The Ram in Action and in Accident

By William Laird Clowes, Fellow of the King's College, London.

I have heard naval officers, of all ranks from the lowest to the highest, and in this theatre as well as elsewhere, express themselves in very sanguine tones concerning the future of the ram in naval warfare. I do not by any means intend to imply that all naval officers appear to believe to the same extent in the efficacy of this weapon. But I have known many, and among them officers of great experience at sea, who by their utterances suggest that, given slight superiority of speed and good handling, one ship can, without much difficulty, be made to ram another, even when the other is under full control and has plenty of sea-room in which to manœuvre. This view of the capabilities of the ram has always, though in a loose and vague kind of way, been widely held; and I venture to think that the number of those who hold it has increased of late, and especially since last June, when the country had to lament the terrible and dramatic fate of the Victoria, and of so many of her gallant officers and men.

It would be undue presumption on my part to evolve, as it were, from my inner consciousness, any opinions and theories as to the employment of the ram, and to put them forward here, before a meeting composed almost entirely of naval officers and practical men, as views worthy of serious consideration. But, recollecting as I do that naval officers and practical men have but little leisure for the study of the past, and that, nevertheless, they all agree that the teachings of the past are of the utmost value to them, I am encouraged to lay before them a number of facts which I have assembled, and, with all deference, to indicate certain conclusions which those facts seem to force upon the mind of a very devoted,and I trust wholly unprejudiced, student of recent, as well as of ancient, naval history. I do not, in a word, ask you to listen to me, but to pay attention to the voice of events, which, though by-gone, have not ceased to be instructive.

The following is a detailed list of 74 cases of attempted ramming in what may be called modern naval warfare. I have included here all the cases, since the outbreak of the American War of Secession, on which I have been able to lay my hand. The list must not, therefore, be regarded as a list of selected examples. No doubt I have omitted some cases, but I have intentionally omitted none.

In the first column I have numbered the cases to facilitate future reference. In the second I have given the date. In the third I have specified whether the scene of the occurrence was in narrow waters (N.) where manœuvring was difficult if not impossible, or in some locality (S.) which afforded a reasonable amount of sea-room. In the fourth column is the name of the would-be rammer. In the fifth is the name of the craft which it was endeavored to ram. In the sixth column I have shown the condition of the would-be rammer after the manœuvre had been executed or had failed. By U., I mean that the ship was, so far as the operation was concerned, uninjured; by Da., that she received slight or moderate damage; by S. Da., that she received serious damage sufficient to greatly impair her immediate fighting powers; by R. A., that she missed her mark and ran ashore; and by S., that she sank in consequence of the collision. In the seventh column I have indicated whether the ship intended to be rammed was at that moment under steam (S.), at anchor (A.), or unmanageable, on account of accident either to her machinery or to her steering gear (Un.). In the eighth and last column I have noted the condition, in consequence of the attempt, of the vessel intended to be rammed; U. signifying uninjured; Da., slight or moderate damage; S. Da., serious damage; Di., disabled; and S., sunk.

1.	2. Date.	3. Nature of Locality.	4. Rammer.	5. Rammed.	6. Subsequent condition of rammer.	7. Previous condition of rammed.	8. Subsequent condition of rammed.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37	Oct. 11, 1861 Feb. 10, 1862 Mar. 8, 1862 Mar. 9, 1862 Mar. 9, 1862 Apr. 24, 1862 Apr. 24, 1862 Apr. 24, 1862 Apr. 24, 1862 Apr. 24, 1862 May 10, 1862 May 10, 1862 May 10, 1862 June 6, 1862 June 6, 1862 June 6, 1862 June 6, 1862 June 6, 1862 July 18, 1862 July 22, 1862 July 22, 1862 Jan. 1, 1863 Jan. 1, 1863 Jan. 1, 1863 Jan. 31, 1863 Feb. 24, 1863 Feb. 24, 1863 Feb. 24, 1863 Feb. 24, 1863 Feb. 24, 1863 Feb. 24, 1863 Feb. 24, 1863 Oct. 7, 1863 Nov. 9, 1863 Apr. 18, 1864 Apr. 18, 1864 Apr. 18, 1864	N. N. S. S. S. N. N. N. N. N. N. N. N. N. N. N. N. N. N. N. N. N. N. N. S. N. N. N. N. N. N. N. N. S. N. N. N.	Manassas Commodore Perry Virginia Monitor Virginia Manassas Manassas Manassas Governor Moore Stonewall Jackson General Bragg General Price General van Dorn Queen of the West Beauregard Beauregard Price Monarch Arkansas Essex Queen of the West Harriet Lane Neptune Bayou City Keystone State Queen of the West Webb Webb Queen of the West Queen of the West Queen of the West Webb Wachusett Niphon Albemarle Albemarle Albemarle	Richmond Sea Bird Cumberland Virginia Monitor Pensacola Mississippi Brooklyn Varuna Varuna Cincinnati Cincinnati Mound City Lovell Queen of the West Monarch Monarch Beauregard Carondelet Arkansas Arkansas Bayou City Harriet Lane Harriet Lane Palmetto State Indianola Indianola Indianola Indianola Indianola Indianola Indianola Florida Elle and Anne Miami Southfield Miami	S. Da. U. Da. U. Da. U. U. U. U. U. U. U. U. U. U. U. U. U. U. U. Da. Da. S. Da. Da. U. Da. U. U. U. U. U. U. Da. U. U. U.	A. A. A. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. A. A. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. A. S. S. S.	Da. S. S. U. U. U. S. Da. S. Da. S. Da. S. S. Da. S. Di. S. Di. U. U. S. U. Da. Da. Da. Da. Da. U. Da. U. Da. U. U. Da. S. Da. Da. Da. S. U.

Before summarizing the results, I will add a few notes on some of these cases.

3. — The Virginia' in this case wrenched off her ram, and so decreased her efficiency for the action of the following day.

4, 5. — The Virginia had a speed of about 5 knots only on this day. The Monitor was little faster.

15. — The Queen of the West was run ashore to avoid sinking.

20. — The Essex was very slow. The Arkansas, though fast by the stern, had cast off by the bows, and was able to swing her head round to meet the attack.

24. — The Bayou City was able to board and capture the Harriet Lane.

25. — There is some doubt as to whether the Keystone State's opponent was the Palmetto State or the Chicora. The Keystone State, on approaching, was damaged and practically turned off by shell-fire.

26. — The Indianola had a barge lashed on her port side. This was torn away and sunk.

27. — The Webb and Indianola rammed one another bows on. The former damaged the ram.

28. — The Indianola had a barge lashed on her starboard side. This was crushed and sunk.

31, 32. — These were practically simultaneous, the Queen of the West ramming on the starboard side, and the Webb astern.

33. — This occurred off Bahia in neutral waters. The Florida, struck on the starboard quarter, had her bulwarks cut down and her main and mizzen yards carried away, but was not actually disabled, although she surrendered.

34. — The Niphon, and the Ella and Anne, a blockade-runner, rammed one another bows on. The latter lost her bowsprit and stem, and was boarded and taken.

35, 36, 37. — The Miami and Southfield were lashed together, the former on the starboard side of the latter. In № 35 the Miami was struck on the port bow. In № 36 the Southfield was struck fair on the starboard bow, and tearing away, sank. In № 37 the Miami, being free, escaped.

43. — The Monongahela lost her ram.

50. — The Palestro lost her mizzen topmast and gaff with ensign.