ARMOUR AND ITS ATTACK BY ORDNANCE. 
points of two to come through the back, and that the change from 
6-inch to 8-inch attack was made before the former had been al¬ 
together kept out, but when he goes on further and pleads that 
8-inch projectiles would equally have broken up because they would 
not have delivered more work before fracture against his plate than 
the 6-inch, he must nob expect his views to be accepted unless he can 
prove them. Hitherto the 8-inch attack has been crushing and for¬ 
midable beyond all comparison with the -6-inch. It is due to nickel to 
call attention to the toughness exhibited by Schneider nickel steel 
plates at Annapolis and at Gavre, as well as in the Harvey nickel 
trials, pp. 54, 61 63, 64, 65, 66. 
Harvey On November 1st, 1892, a Harvey steel plate made by Messrs. 
^at 0 ’i 892 ‘Yiekers, of Sheffield, was subjected to the usual trial on board the 
Nettle , at Portsmouth. Fig. 18, p. 89, shows the plate after it had borne 
the usual attack of three rounds with Holtzer forged steel and two with 
Palliser chilled-iron projectiles, delivered with a striking velocity of 
about 1976 f.s. The behaviour of the plate was admirable. Nos. 1, 
2, and 5, penetrated more deeply and left more of their mass in the 
plate than the Palliser shot, making slight bulges at the back. The 
plate showed no sign of cracks compared with the Ellis-Tresidder 
plate. It may be seen that in the Harvey plate the steel shot heads 
show the core ends, and the mass being larger, it is clear that the pro¬ 
jectiles penetrated deeper than in Tresidder’s plate, but the metal 
appears to be more thoroughly proof against fracture, crack or blister, 
exhibiting in a high degree the same qualities that have been seen in 
nickel steel in former experiments. 
Oehta It might have been expected from the result of the above trials, that 
com i P 892 . tlon under the attack of 6-inch projectiles the Ellis-Tresidder plate would 
hold it own against Harvey. It might crack or show flaws in the 
metal, but it seemed probable that it would break up the shot even 
more abruptly than Harvey’s plate. In a trial which took place at 
Ochta, near St. Petersburg, in November and December, 1892, how¬ 
ever, the Ellis-Tresidder plate failed entirely from fundamental flaws 
in the metal; while Harvey’s plate made by Vickers was more com¬ 
pletely successful than ever. The details of this trial are reserved until 
the official photographs which Admiral Makaroff has kindly promised 
are received. 
High Angle Fire and Attack op Decks. 
nSdect At Shoeburyness, on December 5tli and 6th, 1887, (Min. No. 14,142), 
tnal8# a target consisting of four contiguous steel plates 14 feet x 10 feet x 
4| inches laid horizontally, was attacked by Palliser studless shot, 
weighing about 354 lbs., fired from the 9-inch M.L. gun. At a range 
of 2917 yards, with a charge of 15Jlbs. and an elevation of 47°, a 
projectile broke on impact, making an indent measuring 6J inches x 
7 inches x 2*9 deep. 
On January 19th, 1888, at 2900 yards range, a similar projectile 
fired at 61° 15', and an angle of descent of 78°, rebounded with 
its point broken off, having made an indent measurieg 7J inches x 1\ 
inches x 7£ inches, the plate was bulged 3J inches at the back, and a 
star opening was begun, 
