| |
A Submarine Project
under the Directory
A translation of Un projet de sous-marin sous le Directoire in
Revue d’histoire rédigée à l’État-Major
de l’Armée (Section Historique), R. Chapelot et
Cie, Paris, No. 15, March 1902, pp. 481-485
In his work Projets et tentatives de débarquement aux Iles
Britanniques,[1] capitaine Desbrière
referred to a work by lieutenant de vaisseau Émile
Duboc,[2] thereby bringing to his readers’ attention
the efforts made in 1797 and 1798 by the American Fulton to provide
France with a submarine, which he named the Nautilus.
The inventor was unable to obtain from ministre de la marine Fléville[3] or
his successor, amiral Bruix, any military commission ensuring
that his crew would be treated as belligerents, despite a very favourable
report from the Commission tasked with examining the plan.
Eventually, Fulton decided to construct his vessel without waiting
to be commissioned and on 10th April 1800 reported to ministre
de la marine Forfait that his work was practically complete. The
Nautilus was actually launched at Rouen on 30th July, when its
trials succeeded perfectly.[4]
Neither this success nor the intervention of Monge and Laplace, who
presented Fulton to the First Consul, were able to convince the latter
to grant the inventor the 60,000 francs he requested for weapons testing.
With great difficulty he did obtain 10,000 francs to this end on 30th March
1801, when he took the Nautilus to Brest and in the following
July blew out of the water an old rowing boat that had been placed
at his disposal.[5] Even
so, this result, as well as a new attempt by Monge, made no impression
on the First Consul, who turned Fulton away once and for all.
Another submarine inventor, who remains unknown, was no more fortunate
with the Directory, to whom he had submitted his plans and a memorandum
describing his vessel in 1798. Receiving no response, and learning
that experiments with a vessel of this nature had taken place at Rouen
and Brest, he went to see Moreau and on 1st January 1801 wrote
him the following letter, which was found in the Archives de la
guerre among the private papers of this general officer.
The machine I have invented, and which I have had the honour of
speaking to you about, General, is a boat constructed of copper[6] in the shape of a fish,
enclosed on all sides, in which two or three men may navigate beneath
the water, at any depth comfortable to them and in any direction,
without being exposed to the slightest danger or inconvenience. Using
very simple methods, they may move forwards or backwards, turn, rise
or decend in a vertical or oblique direction and can hold their position
at any desired moment.[7] In order to see clearly to the outside,
there are small openings on top and on the sides, hermetically sealed
with glass, through which all external objects may be seen. In order
to maintain course, there is a rudder[8] and
a compass, and in order to determine the depth beneath the surface
there is a type of barometer, which indicates, on a small scale in
the interior, the exact height of the column of water above the vessel.
The capacity of the vessel is such that the volume of air contained
will be sufficient to cater for the respiration of the three men
therein for at least two or three hours. If in the end, however,
the air should become foul and incapable of sustaining respiration,
it will need to be refreshed from time to time. To this end, the
crew of the vessel may have it rise to six or eight feet beneath
the surface, without causing it to be unncovered and, causing a pipe
from within the vessel to project above the surface, may evacuate
the foul air from the vessel through this pipe by means of a pneumatic
machine within, at the same time introducing an equal volume of fresh
air from outside. Having completed this operation, they may retrieve
their pipe and descend once more to their desired depth in order
to continue their voyage or carry out specific operations.
The applications to which this new invention may be put are as varied
as they are crucial.
1. It might first be used to explore the seabed, retrieving coral
and other substances to be found there. It might also assist in the
observation of all the sea monsters and fish that inhabit the shdowy
depths of this vast abyss, even allowing them to be sketched without
the slightest fear.
2. After a shipwreck, one could easily recover caskets of papers
or other precious objects without the need for divers, who are difficult
to find and who, besides, must always risk their lives and are unable
to spend long periods under water. To this end, it would be useful
to have one of this vessels on every large ship, as well as in every
port.
3. In time of war, one or more of these vessels might be used to
communicate with the garrison of a blockaded port, funrishing them
with medication or even supplies, without the enemy’s knowledge
and invisible to their fleets.
4. But of all these applications, the most important, the most marvellous
but admittedly the most terrible in terms of its results, is that
in which this machine might be used to destroy enemy vessels without
risking the life of a single man. By virtue of its ability to move
without being seen, it might approach an enemy fleet and attach to
the exterior of a vessel, close to the keel, a mine whose explosion
would open up the vessel and cause it to sink with no possibility
of rescue or even, should the mine be close to the powder magazine,
cause the explosion of the entire vessel.[9]
My genuine admiration for the French nation and the strongest possible
desire to see the cause of liberty and humanity triumph have inspired
me to perfect this invention and to dedicate it exclsively to your
government, at the very moment when the most serious preparations
for an invasion of England lead me to believe that such a discovery
might make a significant contribution to such an undertaking. I therefore
made haste to send to the then current Directoire exécutif a
detailed plan together with a descriptive memorandum, but without
signature and hidden in a paper roll, delivered by one of my friends
at Mainz to Commissioner Rudler, who gave him a receipt. The following
year, when Citizen Alquier took up the post of chargé d’affaires of
the French government to the Elector Palatine at Munich, I took it
upon myself to ask him about the fate of this package. As the minister
was of the opinion that my sketches and anonymous memorandum, not
having been supported by anyone in authority, had been put on one
side without receiving the attention they merited, he invited me
to recreate the documents, promising me he would pass them to the Directoire with
his personal recommendation. I therefore straight away recreated
the same drawings, taking the greatest possible care, and had the
satisfaction to deliver them to him, with a descriptive memorandum,
a few days prior to his departure from Munich. He gave me a receipt
and a very positive assurance that he would deliver them to the Directoire personally,
as soon as he arrived.
Since then I have heard nothing further on this matter, but as I
have been informed of the experiments that have been conducted at
Rouen and Brest with vessels of this type of construction, and as
I have no doubt that these machines could not have been built except
in accordance with the same designs that I passed to Minister Alquier,
which he must surely have delivered to the Directoire exécutif three
years ago, I am taking the liberty of contacting you, General; not
to claim public recognition of my rights to this invention (which
in my current situation could even prove fatal for me), but to claim
from you and the French government recognition that I was the first
to offere you this idea, with the purest of intent and with no other
object in mind than to serve a righteous cause. That is the limit
of my ambition and I shall be content that another shall be conisdered
by the world at large as the inventor of this machine. I shall be
very happy if one day it might assist your government’s plans,
particularly in facilitating an undertaking to whose execution you
are entirely dedicated, General, and which can only add to your reputation
and the recognition owed you by all supporters of liberty.
Salzburg, 1st January 1801
Notes:
[1] Chapelot, Paris, 1901.
Vol. II, p. 255 ff.
[2] Revue des Revues,
1896
[3] In the margin of a
report on this subject to the Directoire, in Fléville’s
handwriting, appears the following: “…and that the government
may not openly admit [to responsibility for] men engaged in this type
of operation. The English, ingenious regarding destructive machines,
would soon allow themselves to seek shelter under the same pretence,
which might lead, in some respects, to deleting from the codes of war
those punishments justly levied against those naturally inclined to
commit such atrocities.”
[4] The following passage
is found in the conclusions of the Commission, which were still very
favourable: “This weapon is particularly suitable for the French
since, having a much weaker navy than those of its adversaries, the
complete destruction of one or the other of them would give us significant
advantage.”
[5] “The boat was
blown into the air, broken into a thousand pieces,”
wrote préfet maritime Caffarelli in a report to the Minister. “The
[warhead} contained no more than 20 pounds of powder and was maoeuvred
by Fulton, who was at some distance in his vessel.”
[6] Fulton’s was
made of wood, 6.5 metres long and 2 metres in the beam.
[7] The inventor does not
indicate the method of propulsion. Fulton’s was a man-powered
propeller.
[8] Fulton’s submarine
had two rudders – one vertical, one horizontal.
[9] Fulton’s submarine
forced a barbed point into the enemy vessel, to which was fixed a torpedo
towed at 100 metres. In withdrawing, the Nautilus brought this into
contact with the target vessel and, once contact was made, an external
mechanism caused a battery to initiate the explosion.
Placed on the Napoleon Series: November 2008
[ Organization Index ] |
