Modern ships of warReed, Edward J. (Edward James), Sir
History
Modern ships of war
Reed, Edward J. (Edward James), Sir
Navies; Warships
“Mr. White says that no vessel can fight without running risks,
and thinks that thick, vertical side-armor, even over a portion
of the ship’s length, is not a necessary guarantee of the life of
a ship. Well, sir, we are all at liberty to think, or not think,
what we please, so far as our sense and judgment will allow us;
but Mr. White, like all other depreciators of side-armor, fails
utterly to show us what else there is which can be relied upon to
keep shell out of a ship, or what can be done to prevent shell
that burst inside a ship from spreading destruction all around. He
refers us to no experiments to show that the thin plate divisions
and coffer-dams, and like devices, will prove of any avail for
the purpose proposed. In the absence of any such experiments, he
tells us, as others have told us, that Signor Brin and colleagues
in the Italian Admiralty consider ‘a minutely subdivided region’
at and below the water-line ‘sufficient defence against gun-fire.’
But I do not think Signor Brin believes anything of the kind; what
he believes is that the Italian government cannot afford to build
a fleet of properly armored line-of-battle ships for hard and
close fighting, and that, looking at their limited resources, a
few excessively fast ships, with armor here and there to protect
particular parts, and with ample capabilities of retreat to a safe
distance, will best serve their purpose. I do not say that he is
wrong, and I certainly admire the skill which he has displayed in
carrying out his well-defined object. But that object is totally
different from ours, and our naval habits, our traditions, our
national spirit, the very blood that flows in our veins, prevent
such an object from ever becoming ours.
“Mr. White all through his letter, in common with some of his late
colleagues at the Admiralty, thinks and speaks as if naval warfare
were henceforth to be chiefly a matter of dodging, getting chance
shots, and keeping out of the enemy’s way; and this may be more or
less true of contests between unarmored vessels. But why is not the
line-of-battle ship _Collingwood_ to be supposed to steam straight
up to the enemy, I should like to know? and if she does, what is
to prevent the enemy from pouring a raking fire through her bow,
and ripping up at once, even with a single shell, every compartment
between the stem and the transverse armored bulkhead?
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account