ARMOUR AND ITS ATTACK BY ORDNANCE. 
57 
and supports. Here again the compound plate was beaten completely. 
The last three projectiles passed through plate and backing, and went 
on for a considerable distance, and this plate was badly fractured down 
one end. Its face, however, was not seriously broken away. The 
Schneider (nickel) steel plate was the hardest of the three tested and 
kept back the projectiles best, the points not showing through at the 
back, but it broke up to a considerable extent. Vickers 5 plate allowed 
the points of the projectiles just to come through, but it held together 
better than either of the others, and was probably judged by most 
to have behaved the best. 1 It may be seen that on this occasion 
the relative behaviour of the nickel steel and plain steel plates 
was reversed as compared with Annapolis ; that is, in this case the 
nickel plate was the harder and the plain steel plate the tougher of the 
two. There was seen on the ground a compound plate made at Kolpino 
on Wilson’s system, which had apparently behaved remarkably well, 
having resisted, by accounts given, a more severe attack than that of 
the competition, but it is impossible to judge of this without knowing 
the quality of the projectiles and other data accurately, and it would 
be quite unfair to mix it up with the trial, or to say more than the bare 
fact that a compound plate was seen which appeared to have borne a 
severe attack admirably. 
On July, 1890, a trial of curved steel plates for conning towers of 
the Danish vessels, Norclenskjold and Hekla , took place, when plates chilled iron 
4*41 inches thick kept out 5'9-inch (15 cm ) chilled-iron projectiles, 8 °* 
904lbs. in weight. The projectiles broke up with only 3*98 inches 
penetration. The striking velocity was 1237 feet (377 m ) implying a 
perforation of 64 inches of iron, or 5*2 inches of steel had they not 
broken up. This trial is to be noted as bearing on the attack of thin 
steel with comparatively large projectiles of chilled-iron, an important 
question for England, because we have large stores of these projectiles. 
A trial of a similar kind, but much less severe, took place in Feb¬ 
ruary, 1891, on board the Nettle for the Argentine Republic 3 ; when 
an 8-inch compound Cammell-Wilson plate was attacked by 6-inch compound 
chilled-iron shot, with a striking velocity of 1566 feet, and a calculated att b 
perforation of 9'8 inches of iron, or 7'8 inches of steel. The projec- chdiecTshot. 
tile broke up with but little effect, as might be expected. 
Remarkable resistance was said to have been exhibited by a steel 
plate made on the Redemann-Tilford process in the Navy Yard at Ke(Jeraann 
Washington, on December 10th, 1889. A 6-inch plate was said to Tiiford plate 
have resisted a forged steel 6-inch projectile striking at 2103 feet 
velocity. The makers were anxious to obtain a trial by the English 
Government, which was accorded to them, but no plate was submitted, 
and on inquiry it appeared that the circumstances of the trial were 
misstated. The Redemann-Tilford process, however, was seriously 
1 The author prefers hardness in plates for ships, both as to immediate effect and as to probable 
repairs when the plates are removed. 
2 See “ Brassey’s Annual,” 1891, and “ Engineer,” February 13th, 1861* 
8 
