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 ’73 Mr. Barnaby had questioned the wisdom of expending a large
weight in the protection of turrets. Three years later Commander Noel,
in a Prize Essay, was advocating unarmoured batteries, with a view
to multiplying the number of battery guns, utilizing for offence the
weight thus saved. In ’73 Mr. Barnaby had argued that the stinting of
armour on the hull in order to thicken it on the battery would drive
the enemy to multiply his light and medium machine-guns. Within a few
years warships were bristling with Gatling and Gardner, Nordenfelt and
Hotchkiss guns, which by their presence gave a new value to armour,
however thin. Mr. Froude, too, in his experiments in connection with
the _Inflexible_, brought into prominence the advantage which thin
armour on a ship’s ends conferred on her stability. The idea of
substituting cellular construction for armour was proving attractive.
While the French continued to favour the complete water-line belt,
the Italians went to the limit in the _Italia_ and _Lepanto_, in
which the water-line was left entirely unprotected by side armour.
Such armour as was carried was embodied in the form of a protective
deck, a feature found above water and in conjunction with a side belt
in our _Devastation_ class, and under water and without side armour
in the _Inflexible_ and smaller contemporary ships. The protective
deck, which covered the vitals of a ship and deflected shot and shell
from its surface, was a device which found increasing favour with
naval architects. It was advocated by the Committee on Designs in
’71 as possessing important advantages over a similar weight of side
armour. If placed at some distance below water it formed the roof of
a submerged hull structure which was immune from damage by gun-fire,
the sides of this hull being protected sufficiently by sea-water. If,
as was subsequently done, the protective deck were placed at a small
distance above water, and if the sides of it were bent down so as to
meet the ship’s sides at a distance below water beyond which a shot was
unlikely to penetrate, the deck offered other advantages: the vital
machinery, though now partly above water, was still protected, the
sloping parts of the deck being able to deflect shots which would have
penetrated a much thicker vertical plate; moreover, if the ship’s sides
were riddled in action, the protective deck still preserved a large
portion of the water-line area intact, and thereby secured her lateral
stability.
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