144 THE SEA. 



And now to the armour itself, which is sometimes affixed to an iron and sometimes 

 to a wooden hull, and in a few cases has wood outside it. These facts, by no means 

 generally known, must be studied, for it can hardly yet be said to be determined which 

 is the better form. It may be said, in general terms, that the " adoption of armour- 

 plating was accompanied in this country by the introduction of iron for the const ruction 

 of the hulls of ships of war, and our ironclad fleet is for the most part Iron-built. We 

 have, it is true, a number of wood-built ironclads, but most of these are converted 

 vessels. "* Several were built of wood (and then armoured) for the purpose of utilising 

 the large stocks of timber accumulated in the dockyards. In the future it is probable 

 that nearly all will be of iron, with wood backing. The armour of the Warrior is only 

 4-i inches thick, with, however, a "backing" of 18 inches of timber. This type includes 

 the Black Prince, Achilles, Defence, Hector, Valiant, and Prince Albert. Then we coni3 

 to another series, of which the Bellerophon, Penelope, Invincible, Audacious, Siviftsure, 

 Triumph, Iron Duke, and unfortunate Vanguard furnish examples. They average inches of 

 iron-plating to 10 inches of wood backing. The lost Captain was somewhat heavier in both 

 plating and backing. Then again we advance to a still heavier type 12 inches of iron 

 to 18 inches of wood : the Glutton, Thunderer, and Devastation furnish examples. Then 

 there is the wood-built class, the thickness of their (wooden) sides ranging from 19^ to 

 as high as 36 inches, with 4| to 6 inches of armour. The Royal Sovereign (a turret ship) 

 is a leading example of this class; she has 5^ inches of armour, covering 36 inches 

 of wood. 



To speak of all the types of armour-clad ships would most undoubtedly weary the 

 reader. Let us examine a leading example. The Inflexible (double turret ship) is probably 

 the greatest result yet attained. She is an ironclad of 11,400 tons, with 8,000 horse- 

 power, her estimated first cost being considerably over half a million sterling. She is 

 320 feet long, and has armour of 16 to 24 inches thick, with a backing of 17 to 25 inches 

 of wood. She has no less than 135 compartments, while her engines are so completely 

 isolated that if one breaks down the other would be working. " But already, as if to show 

 the impossibility of attaining the stage of finality as regards the construction of our men- 

 of-war, there is every reason to believe that she has been excelled. . . . Designed," 

 says our leading journal, f " as an improvement upon the Russian Peter the Great, she will 

 herself be surpassed by the two Italian frigates which are building at La Spezzia and 

 Castellamare. . . . While the Inflexible's turrets are formed of a single thickness of 

 18-inch armour, and her armament consists of four 81-ton guns, the turrets of the Dandolo 

 and the Dnilio are built of plates 22 inches thick, and are armed with four 100-ton 

 guns/' The writer then enlarges on recent gunnery experiments, showing that even the 

 enormous thickness of the Inflexible's iron sides have been pierced, and concludes by saying 

 that, "so far as the exigencies of the navy are concerned, the limit of weight seems to 

 have already been reached, for the simple reason that the buoyancy of our ironclads cannot 

 with safety be further diminished by the burden of heavier armour and armaments." The 



* The larger part of the above information is derived from " Our Ironclad Ships," by E. J. Reed, late Chief 

 Constructor of the Navy. 



t The Times, April 26th, 1876. 





