Book: Elements of Military Art and Science

H >> Henry Wager Halleck >> Elements of Military Art and Science




Such was the effect produced on the British fleet, sailing with a
favorable wind and strong current past the half-armed and half-manned
forts of the Dardanelles. Duckforth himself says, that "had he remained
before Constantinople much longer--till the forts had been completely
put in order--no return would have been open to him, and the unavoidable
sacrifice of the squadron must have been the consequence." Scarcely had
the fleet cleared the Straits, before it (the fleet) was reinforced with
eight sail of the line; but, even with this vast increase of strength,
the English did not venture to renew the contest. They had effected a
most fortunate escape. General Jomini says that if the defence had been
conducted by a more enterprising and experienced people, the expedition
would have cost the English their whole squadron.

Great as was the damage done to the fleet, the forts themselves were
uninjured. The English say their own fire did no execution, the shot in
all probability not even striking their objects--"the rapid change of
position, occasioned by a fair wind and current, preventing the
certainty of aim." The state of the batteries when the fleet first
passed, is thus described in James's Naval History: "Some of them were
dilapidated, and others but partially mounted and poorly manned." And
Alison says: "They had been allowed to fall into disrepair. The castles
of Europe and Asia, indeed, stood in frowning majesty, to assert the
dominion of the Crescent at the narrowest part of the passage, but their
ramparts were antiquated, their guns in part dismounted, and such as
remained, though of enormous calibre, little calculated to answer the
rapidity and precision of an English broadside."

Much has been said because the fortifications of the Dardanelles did
not hermetically seal that channel, (an object they were never expected
to accomplish, even had they been well armed and well served;) but it is
forgotten, or entirely overlooked, that twelve _Turkish line-of-battle
-ships, two of them three-deckers, with nine frigates, were with their
sails bent and in apparent readiness, filled with troops, and lying within
the line of fortifications; and yet this naval force effected little or
nothing against the invaders._ It is scarcely ever mentioned, being
regarded of little consequence as a means of defence; and yet the number
of its guns and the expense of its construction and support, could hardly
have fallen short of the incomplete and half-armed forts, some of which
were as ancient as the reign of Amurath!

_Algiers._--The following narrative of the attack on Algiers, in 1816,
is drawn from the reports of the English and Dutch admirals, and other
official and authentic English papers.

The attack was made by the combined fleets, consisting of five sail of
the line, eighteen or twenty frigates and smaller vessels, besides five
bomb-vessels and several rocket-boats, carrying in all about one
thousand guns. The armament of some of the smaller vessels is not given,
but the guns of those whose armaments are known, amount to over nine
hundred. The harbor and defences of Algiers had been previously surveyed
by Captain Warde, royal navy, under Lord Exmouth's direction; and the
number of the combined fleet was arranged according to the information
given in this survey--just so many ships, and no more, being taken, as
could be employed to advantage against the city, without being
needlessly exposed. Moreover, the men and officers had been selected and
exercised with reference to this particular attack.

From the survey of Captain Warde, and the accompanying map, it appears
that the armament of all the fortifications of Algiers and the vicinity,
counting the water fronts and the parts that could flank the shore, was
only two hundred and eighty-four guns of various sizes and descriptions,
including mortars. But not near all of these could act upon the fleet as
it lay. Other English accounts state the number of guns actually opposed
to the fleet at from two hundred and twenty to two hundred and thirty.
Some of these were in small and distant batteries, whereas nearly all
the fleet was concentrated on the mole-head works. (Fig. 36.) Supposing
only one broadside of the ships to have been engaged, the ratio of the
forces, as expressed by the number of guns, must have been about as 5 to
2. This is a favorable supposition for the ships; for we know that
several of them, from their position and a change of anchorage, brought
both broadsides to bear; moreover, at no one time could _all_ the guns
of the water fronts of the batteries bear on the attacking ships. The
Algerine shipping in the harbor was considerable, including several
vessels of war, but no use was made of them in defence, and nearly all
were burnt. The attacking ships commanded some of the batteries, and
almost immediately dismounted their guns. The walls of the casemated
works were so thin as to be very soon battered down. Most of the
Algerine guns were badly mounted, and many of them were useless after
the first fire. They had no furnaces for heating shot, and, as "they
loaded their guns with loose powder, put in with a ladle," they could
not possibly have used hot shot, even had they constructed furnaces. The
ships approached the forts, and many of them anchored in their intended
position, without a shot being fired from the batteries. The action
commenced at a quarter before three, and did not entirely cease till
half-past eleven. The ships then took advantage of the land breeze, and,
by warping and towing off, were able to get under sail and come to
anchor beyond reach of the land-batteries. Negotiations were again
opened, and the Dey surrendered the Christian slaves and yielded to the
terms of the treaty.

During the contest, the fleet "fired nearly one hundred and eighteen
tons of powder, and fifty thousand shot, (weighing more than five
hundred tons of iron,) besides nine hundred and sixty thirteen and
ten-inch shells, (thrown by the bomb-vessels,) and the shells and
rockets from the flotilla." The vessels were considerably crippled, and
their loss in killed and wounded amounted to eight hundred and
eighty-three. The land batteries were much injured, and a large part of
their guns dismounted. Their loss is not known; the English confess they
could obtain no account of it, but suppose it to have been very great.
This seems more than probable; for, besides those actually employed in
the defence, large numbers of people crowded into the forts to witness
the contest. So great was this curiosity, that, when the action
commenced, the parapets were covered with the multitude gazing at the
manoeuvres of the ships. To avoid so unnecessary and indiscriminate a
slaughter, Lord Exmouth (showing a humanity that does him great credit)
motioned with his hand to the ignorant wretches to retire to some place
of safety. This loss of life in the batteries, the burning of the
buildings within the town and about the mole, the entire destruction of
their fleet and merchant vessels anchored within the mole and in the
harbor, had a depressing effect upon the inhabitants, and probably did
more than the injuries received by the batteries in securing an
honorable conclusion to the treaty. We know very well that these
batteries, though much injured, _were not silenced_ when Lord Exmouth
took advantage of the land breeze and sailed beyond their reach. The
ships retired--1st, because they had become much injured, and their
ammunition nearly exhausted; 2d, in order to escape from a position so
hazardous in case of a storm; and 3d, to get beyond the reach of the
Algerine batteries. Lord Exmouth himself gives these as his reasons for
the retreat, and says, "the land wind saved me many a gallant fellow."
And Vice-admiral Von de Capellan, in his report of the battle, gives the
same opinion: "_in this retreat_" says he, "which, from want of wind and
the damage suffered in the rigging, was very slow, _the ships had still
to suffer much from the new-opened and redoubled fire of the enemy's
batteries_; at last, the land breeze springing up," &c. An English
officer, who took part in this affair, says: "It was well for us that
the land wind came off, or we should never have got out; and God knows
what would have been our fate, had we remained all night."

The motives of the retreat cannot, therefore, be doubted. Had the Arabs
set themselves zealously at work, during the night, to prepare for a new
contest, by remounting their guns, and placing others behind the ruins
of those batteries which had fallen,--in other words, had the works now
been placed in hands as skilful and experienced as the English, the
contest would have been far from ended. But (to use the words of the
Board of Defence) Lord Exmouth relied on the effects produced on the
people by his dreadful cannonade; and the result proves that he was
right. His anxiety to clear the vessels from the contest shows that
there was a power still unconquered, which he thought it better to leave
to be restrained by the suffering population of the city, than to keep
in a state of exasperation and activity by his presence. What was this
power but an unsubdued energy in the batteries?

The true solution of the question is, then, not so much the amount of
injury done on the one side or the other--particularly as there was on
one side a city to suffer as well as the batteries--as the relative
efficiency of the parties when the battle closed. All political
agitation and popular clamor aside, what would have been the result had
the fight been continued, or even had Lord Exmouth renewed it next
morning? These are questions that can be answered only on conjecture;
but the manner the battle ended certainly leaves room for many doubts
whether, had the subsequent demands of Lord Exmouth been rejected, he
had it in his power to enforce them by his ships; whether, indeed, if he
had renewed the fight, he would not have been signally defeated. On the
whole, we do not think that this battle, although it stands pre-eminent
as an example of naval success over batteries, presents an argument to
shake the confidence which fortifications, well situated, well planned,
and well fought, deserve, as the defences of a seaboard.

We cannot help regarding these conclusions as just, when we reflect upon
all the circumstances of the case. The high character, skill, and
bravery of the attacking force; their immense superiority in number of
guns, with no surplus human life to be exposed; the antiquated and
ill-managed works of defence, the entire want of skill of the Algerine
artillerists, and the neglect of the ordinary means of preparation; the
severe execution which these ill-served guns did upon the enemy's
ships,--an execution far more dreadful than that effected by the French
or Dutch fleets in their best-contested naval battles with the ships of
the same foe,--from these facts, we must think that those who are so
ready to draw from this case conclusions unfavorable to the use of
land-batteries as a means of defence against shipping, know but little
of the nature of the contest.

An English historian of some note, in speaking of this attack,
says:--"It is but little to the purpose, unless to prove what may be
accomplished by fleets against towns exactly so circumstanced, placed,
and governed. Algiers is situated on an amphitheatre of hills, sloping
down towards the sea, and presenting therefore the fairest mark to the
fire of hostile ships. But where is the capital exactly so situated that
we are ever likely to attack? And as to the destruction of a few
second-rate towns, even when practicable, it is a mean, unworthy species
of warfare, by which nothing was ever gained. The severe loss sustained
before Algiers must also be taken into account, because it was inflicted
by mere Algerine artillery, and was much inferior to what may be
expected from a contest maintained against batteries manned with
soldiers instructed by officers of skill and science, not only in
working the guns, but in the endless duty of detail necessary for
keeping the whole of an artillery material in a proper state of
formidable efficiency."

_San Juan d'Ulloa._--The following facts, relative to the attack on San
Juan d'Ulloa by the French, in 1838, are drawn principally from the
report of a French engineer officer who was one of the expedition.

The French fleet consisted of four ships, carrying one hundred and
eighty-eight guns, two armed steamboats, and two bomb-ketches with four
large mortars. The whole number of guns, of whatever description, found
in the fort was one hundred and eighty-seven; a large portion of these,
however, were for land defence. (Fig. 37.)

When the French vessels were towed into the position selected for the
attack, "it was lucky for us," says the French officer in his report,
"that the Mexicans did not disturb this operation, which lasted nearly
two hours, and that they permitted us to commence the fire." "We were
exposed to the fire of one twenty-four-pounder, five sixteen-pounders,
seven twelve-pounders, one eight-pounder, and five eighteen-pounder
carronades--_in all nineteen pieces only_." If these be converted into
equivalent twenty-four-pounders, in proportion to the weight of the
balls, the whole nineteen guns will be _less than twelve twenty-four
pounders_. This estimate is much too great, for it allows three
eight-pounders to be equal to one twenty-four-pounder, and each of the
eighteen-pounder carronades to be three quarters the power of a long
twenty-four-pounder; whereas, at the distance at which the parties were
engaged, these small pieces were nearly harmless. Two of the powder
magazines, from not being bomb-proof, were blown up during the
engagement, by which three of the nineteen guns on the water front of
the castle were dismounted; thus reducing the land force to _an
equivalent of ten twenty-four-pounders_. The other sixteen guns were
still effective when abandoned by the Mexicans. The cannonade and
bombardment continued about six hours, eight thousand two hundred and
fifty shot and shells being fired at the fort by the French. The
principal injury received by the work was from the explosion of the
powder magazine. But very few guns were dismounted by the fire of the
French ships, and only three of these on the water front. The details of
the condition of the ships and fort are given in the report of the
French officer,[22] but it is unnecessary to repeat them here.

[Footnote 22: Vide also House Doc. No. 206, twenty-sixth Congress, first
session]

In general terms, it appears from the above-mentioned report, that the
number of guns actually brought into action by the floating force,
(counting only one broadside of the ship,) amounted to _ninety-four
guns, besides four heavy sea-mortars_; that the whole number so employed
in the fort was only _nineteen, including the smallest calibres_; that
these guns were generally so small and inefficient, that their balls
would not enter the sides of the ordinary attacking frigates; the
principal injury sustained by the castle was produced by the explosion
of powder magazines injudiciously placed and improperly secured; that
the castle, though built of poor materials, was but slightly injured by
the French fire; that the Mexicans proved themselves ignorant of the
ordinary means of defence, and abandoned their works when only a few of
their guns had been dismounted; that notwithstanding all the
circumstances in favor of the French, their killed and wounded, in
proportion to the guns acting against them, was upwards of _four times_
as great as the loss of the English at the battle of Trafalgar!

_St. Jean d'Acre_.--The narratives of the day contained most exaggerated
accounts of the English attack on St. Jean d'Acre; now, however, the
principal facts connected with this attack are fully authenticated. For
the amount of the fleet we quote from the British official papers, and
for that of the fort, from the pamphlet of Lieutenant-colonel
Matuszewiez. These statements are mainly confirmed by the narratives,
more recently published, of several English and French eye-witnesses.

The fortifications were built of poor materials, antiquated in their
plans, and much decayed. Their entire armament amounted to only two
hundred guns, some of which were merely field-pieces. The water fronts
were armed with one hundred cannon and sixteen mortars, those of the
smaller calibre included. (Fig. 38.) When approached by the British
fleet, the works were undergoing repairs, and, says Commodore Napier,
"were fast getting into a state of preparation against attack."

The British fleet consisted of eight ships of the line, carrying six
hundred and forty-six guns; six frigates, carrying two hundred and
thirty-six guns; four steamers, carrying eighteen guns; and two or three
other vessels, whose force is not given. "Only a few guns," says Napier,
"defended the approach from the northward," and most of the ships came
in from that direction. The western front was armed with about forty
cannon; but opposed to this were six ships and two steamers, carrying
about five hundred guns. Their fire was tremendous during the
engagement, but _no breach was made_ in the walls. The south front was
armed in part by heavy artillery and in part by field-pieces. This front
was attacked by six ships and two steamers, carrying over two hundred
guns. The eastern front was armed only with light artillery; against
this was concentrated the remainder of the fleet, carrying about two
hundred and forty guns. The guns of the works were so poorly mounted,
that but few could be used at all; and these, on account of the
construction of the fort, could not reach the ships, though anchored
close by the walls. "Only five of their guns," says Napier, "placed in a
flanking battery, were well served, and never missed; but they were
pointed too high, and damaged our spars and rigging only." The stone was
of so poor a quality, says the narrative of Colonel Matuszewiez, that
the walls fired upon presented on the exterior a shattered appearance,
but they were nowhere seriously injured. In the words of Napier, "_they
were not breached, and a determined enemy might have remained secure
under the breastworks, or in the numerous casemates, without suffering
much loss_." The accidental explosion of a magazine within the fort,
containing six thousand casks of powder, laid in ruins a space of sixty
thousand square yards, opened a large breach in the walls of the
fortifications, partially destroyed the prisons, and killed and wounded
a thousand men of the garrison. This frightful disaster, says the French
account, hastened the triumph of the fleet. The prisoners and
malefactors, thus released from confinement, rushed upon the garrison at
the same time with the mountaineers, who had besieged the place on the
land side. The uselessness of the artillery, the breaches of the fort,
the attacks of the English, all combined to force the retreat of the
garrison, "in the midst of scenes of blood and atrocious murders."

We will close this account with the following extract of a speech of the
Duke of Wellington, in the House of Lords, Feb. 4, 1841: "He had had,"
he said, "a little experience in services of this nature; and he thought
it his duty to warn their lordships, on this occasion, that they must
not always expect that ships, however well commanded, or however gallant
their seamen might be, were capable of commonly engaging successfully
with stone walls. He had no recollection, in all his experience, except
the recent instance on the coast of Syria, of any fort being taken by
ships, excepting two or three years ago, when the fort of San Juan
d'Ulloa was captured by the French fleet. This was, he thought, the
single instance that he recollected, though he believed that something
of the sort had occurred at the siege of Havana, in 1763. The present
achievement he considered one of the greatest of modern times. This was
his opinion, and he gave the highest credit to those who had performed
such a service. It was, altogether, a most skilful proceeding. He was
greatly surprised at the small number of men that was lost on board the
fleet; and, on inquiring how it happened, he discovered that it was
because the vessels were moored within one-third of the ordinary
distance. The guns of the fortress were intended to strike objects at a
greater distance; and the consequence was, that the shot went over the
ships that were anchored at one-third the usual distance. By that means,
they sustained not more than one-tenth of the loss which they would
otherwise have experienced. Not less than five hundred pieces of
ordnance were directed against the walls, and the precision with which
the fire was kept up, the position of the vessels, and, lastly, the
blowing up of the large magazine--all aided in achieving this great
victory in so short a time. He had thought it right to say thus much,
because he wished to warn the public against supposing that such deeds
as this could be effected every day. He would repeat that this was a
singular instance, in the achievement of which undoubtedly great skill
was manifested, but which was also connected with peculiar
circumstances, which they could not hope always to occur. It must not
therefore be expected, as a matter of course, that all such attempts
must necessarily succeed."

Having completed our examination of the ability of land batteries to
cope, gun for gun, with a naval force, let us consider, for a few
moments, the objection which is sometimes made to the use of
fortifications for the defence of the sea-coast, viz.: _that our
maritime cities and arsenals can be better and more economically secured
by a home squadron_.

We have already alluded to the impossibility of substituting one means
of defence for another. The efficiency of the bayonet can in no way
enable us to dispense with artillery, nor the value of engineer troops
in the passage of rivers, and the attack and defence of forts, render
cavalry the less necessary in other operations of a campaign. To the
navy alone must we look for the defence of our shipping upon the high
seas; but it cannot replace fortifications in the protection of our
harbors, bays, rivers, arsenals, and commercial towns.

Let us take a case in point. For the defence of New York city, it is
deemed highly important that the East River should be closed to the
approach of a hostile fleet at least fifteen or twenty miles from the
city, so that an army landed there would have to cross the Westchester
creek, the Bronx, Harlem river, and the defiles of Harlem
heights--obstacles of great importance in a judicious defence. Throg's
Neck is the position selected for this purpose; cannon placed there not
only command the channel, but, from the windings of the river, sweep it
for a great distance above and below. No other position, even _in_ the
channel itself, possesses equal advantages. Hence, if we had only naval
means of defence, it would be best, were such a thing possible, to place
the floating defences themselves on this point. Leaving entirely out of
consideration the question of relative _power, position_ alone would
give the superior efficiency to the fort. But there are other
considerations no less important than that of position. Fort Schuyler
can be garrisoned and defended in part by the same militia force which
will be employed to prevent the march of the enemy's army on the city.
On the other hand, the crews of the floating defences must be seamen;
they will consequently be of less value in the subsequent land
operations. Moreover, forts, situated as this is, can be so planned as
to bring to bear upon any part of the channel a greater number of guns
than can be presented by any hostile squadron against the corresponding
portion of the fort. This result can be obtained with little difficulty
in narrow channels, as is done in most of the other works for the
defence of New York, the works for Boston, Newport, Philadelphia,
Baltimore, Charleston, Savannah, New Orleans, &c., and an approximation
to it is not incompatible with the defence of the broader estuaries,
like the Chesapeake.

But we will suppose that there are no such points of land, in the inlets
to our harbors, and that we rely for defence upon a naval force
exclusively. Let us leave out of consideration the security of all our
other harbors and our commerce on the high seas, and also the importance
of having at command the means of attacking the enemy's coast, in the
absence of his fleet. We take the single case of the attack being made
on New York harbor, and that our whole fleet is assembled there. Now, if
this fleet be equal in number to the enemy, the chances of success may
be regarded as equal; if inferior, the chances are against us--for an
attacking force would probably be of picked men and of the best
materials. But here the consequences of victory are very unequal: the
enemy can lose his squadron only, while we put in peril both our
squadron and the objects it is intended to defend. If we suppose our own
naval force superior to that of the enemy, the defence of this harbor
would in all respects be complete, provided this force never left the
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
fleets within his ports, 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.

Copyright (c) 2007. knowncrafts.net. All rights reserved.