Modern ships of warReed, Edward J. (Edward James), Sir
History
Modern ships of war
Reed, Edward J. (Edward James), Sir
Navies; Warships
“Mr. White makes one very singular statement. He takes exception
to my claiming for the _Inflexible_ type of ship, on account of
their armored citadel, a much better chance of retaining stability
in battle than the _Admiral_ type possesses, because, he says, ‘in
both classes the armored portions require the assistance of the
unarmored to secure such a range and amount of stability as shall
effectually guarantee their security when damaged in action.’
The fair inference to be drawn from this would be that where the
principle long ago laid down by me, and supported by Mr. Barnaby in
the words previously quoted, is once departed from, the danger must
in all cases be so great as to exclude all distinctions of more or
less risk. Mr. White can hardly mean this; but if he does not, then
on what grounds are we told that a ship which has no armor at all
left above water at an inclination say of six or eight degrees is
no worse off than a ship which at those angles and at still greater
ones has a water-tight citadel over one hundred feet long to help
hold her up?
* * * * *
“I am not at all disposed to enter into a discussion as to the
relative stabilities of the English and French ships under various
conditions. The French ships have armored belts two and a half to
three feet above water from end to end. That fact, other things
being presumed equal, gives them an immense advantage over our
ships, which in battle trim have belts scarcely more than a foot
wide above water, and for less than half their length. It is quite
possible that the French constructors may have given their ships
less initial stability than ours; from such information as I
possess I believe they have; but in so far as the ship below the
armor-deck, and the action of shot and shell upon that part of her,
are concerned, whatever stability they start with in battle they
will retain until their armor is pierced; whereas our ships may
have a large proportion of theirs taken from them without their
armor being pierced, and their armored decks are then less than
half the height of those of the French ships above water.
* * * * *
“I will add that I doubt if the French ships are dealt fairly by at
Whitehall. I lately heard a good deal of the extreme taper of their
armor-belts at the bow, and the _Amiral Duperré_ was always quoted
in instance of this. It is true that this ship’s armor does taper
from fifty-five centimetres amidships to twenty-five centimetres at
the stem, but she stands almost alone among recent important ships
in this respect, as the following figures will show:
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