The Sun.
London, England, 1862-05-27 00:00:00

ARMSTRONG GUN v. IRON ARMOUR.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.
Sir,—Your column of "Naval Intelligence" of
this morning contains a summary account of the

late encounter between the formidable new gun o

Sir William Armstrong and a target constructed

on my plan, which is scarcely consistent with my
view of the facts, and which certainly exhibits a
bias the opposite of my own. As lam one of those
who have consistently for many years worked hard
for the introduction of iron as the right material
for the construction of the fleet of the future, I beg
you will hear the other side before pronouncing a
judgment, especially as I imagine the present to be
a critital moment in our history, when the Admi-

_ ..
ralty may either lapse into old ways or go boldly
forward with a new and true policy.

I am, of course, biassed in favour of my own
plan of attaching iron armour without making holes
in it, and also of forming a ship's side entirely of
iron, so as to be strong as well as to resist shot.
But no amount of opinion or prejudice can shake
this fact, proved at Shoeburyness on Friday, that
the great gun, weighing twelve tons, did on that
day fire two successive shots at my target without
penetrating the armour. It is equally true that no
other armour has boen able to do this. If you will
_

next take this fact, that of all the other kinds of
shot fired at this target no single one penetrated
the armour, I think you will admit that the im-
pression conveyed by your informant is hardly the
same as mine.

The one fact made prominent by your informan,
is that the target was penetrated in one place by
a 150-pounder shot.
Sir, it was penetrated, but only by a shot which
everybody knew beforehand must go through; a
weak place was selected, which we all, knew to be
weak, and which we had proved to be weak. We
were all of one mind before it was tried. A nar-
row plate was selected, the shot perforated the nar-
row plate, as it ought to do ; and this gives us no
information except what we knew before. But it
was mere child's play to the Armstrong gun, for
plates of the same narrow dimensions had before
been shattered even by shells filled with sand. To
prove an axiom, therefore, was all that was gained
by that shot.
The main object of the experiment was, however,
to discover what would resist shot best, not what
would fail to resist it. Experiment has proved that
iron plates Alf, inches thick and 3 feet wide, unitedk
by my continuous rivetting to 2 inches of iron bacre
ing, making up 71 inches of iron p
sufficient on an iron ship to stop the missilelfof
after
t
great Armstrong gun from penetrating. rotection, ahe
this discovery a
at
ery any one
leenete than 2 feet thank it of consequence
wideonseq willuene not
eto
know that
stop it he is welcome to that additional informa-
tion.
Permit me flaw to express my own practical con-
clusions from Friday's experience :
First, I think it incontrovertible that an iron
ship constructed entirely with iron armour on my
method, using as a pattern those dimensions and
that arrangement only which were successful in
stopping the two Armstrong Friday, sahmo tbs
aosns
ea ,
that
my i s
praseetcioenaldlyly,shoth-
ipnrko
firing
before and behind, Friday,
eins
tcahragnegte, d aifntesrbapth fir
shape, both
both utheahnitehses
original Warrior
I think thatWyarriortarget .
Thirdly, my
target is at present fit
to receive more battering,
the
aWcaornrei conclusion,
mentionedti
oa
nr g,b e . Without destruction, than
I Will mention one fact which is
y your informant. He says that
my target is heavier than the Warrior target. That
is quite true ; he does not state this difference—that
the whole of my target excepting the 44in. plating
is part and parcel of the substance and strength of
the ship, and forms no extraneous addition to its
weight. The addition made by my system to the
weight of the ship is, therefore, less than by the
Warrior system. From these facts I leave you to
draw your own conclusions.—l am, sir, your
obedient servant,

J. SCOTT RUSSELL
20, Great George-street, Westminster, S.W.,
May 24.

Sermons in the United States seem to aim at a
.more exciting ideal. In a recent sermon Parton DrOWIIIONV
is said to have told his flock that he would have them
" fight the Confederatcs fill hell froze and then tight them
on the ice ;" while even the Rev. U. Wrard 13ceeher
indulges in images needlessly irritant to the ner-
vous system, for example, " This is God's saw-
are
yard. He is sawing out timber ; and you ,
that timber. To-day he is ripping you with the saw. io•
lane
morrow ho is smoothing you with a p. The next day
he is rubbing up the surface with some kind of a rasandp,
bolts,He
plies you with hammer, and nails, and screws,
and all sorts of instruments." We should not sleep under
such preachers, but we should do nothing half so goad,—
Spectator.