The Bomb Vessel

Home > Other > The Bomb Vessel > Page 25
The Bomb Vessel Page 25

by Richard Woodman


  Drinkwater nodded.

  ‘And, of course, to drink to your swab . . .’

  Author’s Note

  The part played by Nathaniel Drinkwater in the Copenhagen campaign is not entirely fiction. Extensive surveying and buoylaying were carried out prior to the battle, mainly by anonymous officers. It seems not unreasonable to assume that Drinkwater was among them.

  Drinkwater’s bomb vessel is not listed as being part of Parker’s fleet but as she was nominally a tender this is to be expected. When ships of the line are engaged historians are apt to overlook the smaller fry, even, as occurred at Copenhagen, when it was the continuing presence of the bomb vessels left before the city after Nelson withdrew, that finally persuaded the Danes to abandon their intransigence. It has also been suggested that Nelson’s success was not so much due to his battleships, which were in some difficulties at the time fighting an enemy who refused to capitulate, but to the effect of the bombs, throwing their shells into the capital itself.*

  The presence of the Royal Artillery aboard bomb vessels is not generally known and it was 1847 before the three surviving artillerymen received recognition with the Naval General Service Medal and the clasp ‘Copenhagen’, confirmation of that famous regimental motto ‘Ubique’.

  Evidence suggests only four bombs got into station though contemporary illustrations show all seven. Quite possibly one of the four was Virago.

  The hoisting of the contentious signal No 39 by Sir Hyde Parker has been the subject of controversy which has been clouded by myth. Given Parker’s vacillating nature, his extreme caution and the subsequent apotheosis of Nelson, I have tried to put the matter in contemporary perspective.

  As to the landing of Edward Drinkwater, the ‘Berlingske Tidende’ of 27th March 1801 stated that British seamen landed near Elsinore the day before ‘for water’ without committing any excesses. This landing does not appear to be corroborated elsewhere.

  * See Journal of the Royal Artillery, Vol LXXVI Part 4, 1949, October, pages 285–294.

 

 

 


‹ Prev