“Even if the side were thus broken through, any one of our iron-built ships would most probably remain afloat, although her efficiency would be considerably impaired, the water which would enter being confined to the watertight compartment of the hold, enclosed by bulkheads crossing the ship at a moderate distance before and abaft the part broken through. In fact, under these circumstances the ship struck would be in exactly the same condition as an ordinary iron ship which by any accident has had the bottom plating broken, and one of the hold-compartments filled with water, so that we have good reason to believe that her safety need not be despaired of, unless, by the blow being delivered at, or very near, a bulkhead, more than one compartment should be injured and filled. All iron ships can thus be protected to some extent against being sunk by a single blow of a ram, and our own vessels have the further and important protection of the watertight wings just described; but wood ships are not similarly safe. One hole in the side of the _Re d’Italia_ sufficed to sink her; but this would scarcely have been possible in an iron ship with properly arranged watertight compartments. The French, in their latest ironclads, have become alive to this danger, and have fitted transverse iron bulkheads in the holds of wood-built ships in order to add to their safety. No doubt this is an improvement, but our experience with wood ships leads us to have grave doubts whether these bulkheads can be made efficient watertight divisions in the hold, on account of the working that is sure to take place in a wood hull. This fact adds another to the arguments previously advanced in favour of iron hulls for armoured ships; for it appears that an iron-built ship, constructed on the system of our recent ironclads, is comparatively safe against destruction by a ram, unless she is repeatedly attacked when in a disabled state, while a wood-built ship may, and most likely will, be totally lost in consequence of one well-delivered heavy blow.” This is in strange contrast to the fate of the _Vanguard_, but the finding of the court-martial indicates that the precautions taken were hardly such as were contemplated by the ship’s designer! Furthermore, she appears to have been struck immediately on one of the watertight bulkheads, and so, instead of being left with seven of her eight compartments unfilled, she had only six unfilled. The shock, also, was such that most of the other bulkheads started leaking; and in addition to this the double bottom is said to have been filled with bricks and cement,[105] and so less operative than it might otherwise have been, since any shock on the outer bottom would thus be immediately communicated to the inner one.