The Sun.
London, England, 1862-04-10 00:00:00

•ON IRON PLATED SHIPS OF WAR.

IRON versus WOOD.

It was in the year 1835 or '36 that I took it into
my head to have a yacht of about 30 tons burden
built, having an i,;:on bottom, the plates of seven-
eighths of an inch in thickness, but with the upper
works just above the water line of timber, on the
usual construction.

My' object in so doing was, independent of the in-
creased strength of the bottom of the vessel, to ob-
tain, as I at that time conceived, a greater space for
u'ccommodation in the hold, by dispensing in a great
met sare with the necessary bulk and amount of bal-
last, conceiving that the weight of the iron plates,
ribs, and keel would be nearly sufficient to enable
was to dispense with the usual ballast required for a
-vessel of 30 tons.

I found, however, her buoyancy was such that
although the iron work below the water line was
not less than ten tons of dead weight, still she sat
Am, high in the water, anti was unable to carry a
sufficient spread of canvas ; I therefore added at first
'four or five tons iron ballast, stowed in the usual
way. Sti'd I found that in heavy weather this was
too little, till eventually I increased the amount of
balluslc to not less than nine tons, at which I con-
tiny ed to sail this yacht during the remainder of the
period I possessed her, which extended to a period of
eight or ten years ; and I believe she was the first
iron sailing vessel ever built.

It will be seen from this that a small iron-bottomed
vessel, having plates of the unusual thickness of
seven-eighths of an inch—each plate being six feet
in length and three feet broad—riveted flush to an-
gular ribs of iron, and with a keel one inch thick,
extending its whole length, the dead weight of which
amounted to ten tons—an below the water line—
required an additional ballasting power of nine tons
to enable her to carry her canvas successfully in
strong breezes, In other words, 19 tone of dead
weight below the water line was required to steady
a vessel of only 30 tons burden per measurement.
In the course of my yachting excursions it hap-
pened that on two occasions the vessel struck upon
:rocks, but got off without sustaining the least injury.
It hays been since ascertained, from sad experience,
that iron vessels, when they are driven ashore, or
ur2on rocks, as in the case of the Royal Charter and
1-many others, soon break ep or are dashed into
fragments ; but this arises chiefly from the great
disproportionate thickness and strength of the iron
plates used in their construction. The Royal
Charter, I believe,' although she was a vessel of
1,000 tons and upwards, had no thicker plates in
her bottom than my small yacht of 30 tons. Had
she been built of a proportionate strength with re-
fere/a/ea to tonnage, her plates would have required
to I'A3 at least Ber 10 inches thick. In the course
Of my peregrinations in my yacht, it often occurred
`to me that if vessels of war were covered with iron
plates of one or two inches thick, which was at that
(1837) the heaviest known, they would be almost
imperious to shot or shell. At the same time, it
struck me that if the form of the vessel's hull was
so altered as to present at all times an angulated er
inclined plane to the direction from which a projec-
tile could strike her, that she would be still further
protected from injury, by the projectile glancing
off.

After revolving in my own mind for two or three
years the feasibility of the project, I at last, in the
month of October, 1840, ventured to address a letter
to 'the Admiralty suggesting the idea, and accom-
panying my letter with a diagram of a vertical
sc:ction of a three-decker, having the sides sloping
*downwards to the water line, and proposing they
should be covered with the thickest iron plates
that could be procured. To this letter I, ab3ut a
'week afterwards, received the following laconic
answer :

"Admiralty, 26th Oct., 1840.
" Sir, —.l have received, and laid before my Lords Com-
missioners of the Admiralty, your letter of the 21st inst.,
suggesting a plan for constructing shot-proof vessels.—l
am, Sir, your most humble servant,

"3. G. Baanow."
Nothing daunted by the cold reception given to
my suggestion, I some time after addressed
another letter to that body, with an improved
diagram of a two•decker, in which the angular form
of the vessel's broadside was still retained, but so
altered as to equalise and diminish the top-weight,
so objectionable in my first diagram. This letter the
Admiralty also acknowledged, but declined to give
me any encouragement of its adoption. Some time
after this, the attention of the public and authori-
ties was attracted by the Emperor Napoleon 111.
ordering the construction of iron-plated floating
batteries during the Russian war of 1854, which
successfully participated in the attack on the forts
of Kin burn.

This experiment of the French Emperor at
length opened the eyes of our naval officers and the
public to the necessity of adopting some measure by
which our naval supremacy might be maintained ;
and at length two large and powerful war steamers,
the Warrior and Black Prince, were ordered to be
built. So I found that, after the lapse of 20 years
from my first suggestions made in 1840, my ideas
have been carried out, without any recognition of
their originality by the authorities or public.
While these vessels were in course of construc-
tion, I sent a final, diagram of a large vessel, iron-
clad, having but one deck, to carry the heaviest
guns, and still adheiing to the sloping principle on
her broadsides ; and while I mention this, I recol-
lect a previonsletter sent to the Admiralty, in which
I complained of the unnecessary size of the ports of
our existing ships of war, which expose the gunners
to be shot down in detail by the improved small-
arms of the present day. Although Ido not recol-
lect receiving any answer to that communication, I
was glad to observe that the suggestion was
adopted, by the greatly reduced size of the port-
holes of the Warrior and Black Prince.

A radical defect, however, is allowed to exist in
the construction of these two vessels, and that is,
that neither the fore nor after part is fully pro-
tected from the penetration of the shot. An enemy
attacking them, and knowing this defect, will be
-sure to concentrate his fire upon these parts. One
or both of them, at least, ought to have been named
the Achilles, in allusion to the only vulnerable part
he possessed, viz., his heel.

Of what use would these two enormously-expen-
sive vessels be, if either their bow or stern were shot
away, though the centrepart should remain invul-
nerable ? Would they not lie simply as logs in the
vater, having the crew And guns no doubt intact,
-hut unable to return to port except at a snail's pace
under canvas, encumbered with a wreck of iron-
work hanging from their bow and stern, entangling
the screw ?

It is asserted that if the bow and stern had been
covered 'with plates equal in weight to the centre,
the sailing qualities of these vessels would have
been 11'11011impaired ; but this defect ought to have
been foreseen
and provided against by an increased
breadth of btatn,
also by having besides a deep
main keel, also tone-third the wo other keels running parallel,
had the effectgthof the floor, which would have
°I
sea-way. Con9t~greatly steadying the vessel in a
ucted as they are, they have, in
point offset, n ° —eel at all, the con sequence of which
is that they nlllsll°ll at an enormous rate in a heavy
orosp, sea.

At the same time,l meat
It4nowl
the
tideratum in such
rate of speed is a most importsuusedge that a high
autat.astest sailer will
vessels, it being evident that
poi-ses a great adv
yiet
o,s:er her op-
ad all times
Still zosition,
ponent in being enabled to choose
or in running down her opponent.
to the case of only two single vessels conlbatinalVlies
other. Where a fleet of such vessels happeute4ch
to be
engaged, the advantages of speed will be in a great
measure neutralised, as the slow sailers can retain
such positions as will support their consorts against
the fast.

But without further entering into a discussion
on those points, I beg to revert to the original
subject of the priority of the suggestion for
covering war vessels with iron plates or armour.
This, you will observe, I proposed to the Admi-
ralty so far back as 1840, and at the same time
proposing the angular or sloping surface to the
broadsides of ships, to throw off projectiles, a mode
for which a Mr. Jones, of Liverpool, took out a pa-
tent only t'ivn years ago, just 20 years after I had
suggested the Ramo thing to our Admiralty.
Aid, in regard to armour-clad vessels, I was math