422 
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF 
When it is remembered that the object of iron armour is to afford pro¬ 
tection against projectiles, I think it will be evident that the rejection in this 
country of the system of laminated armour has been a wise decision. That 
the Americans themselves disapprove of this plan of armour plating, notwith¬ 
standing the large use which they have, from necessity, made of it, is tolerably 
evident from the orders which have for some time been given in this country 
for thick plates. 
Lord Clarence Paget, in the House of Commons, on 23rd of February 
1863, gave the following opinion regarding iron ships :— 
“Undoubtedly, when we come to ships of very large tonnage, iron has the advantage. 
Wooden vessels are subject to great vibration when put to high speed, and this 
damaged them and caused them to decay. In consequence of their fouling* 
they are not so useful as wooden ships, as long as the latter last. As an 
argument in favour of iron vessels, I may say that Admiral .Robinson, the Controller 
of the Navy, has gone very carefully into the average cost to the country of main¬ 
taining a wooden fleet, and he has come to the conclusion that for every man that 
you vote for the Navy you must put down DIO for the mere wages of artificers to 
keep the ships in repair.” 
Admiral Eobinson, the Controller of the Navy, sets against the admitted 
advantages of iron ships,— 
“ The serious local weakness of the comparatively thin plates of which the bottom 
of an iron ship is necessarily composed • the danger, therefore, of getting on rocks 
in such ships.” 
The Special Committee on Iron considered the advantage of the “Warrior” 
wood backingt as fourfold. 
(1) It stops small fragments of iron from entering the ship. 
(2) If large pieces of the plate are broken off, it holds them in their 
places, and makes them still useful, to a certain extent. 
(3) It deadens the jar, and so preserves the fastenings and the structure 
generally. 
(4) It distributes the effect of the blow over a larger area of the skin and 
frame of the ship. 
The Committee did not attach importance to wood as a support to the 
plates, conceiving that in this respect it is inferior to more rigid material. 
Independent of the supporters of wholly iron v. iron with a wood backing, 
there existed certain gentlemen who, after studying the subject of armour 
* “ Captain Cochrane (late in command of the ‘ Warrior,’) has said that when six weeks afloat 
she (the ‘ Warrior ’) lost one knot an hour from fouling.”—Lord C. Paget’s speech, House of 
Commons, March 12th. 
Rear Admiral Dahlgren in a report to the Secretary of the U. S. Navy, dated 4th November, 1863, 
states, “ Since my last, our own part has still been restricted to the repair of the monitors and 
the cleansing of their bottoms, which had become so ford by the adherence of grass and barnacles as 
to reduce their speed from 6^ or 7 knots to 3^- and 4.” 
f There are two vessels in this squadron, which give proof of the value of heavy backing to iron. 
These vessels were built with heavy frames, covered on the outside with gutta-percha and then with 
a light thickness of iron. Whenever these vessels have been struck on the iron where the wood 
backing was heavy, they resisted the shot of heaviest calibre, but where the backing was light, shot 
went in at one side and out at the other. The defence of gutta-percha was not of the slightest use : 
on the contrary it was a detriment, and aided very much in destroying the vessels by rot.”— 
Report of Rear Admiral Porter, U.S. Navy to the Secretary of the Navy, February 16, 1864. 
