234 
STEEL AS APPLIED TO ARMOUR. 
a portion of tliem could be recovered : 6*8 inches of the point of the 
shell remained so embedded in the plate that shell and plate seemed 
welded together. The penetration could only be estimated and was 
judged to be about five inches. 
Bound 3.—The shell rebounded uninjured close to the muzzle of 
the gun. The penetration was 12J inches, and there were several fine 
radial cracks. 
Bound 4.—The shell was shattered into many fragments ; estimated 
penetration five inches. The ogive of the shell remained embedded in 
the plate, as in Bound 2, which this much resembles, and only a 
saucer-like depression appeared in the face of the plate. 
Bound 5.—With the 8-inch gun, the shell rebounded about 40 feet, 
slightly set up, and scaled; penetration 12J inches. Two very deep 
cracks were made on left side of plate; one ran from the centre 
upwards, through the hole made by Bound 1, and the other ran 
similarly down to the left, through the hole made by Bound 3 ; the 
plate was, therefore, divided into two parts, though the bolts held it in 
position. 
This plate then stood this most several trial in a highly satisfactory 
manner. 
It is hard to compare the results of this trial with that of the 
“ Tressiderized ” plate at Shoeburyness. 
The Harvey plate was more severely tried than the Tressider one, 
and in addition, only steel shell were fired against it, and though if a 
shell breaks up on impact it may not make much difference what sort 
of a shell it is, it seems probable that a steel shell would hold together 
slightly longer and impress more of its energy, than a Palliser, before 
breaking up. 
On the other hand, the Tressider plate showed only a little through 
cracking, and was not a finished plate, yet it must be borne in mind 
no 8-inch shell was fired against it, which was the round that cracked 
the Harvey plate. 
The Harvey plate was certainly very severe on the projectiles, and 
it looks as if the proper left of the plate was better treated than the 
right. This may be due to variations of temperature in the furnace, 
whereby one part would absorb more carbon than the other, and also 
would possibly be hardened more by the spray on account of being 
slightly hotter, supposing the plate to have cooled regularly. I think 
the results of these two trials show armour has lately advanced a step 
in the direction of the ideal plate. The “ Tressiderized ” plate certainly 
seems to come nearer to the ideal, but we have yet to see how it will 
behave under a more severe trial, such as that which the Harvey plate 
experienced. It is possible that when the plate is over-matched and 
does not succeed in breaking up the projectile so quickly, some 
unexpected weakness may show itself, but this, of course, only actual 
trial can determine. In armour-plate trials it is especially true that it 
is the unexpected that happens, but at present these trials give every 
promise of plates being produced which will give results hitherto 
unattainable. 
Sheffield, 
December 4th , 1891. 
