hms warrior 1860

This book is dedicated to the memory of all those involved inthe conception, design and construction of HMS Warrior;and to their successors, the team that saved the ship 120 yearslater and those who continue to care for her today.

A Conway book

Copyright © Andrew Lambert 1987, 2011

First published in Great Britain in 1987 by Conway Maritime Press asWarrior: Restoring the World’s First Ironclad

This fully revised and updated edition published in 2011 by Conway,an imprint of Anova Books Company Ltd10 Southcombe StreetLondonW14 0RAwww.anovabooks.com

To receive regular email updates on forthcoming Conway titles, [email protected] with ‘Conway Update’ in the subject field.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored ina retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic,mechanical, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permissionof the copyright owner.

Andrew Lambert has asserted his moral right to be identified as the authorof this work.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data:A record of this title is available on request from the British Library.

ISBN 9781844861286

Reproduction by Rival Colour Ltd.Printed and bound by 1010 Printing International Ltd, China.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I must take this opportunity to thank all those who made this bookpossible. The original edition of the book depended on the staff ofthe Warrior Preservation Trust, both at Hartlepool and in London,who were unfailingly helpful, both in dealing with often simplequestions and in giving me the benefit of their experience. Theirsuccessors on board the ship today, notably Captain Ken Jones andArchivist Andrew Baines, have continued that fine tradition. Theteam at Conway Publishing made the project possible, and ensuredit would be a fitting memorial to a great ship. Sadly many of thosewho did so much for the first edition are no longer here, but newfriends like John Beeler, Howard Fuller and Patrick Louvier havetransformed the way we understand the ironclad era, transforminga neglected research backwater into a lively forum. I owe a further debt of gratitude to Zohra, for her unfailing supportand enthusiasm across the years that separate this book from thefirst edition. Without the help of these people this book would nothave been written. That said the errors, omissions and failings of thefinal text are entirely my responsibility.

Andrew LambertKew 2011

2NDHMS~1.QXD:Layout 1 14/1/11 16:45 Page 4

ContentsAcknowledgements 4Author’s Note 7Introduction 8

CHAPTER 1 Origins 10

CHAPTER 2 In Service 32

CHAPTER 3 Reconstruction 54

CHAPTER 4 Hull and Armour 76

CHAPTER 5 Guns 100

CHAPTER 6 Machinery 124

CHAPTER 7 Rig 144

CHAPTER 8 Detail 166

CHAPTER 9 Warrior’s Return 190

Conclusion 206Appendix Warrior specification 208Bibliography 220

Index 222Picture Credits 224


Sometimes the human spirit canimbue mere machines with thegrace and beauty to inspire, torender their meaning more clear,

and ensure their success. HMS Warrior wasone such machine: this is the story of agreat ship, and a great achievement. Notonly was Warrior the world’s first ocean-going, iron-hulled, armoured warship, buther survival and restoration made her aunique survivor from a lost age. When sheentered service in 1861 HMS Warriorinstantly rendered every other warshipafloat obsolete, and with her combinationof size, speed and firepower helped todefeat Imperial France in a major navalarms race. She was the ultimate Victoriandeterrent. After a decade as the icon of Vic-torian power Warrior, now renderedobsolete herself by newer battleships withthicker armour and heavier guns, slippedquietly into the reserve fleet. In 1902 shebecame an engineering workshop atPortsmouth, and in 1929 a mooring jetty atMilford Haven. In 1979 a rusty old hulk,

hardly recognisable as the most beautifulwarship of her day, was quietly towed intoHartlepool, to be restored to her formerglory. After a decade of hard work Warriormade a triumphant return to Portsmouth,the home of the Royal Navy, to become theicon of the historic dockyard. Along theway the restoration helped to regenerate aonce great shipbuilding centre, revive craftskills, prompted a fresh look at the nine-teenth century Royal Navy and its’ rivals,and opened a window on a time when theprospects for technological progressseemed endless. The restoration set out torecover the ship as she had been in late1861, just as she entered service, withoutmodern alterations or additions, withoutnotices or concessions that would spoil theillusion, just like a modern warship open fora public visit. This stark approach to exhi-bition provides a striking, uncluttered andunusual visitor experience, one that neverfails to impress. Warrior will beguile anddelight visitors of all ages, and all national-ities, for years to come.

7

AUTHOR’S NOTE


12

HMS WARRIOR

In 1815 the most powerful ships afloatwere 120-gun three-decker sailingline of battleships some 20ft longerthan the Victory. Their extra length

and more practical construction reflectedthe reforms of Sir Robert Seppings, Sur-veyor of the Navy 1813–1832, the firstgreat technological innovator of the nine-teenth century naval revolution. Thedominance of these wooden leviathans waschallenged in the 1820s when Frenchartillery expert Henri Paixhans developeda system to fire explosive shells fromcannon. If the Paixhans system workedwooden ships would be little more thanlarge inflammable targets. However, theobvious response, to create a defence tokeep the shells out, was not considered apractical proposition until the CrimeanWar (1854-1856). By that time the otherideas that went into Warrior had beenbrought to fruition.

The advance of steam engines at sea,demonstrated by Isambard KingdomBrunel’s pioneering Atlantic liners, GreatWestern and Great Britain, was closelywatched by the world’s navies. However,while the paddle wheel remained the onlymethod of propelling ships no battleshipwould be equipped with a steam engine,because the wheels obscured the broadsideof the ship, the focus of her offensive power.Only at the midpoint of the century did thescrew propeller and improved engines facil-itate the construction of a steam-poweredbattleship. Dupuy de Lôme’s Le Napoleonand Isaac Watts’ Agamemnon, both 90-guntwo-deckers, began a brief Anglo-FrenchNaval race during the 1850s. Between 1850and 1860 over 100 two and three deckedwooden steam battleships were built orconverted in Britain and France before thetype vanished almost as suddenly as it hadappeared.

RIGHT: Brunel’s epochal

iron screw steamship the

SS Great Britain marked

the greatest step forward

yet seen in the rise of iron

shipbuilding, completing

for sea in 1845. This early

calotype negative shows

the ship shortly after her

launch.

3rd HMS_Warrior_CH1_010_031.qxd:Layout 1 14/1/11 16:47 Page 12

The length of these ships, and thevibration generated by their massive,unbalanced engines, demonstrated theunsuitability of wood for large steam-powered ships. However it would be thethreat of improved artillery that finallyended the long reign of the wooden fight-ing ship. The first iron warships had beenbuilt in the mid-1840s, as a response to newtechnology, and the shortage of qualitytimber. Just as these iron frigates werenearing completion gunnery experimentsrevealed that their ½in shell plating madevery good shrapnel, once fractured by shot.The ships already built were converted intotroopships and the loss of the Birkenhead in1852 only served to confirm a naval preju-dice against iron. Iron would be used for

warships when armour plate was perfected,and this meant that additional buoyancywas required to carry the weight. Too muchhad been attempted without a thoroughtrial, a lesson taken to heart by the Admi-ralty. This resulted in a policy of reacting toforeign developments rather than takingthe initiative with any more novel designs.The British response to Le Napoleon wasthe obvious result.

After the Russian Black Sea Fleet hadannihilated the Turkish squadron at SinopeBay on 30 November 1853 Napoleon IIIdecided that warships could not resist shellfire. He therefore proposed a scheme ofarmoured protection. His original idea, foran iron box full of 6 pound cannon balls,was impractical; once the box had been

13

ORIGINS

ABOVE: The French

floating battery LaTonnante in the ice before

Kil-Bouroun [Kinburn]

during the Crimean

campaign. An engraving by

Eugene Ciceri, published

c.1860.


broken by the first shot the balls rolledaway. However, Admiralty Chief NavalEngineer Thomas Lloyd suggested 4 inchthick wrought iron plate. This proved quiteadequate to keep out the most powerfulshot. France, and later Britain, built float-ing batteries covered with 4in plates. Theseslow, ugly and unseaworthy vessels wereonly intended to bombard the numerousRussian forts. They were not regular seago-ing warships. Three of the French batteries,Dévastation, Lave and Tonnant went intoaction on 17 October 1855 assisting theAllied fleets to demolish the fort atKinburn. British, French, Russian andAmerican authorities were all suitablyimpressed. Only the French were preparedto realise the full implications of theKinburn action. They stopped orderingwooden battleships, although it must bepointed out that they did so at a time whenthey had no spare slipways in their dock-yards.

Instead the French conducted a seriesof armour plate trials. Then on 1 January1857 Stanislas Dupuy de Lôme wasappointed Directeur du Material (Chief Con-structor) of the Imperial Navy. De Lôme,already famous as the designer of LeNapoleon, had long advocated iron ships andarmour plate. He designed Gloire to carry acomplete 4½ inch belt from stem to stern ona hull only slightly longer than Le Napoleon.She was built of wood because Francelacked the iron shipbuilding resources andexperience of Britain. One ship of the 1858programme, Couronne, was built of iron toan alternate design by M Audenet.Although laid down before Warrior, she wasnot completed until after the British ship,which was the first iron-hulled ironcladsea-going warship. Whatever the merits ofGloire the French decision to lay down sixironclads in March 1858 produced pro-found alarm in Britain.

ABOVE: The French

ironclad La Gloire, to port

and an Algeciras class

wooden steam battleship

of 90 guns to starboard, in

this lithograph by Parisian

printmaker Louis

Lebreton.


ADMIRAL SIR BALDWIN WALKERAND THE IRONCLADIf any one man can take a major share of thecredit for the success of Warrior it must bethe Surveyor of the Navy (1848-1861),Captain, and from 1859 Rear Admiral SirBaldwin Walker. Walker was responsible tothe Board of Admiralty for the design andconstruction of all ships built for the Navy.Walker had been appointed to liaise betweenthe Admiralty and the constructors toensure that the Navy received the best ships.He had been selected as an unrivalledseaman and experienced administrator.While the final decision always rested withthe politicians and the professional officerson the Board of Admiralty, Walker’s profes-sional advice carried great weight withalmost all First Lords of the Admiralty ofthe period. As a Cabinet Minister the FirstLord represented the Navy in Cabinet, andconveyed the direction of the Cabinet to theAdmiralty.

Between 1848 and 1858 Walker sta-bilised design policy, created the steambattlefleet and marshalled the resources ofthe nation to meet the needs of war withRussia and a simultaneous naval arms racewith Britain’s erstwhile ally, ImperialFrance. In 1856 his career reached itszenith; honoured by Queen and Countryand admired and trusted by the nation, theNavy and the politicians. Walker dominatedBritish construction policy. A conservative,methodical man in an age of dramatic inno-vation Walker remained firmly wedded tothe doctrine of evolution rather than revo-lution in naval technology. Under hiscontrol the Surveyor’s Department steadilydeveloped the design of each class ofwooden warship. Walker was hardly theman to take a leap in the dark with a revolu-tionary new concept, yet that was exactlywhat he did with Warrior.

Under the relaxed direction of SirCharles Wood (First Lord 1855–58), theAdmiralty had investigated armour in theyears following the Crimean War. Woodfelt that Kinburn had not been a thoroughtest; the Russian guns had been too small totrouble the armour. However the Admiraltyhad adopted the floating battery: Britainhad built a dozen of these ungainly floatingsiege engines by 1856.

The post-war armour trials werespecifically intended to inform the develop-ment of a sea-going ironclad. Unlike theFrench, who had good reasons for wantingto overturn the existing order of seapowerat a stroke, the Admiralty was quite happyto consider the implications of armour atleisure. Even so the trials made goodprogress, and in February 1858 Walker pro-posed building an experimental ironcladcorvette. It is significant that his proposalwas sent to the Admiralty Board beforeGloire had been laid down. The dimensionsand specification of this vessel repay study.Walker’s first wooden-hulled ironcladwould have been inferior to Gloire in onlytwo respects: 4 inch as against 4½ incharmour, and a speed of only 10 knots. Inreality the former was of little consequence.Armour trials at Woolwich Arsenal betweenlate 1856 and the end of 1857 establishedthat 4 inch plates would resist 68pdr solidshot at 600yd, even if repeated hits demol-ished the target. The 8 inch bore 68 pounder95 cwt gun was the most powerful Britishartillery piece. Furthermore Walker’s esti-mated speed for the projected ship was verylow when compared to other ships of thesame size and engine power. The woodenhull reflected his conservatism and a desireto build a ship for worldwide service. Ironhulls were prone to rapid fouling thatreduced speed and made them reliant ondrydocks for regular cleaning. In essence

15

ORIGINS

ABOVE: Admiral Sir

Baldwin Wake Walker, in

Turkish service, 1840.


20

HMS WARRIOR

27th January 1859With reference to the question of Building Ships to be cased with Iron torender them Shot-proof, I beg to state that having given this importantsubject my beset consideration, and it appearing that the most judicialcourse would be not only to call on the Master Shipwrights in the Dock-yards, but also to request some of the most eminent private shipbuilders whohave had considerable experience in Iron Shipbuilding, to furnish designs. Ibeg to submit that the Parties named in the margin be informed that theirLordships having under their consideration the subject of shot proof vesselswould be glad to receive designs and suggestions for vessels of this descrip-tion, and that the proposed particulars be sent for their information,observing that if they are disposed to furnish a Design not in accordancewith these conditions, but which in their opinion would be better calculatedto answer the intended purpose, their Lordships would be glad to receive italso.

The Design to be for a Frigate of 36 guns cased with 4 ½ inchWrought Iron Plates from the Upper Deck to 5 feet below the Load WaterLine.

The Vessel to be capable of carrying the weights as per accompanyingstatement in addition to Machinery, Boilers, and Water, and Coals for fullsteaming for at least seven days, with a height of Midship Port of at least 9feet above the water:– also to possess sufficient stability to enable her Gunsto be used effectively both when Coals and Stores are expended, and whenfully laden.

As Iron appears to be the most suitable material for a ship of this kindboth as regards strength and durability, the Design should be for an IronShip, but if it is considered by any of the Parties called on that a more sat-isfactory arrangement could be made with wood than iron, a Plan and theparticulars of a wooden ship may be forwarded for consideration; observingthat in a wood ship the Armour Plates must necessarily extend from thestem to the stern, whereas in an iron ship it might be considered advisable tolimit their extent to about 200 feet of the middle point of the vessel, separat-ing the part cased from the parts not cased by strong athwartshipBulkheads, covered also with 4½ inch Plates to extend down to about 5 feetbelow the Plates on the sides.

If this arrangement be adopted the ends of the ship not cased shouldhave as great a number of watertight compartments as can be convenientlyconstructed, to afford strength for running down, and security againstdamage by Collisions or shot.

A full description of the proposed arrangements for this purpose shouldbe given, as well as of the proposed mode of securing the Armour Plates,which in the case of an Iron ship should have a bed or backing of Timbersand planks of hard wood placed between them and the ordinary Plating ofthe ship, equal in substance and strength to the Timbering and Planking ofthe Topsides of a Ship of the Line, and the edges of the Armour Platesshould be planed and closely fitted.

The Main Deck to be of 4 inch Dantzic Oak with Beams sufficient innumber and strength to bear the heavy guns and other weights.

The Upper Deck to be of Iron 5/8 of an inch thick, and to be coveredwith Dantzic Fir 3 inches in thickness.

The Ship to be Masted and Rigged as an 80-Gun ship and to havesufficient steam power to give a speed of at least 13½ knots under steamalone when fully equipped and with all stores on board.

The Horse Power of the Engines to be stated, and the space requiredfor them and the boilers to be shewn on the drawings.

I further submit that the Private Shipbuilders be informed that as it isimportant their Lordships should know the probable cost of such a vesselbefore coming to any decisions, that it is desirable that an estimate of the costof building her, and of the time required, be furnished with the Design, andthat the information requested should be forwarded on the 1st March next.

B W Walker, Surveyor

Mr Chatfield Deptford YardMr Rice Woolwich YardMr Laing Chatham YardMr Henwood Sheerness YardMr Abthell Portsmouth YardMr Peake Devonport YardMr Cradock Pembroke YardThe Thames Shipbuilding Company BlackwallMr Mare MillwallMr Scott Russell MillwallMessrs Samuda BlackwallWestwood & Baillie MillwallMr Laird BirkenheadMr Palmer Jarrow on TyneMr Napier Glasgow

Department of the Surveyor of the Navy

Confidential.Frigate of 36 Guns cased with Wrought Iron Plates – Designs obtained.


Walker’s letter set out the key require-ments that informed the final design ofWarrior. Calling on eight private ship-builders for designs was unprecedented.During the Wars of the French Revolutionand Empire, 1792–1815, private yards hadbuilt most of the Navy’s vessels, but thispractice stopped at the end of the war. Nonehad ever been invited to submit designs forimportant ships. However, the Royal Dock-yards, where all the major warships of theera were built, had neither the experiencenor the facilities to build large iron ships.The iron frigates of 1845 had been con-tracted out, and any new iron ship wouldnecessarily have to follow that example. Byproviding space for wooden-hulled designs

Walker offered a placebo, one that allowedthe Royal Dockyard Master Shipwrights tocompete. The private builders he namedwere all famous for their iron ships, espe-cially John Scott Russell, C J Mare andRobert Napier. Walker realised that some,or all of them would be needed to buildiron-hulled warships. It was only commonsense to get them involved in the process atan early stage, to supplement the Admi-ralty’s limited experience of ironshipbuilding.

Walker’s design parameters ensuredthat all the designs submitted were for longships. With 34 guns to be mounted on themain deck, each with 15 feet betweencentres for convenient working, and a speed

21

ORIGINS

WEIGHTS TO BE RECEIVED ON BOARD THE PROPOSED 36-GUN SCREW FRIGATE

TONS

Water for 6 weeks for 550 men – including casks 124Provisions and spirits for 4 months for 550 men 105Officer’s stores and slops 14Wood, sand and holystones 16Officers, men and effects 75Masts and yards, including spare spars, booms etc. 119Rigging, blocks and sails 70Cables and anchors 121Boatswain’s and Warrant Officers’ Stores: main deck 34 100cwt 68pdr 10ft 0in 92Guns & Carriages: Upper Deck 2 Pivots 68pdr 10ft 10in 215Small Arms and Ammunition 8Powder: 550 cases 42Shot and shell – 100 rounds, all taken as sold shot 109Grape and canister shot 14Galley and condensors 10Engineers’ stores 15Spare screw, etc 12

1161

Total Displacement required fore & aft 3ft 6inMain deck ports deep 3ft 10indistance between ports 12ft 0in

lower sill 1ft 6infrom deck


26

HMS WARRIOR

WARRIOR AND HER CONTEMPORARIES

GUNS DATE CREW LENGTH BREADTH LENGTH/

(OA) (FT) (EXT) (FT) BREADTH

Victory 100 1765 186 52Howe 120 1860 1000 260 60 4.3/1Duncan 100 1858 930 252 58 4.6/1Orlando 40 1858 600 336 52 5.8/1Gloire 40 1860 570 255 6 55 9 4.7/11st Project 26 1858 280 58 4.7/12nd Project 26 1859 280 58 4.7/1Warrior 36 1861 707 420 58 4 6.5/1

ABOVE LEFT: The French

ironclad Gloire in profile.

ABOVE RIGHT: A section

through Gloire in the

centre of the boiler room,

showing her single gun

deck, the armour plate

outside the hull and the

coal bunkers along both

sides.


other respects it was not an inspired design.Despite the exaggerated hopes of theFrench and the absurd fears of the British,Warrior was a far better ship. Gloire had beenconstructed to challenge British mastery ofthe sea: Warrior demonstrated that suchhopes were futile. By taking naval architec-ture into the industrial age the Frenchplayed into the hands of Britain, already theworld’s leading industrial nation. Britishfoundries produced far more iron than thoseof France, and Britain possessed a massiveadvantage in iron shipbuilding skills andfacilities.

Yet if Gloire was the inspiration forWarrior the design had very differentorigins. In the 1850s the United StatesNavy abandoned the line of battle ship,building very large steam frigates of theMerrimac class. Walker had responded withthe remarkable Mersey and Orlando, thelongest, largest and most powerful single-decked wooden fighting ships ever built.Despite Watts’ careful design, and the bestconstruction methods, the ships provedunequal to the strains imposed on them bytheir engines, demonstrating that the outerlimits of wooden construction had beenreached. They convinced Walker that alonger ship would need an iron hull. Theneed for a longer ship arose because Mersey

and Orlando could not fight a steam battle-ship at close quarters, and lacked anymargin of speed to keep their distancewhere their heavier guns would be anadvantage. Warrior rectified Orlando’sfaults, and added armour that was effec-tively invulnerable beyond 400 yards. Thenew ship was designed in response to aclear tactical doctrine.

Being ships with a single coveredgundeck, both Gloire and Warrior wereoften described as frigates. However Gloirewas a battleship: the French alwaysintended her to fight in the line of battle,specifically in the Western Mediterraneanand English Channel. Therefore she wasinitially fitted with a light rig that wouldhave done little to economise her use ofcoal, and she had small bunkers. Warrior,intended to be an ocean-going cruisingship, with a full rig and hoisting screw toallow for long passages under sail, hadlarger bunkers. Sails provided the strategicmobility. Warrior was not designed as a bat-tleship. As a descendant of Orlando, Walkerconceived Warrior as a supplement to theline of battle ships, specifically to counterthe new French ships.

Warrior symbolised the collapse of theold tactical doctrine of Nelson’s day, whenbattleships and frigates had clear, distinct

27

ORIGINS

DRAUGHT DISPLACE- ENGINES COAL SPEED HEIGHT OF MAIN

TONS IHP TONS KNOTS DECK PORTS (FT)

21 6 4.525 10 7000 4564 550 13.0 825 6 5950 3428 520 13.0 821 6 5643 3617 850 13.0 9-1027 10 5630 2500 665 12.5 6.2523 3 5600 3200 10.0 10

6096 3600 12.75 926 9137 5267 800 14.08 9

ABOVE: A Punch cartoon

of 23 March 1861

satirizing the Anglo-

French naval arms race.

Napoleon III, seated left, in

a game of cards with

Palmerston, has laid what

he believes to be a trump

in the shape of Gloire.

Palmerston, however,

trumps him in turn with

Warrior. Each man has a

sack full of francs and

sovereigns, respectively, on

the floor at his feet. The

caption reads ‘Beggar My

Neignbour’, and

Palmerston asks: ‘Is not

your Majesty tired of this

foolish game?’.


IN SERVICE


34

HMS WARRIOR

The order for Warrior wasawarded to the Thames Iron-works Company, which hadtaken over the yard and work-

force of C J Mare, on 11 May 1859. Theiroffer to build the ship for £31.50 per ton onthe old Builder’s Measurement (approxi-mately two-thirds of the moderndisplacement) had been the lowest receivedfrom the eight firms invited to tender.Warrior was laid down later that year on theeast bank of Bow Creek at the point whereit joins the Thames. On the 25 May JohnPenn & Sons of Greenwich had their tenderto build the engines and boilers accepted.Trading as C J Mare, Thames Ironworkshad built many large iron screw steamers,with Penn engines, for the P & O Line. The5500-ton Himalaya had been the largest,although another dozen of between 1800and 2800 tons were built in the 1850s.During the Crimean War the firm builtseveral warships, including the floating bat-teries Meteor and Thunder and severalgunboats. Expertise in large scale iron shipconstruction and reputation for qualityworkmanship, established long beforeWarrior was ordered, secured the order.

Most accounts state that Warrior’s keelwas laid on the slipway at Thames Iron-works on 25 May 1859. This is incorrect.The slipway was occupied by the P & Oliner Seine until June 6th. After the Seine hadbeen launched the slip needed an extensiveoverhaul to prepare it for the massiveWarrior, lengthening and strengtheningthe slip by driving hundreds of piles intothe foreshore. Full scale production of ironfor the ship only began in August, which islikely to have coincided with the start ofconstruction. If the ship was actually begunin mid August this would reduce the build-ing time to 16 months, the same time RobertNapier took to build the Black Prince.

The delay mattered. When Warriorwas ordered it was intended that she shouldbe launched in eleven months and com-pleted for sea in another three; that is byJuly 1860. These dates were hopelessly overoptimistic: they reflect Walker’s concern tocomplete the ship at the same time as Gloire.As a wooden ship Gloire should have takenat least three years to build, to allow thestructure to season as it was completed.Hasty construction effectively guaranteed ashort career, due to fungal infestations ofthe timber. However the French acceptedthe risk. Laid down in March 1858 Gloirewas launched on 24 November and com-pleted in August 1859. While an iron shipcould have been built more quickly, intheory, various design alterations, allied tothe sheer novelty of the project causedunexpected delays. Much of the delay canbe attributed to Walker’s concern to out-class Gloire. Rather than building a simpleresponse to the French ship he favouredsomething superior.

Warrior was officially named on 5October 1859. The name was significant:only one ship had carried it before, a longlived and justly famous 74. The new shiphad been ordered only two years after theold one had been demolished. Although nolonger First Lord Sir John Pakington wasgiven the honour of performing the launchceremony, although the very low tempera-ture experienced on 29 December 1860meant that it took the combined efforts ofsix tugs to pull her down the frozen slipway,a most inauspicious start.

Once safely afloat the hull was towedinto the massive Victoria Dock basin, wherePenn’s installed her machinery. With theengines and boilers in place the ChathamDockyard sheer hulk was towed up to Vic-toria Dock laden with masts, yards andropes to rig the ship. The heavy wooden

OPPOSITE ABOVE: A

new age of Naval Power;

building the Minotaur at

Thames Ironworks.

Minotaur followed Warrioron the slipway.

CENTRE LEFT: The

Thames Ironworks

shipyard, c. 1864-65,

where Warrior was built.

The absence of covered

working spaces, and the

outside piles of timber and

iron demonstrate the

methods in use at the best

contemporary shipyards.

BELOW LEFT: Shipyard

workers on the upper

deck of the Turkish iron

cased frigate SultanMahmood. Royal Navy

orders made Thames Iron

Works an attractive

proposition for foreign

navies seeking first class

ironclad tonnage.

BELOW RIGHT: The

management in their

Sunday best, with the bow

of another great warship –

the aforementioned SultanMahmood – in view, and

the belching chimneys of

the foundry at Thames

Ironworks.


36

HMS WARRIOR

lower masts were lifted in by the hulk’ssheer legs, the remaining spars werehoisted in using the lower masts.

On 31 May 1861 Captain ArthurCochrane was appointed to command. Hecommissioned the ship with a crew fromWoolwich Dockyard, mostly Londoners, onAugust 1st 1861. Then Warrior moveddown the Thames to Greenhithe, wherewarships usually embarked their guns andgunpowder, and any other necessary stores.The Navy took advantage of the stop toopen their new prestige warship to thepublic. Among the visitors was Portsmouthborn novelist and newspaper man CharlesDickens, who lived at nearby Rochester. InAll the Year Round he reported ‘Yonder, afew hundred yards across the water, a black,vicious ugly customer as ever I saw. Whale-like in size, and with as terrible a row ofincisor teeth as ever closed on a Frenchfrigate!’ Dickens foresaw the impact ofmechanised military industrial powerwould change the way wars were fought:

‘Our ships are now great machines…. Meredogged bravery and reckless bulldog couragewill not do now; we shall want science andmore comprehensive schemes… The nextwar will show us that all sorts of newelements are introduced into the next fightand woe betide those who are slowest tolearn the lessons’.

These new machines needed new men. Justlike the ship in which they served Warrior’smen were a new breed. As the specialistdemands of naval service, especiallygunnery and engineering made the oldreserve of merchant seafarers less and lessrelevant to modern war, the Royal Navyintroduced Continuous Service for ratingsin 1853. Under the new regime men nowjoined the Navy for a period of ten or twentyyears, and qualified for a pension, or servicein the Coast Guard. Hitherto men had onlyjoined a ship for the duration of her commis-sion. The new ratings were better paid,more highly trained and soon became theultimate icons of Victorian working class

ABOVE LEFT: Warrior’sfirst captain, Arthur

Cochrane, third son of the

famous Lord Cochrane,

tenth Earl of Dundonald.

ABOVE RIGHT: Already a

celebrity long before she

was launched, the media

made frequent visits to

the yard to see Warrior on

the stocks at the Thames

Ironworks shipyards,

Blackwall. This

contemporary engraving

from the Illustrated LondonNews details the progress

of construction.


masculinity; tough, brawny figures; maturemen with full beards dressed in the new blueuniform. When the old Queen went to herfinal rest it would be the men of the fleetwho pulled her coffin. So popular were thesenew sailors that a sailor suit became thestandard dress of the children of the elite,and naval men were used as the emblems onbranded goods, to emphasise reliability andstrength.

Warrior finally completed for serviceonly on 24 October 1861, which gave Gloirethe prestige of being the first sea-goingiron-clad. It also gave rise to a series ofincreasingly intemperate letters from theSurveyor’s Department to the builders andsubcontractors. Walker’s state of mind hadnot improved by widespread public reportsthat Warrior would not fulfil the hopesplaced in her. Frequent design changesduring construction, and a fair degree ofAdmiralty prevarication ensured ThamesIronworks made a considerable loss on thecontract. They were awarded £50,000 tokeep the firm solvent, largely to secure the

goodwill of the industry as Anglo-Frenchrelations spiralled down towards war.

In June 1859 Lord Derby’s Tory Ministryhad been replaced by the Liberal Govern-ment of Lord Palmerston. The change ofpersonnel on the Admiralty Board threwWalker’s careful policy into confusion,replacing his carefully conceived twin trackprogramme of wooden and iron ships with aplethora of conflicting developments thatsuggested the Navy had lost confidence inthe Surveyor. The first hint of the loomingcrisis came when the second ironclad, Invin-cible, later renamed Black Prince to avoidconfusion with one of Gloire’s sisters, wasnot ordered until October. Influenced byartillery expert Sir Howard Douglas,Palmerston was in favour of regaining adecisive edge in wooden ships and onlykeeping pace with the French in ironclads.His First Lord, the Duke of Somerset, foundhimself besieged by so-called ‘experts’, mostof them ignorant amateurs, not leastPalmerston. This dramatically reducedWalker’s influence over construction policy.

37

IN SERVICE

ABOVE LEFT: Minotaurand Valiant completing in

the Victoria docks.

ABOVE RIGHT: Warriorfitting out at Greenhithe.

She has her topmasts and

her topgallants, so this

photograph is likely to

date from early

September 1861.


74

HMS WARRIOR

To control the temperature on board,largely for the benefit of visitors the gun-ports were glazed, replicating one feature ofher days as a hulk. The original ventilationsystem (see chapter 8) was restored andadapted to modern needs with electricmotors to circulate air, and when necessary,provide warmth.

PORTSMOUTHAs Warrior was intended to secure her longterm future through visitor revenue thechoice of her final location would be critical.Although many sites around the countrywere considered Portsmouth was always thefavourite. The original contract under whichthe Navy handed Warrior to the Trust hadspecified London or Portsmouth. Alreadyhome to Victory, Mary Rose and the expand-ing Royal Naval Museum, Portsmouth hadbeen Warrior’s home port for much of hercareer: as a Channel Fleet Ship Warrior hadbeen refitted at Portsmouth. She also spentmany years there with the Vernon establish-ment. With the Naval Dockyard sheddingjobs the city needed alternative employ-ment, and tourism was an obvious candidate.Under the leadership of Councillor JohnMarshall, then Mayor of the City,Portsmouth Council actively canvassed forthe ship and, once they had secured theprize, spent £1½ million building the jettyand dredging the berth.

Warrior now forms a major part of theworld’s finest naval historical collection.The slow evolution of the collection into aharmonious and cohesive unit, offering asingle point of entry, shared ticketing andother facilities took some time. WithWarrior standing at the front door, easilyvisible from the Harbour Railway stationand the Hard, the Victorian deterrent hadfinally come home.

RIGHT: Warrior’striumphant return to

Portsmouth, 16 June 1987.


75

RECONSTRUCTION


2nd HMS_Warrior_CH4_076_099.qxd:Layout 1 11/1/11 16:37 Page 99

hms warrior 1860

Documents

conway update

conway publishing

forthcoming conway titles

andrew lambertkew

updated edition

original edition

hms warrior wasone

appendix warrior specification