Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

arrangement, and there would be superadded the risk of being injured by tempests, and thereby disqualified for the duty of defence, or of being driven off the coast by gales of wind; thus, for a time, removing all opposition.

In the same cases, also, especially when equal or superior to the enemy, our flect, depending on having correct and timely notice as to the position and state of preparation of the enemy's forces, might think proper to meet him at the outlet of his own port, or intercept him on the way, instead of awaiting him within or off our own harbor. Here it must be noticed that the enemy, like ourselves, is supposed to possess a single harbor only; but having protected it by other means, that his navy is disposable for offensive operations. If it were attempted thus to shut him within his own port, he, in any case but that of decided inferiority, would not hesitate to come out and risk a battle; because, if defeated, he could retire, under shelter of his defences, to refit, and, if successful, he could proceed with a small portion of his force-even a single vessel would suffice to the capture of our port, now defenceless; while, with the remainder, he would follow up his advantage over our defeated vessels, not failing to pursue them into their harbor, should they return thither.

Actual superiority on our part would keep the enemy from volunteering a battle; but it would be indispensable that the superiority be steadily maintained, and that the superior fleet be constantly present. If driven off by tempests, or absent from any other cause, the blockaded fleet would escape, when it would be necessary for our fleet to fly back to the defence of its own port. Experience abundantly proves, moreover, that it is in vain to attempt to shut a hostile squadron in port for any length of time. It seems, then, that whether we defend by remaining at home, or by shutting the enemy's fleet within his own harbor, actual superiorty in vessels is indispensable to the security of our port. With this superiority the defence will be complete, provided our fleet remain within its harbor. But then all the commerce of the country upon the ocean must be left to its fate; and no attempt can be made to react offensively upon the foe, unless we can control the chances of finding the enemy's fleet within his port, and the still more uncertain chance of keeping him there; the escape of a single vessel being sufficient to cause the loss of our harbor.

Let us next see what will be the state of the question on the supposition of numerous important ports on either side, instead of a single one; relying, on our part, still, exclusively on a navy.

In order to examine this question, we will suppose our adversary to be fortified in all his harbors, and possessed of available naval means equal to our own. This is certainly a fair supposition; because what is assumed as regards his harbors is true of all maritime nations, except the United States; and as regards naval means, it is elevating our own strength considerably above its present measure, and above that it is likely to attain for years.

Being thus relatively situated, the first difference that strikes us is that the enemy, believing all his ports to be safe, without the presence of his vessels, sets at once about making our seas and shores the theatre of operations, while we are left without choice in the matter; for if he think proper to come, and we are not present, he attains his object without resistance.

The next difference is, that while the enemy (saving only the opposition of Providence) is certain to fall upon the single point, or the many points he may have selected, there will exist no previous indications of his particular choice, and, consequently, no reason for preparing our defence on one point rather than another; so that the chances of not being present and ready on his arrival are directly in proportion to the number of our ports, that is to say, the greater the number of ports the greater the chances that he will meet no opposition whatever. Another difference is, that the enemy can choose the mode of warfare, as well as the plan of operations, leaving as little option to us in the one case as in the other. It will be necessary for us to act, in the first instance, on the supposition

that an assault will be made with his entire fleet; because, should we act otherwise, his coming in that array would involve both fleet and coast in inevitable defeat and ruin. Being in this state of concentration, then, should the enemy have any apprehensions as to the result of a general engagement; should he be unwilling to put any thing at hazard; or should he, for any other reason, prefer acting by detachments, he can, on approaching the coast, disperse his force into small squadrons and single ships, and make simultaneous attacks on numerous points. These enterprises would be speedily consummated; because, as the single point occupied by our fleet would be avoided, all the detachments would be unopposed; and after a few hours devoted to burning shipping, or public establishments, and taking in spoil, the several expeditions would leave the coast for some convenient rendezvous, whence they might return, either in fleet or in detachments, to visit other portions with the scourge.

Is it insisted that our fleet might, notwithstanding, be so arranged as to meet these enterprises?

As it cannot be denied that the enemy may select his point of attack out of the whole extent of coast, where is the prescience that can indicate the spot? And if it cannot be foretold, how is that ubiquity to be imparted that shall always place our fleet in the path of the advancing foe? Suppose we attempt to cover the coast by cruising in front of it, shall we sweep its whole length ?— a distance scarcely less than that which the enemy must traverse in passing from his coast to ours. Must the Gulf of Mexico be swept, as well as the Atlantic? or shall we give up the Gulf to the enemy? Shall we cover the southern cities, or give them up also? We must, unquestionably, do one of two things: either relinquish a great extent of coast, confining our cruisers to a small portion only, or include so much that the chances of intercepting an enemy would seem to be out of the question.

On the practicability of covering even a small extent of coast by cruising in front of it-or, in other words, the possibility of anticipating an enemy's operations; discovering the object of movements of which we get no glimpse, and hear no tidings; and seeing the impress of his footsteps on the surface of the ocean-it may be well to consult experience.

The Toulon fleet, in 1798, consisting of about twenty sail of line-of-battle ships and frigates, about twenty smaller vessels-of-war, and nearly two hundred transports, conveying the army of Egypt, slipped out of port and surprised Malta. It was followed by Nelson, who, thinking correctly that they were bound for Egypt, shaped his course direct for Alexandria.

The French, steering towards Candia, took the more circuitous passage, so that Nelson arrived at Alexandria before them; and, not finding them there, returned, by the way of Caramania and Candia, to Sicily, missing his adversary in both passages. Sailing again for Alexandria, he found the French fleet at anchor in Aboukir bay; and, attacking them, achieved the memorable victory of the Nile.

When we consider the narrowness of this sea; the very numerous vessels in the French fleet; the actual crossing of the two fleets on a certain night; and that Nelson, notwithstanding, could see nothing of the enemy himself, and hear nothing of them from merchant vessels, we may judge of the probability of waylaying our adversary on the broad Atlantic.

The escape of another Toulon fleet in 1805; the long search for them in the Mediterranean by the same able officer; the pursuit in the West Indies; their evasion of him amongst the islands; the return to Europe; his vain efforts, subsequently, along the coast of Portugal, in the Bay of Biscay, and off the English channel; and the meeting at last at Trafalgar-brought about only because the combined fleets, trusting to the superiority that the accession of several re-enforcements had given, were willing to try the issue of battle: these are instances H. Rep. Com. 86-10

of many that might be cited, to show how small is the probability of excountering, on the ocean, an enemy who desires to avoid a meeting; and how little the most untiring zeal, the most restless activity, the most exalted professional skill and judgment, can do to lessen the adverse chances. For more than a year Nelson most closely watched his enemy, who seems to have got out of port as soon as he was fully prepared to do so, and without attracting the notice of any of the blockading squadron. When out, Nelson, perfectly in the dark as to the course Villeneuve had taken, sought for him in vain on the coast of Egypt. Scattered by tempests, the French fleet again took refuge in Toulon; whence it again put to sea, when refitted and ready, joining the Spanish fleet at Cadiz.

On the courage, skill, vigilance, and judgment acceded on all hands to belong, in a pre-eminent degree, to the naval profession in this country, this system of defence relies to accomplish, against a string of chances, objects of importance so great that not a doubt or misgiving as to the result is admissible. It demands of the navy to do perfectly, and without fail, that which to do at all seems impossible. The navy is required to know the secret purposes of the enemy, in spite of distance and the broken intercourse of a state of war, even before these purposes are known to the leader who is to execute them; nay, more, before the purpose itself is formed. On an element where man is but the sport of storms, the navy is required to lie in wait for the foe at the exact spot and moment, in spite of weather and seasons; to see him in spite of fogs and darkness. Finally, after all the devices and reliances of the system are satisfactorily accomplished, and all difficulties subdued, it submits to the issue of a single battle, on equal terms, the fate of the war, having no resource or hope beyond.

It may here be alleged that the term navy, as applied to the defence of the country, means more than the sea-going vessels we have enumerated; that it means, also, gunboats, floating batteries, and steam batteries; and that the true system of defence for the coast requires us to provide all our harbors with some or all of these vessels, according to local circumstances; leaving to the sea-going vessels the duty of destroying the enemy's commerce, carrying the war into the enemy's scas, aud contending for the mastery of the ocean.

But such a proposition is totally distinct from that we have been considering. This is one that we regard as, in part, perfectly sound; as containing, though not true throughout, the great principle on which the present glory of the navy proper has been built, and its future glory will depend.

We are aware that some of our ships have been blockaded within our harbors, but we are not aware that any of the high distinction achieved by that service has been gained in these blockaded ships.

On the other hand, we know that, instead of lying in harbor and contenting themselves with keeping a few more of the enemy's vessels in watch over them than their own number-instead of leaving the enemy's commerce in undisturbed enjoyment of the sea, and our own commerce without countenance or aid-they scattered themselves over the wide surface of the ocean, penetrated to the most remote seas, everywhere acting with the most brilliant success against the enemy's navigation. And we believe, moreover, that in the amount of enemy's property thus destroyed, of American property protected or recovered, and in the number of hostile ships kept in pursuit of our scattered vessels-ships, evaded if superior, and beaten if equal-they rendered benefits a thousand fold greater, to say nothing of the glory they acquired for the nation and the character they imparted to it, than any that would have resulted from a state of passiveness within the harbors.

Confident that this is the true policy as regards the employment of the navy proper, we doubt not that it will, in the future, be acted on as it has been in the past, and that the results, as regards both honor and advantage, will be expanded commensurately with its own enlargement.

In order, however, that the navy may always assume and maintain that active

and energetic deportment in offensive operations, which is at the same time so consistent with its functions and so consonant with its spirit, we have shown that it must not be occupied with mere coast defence.

But if the navy is to be relieved from this home duty some other reliance must be substituted; the navy itself requiring, for its own establishments, not less than the towns and harbors, that the defence be complete. And this brings us to consider whether the floating defences mentioned above, namely, gunboats, floating batteries, and steam batteries, constitute the best reliance.

After considering these defensive means, we will examine the properties of forts and land batteries, these being the only other well-tried resort; and that a comparison may be instituted, we' will confine ourselves to cases where the latter are properly applicable.

There are doubtlesss, situations where it may be necessary for us to present a defensive array, at the same time that to do so by fortifications alone would be impracticable; and it is not, therefore, prejudging the question we are about to examine; it is neither underrating fortifications, nor overrating these floating defences, to say that these last are, some or all of them, indispensable in such positions.

Any very broad water, where deep soundings may be carried at a distance from the shores greater than effective gun range, and where no insular spot, natural or artificial, can be found or formed nearer the track of ships, will present such a situation; and we may take some of our great bays as examples.

Broad sounds and wide roadsteads, affording secure anchorage beyond good gun range from the shores, will afford examples of another sort; and harbors with very wide entrances and large surface exhibit examples of still another kind.

As, in all such cases, fortifications alone will be ineffectual, and, nevertheless, recourse to defences of some sort may be unavoidable, it has not failed to be a recommendation in the several reports on the defence of the coast, since 1818, that there should be a suitable and timely provision of appropriate floating defences. And until the invention of man shall have caused an entire revolution in the nature of maritime attack and defence, these or kindred means must be resorted to; not, however, because they are means intrinsically good, or suitable under other circumstances, but because they are the only means applicable.

In the circumstances just referred to there is no alternative, and therefore no point to be discussed. The remaining question is, whether these floating defences are to be relied on in cases that admit of defence by fortifications.

And, first, as to gunboats. Although of undoubted use in peculiar circumstances, it will hardly be contended that gunboats afford a safe reliance in harbors that can be entered by vessels of magnitude. Ships becalmed or aground might be sorely harassed, if not destroyed, by a spirited attack from this force, and there are other situations wherein it would be very effective. But harbors defended by gunboats will not be attacked in calms nor with adverse winds; and it is not easy to believe that any probable array of these craft would impede or hinder for a moment the advance of a hostile fleet. Nelson, at Trafalgar, bore down in two divisions upon the combined fleet, each division being exposed to a raking fire; and, although suffering considerably from that fire, he was able, notwithstanding, to break the hostile line and defeat his superior adversary. What, comparatively with the raking fire of the combined fleet, would be the fire of a fleet of gunboats? Opposing no effectual obstacle to approach or entrance, these small vessels, scattered and driven upon the shoals, would be kept, by the broadside of a few active vessels, at too great a distance to produce any serious effect upon the main attack by their desultory fire.

Although they might afford useful means of annoyance during a protracted occupation by the enemy of harbors that contained extensive shoal grounds and

shallow bays and inlets, they would be nearly useless in resisting the first assault, and in preventing the brief operation of levying contributions, or burning or spoiling national establishments.

The true reason of this feeble defence must not, however, be misunderstood. It is not that the boats do not carry guns enough or men enough for the object, but it is because, from the comparative weakness of the vessels, the guns and the men cannot be kept in an effective position.

There are, moreover, many harbors requiring defence in which there are no shoals whereon these boats could take refuge, and in such their capture or destruction would be inevitable should there be, at the same time, no river up which they might fly, or lateral issue through which they could escape to a safe distance.

Floating batteries, of which good use might be sometimes made in peculiar situations, would, we suppose, differ from gunboats in being larger, containing many guns, and in being stronger-that is to say, having thicker sides or bulwarks; and it has sometimes even been proposed to construct them with ball proof parapets, and with platforms open above, like, in these respects, batteries upon the shore. But, in whatever way formed, it is necessarily a part of the idea that they be strong and massive; and, consequently, that they be unwieldy, incapable of sudden change of place, and incapacitated either to advance upon a defeated foe or to evade a victorious one. We are not, of course, now speaking of batteries moved by steam.

Being denied the power of locomotion, at least for any purpose of manoeuvring in face of the enemy, we are to consider these batteries as moored in position and awaiting his advance. Should the batteries be large, requiring deep water to float them, or should they be placed across or near the channel for the sake of proximity to the track of ships, the enemy would engage them at close quarters. All advantages of mobility-of concentrating his whole fleet upon one or two points, to which, under these circumstances, no relief can be sentof greater elevation and command, would be on the side of the assailant, with no countervailing advantage to the batteries, but greater thickness of bulwarks, Whether this excess of thickness should be considered a material advantage. since the introduction of large bomb-cannon into the armament of ships, is a doubtful matter. The batteries, if anchored across the channel, would have the further advantage of a raking fire: but we have seen that the raking fire of one squadron of ships upon another advancing is by no means decisive. The power of throwing the whole assailing force upon one or two points, of pouring upon the decks of the batteries a greatly superior force of boarders, would, of themselves, seem to leave little room to doubt as to the issue.

If now we suppose these floating batteries to be smaller, so that, having a lighter draught, they might be placed near the shores or upon the shoals, they might certainly be thereby saved from the kind of attack which would prove so fatal if anchored more boldly in deep water; but they would, at the same time, lose much of their efficiency from their remoteness, and positions wherein they would be secure from being laid alongside, while they would be in a proper at titude to contribute materially to the defence of the harbor, are afforded but rarely. It is doubtful whether, as a general rule, these smaller floating batter ies, notwithstanding their greater capability of endurance, would afford a better defence, gun for gun, than gunboats; or, in other words, whether this capability of endurance in the one would be more than a compensation for the power locomotion in the other.

of

But whether near the shore or in the channel, whether large or small, this description of defence, owing to its fixedness, connected with the destructibility of the material of which it must be made, will be exposed to attacks analagous to those made by gunboats on ships aground. The enemy, knowing of what the defensive arrangements consist, will come provided with the requisite num

« AnteriorContinua »