introduction of rapid-fire guns has such an important influence on

the question of shortened belts as some writers have supposed. So far as machine guns are concerned, I well remember at the board meeting which decided to approve the building of the _Collingwood_ the possible effects of machine-gun fire were discussed at some length, both in reference to the adoption of the barbette system and to the system of hull protection. The rapid-firing gun which has since been introduced is now a formidable weapon; but it may be questioned whether its effects upon the unarmored portions of modern war-ships would be so serious as those resulting from the shell-fire of heavier guns, and therefore it cannot with certainty be concluded that it would be advantageous to make arrangements for keeping out the projectiles from the rapid-firing guns now in use at the ends of the _Admiral_ class. More especially is this true when it is considered that already rapid-fire guns of much larger calibre and greater power than the 6-pounder and 9-pounder are being made. To these guns three inches of steel would be practically no better defence than the existing thin sides, and the real defence lies in the strong protective deck. Shell-fire from heavier guns will probably be found the best form of attack against the unarmored or lightly armored portions of battle-ships, especially now that the use of steel shells with thin walls and large bursting charges is being so rapidly developed. “I would again say that on this side of the subject I do not profess to speak with authority, and it is undoubted that great differences of opinion prevail; but it must not be forgotten that the Board of Admiralty, by its recent decision announced in the House of Commons, has reaffirmed the opinion that from the artillerist’s point of view the existing disposition of the armor in the _Admiral_ class is satisfactory. This has been done after the attention of the Board and the public has been most strongly directed to the supposed dangers incidental to the rapid destruction of the light superstructures lying above the under-water decks of the _Admiral_ class. It would be folly to suppose that in such a matter any merely personal considerations would prevent the Board from authorizing a change which was proved to be necessary or advantageous. With respect to the possibility of making experiments which should determine the points at issue, I would only say that considerable difficulties must necessarily arise in endeavoring to represent the conditions of an actual fight; but in view of the diametrically opposite views which have been expressed as to the effect of gun-fire upon cellular structures, it would certainly be advantageous if some scheme of the kind could be arranged. “There still remains to be considered the question of the uses of armor in future war-ships. This letter has already extended to too great a length to permit of any attempt at a full discussion. It will be admitted by all who are interested in the questions of naval design that an inquiry into the matter is urgently needed, even if it leads only to a temporary solution of the problem, in view of the present means of offence and defence. “Armor, by which term I understand not merely vertical armor, but oblique or horizontal armor, is regarded in different ways by different authorities. For example, I understand Sir Edward Reed to maintain that side-armor should be fitted in the form of a water-line belt, extending over a very considerable portion of the length, and that such armor, in association with a strong protective deck, and armored erections for gun-stations, etc., should secure the buoyancy, trim, and stability of the vessel. At the other extreme we have the view expressed in the design of the grand Italian vessels of the _Italia_ class. In them the hull-armor is only used for the purpose of assisting the cellular hull subdivisions in protecting buoyancy, stability, and trim, taking the form of a thick protective deck, which is wholly under water, and above which comes a minutely subdivided region, which Signor Brin and his colleagues consider sufficient defence against gun-fire. “In these Italian vessels the only thick armor is used to protect the gun-stations, the pilot-tower, and the communications from those important parts to the magazines and spaces below the protective deck. The strong deck, besides forming a base of the cellular subdivision, is of course a defence to the vital parts of the ship lying below it. “Between these two types of ships come the _Admiral_ class of the English navy and the belted vessels of the French navy, whose resemblances and differences have been described above. “In addition, there are not a few authorities who maintain that the development of the swift torpedo-cruiser, or the swift protected cruiser, makes the continued use of armor at least questionable, seeing that to attempt to protect ships by thick armor either on decks or sides, and to secure high speeds and heavy armaments, involves the construction of large and expensive vessels, which are necessarily exposed to enormous risks in action from forms of under-water attack, against which their armor is no defence. In view of such differences of opinion, and of the heated controversies which have arisen therefrom, the time seems certainly to have arrived when some competent body should be assembled by the Admiralty for the purpose of considering the designs of our war-ships, and enabling our constructors to proceed with greater assurance than they can at present. Questions affecting the efficiency of the Royal Navy clearly ought not to be decided except in the most calm and dispassionate manner. The work done by the Committee on Designs for Ships of War fourteen years ago was valuable, and has had important results. What is now wanted, I venture to think, is a still wider inquiry into the condition of the navy, and one of the branches of that inquiry which will require the most careful treatment is embraced in the question, ‘What are the uses of armor in modern war-ships?’ “My own opinion, reached after very careful study of the subject, is that very serious limitations have to be accepted in the disposition and general efficiency of the armaments, if the principle of protecting the stability at considerable angles of inclination by means of thick armor is accepted, the size and cost of the ships being kept within reasonable limits. There is no difficulty, of course, apart from considerations of size and cost, in fulfilling the condition of armor-protected stability; but it may be doubted whether the results could prove satisfactory, especially when the risks from under-water attacks, as well as from gun-fire, are borne in mind, and the fact is recognized that even the thickest armor carried or contemplated is not proof against existing guns. No vessel can fight without running risks. It is by no means certain, however, that the greater risks to be faced are those arising from damage to the sides in the region of the water-line and consequent loss of stability. So far as I have been able to judge, it appears possible to produce a better fighting-machine for a given cost by abandoning the idea of protecting stability, buoyancy, and trim entirely by thick armor, and by the acceptance of the principle that unarmored but specially constructed superstructures shall be trusted as contributories to the flotation and stability. Thick vertical side armor, even over a portion of the length, appears to be by no means a necessary condition to an effective guarantee of the life and manageability of a ship when damaged in action; and it seems extremely probable that in future the great distinction between battle-ships and protected ships will not be found in the nature of their hull protection in the region of the water-line, but in the use of thick armor over the stations of the heavy guns in battle-ships. “The decisions as to future designs of our battle-ships is a momentous one. It can only be reached by the consideration of the relative advantages and disadvantages of alternative proposals. It cannot be dissociated from considerations of cost for a single ship. “On all grounds, therefore, it is to be hoped that a full and impartial inquiry will be authorized without delay; for it may be assumed that, however opinions differ, there is the common desire to secure for the British navy the best types of ships and a sufficient number to insure our maritime supremacy. I am, sir, your obedient servant, “W. H. WHITE. “ELSWICK WORKS, _March 26th_.” The following reply by Sir Edward Reed appeared in the _Times_ of April 8, 1885, the omitted portions being personal allusions which have very little bearing upon the discussion, and which are of no interest to a professional reader outside of England: “It is not Mr. White’s fault but his misfortune that he is compelled to admit the perfect correctness of the main charge which I have brought against these six ships, _viz._, that they have been so constructed, and have been so stripped of armor protection, that their armor, even when intact and untouched, is wholly insufficient to prevent them from capsizing in battle. Mr. White expends a good deal of labor in attempting to show that their unarmored parts would have a better chance of keeping the ships upright and afloat than I credit them with, which is a secondary, although an important, question; but he frankly admits that these six ships of the _Admiral_ type are, and are admitted to be, so built that their ‘stability in the sense of the power to resist being capsized if inclined to even moderate angles of inclination is not guaranteed by their armor-belts.’ * * * * * “I have no doubt it would suit the purposes of all those who are or who have been responsible for those ships if I were to allow myself to be drawn, in connection with this question, away from the essential points just adverted to into a controversy upon the efforts made by the Admiralty to give to these ships, which have been denied a reasonable amount of armor protection, such relief from the grave dangers thus incurred as thin sheet compartments, coffer-dams, coals, patent fuel, stores, etc., can afford. (Cork is what was at first relied upon in this connection, but we hear no more of it now.) But I do not intend to be drawn aside from my demand for properly armored ships of the first class by any references to these devices, and for a very simple reason, _viz._, all such devices, whether their value be great or small, are in no sense special to armored ships; on the contrary they are common to all ships, and are more especially applied to ships which are unable to carry armor. The application of these devices to ships stripped of armor does not make them armored ships, any more than it makes a simple cruiser or other ordinary unarmored vessel an armored ship; and what I desire, and what I confidently rely upon the country demanding before long, is the construction of a few line-of-battle ships made reasonably safe by armor, in lieu of the present ships, which, while called armored ships, in reality depend upon their thin unarmored parts for their ability to keep upright and afloat. Besides, I do not believe in these devices for ships intended for close fighting. I even believe them likely, in not a few cases, to add to their danger rather than to their safety. If, for example, a raking shot or shell should let the sea into the compartments on one side of the ship, while those on the other side remain intact and buoyant, this very buoyancy upon the uninjured side of the ship would help to capsize her. “Mr. White says that no vessel can fight without running risks, and thinks that thick, vertical side-armor, even over a portion of the ship’s length, is not a necessary guarantee of the life of a ship. Well, sir, we are all at liberty to think, or not think, what we please, so far as our sense and judgment will allow us; but Mr. White, like all other depreciators of side-armor, fails utterly to show us what else there is which can be relied upon to keep shell out of a ship, or what can be done to prevent shell that burst inside a ship from spreading destruction all around. He refers us to no experiments to show that the thin plate divisions and coffer-dams, and like devices, will prove of any avail for the purpose proposed. In the absence of any such experiments, he tells us, as others have told us, that Signor Brin and colleagues in the Italian Admiralty consider ‘a minutely subdivided region’ at and below the water-line ‘sufficient defence against gun-fire.’ But I do not think Signor Brin believes anything of the kind; what he believes is that the Italian government cannot afford to build a fleet of properly armored line-of-battle ships for hard and close fighting, and that, looking at their limited resources, a few excessively fast ships, with armor here and there to protect particular parts, and with ample capabilities of retreat to a safe distance, will best serve their purpose. I do not say that he is wrong, and I certainly admire the skill which he has displayed in carrying out his well-defined object. But that object is totally different from ours, and our naval habits, our traditions, our national spirit, the very blood that flows in our veins, prevent such an object from ever becoming ours. “Mr. White all through his letter, in common with some of his late colleagues at the Admiralty, thinks and speaks as if naval warfare were henceforth to be chiefly a matter of dodging, getting chance shots, and keeping out of the enemy’s way; and this may be more or less true of contests between unarmored vessels. But why is not the line-of-battle ship _Collingwood_ to be supposed to steam straight up to the enemy, I should like to know? and if she does, what is to prevent the enemy from pouring a raking fire through her bow, and ripping up at once, even with a single shell, every compartment between the stem and the transverse armored bulkhead? “It distresses me beyond measure to see our ships constructed so as to impose upon them the most terrible penalties whenever their commanders dare, as dare they ever have, and dare they ever will, to close with their foe and try conclusions with him. Why, sir, it has been my painful duty over and over again to hear foreign officers entreat me to use all my influence against the adoption in their navy of ships with so little armored surface as ours. On one occasion the _Collingwood_ herself was imposed upon them as a model to be imitated, and I was besought to give them a safer and better ship. ‘How could I ever steam up to my enemy with any confidence,’ said one of the officers concerned, ‘with such a ship as that under my feet?’ * * * * * “Mr. White coolly tells us that the _Collingwood_, with five hundred tons of water logging her ends to a depth of seven or eight feet, will not be much worse off than a ship whose armored deck stands two and a half or three feet above the water’s surface, and his reason is that even above this latter deck the water would flow in when the ship was driving ahead with an injured bow. Well, sir, I will only say that sailors of experience see a very great difference between the two cases, and I can but regard such theorizings as very unfortunate basis for the designs of her Majesty’s ships. “I have said that Mr. White’s assumptions as to the immunity of the above-water compartments and coffer-dams from wide-spread injury by shell-fire rest upon no experimental data; I go on to say that such data as we have to my mind point very much the other way. The _Huascar_ was not an unarmored vessel, and such shell as penetrated her had first to pass through some thin armor and wood backing; yet after the _Cochrane_ and _Blanco Encaloda_ had defeated her she presented internally abundant evidence of the general destruction which shell-fire produces. An officer of the _Cochrane_, who was the first person sent on board by the captors, in a letter to me written soon afterwards, said: ‘It requires seeing to believe the destruction done.... We had to climb over heaps, table-high, of _débris_ and dead and wounded.... We fired forty-five Palliser shell, and the engineers who were on board say that every shell, or nearly so, must have struck, and that every one that struck burst on board, doing awful destruction.’ “Speaking of the injury which the _Cochrane_ received from a single shell of the _Huascar_, he said: ‘It passed through the upper works at commander’s cabin, breaking fore and aft bulkhead of cabins, breaking skylight above ward-room, thwartship bulkhead of wood, passed on, cut in two a 5-inch iron pillar, through a store-room, struck armor-plate, glanced off, passing through plating of embrasure closet at corner, finishing at after gun-port, and went overboard. This shell passed in at starboard part of stern and terminated at after battery port on port side, which is finished with the wide angle-iron, carrying out a part of the angle-iron in its flight.’ “This was a shell of moderate size, from a moderate gun, but it is obvious that it would have made short work of penetrating those very thin sheets of steel which constitute the compartments, coffer-dams, etc., upon the resistance of which, to my extreme surprise, those responsible for the power and safety of our fleets seem so ready to place their main dependence. * * * * * “For resistance to rams and torpedoes, and for the limitation of the injuries to be effected by them, as much cellular subdivision as possible should be supplied; but, as against shot and shell, subdivision by their sheet-steel is no guarantee whatever of safety in any ship, least of all in line-of-battle ships, which must be prepared for fighting at close quarters. “I must now ask for space to remark upon a few minor points in Mr. White’s letter. He seems to consider that the scant armor of the _Admiral_ class is somehow associated with the placing of the large, partly protected guns of these ships in separate positions, ‘in order to reduce the risks of complete disablement of the principal armament by one or two lucky shots, which may happen when the heavy guns are concentrated on a single citadel or battery.’ Suffice it to reply that in the proposed new designs of the Admiralty ships now before Parliament, which have almost equally scant partial belts of armor, the guns are nevertheless concentrated in a single battery. “Again, Mr. White says the Admiralty have declined to adopt my advice to protect the _Admiral_ class in certain unarmored parts with 3-inch plating, and declares that such plating would practically be no better defence against rapid-fire guns than existing thin sides; but has he forgotten the fact that my suggestion has been adopted in the new designs for the protection of the battery of 6-inch guns, although it is perversely withheld from those parts of the ship in which it might assist in some degree in prolonging the ship’s ability to float and to resist capsizing forces? “Mr. White makes one very singular statement. He takes exception to my claiming for the _Inflexible_ type of ship, on account of their armored citadel, a much better chance of retaining stability in battle than the _Admiral_ type possesses, because, he says, ‘in both classes the armored portions require the assistance of the unarmored to secure such a range and amount of stability as shall effectually guarantee their security when damaged in action.’ The fair inference to be drawn from this would be that where the principle long ago laid down by me, and supported by Mr. Barnaby in the words previously quoted, is once departed from, the danger must in all cases be so great as to exclude all distinctions of more or less risk. Mr. White can hardly mean this; but if he does not, then on what grounds are we told that a ship which has no armor at all left above water at an inclination say of six or eight degrees is no worse off than a ship which at those angles and at still greater ones has a water-tight citadel over one hundred feet long to help hold her up? * * * * * “I am not at all disposed to enter into a discussion as to the relative stabilities of the English and French ships under various conditions. The French ships have armored belts two and a half to three feet above water from end to end. That fact, other things being presumed equal, gives them an immense advantage over our ships, which in battle trim have belts scarcely more than a foot wide above water, and for less than half their length. It is quite possible that the French constructors may have given their ships less initial stability than ours; from such information as I possess I believe they have; but in so far as the ship below the armor-deck, and the action of shot and shell upon that part of her, are concerned, whatever stability they start with in battle they will retain until their armor is pierced; whereas our ships may have a large proportion of theirs taken from them without their armor being pierced, and their armored decks are then less than half the height of those of the French ships above water. * * * * * “I will add that I doubt if the French ships are dealt fairly by at Whitehall. I lately heard a good deal of the extreme taper of their armor-belts at the bow, and the _Amiral Duperré_ was always quoted in instance of this. It is true that this ship’s armor does taper from fifty-five centimetres amidships to twenty-five centimetres at the stem, but she stands almost alone among recent important ships in this respect, as the following figures will show: +------------------+--------------+--------------+ | | Thickness | Thickness | | NAME OF SHIP. | of Armor | of Armor | | | Amidship. | at Bows. | +------------------+--------------+--------------+ | | Centimetres. | Centimetres. | | Amiral Baudin | 55 | 40 | | Formidable | 55 | 40 | | Hoche | 45 | 40 | | Magenta | 45 | 40 | | Marceau | 45 | 40 | | Caiman | 50 | 35 | | Fulminant | 33 | 25 | | Furieuse | 50 | 32 | | Indomptable | 50 | 37 | | Requin | 50 | 40 | | Terrible | 50 | 37 | +------------------+--------------+--------------+ “A friend writes me: ‘Comparing the _Amiral Duperré_ with the _Amiral Baudin_, _Dévastation_, _Formidable_, and _Foudroyant_, which are ships of about her size, the following peculiarities are observable: The _Duperré_ is about three feet narrower than the other ships mentioned, and has fully fifteen inches less metacentric height. She is also slightly deeper in proportion to her breadth than the other ships.’ “As narrowness, small metacentric height, and excessive depth all tend to reduce stability, it would appear that the Admiralty office has, as I supposed, been careful to select a vessel not unfavorable to their purpose. But however this may be, it is no business of mine to defend the French ships in the details of their stability, nor even to defend them at all; and, as a matter of fact, the French Admiralty, although stopping far short of ours, has in my opinion gone much too far in the direction of reducing the armored stability at considerable angles of inclination. But their falling into one error is no justification for our falling into a much greater one, and deliberately repeating it in every ship we lay down. In this connection I will only add that the experiments performed at our Admiralty on models must be viewed with great distrust for a reason not yet named. They deal only, so far as I am acquainted with them, with models set oscillating or rolling by waves or otherwise. But the danger thus dealt with is a secondary one; the primary one is that due to ‘list’ or prolonged inclination to one side. What sort of protection against the danger of capsizing from this cause can be possessed by a ship the entire armor on each side of which becomes immersed even in smooth water when the ship is inclined a couple of degrees only, and which then has no side left to immerse, save such as single shells can blow into holes ten by four feet? “It is to be observed that although Mr. White does not venture to join the only other apologist for these deficiently armored ships in stating that India-rubber umbrella shot-stoppers are to be employed for their preservation in battle, he does go so far as to tell us that the spaces into which water would enter when the unarmored parts have been penetrated have been subdivided ‘to facilitate the work of stopping temporarily shot-holes in the sides,’ and I know independently that a good deal of reliance is placed at the Admiralty upon the presumed ability to stop such holes as they are made. But the whole thing is a delusion. The officer of the _Cochrane_, before quoted, said, ‘I wish to state that shot-plugs are out of the question after or at such a fight. They are entirely useless. Not a hole was either round, square, or oval, but different shapes—ragged, jagged, and torn, the inside parts and half-inch plating being torn in ribbons; some of the holes inside are as large as four by three feet, and of all shapes. There are many shot-plugs on board here, all sizes, conical shapes and long, but they are of no use whatever.’ “Mr. White’s letter invites many other comments, but I have said enough to show that it in no way changes my view of the question of armor-plated line-of-battle ships. In so far as it advocates a further abandonment of armor and a further resort to doubtful devices in lieu thereof, it is already answered by anticipation by the Admiralty itself. Until I wrote my recent letters to you, our Admiralty thought as Mr. White still thinks, and tended as he still tends. In the case of all our recent cruisers but two they had abolished side-armor altogether. To my public appeal for armor-belted cruisers they have, however, responded, and are about to order six of such ships. So far, so good. We ought to be grateful for this concession to a most reasonable demand. I wish these cruisers were to be faster, much faster, but in Admiralty matters the country must be thankful for small mercies. “It only remains for me to note with satisfaction one or two of the points upon which Mr. White is in agreement with myself. He admits that it ‘would certainly be advantageous’ to carry out those experiments which I regard the Admiralty as afraid to make, _viz._, experiments to test the effect of gun-fire upon the subdivided but unarmored parts of ships. * * * * * “It may be taken for what it is worth, but I declare that the abandonment of armor has not at all been forced upon us by unavoidable circumstances, nor is it from any intrinsic necessity that we go on refusing to provide our ships with torpedo defence. On not immoderate dimensions, at not immoderate cost, ships might be built, still practically invulnerable to gun, ram, and torpedo alike, ships which could dispose of the _Admiral_ class of ships more quickly and certainly than she could dispose of the feeblest antagonist that she is likely to encounter. But in order to produce such ships we must revive the now abandoned principle that armor, and armor alone can save from destruction those ships whose business it is to drive our future enemies from the European seas and lock them up in their own ports.” The Committee on Designs of 1872, previously alluded to, contained sixteen members, of whom six were naval officers. Two of those members, Admiral George Elliot, R.N., and Rear-admiral A. P. Ryder, R.N., dissented so far from their colleagues that they could not sign the report, and accordingly they submitted a very able minority report embodying their views. The first of the “general principles” laid down in their report is as follows: “That it is of the last importance that the modifications in existing types of men-of-war which the committee have been invited to suggest should be calculated not merely to effectually meet the necessities of naval warfare now and in the immediate future, but in full view of the probable necessities of naval warfare in the more remote future.” It must be a source of satisfaction to these gallant officers to observe in some designs of the present day a confirmation of their forecast in many particulars. The following extracts from a letter bearing upon the present controversy, by Admiral Elliot, appeared in the _Times_ (London) of April 24, 1885, and contain the pith of his oft-quoted arguments: “My first impression on reading these letters in the _Times_ is one of disappointment that the point at issue between these two experts has not been more closely confined to the comparative merits of side-armor _versus_ cellular-deck armor, but that their attention has been directed to this feature of design only as connected with a particular type of ship, namely, the _Collingwood_, which vessel is a hybrid, or cross between the two systems of protection to buoyancy, and therefore not truly representative of either. Mr. White’s defence of the unarmored ends of the _Collingwood_ is so far unsatisfactory that it treats of a very imperfect development of the cellular-deck mode of protection, and therefore he is not an exponent of the real merits of this system. * * * * * “I am quite aware that the main point at issue between these two distinguished naval architects has been more closely confined to the question of stability than to that of flotation as displayed in the design of the _Collingwood_, and in this scientific view of the case I do not feel competent to offer any opinion, except to point out that the cellular-deck principle _per se_ does not involve any such danger as regards stability as is produced by the top weight of a central citadel. Mr. White acknowledges that this top weight will capsize his ship if deprived of the buoyancy afforded by the unarmored ends, and on this danger point Sir Edward Reed fixes his sharpest weapon of attack. * * * * * “The great issue at stake is how the weights available for the protection of buoyancy and for gun defence are to be distributed to the best advantage for defensive purposes, and in order to discuss Sir Edward Reed’s opinions in a concise form I will deal with the question solely as concerning the use of side-armor of less than twelve inches, beyond which limit of thickness I will, for the sake of argument, admit its practical advantages; and looking to the demand for increased speed and coal-carrying capacity, it does not appear probable that if combined with adequate gun protection, and if of sufficient depth, an all-round belt of thicker than ten inches can be carried by any vessels of war except those of much greater displacement than the _Collingwood_ class. I feel justified, however, in discussing the question on this basis, because Sir Edward Reed includes in his category of approved armored ships our recent belted cruisers, having a narrow belt of ten inches maximum thickness, and takes credit for having induced the Admiralty to abandon their original intention of cellular-deck water-line protection in this class of war-ship in favor of this thin armor-belt. “The relative value of these two systems of water-line protection, namely, an all-round belt _versus_ a raft body, must not only be ruled by the displacement decided upon for each class of vessel, and by the power of the gun which has to be encountered, but by such tactical expedients as can be resorted to in battle, as being those best suited to the known offensive and defensive properties of the combatants. “Looking at this disputed question entirely from the point of view of an artillerist and a practical seaman, I can perceive very great tactical advantages to be obtained by the adoption of the mode of protection proposed as a substitute for obsolete armor, and I view with much regret the one-sidedness of the conclusions arrived at by the opponents of this system, and the disparaging terms in which it is sought to turn it into ridicule, such as ‘doubtful devices’ and ‘useless contrivances,’ etc., because they indicate prejudice and a want of mature consideration of the incidents of naval battles. I cannot, also, help observing that while, on the one side, prophesying the most fatal consequences to ensue from what is called ‘stripping ships of armor,’ on the other side no admission is made of the disastrous results which must follow from placing reliance on such a delusive defensive agency as an armor-plate known to be penetrable by guns certain to be encountered; and in order to support this theory we are called upon to believe that gunners will be so excited in action or so unskilful that in no case will they hit the large object aimed at, namely, the water-line of an adversary passing even at close quarters on their beam, but I shall refer to this feature of assumed impunity hereafter. “Sir Edward Reed’s comparative remarks on the effect of shot-holes as between the two systems of defence are of the same one-sided character, notwithstanding the evidence of the fractured condition of armor-plates subjected to experimental firing; and it is almost apparent that in decrying the one mode of protection he has lost sight of the fact that a ten-inch armor-plate is all that will stand between the life and death of a ship—that is to say, between one well-directed shell and the magazines and boilers—which plate can be easily penetrated and smashed up by the guns which similar vessels will assuredly carry if so invited. Also, in referring to the baneful effects of raking fire and shell explosion inboard, the assumed inferiority is misplaced because one prominent advantage of the cellular-deck system is that by economizing weight at the water-line it enables the bow and stern to be armor-plated—a matter of the highest tactical importance as a defence against raking fire, which is unobtainable in a belted ship of the same displacement, at least without entailing a considerable reduction of the thickness of armor on the belt. This feature of end-on defence is not only an essential element of safety, but must prove most effective as enabling a combatant to close his adversary at an advantage, and enforce the bow-to-bow ram encounter, or compel him to resort to a stern fight, or otherwise to pass him at such close quarters as will insure direct hits and depressed fire at the water-line belt, and by these tactics the opportunities for riddling the raft body will be few and far between. “I may also express the opinion that for repairing damages in a raft-bodied ship at the water-line far more efficacious means can be resorted to than the ordinary shot-plugs, and that the use of cork bags for closing shot-holes in the coffer-dam sides, if they are open at the top, is far from being an unreasonable or ‘stupid contrivance,’ as it is called, considering that, as a general rule, the perforations through thin plating would not be ragged or extensive. Sir Edward Reed’s wise suggestion to make the outer skin of the coffer-dam of two-inch steel plates would render machine-gun fire of little avail. The injurious effects of shell fire would, I reckon, be far more fatal if the projectile exploded in passing through the ten-inch belt than if it burst at some distance inboard after penetrating thin plating. I think it will be admitted without dispute that this feature of design must be governed to a great extent by tactical considerations, the object sought for being to secure out of a given weight of steel the greatest amount of fighting vitality consistent with the power of manœuvring available between skilful antagonists. This view of the case is especially applicable to single actions at sea, when a clever tactician will select his mode of fighting according to the offensive and defensive properties known to be possessed by his opponent, and in this respect an armor-plated bow and stern will afford enormous advantages, both for attack and defence, if the plating is extended as high as the upper deck. “In fleet actions the ram and torpedo will require more attention than the gun attack, and that feature of battle introduces another disputed point, namely, the limit of size of ship; but that question is outside the scope of the present discussion, and I shall conclude my arguments by a strong expression of opinion that, as gunpowder has so completely mastered the pretensions of outside armor protection, the direction in which prudence leans towards defensive properties in future designs for ships-of-war is that of deflection rather than of direct resistance, and that in this respect science has not reached its utmost limit of invention. “The prevailing disposition to regulate the power of the gun by the size of the vessel is, I consider, a great mistake, seeing that the additional weight of a powerful gun is not inadmissible, even in such vessels as our belted cruisers, and looking to the strong inducement held out by the continued use of armor-plating, even of such moderate thickness as ten inches. In the splendid steamers purchased from the mercantile marine, which are being armed with light guns only, one 25-ton gun would greatly add to their fighting power, but the cause of this omission may probably be found in the answer to the question, Where are the guns?” The following reply appeared in the _Times_ (London) of May 1, 1885: “SIR.—The letter of Admiral Sir George Elliot ... deals ably and candidly with a subject of such fundamental importance to our navy that I venture to offer a few observations upon it. “I am glad to see that the gallant admiral separates his case and the cellular or raft-deck system from any connection with the _Collingwood_ or _Admiral_ type of ship, but I regret that he has treated my criticisms of that kind of ship just as if I had applied them in the abstract to the system which he advocates. This is not fair either to the gallant officer himself or to me, as will presently appear. “If Sir George Elliot will remove the cellular or raft-deck question completely away from the very unsatisfactory and unpleasant region of Admiralty practice, and let it be treated upon its merits, while I shall still have to respectfully submit to him some cautionary considerations, I shall also be prepared to make to him some very considerable concessions. One thing I should find it desirable to press upon him is the absolute necessity of giving closer attention to the provision of stability. He treats the subject mainly as a question of ‘buoyancy,’ and wisely so from his point of view; but ‘stability,’ or the power of resisting capsizing, comes first, and on this he declines to offer an opinion. Again, when the gallant officer speaks of a ‘raft’ deck, I would point out that this may be a very different thing from a cellular-deck. The characteristic of a raft is that it is usually formed of solid buoyant materials; you may make it of cellular steel if you please, but in that case wherever injury lets in water the steel so far ceases to be a raft, which helps to float its load, and becomes a weight to help sink it. Now, cells formed of thin steel do not upon the face of the matter appear to be safe materials for a raft which is to be subject to the multitudinous fire of small guns and the explosions of shells of all sizes. It needs a very skilful artificer to build a safe floating raft of thin steel for such a purpose, especially when regard is had to the dangers of raking fire, against which bow and stern armor would not sufficiently provide. “Having expressed these cautions, I will go on to say that in my opinion the main idea of your gallant correspondent, which he has so long and so steadily developed, is nevertheless a sound one, and one which has a great future. I do not, of course, for a moment admit with him that the gun has yet mastered the armor. I believe the _Dreadnought_, though of old design, would still fight a good action against all ships now ready for sea, and have to fear only a very exceptional, and therefore either a very skilful or very fortunate, shot. The recent Admiralty ships, where they are armored, are practically proof against almost every gun afloat. Further, I have satisfied myself that if the existing restrictions imposed upon us by the absence of floating docks adapted to receive ships of great breadth were removed (these restrictions crippling us to a most unfortunate degree), and if certain professional conventionalities as to the forms of ships were set aside, it would be perfectly practicable to build war-ships no larger and no more costly than the _Inflexible_, with enough side-armor more than a yard (three feet) thick to preserve their stability, and at the same time made ram-proof and torpedo-proof. Meanwhile, of all the vulnerable objects afloat, the recent guns themselves, by reason of their absurdly long and slender barrels, left fully exposed to all fire, are among the most vulnerable. “Still, the raft-deck system has a wide field before it, and I am quite prepared to admit that I believe in its practicability and in its sufficient security for certain classes of vessels if properly carried out. This it has not yet been in any single instance. Even in the case of the great Italian ships, as in our own, there are elements of weakness which would be fatal to the system in action, but which are _not_ unavoidable. Allow me to assure Sir George Elliot that I have largely and closely studied this subject, and that my main objections to it are not objections of principle. “If the raft-deck system is to be adopted, it must in my opinion be carried out in a much fuller and more satisfactory manner than hitherto, and with the aid of arrangements which I have for a long time past seen the necessity of, and been engaged upon. * * * * * “To my mind the Admiralty, while protecting certain parts and contents of their largest ships from injury from shell fire, have made the fatal error of failing to protect the ship itself, which contains them all, from being too readily deprived of stability and made to capsize. The advocates of the alternative system must not repeat this error, or, if they do, they must not expect me to become their ally. On the other hand, if they will join me in despising what are merely specious elements of safety, and in demanding those which are real, if they will insist that our principal and most costly ships at least shall be so constructed as to keep afloat and upright for a reasonable length of time in battle, in spite of any form of attack, so as to give their gallant crews a fair chance of achieving their objects, they will not find me averse to any improvement whatever. When a suitable opportunity offers I shall be happy to show to Admiral Sir George Elliot that he has not been alone in seeking to develop the cellular or raft-deck system, and that it has, in fact, capabilities which possibly he himself may not yet have fully realized.” The same number of the _Times_ contains a reply to Mr. Reed’s letter of April 8, 1885, by Mr. White, mainly devoted to a refutation of certain charges of no interest to us, but containing the following paragraphs: “I must refer to the passage in which Sir Edward Reed quotes a description of the damage done to the _Huascar_ in her action with the two Chilian iron-clads. “This description seems to me one of the best possible illustrations of a remark in my previous letter, that ‘the _mitraille_ which is driven back into a ship when armor is penetrated is probably as destructive as any kind of projectile can be.’ Had the _Huascar_ not had weak armor, but light sides only, the local injuries might have been less. The other case cited of a shell which entered the unarmored stern of the _Cochrane_ shows how little damage may be done when a projectile passes through thin plating. At the bombardment of Alexandria there were many such examples on board our ships, although it must be frankly admitted that the engagement is no sufficient indication of what shell fire may do. A good deal of use has been made of the single case where a shell in bursting blew a hole ten by four feet in the thin side-plating of the _Superb_. The case was quite exceptional, whether it be compared with the other hits on the same ship or with the injuries done to the unarmored sides of other ships. Moreover, in that case exceptional injury is traceable to special structural arrangements at the embrasure near the battery port, where the shell struck. These cases do not prove that the light unarmored structures in the _Admiral_ class are likely to be destroyed in such a rapid and wholesale manner as has been asserted. Nor, on the other hand, do they indicate conclusively what damage shell-fire may do in future actions. On these points, as I have before remarked, experiment might be made with advantage. But, on the other hand, there is good evidence that armor so thin as to be readily penetrable to many guns may be a serious danger, and that armor over the vital parts of ships should be strong if it is to be a real defence. * * * * * “In matters of ship design the constructors of the navy are only the servants of the Board, and while they must take sole responsibility for professional work, the governing features in the designs are determined by higher authorities, among whom are officers of large experience, both as seamen and gunners. And it is certainly not the practice of the constructive department to intrude themselves or their advice into matters for which neither their training nor their experience fits them to give an opinion. * * * * * “I make no attempt to be either a sailor or a gunner, but am content to seek information from the best authorities in both branches. As the result of this study of tactics and gunnery, I have been led to the belief that the sea-fights of the future are not likely to be settled altogether or chiefly by the effects of gun-fire. This is not quite the same thing as Sir Edward Reed attributes to me when he says that ‘Mr. White thinks and speaks as if naval warfare henceforth were to be merely a matter of dodging, getting chance shots, and keeping out of an enemy’s way.’ “Nor do I think that the designers of the Italian war-ships will indorse the description of their views and intentions, with which Sir Edward Reed has favored us in his letter and elsewhere. I have the honor of knowing his excellency Signor Brin (now Minister of Marine) and other members of the constructive corps of the Italian navy, and from their statements, including the powerful publications of Signor Brin, ‘La Nostra Marina Militaire,’ I have no hesitation in saying that in spending larger sums on single ships than have ever before been spent, the Italian authorities think, and are not alone in thinking, that they are producing the most powerful fighting-ships afloat.” APPENDIX III. RANGE OF GUNS. _From Report of U. S. Fortification Board._ GUNS AFLOAT RANGING POSSIBLY NINE TO TEN MILES. +---------+----------------+---------+-----------+---------+---------+ | NATION. | Ship. | Maximum | Draught. | Guns. | Calibre.| | | | Armor. | | | | +---------+----------------+---------+-----------+---------+---------+ | | | Inches. | Feet. In. | Number. | Inches. | | England | Inflexible | 24 | 25 4 | 4 | 16 | | France | Friedland | 7⅞ | 29 4 | 2 | 10.6 | | ” | Redoubtable | 14 | 24 10 | 4 | 10.6 | | ” | Duguesclin } | | | | | | ” | Bayard } | 9⅞ | 24 10 | 4 | 9.5 | | ” | Turenne } | | | | | | ” | Vauban } | | | | | | ” | Fulminant } | 13 | 21 4 | 2 | 10.6 | | ” | Tonnerre } | | | | | | Italy | Duilio | 21.7 | 28 | 4 | 17 | | ” | Dandolo | 21.7 | 28 9 | 4 | 17 | | Germany | Sachsen } | | | | | | ” | Baiern } | 17.25 | 19 8 | 4 | 10.2 | | ” | Würtemberg } | | | | | | ” | Baden } | | | | | | ” | Wespe } | | | | | | ” | Viper } | | | | | | ” | Biene } | | | | | | ” | Mücke } | 8 | 10 2 | 1 | 12 | | ” | Scorpion } | | | | | | ” | Basilisk } | | | | | | ” | Cameleon } | | | | | | ” | Crocodil } | | | | | | Brazil | Riachuelo | 11 | 20 | 4 | 9 | +---------+----------------+---------+-----------+---------+---------+ Besides a large number on unarmored vessels and on armored vessels not yet completed. GUNS AFLOAT RANGING POSSIBLY TEN MILES OR UPWARD. +---------+---------------------+-------+---------+-------+--------+ | NATION. | Ship. |Maximum|Draught. | Guns. |Calibre.| | | |Armor. | | | | +---------+---------------------+-------+---------+-------+--------+ | | |Inches.|Feet. In.|Number.|Inches. | | England | Conqueror | 12 | 24 0 | 2 | 12 | | ” | Colossus | 18 | 26 3 | 4 | 12 | | ” | Edinburgh | 18 | 26 3 | 4 | 12 | | France | Amiral Duperré | 21.6 | 26 9 | 4 | 13.4 | | ” | Dévastation | 15 | 24 11 | { 2 | 10.6 | | | and Foudroyant | | | { 4 | 13.4 | | ” | Terrible | 19 | 24 7 | 2 | 16.5 | | ” | Tonnant | 17¾ | 16 9 | 2 | 13.4 | | ” | Vengeur | 13¾ | 16 9 | 2 | 13.4 | | Italy | Italia | 18.9 | 30 3 | 4 | 17 | | Germany | Salamander } | | | | | | ” | Natter } | 8 | 10 2 | 1 | 12 | | ” | Hummel } | | | | | | China | Ting Yuen } | 14 | 20 | 4 | 12 | | ” | Chen Yuen } | | | | | +---------+---------------------+-------+---------+-------+--------+ GUNS RANGING POSSIBLY TEN MILES OR UPWARD SHORTLY TO BE AFLOAT. +---------+--------------------+--------+----------+---------+---------+ | NATION. | Ship. | Maximum| Draught.| Guns. | Calibre.| | | | Armor. | | | | +---------+--------------------+--------+----------+---------+---------+ | | | Inches.| Feet. In.| Number. | Inches. | | England | Collingwood | 18 | 26 3 | 4 | 12 | | ” | Rodney | 18 | 25 3 | 4 | 13.5 | | ” | Benbow | 18 | 27 | 2 | 17 | | ” | Camperdown | 18 | 27 3 | 4 | 13.5 | | ” | Howe | 18 | 27 3 | 4 | 13.5 | | ” | Anson | 18 | 27 3 | 4 | 13.5 | | ” | Hero | 12 | 24 | 2 | 12 | | ” | Renown | 18 | 27 3 | 2 | 16.25 | | ” | Sanspareil | 18 | 27 3 | 2 | 16.25 | | France | Amiral Baudin | 21⅝ | 26 | 3 | 16.5 | | ” | Formidable | 21⅝ | 26 | 3 | 16.5 | | ” | Furieux | 19⅝ | 21 7 | 2 | 13.4 | | ” | Indomptable } | | | | | | ” | Caïman } | 19⅝ | 24 7 | 2 | 16.5 | | ” | Requin } | | | | | | ” | Marceau } | | | | | | ” | Hoche } | 17¾ | 27 3 | { 2 | 13.4 | | ” | Magenta } | | | { 2 | 10.6 | | ” | Neptune | 17¾ | 27 3 | 3 | 13.5 | | Italy | Lepanto | 18.9 | 29 6 | 4 | 17 | | ” | Ruggiero di Lauria | 17.7 | 25 11 | 4 | 17 | | ” | Andrea Doria | 17.7 | 29 6 | 4 | 17 | | ” | F. Morosini | 17.7 | 25 11 | 4 | 17 | | Russia | Catherine II. | 24 | 27 | 4 | 12 | | ” | Tchesme | 24 | 25 | 4 | 12 | | ” | Sinope | 24 | 25 | 4 | 12 | | Denmark | Tordenskiold | 8 | 15 | 1 | 13.8 | +---------+--------------------+--------+----------+---------+---------+ THE END. FOOTNOTES: [1] This is not strictly true of quite all the ships named, but it probably will be true erelong, as none of them has more than a light auxiliary rig, and that will probably be abandoned. [2] See Note, page 27. [3] “The British Navy.” [4] From “Engineering.” [5] Some persons regarded the existence of these four small port-holes as converting the tower into a nest for projectiles, although a single enemy could not possibly have attacked more than two of these ports at once, situated as they were. What would such persons think of the batteries of the _Nelson_, _Northampton_, and _Shannon_, each open for more than one hundred feet in length, on each side of the ship, in so far as armor is concerned? [6] The _Italia_ and _Lepanto_, for example. [7] See Notes, page 58. [8] “The British Navy,” vol. i., p. 438. [9] _Ibid._, p. 427. The writer trusts he may be excused from again quoting these very important sentences from the work of the former Secretary to the Admiralty, notwithstanding that he recently had occasion to quote them elsewhere. [10] The reasons for placing this ship in the list of armored ships, against the writer’s own judgment, have been stated previously. (See Notes for new ships.) [11] Harbor-defence vessel. [12] Three turret-vessels, nearly resembling the _Gorgon_, which belong to the Indian and colonial governments, are not included in this list, nor are several unimportant small vessels, _viz._, _Scorpion_, _Wyvern_, _Viper_, _Waterwitch_, and _Vixen_. The very few remaining thinly armored wood-built ships are also excluded. [13] Ships for local defence of ports. [14] Cruisers for distant service. [15] The thicknesses of decks given are those of the horizontal, or nearly horizontal, parts of the deck. Where the decks slope down at the sides the thickness is sometimes increased a little, as will have been seen in the section of the _Mersey_. (See Notes for new ships.) [16] See Notes, page 60. [17] The editor of these Notes wishes to acknowledge his very great indebtedness to the Office of United States Naval Intelligence for the data relating to foreign navies, notably to Lieutenant R. P. Rodgers, Chief Intelligence Officer, and to Lieutenants W. H. Beehler, J. C. Colwell, and W. I. Chambers, Assistants. The notes upon the United States Navy are to a great degree reprints of his own contributions to the editorial and news columns of the New York _Herald_. [18] “Recent Naval Progress,” June, 1887. [19] Lieutenant Colwell, U.S.N., in “Recent Naval Progress,” 1887. [20] Lieutenant Chambers, U.S.N. [21] “Our War Ships,” Cusack-Smith. [22] It is called a belt in _Lloyd’s Universal Register_, but the term is very likely to mislead.—E. J. R. [23] It will be instructive to repeat here, before leaving this question of partially armored ships, a comparison resembling that which I employed in a paper read at the Royal United Service Institution, in which are set down in one column the displacements of certain British and French ships, eleven of each, built and building, possessing maximum armor on the water-line of at least fifteen inches. As all the French ships given have complete or all but complete armor-belts, it is proper to reckon their whole displacement tonnages as armored tonnage. But in the case of all the British ships which carry such thick armor they are deprived of armor altogether except amidships, and it is therefore misleading, and even absurd, to reckon their whole displacement tonnages as armored tonnage. For this reason I am obliged to give two tonnages for them, _viz._, the armored and the unarmored, as I do below: +-------------------------++----------------------------------------+ | FRENCH SHIPS. || BRITISH SHIPS. | +----------------+--------++-------------+--------+--------+--------+ | |Armored.|| Unarmored.|Armored.| Total. | +----------------+--------++-------------+--------+--------+--------+ | | Tons. || | Tons. | Tons. | Tons. | | Amiral Baudin | 11,141 || Inflexible | 5,210 | 6,670 | 11,880 | | Amiral Duperré | 10,486 || Ajax | 4,160 | 4,350 | 8,510 | | Dévastation | 9,639 || Agamemnon | 4,160 | 4,350 | 8,510 | | Formidable | 11,441 || Colossus | 4,580 | 4,570 | 9,150 | | Courbet | 9,639 || Edinburgh | 4,580 | 4,570 | 9,150 | | Hoche | 9,864 || Collingwood | 4,580 | 4,570 | 9,150 | | Magenta | 9,864 || Rodney | 4,800 | 4,900 | 9,700 | | Marceau | 9,864 || Home | 4,800 | 4,900 | 9,700 | | Neptune | 9,864 || Camperdown | 4,900 | 5,100 | 10,000 | | Caïman | 7,239 || Benbow | 4,900 | 5,100 | 10,000 | | Indomptable | 7,184 || Anson | 4,900 | 5,100 | 10,000 | +----------------+--------++-------------+--------+--------+--------+ | Total |106,225 || Total | 51,570 | 54,180 |105,750 | +----------------+--------++-------------+--------+--------+--------+ I have not thought it necessary to alter these figures in repeating this comparison, as they are sufficiently near the truth for the only purpose for which I employ them, which is that of exhibiting the fact that whereas the above eleven British iron-clads (so called) figure in the official tables of the British government as constituting an armored tonnage of 105,750 tons, nearly equal to that of the eleven French ships, they really represent but little more than half that amount of armored tonnage.—E. J. R. [24] For the reason before stated, the _Brennus_ and _Charles Martel_ are omitted from this table. [25] These powers and speeds are taken from _Lloyd’s Universal Register_. [26] Some returns say four of 28 tons, and four of 24 tons, all being of 27 centimetres calibre. I have adopted these in Table A. [27] See Notes, page 263. [28] Lieutenant Chambers, U. S. Navy. [29] Lieutenant Colwell, U. S. Navy. [30] Lieutenant Shroeder, U. S. Navy. [31] I adopt this figure from Lord Brassey, who adopts it from Mr. King, but I am inclined to regard it as too small by about five feet, for I observe that in giving the length as 107 feet they give the breadth as 58 feet, whereas they give the breadth of the ship as 64¾ feet. I also observe that they both speak of an “armored citadel or compartment 107 feet in length,” and the word “compartment” seems to point to _inside_ dimensions, and although it seems odd to use these in such a case, it is probable that that has been done. But as there is considerable curvature in the transverse bulkheads, and as the greatest inside length has presumably been given, it may still be practically correct to regard the mean length of the battery as 107 feet. I regret that I have not the means at hand of making certain of the precise length.—E. J. R. [32] See Notes, page 136. [33] _Lloyd’s Universal Register_ falls into a still more notable error in respect to the speed of these vessels, for it assigns to the best of them a speed of only seven and one-half knots, and to some only five knots, whereas they are very much faster, as will presently be shown in the text. But the mistake, grave as it is, seems to me to have resulted only from a printer’s error, for the removal of a vertical “lead” one column to the left would add ten knots to the speeds of all these vessels, and make them correct.—E. J. R. [34] See Notes, page 139. [35] According to the _Universal Register_; but only two of nine tons (besides smaller ones) according to Admiralty Return to Parliament.—E. J. R. [36] The _Grosser Kurfürst_ was run into off Folkestone by the _König Wilhelm_, and foundered.—E. J. R. [37] See Notes, page 145. [38] _Lloyd’s Universal Register_ appears to me to be in error concerning the speed of this and the next vessel. The _Carnet_ gives their speed as fourteen knots, and the Admiralty Return puts it at fifteen knots, which I believe to be the expected speed.—E. J. R. [39] See Notes, page 145. [40] See Notes, page 144. [41] See Notes, page 144. [42] Curiously enough, neither Lord Brassey, nor Mr. King (United States Navy), nor Captain Von Kronenfels seems to have been aware of the origin of this little ship’s design, for it is mentioned by none of them, although all of them have been most ready to do me, in common with others, full justice in such matters. Mr. King, for example, speaking of a ship previously mentioned, says, “The most powerful ship belonging to the Turkish navy is the _Mesoodiyeh_, designed by Sir E. J. Reed, C.B., M.P., built by the Thames Shipbuilding Company, delivered to the Sultan in 1876, and now the flag-ship of the fleet.” He would doubtless have as readily acknowledged the authorship of the _Feth-i-Bulend’s_ design, had he been aware of it. As I was the Chief Constructor of the British Navy when I designed for the Sultan of Turkey this ship and the _Fatikh_ (now the German _König Wilhelm_), I think it right to state that I did so not only with the sanction but by the orders of the Admiralty, and in pursuance of what was then the declared policy of England, viz., that of giving Turkey the benefit of our good offices in efforts to produce a powerful fleet. Beyond a complimentary present of a jewelled snuffbox or two, I received no remuneration for my services to Turkey, and sought none, and desired none.—E. J. R. [43] See Notes, page 141. [44] See Notes, page 142. [45] “The Present Position of European Politics.” [46] $43,425,000. [47] Dilke. [48] Lieut. Colwell, U.S.N., in “Recent Naval Progress.” [49] See Notes for later ships. [50] See Notes, page 227. [51] See Notes, page 185. [52] See Notes, p. 257. [53] Complete. [54] Building at South Boston and West Point. [55] It is probable that the battery of the battle-ship will be two 6-inch, two 10-inch, and two 12-inch guns. [56] Probably. [57] From _Army and Navy Gazette_, February 27, 1886. [58] Lieutenant Colwell, United States Navy. [59] Naval Intelligence, General Information Series No. 5. [60] “Recent Naval Progress.” [61] From the General Information Series No. V., U. S. Naval Intelligence Office. TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE Footnotes [13] and [14] have multiple anchors on page 47. Footnote [25] has multiple anchors on page 76. Footnotes [53], [54] and [56] have multiple anchors on page 228. The illustrations on pages 90, 254 and 257 were vertical and have been rotated to the horizontal. Some illustrations have been moved several pages to be closer to the related text. The table on page 184 of the original book was very wide, and has been split into 3 parts. The tables on pages 76, 84, 109, 146 and 221 have been split into 2 parts. Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within the text and consultation of external sources. Some hyphens in words have been silently removed, some added, when a predominant preference was found in the original book. Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text, and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained. Pg 49: ‘projecting sponsoons’ replaced by ‘projecting sponsons’. Pg 57: ‘1-inch Nordenfelt’ replaced by ‘1-inch Nordenfeldt’. Pg 76: ‘Furiex’ (in table) replaced by ‘Furieux’. Pg 89: ‘nearly 600 tons’ replaced by ‘nearly 6000 tons’. Pg 98: ‘slow burning power’ replaced by ‘slow burning powder’. Pg 118: ‘Dmitry Donskoi’ (in table) replaced by ‘Dmitri Donsköi’. Pg 118: ‘Admiral Kornilof’ replaced by ‘Admiral Korniloff’. Pg 140: ‘_Rinda_’ replaced by ‘_Rynda_’. Pg 180: ‘floating ing batteries’ replaced by ‘floating batteries’. Pg 243: ‘Whitehead torpedes’ replaced by ‘Whitehead torpedoes’. *** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MODERN SHIPS OF WAR *** Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed. Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. START: FULL LICENSE THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license. Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg electronic works 1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. 1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. 1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when you share it without charge with others. 1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States. 1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: 1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed: This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook. 1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. 1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. 1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg. 1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg License. 1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. 1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. 1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works provided that: • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.” • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works. • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work. • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works. 1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. 1.F. 1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment. 1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. 1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem. 1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. 1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. 1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg work, and (c) any Defect you cause. Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life. Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org. Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws. The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza #516, Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS. The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate. While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate. International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate. Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg electronic works Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org. This website includes information about Project Gutenberg, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.