The Sun.
London, England, 1866-09-24 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS,

TIMES.—The First Lord of the Admiralty will
have something to explain in his first public speech
on the affairs of his department. his statement to-
wards the close of the session that the reserves of
the navy were in an unsatisfactory condition pro-
duced a natural effect on the public mind, and has
led to a discussion not easily settled. That the state-
ment was true, literally, is not to be doubted, but the
fact admitted, perhaps, of some explanation, while
something was also to be said in qualification of the
results. We have already observed that our ironclad
fleet did receive very considerable augmentations
under the late Government, and this was doubtless
regarded as the most important object of all. The
chief deficiency is probably in good cruisers of a
smaller class, for which our heavier wooden vessels,
of which we have an ample stock, cannot well be
substituted. As the reader, however, has seen, an
entirely new phase of the question has been opened
by the results of recent artillery experiments, and
we are led to inquire whether our old wooden navy
is indeed so worthless as all these calculations,
whether on one side or the other, have hitherto
assumed. It appeared to us, as we remarked this
day last week, that the case has been in some de-
gree modified ; it appears to an able correspondent,
whose letter we published on Saturday, that matters
remain exactly in statu quo. We said that the re-
lative capacities of ironclads and wooden ships had
been affected by the production of a gun which
could be carried easily in a wooden frigate, and
which could, beyond all question, send anyi ronclad
now afloat to the bottom. Capt. S. Osborn main-
tains that " a very good gun and superior projectiles
on board a wooden ship do not alter the conditions
of the fight between a wooden fleet and an iron-
clad." So the issue is plainly stated, and can be as
plainly tried. The very essence of an ironclad, as
originally designed, was that it should be impreg-
nable to shot, and this condition was actually se-
cured. When the Gloire was launched she was invul-
nerable. When the Warrior was launched she was in-
vulnerable also. The Monitor was impregnable to the
shot of the Merrimac, and the Merrimac to the shot
of the Monitor. So long as no improvements were
made in artillery the cannon balls rebounded from
the sides of the new fighting ships as harmlessly as
hailstones, and it was this quality which gave iron-
clads their importance. Between them and wooden
ships there seemed to be no comparison whatever.
The guns of a timber-built vessel were not only
relatively but absolutely useless, and the ironclad
might do the work of destruction at her leisure.
Even when the power of guns was gradually in-
creased the defensive strength of ships' armour
was increased in proportion, and each new target
represented a ship's broadside impregnable for the
time. Now, however, all this is changed. A gun
has been manufactured of no immoderate weight or
calibre, but equally portable and manageable, before
which, when charged with a certain shot, any iron-
clad known is just as helpless and as unprotected as
an old wooden frigate before an old 68-pounder.
The sides of the Warrior are simply as vulnerable
as so much basket-work. The sides of a vessel of
twice the Warrior's strength would afford little bet-
ter protection. 'I he turrets of the Royal Sovereign
would be no safer. Armour is no longer an effec-
tive defence against a gun which will soon be one
of the ordinary guns of our sea service. About
these facts there is no question, and we say that
they may materially " alter the conditions of a
fight" between armoured and unarmoured vessels.
A few months ago an armoured vessel was invul-
nerable ; she might now be sent to the bottom by a
single shot. Our correspondent still claims the
advantage for ironclads; but that much we fully
admitted. All that he says on this point we said
too. It is only within a certain range, and under
certain conditions, that the wooden vessel can inflict
fatal injury upon her ironcased antagonist, whereas
the latter can exert an equally destructive power
with fewer limitations. All this is true, but it does
not affect the main proposition, which is this :
That, whereas only the other day the captain of a
wooden vessel could not possibly expect to sink an
ironclad, he now knows that such a proceeding is
very possible indeed. Capt. Osborn takes the case of
the Achilles, and the Liverpool, each carrying the new
Woolwich gun and the Palliser shot, and he shows
that the advantage would still be greatly on the
side of the Achilles. No one doubts it ; but with
the armament which the Liverpool would now carry
she might send the Achilles to the bottom, whereas
with her old armament she could never have hoped
to do so. Captain Osborn, too, omits the very vital
question of relative speed. Of course the comba-
tants may be assumed equal in this respect ; but
armour, as our correspondent himself intimates, is
apt to be " cumbersome," and if the wooden frigate
were swifter than the ironclad, the " conditions of
the fight" would be altered still more materially.
All Captain Osborn's opinions on this subject are
valuable, and the attentive reader will have discerned
that he inclines not to the absolute protection of a
fighting ship by very ponderous armour, but to the
partial protection of the vessel by such plating as
would keep out shot and shell except at short range
without impairing the handiness or speed of the
ship. But that view of the case opens a very wide
question, and it has led some good authorities to a
conclusion far more favourable to wooden vessels
than any that we have expressed. Where is the
line to be drawn between the protection coveted and
the impediment condemned ? One of the best of
the American commanders gave it as his opinion
that the armour of fighting ships would not only be
gradually reduced, but ultimately discarded, exactly
like the armour of fighting men. And it was certainly
remarkable to observe, throughout the Civil War,
what a preference the American captains gave to
their old wooden frigates. Admiral Farragut uni-
formly hoisted his flag on board a wooden vessel,
and took his wooden vessels into action against iron
clads and shore batteries with a confidence justi-
fied by the result. In fact, if our correspondent
will review the experience of the last five years, he
may perhaps be surprised to find what very little
proof has been actually given of the helplessness
of wooden ships when engaged with ironclads.
ro be sure, the experience is not very extensive,
but Admiral Farragut never lost, we believe, a
single-one of his old frigates, though he fought both
ironclads and shore batteries at twenty yards' range.
The Kaiser was not destroyed at Lissa, though one
300-pound shell, at least, was fairly lodged in her
sides. The Merrimac destroyed the Congress and
the Cumberland, not by shot or shell, but by
ramming. Of course none of these examples prove
that a wooden frigate may not be disabled by the
first shell fired, but as a matter of fact that cata-
strophe has been very often escaped. The Tennessee,
the strongest ironclad built by the Confederates, did
not destroy the Hartford, a wooden frigate engaged
with her at close quarters, but if the Hartford had
carried such guns and shot as were recently tried at
Shoebury she must infallibly have sunk the Ten-
nessee. However, we can assure our correspondent
that we have not the slightest idea of advocating
any retrograde policy in the construction of our
navy. We fully aimit, and have already acknow-
ledged, the superiority which he claims for ironclads,
even though they be no longer impregnable. But to
multiply these fabrics so as to reinstate us in our
old maritime strength by virtue of ironclads alone
must be a work of time, while any discovery that
can communicate a provisional increase of efficiency
to our old wooden fleet may well be hailed with
satisfaction. It would be best to have a sufficiency
of ironclads, but, pending that consummation, it is
something to ascertain that we could send even
wooden ships to sea with guns which, at close
quarters, no ironclad could resist.