Gunboat "young school" for the French Navy

31
Gunboat "young school" for the French Navy


English gunboat Condor


At 7:00 on July 11, 1882, an English squadron under the command of Admiral F. Beecham-Seymour began shelling the forts of Alexandria. During the daytime battle, the British ships managed to suppress the enemy's coastal batteries. Actions of the English fleet were discussed in different countries, and France did not stand aside.



The actions of the gunboat Condor aroused great interest among the representatives of the "young school". Armed with just three Nordenfelt muzzle-loading guns and one quick-firing Nordenfelt gun, this small ship bombarded an Egyptian fort for two hours without sustaining serious damage.

At the same time, according to some gunners, it was the shooting of the Condor gunboat that forced the Egyptian calculations to abandon their guns. In the "young school" it was believed that during the bombardment of Alexandria it was proved that the powerful artillery of the ironclads would have only a slight effect on the guns mounted behind the parapets or on the disappearing gun carriages of the Moncrief system.


With personnel equal in numbers and skill on both sides, a fleet of the best ironclads afloat would not be able to win a victory that would compensate for the dangers to which it would be exposed in a duel with coastal batteries. In support of their opinion, they cited a statement published in the English newspaper United Service Gazette:

“Had the Alexandrian forts been armed with the best guns, like those found on the German and French coasts, and if the guns had been manned by German or French gunners, the results of the war would have been very different. Probably a third of our fleet would have been, if not sunk, then at least disabled and practically lost.

Is it worth risking such losses when the only naval force consists of a small number of ironclads that take years to build and repair. This lesson proves that only small gunboats with considerable speed, armed with medium-caliber guns and rapid-fire cannons, can face off against the forts in the future. Not destroying them, but silencing them with embrasure shots.

Fast gunboats


It was proposed to take a destroyer with a displacement of 50-60 tons as a basis. It was believed that their shallow draft and maneuverability would allow them to approach the coastal batteries at a minimum distance. Their small size and the ability to quickly get out from under enemy fire will allow them to take the best position to ensure the effectiveness of their artillery.

During the shelling of the city of Sfax (Tunisia) in 1881, the shallow depth in the coastal zone led to the fact that the French battleships were forced to be at a great distance from the coast and could only use large-caliber guns. The gunboats would come close enough to the shore to fire at close range not only on the batteries, but on the city. The main goal should be production facilities, arsenals, port buildings, barracks and places of concentration of troops. For this purpose, medium-caliber guns will suffice.

It has been calculated that the cost of the battleship Duperre is equal to the cost of 25 destroyers and 10 gunboats, the total side salvo of which will weigh 1 kg, which is less than that of the battleship Duperre with a side salvo of 000 kg. However, the firing of gunboats and destroyers would have been much faster than that of the battleship Duperre, a large number of shells fired at the city would have led to severe destruction and fires.

Ten gunboats, relying on their number, speed and size, would quickly approach the port. Some of them would attack coastal batteries to disable heavy guns and crews through embrasures, others would shell the city and enter the harbor, continuing to fire. These active actions will make it possible to land troops on enemy territory without any problems. Some of the gunboats will be sunk, but others will succeed in this attack. War cannot take place without the loss of men and ships, it is better to lose one or two gunboats with a small crew than one ironclad.

Such ships can be used not only to attack ports. Many naval officers say that a great danger to battleships in a future war will be an attack from several sides by a group of high-speed gunboats. Such an attack would be difficult to repel. Hitting the turrets of the main caliber with shells filled with powerful explosives will quickly put them and the gun crews out of action, the shelling of unarmored extremities will lead to flooding of the compartments and loss of combat capability of the battleship. The best will be considered an attack from the bow and stern courses. The best defense against armadillo fire would be speed, maneuverability, and a small target size.

To accomplish all these tasks, these ships should be armed with two 138,6-mm guns. The destructive effect of the shells of these guns, which is quite sufficient for firing, both at ports and at towers, cabins and unarmored parts of an armadillo. A high-explosive projectile, which weighs 32 kilograms, will inflict more damage in 25 minutes than volleys from large-caliber guns. The effect of a single armadillo salvo will be replaced by a large number of smaller shells, and the rate of fire will compensate for everything else. The speed of such a ship must be at least 20 knots, at 10 knots it must have a range of 1 miles.

With the further advancement of their theory along the way, the representatives of the “young school” encountered an obstacle that was difficult to get around. These are the norms for the distribution of weights on the hull, armament, engine installation, coal reserves adopted in France, they were mandatory in the development of projects for warships. Calculations made by engineers using accepted standards showed that to fulfill all the stated requirements, a ship with a displacement of 360 tons was needed, it was very difficult to meet the proposed 50–60 tons. But the Minister of the Navy, Admiral T. Ob, intervened in the matter, and ordered the construction of such a ship.


Gunboat Gabriel Charmes


The project of the gunboat was developed by A. Lagan, the artillery installation - by G. Kane. The displacement was 73 tons, length 42 meters, width 3,8 meters, deepening 2 meters. Machine power 580 l. with., the speed on tests reached 20 knots. Armament was reduced to one 138,6-mm gun in a fixed installation with a fence made of thin sheets of steel. Horizontal guidance was carried out by turning the ship, the elevation angle was from 0 to 30 degrees, the rate of fire was 1 shot per minute. Entered service in 1886 under the name of Gabriel Charmes.

The exercises in 1887, in which the gunboat Gabriel Charmes took part, revealed many shortcomings, the ship also received damage to the hull, the exercises were carried out to identify possible shortcomings of the destroyers and to work out the tactics of attacking convoys and guard ships in stormy weather.


Gunboat "Gabriel Charmes" in a stormy sea.

After that, interest in such ships disappeared. A 138,6 mm gun was dismantled from the ship, and the ship itself was converted into a destroyer.

So ended story development of a low-tonnage high-speed gunboat.
31 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    21 September 2022 06: 25
    Far from the worst option. They made one prototype, tested it, convinced themselves of the failure and calmed down.
  2. +5
    21 September 2022 07: 31
    What is the difference between naval gun transporters and coastal batteries? In a pitch. Because of her, even now the gun installed on the ship threshes into the white light like a penny (fire control algorithms based on the analysis of pitching are not developed and are not applied. fine)) with even a little excitement. And the quote in the article is absolutely correct. With the same armament, the coastal fort will drown the entire squadron if it sticks into its firing sectors, if there is at least some kind of wave on the sea.
    So the gunboats went badly. For a simple and banal reason - they are small, and they are shaken more strongly than the carcasses of armadillos) And large ships smear all the time, and only small ones ...
    1. +5
      21 September 2022 09: 01
      Quote: Mikhail3
      In a pitch. Because of her, even now the gun installed on the ship threshes into the white light like a penny (fire control algorithms based on the analysis of pitching are not developed and are not applied. fine)) with even a little excitement.

      laughing laughing Hmmm ... Since the beginning of the last century, this problem has been solved. With the participation of inclinometers. During any pitching, the ship will pass through an even keel more than once (due to mathematical graphs of amplitude oscillations, etc.) At this moment, the relay closes and a shot occurs. Therefore, pitching for a large ship is not a critical factor in fire control that affects the accuracy of hits. wink For a small one, yes, to some extent. But for small calibers, the absence of such mechanisms is offset by the rate of fire. Further. The weather factor is a subjective thing in naval combat. 50 to 50. There may or may not be excitement. Wait for the calm and go ahead, shoot in calm weather against the shore. But in a ship-to-ship battle, the weather factor can be decisive due to the design features of each individual ship, i.e. its seaworthiness. Again, it all depends on the specific region, its climatic features, etc.
      For example, the WOK battle against Kamimura in the Korea Strait on August 1, 1904. Russian cruisers were built for operations in the open ocean, had a large displacement and high sides, compared to the Japanese. Those. in good seas, the Russians would have had better conditions for their shooting than the lower-sided Japanese cruisers flooded in fresh weather. But ... that day was calm .... smile request
      so everything is relative. hi
      1. +3
        21 September 2022 09: 50
        Quote: Rurikovich
        Hmmm ... Since the beginning of the last century, this problem has been solved. With the participation of inclinometers.

        Maybe inclinometers?) Solved ... Charming)
        Here the topic was about the fact that engineers can not solve the problem of fighting enemy missiles. Not with hyper-missiles, but with conventional, anti-ship missiles from the last century. Imagine, systems that shoot down artillery shells) are successfully tested on land, which fly ten times faster. Fighting systems are mobile, on trailers.
        And here everything is permanently fixed, and it’s impossible to shoot down a slowly flying rocket) Why would this be, can you tell me? I will say. This is because the inclinometer cannot solve the problem. At least the one that applies. It works painfully slowly. Slower firing process. And each next wave is slightly different from the previous one. Mainly because the ship is moving, but not only because.
        Well, little things. The gunboat is a large caliber. Otherwise, it just doesn't make any sense. "Ship-cannon".
        1. +3
          21 September 2022 10: 54
          Quote: Mikhail3
          Imagine, systems that shoot down artillery shells) are successfully tested on land, which fly ten times faster. Fighting systems are mobile, on trailers.
          And here everything is permanently fixed, and it’s impossible to shoot down a slowly flying rocket) Why would this be, can you tell me?

          Since what you wrote has nothing to do with reality.
          First, shooting down an artillery shell is not Newton's binomial. A modern, even subsonic rocket flies at 220-250 m / s. The projectile, when approaching the target, has, well, twice the speed, or even less. At the same time, the defeat of artillery shells by shipborne air defense systems was implemented back in the last century, the same British Seawolfs confidently demolished 114-mm British shells during tests.
          Only here's the bad luck - in real combat conditions, sometimes they didn’t have time to work out the Skyhawk either. And why? Yes, because trials and hostilities are two big differences. And the same is true for land systems - in tests they will blow everyone like Tuzik a heating pad, but in real combat - alas, the performance will sag.
          And during the exercises, the missile fleet has been knocking down perfectly since the days of the USSR - there a couple of ships, it used to be, 7 anti-ship missiles were demolished, launched from different angles and at different heights.
          Quote: Mikhail3
          I will say. This is because the inclinometer cannot solve the problem. At least the one that applies. It works painfully slowly.

          These things are your fantasies, irrelevant to the case. Fully functional inclinometers, providing effective firing of heavy guns at long distances, appeared back in the years of the First World War
        2. 0
          21 September 2022 17: 51
          Are "land" stabilizers inapplicable in this situation? Or do gyrocompasses and gyrostabilizing systems in general not work at sea?
          1. +3
            22 September 2022 06: 50
            All land instruments are based on the fact that they themselves are stationary, at least relatively. An exception is the equipment of tank sights, but even there vertical changes in position are taken into account poorly, or even not taken into account at all. For effective shooting, even a modern tank needs to stop.
            And in conditions when the sight itself moves in three planes, modern equipment is still as helpless as under Tsushima. Today, our engineers in this direction are hoping for China (as usual, for whom else? Not for their own brains and hands, in fact). The Chinese are trying to block ship sights with gun barrels. There is some hope that this will be able to take the data quickly enough to have time to work out the gun drives. In my opinion, this is a dead end)
            Rather, the way out is (to hell with it. I will advance weapons science once again) to make a computer unit independent of anything else, continuously analyzing pitching, and creating a predictive model at each next moment in time. There will be no absolute accuracy, but the probability of hitting will increase tenfold.
            The problem is, first of all, that the remaining ship gunsmiths we have are too old. They do not understand modern computer equipment and are afraid of it, that is, they cannot use it. Young "gunsmiths" do not understand the artillery itself (there is too little information about it in Google, not enough for real design), they are not afraid of computers, but they understand them at the maximum at the Excel level. There is simply no one to do real work ...
            1. +2
              22 September 2022 15: 55
              Logically, I didn’t think that it was possible to stabilize only relative to the swinging surface of the deck. Then the way only in digit turns out? Relatively speaking, shoot only at a precisely calculated square of the visual matrix, taking into account all factors of external influence and target movement? And to do this from a conditional "zero point" relative to the same "conditional horizon"? It's a super robot, not a cannon.
              1. +2
                22 September 2022 17: 58
                Good description. Yes, everything is like that. And it's not a super robot. In fact, everything that you described is in video games) Only a "conditional horizon" ... It's hard to find and stick to it there. Apparently it is necessary to rely on positioning from satellites, but this is not enough to shoot down missiles. However, it will be relatively easy to hit another ship.
                All this is realizable, and hardware, and developments in software have long allowed. People can't keep up with their own equipment. And also for a long time)
        3. +2
          21 September 2022 18: 00
          Quote: Mikhail3
          Can inclinometers

          Maybe no one canceled the technical errors smile smile smile The essence of this does not change, because we are talking about GUNS, and you are jumping to missiles request
          Quote: Mikhail3
          Slower firing process.

          For this, it allows you to more accurately fire at a target Yes
          Quote: Mikhail3
          And each next wave is slightly different from the previous one.

          Again by. It doesn’t matter what kind of waves there are, what matters is that the gun fires when the ship passes through an even keel Yes
          Quote: Mikhail3
          The gunboat is a large caliber. Otherwise, it just doesn't make any sense. "Ship-cannon".

          uh nooo!!! A gunboat is a universal type of ship that can perform a lot of functions within its characteristics. Protection of convoys and single ships comparable in speed, guard ships for guarding raids, bases, support for the coastal flanks of armies, operations against the coast (the same landing support). And gunboats are not only a "gun ship" (for me, it's a dead end branch), but a universal ship for solving a wide range of tasks, which with medium and small artillery smile hi
      2. +4
        21 September 2022 10: 18
        Quote: Rurikovich
        Wait for the calm and go ahead, shoot in calm weather against the shore.

        Dear Andrey. A gunboat is primarily a ship for a gun, and not a gun for a ship. Keeping the fleet and the landing force at sea in anticipation of calm means exposing it and the transports with the landing force to the danger of destroyer attacks.
        1. +2
          21 September 2022 17: 48
          hi Well, how can I say... Any operation is planned in advance, taking into account, if possible, the maximum number of factors affecting the final result. And weather accounting is not the latest. But we are talking about the battle of the fleet against the coast. Yes The weather in this case makes it difficult for small forces to act, but not for large ships. Therefore, in relation to the actions of the same gunboats against the coast. It was about ships of small displacement (in this case, gunboats). The French problem was that they wanted to get a ship too small and fast for a relatively large gun. The failure was that desires very often do not coincide with reality. Although gunboats were the main force during the shelling of the Dagu forts ... Normally designed kakonerkas, and not what the French wanted. Gunboats - this was generally the most favorite class of ships in childhood. And if we look at examples of CORRECT use of CORRECT (not boats for guns, but ships balanced in displacement for the necessary weapons), we will be surprised, because gunboats in both the REV and WWI did an excellent job of supporting the coastal flanks of the army. And with rapid-firing guns (120 - 130mm) of the WWI period, and the same heirs of the Vespe with 229mm large-caliber guns, which are the Port Arthur "beavers" with the "brave". Personally, I consider gunboats generally universal ships for the fleet. When used wisely Yes
          Best regards, hi
          1. +2
            21 September 2022 18: 47
            Quote: Rurikovich
            .The French problem was that they wanted a ship that was too small and fast for a relatively large gun.

            At that time, this "fad" infected not only France, but in Germany and England there were also voices about the benefits of such ships. But if in Germany and England this "craze" was dealt with very quickly, then the French still suffered with small-tonnage ships. Although they, in my opinion, were not bad projects "torpedo gunboats" for that time.
            Although gunboats were the main force when shelling the Dagu forts ... Normally designed kakonerkas, and not what the French wanted

            I completely agree with this, gunboats solved many problems. In addition, they were to be used not only to attack forts, but to defend ports in cooperation with numbered destroyers and coastal batteries. But each went his own way. hi
            1. +1
              22 September 2022 17: 39
              Thank you for the article.
              It is interesting that this is still a very specific gunboat - as opposed to many, which rather resembled just an armed steamer, and not a warship.

              And by the way, isn't a draft of 2 meters too big for a gunboat)?
      3. Alf
        +3
        21 September 2022 19: 47
        Quote: Rurikovich
        Wait for the calm and go ahead, shoot in calm weather against the shore.

        And the enemy will wait...
        1. 0
          21 September 2022 20: 36
          Quote: Alf
          And the enemy will wait...

          I spoke figuratively. How much did they trample around the Dardanelles ??? Therefore, if today it is stormy, and tomorrow the weather will improve, then it is not necessary to drive small boats to swim today. wink tongue Yes, and for the enemy, it's time to think about throwing out a white flag laughing
          1. Alf
            0
            21 September 2022 20: 44
            Quote: Rurikovich
            Yes, and for the enemy, it's time to think about throwing out a white flag

            The practice of wars showed that the enemy, who decides to fight, very rarely surrenders himself, of his own free will.
            Quote: Rurikovich
            Therefore, if it is stormy today, and tomorrow the weather will improve, then it is not necessary to drive small boats to swim today

            But every day the defender gets stronger.
            1. 0
              21 September 2022 21: 03
              Quote: Alf
              But every day the defender gets stronger.

              Vasily, I beg you. In this situation, if you are not going to land troops (and we are talking about the struggle of the fleet with the coast), then a day or two of delay is not important. When you SUDDENLY decided to land and the weather REALLY bothers you, then yes, while you are waiting, the enemy can dig trenches, pull up artillery and strengthen. When you stand against the forts, and your task is to suppress them to ensure the safety of the fairway, then time is not important. In a day or two, the enemy will not build a new fort and will not supply a new battery of heavy guns, because this matter is very stretched out in time. smile
              Quote: Alf
              The practice of wars showed that the enemy, who decides to fight, very rarely surrenders himself, of his own free will.

              Well, yes, if you stand and don’t shoot for a month, you won’t give up. But sometimes the sight of someone who will shoot at you tomorrow makes you think. Especially if the arguments are weighty in the form of a large caliber. And if, finally, in the 19th - the beginning of the 20th centuries, this did not stand out so clearly, then with an increase in caliber and firing range, it was possible to hammer enemy fortifications from a long distance (if the sea coast) with impunity. And for the period of the late 19th century described by the author, yes, hammering with forts, in which the same art was very uncomme il faut. Alas, with the advent of aviation, such a problem has gone into oblivion .... request
              PS. It would be very interesting to see if the enemy tried to fight the coastal batteries of Sevastopol (from the sea, of course, with the forces of ships) or Russky Island, which are practically invisible inland and from the sea feel
              1. Alf
                +1
                21 September 2022 21: 13
                Quote: Rurikovich
                PS. It would be very interesting to see if the enemy tried to fight the coastal batteries of Sevastopol (from the sea, of course, with the forces of ships) or Russky Island, which are practically invisible inland and from the sea

                Yes, very interesting.
                Quote: Rurikovich
                In this situation, if you are not going to land troops (and we are talking about the struggle of the fleet with the coast), then a day or two of delay is not important.

                In this case, I agree, especially if only a fire raid is planned. But in this case, shelling by gunboats is pointless, because it will not cause much damage, but the response may be with unacceptable damage, because dragging the damaged ship from the enemy shore is a task from the "fiction on the second floor" section.
                And if a landing is planned, then each day of delay gives the defender the opportunity to condense the defense with the approach of fresh field troops or the delivery of additional ammo.
                1. 0
                  21 September 2022 21: 26
                  "On this, having come to a consensus, they went home" smile hi
              2. 0
                21 September 2022 21: 34
                Quote: Rurikovich
                And for the period of the late 19th century described by the author, yes, hammering with forts, in which the same art was very uncomme il faut.

                You are not much mistaken, during the period described, forts and batteries were used in coastal defense. The fort was not supposed to be located above 30 meters from sea level. It was equipped with guns to penetrate the side armor. The batteries had to be located as high as possible from sea level, since mortars were installed on them to destroy the decks. If it was not possible to place batteries on a hill, then during the construction of forts they were supposed to have additional areas for installing mortars.
    2. Alf
      +1
      21 September 2022 19: 45
      Quote: Mikhail3
      So the gunboats went badly. For a simple and banal reason - they are small, and they are shaken more strongly than the carcasses of armadillos) And large ships smear all the time, and only small ones ...

      Plus, the fact that small ships are much worse than large ones "hold the blow".
      1. +2
        22 September 2022 06: 58
        So there is only one cannon of a serious caliber on them. Edge two. The loss of one gun is much less painful than the whole batteries placed on battleships.
        Leave this exchange with Rurikovich. You see that his arguments are to multiply posts anyhow)
  3. +3
    21 September 2022 10: 56
    Thank you, dear Igor!
    Interesting and very entertaining information hi
    1. +4
      21 September 2022 11: 20
      Dear Andrew, thank you for your rating.
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Interesting and very entertaining information

      As one English admiral said;
      " Strange ideas breed strange ships."
      1. +6
        21 September 2022 11: 31
        Quote: 27091965i
        "Strange ideas breed strange ships."

        In this case, they are extremely strange :))) However, it’s easy for me to judge after the fact, and then, of course, there was a search for new concepts: a gunboat of 60 tons today looks ... stupid, but not only "young, but early" French - EMNIP Makarov considered artillery shields unnecessary, because they increase the target area, and without them the projectile will fly past ...
        In general, in hindsight, of course, it is easy to judge, and it is clear that the idea is erroneous, but I will not twist my finger at my temple.
        1. +2
          21 September 2022 11: 47
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          However, it’s easy for me to judge after the fact, and then, of course, there was a search for new concepts: a gunboat of 60 tons today looks ... stupid, but not only the “young, but early” French had hope for small sizes

          In this review, I did not give an extended description of the French exercises of 1887, although it might have been worth it. The French created an "experimental" squadron of destroyers and tried to attack the convoy, but since, according to the terms of the exercises, this was supposed to take place in bad weather conditions, we can say that they ended in failure. On the first day, the destroyer detachments not only failed to attack the convoy, they were unable to catch up with their scouts due to bad weather. Part almost went to the bottom. On this, everyone was returned to the port.
          Makarov considered artillery shields unnecessary, because they increase the target area, and without them the projectile will fly past ...

          After the Sino-Japanese war, S. O. Makarov was not alone in this matter ..
        2. +2
          21 September 2022 13: 26
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          In general, in hindsight, of course, it is easy to judge, and it is clear that the idea is erroneous, but I will not twist my finger at my temple.
          And in vain: 60 tons - where will she sail away? What shelling of Egypt? It would be nice to get to the other end of the port ... An admiral's boat with a six-inch ...
          1. 0
            21 September 2022 17: 46
            Quote: bk0010
            And in vain: 60 tons - where will she sail away? What shelling of Egypt?

            So they loaded onto the transport - and alles :))))
      2. +1
        22 September 2022 18: 06
        Quote: 27091965i
        As one English admiral said;
        "Strange ideas breed strange ships."

        Sound ideas too) Wasn't it a sound idea to build a rocking-resistant yacht for the Russian Tsar? And what a crazy pancake came out!))
  4. 0
    21 September 2022 11: 22
    Quote: Garm
    Far from the worst option. They made one prototype, tested it, convinced themselves of the failure and calmed down.


    Yes, the British riveted more troughs similar in concept, albeit at the expense of China.