The Sun.
London, England, 1859-01-24 00:00:00

_OUR NAVAL ARMAMENTS.

The following letter has been addressed to the
Editor of the Daily News :

Sir,—l am pleased to find in the report of the
American Secretary to the Navy such an able sup-
port to the maxim which it has been my humble
endeavour for the last five years to inculcate—that
the gun should be the first consideration in any
attempt to improve our naval armament. It is
well known to every one conversant with the sub-
ject, that the larger the gun the effect produced is
in an increasing ratio, consequently that a few large
guns do more execution than a number of small
ones. In a pamphlet, published in 1856, I proposed
two large guns to fire in a line with the keel, in-
stead of a number of smaller broadside guns, and
if you will allow me space in your columns, I will
proceed to show some of the advantages of this
plan both in increasing our forces and diminishing
our expenses.
The Mersey Steel and Iron Works Company can
produce a wrought iron gun of the following
dimensions :--Diameter of bore, 13 1-24 inches ;
length of bore, 15 feet ; exterior diameter of
breech, 4 feet ; weight, about 25 tons; this, at
£l2O per ton, will cost £3,000. A gun by Mr.
Krupp, of Essen, near Coblentz, of the same
dimensions, formed of malleable cast steel, reinforced
by a cast iron mould, and weighing 22 tons, will
cost exactly the same. A steamer to carry two of
these guns, of a form adapted to this purpose, length
160 feet ; beam, 48 feet ; would measure 1,640
tons, and may be built either of iron at £25 per
ton, inctuding outfit, for £40,000 ; of wood, at £3O,
for £49,200 ; of steel, at £35, for £56,000 ; engines,
£20,000. A three-decker at the same rate, of 3,500
tons, £105,000 ; engines, £40,000 ; guns 30 68's at
£4O each, and 90 32's at £2O each, cost £3,000.

Iron Steamer £40,000 Wood.. £49,500 5tee1..£.56,000
Guns
Carriages, &c. 500
Engines

Total of each.. £66,500 £76,000 £82,500
Three decker
Guns
Carriages, &c 5OO
Engines

£148,500

Of course these prices are only approximative,
and that for the three-decker is a low estimate, as
some are more than 3,500 tons. Taking the
three-decker at 240 feet long and 36 feet height
out of the water, the surface she exposes in action
amounts to 8,640 square feet. The proposed vessel
has 48 feet beam, and 18 feet height above water,
exposing a surface of 864 square feet. The first
throws 2,460 lbs. weight of shot ' • the latter, two
13-inch solid shot, 308 lbs. each-616 lbs. Weight
thrown in proportion to surface exposed, 616 lbs.
to 246 lbs.-370 lbs. in favour of the smaller vessel,
who would thus prove more than a match for her
larger opponent. This need not be a mere matter
of opinion, the authorities have the means at hand
for putting it to the test. The 13-inch gun pre-
sented by the Mersey Steel and Iron Company to
the Government is now at Portsmouth. This
gun, having been formed without professional
aid or advice, no allowance was made for windage,
consequently its shot weighs only 288 lbs. instead
of 308 lbs., and it will not take a 13-inch shell,
but a few shells may easily be made of the same
calibre as the shot. As yet this gun, with the ex-
ception of the experiment on Formby Sands, has only
been tried as to its powers of resistance. I proposed
in 1856 that it should be tried against the iron-
plated floating batteries. That question has now
been set at rest by guns of inferior calibre. I pro-
pose that it should be tried against a two or three-
decker, with solid shot and concussion shells; that
when firing with concussion shells aim should be
taken about two feet below the portsills of main or
middle and lower deck alternately, so as to strike
in the plane of the deck, where it joins the
ship's sides, and notes to be taken of the number
of guns disabled at each discharge. This done,
let it be tried against land defences. It is
generally understood that no other kind of
fortress is so strong as a martello tower. Let
the gun be transported by railway to some part
of the coast between Eastbourne and Hastings, and
tried, also with solid shot and concussion shells,
against any one of the strongest of the martello
towers studding that coast. Having no doubts as
to the result, although be it observed that this gun
is inferior to the guns I propose, I will proceed to
say something more of these guns.
In 1855 I proposed to Lord Panmure that a gun
should be formed of a cast iron tube, strengthened
by a spiral band of iron wire rope at a red heat,
which, on cooling, would become solid and contract
upon the tube. Capt. Blakeley, Royal Artillery, ob-
tained the same result in a simpler way,with wrought
iron rings. The extraordinary powers of resistance
of his gun, for which he has taken out a patent,
would hare induced me to propose his gun in the
first instance, but neither at the Low Moor, nor atthe
Butterley Iron Works, are they prepared to cast a
tube longer than 12 feet in the bore, which, with a 1
inch calibre, would be only 11 calibres, rendering
the gun almost as useless, from shortness of range,
as ship guns, as are the present 10-inch guns, although
these guns are well adapted for the purpose in-
tended by their inventor—General Paixhan—the
defence of forts against shipping, who are obliged
to attack at close quarters to produce effect ; since,
however, the invention of the Martin shell that will
hardly be possible in future with ships of the pre-
sent construction.

It may be urged against wrought iron guns that
the metal being softer than that or the shot the
bore would be furrowed by the passage of the shot,
and that when heated by rapid firing, the gun
might droop at the muzzle. Not knowing
exactly the composition of the Mersey Company's
gun, I cannot say whether it is liable to these ae-
fects, but they may easily be prevented by the
recarbonisation of the metal after the gun is made,
by a simple and inexpensive process, rendering the
gun as inflexible and hard as one of cast iron or
steel. I believe a patent exists for this process.
Should the patentee refuse his consent to its
use, or demand an exorbitant price, we may
then have recourse to Mr. Krupp, of Essen.
A prejudice may, perhaps, be entertained against
this gentleman's system, on account of one of
his guns having been destroyed at Woolwich,
under protest of the maker, after having stood
the usual test. If an 8-inch gun, to throw
a ball weighing 2481b5. had been ordered of
Mr. Krupp, no doubt he could have made one to
answer the purpose. Since the destruction of that
gun he has made one on the same principle, a 68-
pounder, for the Russian Government,and recently
another for the Dutch. But here a little difficulty
occurs ; Mr. Krupp refuses to undertake any order
for the English Government until he shall have been
paid for the gun which he considers to have been
wantonly destroyed.
The probable range of the guns in question would
be from 5,000 to 6,000 yards, at a comparatively
low velocity, and therefore doing more execution
than smaller shot, ranging the same distances at a
high velocity ; with the power of using, as needs
be, shells and grape, which are hardly possible
with rifle bored cannon.
Should the guns above described be considered
too slow the same firm are ready to construct guns
18 in. in the bore, 4 feet 8 inches exterior dia-
meter of breech, throwing a 16-inch shell or solid
shot weighing 476 lbs. The steamer for two such
guns would measure 1,800 tons, and would cost of
steel, at the highest total, £lOO,OOO.
When Ifirst endeavoured to introduce this system
in 1854, during the early part of the Russian war,
I had a short private correspondence with one of
the Lords of the Admiralty, who, in the course of
it informed me of the intended plan of the floating
batteries, when I suggested that instead of wooden
vessels covered with plates of iron, it would be bet-
ter to build a vessel of steel. I see by the papers
that Messrs. Ravenshill and Salkeld have lately built
a steel vessel for the Russian government. There are
now two very cogent reasons for the employment of
this material—first, the expedient of filling shells
with molten iron ; secondly, the renewal of a plan
for submarine navigation with means of attaching
torpedos to ships' bottoms, a process much easier
with wooden ships sheathed only with copper than
with ships built of steel. The extension of human
power offered by this invention will be valuable for
peaceful as well as warlike operations. In this last
respect they will perhaps assimilate to mining
operations on shore, and wars will still have to be
decided above the surface. If the statement is cor-
rect as to the London, 90, having had her name
written in large letters on her side in the course of
a fine night, when in the Black Sea, the French
must already have something of the sort. Subma-
rine guard boats will be necessary to protect
our harbours, and submarine tenders, or ships'
boats fitted for submarine navigation, must
accompany our fleets. In harbour a thrummed
sail under the ship will be an additional security
when any attempts are suspected. Should one of
these boats be discovered at sea, in clear water, as
they cannot be propelled beyond three or four
knots, they, could not escape from the slowest
steamer, and an anchor and chain-cable, stoppered
at four or five fathoms, as the case may be, dropped
on their heads would be a sufficient quietus.
The crew of a first-rate numbers between 800
and 1,000 men. The vessel proposed would be well
manned with 250; here would be a vast saving in pay
and provisions. Should the Admiralty ultimately
be pleased to accede to my repeated solicitations
to be allowed to build and arm a vessel on the
principles here laid down, leaving me the choice of
the material, my next request would be that my
ship should undergo the same ordeal proposed above
for the line-of-battle ship, and the damage sustained