HMS Furnace- First Bomb to Blaze a Trail North

On that fateful day of May 19th, 1845, when the crews of Sir John Franklin’s last expedition in search of the Northwest Passage departed Greenhithe, England – never to return – they did so onboard two absolutely incredible vessels. Her Majesty’s Ships Erebus and Terror hadn’t originally been designed for polar exploration. Rather, these were both examples of a highly specialized type of warship called a “bomb vessel.” Why send a warship that was meant to bombard enemy positions on a polar exploration mission? This post briefly explores the history and design of the first bomb vessel that was sent north, HMS Furnace, which left England in 1741 on an earlier effort to locate that same illusive passage to the Pacific Ocean.1 Did Furnace blaze a trail across the frozen northern latitudes? Not exactly, but her modifications for exploration set an important precedent for a lineage of tough little ships which would be used on Arctic and Antarctic exploration missions.2

The Blast class, the original as-built configuration of Furnace from 1740, showing the two heavy mortar beds (cribbing) in the waist, the ketch rig (mainsail and a mizzen aft) a simple capstan perched high above the aft deck, and a windlass in the bow. Credit: © Crown copyright. National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, London ZAZ5625.

Maritime historian and former National Maritime Museum curator Chris Ware’s work on the history of bombs, The Bomb Vessel: Shore Bombardment Ships in the Age of Sail, provides the development history of the Royal Navy’s bomb vessels, and highlights the careers of selected ships.3 The type had been created late in the 17th century to carry one or two heavy mortars amidships. Like many other great British naval developments, the idea had come from France, whose navy had built the first bomb vessels, galiotes à bombes, starting in 1681.4 The mortars (which had been developed originally for land warfare) fired a type of fused shell called bombs (explosive) or carcasses (incendiary) on a high trajectory over the bulwarks. They were used against fortifications or cities and towns. The bombs would plunge downwards to explode against or over targets. These were terrifying weapons, with destruction and fire plummeting down from the skies.

John Bower’s engraving of the Bombardment of Fort McHenry, near Baltimore, in September 1814 by the British fleet, including HMS Terror and an earlier generation of HMS Erebus, and several other bombs. Credit: Dr.frog at en.wikipedia, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

To carry the massive mortars and handle their powerful recoil, which was transmitted down from their carriage directly into the wooden timbers of the vessel, bombs had to be very strongly built: They were framed, decked, and reinforced much more stoutly than other ships of their relatively small size. While the first English bombs resembled small coastal craft, by the 1730s new designs appeared that were closer to naval sloops.5 There were usually only a handful of bombs active at any given time. Most spent the vast majority of their careers out of commission or converted to other roles. The Board of Ordnance, which had responsibility for both the guns and the specialist personnel to work them, would unship and land the mortars to help preserve these valuable weapons. When being used as patrol vessels, a stronger battery of cannon was installed along the gundeck.

This painting by Samuel Scott is a rare representation of a mid-18th Century bomb vessel. It depicts the capture of HMS Blast, lead ship of Furnace’s class, in 1745. Blast was captured while serving as a sloop, and would have been armed without the mortars but with ten 4-pounder cannon when captured by two Spanish privateers. Blast appears to have a full 5-light (windowed) stern, and the additional armament has been added to the stern cabin (seen in the lower siting of the gunports aft). Oddly, the ship is now depicted rigged in the reverse of a ketch, as a brig or a snow. Credit: Samuel Scott, (Earl of Pembroke. Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art) Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

In contrast to the great and tragic expeditions that came both before and after, Christopher Middleton’s Northwest Passage Expedition of 1741 is rarely mentioned, even in polar exploration literature. Middleton was an experienced ship’s captain and a skilled navigator who had conducted a variety of scientific observations (including magnetic studies) while sailing to and from Hudson’s Bay, on annual supply missions for the Hudson’s Bay Company. He had an early enthusiasm for exploration, the search for the Northwest Passage, and also an interest in establishing the fate of the vanished James Knight expedition of 1719.6 Middleton had been nearby at Prince of Wales Fort (present-day Churchill, Manitoba) when, unbeknownst to anyone, the crews of Knight’s two small ships were marooned on Marble Island in 1721-22.7 In recognition of his scientific publications, Middleton was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1727. In 1741, having left the employ of the HBC, the Royal Navy appointed him to command HMS Furnace. His orders were to seek a Northwest Passage somewhere along the Western coasts of the Bay. In reviewing the available units of the fleet, the new and rugged generation of bombs must have seemed ideal candidates for an exploration mission, where ships were in danger of colliding with icebergs, grounding, or being forced ashore out in Baffin Bay or the Hudson Strait, or being damaged or crushed by pack or land ice. Furnace would be accompanied by a hired collier, HMS Discovery, which was commanded by Middleton’s cousin, Lt. William Moor. The Admiralty optimistically believed that, a Passage having been located and exploited, the ships might link up with Commodore George Anson’s 1740-44 circumnavigation of the World, somewhere in the Pacific.

After crossing the Atlantic, the crews spent a terrible winter at Prince of Wales Fort to get an early start to the season. Expedition members stayed ashore in a disused wooden fort.8 They would have first prepared the ships for being iced into the harbour – with Furnace becoming the first bomb to overwinter. Once the exploration work commenced in July 1742 they quickly discovered that a promising inlet did not in actuality offer any corridor to the west (Middleton thought this a river and named it “Wager” after Sir Charles Wager, First Lord of the Admiralty, but it was later determined to be a bay). Other useful exploration work included the discovery of Repulse Bay (now known as Naujaat) and the assessment that the Frozen Straits offered no likely passage to the west. With the crew weakening from scurvy, and the major exploration work having led to dead-ends, Middleton hastened back to England.9

Middleton’s surveying work was attacked after his return, with Arthur Dobbs (a wealthy and influential Irish landowner who has supported Middleton’s original appointment) and Moor both coming around to the view that not enough had been done to rule Hudson’s Bay out as the beginning of a passage towards the Pacific.10 Moor departed on another expedition which explored more of the same coasts of the Bay. This privately-funded expedition served to underline that there was no reason to keep exploring the shores of Hudson’s Bay for a Northwest Passage. Future expeditions would take other reinforced bomb vessels further north to continue the search for a navigable passage amongst the Arctic islands. As William Barr has pointed out, the criticisms Middleton was subjected to were baseless, and the accuracy of his surveying was eventually confirmed.11

HMS Furnace was a Blast class bomb vessel, completed in October 1740 by Quallett (presumably the commercial yard of John Quallett of Rotherhithe in South London, which built other Royal warships such as HMS Chesterfield and several sloops). She was 91.5 feet long on the gundeck and 26’4” broad, with an 11-foot draft. All told she was almost 273 tons burthen.12 This new class of six bomb vessels were rushed into service as war broke out again against Spain in late 1739. As the War of the Austrian Succession (1740-1748) spread across Europe, a second group of five almost identical sisterships were constructed the next year. Among them was the second bomb vessel to be named HMS Terror.13

Like most early bomb vessels, Furnace was rigged as a ketch, with a tall mainmast and a shorter mizzen aft. This rig proved to be problematic for the complicated laying, or aiming of the mortars, as it left only a small arc of fire unimpeded by the masts, yards, rigging and shrouds. When it came to the deck machinery, earlier bombs had been fitted with windlasses (horizontal drums) to assist in heavy tasks such as lifting the anchor cables, or the complex effort of warping the ship around on the anchor cables to precisely aim the mortars. The Blast ships, by contrast, were fitted with a windlass and the more powerful capstan (vertical drum) on the quarterdeck.14

HMS Grenado, a near-contemporary of Furnace, is depicted in a superb sectional model at the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, which helps us explore the peculiarities of the design:

HMS Grenado model showing both octagonal mortar pits, the new trunnioned mortars, and the exposed deck beams and hull framing. Credit: Rémi Kaupp, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons the original model was built by Robert A. Lightley and is catalogued at National Maritime Museum as SLR0331.

We can observe a robust, wide hull, with closely spaced frames. The solid construction continued into heavy knees supporting the deck beams. In Grenado and Furnace, the mortars were originally sited forward and aft of the mainmast, while the mizzen mast rises above the deck just forward of the break on the quarterdeck. A new type of mortar had been developed, which could elevate and depress on trunnions, and rotate in its octagonal pit. The mortars could be lowered and covered over with sliding hatches, and protected from the elements. The long run of the open waist amidships was necessary to provide the room needed to work the mortars. These ships, like the later Franklin vessels, were originally armed with a 13″ and a 10″ mortar. The secondary weapons, a battery of six light 4-pounder cannon, created a modest broadside for defensive purposes. Additional empty gunports, evenly spaced along the gundeck, allowed for the augmentation of these cannons when the mortars were unshipped. The officers’ cabins were tucked aft under a small quarterdeck, on a deck stepped slightly lower than the main run of the gundeck. There was a very small covered foc’sl forward of the large windlass, and between those was the usual belfry with ship’s bell.

HMS Furnace as converted for the Middleton Expedition in 1741. Credit: © Crown copyright. National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, London ZAZ6524.

As can be seen by comparing the above Admiralty plans, preserved at the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich, with the Grenado model or the plans at the beginning of this post, Furnace was extensively modified for exploration. The masts were relocated, with a third mast making the vessel a sloop.15 There are many elements of the design that set the pattern for the Admiralty modifying ships for polar exploration, right down to those final modifications to Franklin’s two ships. Compared to the unmodified bomb vessels, this ship now has a shorter, less vulnerable stem, and higher sides. The open waist where the two mortars were once sited was fully decked-over by a continuous weather deck. The mortars, beds, and cribbing have been removed down to the keel. Furnace even has channels that have been reinforced with ice chocks to make them less vulnerable.16 The ship now has a larger double capstan, installed further forwards between the mizzen and mainmast, which could be worked by crew on both weather and lower decks. The windlass near the bows has apparently been removed. Furnace appears to be the only bomb to have gone north steering a course with the old-fashioned tiller bar controlling the rudder. All subsequent bomb-derived exploration vessels would have ship’s wheels aft.

Upon Middleton’s return, Furnace was modified back to her original design. Although we could expect that the overwintering in the Bay and the exploration work could have shortened her career, in actuality, she served longer than all the other 1740-constructed bombs. She was eventually decommissioned in 1763. HMS Furnace’s 1741 refit set the pattern for the modification of six other bomb vessels to be sent on future Arctic and Antarctic missions.17 This era ended more than a century later when the last two serviceable bombs disappeared into the Canadian Arctic.

A model I worked on years ago, a modified Pyro British Bomb Vessel in (tiny) 1/150 scale. The design seems to be a simplification of a mid-eighteenth century bomb, which I modified as a fictional HM Bomb Vessel Cataclysm.
ENDNOTES:

The Lost War Trophies of Canada – From Vimy to East Angus QC

In this exciting new thread, we restore information about lost war trophy cannon.

This is the much-anticipated debut of a new series of posts! The extensive Warsearcher postcard archive has been mined to restore a visual record of military artifacts that have been lost from communities across Canada. Why? Because we can’t let the non-existence of an artifact hamper our interpretation of it!

Detail of postcard, East Angus QC Post Office and War Memorial. Warsearcher postcard collection

German 15 cm Howitzer no. 249 was captured by the 29th Canadian Infantry Battalion, at Station Wood, near Vimy. This gun was likely one of the four “5.9 inch” howitzers (the British name for these guns) captured by Lt. E.C. Corbett (service file hyperlinked) and a patrol of D company late in the day of 9 April 1917. This action, and accurate map references, appear in the War Diary.

29th Canadian Infantry Battalion War Diary entry for 9 April 1917. Library and Archives Canada RG9-III-D-3 Vol. 4936.

29th Canadian Infantry Battalion War Diary entry for 9 April 1917. Library and Archives Canada RG9-III-D-3 Vol. 4936.

Detail from sheet 51B 1:10,000 scale, McMaster University Trench Map collection. Map reference 51B.1.d.9.6., near Station Wood, Farbus, France, indicated.

Rough location using Google maps.

One of a vast collection of captured German trophies sent by the government to Canada, It was shipped to East Angus via Grand Trunk Railways 10 December 1920;

Extract of War Trophies Allocation Ledger, War Trophis Commission, Library and Archives Canada, RG37D vol.388

Here is a late 1950s postcard view of the East Angus Post Office and War Memorial, which shows what looks like the 15cm schwere Feldhaubitze model 13:

Warsearcher postcard collection

Though it seems to have survived the scrap drives of the Second World War, its later fate is unknown. Any readers with information on this trophy are welcome to comment!

2018 Google street view of same location.

Battle of Hill 70 – August 15th-25th, 1917

A century ago, soldiers of the Canadian Expeditionary Force (CEF) were into their second day holding newly-won positions on Hill 70, near Lens, France. Counter-attacks by German units, desperate to regain this strategic position, were increasing. At 4:25 AM the previous morning, on August 15th, 1917, they had left their jumping-off positions to advance on this important high-point near the industrial city of Lens, France. The intent of the operation was to force German military planners to divert forces away from the Passchendaele operations, by mounting an attack on Lens. Sir Arthur Currie, recently promoted to command the Canadian Corps, reconnoitered the positions and crafted a plan to seize the heights to the North of city, after first convincing his superiors to modify the main objectives. Lens was to be attacked next.

Map of the training grounds, battlefield models and recreations of the territory around Hill 70 helped familiarize troops with major objectives before the assault. (from an appendix to the 22nd Battalion War Diary, August, 1917, Library and Archives Canada)
Meticulous planning built on recent successes, such as the Vimy Ridge operations. A massive preparatory bombardment presaged the attack. Special batteries of artillery under the command of A.G.L. McNaughton were employed in counter-battery fire, and managed to silence many German guns before the infantry went in.

A Canadian 18-pounder field gun camouflaged and in a reinforced position amidst the ruined houses and industrial buildings of Lens. Camouflaging positions was essential to protect batteries from enemy observation and counter-battery fire (Library and Archives Canada CWRO O-1889, Mikan 3395293)
Initially, the attack was a success, with rapid advances. Clearing up entrenched defenders in the Chalk Pit, and in the ruins of Lens’ suburbs, was no easy task, and positions changed hands several times. The operation dragged on for 10 days, and beleaguered and exhausted troops had to drive off relentless enemy counter-attacks. Accurate and prompt artillery support was instrumental in breaking up German concentrations of troops and keeping the Canadians from a general withdrawal. From 15 August until the 25th, Roughly 8,700 CEF soldiers became casualties with almost two-thousand killed, while estimates of German losses run much higher. The planned operation to capture Lens was eventually called off.

Hill70_CWRO_O-1752
A badly wounded Canadian giving another wounded soldier a light during the recent push to Hill 70.(Library and Archives Canada CWRO O-1752, Mikan 3397017)
Somewhat surprisingly, until the recent opening of the new Battle of Hill 70 Memorial Park in France, the only memorial that focused on commemorating Hill 70 was located in Mountain Ontario, a small community South of Ottawa. This memorial was originally built during the height of memorial construction in the 1920s.

The pre-2011 Mountain Memorial to the Battle of Hill 70. Originally, an electric lamp on a tall flagstaff was also an important element (source “War Monuments in Canada” site: https://www.cdli.ca/monuments/on/hill70.htm)
For the 2011 work on the memorial, local groups struggled with what to do with the rusted machine gun, that had been a feature of the original 1920s layout. Some wanted to scrap it. A recent Globe and Mail article explores the various proposals. A local resident who was heavily involved in the rehabilitation project, Mr. Johnston, is quoted as saying “I struggled with the gun. Why would we want a German machine gun that was used to kill these boys?” This sentiment has been expressed many times over the years about trophies, and ties in with evolving public memory on the meaning of the First World War. In the 1930s and Second World War-era many pieces were indeed destroyed because of similar community sentiments. For the purposes of this project I am relieved to say that the gun remains a focal point of the memorial.

Mountain ON. Battle of Hill 70 Memorial site (author’s photo)
 

One of the tablets of the Hill 70 memorial explains the unique origins of this commemoration in Mountain, ON. (author’s photo)
According to War Trophy Commission records at Library and Archives Canada, two captured German guns were shipped to Mountain in September 1920 via Canadian Pacific Railways. The captured German machine gun now at the memorial is most likely MG08 no. 2946b (the serial numbers have substantial corrosion), seized by the 22nd Battalion at Catapult Trench, Hill 70, 15 August 1917. This gun would have been used against Canadian soldiers in the initial assault.

IMG_5676
Captured war trophy MG08 German machine gun, Battle of Hill 70 Memorial, Mountain ON.(author’s photo)
The 22nd Battalion’s War Diary “Report on Operations” notes that 4 similar guns were captured. Particular mention is given to the capture of one by Lt. Henri de Varennes (who was killed early in the morning on 16 August) and Sgt. Eugene Keller, who would later receive the Distinguished Conduct Medal for this action (The First World War service files of Keller and de Varennes are available digitized from LAC). Interestingly, recent talks with local residents have indicated they are convinced this is indeed a gun captured by the 22nd Battalion at Hill 70.

For many reasons, Hill 70 has not been accorded the same attention as other CEF operations that Canadians are familiar with. In contrast to the range of captured relics that remain from the Vimy operations (which I recently posted on) this gun, and a 75mm Trench Mortar in the collection of the Brome County Historical Society in Knowlton, Quebec, may be the only monuments that remain of this important Canadian operation.

Giant German Wooden Trench Mortars! Be Afraid…be very afraid.

Though they would seem to be the product of a deranged cooper, not a highly industrialized nation that produced Krupp super guns and mortars on mass scale, these were terrifying weapons in the trenches.

This Australian War Memorial image of an Albrecht likely depicts the largest variety (45cm bore) of this odd weapon. (AWM E 02902)
This Australian War Memorial image of an Albrecht likely depicts the larger (35 or 45 cm bore) type of this odd weapon. (AWM E 02902)

They lobbed a massive explosive tin dubbed a “coal scuttle” by allied troops. It was a very simple cylindrical tin packed with explosives and iron bits. The weapon normally had a maximum range of about 600m. These came in 25cm, 35cm, and 45cm barrel sizes.  The bottom photo shows an erdmorser (buried trench mortar), which was usually buried in the ground with the rails propped against an embankment or trench wall to roughly aim it at an enemy trench.  The other photos are Albrecht mortars, whose barrels are constructed of wooden staves and reinforced by wire wound round them. 

Albrecht 25cm mortar
Albrecht 25cm mortar, Canadian War Museum (Author’s photo)
albrecht barrel with metal sleeve
Albrecht barrel with metal sleeve, which should be along the lower interior of the mortar (courtesy Brome County Historical Society)
Erdmorserspeciallowres
This strange mortar was not an Albrecht, but an erdmorser (another type of wooden mortar whose breech end was buried in the ground, the long trough was then propped up to fire on the target). This appears to have been placed on a standard Albrecht mounting, but whether this was done in the field or for convenience by archives staff here at the War Trophies Annex is unknown. (LAC photo)

Trench mortars offered artillery support to troops near the front lines, and they were sited close to the firing line, making rapid communication and fire tasking possible (unlike fixed artillery located in the rear).  At the outbreak of war, the Germans could draw on many more well-designed mortars than Allied powers, which scrambled to adapt and improvise close-support weapons. Still, the Germans felt the need to produce these unusual wooden mortars.  Today, in Canada, at least two of these rare and strange mortars exist: The Canadian War Museum had a nice example, and the Brome County Historical Society has an un-mounted barrel in the corner of its displays.  Both these are the 25cm varieties.