The Sun.
London, England, 1866-09-17 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIDIES.-That the strongest ironclad afloat might be
sent to the bottom as easily as a wooden frigate is
now a fact of which it is hardly possible to entertain
a doubt. A target with greater resisting powers
than the broadside of any iron-cased frigate or the
turret of any Monitor has been completely smashed
by a particular kind of shot fired from a particular
kind of gun, and that gun and that shot are of
British make and invention. It is of equal import-
ance to observe that the gun which has proved so
irresistible is not a piece of any prodigious calibre
or impracticable weight, but only such a gun as
could be carried and worked in a ship's broadside.
Whereas, too, it is scarcely credible that any ship
could be sent to sea with thicker or more ponderous
armour than was represented in the target demo-
lished, it is very credible indeed that the calibre,
charge, and power of the gun might be increased, so
that the essential question between ships and guns
may be regarded as settled. That is the conclusion
forced upon us by the results of the remarkable ex-
periments just reported from Shoeburyness. The
target exposed to fire on this occasion was built up
of 18 inches of teak, and this compact mass of wood-
work was covered in front with solid plates of rolled
iron eight inches thick, and strengthened at the
back by an inner skin of iron three-quarters of an
inch thick. Altogether, therefore, this imaginary
ship's broadside was about two feet three inches in
thickness--that is, about as thick as the wall of an
old Norman castle, while the materials were hard teak
and solid iron, instead of ashler and rubble. If castles,
in fact, had been built in such a fashion, they would
have remained up to our own day as impreg-
nable to artillery as they originally were to bows
and arrows. Nevertheless, when a gun described
as the " nine-inch muzzle-loading wrought-iron
Woolwich rifle gun was trained against this target,
and fired with a charge. of 431 b. of powder and a
2501 b shell of Major Palliser's chilled metal, the
effect was decisive. The projectile, we are told,
" went clean through everything, plate, backing,
and inner skin, and lodged itself, after exploding in
some timber, about 20 feet behind the target. Any-
thing more crushing," it is added, " than the shock
of this missile it would be difficult to conceive, for it
struck full upon one of the vertical parts of the
target, and tore its way through as if only opposed
by a timber screen." A repetition of the experiment
did but confirm the results, and the main fact,
therefore, is placed beyond reach of doubt. One
or two reservations should, it is true, be put upon
record. These effects were produced under con-
ditions exceptionally favourable to ;the gun, which
was fired at a comparatively short range, and
against an immovable target struck at right angles.
It is obvious that such conditions could not always
be anticipated in action between ships carefully
manoeuvred, though an English captain would pro-
bably ask for nothing more than equality of speed
to give him all necessary opportunity for the prac-
tice of his guns. Still it must be noticed that when
the target was inclined at an angle to the line of
fire the projectiles did fail to penetrate it. .They
tore tremendous holes in the plating, and one of
them actually got in to a depth of 12k- inches, but
they never went quite through. We should also ob-
serve that Mr. Chalmers, the inventor of a very cele-
brated target, claims to be able still to construct a
block of wood and iron which shall be impregnable
to shot, but practically the case stands as we describe
it. Now, as no ironclad afloat carries'solid armour
of eight inches in thickness ; and as the composite
or laminated armour of the American turrets, formed
of single-inch plates screwed one upon another, will
bear no comparison with solid metal, it follows, as
we have said, that the armour of any fighting ship
at present known might be completely demolished
by a 250-pounder gun. The deductions naturally
flowing from this conclusion are important in the ex-
treme. In the first place, if we are to accept these
facts as permanently established, we may dismiss the
question of monster cannon from our minds. A gun
which will sink any enemy is quite big enough, and
nothing would be gained by a bigger one. The hole
made in the Shoebury target by a nine-inch Palisser
shell was large enough to settle the fate of any vessel
afloat. If the Americans prefer 15-inch or 20-inch
shot, they have a right to their choice, but it is ob-
vious that this weight of metal and calibre of ord-
nance represent so much superfluity, if the required
work can be performed by a nine-inch gun with
equal effect. And this again relieves us of another
difficulty. We shall be no longer under the neces-
sity of building turret ships. In so far as a turret
vessel represents any other advantages of model,
the device may still be a serviceable one, but as
regards the peculiar capacity of the turrets for car-
rying enormous guns, the recommendation will of
course disappearwhen enormous guns are no longer
required. As far as we can now see, the biggest
guns wanted for sea service can be carried easily in
broadside, and consequently a broadside vessel is
just as good as ever. But the facts here have a still
wider application. We remarked the other day,
before these experiments had been made,and the whole
question appeared to be one rather of guns than
ships, and this view of the case is now decisively
confirmed. We might almost say, after what has
thus been proved, that the value of an iron-clad as
a fighting vessel has vanished. When ship's armour
was first introduced it rendered ships impregnable,
and hence its importance. But now that the cannon
of that day are to be superseded by the Woolwich
gun of the present the armour confers no such se-
curity, and so its importance is lost. When we read
that the sides of the Warrior are simply as vulner-
able as so much basket work it seems impossible to
regard the Warrior as more of a man-of-war than
a stout old frigate. This, of course, would be an
extreme conclusion. The Warrior's armour would
protect her up to a certain point, and insure her
a proportionate superiority, nor is it a slight
advantage for a ship to be invulnerable except
under peculiar conditions of attack. Still the
broad fact remains that an ironclad is as help-
less as any wooden corvette against a certain gun
which every British ship ought to carry ; and we
are mistaken if a short advance from this point of
departure will not conduct us to some very satis-
factory conclusions. Presuming ironclads and
wooden ships to be thus placed upon an equality of
hopelessness before modern artillery, may we not re-
consider our opinions about the worthlessness of our
old wooden navy? That navy comprises vessels by
the score which, if wood is as good as iron, are still
the most magnificent ships in the world, and is not
wood as good as iron if one material is just as strong,
or as weak, as the other? Suppose one of our fine
old frigates armed with these Woolwich guns, and
matched against an ironclad ; according to what we
have now learnt, she might sink this ironclad, and
what worse could the ironclad do to her ? Of
course the ironclad would have the advantage of her
armour to a certain extent, and perhaps it would
only be a fortunate shot, or a shot delivered under
very favourable conditions, which would do her any
fatal damage. But this damage might be done, and
the knowledge that it might be done would alto-
gether destroy the theory now accepted respecting
the relative powers of ironclads and wooden vessels.
Precisely, however, in this same proportion would
the present ideas respecting the inutility of our old
navy be dispelled also, and our old superiority as a
maritime Power would be suddenly restored. Only,
to secure all this profit, we should lose no time
about the manufacture and issue of the new Wool-
wich guns.
THE " ANGLO-AMERICAN TIMES."—A com-
pany has been formed to increase and bring
within the reach of every class facilities for
travel. The central offices are situated in London,
at 26, Henrietta-street, Covent Garden. The As-
sociation will be known in England as the Uni-
versal Tourist Company. In France it is desig-
nated the Campagnie Universel do Voyage, the
purport being to put into practical application the
Imperial decree of July 12, 1865, " to lay out by
public and private subscription, or any other way,
funds, intended to give the working classes greater
facilities for visiting and studying the Universal
Exhibition of 1867, at Paris." The Company pro-
poses to contract with Railway and Navigation
Companies, with Hotels, board-and lodging-houses,
with places of instruction and amusement—by com-
bined operations to secure cheaper modes of transit,
and cheaper means of living with the pleasure and
profit of travel. In view of the coming Paris Ex •
hibition, anticipating, a large influx of tourists from
all parts of the world to the great centres of Paris