Defence-Class

Broadside Ironclad

Defence-Class

The Defence-class broadside ironclads were ordered straight after the Warrior class and were designed as smaller (and cheaper) versions of those ships. Initially, the Admiralty were sceptical over the very expensive and incredibly large Warrior-class ships and wanted something that offered the same protection and similar firepower, but at the cost of being slower. Rear Admiral Sir Baldwin Wake Walker, Controller of the Navy, requested that six such ships be ordered, but in the end, only two were ordered. In almost all aspects of their design, they were smaller, less powerful, and inferior to the preceding ships and thus the Admiralty’s decision to favour cheapness at a time of great naval advancements and the beginnings of another naval arms race only served to burden the Royal Navy with two less effective ships that could not operate with the Warrior-class and were also inferior to contemporary French designs. Indeed, the most damning criticism came from the naval architect Sir Nathaniel Barnaby, a future Constructor of the Navy, who said that the Defence-class ships were worth only one-quarter of the combat efficiency of a Warrior-class ship but cost two-thirds as much. 

Both ships were laid down in December 1859 and were completed in a similar timeframe, Defence being commissioned on 4th December 1861 and Resistance following her on 2nd July 1862. The construction process was fortunately less dramatic than that of the Black Prince constructed at the same time. The ships resembled the Warrior class in most aspects, most basically in their appearance as broadside ironclads (known as armoured frigates at the time due to their foreseen role and their general size and form). They were 92.04 metres long, over 35 metres shorter than the Warrior class, although they had a similar breadth, the beam coming in at 16.51 metres. This made them moderately more manoeuvrable than the Warrior class, which was undoubtedly the only characteristic in which they bettered their predecessors. They had a draught of 7.62 metres and displacement came in between 6,167-6,249 tonnes for the two vessels, which was around two-thirds the size of the Warrior-class.

Unlike their predecessors, the Defence-class ships were fitted with a ram bow in the shape of a plough. Entirely due to aesthetic reasons, the preceding Warrior class was fitted with an iron knee to improve the lines of the ship forward. This precluded their ability to attempt ramming attacks should the situation require it, which was increasingly seen as a viable battle tactic during the mid-to-late 1800s. Whether or not such ramming tactics would have had any tactical value is debatable. As for the Defence class, they were able to ram. They also had a partial double bottom and like the Warrior class, the ends of their hulls were subdivided by watertight transverse bulkheads to help minimise flooding.

Both ships received names commonly used for Royal Navy warships, Defence and Resistance, both names of strength in the protection of our country.

The Defence-class ships were powered by the same engine as fitted in the preceding vessels, a single two-cylinder trunk steam engine built by John Penn and Sons, except this time steam was generated by only four rectangular boilers, as compared to the previous ships’ ten. This meant the engines only produced between 2,428-2,537 indicated horsepower, which was about half that of the Warrior-class. They were also equipped with a barque sailing rig with a sail area of 2,276m2. The lower masts and bowsprit were made of iron to withstand the impact of a ramming attack. During sea trials, the engines allowed them to travel at between 11.62 – 11.83 knots, exceeding their contractual obligation of 11.0 knots but noticeably slower than the Warrior class. They were able to make around 10.50 knots under sail power alone, which slightly brings into question the value of their steam powerplant. They carried about half the coal supplies of the Warrior class, at 460 tonnes, which allowed them to steam 1,670 nautical miles at a speed of 10.0 knots.

Like their predecessors, the propeller could be hoisted to reduce drag when under sail power alone. The funnel was also semi-retractable. Their speed, however, remained one of the primary drawbacks of their design, being considerably slower than the Warrior class, with a greatly reduced steaming range. However, manpower commitments were also reduced, with these ships requiring a crew of 460 including officers for full operation.

The armament of the Defence-class ships was again reduced from the Warrior-class, although the guns themselves were largely of the same type. The original design called for eighteen 206mm/15 68pdr 95cwt Smoothbore Muzzleloading Guns in a traditional broadside arrangement, with two acting as chase guns. However, this requirement was changed during construction to replace eight of these with Defence instead receiving eight 183mm/17 110pdr 82cwt Breechloading Guns and Resistance receiving six such guns. Notably, Defence carried the same number of 121mm/21 40pdr 35cwt Breechloading Guns as the Warrior class, meanwhile, Resistance was instead equipped with two 161mm/15 32pdr 42cwt Smoothbore Muzzleloading Guns. The 183mm/17 110pdr 82cwt Breechloading Guns were in short supply at the time and highly sought after, but poor results in armour-penetration tests precluded plans to fully equip these ships with this weapon. They were also problematic in service, being labour-intensive to load and fire and some even exploded when used in action. This meant that future use required them to operate with a reduced propellant charge, which rendered them largely useless.

The 206mm/15 68pdr 95cwt Smoothbore Muzzleloading Rifles weighed 4,826.2KG, with the solid shot that it fired weighing in at 30.8KG. The gun had a muzzle velocity of 481 M/S and a maximum firing range of 2.9 km at an elevation of 12.0 degrees. The 183mm/17 110pdr 82cwt Breechloading Guns weighed 4,165.79KG and fired a shot weighing 48.5-49.9KG. It had a muzzle velocity of 350 M/S and could fire out to a maximum range of 3.7 km at an elevation of 11.25 degrees. The 121mm/21 40pdr 35cwt Breechloading Guns weighed 1,778.0KG and fired a shot weighing 18.1KG. The muzzle velocity was 350 M/S, and its maximum firing range was 3.5 km. Between 1863 and 1864, the 121mm guns were replaced with a heavier version with the same ballistics. All the guns fitted to the ships could fire both solid shot and explosive shells. The 161mm/15 32pdr 42cwt Smoothbore Muzzleloading Guns fitted to Resistance were old weapons previously used on the Caledonia-class first-rate ships-of-the-line. They were only briefly equipped by Resistance, being replaced along with the rest of her armament during a refit in the late 1860s. Not much is known about the weapon’s ballistic qualities, although it should be noted that it was not intended to be used as a form of primary armament, but rather as saluting guns.

During their 1866-1869 refits, both ships were rearmed. Both ships received 2 x 203mm/15 Mark III Muzzleloading Rifles, with their primary armament now consisting of fourteen 178mm/16 Mark III Muzzleloading Rifles. The 121mm and 161mm saluting guns entirely removed to save weight, as these ships were not capable of carrying as many of the newer, heavier weaponry as the Warrior-class. Two of the 178mm were placed as fore and aft chase guns, eight were positioned on the broadside, protected by the armour, which is where the two 203mm guns were also positioned. The remaining 178mm guns were placed differently in both ships, with Defence mounting them on the main deck, forward of the armour belt and Resistance mounting hers on the upper deck. The 203mm/15 Mark III Muzzleloading Rifles weighed 9.1 Tonnes and fired a shell weighing 79.4KG. It had a muzzle velocity of 430 M/S and could penetrate up to 244mm of wrought iron armour. The 178mm/16 Mark III Muzzleloading Rifles weighed 6.6 Tonnes and fired a 50.8KG shell. It had a muzzle velocity of 465 M/S and could penetrate up to 196mm of wrought iron armour. It had a maximum firing range of 5.0KM.

The armour of both ships was the same as the Warrior-class and consisted of 114mm of wrought iron backed by 457mm teak along the armoured belt, which was shorter than the Warrior-class at 42.70 metres long. It was made up of 0.91-3.66m plates that interlocked by the tongue and groove method and was directly bolted through the teak to the iron hull. The teak was made up of 229mm layers at right angles, which strengthened the armour by dampening the shockwaves caused by the impact of shells. The guns on the main deck were protected by 114mm transverse bulkheads. The ends of the ship were unprotected, although they were subdivided into watertight compartments to minimise flooding. However, the lack of armour at the stern of the vessels left their steering gear and rudder vulnerable, just the same as the preceding ships.

Both ships were initially assigned to the Channel Squadron upon their entry into service in the early 1860s. Defence was paid off in 1866 for a refit and rearmament, before being briefly reassigned to the Channel Squadron again. She toured North America and the Mediterranean between 1869 and 1872, before being refitted again in 1872-1874. She was assigned to the Channel Squadron again for a third time in 1876 before becoming a guard ship on the Mersey from 1879 to 1885. She was then placed in reserve. She served as part of a training school at Devonport from 1890 until 1935, when she was sold for scrapping.

Resistance has the distinction of being the first capital ship in the Royal Navy to be fitted with a ram and consequently, she was given the creative nickname of “Old Rammo”. She also became the first ironclad to be assigned to the Mediterranean Station in 1864. Like her sister, she was refitted and rearmed in 1867 before becoming a guardship in 1869. She was reassigned to the Channel Squadron in 1873 for four years. She was decommissioned in 1880 and was then used for gunnery and torpedo trials in 1885. She was sold for scrapping in 1898 before foundering enroute to the breaker’s yard the following year. She was then raised and broken up.

Neither ship saw action or ever fired their guns in anger and led very mediocre and short-lived service lives. Such was the price for being both at the forefront of naval development and obsoleted in such a short space of time and for being a lesser, weaker form of such pioneering naval development, being in reality just smaller, less powerful versions of the Warrior-class ships.

CLASS OVERVIEW

Ships In ClassBuilderLaid DownLaunchedCommissionedStatus
DefencePalmers Shipbuilding and Iron Company, Jarrow, Tyne and Wear, England14th December 185924th April 18612nd December 1861Sold For Scrapping, 1935
ResistanceWestwood, Baillie and Co, London Yard, Cubitt Town, London, England21st December 185911th April 18612nd July 1862Sold For Scrapping, 1898, Foundered Under Tow, 4th March 1899, Raised & Broken Up

STATISTICS

Defence-Class (As Built)
OperatorsUnited Kingdom
Preceded ByWarrior-Class
Succeeded ByHector-Class
Standard Displacement6,249 Tonnes
6,167 Tonnes (Resistance)
Full DisplacementN/A
Length92.04 Metres
Beam16.51 Metres
Draught7.62 Metres
MachinerySails, 1 x John Penn and Sons 2-Cylinder Trunk Steam Engine, 4 x Rectangular Boilers, 1 x Shaft
Power2,428 - 2,537 IHP
Speed11.62 - 11.83 Knots
Range1,670 Nautical Miles @ 10.0 Knots
Unlimited (Sail)
Complement460
ArmamentBoth: 10 x 206mm/15 68pdr 95cwt Smoothbore Muzzleloading Guns [10 x 1]
Defence: 8 x 183mm/17 110pdr 82cwt Breechloading Guns [8 x 1], 4 x 121mm/21 40pdr 35cwt Breechloading Guns [4 x 1]
Resistance: 6 x 183mm/17 110pdr 82cwt Breechloading Guns [6 x 1], 2 x 161mm/15 32pdr 42cwt Smoothbore Muzzleloading Guns [2 x 1]
ArmourArmoured Belt: 114mm + 457mm Teak Backing
Bulkheads: 114mm

Modernisations

Defence-Class (As Modernised)
Armament1866-1869, Both: 2 x 203mm/15 Mark III Muzzleloading Rifles [2 x 1], 14 x 178mm/16 Mark III Muzzleloading Rifles [14 x 1]
Other ChangesNone

GALLERY

In order of appearance, left-to-right, top-to-bottom. Only where attribution is required has it been provided:

Hero Image & Defence-Class Gallery Image #1: https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/nh-series/NH-71000/NH-71206.html
Defence-Class Gallery Image #4: By Bernard Gagnon – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0
Defence-Class Gallery Image #5: https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/nh-series/NH-71000/NH-71204.html
Defence-Class Gallery Image #6: By Geni – Photo by user:geni, CC BY-SA 4.0

Scroll to Top