The Portland daily press., 1864-06-16
Thursday Morning, June l6, 1864.
The Monitor Iron Clads.
OPINION OF THE RUSSIAN ADMIRAL.

OPINION OF THE RUSSIAN ADMIRAL.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, May "a, 1854.
To the Editors Of the Boston AdreLtiser:
Gentlemen:
That highly accomplished officer, Admira
Lesohsky, detailed by the Russian Govern
ment 10 study the system of Monitor Irol
-clads In the United States, has been so kin,
as to translate and send to the Department
the accompanying articles from a semi-officia
periodical published at st. Petersburgh:-
In his note the Admiral says :-"The peri
odical In which they appeared is quite OF al
Official character, aud the meaning of the ar
ticles themselves is evidently justicativs
answer Of the authorities to the censure Of
the public, which this novelty of Monitor,
did not avoid in Russia more than in othel
countries"
enclose the articles referred to, with the
request that you will publish them in yonl
paper at an early date.
Very respectfully,
Your obedient servant,
G. Fox.
The reports Of the Admiral and Captains
OF the American iron-cIad squadron of the
bombardment of Charleston have offered
new occasion for expressing different opinions
as to what system OF iron-clad ship building
generally, preference Is to be given, and wnat
system is best suited to our navy.
~Supposing that those opinions founded
upon special knowledge of the subject,)
will assist In clearing up this important and
entirely new thing, especially in Russia, we
present below two articles on this subject
the first OF them by its clearness aud accessi-
biiity will probably attract attention, even OF
those who, not belonging to the naval pro-
fession, are interested in the question of mar
itime deiences adopted in Russia.
The principal problems which are TO be
solved Ia armor-p plated shipbuildng were the
following
First. The protection OF vessels as much
as possible from the danger of fire and sink
ing, wooden vessels being inevitably exposed
70 that from the destructive nature OF the
artillery OF the present time; aud
Second. The preservation of the lives of
the crew from the terrible effects of firing,
the common wooden vessels generally In use
not offering them that protection at all.
The affair at Charleston demonstrated that
both of these problems were most successful
ly solved by the Monitors. They came out of
terrible and unprecedented fire without
hole 10 any part of the vessels under water;
their entire loss of men was confined to one
man killed and few wounded. The losses
and injuries sustained by them were OF such
nature as could be easily guarded against in
future, and there was no necessity to take
them into dock, rs the repairs were all done
In Port Royal, one OF the most Insignificant
ports in North America.
Until the present internal strucole called
for extraordinary exertious. the Federal Ar.
nv and NAVY were neglected. Public min
ION in The United States looked with doubt
and derision upon the trials aud experiments
that were made on q large scale by the Euro
mean powers. for the solution of the ouestion
OF armed vessels. In 1861, 10 view OF the re-
bellion taking enormous proportions. the pub
lie mind became impressed with the import
ance OF the subject, and on the rsport of the
Secretary OF the Navy, presented during an
extra Session of Congress, competition was
offered for the best system Of construction of
iron clad or invuinerable vessels.
The commission of naval officers, TO whom
was entrusted the examination Of projects,
gave preference TO three different systems !;
the vessels built according TO those systems
were named New Ironsides, Galena aud Mon
itor. The New Ironsides, constructed ON the
same principles as most of the Iron-clad frg-
ates and floating batteries of the European
powers, did not present anything new: This
vessel Is acknowledged generally to be sue
cess, except however Ia regard to speed and
farming. The Galena also presented nothing
new; covered with a light iron armor sup
ported by weak backing, she proved very
unsatisfactory afterwards her armor was ta-
ken off and she remained a common wooden
vessel.
The Monitor, invented by Captain Ericsson,
was built on entirely new principles she was
covered box or rail on which was placed a
revolving turret. Amy one who has observed
the action OF the waves on q common raft will
understand the idea Of the inventor. A raft
does not rock on the waves because the waves
break over IL; and if its parts can be bound
together so firmly and etiectually as TO resist
the destructive action of the waves, and not
allow the box itself to be filled with water,
such a craft may be conveyed even through
an open sea.
An example is known, that large wooden
raft, made 10 Canada, was successfully taken
70 England. though certainly In going across
the Atlantic. IL must have been most of the
time submerged as n bannens now with the
Mouitors
Rejecting the hioh sides nj vesscls 70 GOV.
er which. thousands M mounds IN iron wopld
bs reoulred. The inventor of The Monitor has
gained In comnsrison ,yI,b other ,rmad ye.-
ssls The foilowing sdvsn,a,es A'1 '''
First. a comnarative chesnna.s In cons,rpc.
t,on
geeond. the insipniacance Of target nrasent-
ad 20 tho enemv,s IRE.
Third. the safety ~ the submerged mart q,
the vessel from shots
Foyrtb =. the nossihilitv of using guns of the
aaviss, c.Iihras and canshilitv 70 give grea,
,hicknass 10 The tnrrats AMI side armorI easi.
or than II could be done on armored vessel,
of other svs,ems
Tho s.s,arn oc c.n,.,n Er;csso, INNS, moi
he confonndad with tha tnrrat,ad system ol
Csn,ain Co,as Tho latter nlaces lii turre,
on I cnmmon vessel with nre,Iv bigh aides
for the nro,ection Of which bv armoT as wa.