In the latest issue we cover:

U-boat Crisis – The First Battle of the Atlantic

In April 1917, the Germans almost won the First World War – not on the Western Front, but on the Western Approaches. Military History Monthly investigates.

History of the British Army – Ferozeshah, 21-22 December 1845

India served as the main training-ground of the British Army throughout the 19^th century. Among the most formidable of the enemies they faced there were the Sikhs of thePunjab in the later 1840s.

The ‘Nineteen’ - the forgotten Jacobite Rebellion of 1719

The Fifteen and the Forty-five are famous. But these were not the only occasions when the Highland Jacobites rose against the Hanoverian succession. Chris Bambery reports on the forgotten ‘Nineteen’.

AD 312 - Rome’s great battle for empire and church

Ancient military historian Ross Cowan explores the victory that made Constantine emperor and Christianity the imperial religion.

Machine-guns and Drones

A century ago, machine-guns revolutionised warfare. Will drones do the same now? Defence journalist David Hambling explores.

Also in this issue: War Culture, War Zone, WMD, and Book Reviews.

From the editor

The centenary of the First World War approaches. Books are being written and TV documentaries commissioned. Commemorative projects are seeking funds. Scholars are organising conferences. The world is gearing up to mark a terrible anniversary in a host of different ways.

What reappraisals will emerge? Which new theories will gain credence? Which old ones will stand the test of fresh scrutiny? Will useful lessons be drawn from re-engagement with the most tragic period in human history (1914-1945), or will denial, falsehood, and ideology leave us as ignorant about our own folly as before?

We shall see. Our lead article this issue offers one example of how easily our perceptions can be distorted. British popular images of the First World War are dominated by the Western Front. TheSommeand Passchendaele are virtually household words.

How many people are aware that the monthBritaincame closest to losing the First World War was April 1917? And that the threat it faced was a decisive defeat at sea at the hands of a new weapons system at the cutting edge of technology?

Two weapons were destined to revolutionise naval warfare in the first half of the 20^th century, consigning the supremacy of the big-gun battleship to the history books: the submarine and the bombing plane.

In the face of both, the Royal Navy, mistress of the seas, steeped in tradition, and suffering an acute and debilitating ‘Trafalgar obsession’, was found wanting. The pre-war build-up of dreadnoughts was one expression of this, their vast expense and dominance within the naval establishment at the outbreak of war bearing no relation to the minor military role they subsequently played.

Worse, on the very brink of national disaster, naval top brass continued to refuse to release their precious ships for convoy work – until a much-maligned civilian politician, David Lloyd George, forced the issue.

That the U-boats came within a whisker of winning the ‘First Battle of theAtlantic’ is a story with a moral that well merits retelling.

Click twice on the image below for a larger version.

‘An explosion in air does not transfer much energy into a solid, due to acoustic impedance.’ Everyone knew that – no-one more so than bouncing bomb mastermind Barnes Wallis, who, during the Second World War, conceived an idea designed to shake German industry to its foundations.

At the time, a number of factors allowed engineers to make vital installations virtually proof against aerial bombardment. Contemporary bombing under anti-aircraft fire was very inaccurate, but even in the event of a direct hit, many buildings were so well protected by yards of concrete shielding that they might survive even that.

Wallis, forever the lateral thinker, planned to attack such structures from the ground up, embedding a vast explosive under the site of a protected target. But how?

The idea was to drop a huge, heavy bomb with a solid armoured tip from 40,000ft so that it broke through the ground and buried itself 130ft underground near the target, where it would detonate. The explosion would create a shockwave comparable to a small earthquake. This would shatter concrete reinforcements and destroy nearby dams, tunnels, railways, and viaducts.

Wallis predicted that an underground cave would be created by the blast beneath the target, into which the structure would collapse; a process referred to as a ‘trapdoor effect’.

   This all sounded very promising. The first obstacle to overcome was the RAF’s lack of any aircraft capable of lugging a ten-tonne bomb 40,000ft into the air. Wallis tackled this problem head-on, taking it upon himself to design the ‘Victory Bomber’ — a six-engine aeroplane fit for the task. At this stage in his career, however, Wallis was still relatively unknown, and it was difficult for him to get his idea taken seriously.

It was not until the success of his bouncing bomb later in the war that RAF Bomber Command decided that Wallis was a man to be listened to – however strange his ideas might have sounded. They provided him with the means to develop his designs. Though he was never to see his vast Earthquake Bomb actually made, Wallis did use the concept to create other explosive devices with great success.

The ‘Tallboy’ and the ‘Grand Slam’, although smaller than the original and never dropped above 25,000ft, were used effectively to disrupt German industry. They rendered the V2 factory inoperative, destroyed the V3 guns, were vital to the sinking of the Tirpitz, and caused considerable damage to the U-boats’ protective pens at St Nazaire.

Although Wallis’ vision of the giant Earthquake Bomb was never realised, and the necessity for such specific bombs was nullified with the development of nuclear weapons, these smaller versions were a success at the time. Today, the US Army has in its arsenal the Massive Ordnance Penetrator: a precision-guided bunker-buster designed to attack deeply buried targets without the use of nuclear weapons. Wallis would have been proud.

The dominant consideration in military operations in the Canadian hinterland was, of course, movement and supply over vast distances.Canadaextends for 5,000 miles from sea to sea, and most of it, even now, comprises a sparsely populated wilderness of rivers, lakes, forests, and mountains.

At the time, Canada was still in the process of formation. The Ontario-based government had created the Canadian Federation in 1867, and, in furtherance of this, had purchased Rupert’s Land (today’s Manitoba province) from the Hudson Bay Company in 1869. An English-speaking governor, William McDougall, was appointed, but his survey teams faced armed resistance from Métis settlers in the Red River region.

The Métis were pioneer farmers and French-speaking Catholics, many of mixed blood, their forebears having intermarried with Native Americans. Under the leadership of Louis Riel they formed a provisional government and an armed militia to resist the authority of the governor and his survey teams.

TheOntariogovernment was willing to negotiate a settlement which respected the rights and claims of the Métis. But McDougall, the man on the spot, was an anti-French bigot, and he had the support of a minority of English-speaking Red River settlers. An added complication was the infiltration of American pioneers and consequentUScounter-claims to the territory. Armed clashes culminating in the arrest and execution of one Thomas Scott, an Anglophone firebrand, had soured relations between Ontario and the Métis by the time a planned military expedition set out.

Colonel Garnet Wolseley’s challenge was to move 1,000 men and all their equipment and supplies across several hundred miles of wilderness. They were transported on riverboats, but this necessitated the construction of numerous corduroy roads for portage between waterways, and they toiled in high summer amid clouds of blackflies and mosquitoes. The expedition took two months to reach Fort Garryat the Red River Settlement on 24 August 1870.

Wolseley’s force, a mix of British regulars and Canadian militia, comprised: the King’s Royal Rifle Corps (60^th Foot), 1^st Ontario Rifles, 2^nd Quebec Rifles, The Queen’s York Rangers, a Provisional Battalion of Rifles, and a Provisional Battalion of Artillery. The Métis militia could not contemplate military resistance to such force, especially in the knowledge that it would be supported by the vengeful English-speaking minority among them.

Riel fled to the United States (though he later returned, became a member of Parliament, led a second rebellion, and was then tried and hanged for treason in 1885). Manitoba was absorbed into the Canadian Federation, but recognition was accorded the French language, the Catholic religion, and the land claims of the Métis. However, tension between English- and French-speaking Canadians – a legacy of the struggle for empire in the mid 18^th century – has remained a feature of political life ever since.

In April 1996, the secretary of defence selected the US Air Force as the operating service for the RQ-1 Predator system.  The ‘R’ is the Department of Defence (DOD) designation for reconnaissance aircraft. The ‘M’ is the DOD designation for multi-role, and ‘Q’ means unmanned aircraft system. The ‘1’ refers to the aircraft being the first of the series of remotely piloted aircraft systems.

A change in designation from RQ-1 to MQ-1 occurred in 2002 with the addition of the AGM-114 Hellfire missiles. During August 2011, Predator passed its one millionth total development, test, training, and combat hours mark – a significant accomplishment for the US Air Force.

General Characteristics

Primary Function: Armed reconnaissance, airborne surveillance, and target acquisition

Contractor: General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc.

Power Plant: Rotax 914F four cylinder engine

Thrust: 115 horsepower

Wingspan: 55 feet (16.8 meters)

Length: 27 feet (8.22 meters)

Height: 6.9 feet (2.1 meters)

Weight: 1,130 pounds (512 kilograms) empty

Fuel Capacity: 665 pounds (100 gallons)

Speed: Cruise speed around 84 mph (70 knots), up to 135 mph

Range: Up to 770 miles (675 nautical miles)

Ceiling: Up to 25,000 feet (7,620 meters)

Armament: Two laser-guided AGM-114 Hellfire missiles

Crew (remote):  Two (pilot and sensor operator)

Unit Cost: $20 million (fiscal 2009 dollars) (includes four aircraft, a ground control station and a Predator Primary Satellite Link)

Life at sea was dangerous and a sailor’s nerves were constantly being tested by the elements. Knowing that at any moment a tempest could blast them into a watery grave made sailors a superstitious bunch. The symbols they had inked onto their bodies were more than just exotic souvenirs from distant lands. They told the story of where a sailor had travelled, if he had been around Cape Horn, crossed the Equator, or visited the Orient. They were good-luck charms or protective talismans, and it was not long before there existed an extraordinarily elaborate set of tattoo symbols that spoke a language all of their own.

Seeing a sailor with a tattoo of a turtle on its back legs, for example, would indicate that he had been to the equator, and if he had a rope tattooed around his wrist, you would know he was a dockhand. A cross on the sole of each foot was supposed to ward off hungry sharks should you be cast overboard, while an image of the North Star would ensure that you could always find your way home.

The origins of the very common pig-and-rooster tattoo are still contested. These animals were commonly carried on ships in buoyant wooden crates. If the ship sank, the crates would catch the currents and wash ashore along with other on-board debris. In such cases, the pigs and roosters could be the only living beings to survive. So perhaps these tattoos meant safety in the event of shipwreck.

Other explanations of the pig and rooster are that, since both animals are averse to water, you would be quick out of the sea in the event of accident, or that, since the animals can be taken to represent ham and eggs, the wearer of the tattoo would be safe from hunger!

Whatever the symbolism, tattoos have held deep meaning for sailors since the beginning of the 18^th century. Here, using examples of the artwork of celebrated maritime-tattooist ‘Sailor Jerry’ (Norman Keith Collins), we take you through the meanings behind some other images you might see adorning the bodies of old sea-salts.

SWALLOWS

The first-known origins of the swallow tattoo date back to a mutiny on board a ship named The Swallow. The seven crew members who staged the mutiny each had a swallow tattooed on their chests so that they could identify their co-conspirators.

Since then, there have been a number of reasons for sailors to get the tattoo: the sight of a swallow (or sparrow or bluebird) at sea was a welcome one to any sailor, as they were usually the first sign that land was nearby and that a long voyage was nearing its end. The birds are known for always returning home and for mating for life. Thus the tattoo came to represent a safe journey back to land, and to symbolise loyalty.

A swallow also became a mark of experience. It was traditionally tattooed on the chest for every 5,000 nautical miles that a sailor had travelled. These journeys were riddled with hardships, starvation, sickness, and death, and so the more swallows the sailor had on his chest, the more experienced and respected he was.

DAGGER THROUGH A HEART

Although the meaning of a dagger-through-a-heart tattoo may vary, in general it symbolises the end of a love relationship due to unfaithfulness or betrayal. The slogan Death Before Dishonour, as seen in this design, is an enduringly popular tattoo among military units going back at least as far as Ancient Rome (morte prima di disonore). By the time of Roman senator and historian Tacitus, however, the vow ‘death before dishonour’ had become passé among Romans, but was instead adopted by the barbarians.Designed in a classicAmericanastyle with the incorporation of the bald eagle, this design hints at American patriotism. The dagger, of all the symbols used in this design, is probably the one seen most often with this motto, carrying with it a sense of seriousness, danger, and death.

ANCHORS

Anchors became a popular tattoo design during the 18^th century. The meaning behind the anchor derives from a sailor’s desire for stability at sea. In turbulent and changing waters, the anchor would keep sailors steady on board the ship and ground them in the same way a real anchor does a vessel. Longing for home also plays a part here, much as it does with the North Star motif: without an anchor, the ship would be cast adrift at sea, doomed to roam the waves forever. Their anchor tattoo offered sailors the hope of returning home.

The anchor symbol was not always so optimistic, however. When a ship or sailor is lost, the ‘sailor grave’ tattoo might be used to commemorate them. The design features an anchor, a life preserver, an eagle, and a sinking ship, all of which represent those lost as sea and the dangers of living a sailor’s life.

HULA GIRLS

As women were forbidden at sea, and their presence was considered bad luck, sailors left their wives, girlfriends, and lovers behind in port. To ease their parting and to remind themselves of what they had waiting on their return, tattoo designs of women’s names and, later, actual women became popular.

Just like today, nautical pin-up girls, mermaids, and hula girls were all synonymous with the sailing lifestyle. Hula girls represented the allure of distant lands and the mystery of indigenous female natives. Mermaids, like sirens, stood for the draw of life at sea despite all its dangers. And the more recent pin-ups symbolised the women left behind at the last harbour – the girls the sailors had waiting for them should they safely return.

To read more about the superstitious meanings behind sailors’ tattoos and the life of Norman Keith Collins AKA Sailor Jerry, pick up the June issue Military History Monthly.

Eric Bryan recalls a long-serving stalwart of British military reconnaissance.

In 1949, the British Army approached Daimler to upgrade its World War Two light armoured vehicles. Having previously designed the Dingo Scout Car, Daimler created the Ferret.

The Ferret was a development of the Dingo design, but it had more interior space for the crew, and could be fitted with an optional small machine-gun turret.

It was built with unibody construction instead of an internal frame. This gave the Scout Car a low profile – a positive in battle – though since the engine and transmission were situated inside the shell, the internal operational noise-level was high.

The four-wheel drive Ferret had run-flat tyres which resisted deflation when punctured, holding their shape enough for the vehicle to drive at reduced speed. This was a great advantage in combat, since a Ferret suffering one or more punctures would not be incapacitated.

Armament

Turreted Ferrets were usually fitted with a 7.62mm general purpose machine-gun. Often this was an M1919 Browning weapon rechambered for 7.62 x 51mm NATO ammunition.

The Ferret also had six smoke-grenade launchers, three mounted on each side over the front wheels.  Some Ferret marks were converted to carry Vickers Vigilant anti-tank missile launchers, and later, Swingfire anti-tank missile launchers.

Performance and power

The Ferret was strong off-road, and because of its size and top speed of 58mph, it excelled in urban environments. With a 130hp (an average derived from engine variations) Rolls Royce B60 series inline six-cylinder petrol engine and a five-speed transmission, the Ferret had fully independent suspension.

A selector allowed the driver to throw the whole gearbox in reverse mode. This enabled the Ferret to drive in forward or reverse – and start off – in any gear. This, combined with rear observation ports, gave the driver the ability to reverse the Ferret quickly out of danger.

Crew

The Ferret crew consisted of commander, gunner, and driver; or gunner/commander and driver. The number of crew was sometimes dictated by whether or not the Ferret was turreted.

The Scout Car’s interior had three compartments. In the centre was the fighting compartment, in the rear the engine compartment, and in the front the driver’s compartment. The latter was surrounded by three hatches, each with a periscope. The front hatch could be folded down, and the aperture filled with a shatterproof windscreen.

On the sides of the turret ring were vision slits fitted with block glass. There were escape hatches on each side – protected by a stowage box on the right, and by the spare wheel on the left.

The Marks 1 and 2 Ferrets could carry steel channels to form a bridge over trenches or ditches or for extrication when stuck in sand. Ferrets Marks 3 and 4 featured wrap-around floatation screens enabling them to cross rivers and lakes, propelled by their rotating wheels.

In action

In battle or during armoured manoeuvres, three Ferrets were attached to each tank squadron. Each Ferret trio formed a reconnaissance troop which scouted forward of the heavy armour to locate an enemy’s position.

Ferrets were used in the 1950s and 1960s in Aden for joint Anglo-Arab operations against border tribes. The vehicles also saw service in the Cyprus conflict and in Northern Ireland. The last major British use of Ferrets was in Operation Granby, during the 1991 Iraq War.

Years of service

Over 4,400 Ferrets were produced from 1952 to 1971. The Ferret served throughout the Commonwealth and in up to 40 countries outside Britain, including Cyprus, Ireland, Malaysia, and Yemen. Retired from the British Army, some Ferrets are still active in various Commonwealth countries.

These are the men who dictated the outcome of the bloodiest war in history. World War II impacted hundreds of millions of people around the world, yet it was the decisions of just a few powerful leaders that arguably set the course of the conflict.

This new documentary from GO ENTERTAIN looks back at the men whose decisions meant the difference between life and death for millions of innocent civilians: from Hitler, responsible for initiating the conflict, to Churchill, the man who took Britain to war as Nazi forces started to take Europe by force; from Hitler’s close ally Mussolini to Roosevelt, who brought America into the war in 1941.

Archive footage that has rarely been seen in the past 70 years, expert analysis, and previously unseen footage shape an in-depth portrait of four men who perhaps did more than any others to influence the path World War II took.

Competition closes 4th June 2012

Piracy and its suppression are much discussed these days, but few writers bother to investigate how piracy was dealt with in the past. It was not easy and it took about a century, from the 1620s to 1730, to eradicate piracy from the western world (with a short reprise from 1815 to 1830).

The pirates of this period can be divided into two groups, the individualist rovers who are the heroes of our childhoods, and the Barbary Corsairs who operated from bases inAlgiers,Tunis,Tripoli, and Sallee inMorocco. These Muslim pirates, who attacked Christian shipping and enslaved the captured passengers and crews, were much more dangerous than famous rascals like Blackbeard.

Barbary Corsairs

Serious attempts to control the Barbary Corsairs began in the 1620s, when they were at their strongest. Algiers alone had over 100 sailing ships and six galleys. The fleets of Tunis, Tripoli, and Sallee were much smaller, but still formidable, with fast, well-armed vessels manned by fanatical crews.

The navies of the Christian states at this date were relatively small and weak. Most of their ships were big and clumsy and not really suitable for chasing their much faster Muslim opponents. ‘It is almost incredible to relate in how short a time those ships out-sailed the whole fleet out of sight,’ wrote Admiral Mansell after giving chase to Algerian pirates in 1620.

There were therefore few successes in the first half of the 17^th century. The corsairs continued to take many prizes, both at sea and on land. Raids ashore fromItaly toIceland garnered large numbers of captives to be enslaved or offered for ransom. Ransom enabled the wealthier captives to get home eventually, but the fate of most poor captives was a lifetime of slavery.

Naval power

The 1650s saw a huge increase in the navies of England,Holland, andFrance, including many small, fast, shallow-draught ships, often propelled by oars as well as sails. Such vessels, usually known as frigates, were ideal for fighting the Barbary Corsairs. Sixty years after Admiral Mansell, Admiral Herbert was able to write that ‘they [the corsairs] find it hard to escape any of our frigates’.

The other important innovation of the 1650s was the development of convoy to protect merchant ships from pirates. By the 1680s, naval ships regularly convoyed merchantmen on the major shipping routes. Few corsairs would dare attack a large convoy.

Defeating the corsairs still took a long time and was very expensive. A political will to spend money was essential.England and France were the main combatants. Each of them engaged in several fiercely fought wars against the corsair states from the 1650s onwards.

Both sides lost ships, but the corsairs, now far weaker than their Christian opponents, could less afford to lose ships and men. Cumulative defeats gradually wore them down and, by the 1680s, they felt compelled to sign a series of treaties exempting ships of the victorious European powers from attack. Documents known as ‘Mediterranean passes’ allowed the ships ofFranceandEnglandto sail unharmed by the corsairs.

The ships of the weaker European nations (and, after 1783, of theUnited States), however, remained vulnerable to attack. These countries could choose to fight the corsairs, pay them protection money or take a chance and sail into danger.

Most agreed to pay protection money or tribute, and this reduced the numbers of both corsairs and victims. But there were still corsairs active as late as the 1820s, and the problem only finally ended with the French conquest ofAlgiersin 1830. This example soon inducedTripoliandTunisto end all acts of hostility against European nations and to restore to liberty their few remaining slaves.

Freelance pirates

The Barbary Corsairs operated mainly in the Mediterranean and in the waters of Western Europe, leaving the rest of the world free for individualist pirates, who, by the 1660s, were to be found mainly in the Caribbean, the coastal waters of North America, and later around the Atlantic islands, off the West African coast, and in the Indian Ocean.

These pirates, though better known in modern times, never achieved the numbers and importance of the Barbary Corsairs. Numbers varied during ‘the golden age of piracy’ (c. 1660-1725), but they rarely exceeded 2,000 men in some 20 or 30 ships. The vessels were usually converted prizes and were similar to the ships of the Barbary Corsairs – fast, shallow-draught, and usually fitted with oars as well as sails.

The European maritime powers recognised a duty to protect their own coasts from pirates, but had an ambivalent attitude to the growth of piracy in West Indian waters. Such piracy might be seen as bad in theory but useful in practice, a cheap or costless way of expanding the country’s economic and naval power.

England and France adopted a policy of piratical imperialism, condoning or even actively supporting piracy committed by their own subjects, since this was mainly directed against the Spaniards, who monopolised Caribbean trade. Destruction or capture of Spanish ships by pirates opened up this trade to the English, French, and Dutch, and these nations soon dominated the carrying trade of the area.

Piracy and profit

With the Spanish monopoly broken, piracy was now seen as a hindrance to the further development of trade, so that by the 1690s piracy was universally condemned by Western European governments. The pirates had become the ‘enemies of mankind’ – to be treated like vermin and destroyed or driven from the seas.

Achievement lagged behind rhetoric, however, for governments lacked the will to spend serious money on the eradication of piracy and also the knowledge of how to go about it. Even so, they laid a base for later, successful anti-pirate campaigns.

Piracy depends on safe havens, and these were plentiful in the late 17^th century, as attracting pirates was good business, one in which profits could be made in fitting out ships, buying and selling prizes, and providing bars and brothels in which crews could spend their prize money.

Installing anti-pirate governments in such places took a long time, but it was eventually achieved, mainly by choosing the right man for the post of governor, having dismissed venal or incompetent predecessors. Jamaica, the most notorious of the pirate havens in the 1660s, was to become the centre of British anti-piracy activity by the 1690s, while evenSouth Carolina, the last important pirate haven in the British mainland colonies, was fairly law-abiding by 1720. Havens still existed, places like the Danish island of St Thomasor, for a few years, the Bahamas, but such bases were far fewer in 1720 than in 1680.

The rule of law

The eradication of piracy required revisions to the law. Only in the Spanish colonies was the law a serious impediment to pirates, with those captured likely to be condemned to the galleys for life or executed, while naval commanders could and did hang captured pirates from their yardarms.

Such arbitrary justice was rarely employed by the British, whose laws required captured pirates to be tried and found guilty by a jury, something difficult to achieve. Witnesses were hard to find since most were sailors who had long since departed, while those still present were generally reluctant to give evidence. And getting a jury to give a guilty verdict was near impossible, since many pirates were local men, protected by friends or those who profited from their piracy.

In 1700, Britainenacted a new law which would prove to be the doom of pirates. From now on, a small court of colonial officials or naval officers (and no jury) could assemble anywhere to try pirates. Proceedings became heavily weighted against defendants. Naval officers who made the actual capture often gave evidence, and members of the pirate crews were persuaded to give evidence against their shipmates in return for a pardon.

Hundreds of pirates were found guilty between 1700 and 1730, and large numbers of these were sentenced to death. ‘Although it may be thought by some a pretty severe thing, to put an Englishman to death without a jury,’ wrote an observer of one such a trial, ‘yet the wisdom and justice of our nation, for very sufficient and excellent reasons, have so ordered it in the case of piracy.’

Maritime counterinsurgency

The scene was set for a major campaign against the pirates. But first, as on many occasions in earlier years, a much cheaper method of reducing pirate numbers was tried. This was to offer pardons to all who surrendered before a given date. Pirates were rightly suspicious of pardons, since not all who came in were treated honourably, but there were always some glad of the opportunity to bring their loot ashore and live a quieter life – though for many the pardon was simply a brief holiday before going once again ‘to their former vile course of life’.

The benefits of pardon exhausted, the government now set in motion two naval campaigns, one from 1699 to 1702, the other from 1715 to 1725. The British government was finally taking the problem of piracy seriously. The number of royal ships committed increased from just three or four in theWest Indiesand none in  North American waters in the 1670s to a maximum of 24 ships employing 3,500 men in 1700 – more men, in fact, than there were pirates.

Jamaica served as headquarters, with six ships, and the rest were stationed in other islands and in the mainland colonies. Naval orders stated that pirate ships were to be hunted down and destroyed and local colonial trade protected from pirate attack.

The royal ships were effective in defending trade, but offensive action proved more difficult and few pirate ships were captured. The reasons are not hard to find…

  To read the rest of this article and find out how the Navy managed to clear the seas of pirates, pick up a copy of the May issue of Military History Monthly.