416 
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF 
they in reality are of a most powerful description,—I think it will be 
admitted that the suggestions made by Colonel Paixhans in 1821 ; are being 
adopted in the most complete maimer in 1865. 
The first practical test to which armour clad vessels were- put was in the 
case of the floating batteries which were employed by the Trench in the 
attack on Kinburn, in October 1855; these vessels, three in number, 
were protected by ij-inch plates, and engaged the Russian batteries for 
some hours, at 600 or 700 yards range, and although repeatedly struck by 
shot they were but slightly injured,* and the only loss to the crews is said 
to have been occasioned by the entrance of some few shot through the ports.t 
The Russians however had no heavier guns than 32-prs., and the shot were 
cast-iron. 
This practical experiment proved the utility of protecting ships with iron 
armour, and if this protection was necessary in 1855 against 32 and 68-prs. 
much more so is it in 1865, when ships are being armed with 12-ton guns, 
and forts with some guns even of 22 tons weight. Doubts are sometimes 
thrown, by the lovers of our old wooden walls, on the utility of armour 
plating, J now that thick armour plates can be penetrated by steel shell; but 
in my opinion even the universal adoption of this special projectile, will 
not in any way lessen the necessity for iron armour-clad vessels, for it is 
certain that wooden ships would be speedily sunk or burnt by modern 
* The following extracts from Official Reports of Officers of the U.S. Navy, published in the 
Annual Report of the Secretary of the U.S. Navy, shew that the use of cast-iron projectiles against 
iron-cased vessels, at close quarters, is likely to he more injurious to assailants than assailed. In 
the attack on the “ Albemarle ” confederate ram by the federal gunboats, on the 19th April 1864, 
“ Lieut. Commander Flusser fired the first shell at her, and upon its bursting some fragments, 
either from this or the c Southfields ’ shells rebounded and caused the death of Lieut. Commander 
Flusser, also wounding the officers and men below mentioned.” 
Again, 
“A shell from gun No. 3 struck the ram, rebounded and exploded, cutting away port forward 
boat davit, and fragments passing through deck forward of the boiler and starboard waist, and 
cutting away port smokestack guys and passing through smokestack.”—Report on damage 
received by U.S. steamer “Miami” in engagement in Albemarle Sound, 6th May, 1864. 
“ Acting Ensign Mayer sent a 100-pr. solid shot at her port, which broke into fragments, one of 
which rebounded and fell on our deck.”—Report of Lieut. Commander Roe in command 
of “ Sassacus ” in attack on “Albemarle.” 
The following directions were subsequently given by Rear Admiral Lee regarding the plan of 
attacking the “Albemarle:”—“Your guns should have double breeching, and be loaded with heavy 
charges (say from 16 to 18 lbs. of powder for the 9-inch guns) and solid shot, and they should be so 
depressed as to fire as near a perpendicular line to the slope of the roof as practicable. If all hands 
lie down when the guns are fired, they will escape the rebound of broken parts from the shot. At 
the time of this attack if some shell were thrown down the ram’s smokestack, she might thus be 
disabled.”—Letter from Rear Admiral Lee, 23rd April, 1864. 
f The ports of the English iron-clads (with the exception of the “ Bellerophon ” class which 
have to carry the heaviest ordnance), have been much reduced in size since this date, the main 
deck ports of the wooden ships measured 2' 11" in depth by 3' 6" fore and aft; this has been 
altered to 3' 8" x 2' in the case of the “ Warrior,” “ Resistance,” &c., 3' 8" x 2' 4" in the “ Lord 
Warden,” “ Pallas,” &c., but the main deck ports of the “ Bellerophon ” are 4' x 2' 9" ; the French, 
adhered to the large port holes, which were in fashion in the days of smooth-bore guns, in the 
early specimens of their iron-clad fleet, but in their newest ships they have likewise reduced the 
area of the port-holes. 
J See Appendix A, p. 437. 
