ARMOUR AND ITS ATTACK BY ORDNANCE. 
51 
effected by the mass of gas has such force that it destroys to great 
distances the weaker structural parts of the ship.” The Belliqueuse 
thus treated is an old wooden iron-clad corvette, but offering as great 
a resistance as a great part of the French ships and cruisers. 
The trials made at Portsmouth, against the old Resistance in 1889, 
naturally connect themselves with the above. 1 The precise results 
were kept in strict confidence; but enough is known to show that 
ships suffer terribly under the fire of shells charged with high explo¬ 
sives. In “ Modern Naval Artillery,” 3 p. 78, it is stated that “ various 
explosives were fired in 9’24-inch, 6-inch, and 4‘7-inch shells,” and that 
“ none but those who had witnessed the trials could picture the whole¬ 
sale destruction caused by these shells.” Of the dummy men scarcely 
one in the vicinity of a bursting shell escaped; but one of the most 
remarkable features was the terrible “ smoke and fumes after each 
explosion, which set fire to the ship and prevented anyone approaching 
the spot, in some cases for 20 minutes after the shell had burst.” 
On November 7tli and 9th, 1889, a competitive trial of compound 
plates was carried out at Helder, North Holland. Four firms com¬ 
peted, viz., St. diamond, Marrel, Cammell, and Brown. The plates 
were 9 feet x 6 feet 11 T V inches x ll^ inches (28 cm ), and weighed 
about 3 2* *4 tons each. They were attacked by a Krupp 28-ton gun of 
28cm (IPO inches). The projectile was a Krupp forged steel shell, 
weighing 556 lbs. (252*2 kg.), striking velocity 1355 foot-tOiis (409*7 m ), 
striking energy 7078*8 foot-tons, calculated perforation 14*52 inches of 
iron or 11*6 inches of steel, energy per ton of plate 570*8 foot-tons. 
Three rounds were to be fired at each plate. These plates were 
obviously overmatched. The St. Chamond and Marrel plates were 
perforated by each round, and broken up in two rounds. Cammelbs 
plate bore three rounds. It was perforated in each case, but held 
together, though considerably cracked and parts of the face detached. 
Against Brown* s plate the two first projectiles broke up, without 
perforating, leaving their points lodged and some cracks. The third 
round got through. It may be fairly argued that since the first two 
steel projectiles fired broke up against the Brown plate, while none 
did so in any other round, considerable success in hardening the face 
had already been achieved by Messrs. Brown. 
In 1887 were instituted trials of plates on board the Nettle at Ports¬ 
mouth. These were in a sense competitive, the principal firms 
competing being Cammell, Brown, and Vickers. The two first sub¬ 
mitted chiefly compound or steel-faced armour, but also all steel. 
Messrs. Vickers* plates were all steel. Some effort was made to 
induce Messrs. Schneider to compete, but in vain. In ignorance of the 
correspondence which took place, it is impossible to say where the 
difficulty occurred, but the absence of Schneider, who at this time was 
the only experienced maker of all steel plates, was much to be regretted, 
although in the course of time opportunities arose of comparing his 
plates with those of English make. 
The Nettle trials were confidential, but makers were eventually 
1 See “ Brassey’s Annual ” for 1892, p. 309. 
* This work was brought out to describe Elswick materiel in 1891, 
English 
Resistance 
trials. 
Dutch 
Competitive 
trial of 
compound 
plates. 
Portsmouth 
Nettle 
plate trials. 
