Certain 
advantages 
of caps. 
Hadfield’s 
points 1894. 
Plates for 
Indiana 
and 
Massachu¬ 
setts, 1895. 
Oregon belt 
plates, 1895 
472 THE DEVELOPMENT OF ARMOUR. 
Group III. show a still slightly better result for the Russian capped 
shot, that is an average of 0’59 as compared with 0*52, if the whole of the 
first group are taken and as 0*55 if the last round (which is exceptional 1 ) 
is omitted. If this indicates anything it is that the steel cap of the 
shape and hardness employed in Russia was better than those of soft 
steel used elsewhere. The first round of the first group and last of the 
last probably indicate inferiority in the plate. This is an important 
matter, but it is better to give the tables and not occupy further space 
in discussing the results. The main conclusion to be drawn from the 
experiments made with caps is that a hard faced plate defeats a shot 
simply by fracture of point and that such fracture can in a great 
measure be prevented by a cap, which protects the point when it meets 
the hard skin, whether the cap is hard aud shattered or soft and 
crushed. It has been urged against caps that they are useless against 
compound armour and also at angles of incidence exceeding 20 degrees 
with the normal. The answer is that under circumstances when the 
point is not fractured, the cap can only be rather a hindrance than 
otherwise, so that it can do no good against ordinary compound 
armour, but the harm is scarcely appreciable and compound armour is 
comparatively easily dealt with and is being superseded by hard faced 
steel, so that every day the value of the cap increases. As to oblique 
impact, one Russian shot perforated at 25 degrees (see table) and it 
appears probable that either by adopting hard caps more like the 
Russian, or by other improvements, better results may be obtained 
than we have hitherto got 2 ; but apart from this, if the cap enables 
shot to perforate armour within 20 degrees of the normal or direct 
line, which would otherwise defeat it hopelessly, and if it does no 
appreciable harm at more oblique angles and in the attack of compound 
and softer armour, surely it should be adopted. 
It may be here mentioned that Hadfield has sought to prevent point 
fracture by modifying the form of the point, and in August 1894 his 
projectiles, though broken, perforated plates which defeated Holtzer 
uncapped shot. The principle is sound and if a blunter point could 
secure immunity from fracture with as little loss of penetration as a 
cap, it would undoubtedly be preferable. 
On February 19th, 1895, a 15-in. Harveyed plate made for the turretsd 
of the Indiana or Massachusetts received two blows from Carpenter 
10-in. 500 lb. shot with 1,539 and 1,940 f.s. striking velocity. The 
last had an energy of 13,050 foot tons and a calculated perforation of 
22*9 inches of iron. The shot only entered to depths of three and 
five inches respectively, caused no cracks and broke up. The result 
must closely have resembled that shown in Fig. 5. 
On May 1st, 1895, at Indiamhead, an 18-in. Harveyed plate for the 
Oregon belt bore two blows from 12-in. Holtzer projectiles, weight 
850 lbs., with striking velocities of 1,465 and 1,926 f.s., forming the 
cracking and perforating tests, that is to say the plate must not crack 
1 i.e., fired at an extraordinarily high velocity and going on with some remaining velocity. 
2 The committee on ordnance obtained ir any results which are not here given on which the 
above objections are based. 
\ 
i 
l 
