Percentage of water-line area
covered by armor.
Inflexible42.
Agamemnon45.4
Collingwood54.15
Camperdown56.35

But any one who understands this question knows perfectly well that “percentage of water-line area covered by armor” in no way represents the relative stabilities of these ships. Indeed, that is obvious upon the face of the matter, because we have seen the Ajax and Agamemnon pronounced devoid of the necessary stability when injured, while the Inflexible is said to possess it, although the former vessel has 45½ per cent. of the water-line area covered, while the latter has but 42 per cent. But this is not the consideration which has led to the condemnation of the whole “Admiral” class of so-called iron-clads as not possessing the essential characteristic of an armored ship, viz., the power to float, and to float with needful buoyancy and stability, all the time the armor is unpierced. The ground of that condemnation is to be found in the introduction into the “Admirals” of a dangerous combination from which the Inflexible and Agamemnon and other like ships are exempt—the combination of long unarmored ends comprising about forty-five per cent. of the water-line area with so shallow a belt of armor that, when the unarmored ends are injured and filled by the sea (as they would be in action), there would remain so little armor left above water that a very slight inclination of the ship would put it all below water. In the Agamemnon class, small as the initial stability may be (and with the unarmored ends torn open it would be nothing), the armor is carried up to a reasonable height above water. But in the “Admiral” class all the advantage arising from a slightly lengthened citadel is more than destroyed by this lowering of the armor. So great is the consequent danger of these ships capsizing, if ever called upon to engage in a serious battle at close quarters, that the writer cannot conscientiously regard them as “armored ships,” but must in common fairness to the officers and men who are to serve in them, and to the nation which might otherwise put its trust in them, relegate them to the category of ships with only parts protected.

It will be observed that nothing has yet been said about thickness of armor, although that is, of course, a very important element of a ship’s safety or danger. But important as it is, it has to be kept scrupulously separated from the question just discussed—the limitation of the armor’s extent—because no misrepresentation and no misconception can well arise concerning the relative power or trustworthiness of ships armored variously as to thickness, while much misrepresentation has actually taken place, and much consequent misconception has actually arisen, on the other matter, more than one European government having deliberately placed in the category of “armored ships” ships which in no true sense of the word can be so classed.

The following classifications will conform to the foregoing views, describing as “armored ships” only those which have sufficient side-armor to protect them from being sunk or capsized by the fire of guns all the time the armor remains unpierced:

BRITISH SHIPS OF WAR, BUILT AND BUILDING.

ARMORED SHIPS WITH THICK ARMOR.

Name of ShipTons Displacement.Indicated Horse-power.Speed, in Knots.Maximum Thickness of Armor, in Inches.Largest Guns, in Tons.
Alexandra9,4908,61015 1225
Belleisle4,8303,20012¼1225
Conqueror5,2004,50015 1243
Devastation9,3306,65013¾1235
Dreadnought10,820 8,20014½1438
Hero6,2004,50015 1243
Inflexible[10]11,400 8,00014 2480
Neptune9,1709,00014½1238
Orion4,8303,90013 1225
Rupert5,4404,63013½1218
Superb9,1007,43014 1218
Thunderer9,3306,27013½1238
Glatton[11]4,9102,87012 1225

ARMORED SHIPS WITH MEDIUM ARMOR.

Name of ShipTons Displacement.Indicated Horse-power.Speed, in Knots.Maximum Thickness of Armor, in Inches.Largest Guns, in Tons.
Hercules8,6808,53014¾ 918
Hotspur4,0103,50012¾1125
Sultan9,2908,63014 918
Téméraire8,5407,70014½1125