86 THE SKA. 



first real ironclad, had to be tested., a target, twenty feet by ten feet surface, composed of four 

 and a half inch iron and eighteen inches of teak backing the exact counterpart of a slice 

 out of the ship's side was employed. The shot from 68-pounders the same as composed 

 her original armament fired at 200 yards, only made small dents in the target and 

 rebounded. 200-pounders had no more effect ; the shot flew off in ragged splinters, the 

 iron plates became almost red-hot under the tremendous strokes, and rung like a huge 

 gong ; but that was all. Now we have 6|-ton guns that would pierce her side at 500 yards ; 

 12-ton guns that would put a hole through her armour at over a mile, and 25-ton guns 

 that would probably penetrate the armour of any ironclad whatever. Why, some of the 

 ships themselves are now carrying 30-ton guns ! It is needless to go on and speak of 

 monster 81 and 100-ton guns after recording these facts. But their consideration explains 

 why the thickness of armour has kept on increasing, albeit it could not possibly do so 

 in an equal ratio. 



Mr. Reed tells us : " This strange contest between attack and defence, however 

 wasteful, however melancholy, must still go on."* Sir W. G. Armstrong (inventor of the 

 famous guns), on the other hand, says, " In my opinion, armour should be wholly abandoned 

 for the defence of the guns, and, except to a very limited extent, I doubt the expediency 

 of using it even for the security of the ship. Where armour can be applied for deflecting 

 projectiles, as at the bow of a ship, it would afford great protection, without requiring to 

 be very heavy ."f Sir William recommends very swift iron vessels, divided into numerous 

 compartments, with boilers and machinery below the water-line, and only very partially 

 protected by armour; considering that victory in the contest as regards strength is entirely 

 on the side of the artillery. Sir Joseph Whitworth (also an inventor of great guns) offered 

 practically to make guns to penetrate any thickness of armour. The bewildered Parliamentary 

 committee says mournfully in its report : " A perfect ship of war is a desideratum which 

 has never yet been attained, and is now farther than ever removed from our reach ; " % while 

 Mr. Eeed again cuts the gordian knot by professing his belief that in the end, " guns 

 will themselves be superseded as a means of attack, and the ship itself, viewed as a steam 

 projectile possessing all the force of the most powerful shot, combined with the power 

 of striking in various directions will be deemed the most formidable weapon of attack 

 that man's ingenuity has devised/' The contest between professed ship and gun makers 

 would be amusing but for the serious side the immense expense, and the important 

 interests involved. 



* Letter to the Times, Sept. 6tli, 1875 (after the loss of the Vanguard). 



t Parliamentary Paper, 1872. Keports of the Committee on Designs for Ships of War &c. 



J Ibid. $ ; '0ur Ironclad Ships." 



