FOOTNOTES:
[1] This is not strictly true of quite all the ships named, but it probably will be true erelong, as none of them has more than a light auxiliary rig, and that will probably be abandoned.
[3] “The British Navy.”
[4] From “Engineering.”
[5] Some persons regarded the existence of these four small port-holes as converting the tower into a nest for projectiles, although a single enemy could not possibly have attacked more than two of these ports at once, situated as they were. What would such persons think of the batteries of the Nelson, Northampton, and Shannon, each open for more than one hundred feet in length, on each side of the ship, in so far as armor is concerned?
[6] The Italia and Lepanto, for example.
[8] “The British Navy,” vol. i., p. 438.
[9] Ibid., p. 427. The writer trusts he may be excused from again quoting these very important sentences from the work of the former Secretary to the Admiralty, notwithstanding that he recently had occasion to quote them elsewhere.
[10] The reasons for placing this ship in the list of armored ships, against the writer’s own judgment, have been stated previously. (See Notes for new ships.)
[11] Harbor-defence vessel.
[12] Three turret-vessels, nearly resembling the Gorgon, which belong to the Indian and colonial governments, are not included in this list, nor are several unimportant small vessels, viz., Scorpion, Wyvern, Viper, Waterwitch, and Vixen. The very few remaining thinly armored wood-built ships are also excluded.
[13] Ships for local defence of ports.
[14] Cruisers for distant service.
[15] The thicknesses of decks given are those of the horizontal, or nearly horizontal, parts of the deck. Where the decks slope down at the sides the thickness is sometimes increased a little, as will have been seen in the section of the Mersey. (See Notes for new ships.)
[17] The editor of these Notes wishes to acknowledge his very great indebtedness to the Office of United States Naval Intelligence for the data relating to foreign navies, notably to Lieutenant R. P. Rodgers, Chief Intelligence Officer, and to Lieutenants W. H. Beehler, J. C. Colwell, and W. I. Chambers, Assistants. The notes upon the United States Navy are to a great degree reprints of his own contributions to the editorial and news columns of the New York Herald.
[18] “Recent Naval Progress,” June, 1887.
[19] Lieutenant Colwell, U.S.N., in “Recent Naval Progress,” 1887.
[20] Lieutenant Chambers, U.S.N.
[21] “Our War Ships,” Cusack-Smith.
[22] It is called a belt in Lloyd’s Universal Register, but the term is very likely to mislead.—E. J. R.
[23] It will be instructive to repeat here, before leaving this question of partially armored ships, a comparison resembling that which I employed in a paper read at the Royal United Service Institution, in which are set down in one column the displacements of certain British and French ships, eleven of each, built and building, possessing maximum armor on the water-line of at least fifteen inches. As all the French ships given have complete or all but complete armor-belts, it is proper to reckon their whole displacement tonnages as armored tonnage. But in the case of all the British ships which carry such thick armor they are deprived of armor altogether except amidships, and it is therefore misleading, and even absurd, to reckon their whole displacement tonnages as armored tonnage. For this reason I am obliged to give two tonnages for them, viz., the armored and the unarmored, as I do below:
| French Ships. | British Ships. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Armored. | Unarmored. | Armored. | Total. | ||
| Tons. | Tons. | Tons. | Tons. | ||
| Amiral Baudin | 11,141 | Inflexible | 5,210 | 6,670 | 11,880 |
| Amiral Duperré | 10,486 | Ajax | 4,160 | 4,350 | 8,510 |
| Dévastation | 9,639 | Agamemnon | 4,160 | 4,350 | 8,510 |
| Formidable | 11,441 | Colossus | 4,580 | 4,570 | 9,150 |
| Courbet | 9,639 | Edinburgh | 4,580 | 4,570 | 9,150 |
| Hoche | 9,864 | Collingwood | 4,580 | 4,570 | 9,150 |
| Magenta | 9,864 | Rodney | 4,800 | 4,900 | 9,700 |
| Marceau | 9,864 | Home | 4,800 | 4,900 | 9,700 |
| Neptune | 9,864 | Camperdown | 4,900 | 5,100 | 10,000 |
| Caïman | 7,239 | Benbow | 4,900 | 5,100 | 10,000 |
| Indomptable | 7,184 | Anson | 4,900 | 5,100 | 10,000 |
| Total | 106,225 | Total | 51,570 | 54,180 | 105,750 |
I have not thought it necessary to alter these figures in repeating this comparison, as they are sufficiently near the truth for the only purpose for which I employ them, which is that of exhibiting the fact that whereas the above eleven British iron-clads (so called) figure in the official tables of the British government as constituting an armored tonnage of 105,750 tons, nearly equal to that of the eleven French ships, they really represent but little more than half that amount of armored tonnage.—E. J. R.
[24] For the reason before stated, the Brennus and Charles Martel are omitted from this table.
[25] These powers and speeds are taken from Lloyd’s Universal Register.
[26] Some returns say four of 28 tons, and four of 24 tons, all being of 27 centimetres calibre. I have adopted these in Table A.
[28] Lieutenant Chambers, U. S. Navy.
[29] Lieutenant Colwell, U. S. Navy.
[30] Lieutenant Shroeder, U. S. Navy.
[31] I adopt this figure from Lord Brassey, who adopts it from Mr. King, but I am inclined to regard it as too small by about five feet, for I observe that in giving the length as 107 feet they give the breadth as 58 feet, whereas they give the breadth of the ship as 64¾ feet. I also observe that they both speak of an “armored citadel or compartment 107 feet in length,” and the word “compartment” seems to point to inside dimensions, and although it seems odd to use these in such a case, it is probable that that has been done. But as there is considerable curvature in the transverse bulkheads, and as the greatest inside length has presumably been given, it may still be practically correct to regard the mean length of the battery as 107 feet. I regret that I have not the means at hand of making certain of the precise length.—E. J. R.
[33] Lloyd’s Universal Register falls into a still more notable error in respect to the speed of these vessels, for it assigns to the best of them a speed of only seven and one-half knots, and to some only five knots, whereas they are very much faster, as will presently be shown in the text. But the mistake, grave as it is, seems to me to have resulted only from a printer’s error, for the removal of a vertical “lead” one column to the left would add ten knots to the speeds of all these vessels, and make them correct.—E. J. R.
[35] According to the Universal Register; but only two of nine tons (besides smaller ones) according to Admiralty Return to Parliament.—E. J. R.
[36] The Grosser Kurfürst was run into off Folkestone by the König Wilhelm, and foundered.—E. J. R.
[38] Lloyd’s Universal Register appears to me to be in error concerning the speed of this and the next vessel. The Carnet gives their speed as fourteen knots, and the Admiralty Return puts it at fifteen knots, which I believe to be the expected speed.—E. J. R.
[42] Curiously enough, neither Lord Brassey, nor Mr. King (United States Navy), nor Captain Von Kronenfels seems to have been aware of the origin of this little ship’s design, for it is mentioned by none of them, although all of them have been most ready to do me, in common with others, full justice in such matters. Mr. King, for example, speaking of a ship previously mentioned, says, “The most powerful ship belonging to the Turkish navy is the Mesoodiyeh, designed by Sir E. J. Reed, C.B., M.P., built by the Thames Shipbuilding Company, delivered to the Sultan in 1876, and now the flag-ship of the fleet.” He would doubtless have as readily acknowledged the authorship of the Feth-i-Bulend’s design, had he been aware of it. As I was the Chief Constructor of the British Navy when I designed for the Sultan of Turkey this ship and the Fatikh (now the German König Wilhelm), I think it right to state that I did so not only with the sanction but by the orders of the Admiralty, and in pursuance of what was then the declared policy of England, viz., that of giving Turkey the benefit of our good offices in efforts to produce a powerful fleet. Beyond a complimentary present of a jewelled snuffbox or two, I received no remuneration for my services to Turkey, and sought none, and desired none.—E. J. R.
[45] “The Present Position of European Politics.”
[46] $43,425,000.
[47] Dilke.
[48] Lieut. Colwell, U.S.N., in “Recent Naval Progress.”
[49] See [Notes] for later ships.
[53] Complete.
[54] Building at South Boston and West Point.
[55] It is probable that the battery of the battle-ship will be two 6-inch, two 10-inch, and two 12-inch guns.
[56] Probably.
[57] From Army and Navy Gazette, February 27, 1886.
[58] Lieutenant Colwell, United States Navy.
[59] Naval Intelligence, General Information Series No. 5.
[60] “Recent Naval Progress.”
[61] From the General Information Series No. V., U. S. Naval Intelligence Office.
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE
Footnotes [13] and [14] have multiple anchors on [page 47].
Footnote [25] has multiple anchors on [page 76].
Footnotes [53], [54] and [56] have multiple anchors on [page 228].
The illustrations on pages 90, 254 and 257 were vertical and have been rotated to the horizontal.
Some illustrations have been moved several pages to be closer to the related text.
The table on [page 184] of the original book was very wide, and has been split into 3 parts.
Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within the text and consultation of external sources.
Some hyphens in words have been silently removed, some added, when a predominant preference was found in the original book.
Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text, and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained.
[Pg 49]: ‘projecting sponsoons’ replaced by ‘projecting sponsons’.
[Pg 57]: ‘1-inch Nordenfelt’ replaced by ‘1-inch Nordenfeldt’.
[Pg 76]: ‘Furiex’ (in table) replaced by ‘Furieux’.
[Pg 89]: ‘nearly 600 tons’ replaced by ‘nearly 6000 tons’.
[Pg 98]: ‘slow burning power’ replaced by ‘slow burning powder’.
[Pg 118]: ‘Dmitry Donskoi’ (in table) replaced by ‘Dmitri Donsköi’.
[Pg 118]: ‘Admiral Kornilof’ replaced by ‘Admiral Korniloff’.
[Pg 140]: ‘Rinda’ replaced by ‘Rynda’.
[Pg 180]: ‘floating ing batteries’ replaced by ‘floating batteries’.
[Pg 243]: ‘Whitehead torpedes’ replaced by ‘Whitehead torpedoes’.