“I must draw the reader’s attention to the fact that I give this sailor’s statement for what it is worth. The officers, one and all, as far as my memory serves me, stated that she was a very good sea boat; better, indeed, than they expected, though somewhat sluggish in the water. I may add that the Miantonoma not only reached Queenstown, but did succeed in making a tour of the world. Yet it was alleged that her crew, with the exception of some twenty men, were put into the tenders, and that she was towed across the ‘herring pond’ and round the Horn by them. From these facts and rumours the [pg 143]reader may form his own opinion as to the seaworthiness of the American monitor. My belief is, that for a sea-fight, especially should one occur in a gale of wind, they are practically as useless as a hay-barge, while for harbour defences they have proved themselves invaluable. Of all the splendid fleet of monitors possessed by America at the close of the Federal and Confederate war, there are scarce any left to keep up the reputation of the United States as a naval power. They were contract built, of green oak. The Philadelphia and San Francisco navy yards afford ample proof that a decade has sufficed to destroy what shot and shell found almost invulnerable. Such splendid specimens of naval architecture as the Brooklyn and Ohio alone are left to keep up the appearance of America’s naval strength on foreign stations. But let us hope that her ‘shoddy’ monitors, like her shoddy blankets or wooden nutmegs, have passed away with her convalescence from intestine wounds, and that the next decade may witness the Stars and Stripes floating powerfully and peacefully side by side with the Union Jack, omnipotent for good.”
Any such expression of feeling in regard to the safety of English ironclads, in spite of the terrible loss of the Captain, and that of the Vanguard (only less serious inasmuch as no lives were sacrificed), would not be echoed by any British sailor on board them. The accommodations, barring the general darkness and sense of gloom inside, only partially illumined by the fitful light of lamps, are generally good, and it is by no means certain that when the electric light has attained that perfection at which its promoters are aiming, there can be any complaint on that score at all. Still, until some grand success has been attained by ironclads, it is very questionable whether they can be thoroughly popular, except to courageous, scientific, and ambitious officers, of whom the service, the writer is certain, does not stand in need. We have had a “Man of iron” ashore, and we shall have him afloat when the occasion requires.
The first types of ironclads introduced into the Royal Navy, as for example, the Warrior and Black Prince, were nearly identical in general appearance to the war-ships of the day. Now all British ironclads are built with sides approaching the upright or vertical above water. At first they only attempted broadside fire; now bow and stern guns are common. The Warrior, as the earliest example of an ironclad in the Royal Navy, deserves special mention. She is doing duty to-day, and is by no means an effete example, but an excellent and useful vessel. She is armoured at the middle only, in the most exposed parts. In other words, her engines and leading guns are protected, while the rest of her hull, though strong, is not armour-covered. Now, whatever weight of armour this central, or “box-battery,” as it has been termed, may have, there is always a continuous belt of iron extending from stem to stern, and protecting the region of the water-line and steering gear, the counter of the ship being carried below the water in order to screen the rudder-head. This improvement is due to Sir Spencer Robinson. The Warrior’s armour was uniform in thickness; now it is strongest in the vital parts. The Warrior had only a main-deck battery armour plated; recent ships have had a protected upper-deck battery given them. The Warrior carried a large number of guns in an outspread battery; all later ships, of whatever type, have had a concentrated battery of much heavier guns. This early armoured ship is long; nearly all later examples are much shorter in proportion to their breadth.
And now to the armour itself, which is sometimes affixed to an iron and sometimes to a wooden hull, and in a few cases has wood outside it. These facts, by no means generally known, must be studied, for it can hardly yet be said to be determined which is the better form. It may be said, in general terms, that the “adoption of armour-plating was accompanied in this country by the introduction of iron for the construction of the hulls of ships of war, and our ironclad fleet is for the most part iron-built. We have, it is true, a number of wood-built ironclads, but most of these are converted vessels.”[44] Several were built of wood (and then armoured) for the purpose of utilising the large stocks of timber accumulated in the dockyards. In the future it is probable that nearly all will be of iron, with wood backing. The armour of the Warrior is only 4½ inches thick, with, however, a “backing” of 18 inches of timber. This type includes the Black Prince, Achilles, Defence, Hector, Valiant, and Prince Albert. Then we come to another series, of which the Bellerophon, Penelope, Invincible, Audacious, Swiftsure, Triumph, Iron Duke, and unfortunate Vanguard furnish examples. They average 6 inches of iron-plating to 10 inches of wood backing. The lost Captain was somewhat heavier in both plating and backing. Then again we advance to a still heavier type—12 inches of iron to 18 inches of wood: the Glatton, Thunderer, and Devastation furnish examples. Then there is the wood-built class, the thickness of their (wooden) sides ranging from 19½ to as high as 36 inches, with 4½ to 6 inches of armour. The Royal Sovereign (a turret ship) is a leading example of this class; she has 5½ inches of armour, covering 36 inches of wood.
To speak of all the types of armour-clad ships would most undoubtedly weary the reader. Let us examine a leading example. The Inflexible (double turret ship) is probably the greatest result yet attained. She is an ironclad of 11,400 tons, with 8,000 horse-power, her estimated first cost being considerably over half a million sterling. She is 320 feet long, and has armour of 16 to 24 inches thick, with a backing of 17 to 25 inches of wood. She has no less than 135 compartments, while her engines are so completely isolated that if one breaks down the other would be working. “But already, as if to show the impossibility of attaining the stage of finality as regards the construction of our men-of-war, there is every reason to believe that she has been excelled.... Designed,” says our leading journal,[45] “as an improvement upon the Russian Peter the Great, she will herself be surpassed by the two Italian frigates which are building at La Spezzia and Castellamare.... While the Inflexible’s turrets are formed of a single thickness of 18-inch armour, and her armament consists of four 81-ton guns, the turrets of the Dandolo and the Duilio are built of plates 22 inches thick, and are armed with four 100-ton guns.” The writer then enlarges on recent gunnery experiments, showing that even the enormous thickness of the Inflexible’s iron sides have been pierced, and concludes by saying that, “so far as the exigencies of the navy are concerned, the limit of weight seems to have already been reached, for the simple reason that the buoyancy of our ironclads cannot with safety be further diminished by the burden of heavier armour and armaments.” The [pg 145]leading feature in this vessel is the situation of the turrets. In most turret ships afloat these batteries are placed on the middle line, and in consequence only one-half the guns can be brought to bear on an enemy either right ahead or directly astern. In the Inflexible the turrets rise up on either side of the ship en échelon within the citadel walls, the fore turret being on the port side and the after turret on the starboard side. By these means the whole of the four guns can be discharged simultaneously at a ship right ahead or right astern, or, in pairs, towards any point. What vessel could withstand such a fire rightly directed?
THE “INFLEXIBLE.”
As we have seen, the forms and proportions of ironclads have undergone enormous changes from the days when the success of the plated floating batteries at Kinburn called the special attention of Europe to the possibility of successfully protecting vessels in the same way. The shot of the enemy had no effect on these batteries. A special correspondent of the Times said: “The balls hopped back off their sides without leaving an impression, save such as a pistol-ball makes on the target of a shooting gallery. The shot could be heard distinctly striking the sides of the battery with a ‘sharp smack,’ and then [pg 146]could be seen flying back, splashing the water at various angles according to the direction in which they came, till they dropped exhausted.”
One of the greatest novelties is the circular ironclad, proposed long ago by Mr. John Elder, in a paper read before the United Service Institution, and carried out by Admiral Popoff, of the Russian navy, who designed one which was afterwards constructed and was christened the Novgorod. She was 100 feet in diameter, with curved deck, the highest point of which was only five or six feet above the water. She carried two 28-ton guns. Its model might be described as a floating saucer with a comparatively flat covering. It is even asserted that a good speed is attainable with such vessels, and that they are steerable, if hydraulic machinery is employed. Mr. Elder’s plan was as follows:—When a revolving pilot-house on the vessel turned, a jet of water was ejected in a backward line to the very course proposed to steer. The pilot or steersman—having a complete control of the movements of the pilot-house, and a clear look out a-head—only arranged to steer in a particular direction, and the water jet propelled the vessel to its destination. Such vessels are fit for nothing better than river or harbour protection.
The Alexandra, whose batteries we show on the opposite page, is one of the most efficient of our English armour-plated ships. She was built at Chatham, and launched in 1875. She was specially built for speed, and carries the maximum weight of armour consistent with sea-going qualities. She is armed with three guns of twenty-five tons each and nine of eighteen tons.