Author: Ed Wijbrands

Built in 1864-1866 at the Laird Brothers shipyard in Birkenhead, England, and launched on Oct. 7, 1865, the Huáscar was an advanced ramship specially designed for export to Perú. She was one of many built armored ships of her generation to actually participate in warfare at sea. Time and again, the ship proved itself as a sturdy and well-protected warship against enemy fire .

Technical details:

The Huáscar’s armament included a revolving gun turret with two Armstrong cannons. The turret was placed in the center of the ship between the bridge and foremast in an armored (4.5 cm) position in an enclosed “quarterdeck” extending from the bridge to the bow. The heavily armored turret was a “Coles model” and much in use on similar English warships, In the turret were two Armstrong 10″ 300-pdr , specially designed cannons for the Angel Navy. This arrangement was a successful design by “Captain Cowper Coles,” an officer in the Royal Navy.

The ship was built with a hinged sideboard structure that could be folded down to fire the cannons, a standard construction in the 1960s. The field of fire was quite obstructed by the foremast and its stays when firing over the bow. Consequently, in a later modification of the ship, the foremast and its stays were removed.

The “Huáscar” was equipped with an impressive ram stern which had already proven itself in a number of confrontations with enemy ships. Directly behind the tower was an armored hexagonal bridge that was in use as a command center during the battle. This small bridge was the forerunner of the increasingly well-equipped command bridges on later warships.

Below deck, in the boiler room, the ship was equipped with four coal-fired boilers, which provided steam for a “Penn Trunk” engine that drove a single propeller. At her top speed of 12 knots, the Huáscar’s could compete with the “world class” armored ships of her time.

Salpeter War:

The Saltpetre War or Pacific War or War of the Pacific was a war between Chile on the one hand and Peru and Bolivia on the other that raged from 1879 to 1884.
Important to Bolivia was the stretch of land, then called the “Litoral” province, that bordered the Pacific Ocean. After the war, both countries (Bolivia and Peru) lost the mineral-rich area to the Chileans. This war is called the Saltpetre War because it included fighting for the rights to extract salt and copper in the coastal area. The Chilean navy eventually decided the battle. The export of saltpetre remained Chile ‘s main source of income until World War I. not unimportant Saltpetre from Chile was known to be the very best (purity). Moreover, the main component of Gunpowder.

Peru first tried to negotiate to stop the conflict , Chile, familiar with the defense pact between Peru and Bolivia declared war on both countries on April 5, 1879. Chile’s goal was to control the saltpetre mining areas of Peru and Bolivia. From the beginning of the conflict, all parties involved knew , that control at sea was the key to success in the ensuing war. Only those countries with complete control over; especially coastal waters were assured of a necessary supply -,removal of troops and supplies to strategic coastal locations. During the first year of the war, Chile’s strategy was primarily to destroy the Peruvian naval fleet.

In turn, the Peruvian, ramship “Huáscar” carried out several attacks on Chilean naval ships, ports and intercepted several ships bringing supplies from out of Chilean ports. These attacks were so successful that for five months the “Huáscar” managed to prevent Chile from setting foot in Bolivia and Peru. Every attempt to land troops failed because the “Huáscar” managed to control the entire Chilean navy offshore. Several actions were carried out by the Chilean Navy to sink the “Huáscar,” but all without success.

The naval battle at Iquique was an encounter between a Chilean wooden corvette (Esmeralda) under the command of “Arturo Prat” and the Peruvian ramship (Huáscar) under the command of “Miguel Grau Seminario. On May 21, 1879, the “Huáscar,” after a four-hour battle, sank the “Esmeralda,” after repeatedly ramming this ship with which the naval battle was settled in favor of Peru and Bolivia. After the sinking of the “Esmeralda,” survivors were rescued from the sea including Arturo Prat, commander of the corvette “Esmeralda,” however, he died shortly thereafter on deck of the “Huáscar.” Following this, the pursuit of the fleeing Chilean naval vessel “Covadonga” was initiated.

For the next 137 days, the “Huáscar” remained under the command of Admiral Miguel Grau Seminario, not only to avoid a confrontation with the powerful enemy fleet but also to make the coast unsafe for Chilean transport ships. In this role, her greatest achievement was the raising of the Chilean freighter “Rimac “with 260 men of cavalry regiment “Carabineers of Yungay” on board.

The “Huascar” was the “sailing wall” of Peru. Determined to disrupt the logistical supply lines necessary for the invasion of Perú. The Chileans took every opportunity to eliminate the Huáscar. Nearly six months after the naval battle of Iquique, the Chilean Navy set a trap to eliminate the “Huascar” for good.

Six Chilean ships including the “Blanco Encalada” and the “Cochrane” (so-called “casemate battleships”) had been ordered to sink or rather capture the Peruvian ramship. An ambush was laid, carefully planned by splitting the fleet into two squadrons. One close to the Bolivian coast and the other at a distance waiting for instructions. On Oct. 8, 1879, the first part of the fleet stopped near “Punta Angamos” (Bolivia). The “Huáscar” and the corvette “Unión” caught sight of the enemy fleet led by the “Cochrane”. After giving the “Unión” orders to divert to a safe harbor nearby, Admiral Grau prepared his ship for the impending battle.

The “Huascar” opened fire on the “Cochrane” first. The latter did not answer the fire but tried to get closer until she was within firing distance of 2,200 meters, at which point her guns could fire. 15 minutes later, the “Cochrane” was able to fire her artillery at the armored “Huascar.” One of the Chilean shells pierced the gun turret of the “Huascar” and wounded 12 crew members operating the 300-pound guns. Another shot damaged the plating just above the waterline and, in addition, the port side chain used to operate the rudder. This made the ship poorly steerable with a strong “drift” to starboard. In addition, she was hampered by a large damage in the skin caused by ramming the “Esmeralda” during the battle of Iquique five months earlier. Barely ten minutes later, an emergency rudder had been installed by the crew of the “Huascar.”

The “Huascar” was the “sailing wall” of Peru. Determined to disrupt the logistical supply lines necessary for the invasion of Perú. The Chileans took every opportunity to eliminate the Huáscar. Nearly six months after the naval battle of Iquique, the Chilean Navy set a trap to eliminate the “Huascar” for good.

Six Chilean ships including the “Blanco Encalada” and the “Cochrane” (so-called “casemate battleships”) had been ordered to sink or rather capture the Peruvian ramship. An ambush was laid, carefully planned by splitting the fleet into two squadrons. One close to the Bolivian coast and the other at a distance waiting for instructions. On Oct. 8, 1879, the first part of the fleet stopped near “Punta Angamos” (Bolivia). The “Huáscar” and the corvette “Unión” caught sight of the enemy fleet led by the “Cochrane”. After giving the “Unión” orders to divert to a safe harbor nearby, Admiral Grau prepared his ship for the impending battle.

The “Huascar” opened fire on the “Cochrane” first. The latter did not answer the fire but tried to get closer until she was within firing distance of 2,200 meters, at which point her guns could fire. 15 minutes later, the “Cochrane” was able to fire her artillery at the armored “Huascar.” One of the Chilean shells pierced the gun turret of the “Huascar” and wounded 12 crew members operating the 300-pound guns. Another shot damaged the plating just above the waterline and, in addition, the port side chain used to operate the rudder. This made the ship poorly steerable with a strong “drift” to starboard. In addition, she was hampered by a large damage in the skin caused by ramming the “Esmeralda” during the battle of Iquique five months earlier. Barely ten minutes later, an emergency rudder had been installed by the crew of the “Huascar.”

With the “Blanco Encalada “and the “Covadonga” close by, the attack could be further intensified, a shot from the “Blanco Encalada” pierced the gun tower of the “Huascar” and killed almost all the gun crew and also damaged the starboard gun. Another shot from the “Cochrane,” flew through the officers’ quarters and also damaged the emergency rudder arrangement that had already been repaired twice. The “Huascar” could now only sail in a large circle over starboard. After the rudder was somewhat repaired, Commander Aguirre of the “Huascar” still attempted to ram the “Cochrane.” The “Cochrane” tried to get into position in such a way that she could in turn ram the “Huascar” as well, but the Peruvian ramship again plagued by rudder failure, was able to swerve slightly to port putting it in a better ram position. The “Cochrane” was able to swerve just in time using the extra thrust of her twin propellers, and both ships passed each other rakishly. Another shell pierced the gun tower of the “Huascar” again 12 minutes later, killing the remaining gun crew including Commander Aguirre. Command of the ship was assumed by Lt. Pedro Gárezon, who, in consultation with the remaining officers, decided to sink the ship rather than have it boarded by the enemy. Orders were given to evacuate all wounded from the engine room and to open the main condenser valve to prevent the ship from being brought up as spoils of war.

The Chilean warships saw that the “Huascar” was losing speed and the crew was planning to abandon ship. Almost two hours after the fight broke out, 14 to 20 Chilean sailors were able to climb aboard the “Huascar” without encountering any resistance because the guns were out of action and the armory completely destroyed by a Chilean shell strike.
The remaining Peruvian crew ran out of strength and resources to withstand the Chilean attack. They surrendered and closed the main condenser valve (there was already 1.2 meters of water in the engine room) The various fires on board were extinguished and the “Huascar” was brought up as war booty by the Chilean Navy.

The Huáscar na Angamos:

The seizure of the Huáscar was immediately the end of the Salpeter War. The “Huáscar” was added to the Chilean Navy after repairs. Near Arica, she fought another duel at sea with the Peruvian monitor “Manco Cápac” (former USS Oneota) during the bombardment of the city in which her commander Manuel Thomson was killed. The ship was also still involved in the blockade of Callao without damage but also without any significant impact.

Today, the armored ramship “Huascar” is again painted in the colors that were common during the times of “Queen Victoria of England. The ship has been restored to the situation on board when the ship was withdrawn from service with the Chilean Navy in 1897. Her existing appearance is quite different from the warships built in English shipyards in 1865 and the “Huascar” that went into action during the Battle of Angamos. Moreover, this Chilean “Huascar” is certainly not the authentic “Huascar” she once was. She is now a floating museum in the port city of Talcahuano, Chile.

The advantage of iron ship construction for merchant shipping was that it had little space and
weight requirement. This gave the opportunity to carry more cargo. Also, thanks to the
light ship construction carry more armament and carry more fuel, making the
ships obtained a greater radius of action.
The Navy introduced steam propulsion for ocean shipping during the period from 1830 to 1865
and performed pioneering work in this introduction of steam navigation.
When steam propulsion was introduced, the Navy led the way, but it certainly wasn’t
at the other innovation, the use of iron to build ships. For a long time, the Navy from
operational considerations an aversion to the use of warships with an iron in
Instead of a wooden hull. Until the second half of the nineteenth century, the
State Shipyards, where most ships for the Navy were built, primarily wood
apply. Private shipbuilding did include initiatives to build
iron ships. As early as the period from 1830 to 1850, private shipbuilders in
Netherlands that they could build iron steamships for seafaring. Yet these
initiatives did not lead to a breakthrough. Traditional shipbuilders continued well into the
second half of the last century essentially build wooden sailing ships, despite the aforementioned
advantages of iron construction.

The technique (iron and rivets)

After 1780, when the “puddle process” was invented, the cheap production of wrought iron
possible. This made it possible to use iron for shipbuilding instead of wood. A
important advantage of wrought iron was that the bandages could be forged and bent into any shape
were and that one was no longer dependent on what nature provided. Certain species
Indeed, wood was becoming increasingly scarce, so that shipbuilders, who relied entirely on wooden
constructions were in place, have reluctantly had to accept that wooden parts were made by
iron were replaced.

Iron further had the following advantages. The iron bandages and plating took less
space and weight than wooden structures and offered more cargo space. By the
ability to make stronger structures with iron, the construction of larger ships was possible.
Furthermore, iron was cheaper, incombustible and, under favorable conditions, more durable. But there
in return, iron could not be “copperized,” like wood, to prevent fouling.
Other disadvantages were that the iron adversely affected the operation of the compass and that
an iron ship sustained more damage in collisions, groundings and enemy shelling.
The first use of iron structures involved inland navigation. One of the first builders of
iron steamers was John Laird at Birkenhead. In 1833, he built the iron paddle steamer
Lady Landsdown. However suitable iron craft on the rivers and canals proved to be, for the sea
considered an iron ship too dangerous to “risk the life of the sailor and the merchant’s goods. It was believed that the sea water would cause the skin to rust completely
cause it to decay and would destroy the hull. The compass would be disturbed by the iron and the
ship would drift, lack stability and listen badly to the rudder. The first iron ships
had to navigate along the coast as a result of that compass deviation (deviation) and it took until
1855 before reliable compass correction for merchant ships was available.

Thanks in part to this compass correction, the benefits of iron began to weigh more heavily over time
outweigh the disadvantages and switched to building entirely of iron constructed
seagoing vessels. Construction initially consisted of “translating” wooden structures into those
of iron. Iron trusses, for example, were built in sections just like wooden trusses. This
translation can also be clearly seen in the evolution of the construction of the keel, which is based on the
attached illustration is explained. Slowly but surely, people began to use
of the specific properties of iron and went on to construct entirely on this material
apply. As early as 1845, the case in favor of iron ships seemed decided after the construction of the Great
Britain, designed by I.K. Brunel and built by John Scott Russell. What possibilities a
iron structure Brunel then showed with his design of the giant ship Great
Eastern. The launching in 1858 of the Great Eastern, which had both propeller and
paddle propulsion was provided, however, became a debâcle. The construction of the large ship worked more
deterrent than encouraging the construction of iron steamships. To deal with iron
be able to construct, required craftsmanship that was new to shipbuilding and that only
was present among iron smiths and boiler makers. One difference from timber construction was that the iron
had to undergo other pretreatments and that different tools were needed, There had to be
are heated, hammered, rolled, punched, cut and violence. As long as it involves the construction of a
single iron ship went these operations took place by hand power. But for building
of several iron ships in succession, the work was more routine and were
both machine tools and new techniques for the pre-processing of profile and
sheet material required.

‘Translation’ from wooden to iron keel. Initially, they forged iron plates in the shape of a wooden keel. The shape depended on the method of attachment to the skin plates as shown in the first two figures. To increase strength, they then made the keel solid by adding shims. In wooden ships, a beam called zaathout ran across the bottom trusses parallel to the keel. In the evolution of the iron keel, this zaathout played a role. This was because, for strength reasons, they made the iron keel narrower and raised it so high that it took the place of the wooden zaathout. In iron shipbuilding, this part of the ship’s structure is no longer called the keel but mid-sawn wood.

The various iron parts were connected with rivets. Initially, it was
riveting work in shipbuilding performed by boiler makers. The handiwork of the boiler makers was
too expensive for this work, however, and bricks appeared in the yards, which in time replaced the wooden
shipmakers were going to be displaced. Clinkers were the ones who joined the loose iron plates together
had to attach in such a way that no more water could get between the seams of the aan
riveted together plates could come through. With the riveting work, the work to create a
watertight connection to be established yet. After riveting, the seams had to be
of the chiseled plates joined together are sealed by the edges of the upper
plate with a special chisel against the lower plate. This operation had an equal
function as the waterproof caulking or caulking of the skin of a wooden ship. The English
designation for caulking is “to caulk,” a term the British also use for waterproofing
making the seams of iron and steel plates. The Dutch name for this operation is
derived from the English and is “cooking. The special chisel was called cooking chisel. This naming
points to the English influence on iron shipbuilding in the Netherlands.

There were attempts in the nineteenth century to rivet and cook and other handicrafts.
mechanize. This did involve working with steam hammers and hydraulic hammers. But these machines
were difficult to move and were only used in the shipbuilding shed, the workshop where the
pretreatments took place, applied. For riveting work on ships in the pipeline,
which often required working in hard-to-reach places, handiwork continued into the
twentieth century maintained. Iron construction also required a different method of transportation. The
tools for moving wooden structural components were not adequate for
transporting the iron material.

Developments within the Dutch navy.

The fact that the Dutch shipbuilding industry before 1870 did not involve the construction of iron
naval vessels was involved had two causes. In. first, the Navy built the most
ships in Empire’s own yards. Second, until 1865, the Navy had no need for
iron sea ships. This was not conservatism, but a deliberate choice. The policy on the use of iron was similar to that of the British Navy. The Dutch
Navy was therefore not far behind England in terms of building iron ships, for even
the British Admiralty continued to build wooden ships until the 1960s. The British had earlier
had a number of iron warships and supply ships built by private shipyards,
including the HMS Ruby. By 1846, however, shooting tests on HMS Ruby had shown that the
iron skin shattered by the impact of bullets and shells. The projectiles had large
caused devastation in the interior of the ship. After this, the British Navy stopped for the time being
with the construction of iron warships. It was not until 1860 that the Admiralty took the armored ship
Warrior the construction of iron ships again. In 1863, Dutch naval engineers visited
British Empire yards to investigate the state of armoring of warships, and then they saw that even in the yards of the British Admiralty, except at Chatham, no iron ships were yet being built. The debate between proponents of iron and wooden ships was undecided. The Netherlands did have iron ships in the pipeline before 1860, and a dry dock was built for the government in 1864, but it was commissioned by the Minister of Colonies, not the Navy. The Navy did not begin to play a significant role in the introduction of ironclad ship building in the Netherlands until the armored age. This era
began about 1860, following foreign events in the maritime field.
Gradually, the Navy then moved to using iron as a structural material in the
shipbuilding.

In connection with developments in iron armored ships, the minister of
Navy a number of engineers and officers visited England to learn about
the armor technology. He then proposed to the House of Representatives the new construction of wooden ships
cease.

At the Rijkswerf in Amsterdam, the first iron armored ships were built in the Netherlands.
Shortly after 1860, British private shipyards, notably Napier at Glasgow and Laird at
Liverpool, began designing and building small iron armored ships for
foreign account. The Secretary of the Navy himself went to see some built iron
armored ships view, after which negotiations began with Laird for the delivery of
a new armored ship.

In February 1865, a contract was signed with Laird for the delivery of the first armored ship
for the Dutch Navy, the ramship Prince Hendrik of the Netherlands. It was an iron
armored propeller steamship with an armament of 4 guns mounted in two rotating
armored towers were set up. Furthermore, the ship was equipped with a ram stern and two
screwing.

The naval engineer Bruno Joannes Tideman had drawn attention as early as 1862 to the need for
acquire armored frigates for ocean duties. Armored ships, according to him, were
needed to protect merchant shipping on connections to the West and East Indies. The
armored ships had to be built in the Netherlands, according to Tideman, as well as the necessary
armaments and infrastructural facilities such as docks, cranes and railroad equipment. In short,
The Netherlands should seize its opportunity to create a heavy industry, which would provide the
could compete with foreign countries.

Bruno Joannes Tideman: Shipbuilding engineer; founder of modern shipbuilding in the Netherlands and
of the Kon. Mij ‘De Schelde’ te Vlissingen. Became an engineer cadet for the East Indies at the Breda Military Academy in 1851. Studied shipbuilding from 1853-1857. Became adspirant engineer at the Vlissingen State Shipyard in 1857 and there successively appointed engineer 2nd class, first attending engineer and chief engineer. Published Treatises on Shipbuilding in 1859; Dictionary of Shipbuilding in 1861. From 1865-1867 he was in charge of supervising the construction of the armored ship “Prince Henry of the Netherlands” at Birkenhead.

Tideman must have exerted great influence on the minister’s opinion formation. The
concept of the ramship Prince Hendrik of the Netherlands, which had already been created, before the
commission to revise coastal defense took office, did not deviate much in terms of intent
Of Tideman’s ideas.

Tideman had great faith in the capacity of shipbuilding in the Netherlands, which not only had the
iron armored ships for the Navy, but also modern iron merchant ships should be
deliver. In 1865 he applied for a concession to establish a modern
shipbuilding company on the grounds of the former State Shipyard at Flushing. The location was convenient
through the deep waters. He wanted to establish a large industry there for building steamships
for Navy and merchant marine, railroad equipment and all other heavy equipment that the Netherlands has in
would need in the coming decades. The Secretary of the Navy supported the application, but Paul
of Flushing protested and the Interior Minister therefore opposed approval.
He saw an advantage over pre-existing industries. This argument prevented the
establishment of a state-subsidized modern shipbuilding company. Tideman went to
England to supervise construction of the Prince Henry of the Netherlands at Laird. He
left in April 1865 and stayed there until February 1867. He also spent his time studying
of the state of the art in England and Scotland in the field of marine and
mechanical engineering. He wrote treatises and books on the subject. Also, his brother Bruno Willem
Tideman, who had previously supervised the manufacture of armor plates, wrote a book
On the construction of iron ships. In this way, knowledge was transferred regarding the
design and construction of ships, which was important not only for naval shipbuilding,
but also for merchant shipping. In April 1867, the House of Representatives gave approval for the implementation
of fleet renewal with iron armored ships as by the committee to revise the
coastal defenses had been recommended. The Navy placed orders with private shipyards in England
and France. It was planned that those first ships would be at the Rijkswerf in Amsterdam
be recreated, and the minister accordingly sent engineers to England and France to
overseeing construction while looking off the trade. The first ships to arrive in
Netherlands were built were the ram monitors Cerberus and Bloodhound. Before that, the
drawings of the Heiligerlee and Crocodile supplied by Laird used. The NSBM provided the
complete machinery installations for these two ships. The third ship to visit the State Yard at
Amsterdam built was the ramship Guinea, made to the modified design of the
Buffalo that was under construction at Napier. This ship received an engine from the Royal Factory of
Steam and Other Tools. The Cerberus was completed in January 1869, making it the first in
Netherlands-built iron armored ship.

An impression of the quality of Dutch-built armored ships compared to the
products supplied by England can be obtained by ordering ships in England to
compare with the ships that were subsequently (re)built in the Netherlands. The speed of the in
Amsterdam-built Guinea on the sea trial was 9.5 knots at a power of 2460 ipk
(Indicator ground forces). The nearly identical Napier-built Buffalo was used during the
trial run achieved a speed of 12.7 knots at an indicative power of 2168 iphp. The large
speed difference cannot be explained from the difference in draft or water depth. Also, the in
Amsterdam-built monitors during the trial voyages underperformed the ones from England
originating ships. It is not known what caused those differences. Only from the
Bloodhound was known to be “dirty,” that is, the ship’s skin had grown on.
Because the first ships built in Holland were virtually replicas of those built in England
built ships, the difference in speed could not be due to a difference in size or shape
of the hull. Rather, the difference indicates a lower efficiency of Dutch machinery installations compared to those of British-built ships. Probably the mechanical and thermal losses were relatively large in the NSBM and Royal Factory’s
delivered machines, because the power in the steam cylinder was large enough on its own.

from Glasgow to ‘Den Nieuwen Diep’ (Den Helder)

What preceded the construction of the Buffalo

The armored ships were used for action offshore and for guarding river mouths and harbor entrances, the ships were equipped, with an underwater, forward-projecting reinforced ram stern designed to ram an enemy ship below the waterline and thus inflict damage. Ships for operations on the high seas were called ramtower ships. These were armored ships with rotating gun turrets and a ram stern.

On June 10, 1867, “the Buffalo” was launched at Napiers & Sons and launched on March 10, 1868. On July 4, 1868, the technical sea trial took place in which the ship managed a maximum speed of 12.82 knots.

On July 23, 1868, the ship was officially transferred to the “Royal Dutch Navy” as a ramtor ship of the second class and placed under the command of Lieutenant at Sea (Kltz.) J.A.H.Hugenholtz (1825 – 1874), who brought the ship under bad weather conditions from Glasgow to Den Helder, where it entered the naval port of Den Helder the (Nieuwen Diep) on August 8, 1868. The ship attracted many interested parties who came from far and wide to witness this “marvel of engineering” with their own eyes. This made the “Buffalo” the first fully steam-powered unit within the Dutch navy.

Commander of Zr Ms. Buffalo is, Captain Lieutenant at Sea 2nd Class, … J.A.H. Hugenholz. He is assisted by his 1st officer Rosenwald, 2nd officers Weijmans and van der Heijde and the 3rd officer Jhr van de Wijck. A capable group of naval officers with a fine record of service. The other crew members (100 in all) as there are among others are the skipper, boatswain, machinists, stokers, oilmen, gun crew, carpenters, cooks, court masters and sailors are of impeccable conduct and are considered competent to sail this magnificent ramship.
God willing, said the commander, I will bring this ship, in the name of king and fatherland safely to “Den Nieuwen Diep” where it will be incorporated into our navy. This ship will be important to protect the coast of our beloved homeland from possible attacks from the sea.

With its two powerful 2,200 IPK steam engines capable of giving the ship a maximum speed of nearly 13 nautical miles (24 Km/hr), the brand new ship will choose sea, but on this maiden voyage the ship will maintain a cruising speed of no more than 6 miles (11 Km/hr) so that ship and crew can get used to each other.
On July 23, 1868 the Buffalo leaves berth at the Napier & Sons shipyard at Govan near Glasgow, it is a bright day with a light breeze from the south-west.

The ship steamed 13.5 miles west to Greenock roadstead to anchor. After being anchored, the “crew is called to the bow” and the commander addresses the crew.

On the occasion of the commissioning of “this soil,” he also lets out a three-word “long live the king. He also orders the court masters to provide the equipage, with an additional “earlam to the bell.” Officer corps and the lower crew members exude a feeling, of pride to be part of this home sailing with such a magnificent ship as Zr Ms. Buffalo commanded by such a respected officer.

The Buffalo will remain at Greenock Roadstead until August 3 to bunker coal and have final work done on the ship, scrubbing decks and getting the entire ship ready for sea. The officers and crew seem to discharge their duties diligently but for a few, the discipline on board is not yet entirely clear. Discipline should be enforced with a stern hand! On July 31, provost and quartermaster receive a month’s arrest, one for not properly performing his duty, the other for leaving his sloop ashore.
On the early morning of Aug. 3, the morning mist lay like a wet blanket over the water, a pale sun slowly trying to rise from the water. Loud orders sound which drift away across the water and the ship seems to slowly awaken from a solid sleep.
After a “general cleanliness inspection,” the ship is put under steam and at 06:15 the order is given to raise anchor. The chimney vomits black smoke, the ship trembles slightly, and slowly sets itself in motion, the crew can clearly hear the clacking sounds of the propeller blades beating away the water, ……the triumphant homeward journey has begun.

The commander gives final navigational instructions to the 1st officer, who walks across the bridge from starboard to port and back, closely monitoring the navigation of the ship. The ship is turned on the strong ebb current which in turn will certainly help the ship reach open sea quickly. Meanwhile, the National flag, the geus and the pennant are hoisted, the anchors and the gig are lashed seaworthy on deck.

Patches of fog linger above the surface of the water making navigation difficult, and at moderate speed the Buffalo steams down the Firth of Clyde.

As the coastline slowly faded, the 2nd officers compared compasses and held roll call in the battery (tower). At 07:15, the sea watch is set and the sailors continue scrubbing the deck and in the pit (pit deck), “general clean up” is done.
The commander notes the departure from the roadstead in the ship’s log……

The next morning, officers of the watch to port gauge the Isle of Man and report to the commander that the Buffalo is on course. From the Irish Sea, however, a thick fog is coming up; after ample deliberation, the commander decides to reduce speed and place two additional lookouts. Every 10 minutes the ship’s bell is rung, this is to warn ships in the vicinity. Attentive listening is done to ensure that no signals from other ships sailing nearby can be heard. Tension among the officers is rising, something that does not escape the other crew members. During the morning the fog is driven away by a watery sun, the weather situation worries the commander partly because of the drop in the weather glass (barometer) this predicts the arrival of a low pressure area moving across the ocean to these parts and may well cause bad weather.

Despite these bad omens, the commander orders the entire crew to provide an extra earlam to mark the birthday of the Queen of Sweden, Princess of the Netherlands.

On his rounds on deck, the commander smells food odors swirling out from the galley through the cuckoo on the foredeck, the cooks are making “ravenous thunders with bacon” today, the steward informed him. A hearty meal is the “best fuel” for young strong men on a warship so the commander believes, and he thinks back to his own training as an officer when he was a young man.

The engine room is taken care of by machinists, stokers and oilers. Lubrication, polishing and cleaning of 4 of the 16 fires is done, also “the ashes are wiped” (throwing ashes overboard, downwind) .

Patches of fog linger over the water for the next few days, the swell increasing sharply as the Buffalo passed ‘St Davids Head’ over port. The wind also seems to be picking up from the south-west, the ship seems to be rolling more and more, sticking her artfully decorated bow deeper and deeper into the waves. The tower crew reports that at this angle of heel, of 10 to 11 degrees the tower has a deviation from the deck and cylinder wall of up to 23 mm, much to the concern of the commander.

After a restless night, Buffalo passed Lands End and the Scilly Isles over port, the wind continuing to strengthen to a force 6 to 7 Bft. and shrinks to the northwest.
The Buffalo is now also getting solid water on deck and it is seen that a lot of water is flowing into the pit, through the cuckoos and the tower wall. The commander has the water level at the bottom of the ship gauged every hour to see if the bilge pumps can keep ahead of the water flowing in. This fortunately appears to be the case and orders are given to reduce the speed of the screws to 50 turns. Some of the crew felt “catty” and a few also became quite seasick on the swaying and pounding ship. Here, however, the officers on duty have little compassion. “An iron ship calls for iron men” is their opinion.

In the early morning of Aug. 7, the lookout, sees the coast of France looming on the horizon. The 1st officer gives the order to put the chains on the anchors and the Buffalo sails towards the pilot boat to take the North Sea pilot aboard.
It is still “a lumpy sea” but the ship is now taking on much less water which has significantly reduced the leakage.

Commander Hugenholz notes in the ship’s log, that adjustments must be made to the ship to reduce this leakage.
Commander and crew were delighted to catch sight of the Kijkduin lighthouse on Saturday afternoon, Aug. 8, knowing that within hours they would approach Den Nieuwen diep. The anchors are hung in place outboard, the commander addresses the equipage off the bow and gives the crew an extra earlam.

As the Buffalo enters the Schulpengat, a large crowd of interested people can be seen from afar standing to welcome the ship. After the Buffalo is moored in Den Nieuwe diep, the commander may be the first to welcome aboard the Minister of the Navy and the Sheriff at Night of the Dutch Navy. He reports a safe voyage reports that ship and machinery have functioned satisfactorily but leaks from deck are a problem. A crowd of interested people crowded onto the quay to witness this marvel of technology, and cries of admiration met ship and crew.

Commander Hugenholz concludes the ship’s journal with; “at the round all well” and notes the given water levels in the ship at the bilge pumps.
On Sunday, another parade will be held in honor of the arrival of Sr Ms. Buffalo, and then the crew will be given the opportunity to “go to church,” shore leave and enjoy Sunday rest.

After 10 days of coal bunkering, foraging, scrubbing and painting, the Buffalo seeks open sea again, toward the Irish Channel. However, this will be a tough trip with strong winds, gale force winds, thick air and rain with the ship being put to quite a test and taking on a lot of water. After some arduous days, the ship steamed up the Mersey toward Birkenhead for final adjustments to this particular ship and installation of the two 23 cm Armstrong guns (front loaders).

Until the “General abolition of corporal punishment” in 1879, handdagging was still in vogue. Corporal punishment was somewhat more humane than its implementation in the 17th century, though. There was no more blood involved. The punished person was handcuffed to the rigging, standing upright with his hands up. The loins were protected by a tightly stretched piece of cloth, with which the body was strapped against a mattress. The number of strokes of the punishment drill, which (at least after Official Gazette No. 96 of 1854) no longer exceeded fifty, was generally administered by two quartermasters, with the entire crew standing by.

Classian

A klassian was someone placed in the punishment class. This was not a special naval aviation measure. But in the navy, the classics were more conspicuous, because they were not sent to Flushing (later to Hoorn, but since the First World War abolished) as in the army, but served their punishment time on board. Before 1907, Marines also went to Flushing as classmates (with minimum punishment time of 7 months). In 1907, when Marines joined the ship’s service, even when posted ashore, the application of this penalty for Marines was made equal to that of sailors.

The seaman (usually this was limited to the sailor third, at most an occasional second class, who was somewhat disciplinarian and needed to be brought into line), who was placed in the punishment class of one to three months, lived and worked in isolation from the rest of the mates. He was dressed in a sailcloth work suit and from his hat the ribbon was removed. The dirtiest and dirtiest jobs were assigned to him, especially keeping the galleons clean; why he was also called “galleon captain.” During the time he was working, he was under the constant supervision of a sentry, and as soon as the work was finished, he was taken into the provost, which, during the time that the rest of the sailors had free time or were eating, remained open, but always with a sentry present. At night, the provost locked up. Freedom of movement the classian did not have and smoking was forbidden to him. This disciplinary measure was not often used in the Navy. Yet even now a commander can place a shipmate in the disciplinary class for some offense. There is of the klassian a moving song à la Speenhoff or Quérido: “Dear mother, will not weep, for your son is klassian” . . . . . .

Provost-violent(e)

The last of the provost-at-arms (officially called sergeant-provost) resigned in 1906 for long service. This abolished a function that for centuries waved the rod of justice over the shipmates on board, and whose executor supervised in the lower ship. The latter is still done today [1945] by the provost, but it is no longer a separate “profession.” A boatswain or quartermaster, and for the stoker’s quarters usually a corporal, is entrusted with the service of provost and is charged with the duty, with the seamen and any attached men, of keeping the quarters tidy and supervising them under “supreme supervision” of the officer in charge of the service of the lower ship.

The provost as a cell is still [1945] virtually on every ship today. Today, the provost’s sentence is called “severe arrest.” The use of the provost sentence was strongly opposed for many years. Although the “handing out” of provost sentences has been greatly reduced, it seems that this disciplinary tool cannot be entirely missed. The provost cell is also called squeeze, or Bouwman, in the walk. Squeeze to squeeze. Therefore, the unruly and troublesome boatman is also threatened with: “will row him into the squeeze”. Bouwman was for a series of years the serg. major of marines, who served as a jailer at the provost house in Den Helder. When the ships are inside, the provost’s sentence is not served on board, but ashore. People then said on board “He has so many days Bouwman.” From the moment, the provost-arrestee is informed of the punishment, he is under the supervision of a sentry, his bonnet ribbon is removed from his hat, his silk tie, belt and knife with scabbard and all his private belongings in coat or trouser pockets are temporarily “placed in insured custody.” Between two armed Marines and a non-commissioned officer (also a corporal) of the Marines, the provost~arrestee is then taken to the provost house on shore. It is mainly because of this method, which was and is felt to be degrading by the sailors, that people acted so strongly against the provost’s punishment.

Abolition

It was not until 1854 that the most brutal punishments, at least in the Netherlands, were imposed by King William III in consultation with the Council of State and at the suggestion of the Reorganization Commission under
presidency of Lieutenant Admiral Prince Henry (William Frederick Henry) abolished and defined in 10 articles:

Art. 1. The penalties of keeling and falling off the yard are abolished.
Art. 2. The punishment of keelhauling with attendant penalties are replaced by wheelbarrow punishment. Falling from the ra with additional punishments are replaced: for the deck and non-commissioned officers by the punishments established in art. 39 and 40 of the Criminal Code for the men-of-war on water; for lesser seamen by boots. For both, the punishment imposed may be accompanied by dententie, as defined in Article 46 of the same Code.
Art. 3. The barrow punishment consists in placing the convicted in a military penal prison for the time of three to fifteen years, in order to be there, then the existing convictions for convicts of the land army, to be designed to work. Wheelbarrow punishment is always preceded by demotion, as referred to in Article 41 lit. a of the Code for deck and non-commissioned officers, and by expulsion from military rank for junior officers.
Art. 4. The end rope, which is henceforth used to the boots, is unthreaded, three-stranded, loosened and not exceeding the thickness of 15 thread on strand for convicts over 16 years. For convicts under 16 years of age, so called knutlets of not more than 9 ends of old twigged logline, without knots, are used.
Art. 5. The number of strokes does not exceed one hundred for those over 16 years old and sixty for those under 16 years old.
Art. 6. The blows with hand logs are inflicted with an end of white line, not heavier than 15 wire for convicts above 16 years, for convicts below 16 years the knutteltjes, described in article 4, are used. The number of strokes for the first mentioned does not exceed 50, for the latter 30.
Art. 7. The disciplinary punishments for deck officers and non-commissioned officers in art. 29 of the Rules of Martial Discipline for the Waterborne Military Personnel are replaced by the following punishments: demotion for a fixed or indefinite period of time, with or without arrest; arrest, with or without observation of duty.
Art. 8. To the punishments established in article 29 of the said regulations for lesser seamen, is added that of reduction in class for a definite or indefinite period.
Art. 9. At the sentencing and execution of booting or beating with handcuffs, of detention, arrest, confinement, putting on water and bread on board, the registers and commanders keep an eye on the places and air conditions, and all circumstances, by which the health of the prisoner can be too much harmed, and they may always order such intervals in the execution, as the state of health of the prisoner demands.
Art. 10. The Head of the Department of the Navy is granted the authority, upon recommendation of the commander of the messenger in whose roll they are enrolled, to dismiss from the service here in the country with a letter of discharge, or a specially marked passport. Order and command, that this shall be published in the Official Gazette, and that all Ministerial Departments, Authorities, Colleagues and Officers, whose business it may concern, shall enforce it.
Given at Assen, the 28th of June 1854.

Official Gazette 1854, No. 96.

Lieutenant Admiral Prince Henry, commander-in-chief of the fleet received the title of admiral in 1879 – six days before his death – on which occasion it was decided to “Completely abolish corporal punishment in the Royal Dutch Navy.”

Note: We Calvinist Dutch were a hypocritical people. Forced labor was not to be called that. It was reassuringly called “wheelbarrow punishment” (see Art. 3above). In the Navy, a light form persisted well into the 20th century. The punished were called klassian, but simply performed forced labor.

In 1867 “the Buffalo” was put on the stack and launched more than 1.5 years later on March 10, 1868, at Napier and Sons Shipyard Govan upon Clyde (Glasgow).

Govan is famous worldwide for its place in the history of modern shipbuilding that began on the River Clyde as part of the rapidly expanding industrialization around Glasgow. In the mid-19th century, railroads developed and many new techniques were introduced for mass production of iron. Local production of iron was mainly used for the construction of bridges, ships, locomotives and industrial structures.

Robert Napier and Sons had a leading position among Clyde shipbuilders and ship designers in the Glasgow area. The shipyard, founded by Robert Napier in 1826, was moved to Govan in 1841 to build larger and modern ships. In 1853, sons James and John became co-directors within the company.

All the shipbuilders and designers in the Clyde region benefited from Napier’s good reputation and progressive ship,- and machinery designs. Recognized worldwide in 1840 as the best and most innovative British shipyard around. Many new machine shops were established by former employees who had gained their knowledge at Napier.

In 1821 Napier took over the Camlachie iron foundry from his nephew David Napier and in 1824 appointed David Elder (1795-1866) as manager. This firm constructed city waterworks stationary steam engines to drive pumps. In 1823, Napier built the first steam engine designed specifically for shipping. Designer David Elder (*father of John Elder) went on to develop many specialized steam engines for a variety of purposes. In 1826 a contract was won to supply steam engines and boilers for the newly built wooden steamship “Eclipse” and four years later for a number of ships of the “Glasgow Steam Packet Company.” In 1834, they received a contract to supply steam engines and boilers for the ships to be built from the “Dundee and London Shipping Company.”

In 1836 they obtained the order to build the “Berenice,” for the “East India Company” This was the shipping company’s first steamship. The wooden hull was built under sub-contract by “John Wood and Company shipyard” also located on the Clyde. In 1840, the first contract was signed with “Her Majesty’s Government” for the construction of a steamship HMS Akbar. Followed in 1841 by the construction of HMS Vesuvius and HMS Stromboli.

In 1842, Robert Napier and Son established a new shipyard on the Clyde at Govan in order to build larger and, in the future, ironclad ships, by which time the construction of wooden hulls was already partly outsourced to shipyards specializing in them along the banks of the Clyde.

Between 1840 and 1855, Napier supplied steam engines and boilers for the entire “Cunard Line” tributary ship
powered fleet (paddle fleet), the wooden hulls were made for Napier’s by “John
Wood of Port Glasgow and Steele & Co of Greenock”.
In 1850, Napier’s started building iron river steamers after which iron steam
powered marine vessels follow. In 1852, the first steam propeller ship was delivered to the
“Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company” (P & O line).

Between 1843 and 1864, the firm built 114 ships and by 1864 had more than 3,000 employees in
service. The yard builds the first “Cunard Line” steamship after which many more will follow.
After the death of Robert Napier in 1876, the shipyard facilities and customer base are being expanded via a
auction sold. March 1877 the shipyard is purchased by a group of shipbuilders
under the direction of former manager A. C .Kirk.
They continued to build ships until 1900 until the yard was incorporated into the firm “William
Beardmore and Company”.

Robert Napier was a pioneer of modern iron shipbuilding and design on the Clyde River.
He built the first successful steam engine in 1823 and in 1830 a number of specialized
mechanical workshops in Finnieston. By 1838, Napier was the largest supplier of
steam engines and boilers for Royal Navy ships.

Many modern ironclad warships were built for foreign navies and regarded as
“state of the art” in the second half of the 19th century.

As a designer and shipbuilder, Napier was remarkably successful on the banks of the Clyde at
Govan.

In 1841, he took over an old-fashioned shipyard in Govan and modernized it to build
Of modern iron ships. From Napier’s modern slipways, many warships were
cargo ships and ocean liners launched.

The iron plates and machine parts of the ship to be built and the boilers were initially
still made by “Parkhead Forge” , but in 1848 Napier took full control of it.
One of Napier’s most famous collaborators was *John Elder, who eventually made his own
successfully set up business in Govan.