increase of minor armaments is too small to dwell upon in this connection,' "I will endeavour to show how mistaken is the view thus publicly expressed. "As designed, the Nile and Trafalgar were to carry eight 5-in. guns, besides a considerable number of small quick-firing guns and boat guns. The total weight of this auxiliary armament was a little less than 140 tons. A very short central battery sufficed to contain this armament. "During construction, six 4.7-in. 45-pounder quick-firing guns have been substituted for the eight 5-in. guns. This reduction in the number of guns has been accompanied, however, by an increase in the total weight to about 185 tons, the Service regulations providing for a very large supply of ammunition for quick-firing guns. "Turning to the new battle-ships, it will be seen that they are each to carry ten 6-in. 100-pounders, besides a considerable number of smaller quick-firers. The 6-in. quick-firing gun is still in the experimental stage; it will be adopted in these ships if successfully worked out, and weight has been taken for it. So far as weights are concerned, these ten 6-in. guns, with their mountings and ammunition, represent no less than twenty guns of the same calibre, with the allowance of ammunition hitherto carried. "The total weight of the auxiliary armament in the new ships is about 500 tons, or considerably over three times the weight originally assigned to the corresponding armament in the Trafalgar, and two and two-third times as great as the weight of auxiliary armament to be actually carried by that ship. Weight of liary armament the auxi in the new ships. commodation re "I may fairly claim that such an increase is not properly described as small or too small to dwell upon.' On the contrary, to provide for it has proved one of the principal problems in the design. And those familiar with war-ship construction will know well that in stopping short, as I have done, at a comparison of weights of guns, mountings, and ammunition in the two designs, I have greatly understated my case. For example, to accommodate this auxiliary Large acarmament a central battery has to be provided about 170 feet in length, whereas in the Trafalgar the central battery is not quite quired for 110 feet in length. The more numerous and powerful 6-inch guns, liary of course, require considerable additional weights to be worked into armament. magazines, armament fittings, gun supports, &c. And with this Increased increase in armament there has necessarily been associated an compleincrease in complement of over 100 men, as compared with the men. Trafalgar, together with the weights for provisions, stores, and accommodation corresponding thereto. Were these extra weights, the auxi ment of which are inevitable when the auxiliary armament is accepted, totalled up, the result would constitute a very large addition to the already large excess which the new ships have to carry. "To members of this Institution I need hardly add that such an addition to the load to be carried, at a given speed, and on a fixed draught of water, must involve an increase in the size of the ship, very sensibly exceeding the mere increase in load. "Before leaving this part of my subject, I would call attention to the fact (apparent in the tabular statement) that the weight of the auxiliary armament in the new battle-ships is practically equal to the total weight of armament proposed for the Fury design in 1870, the latter ship being of nearly 10,500-tons displacement. "I would also make the following extract from the Parliamentary Papers, although it is not possible for me to give any details at present : "A liberal allowance of weight has been made (in the design) for the protection of the guns, and the guns' crews, as well as for the rapid transport of the ammunition, and its protection in all the stages of its passage from the magazines to the guns.' "This cannot be better described than by the following extract from the First Lord's statement to Parliament : The armour protection of the hull proper includes two principal features: "(1) A belt, 8 ft. broad, extending over two-thirds of the length of the vessel, and having a maximum thickness of 18-in. armour. Transverse armoured bulkheads complete the belt, a 3-in. steel deck is fitted above it, and a strong protective under-water deck completes the protection before and abaft the belt. (2) The broadside above the thick belt is protected, to a height of about 9 ft. above water over a considerable portion of the length, by 5-in. armour. Screen bulkheads similarly armoured enclose the central battery. "The protection of the heavy guns consists of 18-in. armour on the turrets, and 17-in. on the redoubts protecting the turret-bases, &c.' 'An inspection of Pl. 26a and 266 will make this description clearer. It will be seen that each turret stands in a separate battery or redoubt, which rests upon the protective deck, and is strongly armoured for the defence of the turret bases and loading apparatus. This system has been previously carried out in the Victoria and Sans Pareil, in each of which there is only one turret. "The belt armour rises 3 ft. above water, and extends 5 ft. below water. Its longitudinal extent is sufficient to ensure that if the spaces before and abaft it and above the under-water protective deck were flooded, very small 'sinkage' and very moderate 'change of trim' would ensue. The maximum thickness of the belt armour is 18 in., as against a maximum of 20 in. in the Trafalgar; the Trafalgar. minimum thickness at the ends of the belt is the same as in the Trafalgar—14 in. The proportion of the length protected by the belt is the same in both cases. Above this thick armour belt and protective deck, the broadside is armoured with 5-in. steel for a length of 145 ft. and to the height of the upper deck amidships (9 ft. above water). Oblique armoured bulkheads or screens extend across the protective deck, and meet the redoubt armour: thus completely enclosing a lightly armoured citadel with its top at the level of the upper deck (94 ft. above water), having the same extreme length as the central battery, viz. 170 ft. Within the 5-in. steel armour on the sides coal-bunkers are built, Coalbunkers extending from the belt to the upper deck, and having an athwartship built in thickness of 10 feet. When filled with coal these bunkers would greatly reinforce the defence; when empty the minimum defence is 5 in. of steel, which is proof against all the smaller natures of quickfiring guns, and against many of the most destructive forms of attack from much larger guns. wake of the 5-in. armour. "In the Trafalgar (see Pl. 26) the two turrets stand at the ends of Trafalgar. a long armoured citadel extending to the full breadth of the ship: with vertical armour on the sides (varying in thickness from 16 to 18 in.), rising to a height of about 11 ft. above water,' according to the original design. In the completed ship this height will be about 10 ft. The upper deck over the citadel is plated with 3-in. steel. The distance between the centres of the two turrets is about 150 ft.: and the central battery between the two turrets (as already stated) has an extreme length of less than 110 ft. and a length along the broadside of about 65 ft. "In the new turret ship, as already explained, it has been necessary to provide a much longer central battery (about 170 ft. in extreme length) to accommodate the more numerous and powerful guns in the auxiliary armament; and the turrets are placed about 200 ft. apart. Consequently, if the citadel system embodied in the Trafalgar had been repeated, the length of the thickly armoured sides would necessarily have been considerably increased; and a great additional weight and cost of armour, &c., would have been incurred if the same thicknesses had been maintained; or a considerable thinning of the armour, &c., made necessary if the same total weight had been adhered to. New turret ship. tive de "No point in the new designs received more careful consideration Alternathan this. In order to elucidate the matter, alternative designs were signs. Facts placed prepared for ships of the same displacement, identical in all respects, except as regards the adoption of the citadel' or the 'separated redoubt' systems. Some of these designs are described in the Parliamentary Papers; I will briefly note one instructive comparison. "Two outline designs were prepared-one closely approximating to the turret-ship proposed to be built, the other for a ship of the same dimensions and displacement, but with a continuous citadel. The same total weight was allowed in both designs for the protection above the belt armour-on the sides, round the turret-bases, and on the turrets. Except as regards the adoption of (1) a citadel, or (2) of redoubt and thin-side armour, the ships were absolutely identical. "In the citadel-ship, with the fixed total weight for protection, the thicknesses of armour found to be practicable were: On turrets, 15 in.; on citadel in wake of turrets, 14 in.; on sides of citadel (rising to 11 ft. above water), 12 in. "In the other design the practicable thicknesses were: On turrets, 18 in.; on redoubts (protecting turret bases), 17 in.; on broadside (rising to about 10 ft. above water), and on screen bulkheads' (completing this thin armour across the ship), 4 in. to 5 in. That is to say, the latter design gave 3 in. greater protection to the stations of the heavy guns, at the cost of reducing the thickness of armour on the sides from 12 in. to 5 in., and lowering it about 1 ft. In the redoubt arrangement the 3-in. steel deck (as already explained) was situated at the level of the upper edge of the belt (3 ft. above water), and in the citadel arrangement, at the top of the citadel armour (about 11 ft. above water). "These and other facts having been placed before the naval officers before the attending the meeting convened by the First Lord, the following Committee decisions were arrived at : of naval officers. Separate "(a) That it was preferable to have two separate strongly protected stations for the four heavy guns, rather than to have a single citadel. 666 (b) That on the whole the 4-in. armour amidships, from the belt deck to the main deck, associated as it would be with the internal coal bunkers, subdivided into numerous compartments, might be considered satisfactory; but that if armour weight became available, it could be profitably utilised in thickening the 4-in. steel above the middle portion of the belt.' "I would draw particular attention to the first of these conclusions, since it expresses a most important distinction between the two systems of protection. "With separate redoubts, placed far apart, the two stations are redoubts. isolated, and there is practically no risk of simultaneous disablement by the explosion of shells, or perforation of projectiles from the "With a single citadel, extending the full breadth of a ship, the Citadel. case is widely different. "Over a comparatively large area of the protective deck plating in the neighbourhood of each turret, perforation of the deck, or its disruption by shell explosions at any point, involves very serious risk of damage to the turret bases and the loading apparatus. In fact, such damage may be effected and the heavy guns put out of action while the thick vertical armour on the citadel is uninjured. Moreover, as the turrets stand at the ends of a single citadel, there is à possibility of their simultaneous disablement by the explosion of heavy shells within the citadel. in citadel. "This last risk may be minimised (as in the Nile and Trafalgar) by Traverses constructing armoured traverses' within the citadel; but it cannot be wholly overcome, so long as both turrets stand in one armoured enclosure. "It may be thought that the risk of damage to a 3-in. steel deck situated 11 ft. above water is remote; but I think the facts are as stated, when actions at sea are taken into account. 66 For example, if a ship of 70 to 75 ft. beam is rolling only to 10 degrees from the vertical, which is by no means a heavy roll, she presents a target having a vertical (projected) height of 13 to 14 ft. to an enemy's fire, and even if she is a steady, slow-moving ship, she will do this four or five times in each minute. "Now, at this angle of inclination, assuming the flight of projectiles to be practically horizontal, even the thickest protective steel decks yet fitted in battle-ships are liable to serious damage from the fire of guns of moderate calibre, and this danger is increased by the employment of high explosives. Of course I do not mean to say that this damage is to follow from fire intentionally aimed at the protective deck; but with a great and sustained volume of fire, such as is possible with a powerful auxiliary armament, and especially with quick-firing guns, it is obvious that there is a very real danger of chance shots injuring seriously the wide expanse of the protective deck at the top of a long citadel. Again, it must be noted that the chances of damage to a deck |