

For two iron built ships on which the turrets were mounted 650,000 guilders

For the protecting dams 150,000 guilders

Costs of one 21cm/8.27” L/35 gun with carriage delivered by Krupp 100,375 German marks.

Total costs of the defence of Batavia and Surabaya including the turrets at Tandjong Priok was estimated to be 3,000,000 guilders.(4). Despite was the conclusion a few years later, still nothing done.

Notes

1. Members of the commission were:

Major Frederik Jan Haver Droeze (17 July 1847 Vlaardingen, Netherlands-5 January 1909 Dordrecht, Netherlands), member and secetary.

Lieutenant general of military engineering Joachim Hendrik Kromhout (12 June 1835 Lathum, Netherlands-29 July 1897 Klein Avegoor, Rheden, Netherlands), also author.

Vice admiral Gerhardus Kruys (21 August 1838 Vriezenveen, Netherlands-12 December 1902 The Hague, Netherlands), minister of navy between 31 March-21 August 1891 and 1 August 1901-12 December 1902 and Chief Naval Staff 1 September 1891-1 March 1894, member of the Staatscommissie voor de land- en zeemacht since 18 April 1891.

2. The commission was nicknamed coup-de-main commissie. A coupe-de-main is a surprise (fast) attack on small scale for instance against a coastal town. Apparently I used a limited editon of the printed report titled Rapport betreffende de defensie van Nederlandsch-Indië numbering just 13 pages. In the magazine Militaire Spectator 1985-4 is an article of ir. H.T. Bussemaker, “De geloofwaardigheid van de Indische defensie 1935-1941”, published. Bussemaker referred to page 25 of the report a coup-de-main by England of Russian on Batavia. Thomas L. Sturtevant, Quincy, Massachusetts published an article titled “A proposed system of harbor defense”, in the Journal of the United States Artillery, volume V, 1896, p. 173 of a similar harbour defence.

3. Probably referring to the steam crane annex sheerleg Olifant,  see on Warshipsresearch.blogspot.com 

4. For more literature dealing with the defence of the Dutch East Indies see for instance De Indische Gids, 22e Jaargang, Amsterdam, 1900, p. 202 “De verdediging van Nederlandsch-Indië tegen een buitenlandschen vijand. VI. De oorlogshaven en haar verdediging”. The author mentioned that when the Naval Budget for 1897 was discussed the minster Jhr. Van der Wijck claimed a defence of Tandjong Priok by floating batteries which was very expensive. In 1893 published W.R. de Greve his De verdediging van Nederlandsch-Indië. And finally a report of a commission appointed in 1889 “tot het uitbrengen van een advies omtrent de vraag: “of de bestaande indeeling der zeemacht in den Nederlandsch Oost-Indischen Archipel, overeenkomstig het Koninklijk Besluit van 16 November 1866 No. 80 (Indisch Staatsblad 1867 No. 56), al dan niet behoort te worden bestendigd?”, published in 1891.

Top views and longitudinal section of an American design for an impenetrable (impregnable) floating battery dated October 1861

National Archives/ Record Group 19: Records of the Bureau of Ships. Series: Ship Design and Construction Drawings

Of C. Gordon and J. Ericcson. 

Dimensions upper vessel 172 x 44.x 5 (depth) feet.

Dimensions lower vessel 124 x 34 x 6 (depth) feet.

Floating batteries for defence of the Chinese river Tangstze ordered according to the Maryborough Chronicle dated Tuesday 30 October 1883

An item reported that the Chinese government ordered four months earlier the building of six floating batteries for the defence of Yangstze and of which in the meantime two were launched. Messrs S.C. S.C. Farnmah&Co. made the design. To speed up the work two were built at the Kiangnan arsenal, two by Messrs. Farnham&Co. At Shuntah’s shipyard and the remaining two by Messrs. Boyd&Co., Pootun. One was launched by Farnham&Co. at the Shuntah’s shipyards on 17 October at 12:20 p.m. and another by Boyd&Co. at 2:20 p.m. The battery was a two-decked vessel strong built but of wood with as dimensions 136 (over all) x 36 x 12 (deep) feet. On the upper deck was a turret of wood positioned with 3-12 ton Armstrong guns. The lower deck was divided into six compartments. Two smaller ones fore and aft were used for stores and so on. A large compartment forward accommodated about 50 marines just like a similar one aft. Amidships was the saloon for the five officers and finally was between their quarters and the marines accommodation fore an ammunition magazine situated. The battery had no masts and sails or propelling power and depended on other vessels to be towed to the desired anchorage.(1)

Note

1. The Australian newspaper North Australian dated Friday 12 October 1883 confirmed this newsitem. 

British proposal for an unnamed iron cased floating battery dated around 1855

Length 227 feet.

Source

Website Royals Museums Greenwich Collection search. ID NPD1005

German floating battery Medusa (1900) 1940-1945

Model made by Günther Seherr. Maritime Museum Hamburg, Germany

Gazelle-class cruisers. ©Warshipsresearch.blogspot.com

Part of Gazelle-class light cruisers preceded by SMS Hela succeeded by Bremen-class. Ordered under the contract name “E”. Laid down by AG Weser shipyard, Bremen on 22 January 1900, launched on 5 December 1900, first time commissioned on 26 July 1901, stricken on 27 March 1929, converted into a floating anti aircraft battery in July 1940, scuttled on 3 May 1945 and broken up between 1948-1950. Served in the Vareler Deep as part of the Marine-Flak-Abteiling 222

The design of a floating battery by John William Couchman in 1862

The American annual cyclopaedia p. 623 mentioned that on the World Exhibition in 1862 J.W. Couchman presentended a model of a floating battery “combined with vertical ports the sloping side between ports, as attic windows are formed in the slooping roof. The necessity of rendering the sides and roofs also of these ports shot-proof, would probably make the proposed armor enormoulsy heavy.”

An catalogue supplies more specific details. Coucham lived at Tottenham Green, Middlesex, England and presented on the exhibition except for the floating battery models of a new principle of street making and an iron combination bridge. The model of the 12-gun battery had as scale 5 feet to 1 inch. That resulted in reality in a ship of 150 (over al) x 38.9 x 8 (height maindeck at sides) feet. The building material was oak timber of ribs in solid order 2 feet thick. The gunways and sided to 2 feet vertically below water level, to be covered with 3” iron plates and the flushdeck witt 2” dito, secured with bolts with mushroom-shaped heads of stee 8” in diameter. The interior was to be ventilatedthrough  gangways on the flush deck, by apertures at stem and Stern and by the port-holes, which open to the under side of the domed roofs.

His spouse described in her book that he made a model of a floating battery in a room of the former house of the father of reverend G.T, Thompson at Tottenham Green which he gave to the Royal Unted Service Institution and from there handed over to the South Kensington Museum. John William (13 March 1824 Kensington, London, England-10 August 1901 16 Pembury Road, Tottenham) was a civil engineer particular of waterworks and further surveyor and agent to the lords of the manors of Tottenham and Edmonton. The London Gazette dated 29 October 1875 mentioned him also as inventor of “improvements in the means of and apparatus for raising sunken vessels, and also for preventing them from sinking.”No. 3548.

Sources

Illustrated Catalogue of the International Exhibition of 1862. The Illustrated Catalogue of the Industrial Department. British division-vol. II. No. 2664.

Mrs. J.W. [Harriet] Couchman. Reminiscences of Tottenham, 1909.

The London Gazette 29-10-1875.

https://atom.aim25.com/index.php/couchmans-tottenham-surveyors-and-valuers seen 2-3-2026

The American annual cyclopaedia and register of important events of the year 1862. Volume II, New York, 1871.

The Practical Mechanic’s Journal. Record of the Great Exhibition, 1862. 

Dutch brigs Zr.Ms. Sylph, Lansier and Rembang cruising in Bay of Paré Paré and off coastline of Celebes, Dutch East Indies according to the Nederlandsche staatscourant dated 14 January 1860

An item reported that the Dutch schooner brigs part of the expeditionary force for Boni, Dutch East Indies were ordered to cruise in the Bay of Paré Paré and the adjacent coast line of Celebes, Dutch East Indies supported by a so-called kruisboot (patrol vessel). Immediately departed the Sylph (1) for that purpose, the Lansier/Lancier (2) returned on 17th June from Bima at Macassar and acted together with the Rembang (3)in the roads of Macassar as replacement. The Sylph was on 3rd July in the station at Paré Paré replaced by the Rembang and after arrival at Macassar was she due to the worse condition of her hull immediately sent towards Batavia, Dutch East Indies to be repaired.

Notes

1. Brigantine, laid down at the shipyard of De Jongh, Kortland en Anthony at Rotterdam, Netherlands in 1837, launched on 6 May 1837, bought by the navy in 1841, sold in the Dutch East Indies in 1842, rebought in May 1846, mostly renewed at the towing slip at Onrust, Dutch East Indies in 1850, probably sold on public auction on Saturday 28 April 1861, dimensions 28,5 x 8,7 x 3,15 metres, displacement 252 tons and an armament of 5 guns.

2. Schooner brig/brigantine, on stocks at the navy yard at Amsterdam, Netherlands 22 March 1842, launched on 2/3 August 1843, commissioned 10 November 1843 at Willemsoord, Netherlands, docked at the navy yard at Hellevoetsluis, Netherlands 21 May-24 December 1850, rebuilt as floating battery in Dutch East Indies, sold by John Price&Co. at 09.30 o’clock at the naval establishment at Onrust, Dutch East Indies on Tuesday 14 August 1860, dimensions 28,50 x 8,70 x 3,15, 252 tons displacement and an armament of 6 guns.

3. Brigantine, on stocks at navy yard at Rotterdam, Netherlands 20 November 1848, launched 12 April 1850, rebuilt in Dutch East Indies as floating battery in 1858?, sold on a public auction by John Pryce&Co., at the naval establishment at Onrust, Dutch East Indies at 09.00 o’clock on Monday 21 October 1861, dimensions 28,50 x 8,70 x 3,30 metres, 252 tons displacement and an armament of 6 guns. 

The tender for a steam ironclad sent in by J. Ericsson in 1861 which became the USS Monitor

Line engraving of USS Monitor launching, Greenpoint, NY; published in Harper's Monthly, September, 1862

American ironclad CSS Virgiania. ©Warshipsresearch.blogspot.com

Virginia as USS Merrimack. ©Warshipsresearch.blogspot.com

The Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles (1) submitted the Congress on her session of 4 July 1861 with a report of the building of armored vessels abroad especially France and the United Kingdom. He recommended that the USA would built one of more of such ironclad-steamships or floating batteries. The Congress ordered him on 3 August to appoint the so-called Ironclad Board of 3 skilful naval officers to investigate plans and specifications of such steamships for which building 1,500,000 was available. The appointed officers were the commodores Joseph Smit (2) and Hiram Paulding (3) and the captain Charles H. Davis.(4) They were assisted by Assistant Secretary of the Navy Gustavus Fox.

In an advertisement dated 7 August 1861 was asked for tenders “from parties who are able to execute work of this kind, and who are engaged in it, of which they willfurnish evidence with their offer, for the construction of one or more iron-clad steam vessels of war, either of iron or of wood and  irón combined, for sea or river service, to be of not less thantennor over sixteen feet draught of water; to carry an armament of from eighty to one hundred and twenty tons weight, with provisions and stores for from one hundred and sixty-five to three hundred persons, according to armament, for sixty days, with coal for eight days. The smaller draught of water, compatible with other requisites, will be preferred. The vessel to be rigged with two masts, with wire-rope standing rigging, to navigate at sea. Ageneral description and drawings of the vessel, armor, and machinery, such as the work can be executed from, willbe required. The offer must state the cost and the time for completingthe whole, exclusive of armament and stores of all kinds, the rate of speed proposed, and must be accompanied by a guarantee for the proper execution of the contract, if awarded." The commission examined and commented all recived tenders. Recommended were thepropositions of Bushnell & Co., New Haven, Connecticut; Merrick & Sons, Philadelphia, and J. Ericsson, New York, which would “absorb $1,290,250 of the  appropriation of $1,500,000, leaving $209,750 yet unexpended. The commission recommended further that armor with heavy guns be placed on one of our river craft, or,  if none will bear it, to construct a scow, which will answer to plate and shield the guns, for the river service on the Potomac, to be constructed or prepared by the government at the navy  yard here for immediate use.”

In a resolution of the Senate dated 24 July 1868 asked she the Secretary of the Navy all facts necessary for a complete history of the origin and building of the ironclad Monitor. His letter dated the next day was to supply the asked information.

J. Ericsson, New York. “This planof a floating battery is novel, but seems to be based upon a plan which willrender the battery shot and shell proof. We are somewhat apprehensive that her properties for sea are not such as a sea-going vessel should possess. But she may be moved from one place to another on the coast in smooth water. We recommend that an experiment be made with one battery of this description on the terms proposed, with aguarantee and forfeiture in case of failure in any of the properties and points of the  vessel as proposed. Price, $275,000-length of vessel 172 feet-breadth of beam 41 feet-depth of hold 11.5 feet-time 100 days-draught of water 10 feet-displacement 1,255 tons-speed per hour-nine statute miles.”(6,7)

Source

Letter of the Secretary of the navy communicating, in compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 24th instant, information  in relation to the construction ofthe iron-clad Monitor. 40th Congress 2d Session Senate ex. Doc. No. 86.

Notes

1. Gideon Welles (1 July 1802 Glastonbury, Connecticut, USA-11 February 1878 Hartford, Connecticut, USA), United States Secretary of the Navy 7 March 1861-4 March 1869.

2. Joseph Smith (30 March 1790, Boston, Massachusetts, USA-17 January 1877, Washington, D.C., USA), served in the US Navy between 1809-1871 ending in the rank of rear admiral.

3. Hiram Paulding (11 December 1797 Cortlandt, New York, USA-20 October 1878 Huntington, New York, USA), served in the UD Navy between 1811-1870 ending in the rank of rear admiral.

4. Charles Henry Davis (16 January 1807 Boston, Massachusetts, USA-18 February 1877 Washington, D.C., USA), served in the US Navy between 1823-1877 ending in the rank of rear admiral.

5. Gustavus Vasa Fox (3 June 1821 Saugus, Massachusetts, USA-29 October 1883 Lowell, Massachusetts, USA), Assistant Secretary of the Navy 1 August 1861-25 November 1866, served in the US Navy between 1838-1856 ending in the rank of lieutenant.

6. John Ericsson (31 July 1903 Langbanshyttan, Sweden-8 March 1889 New York, USA), inventor and naval engineer. Designed the USS Monitor.

7. Ordered on 4 October 1861, laid down by Continental Iron Works, Greenpoint, Brooklyn on 25 October 1861, launched on 30 January 1862, commissioned on 25 February 1862, fought with the Confederate ironclad CSS Virginia in the Battle of Hampton Roads, Virginia on 9 March 1862 and lost at sea during to a storm on 31 December 1862 off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, USA.

Design for a floating battery by Mr. C.G. Braxton in 1863

Mentioned in the catalogue as Collection No. 174, Class I-Division A. Shot-proof ships-designs proposed, but not adopted. Model on a 1/0 inch scale.

Source

Catalogue of the naval models in the South Kensington Museum, London, 1865.

Design of a movable floating battery by captain John Moody dated 1865

Moody described his invention as a strong, impenetrable, light-draft floating battery suitable for shore, harbour and river defence. Four equal rays projected from a cnetral circular fort of hwich surfaces were protected with thick armour and sloping upwards from the edge or circumference of the battery towards the centre.’ Nearly flat bottom ‘sloping more suddenly upwards out of the water to the horizontal line creating a sharp projecting continous ridge between the upper and under surfaces and at the same a efficient protections against ramming. Vertical bulkheads divided the battery into a series of water-tight compartments in rays and central fort.Very light draught.

Described by Samuel J. Mackie in his “The National Defences of Great Britain, especially with reference to the future requirements of floating forts”. According to Moody who supplied models and draings were the costs around 80,000 pound sterling. Mackie described a floating fort with an extreme diameter of 180 feet from the end of one ray to the other, a central cone with an external diameter of 114 feet, armed with 8-600 ponders propelled via the hydraulic principle with 200 nhp. Inside diameter of main gundeck was 74.4, the heights between decks 10.10, depth of hold below the gundeck 12.3 and the draught of water 8.4 feet with a calculated displacement of 3,327 tons.The circle of the guns had a radius of 30 feet from the centre of the battery. Estimated speed according to Moody 8-9 knots, Mr. Ruthven believed 6 knots more likely. Coal supply calculated on 30 tons/day or 24 hours/full speed at 8 knots. With modifications of the hull lines for foreign operations was 12-14 knots possible.Nine main watertight segments consisting of 1 central circular hold and 8 divergent compartments.

Note

1. John Moody (13 December 1801 York, England-5 March 1872, Bridlington, England). Owner and managing director of the Goole Steam Shipping Company established in 1864.

Sources

Floating batteries, light-ships, beacons and lifeboats by captain John Moody, late maniging director of the goole steam-shipping compan. London, 1867.

Journal of the Royal United Service Institution, Whitehall Yard. Vol. XII. London, 1869.

English Patents of Inventions, Specifications: 1865, 2131-2200. No. 2173 dated 24 August 1865.

British floating battery at Spithead in the 1860s

De Katholieke Illustratie. Zondags-Lektuur voor het Katholieke Nederlandsche Volk, No. 13, 1867

The Dutch magazine claimed that the floating battery type was an American invention but the idea was soon taken over by the British. It was a circular vessel with a hull of 3 feet oak wood with on top iron plates with a thickness of 15 centimeter. The guns shooting a 460 pound heavy projectile were divided over the ship at equal distance of each other. Diamer 218 feet. The battery could be turned using the hydrauic engine positoned beneath the mast and be handled by 2-3 engineers. Weight of the battery 90,000.

Commissioners considered floating batteries to suport the permanent fortifications defending the more important positios.President of the committee was rear admiral Sir Thomas Maitland. Several eminent shipbuilders were spoken. The stationary floating batteries possessed steadiness and light draught. “The expense of such a battery would be considerably greater than that of a masonry work bearing the same armament, and would be by no means so efficient, on many grounds. Stationary floating batteries would not only be more expensive in the first instance, but would involve a considerable annual outlay for maintenance, and would require periodical renewal at certain interval ; they are liable to be sunk by the concentrated fire of or collision with large ships, the approach of which cannot be guarded against at high water, owing to the great rise of tide on the coast of England; they cannot, under any circumstances, afford a perfectly steady platform for accurate fire, such as is now more than ever indispensable with rifled ordnance ; and they have not that advantage which is possessed by a casemated work, of affording good barrack accommodation. Your Commissioners therefore do not recommend the adoption of stationary floating batteries of this description, under any circumstances.”

However a moveable floating battery was far more perfect and suitable for defence pueposes with the following qualities: “ purposes. It may be described as a powerful iron-sided steam-vessel, capable alike of batteries. maintaining a fixed station or manœuvring in ageneral engagement, of sufficient size to afford a steady platform for working the guns, yet not so large as to be unmanageable in narrow waters; mounting from 12 to 20 guns, having a speed of from 8 to 10 knots, and of as light a draught of water as is consistent with othergood qualities. Vessels similar in dimensions, armament, and general description to that which they have recommended would be, in some instances, most serviceable as auxiliaries to the permanent fortifications for the defence of harbours and inner waters. They wouldbe free from many of the objections to which the stationary floating battery is liable, and would possess far greater advantages.”

Captain H.W. Tyler, R.E., Railway Department spoke over movebale floating batteries shaped as powerful iron-side steam vessels able to provide a fixed position or manoeuvring during a general engament, armed with 12-20 guns, light draught and a speed of 8-10 knots.

Sources

De Katholieke Illustratie. Zondags-Lektuur voor het Katholieke Nederlandsche Volk, No. 13, 1867.

Michael Scott. On the defence of Spithead including a description of a new system of submarine foundations. London, 1862.

Reports from commissioners. Vol. XXIII. Session 24 January-28 August 1860.

Reports from commissioners. Vol XXVII. Session 6 February-7 August 1862.

Accounts and papers. Vol XXXV. Session 4 February-29 July 1864.

Captain Cowper Phipps Coles. Reply to the Royal Commissioners’ Second Report on our National Defences. Portsea, 1861.

Journal of the Royal United Service Institution, Whitehall Yard. Vol. VIII. London, 1865. No. XXX, evening meeting Monday 28 January 1864 p. 139 and so on.

Minutes of proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Vol. XXX. Session 1860-1861.

Danish design of a floating battery dated 10 June 1862

Rigsarkivet Copenhagen, Denmark. Orlogsvaerftet: Orlogsvaerftets tegninger (1630-1890) inv.no. G3325

Designed by Baumgarten&Burmeister, Copenhagen, Denmark. Horsepower 300 hp. 2Cupolas, 2 masts. Dimensions 186 (between perpendiculars) x 49 (maximum) x 14 x 12 aft in English feet and 180 x 38.10 x 13.7 x 11.7 3/4 in Danish feet. 

French 1st rate États de Bourgogne 1785-1790, Côte d’Or 1790-1793, Montahme 1793-1795, Peuple 1795, Océan 1795-1856

Science Museum Group

Prisoner-of-war model made in bone. Armed with 118-120 guns. Ordered on 30 September 1785, laid down by Arsenal de Toulon on 12 August 1786, launched on 8 November 1790, floating battery since 1851 and broken up between 1855-1856. 

German light cruiser SMS Arcona 1901-1945

Gazelle-class. ©Warshipsresearch.blogspot.com

Part of Gazelle-class light cruisers preceded by SMS Hela succeeded by Bremen-class. Laid down by AG Weser, Bremen, Germany in 1901, launched on 22 April 1902, commissioned on 12 May 1903, mother ship for minesweepers after 1918, decom, missioned in February 1920, recommissioned as training cruiser on 25 May 1921, decommissioned on 1 December 1923, stricken on 15 January 1930, became a barracks ship in the 1930s, recommissioned as floating anti aircraft battery at Wilhemshaven, Germany in May 1940, scuttled on 3 Ma9 1945, salvaged and broken up between 1948-1949.