The Evolution of Naval ArmamentRobertson, Frederick Leslie
History
The Evolution of Naval Armament
Robertson, Frederick Leslie
Naval art and science -- History; Ordnance, Naval -- History; Warships -- History
In these circumstances the Admiralty in ’68 determined to consider both
types, with a view to embodying the best arrangement in the new class
of vessels then projected. The principal shipbuilders of the country
were invited to compete, and were presented with specifications for
a first-class warship so widely drawn as to leave them the greatest
latitude in design. Of the seven designs submitted, three were of the
central-battery type, three were turret ships, and one a compound of
the two. After comparison with an Admiralty design produced by Sir
Edward Reed, it was decided to adopt this in preference to those of
the private firms, and to build a whole class of six ships to it. The
result was the _Audacious_ class--of which the best-remembered are
the _Iron Duke_ and the ill-fated _Vanguard_. In this class a strong
all-round fire was obtained by arranging two central batteries of the
same size, one on the main and one on the upper deck. The main deck
battery had only broadside ports for its six 12-ton guns, each gun
training thirty degrees before and abaft the beam; the upper deck
battery had four guns of the same calibre mounted at ports cut in
armour facets at forty-five degrees with the keel-line, and training
through ninety degrees. To allow axial fire from these guns the upper
battery was made to project slightly, sponson fashion, over the sides
of the ship, and the bulwarks forward and aft of the battery were set
slightly back toward the centre line to enable the guns to fire past
them.
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