Warships and their story

by R. A. Fletcher

As the powers possessed a great number of old smooth-bore guns and rifled guns were expensive, several attempts at a compromise were made by lining the smooth-bore guns and converting them into rifled guns, the lining being rifled according to whichever system the power owning the gun happened to prefer at the moment. The Dutch Government is said to have set the example of national frugality in this respect.

How slow the Admiralty was, is shown by the statement of the Secretary to the Admiralty in the House of Commons in March, 1881, to the effect that “at this moment there is not a single heavy breech-loading gun mounted on any of our ships, but by the end of next year a very substantial beginning would have been made towards arming our fleet with breech-loaders.... The Admiralty was driven to the step by the fact that a high velocity was now required for the projectile, that high velocity was only obtainable by a great length of gun, and that to load a gun over a certain length at the muzzle became impracticable under the ordinary conditions of mounting guns afloat.” The Government, it was contended, was now able to profit by the experience which foreign nations had gained, and intended to improve upon the guns which were in use abroad. But whatever may have been the official view, the fact remains that the Admiralty was years behind other nations, that Woolwich, in spite of official claims, discovered nothing that had not been known to be possible a decade earlier at least, and that the Navy was armed with out-of-date muzzle-loaders. Fortunate it no doubt was for this country that it had no wars in which its Navy could be tested against a navy armed with breech-loaders.

In the matter of armour this country owes a debt of gratitude to Sir John Brown, who made the Atlas Works at Sheffield famous throughout the world for the excellence of the armour-plates produced there. Indeed, the records of what he has accomplished seem to indicate that his rule was to surpass whatever his rivals produced, and never to forget that he might be able to learn something from others. His company took up the manufacture of chrome steel, which was patented in America about 1871. When the Italian experiments at Spezzia resulted in the 100-ton gun smashing, in 1876, 22 inches of iron armour and its backing, the French turned their attention to steel plates, as did also Sir Joseph Whitworth, but Sir John Brown thought that better results would be secured with iron plates with steel faces. These compound plates had half their thickness of steel. By 1888 the firm was producing compound plates each 32 tons in weight.

An interesting comparison between French and English methods was made a few years ago[55] by M. Canet, of the well-known French firm of gun manufacturers, in a paper on the heavy naval guns and warships of the two countries. Referring to the latest type of the large weapons then employed at sea, viz., the English 12-inch gun, known officially as Mark IX., he described its method of construction, which has already been alluded to, and pointed out that the corresponding gun in the French navy was of 305-mm. bore (or 12.008-inch) and of 45 calibres in length. The barbette system of gun-mounting, as already explained, owed its origin to French inventiveness, and is preferred in the British Navy; but the French, curiously enough, seem to have preferred the English system of mounting turrets for the guns. The turrets themselves, however, differed from those of the English pattern, the French idea being to make them oval and smaller, so as to offer the narrowest possible target, and this theory was carried into practice even at the expense of the interior roominess. The limited dimensions, however, made it no easy task for artillerists to arrange conveniently inside the turrets all the machinery required, and M. Canet avowed a preference for the English practice of allowing the designer plenty of weight and room inside the turrets or barbettes. There were also structural differences in the methods of the two countries of arranging the armour, and it was claimed that the French oval form, with the other characteristics, had, among other advantages, that of distributing the blows of the projectiles over a greater weight of armour. Another important difference lay also in the method of working the guns. It has been the custom for many years in the British Navy to take up the recoil of the guns by hydraulic buffers, and to use hydraulic pressure to run out the guns again. The French introduced springs, which were compressed by the force of the recoil. Again, hydraulic appliances are preferred in the British Navy for training and elevating the guns, but our neighbours across the Channel prefer electricity. The latter has been tried in the British Navy, the most notable example being one of the super-Dreadnoughts, but the experiment has by no means given satisfaction.

Even more striking differences appeared in the matter of the ammunition hoists, etc. The French battleships, M. Canet said, were equipped with hoists leading direct from the magazines to the guns, and there was the drawback that the guns had to be returned to a certain position to be reloaded, and the muzzle had to be depressed a few degrees below the horizontal to facilitate the loading, the projectile being pushed home with a rammer by the gun crew, whose strength was assisted by a compressed spring. The ammunition hoists on the English battleships, on the contrary, were made in two sections. The lower section raised the ammunition to a relay chamber, and the upper section carried it thence to the gun. This method is held to allow of more rapid firing, as a large supply of ammunition can be placed, prior to an action, in the relay chamber, and the store there, as fast as it is drawn upon, can be replenished from the magazines. It has also been held that in case of a shell bursting in the turret the danger to the magazine would be less, and in M. Canet’s opinion the English method is superior to that of the French. Another matter in which he considered the English to have an advantage was in the manner of loading the guns. How this was done on the French battleships has just been explained. The English gun crews could load the guns at any elevation. The ammunition was carried up in a curved hoist, so that it could be delivered at any point desired, and was pushed home by a hydraulic rammer moving with the gun.

By permission of Messrs. Vickers, Sons & Maxim, Ltd.

12-INCH BREECH MECHANISM
(CLOSED).

12-INCH BREECH MECHANISM
(OPEN).