The Burlington weekly hawk-eye. [volume] (Burlington [Iowa]) 1860-1876, 1863-09-19
.HYH-HWAH II18aW NoTarL1afIa
What the Attack ON Charleston
Teaches.

\
among professional and dunprofessionalm men
as to the merits Of the late and present at
tack on Charleston. Admiral Du Pontwas
very widely censured for not having re-
newed his bombardment, although the
sworn evidence Of such men as DraytOn
and Worden showed that it would be inn
polite to do so, and not few have blamed
Admiral Dahlgren for the tardiness of his
krecent movements. Some of our leading
Journals have abused the Government for
building so many iroD-clads, while others
have declared the new ships to be failures.
The Tribune was the only paper which,
when the iron-clads were first introduced,
cyiticized them correctly and impartially; !;
and we have no hesitation now in defend
| ing them when their strong points are as
soiled. In an article, which called forth a
letter from Capt. Ericsson, we showed that
fhe speed of the Monitors had failed to reach
me required point, and also that their Of
fensive attributes were notso formidable as
was claimed by their advocates. These,
however, being their chief defects, it is but
right to state how much of the delay in
taking Charleston may be attributed to
their ineficiency. In the first place, they
have been proved almost impregnable to
shot and shell. The wooden navies of Eng
land and France would have been sunk by
one-fftieth part Of the missiles that have
fallen harmlesslyon their sides. In thefirst
attack, even the inconveniencies and inju-
rles sustained on board the armored ships
arose as much from the Imperfect working
of the machinery as from any other cause.
It is not generally known that in every one
of these little ships there are seven distinct
engines, all performing a different and dis
tinctI operation. The most trifiing disar-
rangelnent of any of these, engines, or the
machinery attached to them, would tempo
rarily paralyZe the craft; and when ships
are new, not only in material but in form,
it is only natural to expect accidents of this
sort. In the present attack, however, we
have not heard of any serioaS injuries to
even the machinery. During the long, con-
tinuouS siege which has witnessed an in
cessant shower of nifssileson our ships, not
a hole has been made nor bolt broken.-
This fact, taken by itself, establishes be-
yond contradiction the unprecedented val
ue of, iron-clad yessels-of-war. Where is
the wooden ship in any navy Of the world
that could stand SIX consecutive we'll -plac-
ed shots from rebel rified gun, and float?
Sir John Packington declared in the
English Parliament, before the advent of
iron clads, that modern naval battle be-
tween two first class line of-battle ships
would result in mutual annihiiation--the
projectiles and guns being too formidable
to cope with any wooden hull. Yet Sum-
| ter and Wagner and Morris Island have
poured perfect hail of l50-pounders on
| the bulwarks of these little craft without
seriously disabling one of them. Iron
| clad vesselsNere conceived to resist pro-
jectiles, and tits yet 10 be proved that they
| cannot pass any fort or fortress in the
world uninjured, provided that harbor OBJ
| structiOns, which have nothing to do with
| the armor on their sides, are removed
| their power to infiict damage being, OF
| course, secondary consideration. Con-
deming iron clads, therefore, because their
tf>
be, would be ike condemning the hull Of a
magnificent ship because her engines were
| bad. If blame is due to nybody, let it
| fall in the right gnarter. The artillerists
must bear the brunt Of these failures, and
not the iron clad builders. II we cannot,
firing from sunrise till sunset, batter Sum-
| ter or Wagner to atoms, that is the fault of
our guns, not of our ships; and the sooner
the fact is perfectly understood the better.
| To get an idea of the amount Of metal
wasted through deficient artillery in these
attacks on Charleston, it is only necessary
to call into requisition few figures.
/ The armament of the New 1rOnsides is
sixteen 11-inch guns apd two 2O0-pOund
rif1ed Parrott guns. All of the monitor
class have each a 1l-inch and a l5-inch gun
| in each turret. The l1-inch guns throw a
| solid shot weighing $50 pounds, and the l5-
inch guns solid shot weighing 476 pounds.
! The total weight of metal which can be
| thrown at single discharge sums up:
Twenty-Five 11-inch guns 1900 lbs.
Seven 15-inch guns o.. 1882 ms.
Two 2O0-pounds 7a 400 lbs.
| Total GA guns} S,232 lbs.
! Bat as the New Ironsides will be able to
use but one broadside at time in an at
tack upon Sumter, one-half of her broad
side guns should be deducted, ,440 pounds
which would give total weight of ,79s
pounds of metal which can be hurled alta
given moment upon the Rebel works !!
| GnnC of 60 larra cal ihar cannot be fired