Julian S. Corbett - Fighting Instructions, 1530 1816

J >> Julian S. Corbett >> Fighting Instructions, 1530 1816

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24

The keynote of his conception, then, was his revolutionary
substitution of the primitive Elizabethan and early seventeenth
century method for the fetish of the single line. For some time it is
true the established battle order had been blown upon from various
quarters, but no one as yet had been able to devise any system
convincing enough to dethrone it. It will be remembered that at least
as early as 1759 an Additional Instruction had provided for a battle
order in two lines, but it does not appear ever to have been
used.[5] Rodney's manoeuvre again had foreshadowed the use of parts
of the line independently for the purpose of concentration and
containing. In 1782 Clerk of Eldin had privately printed his
_Essay_, which contained suggestions for an attack from to-windward,
with the line broken up into echeloned divisions in close
resemblance to the disposition laid down in Nelson's memorandum. In
1790 this part of his work was published. Meanwhile an even more
elaborate and well-reasoned assault on the whole principle of the
single line had appeared in France. In 1787 the Vicomte de Grenier, a
French flag officer, had produced his _L'Art de la Guerre sur
Mer_, in which he boldly attacked the law laid down by De Grasse,
that so long as men-of-war carried their main armament in broadside
batteries there could never be any battle order but the single line
ahead. In Grenier's view the English had already begun to discard it,
and he insists that, in all the actions he had seen in the last two
wars, the English, knowing the weakness of the single line, had almost
always concentrated on part of it without regular order. The radical
defects of the line he points out are: that it is easily thrown into
disorder and easily broken, that it is inflexible, and too extended a
formation to be readily controlled by signals. He then proceeds to
lay down the principle on which a sound battle order should be framed,
and the fundamental objects at which it should aim[6]. His
postulates are thus stated:

'1. De rendre nulle une partie des forces de l'ennemi afin de
reunir toutes les siennes contre celles qui l'on attaque, ou qui
attaquent; et de vaincre ensuite le reste avec plus de facilite et
de certitude.

'2. De ne presenter a l'ennemi aucune partie de son armee qui
ne soit flanquee et ou il ne put combattre et vaincre s'il
vouloit se porter sur les parties de cette armee reconnues faibles
jusqu'a present.'

Never had the fundamental intention of naval tactics been stated with
so much penetration, simplicity, and completeness. The order, however,
which Grenier worked out--that of three lines of bearing disposed on
three sides of a lozenge--was somewhat fantastic and cumbrous, and it
seems to have been enough to secure for his clever treatise complete
neglect. It had even less effect on French tactics than had Nelson's
memorandum on our own. This is all the more curious, for so
thoroughly was the change that was coming over English tactics
understood in France that Villeneuve knew quite well the kind of
attack Nelson would be likely to make. In his General Instructions,
issued in anticipation of the battle, he says: 'The enemy will not
confine themselves to forming a line parallel to ours.... They will
try to envelope our rear, to break our line, and to throw upon those
of our ships that they cut off, groups of their own to surround and
crush them.' Yet he could not get away from the dictum of De Grasse,
and was able to think of no better way of meeting such an attack than
awaiting it 'in a single line of battle well closed up.'

In England things were little better. In spite of the fact that at
Camperdown Duncan had actually found a sudden advantage by attacking
in two divisions, no one had been found equal to the task of working
out a tactical system to meet the inarticulate demands of the tendency
which Grenier had noticed. The possibilities even of Rodney's
manoeuvre had not been followed up, and Howe had contented himself
with his brilliant invention for increasing the impact and decision of
the single line. It was reserved for Nelson's genius to bring a
sufficiently powerful solvent to bear on the crystallised opinion of
the service, and to find a formula which would shed all that was bad
and combine all that was good in previous systems.[7]

The dominating ideas that were in his mind become clearer, if we
follow step by step all the evidence that has survived as to the
genesis and history of his memorandum. As early as 1798, when he was
hoping to intercept Bonaparte's expedition to Egypt, he had adopted a
system which was not based on the single line, and so far as is known
this was the first tactical order he ever framed as a fleet
commander. It is contained in a general order issued from the Vanguard
on June 8 of that year, and runs as follows, as though hot from the
lesson of St. Vincent: 'As it is very probable the enemy will not be
formed in regular order on the approach of the squadron under my
command, I may in that case deem it most expedient to attack them by
separate divisions. In which case the commanders of divisions are
strictly enjoined to keep their ships in the closest possible order,
and on no account whatever to risk the separation of one of their
ships.'[8] The divisional organisation follows, being his own
division of six sail and two others of four each. 'Had he fallen in
with the French fleet at sea,' wrote Captain Berry, who was sent home
with despatches after the Nile, 'that he might make the best
impression upon any part of it that should appear the most vulnerable
or the most eligible for attack, he divided his force into three
sub-squadrons [one of six sail and two of four each]. Two of these
sub-squadrons were to attack the ships of war, while the third was to
pursue the transports and to sink and destroy as many as it
could.'[9] The exact manner in which he intended to use this
organisation he had explained constantly by word of mouth to his
captains, but no further record of his design has been found. Still
there is an alteration which he made in his signal book at the same
time that gives us the needed light. We cannot fail to notice the
striking resemblance between his method of attack by separate
divisions on a disordered enemy, and that made by the Elizabethan
admirals at Gravelines upon the Armada after its formation had been
broken up by the fireships. That attack was made intuitively by
divisions independently handled as occasion should dictate, and
Nelson's new signal leaves little doubt that this was the plan which
he too intended. The alteration he ordered was to change the
signification of Signal 16, so that it meant that each of his flag
officers, from the moment it was made, should have control of his own
division and make any signals he thought proper.

But this was not all. By the same general order he made two other
alterations in the signal book in view of encountering the French in
order of battle. They too are of the highest interest and run as
follows: 'To be inserted in pencil in the signal book. At
No. 182. Being to windward of the enemy, to denote I mean to attack
the enemy's line from the rear towards the van as far as thirteen
ships, or whatsoever number of the British ships of the line may be
present, that each ship may know his opponent in the enemy's line.'
No. 183. 'I mean to press hard with the whole force on the enemy's
rear.'[10]

Thus we see that at the very first opportunity Nelson had of enforcing
his own tactical ideas he enunciated three of the principles upon
which his great memorandum was based, viz. breaking up his line of
battle into three divisional lines, independent control by divisional
leaders, and concentration on the enemy's rear. All that is wanting
are the elements of surprise and containing.

These, however, we see germinating in the memorandum he issued five
years later off Toulon. In that case he expected to meet the French
fleet on an opposite course, and being mainly concerned in stopping it
and having a slightly superior force he is content to concentrate on
the van. But, in view of the strategical necessity of making the
attack in this way, he takes extra precautions which are not found in
the general order of 1798. He provides for preventing the enemy's
knowing on which side his attack is to fall; instead of engaging an
equal number of their ships he provides for breaking their line, and
engaging the bulk of their fleet with a superior number of his own;
and finally he looks to being ready to contain the enemy's rear before
it can do him any damage.

Thus, taking together the general order of 1798 and the Toulon
memorandum of 1803, we can see all the tactical ideas that were
involved at Trafalgar already in his mind, and we are in a position to
appreciate the process of thought by which he gradually evolved the
sublimely simple attack that welded them together, and brought them
all into play without complication or risk of mistake. This process,
which crowns Nelson's reputation as the greatest naval tactician of
all time, we must now follow in detail.

Shortly before he left England for the last time, he communicated to
Keats, of the Superb, a full explanation of his views as they then
existed in his mind, and Keats has preserved it in the following paper
which Nicolas printed.

'Memorandum of a conversation between Lord Nelson and Admiral Sir
Richard Keats, the last time he was in England before the battle of
Trafalgar.[11]

'One morning, walking with Lord Nelson in the grounds of Merton,
talking on naval matters, he said to me, "No day can be long enough to
arrange a couple of fleets and fight a decisive battle according to
the old system. When _we_ meet them" (I was to have been with
him), "for meet them we shall, I'll tell you how I shall fight them. I
shall form the fleet into three divisions in three lines; one division
shall be composed of twelve or fourteen of the fastest two-decked
ships, which I shall keep always to windward or in a situation of
advantage, and I shall put them under an officer who, I am sure, will
employ them in the manner I wish, if possible. I consider it will
always be in my power to throw them into battle in any part I choose;
but if circumstances prevent their being carried against the enemy
where I desire, I shall feel certain he will employ them effectually
and perhaps in a more advantageous manner than if he could have
followed my orders" (he never mentioned or gave any hint by which I
could understand who it was he intended for this distinguished
service).[12] He continued, "With the remaining part of the fleet,
formed in two lines, I shall go at them at once if I can, about one
third of their line from their leading ship." He then said, "What do
you think of it?" Such a question I felt required consideration. I
paused. Seeing it he said, "But I will tell you what _I_ think
of it. I think it will surprise and confound the enemy. They won't
know what I am about. It will bring forward a pell-mell battle, and
that is what I want."[13]

Here we have something roughly on all-fours with the methods of the
First Dutch War. There are the three squadrons, the headlong 'charge'
and the _melee_. The reserve squadron to windward goes even
further back, to the treatise of De Chaves and the Instructions of
Lord Lisle in 1545. It was no wonder it took away Keats's breath. The
return to primitive methods was probably unconscious, but what was
obviously uppermost in Nelson's mind was the breaking up of the
established order in single line, leading by surprise and concealment
to a decisive _melee_. He seems to insist not so much upon
defeating the enemy by concentration as by throwing him into
confusion, upsetting his mental equilibrium in accordance with the
primitive idea. The notion of concentration is at any rate secondary,
while the subtle scheme for 'containing' as perfected in the
memorandum is not yet developed. As he explained his plan to Keats, he
meant to attack at once with both his main divisions, using the
reserve squadron as a general support. There is no clear statement
that he meant it as a 'containing' force, though possibly it was in
his mind.[14]

There is one more piece of evidence relating to this time when he was
still in England. According to this story Lord Hill, about 1840, when
still Commander-in-Chief, was paying a visit to Lord Sidmouth. His
host, who, better known as Addington, had been prime minister till
1804, and was in Pitt's new cabinet till July 1805, showed him a table
bearing a Nelson inscription. He told him that shortly before leaving
England to join the fleet Nelson had drawn upon it after dinner a plan
of his intended attack, and had explained it as follows: 'I shall
attack in two lines, led by myself and Collingwood, and I am confident
I shall capture their van and centre or their centre and rear.'
'Those,' concluded Sidmouth, 'were his very words,' and remarked how
wonderfully they had been fulfilled.[15] Hill and Sidmouth at the
time were both old men and the authority is not high, but so far as it
goes it would tend to show that an attack in two lines instead of one
was still Nelson's dominant idea. It cannot however safely be taken as
evidence that he ever intended a concentration on the van, though in
view of the memorandum of 1803 this is quite possible.

Finally, there is the statement of Clarke and McArthur that Nelson
before leaving England deposited a copy of his plan with Lord Barham,
the new first lord of the admiralty. This however is very
doubtful. The Barham papers have recently been placed at the disposal
of the Society, in the hands of Professor Laughton, and the only copy
of the memorandum he has been able to find is an incomplete one
containing several errors of transcription, and dated the Victory,
October 11, 1805. In the absence of further evidence therefore no
weight can be attached to the oft-repeated assertion that Nelson had
actually drawn up his memorandum before he left England.

Coming now to the time when he had joined the fleet off Cadiz, the
first light we have is the well-known letter of October 1 to Lady
Hamilton. In this letter, after telling her that he had joined on
September 28, but had not been able to communicate with the fleet till
the 29th, he says, 'When I came to explain to them the _Nelson
touch_ it was like an electric shock. Some shed tears and all
approved. It was new--it was singular--it was simple.' What he meant
exactly by the 'Nelson touch' has never been clearly explained, but he
could not possibly have meant either concentration or the attack on
the enemy's rear, for neither of these ideas was either new or
singular.

On October 3 he writes to her again: 'The reception I met with on
joining the fleet caused the sweetest sensation of my life.... As
soon as these emotions were past I laid before them the plan I had
previously arranged for attacking the enemy, and it was not only my
pleasure to find it generally approved, but clearly perceived and
understood.'[16]

The next point to notice is the 'Order of Battle and Sailing' given by
Nicolas. It is without date, but almost certainly must have been drawn
up before Nelson joined. It does not contain the Belleisle, which
Nelson knew on October 4 was to join him.[17] It also does include
the name of Sir Robert Calder and his flagship, and on September 30
Nelson had decided to send both him and his ship home.[18]

The order is for a fleet of forty sail, but the names of only
thirty-three are given, which were all Nelson really expected to get
in time. The remarkable feature of this order is that it contains no
trace of the triple organisation of the memorandum. The 'advanced
squadron' is absent, and the order is based on two equal divisions
only.

Then on October 9, after Calder had gone, there is this entry in
Nelson's private diary: 'Sent Admiral Collingwood the Nelson touch.'
It was enclosed in a letter in which Nelson says: 'I send you my Plan
of Attack, as far as a man dare venture to guess at the very uncertain
position the enemy may be found in. But, my dear friend, it is to
place you perfectly at your ease respecting my intentions and to give
full scope to your judgment for carrying them into effect.' The same
day Collingwood replies, 'I have a just sense of your lordship's
kindness to me, and the full confidence you have reposed in me
inspires me with the most lively gratitude. I hope it will not be long
before there is an opportunity of showing your lordship that it has
not been misplaced.' On these two letters there can be little doubt
that the 'Plan of Attack' which Nelson enclosed was that of the
memorandum. The draft from which Nicolas printed appears to have been
dated October 9, and originally had in one passage 'you' and 'your'
for the 'second in command,' showing that Nelson in his mind was
addressing his remarks to Collingwood, though subsequently he altered
the sentence into the third person. Only one other copy was known to
Nicolas, and that was issued in the altered form to Captain Hope, of
the Defence, a ship which in the order of battle was in Collingwood s
squadron, but Codrington tells us it was certainly issued to all the
captains.[19]

So far, then, we have the case thus--that whatever Nelson may have
really told Lord Sidmouth, and whatever may have been in his mind when
he drew up the dual order of battle and sailing, he had by October 9
reverted to the triple idea which he had explained to Keats. Meanwhile,
however, his conception had ripened. There are marked changes in
organisation, method and intention. In organisation the reserve
squadron is reduced from the original twelve or fourteen to eight, or
one fifth of his hypothetical fleet instead of about one third--reduced,
that is, to a strength at which it was much less capable of important
independent action. In method we have, instead of an attack with the
two main divisions, an attack with one only, with the other covering
it. In intention we have as the primary function of the reserve
squadron, its attachment to one or other of the other two main
divisions as circumstances may dictate.

The natural inference from these important changes is that Nelson's
conception was now an attack in two divisions of different strength,
the stronger of which, as the memorandum subsequently explains, was to
be used as a containing force to cover the attack of the other, and
except that the balance of the two divisions was reversed, this is
practically just what Clerk of Eldin had recommended and what actually
happened in the battle. It is a clear advance upon the original idea
as explained to Keats, in which the third squadron was to be used on
the primitive and indefinite plan of De Chaves and Lord Lisle as a
general reserve. It also explains Nelson's covering letter to
Collingwood, in which he seems to convey to his colleague that the
pith of his plan was an attack in two divisions, and, within the
general lines of the design, complete freedom of action for the second
in command. How largely this idea of independent control entered into
the 'Nelson touch' we may judge from the fact that it is emphasised in
no less than three distinct paragraphs of the memorandum.

Such, then, is the fundamental principle of the memorandum as
enunciated in its opening paragraphs. He then proceeds to elaborate
it in two detailed plans of attack--one from to-leeward and the other
from to-windward. It was the latter he meant to make if possible. He
calls it 'the intended attack,' and it accords with the opening
enunciation. The organisation is triple, but no special function is
assigned to the reserve squadron. The actual attack on the enemy's
rear is to be made by Collingwood, while Nelson with his own division
and the reserve is to cover him. In the event of an attack having to
be made from to-leeward, the idea is different. Here the containing
movement practically disappears. The fleet is still to attack the rear
and part of the centre of the enemy, but now in three independent
divisions simultaneously, in such a way as to cut his line at three
points, and to concentrate a superior force on each section of the
severed line. To none of the divisions is assigned the duty of
containing the rest of the enemy's fleet from the outset. It is to be
dealt with at a second stage of the action by all ships that are still
capable of renewing the engagement after the first stage. 'The whole
impression,' as Nelson put it, in case he was forced to attack from
to-leeward, was to overpower the enemy's line from a little ahead of
the centre to the rearmost ship. He does not say, however, that this
was to be 'the whole impression' of the intended attack from
to-windward. 'The whole impression' there appears to be for
Collingwood to overpower the rear while Nelson with the other two
divisions made play with the enemy's van and centre; but the
particular manner in which he would carry out this part of the design
is left undetermined.

The important point, then, in considering the relation between the
actual battle and the memorandum, is to remember that it provided for
two different methods of attacking the rear according to whether the
enemy were encountered to windward or to leeward. The somewhat
illogical arrangement of the memorandum tends to conceal this highly
important distinction. For Nelson interpolates between his explanation
of the windward attack and his opening enunciation of principle his
explanation of the leeward attack, to which the enunciation did not
apply. That some confusion was caused in the minds of some even of his
best officers is certain, but let them speak for themselves.

After the battle Captain Harvey, of the Temeraire, whom Nelson
had intended to lead his line, wrote to his wife, 'It was noon before
the action commenced, which was done according to the instructions
given us by Lord Nelson.... Lord Nelson had given me leave to lead and
break through the line about the fourteenth ship,' _i.e._ two or
three ships ahead of the centre, as explained in the memorandum for
the leeward attack but not for the windward.

On the other hand we have Captain Moorsom, of the Revenge, who was in
Collingwood's division, saying exactly the opposite. Writing to his
father on December 4, he says, 'I have seen several plans of the
action, but none to answer my ideas of it. A regular plan was laid
down by Lord Nelson some time before the action but not acted on. His
great anxiety seemed to be to get to leeward of them lest they should
make off to Cadiz before he could get near them.' And on November 1,
to the same correspondent he had written, 'I am not certain that our
mode of attack was the best: however, it succeeded.' Here then we have
two of Nelson's most able captains entirely disagreeing as to whether
or not the attack was carried out in accordance with any plan which
Nelson laid down.

Captain Moorsom's view may be further followed in a tactical study
written by his son, Vice-Admiral Constantine Moorsom.[20] His remarks
on Trafalgar were presumably largely inspired by his father, who lived
till 1835. In his view there was 'an entire alteration both of the
scientific principle and of the tactical movements,' both of which he
thinks were due to what he calls the _morale_ of the enemy's
attitude--that is, that Nelson was afraid they were going to slip
through his fingers into Cadiz. The change of plan--meaning presumably
the change from the triple to the dual organisation--he thinks was not
due to the reduced numbers which Nelson actually had under his flag,
for the ratio between the two fleets remained much about the same as
that of his hypothesis.

The interesting testimony of Lieutenant G.L. Browne, who, as Admiral
Jackson informs us, was assistant flag-lieutenant in the Victory and
had every means of knowing, endorses the view of the Moorsoms.[21]
After explaining to his parents the delay caused by the established
method of forming the fleets in two parallel lines so that each had an
opposite number, as set forth in the opening words of the memorandum,
he says, 'but by his lordship's mode of attack you will clearly
perceive not an instant of time could be lost. The frequent
communications he had with his admirals and captains put them in
possession of all his plans, so that his mode of attack was well known
to every officer of the fleet. Some will not fail to attribute
rashness to the conduct of Lord Nelson. But he well considered the
importance of a decisive naval victory at this time, and has
frequently said since we left England that, should he be so fortunate
as to fall in with the enemy, a total defeat should be the result on
the one side or the other.'

Next we have what is probably the most acute and illuminating
criticism of the battle that exists, from the pen of 'an officer who
was present.' Sir Charles Ekin quotes it anonymously; but from
internal evidence there is little difficulty in assigning it to an
officer of the Conqueror, though clearly not her captain, Israel
Pellew, in whose justification the concluding part was written.
Whoever he was the writer thoroughly appreciated and understood the
tactical basis of Nelson's plan, as laid down in the memorandum, and
he frankly condemns his chief for having exposed his fleet
unnecessarily by permitting himself to be hurried out of delivering
his attack in line abreast as he intended. It might well have been
done, so far as he could see, without any more loss of time than
actually occurred in getting the bulk of the fleet into action. Loss
of time was the only excuse for attacking in line ahead, and the only
reason he could suppose for the change of plan. If they had all gone
down together in line abreast, he is sure the victory would have been
more quickly decided and the brunt of the fight more equally
borne. Nothing, he thinks, could have been better than the plan of the
memorandum if it had only been properly executed. An attack in two
great divisions with a squadron of observation--so he summarises the
'Nelson touch'--seemed to him to combine every precaution under all
circumstances. It allows of concentration and containing. Each ship
can use her full speed without fear of being isolated. The fastest
ships will break through the line first, and they are just those which
from their speed in passing are liable to the least damage, while
having passed through, they cause a diversion for the attack of their
slower comrades. Finally, if the enemy tries to make off and avoid
action, the fleet is well collected for a general chase. But as Nelson
actually made the attack in his hurry to close, he threw away most of
these advantages, and against an enemy of equal spirit each ship must
have been crushed as she came into action. Instead of doubling
ourselves, he says, we were doubled and even trebled on. Nelson in
fact presented the enemy's fleet with precisely the position which the
memorandum aimed at securing for ourselves--that is to say, he
suffered a portion of his fleet, comprising the Victory,
Temeraire, Royal Sovereign, Belleisle, Mars, Colossus, and
Bellerophon, to be cut off and doubled on.[22]

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24