Standing Well Back
Ship-Borne IEDs

Fulton and Royal Navy IEDs -1805

Another in the series of posts about historical use of IEDs.  I’ve been slowly gathering material on naval use of IEDs , and have some great stories to tell. In future weeks I’ll write about:

  • Three massive ship borne IEDs of 1673, 1693 and 1694, (used by the British Navy against the French)
  • Floating IEDs designed by Cornelius Drebbel in the 1620s, (used by the British Navy against the French)
  • An attack using an IED on a ship in the Tagus in 1650 (by the British parliamentarian Navy on a British royalist ship)
  • An attack off Boulogne on 1804 using a fascinatingly designed IED on a small catamaran, (used by the British Navy against the French)
  • Admiral Benbow’s attacks  and Admiral Cochrane’s attacks (on the French in St Malo) using massive IEDs in 1693 and 1809 and their spooky similarity with the Campbeltown attack in the raid on St Nazaire in WW2

For now, I’m again I’m grateful to Leslie Payne for flagging me a source document – a letter from Robert Fulton to the President of the USA in 1810.

Fulton was an interesting man who worked on a  range of naval engineering matters. Born in the USA in 1765, he experimented with explosives as a child and developed paddle wheels for his father’s fishing boat .   By 1797 he was a well-known inventor in Europe and was building steam boats and a submarine, the Nautilus, for Napoleon Bonaparte.  Some sources suggest he was also making explosive charges for the French Navy

France and England were at war at the time (as usual). In 1804 Fulton switched sides and went to England to offer his inventions there.  He was commissioned by the Prime Minister, William Pitt, to develop a range of Naval weapons including explosive charges.   It is in this period that the attack, described below, occurs.

Fulton then switched allegiances again and went home to the US, to build submarines and torpedoes for use against the British. In 1810 he wrote a letter to the President James Madison on the subject of “The Torpedo War and submarine explosions”.   The letter is interesting on several levels:

  1. It describes a very successful demonstration undertaken by Fulton, where he blew up a ship as a demonstration to the Prime Minister off the cost near deal in Kent in 1805. (Samuel Colt conducted a similar experiment a few decades later for the US Navy in the Potomac near the Navy yards.)
  2. Initially the devices were large (180 pounds of gunpowder) and initiated by clockwork  with an 18 minute delay.
  3. There is a beautiful quote about a sceptical British Naval observer to the trial;   “Twenty minutes before the Dorothea was blown up, Capt Kingston asserted that if a Torpedo were placed under his cabin while he was at dinner, he should feel no concern for the consequence. Occular demonstration is the best proof for all men.”
  4. A pithy quote from a British Admiral, Earl St Vincent, who said of the Prime Minister’s enthusiasm for Fultons plans  “ Pitt was the greatest fool that ever existed, to encourage a mode of war which they who commanded the seas did not want, and which, if successful, would deprive them of it”
  5. It describes a similar experiment conducted in New York harbour in 1807, but which failed at first because of a design fault in the explosive devices.
  6. A detailed description and diagram of the device. Although the demonstrations used clockwork initiation systems, Fulton designed a lever switch which a passing ship would act on, so causing a cocked gun trigger to fire, initiating the charge.
  7. An “attack torpedo” using a clockwork timer and a harpoon gun to fasten the torpedo to a target.

  1. A detailed description of the attack on the French ships anchored off Boulogne by Capt Siccombe of the Royal Navy and his men in 1805.  In two separate attacks, one led by Capt Siccombe and another by Lt Payne, the “infernal machines” failed to seriously damage the ships, and Fulton conducted a rapid technical evaluation to attempt to understand why.  It appears that the ballast adjustments of the two charges were incorrectly set, so the charges detonated on the surface of the water next to the ships rather than under the keel as intended.
  2. The letter describes the efficacy that a few well armed, fast moving small boats can have on a major naval fleet, if moving at speed and with novel weapons…. (Iran, Persian gulf, Sixth fleet….any premonitions?) and discusses the cost effectiveness of his infernal machines against warships and the asymmetric warfare principles behind it.  He describes how a fleet of small boats could command an area like the Straits of Dover (or the Persian Gulf!)

 

Update on Friday, September 28, 2012 at 9:17PM by Roger Davies

This is beautiful!.  Here’s a document I just found – a legal contract between the British Government and Fulton, Note the values of his rewards and also his promise not to divulge the plans to anyone else for 14 years (a promise he broke in his letter to President Madison)

Articles of Agreement between the Right Honourable William Pitt, first

Lord Commissioner of his Majesty’s treasury and Chancelor of the Exchequer,

and the Right Honourable Lord Viscount Melville, first Lord of the

Admiralty, in behalf of his Majesty’s government on the one part, and Robert

Fulton, citizen of the United States of America and inventor of a plan of

attacking fleets by submarine Bombs, on the other part.

     The said Robert Fulton agrees to disclose the principles of his scheme

to Sir Home Popham and to superintend the execution of it on the following

conditions:

 

     First. To be paid Two hundred pounds a month while he is employed on

this Service for his personal trouble and Expences.

     Second. To have a credit lodged from time to time for the payment of his

Mechanical preparation, not to exceed Seven thousand pounds.

     Third. That in his Majesty’s dockyards and Arsenals shall be made or

furnished all such articles as may be required which are applicable to this

purpose.

    Fourth. If any circumstance should arise to prevent government carrying

this plan into execution then the parties are each to name two commissioners

for the purpose of examining the principles; and trying such experiments as

they may think proper, and if it should appear to the Majority of the

members that the plan is practicable and offers a more effectual mode of

destroying the enemies fleet at Boulogne, Brest, or elsewhere, than any now

in practise and with less risk, then government is to pay the said Robert

Fulton the sum of Forty Thousand Pounds as a compensation for demonstrating

the principles, and making over the entire possession of his submarine mode

of attack.

     Fifth. When the said Robert Fulton has destroyed by his submarine

carcasses or Bombs one of the enemies decked Vessels, then Government is to

pay him the sum of Forty Thousand pounds, provided Commissioners appointed

As in the previous article shall be of opinion that the same Scheme can be

practically applied to the destruction of the enemies fleets.

      Sixth. If the Arbitrators differ in opinion then they are to draw lots

for the choice of an Umpire and the majority of the Voices to decide all

points of reference within the construction of this agreement and that

decision to be final.

     Seventh. One half the supposed value of all vessels destroyed by Mr.

Fulton’s Submarine mode of attack to be paid him by government as long as he

superintends the execution of his plan; but when government has no further

occasion for his services; or that he wishes to retire then he is only to be

paid one quarter of the supposed value of such vessels as may be destroyed

by his scheme, and this remuneration to continue for the space of fourteen

years from the date hereof. 

    Eighth. In case the Vessels destroyed by this scheme should exceed in

amount Forty thousand pounds, then the Forty Thousand pounds first

stipulated to be paid, shall be considered as part payment of the whole sum

which may become due to the said Robert Fulton.

    Ninth. If in the course of practice any improvements Should be Suggested

that can only be esteemed as a collateral Aid to the general principles of

Mr. Fulton’s mode of attack, then such improvements are not to demenesh or

set aside his claims on government. 

     Tenth. All monies which may become due to Mr. Fulton to be paid within

six months from the time when they shall be so adjudged according to the

tenor of this agreement.

     Eleventh. This agreement to be considered by both parties as a liberal

covenant with a View to protect the Rights of the individual, and to prevent

any unproper advantage being taken of his Majesty’s Government.

 

      Mr. Fulton having deposited the drawings and plans of his submarine

scheme of attack; in the hands of a confidential friend with a view to their

being delivered to the American government in case of his death, does hereby

bind himself to withdraw all such plans and drawings and not divulge them or

any part of his principles to any person whatever for the space of fourteen

years; which is the term during which he is to derive all the advantages of

their operation from the British Government.

     The benefit of the foregoing agreement shall be extended to the heir

and executors of the said Robert Fulton.

     Signed this Twentieth day of July One thousand eight hundred and four.    

                                              ROBERT FULTON.

19th Century

US Made “Trojan Horse” IED Used Against the British in 1813

Another interesting booby trap IED set by our American cousins against the Brits:

The United States Congress decided to encourage private citizens to get involved in the war effort. In March 1813, they passed legislation encouraging the development of weapons and tactics designed to disrupt the blockade. John Scudder, Jr., a New York businessman, soon rose to the challenge. He outfitted a schooner named “Eagle” with kegs of gunpowder, sulfur, turpentine, and two flintlock firing devices, which were attached to two barrels of flour on deck. If either barrel were to be moved, the entire vessel would be detonated. The boat was filled with a standard load of provisions, then sailed toward the mouth of the Sound.  It arrived off Millstone Point on June 25, 1813, and dropped anchor. The crew headed for shore as a British boarding party approached, then fired on the boat.  The boarding party, to save themselves and the schooner, cut the anchor line and sailed back toward safety. The Americans had planned on this, assuming that the British navy would tie the prize to HMS Ramillies. Instead, the Eagle was tied to another recently captured vessel. That afternoon, one of the flour barrels was moved, causing a massive explosion that destroyed both the Eagle and the boat it was tied to, killing a second lieutenant and ten British sailors in the process.

What is it about these New Yorkers?  : – )

 

Ship-Borne IEDs

Hellburner Hoop

Readers of the blog will know I’m researching 16th century IEDs. This one is worth a blog.

The development of explosive devices required a number of technological developments. In the 14th and 15th century the manufacture of saltpeter (Potassium nitrate) became industrialized allowing the production of volumes of blackpowder.  (I’m simplifying things here for the short space appropriate in a blog).  Then with the invention of the Wheelock for firearms in the early part of the 16th century, this allowed for command initiation, by pull by using the initiation system for a gun in an explosive charge. There are a few red herrings around with regard to the use of Iron Pyrites and flint, which in a flintlock in the early 1600s became the favored option once stronger steel was made that wouldn’t be eroded by the flint – pyrites being the spark provider when earlier, softer steel was used in firearms. But of course in an explosive device the “lock” is only going to be used once, so I suspect flint initiation in a Wheelock mechanism, was the first use in IEDs in the 1500s.

The other engineering development in the 16th century that is pertinent is the clock.  Clocks became more widespread, as a cultural phenomenon and as technology permitted smaller clocks (I’m simplifying a chapter of my book here, into two sentences).  The first clock-initiated IEDs occurred in the 16th century. I can’t tell you exactly when the first one was, but I provide below the details of the incident that is the earliest incident where I can find details of such a device.  It is significant too, because I think it may be the IED that caused the greatest number of fatalities, ever, with possibly as many as 1000 killed. Possibly, too, the biggest ever IED. Possibly, too, the first ever WMD.  It also has a significant impact on a whole war in terms of the terror it gave, I believe too on the eventual defeat of The Spanish Armada, some years later, when they scattered before the British fleet, at least partly in fear of a similar device.

In 1584 the city of Antwerp was under siege and blockaded by the Spanish Army following a rebellion. An Italian Engineer, in the secret pay of the English, was supporting the Dutch rebels. In order to destroy a huge pontoon bridge the Spanish had constructed, he was given two Seventy ton ships, the Fortuyn and the Hoop. (“Fortune” and Hope”).

The concept of fire ships was already known and had been used already by the Dutch. But Giambelli, the Italian had bigger ideas. He constructed two massive IEDs, one in each ship. And when I say massive, I mean massive.  He was helped by two key individuals, Bory, a clock maker from Antwerp and Timmerman, a “mechanic”. Here’s a description of how each was made from a source document I found recently:

In the hold of each vessel, along the whole length, was laid down a solid flooring of brick and mortar, one foot thick and five feet wide.  Upon this was built a chamber of marble mason-work, forty feet long, three and a half feet broad, as many high, and with side-walks five feet in thickness. This was the crater.  It was filled with seven thousand pounds of gunpowder, of a kind superior to anything known, and prepared  by Giambelli himself. It was covered with a roof, six feet in thickness, formed of blue tombstones, placed edgewise. (Note: some sources say also this was sealed with lead)  Over this crater, rose a hollow cone, or pyramid, made of heavy marble slabs, and filled with mill-stones, cannon balls, blocks of marble, chain-shot, iron hooks, plough-coulters, and every dangerous missile that could be imagined.  The spaces between the mine and the sides of each ship were likewise filled with paving stones, iron-bound stakes, harpoons, and other projectiles.  The whole fabric was then covered by a smooth light flooring of planks and brick-work, upon which was a pile of wood: This was to be lighted at the proper time, in order that the two vessels might present the appearance of simple fire-ships, intended only to excite a conflagration of the bridge.

The initiation system for the Fortuyn was a slow burning fuse, while the Hoop, courtesy of Mr Bory the clockmaker, was initiated with an adapted clock. I’m guessing the striker of the clock was a modification of a firearm lock, wheel-lock or flintlock. One source suggests that the time delay was one hour. These ships were sent down the waterway with skeleton crews, along with 32 “normal” fireships, with the crews as usual setting them alight before getting away in small boats, allowing the currents, tides and winds to carry them towards the pontoon bridge.

The Fortuyn failed to be carried towards the best target and then when the charge exploded, it only partially functioned, causing no damage and no injuries. The entire Spanish Army, called to the alert on the approach of the fire ships, to fend them off and extinguish the fires, was heard jeering.  But the Hoop bore down on its target and became entangled with Spanish ships and the bridge itself. As soldiers boarded her to extinguish the fire on her deck, the clock ticked, … then struck.  7,000 pounds of blackpowder, reputedly the best Antwerp possessed, exploded and the pontoon bridge, many ships and hundreds of soldiers disappeared. Some sources say 800 Spanish soldiers were killed at that instant, others put the figure at 1000. Many remarkable tales exist about oddities of the explosive effect. (Detail will follow in the book!) Two of the Spanish generals bodies were found some time later, their bodies thrown considerable distances.

Although the Antwerp rebels were unable to exploit the effect of the explosion, probably because they too were simply shocked by its effect, the incident achieved immediate notoriety across Europe and great interest from military experts who recognized this as a new type of warfare.

Three years later when the Spanish Armada came to invade England, the use of fireships caused panic among the Spanish fleet, because of concerns that they could be loaded with explosives.. and by then they knew that Giambelli was overtly in England, working for the Queen. The Spanish Fleet was seriously disrupted and control of it was never regained by its admirals. And as a result, my Spanish language skills are limited today to ordering “Dos cervezas, por favor”  I have grossly simplified a complex action here, but hopefully blog readers will appreciate the unusual construct of the IED on the Fortuyn and the Hoop, and see the significance of the initiation mechanism.   In another aside and related to the last post about the assassination of generals….When the Prince of Parma, the Spanish General did ride into Antwerp, some months later, a conqueror, there had been a plot to kill him and everybody near him by blowing up a street over which it was calculated he would be sure to pass. Nothing came of this, because the plot was revealed before the procession occurred.

One final thought…. The Hoop attack concept was used again… in 1809 when British Admiral Cochrane attacked the French in the Basque Roads attack, and again in 1942, when the bomb ship HMS Campbelltown rammed the gates of the drydock in the St Nazaire raid as part of “Operation Chariot”.

Close Me
Looking for Something?
Search:
Post Categories: