First-rate, Sea-going, Full-rigged Frigates.

Displacement ranging from 10,500 to 5400 Tons.

Names. Hull. Armor. Hull
and
Armor. 		Ordnance. Engines
and
Boilers.		 Coal. Spars, Crew,
and
Supplies.
French.
Gloire.472.144.616.066.114.116.088
Magenta.474.161.635.073.107.107.078
Provence.441.163.604.065.134.107.090
Marengo.463.180.643.063.111.078.085
Richelieu.476.195.671.067.095.085.082
Devastation.389.294.683.061.118.064.074
Austrian.
Kaiser.481.147.628.055.113.083.121
Tegetthoff.342.289.631.051.145.087.086
German.
König Wilhelm .401216.617.066.121.111.085
English.
Warrior.518.149.667.059.101.098.075
Achilles.504.183.687.048.107.072.086
Minotaur.493.194.687.047.101.072.093
Bellerophon.483.171.654.054.118.085.089
Sultan.428.209.637.062.133.080.088
Hercules.431.199.630.065.138.090.077
Audacious.437.221.658.055.117.085.085
Alexandra.405.246.651.072.141.053.083
Temeraire.404.226.630.058.158.060.096

Second-rate, Sea-going, Full-rigged Frigates.

Displacement ranging between 5150 and 2950 Tons.

Names. Hull. Armor. Hull
and
Armor. 		Ordnance. Engines
and
Boilers.		 Coal. Spars, Crew,
and
Supplies.
French.
Alma.519.234.753.043.107.062.035
Victorieuse.475.172.647.075.096.068.114
English.
Pallas.488.153.641.038.162.074.085
Shannon .655.071
German.
Hansa.416.194.610.069.157.067.097
Russian.
Duke of Edinburgh.379.112.491.033.197.215.064
Chilian.
Almirante Cochrane .073 .073
Austrian.
Drache.526.133.659041.086.089.125
Turreted Sea-going Iron-clads.
Displacement ranging between 11,550 and 8400 Tons.
Devastation.301.341.642.054.117.146.041
Dreadnought.342.301.643.048.131.137.041
Inflexible.327.362.689.070.117.103.021
Duilio.341.315.656.053.117.108.066
Peter the Great.366 .051.145.092
Monarch.433.217.650.041.133.072.104
Turreted Coast-defence Iron-clads.
Displacement ranging between 5550 and 2550 Tons.
Cerberus.428.369.797.059.077.036.031
Hotspur.430.309.739.030.133.069.029
Glatton.320.352.672.068.114.112.034
Cyclops.411.331.742.068.076.082.032
Javary.288.373.661.068.106.051.114
Popoff.291.384.675.078.150.047.050
Onondaga.624.117.741.059.102.068.130
Tonnerre.359.371.730.036.118.052.064

Although these tables are too limited to permit of a just appreciation of the development of iron-clad architecture, much profit may be derived from them. For example: it is known that the French have been slow in adopting iron hulls, and at the first glance many are inclined to sneer at their backwardness, but an inspection of the table will show that their caution was well founded. In weight of hull they never passed 48 per cent, while the English with their iron construction did not reach that point as a minimum until the Hercules was designed. Whilst, however, the French had reached the lowest possible limits with wood (between 44 and 48 per cent), the English by constant improvement steadily reduced the weight of their iron hulls from 52 per cent in the Warrior to 44 in the Audacious. The gradual perfection of steel manufacture coming to their assistance permitted the English by partially introducing it to reduce the weight to 40 per cent. At this point the French take up the iron hull and with the Devastation reach 39 per cent. The Austrians, appreciating the value of the saving in weight of hull, build an all-steel hull in the Tegetthoff, bringing the weight to its present minimum of 34 per cent. Since iron manufacture has never been in so advanced a state in France as in England, it is safe to state that had the Gloire’s hull been of iron, it would have absorbed at least 52 per cent of the displacement, a very serious matter in the first stages of iron-clad building. The wisdom of choosing a wooden hull is then sufficiently shown in this one point of saving 6 per cent in weight, and as the French had commenced with a complete armored side, they could not build in iron until the weight of that system was reduced to that of wood. This necessity was all the more urgent as the percentage of armor increased more rapidly than that of hull diminished. From the Gloire to the Richelieu and from the Warrior to the Hercules the regularity of increase is remarkable, being about the same in both countries, and yet an examination of the weight of hull and armor together shows the French to have the advantage. A strictly true comparison of percentages of armor, however, would necessitate a closer examination of the system of application than is permissible in a general summary.

The advantages of a light hull, however, are well shown in the respective percentages of the Devastation and Tegetthoff. The 39 per cent of the Devastation is far beyond the English limit, but it also brings the hull and armor together about the same amount in advance, which is a clear disadvantage to other factors. By saving on the hull, however, the Tegetthoff gets the same high per cent of armor, while weight of hull and armor together are at the very lowest limit.

Passing to the second-rates we find the weight of hull averaging higher and that of armor lower, bringing the total weight about the same. The Duke of Edinburgh is of a special type which can hardly be compared with the others. Her hull of 38 per cent is evidently of iron and steel in the best combination, whilst her very low percentage of armor shows at once that it is extremely limited, bringing the total at least 12 per cent below the average, the reason for which is shown at once by referring to weight of engines and coal, which are carried far beyond the average. This vessel is intended to steam 16 knots, with a coal capacity for 6000 miles at 10 knots.