“In these Italian vessels the only thick armor is used to protect the gun-stations, the pilot-tower, and the communications from those important parts to the magazines and spaces below the protective deck. The strong deck, besides forming a base of the cellular subdivision, is of course a defence to the vital parts of the ship lying below it.
“Between these two types of ships come the Admiral class of the English navy and the belted vessels of the French navy, whose resemblances and differences have been described above.
“In addition, there are not a few authorities who maintain that the development of the swift torpedo-cruiser, or the swift protected cruiser, makes the continued use of armor at least questionable, seeing that to attempt to protect ships by thick armor either on decks or sides, and to secure high speeds and heavy armaments, involves the construction of large and expensive vessels, which are necessarily exposed to enormous risks in action from forms of under-water attack, against which their armor is no defence. In view of such differences of opinion, and of the heated controversies which have arisen therefrom, the time seems certainly to have arrived when some competent body should be assembled by the Admiralty for the purpose of considering the designs of our war-ships, and enabling our constructors to proceed with greater assurance than they can at present. Questions affecting the efficiency of the Royal Navy clearly ought not to be decided except in the most calm and dispassionate manner. The work done by the Committee on Designs for Ships of War fourteen years ago was valuable, and has had important results. What is now wanted, I venture to think, is a still wider inquiry into the condition of the navy, and one of the branches of that inquiry which will require the most careful treatment is embraced in the question, ‘What are the uses of armor in modern war-ships?’
“My own opinion, reached after very careful study of the subject, is that very serious limitations have to be accepted in the disposition and general efficiency of the armaments, if the principle of protecting the stability at considerable angles of inclination by means of thick armor is accepted, the size and cost of the ships being kept within reasonable limits. There is no difficulty, of course, apart from considerations of size and cost, in fulfilling the condition of armor-protected stability; but it may be doubted whether the results could prove satisfactory, especially when the risks from under-water attacks, as well as from gun-fire, are borne in mind, and the fact is recognized that even the thickest armor carried or contemplated is not proof against existing guns. No vessel can fight without running risks. It is by no means certain, however, that the greater risks to be faced are those arising from damage to the sides in the region of the water-line and consequent loss of stability. So far as I have been able to judge, it appears possible to produce a better fighting-machine for a given cost by abandoning the idea of protecting stability, buoyancy, and trim entirely by thick armor, and by the acceptance of the principle that unarmored but specially constructed superstructures shall be trusted as contributories to the flotation and stability. Thick vertical side armor, even over a portion of the length, appears to be by no means a necessary condition to an effective guarantee of the life and manageability of a ship when damaged in action; and it seems extremely probable that in future the great distinction between battle-ships and protected ships will not be found in the nature of their hull protection in the region of the water-line, but in the use of thick armor over the stations of the heavy guns in battle-ships.
“The decisions as to future designs of our battle-ships is a momentous one. It can only be reached by the consideration of the relative advantages and disadvantages of alternative proposals. It cannot be dissociated from considerations of cost for a single ship.
“On all grounds, therefore, it is to be hoped that a full and impartial inquiry will be authorized without delay; for it may be assumed that, however opinions differ, there is the common desire to secure for the British navy the best types of ships and a sufficient number to insure our maritime supremacy.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
“W. H. White.
“Elswick Works, March 26th.”
The following reply by Sir Edward Reed appeared in the Times of April 8, 1885, the omitted portions being personal allusions which have very little bearing upon the discussion, and which are of no interest to a professional reader outside of England:
“It is not Mr. White’s fault but his misfortune that he is compelled to admit the perfect correctness of the main charge which I have brought against these six ships, viz., that they have been so constructed, and have been so stripped of armor protection, that their armor, even when intact and untouched, is wholly insufficient to prevent them from capsizing in battle. Mr. White expends a good deal of labor in attempting to show that their unarmored parts would have a better chance of keeping the ships upright and afloat than I credit them with, which is a secondary, although an important, question; but he frankly admits that these six ships of the Admiral type are, and are admitted to be, so built that their ‘stability in the sense of the power to resist being capsized if inclined to even moderate angles of inclination is not guaranteed by their armor-belts.’