lo NOTES ON THE ARMAMENTS OF BATTLESHIPS. 



battleships— usually described as "Dreadnoughts"— a necessity arose 

 for finding other positions for heavy guns. Ten or twelve such guns have 

 been usually thought desirable; thirteen guns are to be carried in ships 

 now building. Consequently three or four additional gun stations have 

 had to be provided, and large hold spaces have been devoted to the stowage 

 and supply of ammunition immediately below each turret. Different 

 dispositions of heavy-gun stations have found favor, not merely in different 

 navies, but in successive ships of the same navy. In these circumstances 

 it becomes obvious that no fixed principles have been established or generally 

 followed hitherto in disposing heavy-gun armaments. It is unnecessary 

 to describe in detail various arrangements adopted in recent ships, because 

 they are well known to members of this Society; but mention may be made 

 of certain salient features which illustrate the diversity of views that have 

 prevailed. 



In many cases history has been repeating itself; arguments which 

 were familiar thirty or forty years ago have reappeared and have been 

 treated as novelties. Widely differing estimates have been formed in 

 regard to tlie relative importance attaching to "end-on" and broadside fire. 

 In the earlier French disposition— in which two heavy guns were mounted 

 forward and aft on the center line of the deck as bow and stern chasers, 

 and two others in positions on each broadside (nearly amidships) which 

 enabled them to be fired directly ahead or astern— " end-on " fire was treated 

 as of equal importance with broadside fire. Three guns were available 

 on each broadside and three guns could be fired either ahead or astern. 

 In ships of the "central -citadel" type (designed about 1873-78) four heavy 

 guns were carried in two turrets which were placed en echelon nearly amid- 

 ships, and it was possible to fire all four guns parallel to the keel, either 

 ahead or astern. Each pair of guns had 180 degrees of training on the 

 broadside whereon they were placed, but on the other broadside these guns 

 had only a very limited arc of training. In these vessels, therefore, "end- 

 on" fire was theoretically superior to broadside fire. Experience showed, 

 however, that superstructures erected above the upper decks— primarily 

 to limit the effect of "blast," when the guns were fired parallel to the keel- 

 line or at large arcs of training from the beam — imposed serious limitations 

 and disadvantages against a moving target placed nearly ahead or astern. 

 The echelon disposition was, therefore, abandoned and a return was made 

 to the earlier plan which mounted four guns in two commanding positions 

 forw^ard and aft on the middle line of the deck. 



During the last five years we have seen botli the old French disposi- 

 tion and the echelon arrangement reproduced (in principle) in new designs, 



