Turret Versus Broadside - Book Review

Turret Versus Broadside - An Anatomy of British Naval Prestige, Revolution and Disaster, 1860-1870 to give its full title was a book pointed out to me in an email from my mate Andy. He's on the Helion & Company mailing list and thought this book might be for me, questioning whether it was too early a period for my interest. Not at all was my reply and an order was quickly made. The author, Howard J. Fuller, has written a studious tome concerning the ten year period from the launch of the first iron-hulled frigate, HMS Warrior, to the loss of the masted turret ship HMS Captain. Beginning with the loss of the Captain and then going back to tell the tale of how and why the Captain came about, Fuller has written an engaging and thoughtful narrative about how the introduction of new technologies, changing international politics and personal rivalries culminated in the loss of nearly 500 lives.

There appears to be an almost unshakable belief that during the 19th Century, the Royal Navy ruled supreme, supporting a Pax Britannica that encouraged peaceful trade, led the fight against the slave trade and kept Britain at the height of its powers. That may be a very comforting idea, what with 150 years plus of nostalgia and pride, but it's really not that simple. In fact, Pax Britannica could be considered a jingoistic throwback because there was anything but Pax for a great deal of that century for neither Britannia nor many other countries.

Coming off the shambles that was the Crimean War, the Royal Navy found itself in a bit of a mess. Well supplied forts and an enemy that didn't venture out for a traditional Nelson-esque naval battle had deprived the senior service of widespread glory. Following that conflict, the traditional rivalry with it's erstwhile ally France had re-ignited and the launch of the latter's La Gloire, the first ocean-going ironclad, led to a naval race for ironclad ships. 

Alongside ironclads, which were a response to the experiences of the Crimean War, you also had the invention of turrets, the first being patented by Captain Cowper Phipps Coles in 1859. He saw the advantages of the turret over the broadside and wanted this to be proven in an actual ship. This smacked straight into opposition from Edward Reed (Chief Constructor of the Royal Navy 1863-1870) and Robert Spencer Robertson (Controller of the Navy 1861-1871), both of whom were heavily invested in the broadside design for ironclads.

But wait, as a man once said, there's more.

The American Civil War introduced the Monitor to the world and provided a powerfully defensive ship for ports and coastal areas, but one that was not suitable for ocean-travel. The thought of conflict between the US and Britain, so easily talked about in the early years of the 1860's quickly changed when it was seen that the Monitor and its descendants could prevent the Royal Navy from it's traditional method of war fighting and even threaten the security of Canada via the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway.

The increase in naval firepower brought round by huge smoothbore cannon and the latest in rifled muzzle-loaders also threatened the ironclads, as these guns could pierce the thickest of armour then floating. This led to pressure for increasing the size of ships - bigger guns, heavier armour, more complete armour protection and the continued idea of pitting ships against forts, which again had even bigger guns, all combined to worry the "public" about the strength of the navy. Indeed, the contrasting priorities of wooden sailing ships for empire policing, steam powered ironclads for fleet action and Monitor type vessels for attacking forts/port defence such as Cronstadt all led to a worrying increase in naval expenditure. It didn't help that singular, massively expensive ships like the Warrior were, at the same time, both wonderfully public displays of the strength of the Royal Navy and prime examples of how behind the times the service appeared to be, especially compared to other nations. 

This was not helped by the continued battle between the publicly owned shipyards and private ship builders. The former were seen as a traditional source of national power, the latter as profit-seeking wastrels. "Public" opinion, as expressed in letters to the newspapers and journals of the day (most notably the Times of London), was not inclined to see the Navy suffer for want of private profit. That these private yards were building ships for foreign orders seen as superior to those being built for the Royal Navy did not help matters either.

The need to cover the cost of the Navy also revealed the strains of Empire - would the "mother country" pay up or would she demand the constituent parts pay their fair share? And you may have noticed my use of the word "Public". That too, was another strain on the government, with the Reform Act of 1867 initially not only doubling the electorate, but also backfiring in 1868 when the Conservative government that formulated the act was voted out. The "Public" as it were, was a small part of the population but it's voice was heard to great, if not positive, effect.

The above it must be said, is mostly background, as the core of this book is the battle that Coles undertook to get a turreted ship designed and built. I'll not go into too much detail, but the political battles between Coles and the recalcitrant duo of Reed and Robinson were both private (within the confines of the Admiralty) and public (The Times and other publications), acrimonious and bitter. The two establishment figures come across as the villains of the piece, wedded to their existing designs for ships, deflecting criticism for not attempting to use turrets, especially after the Monitor appeared, and more concerned about private gain, be in money (Reed) or power (Robinson). The latter's attempt to gain control of ship building within the Royal Navy and to rubbish any private ship building was shocking even to contemporaries and together, they loaded the die against Coles when he came to design and have built (in a private yard) the Captain. 

The conclusion of this book is, in my opinion, fair to both sides and quite ironic. Despite the fears of falling behind other powers, the Royal Navy after 1870 had the Devastation building, a turreted, steam-powered ship that ended the argument between turrets and broadsides for good. It had also lost France as an enemy for at least a generation, that nation having suffered defeat at the hands of Prussia and having proven that, despite it's powerful navy, that service could do nothing against von Moltke's army.

Turret Versus Broadsides then is a book well worth reading if this period is your thing. It's very readable, engaging and well researched, shining a light on a period little discussed, but one with huge ramifications for naval and political developments for the rest of the 19th Century, As the author notes, by the time the court martial regarding the loss of the Captain had finished, British supremacy could be guaranteed for that generation, but not much longer.

You can buy Turret Versus Broadside direct from the publisher here. If you are a naval wargamer then Tumbling Dice do a rather decent HMS Captain in their 1/2400 Victorian naval range - you can order the Captain via this link here.