322 



NA TURE 



[August 3, 1905 



mand of those having every advantage for its ac- 

 quirement. We here say "design," not copy, for the 

 man or the nation that copies must necessarily lag 

 behind those who originate. It is not a good sign — 

 it is distinctly a bad sign — that, in spite of the efforts 

 of some public-spirited and thoughtful members of 

 tiie. Institution of Naval Architects, shipowners 

 and shipbuilders at large have not subscribed the 

 really modest sum needed for establishing the pro- 

 posed experimental tank at the National Physical 

 Laboratory. It is by the aid of such a tank that the 

 data needed for the scientific design of a vessel can 

 be worked out in their completeness; and such accu- 

 rate knowledge as we have about resistance of ships 

 is due to researches made by the aid of models in 

 tanks. It is many years since an Englishman, Froude, 

 established the first tank at Torquay, and, by his in- 

 comparable experimental work and scientific deduc- 

 tions, put at our disposal the information needed to 

 prosecute further inquiries in this direction ; and 

 now, after more than thirty years, although we 

 claim to be the leading shipbuilding nation of the 

 world — as we are in regard to bulk of tonnage con- 

 structed — Mr. Yarrow has to depend on a German 

 lank when he seeks information as to the 

 resistance of vessels in varying depths of water. 

 If our shipowners would devote a small part 

 of the energy they expend, and an infinitelv 

 small part of the money they waste on freight- 

 wars to an attempt to improve the designs 

 of their vessels, it might tend to the stabilitv of the 

 British shipbuilding industry and to more satis- 

 factory balance-sheets ; it certainly would to a more 

 worthy record of the country's ' progress in ship 

 design. 



Sir Philip Watts, who, as Director of Naval Con- 

 struction, has at his command the well equipped and 

 admirably staffed Government tank at Haslar, does 

 not feel the need of such an establishment, and 

 naturally does not refer to it in his paper. He gives, 

 however, a sketch of the plan followed in scarphing 

 frames and planking together so as to reduce 

 the working of the different pieces on each other. 

 The science of the metallurgist has removed that 

 necessity by giving us a material which enables the 

 side of a ship to be made practicallv a continuous 

 structure. The outer planking of ship's of the line at 

 the time of Trafalgar was 8 inches to 4^ inches thick 

 above water, and planking on the inside of the frames 

 was from 4 inches to 5 inches thick. The frames 

 themselves composed almost a solid wall, so 

 that a combined thickness of nearlv 2 feet — 

 the thickness of the iron armour on the luflexiblc 

 — was available for resisting shot. Great attention 

 was paid to seasoning timber ; but when it came to 

 a case of metal construction our ancestors were often 

 a little at fault. " The older ships of the Trafalgar 

 period were iron fastened and sheathed with copper. 

 Considerable trouble was, however, experienced by 

 the corrosion of the iron fastenings, so much so that 

 in some cases, after three or four years, the ship was 

 rendered unfit for foreign service! The intervention 

 of substances such as felt, tarred paper, &c., between 

 the copper and the wood bottom failed to protect the 

 iron entirely, and at one time the Board of .\dmiralty 

 contemplated di-rcontinuing the sheathing of ships 

 lying in ordinary and fitting it to them immediately 

 before going to sea." Thus do we see how the 

 want of a little knovyledge of natural laws caused 

 inefficiency and loss of money; but there was 

 excuse for our , predecessors which we, who have 

 their accumulated experience, cannot plead. 



Sir Philip .Watt.s gives some interesting figures 

 as to the cost of .the older ships, and these may be 

 compared with that of modern vessels. In 1719 the 

 NO. 1866, VOL. 72] 



cost of the Royal William, of 1918 tons, was 30,800/., 

 or about 16/. per ton. Whether or not this refers to 

 Pett's Royal William, reconstructed in 1719, is not 

 certain, but probably it does. In that case a good 

 deal of the original structure might have remained, 

 thus lessening the cost. The Royal George, of 2046 

 tons, built in 175b, cost 54,700/., or 267/. per ton. "In 

 1800 ships of the line cost 21I. per ton, whilst in 1S05 

 the cost had risen to 35-4/. per ton." These figures 

 presumably refer to displacement tonnage, but 

 whether guns are included we are not aware ; we will 

 conclude they are not, and see how former figures 

 compare with those of the present day. The first 

 class battleship King Edis-'ard VII., of 16,350 tons 

 displacement, is to cost 1,410,901/., excluding guns 

 and ordnance stores ; whilst the guns will come to 

 89,070/., bringing the total cost to within a few 

 pounds of a million and a half. This would be some- 

 what over 86-2/. per ton, without guns, as compared 

 to 35-4/. per ton at the date of Trafalgar. If, how- 

 ever, we could measure cost in terms of fighting 

 efficiency we should doubtless find that we now get 

 more for our money than our fathers did in 1805, 

 for the King Edward YII. could have engaged the 

 whole of the British Fleet at Trafalgar with the 

 allied fleet thrown in. In armament the advance 

 has been no less striking. The old cast-iron 

 smooth bores, w^th their wooden truck carriages, 

 were trained by handspikes, used as levers under 

 the brackets, and by side tackles ; and they w-ere 

 elevated by handspikes, being held in position bv 

 quoins. Sir Philip Watts says that " a 32- or 24- 

 pounder, fought on the lower deck, had a range of 

 only about 2000 to 2500 yards with 8° elevation, 

 and of about 1500 yards with 4° elevation. The 

 powder charge was generally one-third to one-quarter 

 the weight of the shot. .\t close quarters a 24- 

 pounder was said to be able to penetrate nearly 5 feet 

 of solid oak and an i8-pounder half this amount." 

 These were not the heaviest guns in the service at 

 the beginning of the last century, there being 42- 

 pounders also; but guns of this nature, designed 

 to form the principal armament for the lower decks 

 of the largest battleships, were found to be too heavy 

 to be worked quickly by the rude appliances then in 

 use. .\ still heavier piece was later introduced, 

 namely, the 95cwt. 68-pounder. 



We have not information as to the thickness of 

 solid oak which the round shot fired from these 

 heavier natures would penetrate, but we may com- 

 pare the 5 feet that would be pierced bv the' 24- 

 pounder with the power of the guns of the present 

 day. The modern 12-inch wire-gun of the Rova! 

 Navy, weighing 50 tons (about twenty times as 

 much as the 32-pounder), is estimated to penetrate 

 42 inches of wrought-iron at muzzle velocity of 2580 

 foot-seconds and a muzzle energy of 3q,28o foot- 

 tons; at 1000 yards the penetration would be 38 

 inches of wrought-iron, at 2000 yards 34.6 inches, 

 and at 3000 yards 32 inches. The penetration of 

 Krupp steel armour at 3000 yards would be but 14 

 inches. These results are with uncapped projectiles. 

 The longer 12-inch guns of .-Vrmstrongs or of Vickers 

 will penetrate more than 51 inches of wrought-iron 

 and will fire two rounds per minute. 



It will be seen from the above facts how enormously 

 the powers of both attack and defence have increased 

 during the century. They would seem to have pro- 

 gressed in about equal ratio, for Sir Philip Watts 

 says ,that " the capability of the wooden ship to take 

 punishment from the guns of her time was, except 

 in one important respect, much the same as that of 

 a modern ironclad." The important respect, of 

 course, refers to the shooting away , of spars and 

 rigging. . 



