War of the Worlds Online (Closed) - HMS Thunder Child FAQs

War of the Worlds Online (Closed)
« HMS Thunder Child FAQs »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Sept 3, 2010, 8:32am


Forum Menu - Forum Terms and Conditions - Visit Main Site - Online Store - Contact - Your Source for the Martian Invasion Since 2002

War of the Worlds Online (Closed) :: Incarnations :: Original Novel :: HMS Thunder Child FAQs

Page 1 of 4 » Jump to page Go

Author

Topic: HMS Thunder Child FAQs (Read 5,242 times)

mctoddridesagain
Uber Member

member is offline

[avatar]

Joined: Mar 2005
Gender: Male

Posts: 889
Location: London, UK

HMS Thunder Child FAQs
« Thread Started on Jul 24, 2005, 8:14pm »

HMS Thunder Child FAQs

Every now and then, someone posts a query about HMS ‘Thunder Child’, basically asking what type of ship she was meant to be. Described by Wells as a ‘torpedo ram’ or ‘ironclad’, most people, after a couple of minutes googling, find that only one torpedo ram was ever built, HMS ‘Polyphemus’ (http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/hms_polyphemus.htm).

Finding that the ‘Thunder Child’ doesn’t actually resemble ‘Polyphemus’ to any great extent, the matter then tends to boil down to three common issues, which I will attempt to answer below:

- Was Wells wrong to use the term ‘ironclad’?
- Is a ‘torpedo ram’ the same as an ‘ironclad ram’ or ‘ram’?
- How come ‘Thunder Child’ resembles no known warship?

Was Wells wrong to use the term ‘ironclad’?

Sometimes, it is claimed that Wells was wrong to use the term ‘ironclad’ because ironclads were wooden vessels covered with iron armour plating. This is itself wrong. Although the first ironclads, the French ‘La Gloire’ and her immediate successors, were indeed wooden ships covered with armour, the first British ironclad, HMS ‘Warrior’, was iron through and through; she had an iron hull with iron armour on top (incidentally, all metal-hulled armoured ships had a thick layer of wood, generally teak, between the hull plating and the armour plating). And although the term ‘battleship’ had been coined at the end of the 18th century, HMS ‘Warrior’ and her iron-hulled successors were all referred to by navy officials, naval officers and the public as ‘ironclads’. The reasons for this nomenclature are complex, and outside the scope of this article. If you really wish to know, PM me!

By 1897, when Wells wrote WotW, the term ironclad was falling out of use, but was not yet dead. In official Navy circles, the term ‘battleship’ had been reintroduced in the early 1880s, but both officials and the public still used ‘ironclad’ for some years. Thus Wells was not wrong, though perhaps slightly behind the times, to use the term, and, in any case, ‘battleship’ does not refer to the type of vessel ‘Thunder Child’ appears to be.

Is a ‘torpedo ram’ the same as an ‘ironclad ram’ or ‘ram’?

No. The term ‘torpedo ram’ is very specific. It refers to a particular, unique warship, HMS ‘Polyphemus’, which was an experimental vessel which, if successful, would have formed the basis for a new warship type. Contrary to older accounts, she was actually a very rational design in which the primary weapon was her battery of torpedo tubes (five underwater tubes, the first of their kind, including one in her ram, and for which she was the test-bed).

‘Polyphemus’ in the Malta dock: note
the torpedo tube cap on the tip of the ram
[image]

In the event, technological developments (specifically, the advent of rapidly-traversing quick-firing, or QF, guns) overtook her and she remained a one-off. Before the torpedo-ram concept became obsolete, I believe that her designer, Nathaniel Barnaby, had intended a larger version, with twin funnels and larger guns. Whether or not Wells knew of this, I cannot say. In any case, by 1897, the torpedo-ram was well and truly obsolete.

An ‘ironclad ram’, or sometimes simply ‘ram’, was a type of coast defence warship. These were effectively miniature battleships, generally second-class turret-ships – they were not torpedo-rams. Some served in home waters, some were sent to Australia. All died out around the turn of the twentieth century. ‘Polyphemus’ is not to be confused with these.

After the American Civil War and the Austro-Italian Battle of Lissa (1866), ramming was enshrined as a legitimate naval tactic. Thus, all large warships were equipped with ram bows, which were especially strengthened. As a functional feature they were abandoned some time during the 1890s. The Victoria disaster of 1893 was pretty well the final nail in the coffin for ramming as a tactic and the true ram bow as a functioning design feature, although the shape was retained until the Great War for aesthetic reasons.

A typical 1890s battleship ram-bow (HMS ‘Nile’):
note the reinforcements to the ram
[image]

How come ‘Thunder Child’ resembles no known warship?

Given the above, why did Wells create a completely fictitious warship that conformed to no real vessel? I believe the solution is simply this: dramatic effect. ‘Thunder Child’ is clearly some kind of coastal defence warship, as she is already stationed close to shore. Wells couldn’t use a battleship, as they weren’t designed for coastal operations. Real coast defence ships were, as noted above, sluggish, second-class battleships. They simply didn’t have the speed or manoeuvrability Wells needed for the action in that chapter, and their big guns were slow to fire and inaccurate. He could have used a torpedo gunboat, say, but that would have had less dramatic punch, lacking the bulk he needed. ‘Polyphemus’, although obsolete by then, did still have a patina of romantic drama, and was a fast, highly manoeuvrable, vessel (note the twin rudders near the bow in the photo above), but was too small (her only guns were Nordenfelt machine guns, rather like Gatlings). Therefore, he created a hybrid warship, taking the best features of ‘Polyphemus’ and combining them with a large cruiser to create HMS ‘Thunder Child’.

Given the above, there is ample room to create your own ‘Thunder Child’. And given the lack of a real-world prototype, artists have had license to do just that, usually depicting a battleship. In dramatic terms, I suspect that that is probably the most satisfactory compromise.

« Last Edit: Jul 26, 2005, 12:41pm by mctoddridesagain »