The anti-monopolist. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1874-1878, 1878-05-30
THE DECLINE OF TIE IRONClhD.

There is something which fOrcibly
reminds one of the ancient question
of the irresistible force and immOva-
BILE body, in the modern futile search
for impregnable irOnclads and unOp-
possible guns. \ recent writer in the
Rerue des Deu.r Modes very peril
nently compares the naval engineering
of the present day to the quest for the
aStrOlOgerS. for in both cases, us fast
as progress is made. new possibilities
and new necessities seem apparent,
until above all rises the obvious i'm
possibility Of prediction when the
desired goal shall be reached. Nei-
Their can the colossal outlay of money
and time expended in attempts to.
ward the solution of the problem of
guns and armor be said to have af-
fOrded other than merely negative
results. Great Britain has paid mil
lions to discover that certain armor
is not impregnable, or the converse
that certain guns are not irresistible
and at the present moment a leading
British engineering journal candidly
avOws that the total result of all eX
perience in armor plating has reduced
itself to the quandary Of whether it
is better to use steel armOr. which
will resist penetration, but which will
be quickly sbivered by the projectiles,
or iron armor, which will not split,
but which will be pierced. In the
matter of guns, which now are in ad-
vance, it would seem that the limit of
the size to which they can be in.
creased must soon be fixed by the
capacity of vessels to withstand the
conclusion and shock of their dis
charge. The heavier vessels are
armored the sitter they are the less
elastic. and consequently the more
liable to injury by racking strain; to
gain elasticity by reducing armor is
of course to lessen the protection.
So again, the whole question of
constructing armored war vessels is
about as unsettled as it very well can
be. The InHexible, supposed to com.
bine in herself all the best expedients
of advanced naval constructive skill,
is failure. and the verdict of All
official board, translated into plain
English. is, Don't build another
ship like her." Few concur in the
proper mode of protecting vessel.
Some advocate unarmored ends and
heavily armored citadel: some, heavily
armored ends and lightly armored
midship portion: some advise arInor
all over. even 10 far below the water
line: some propose mere belt; and SC
on in every variety.
If it were possible To cover a vessel
all over with iron thick enough IL
stop the largest projectile, the prob
lem would be easy to solve, but To do
this is to render the ship unmaneu
verable She would be like shark
that has to turn over to bite - and
while the fish turns the intended
victim escapes, or if injured, like ar
armored knight of the olden time
who. when endorsed. was at the
mercy of his enemy, for his armol
prevented his running away. In thu
Austro-I.a!iam battle OF LISA, the
|. ironclad Re d'Italia became helples.
from an injury to her rudGer, ant
wooden vessel. mere tIanspor
:, hastily fitted MP for action, rammet
her and sent her TO the bottom at ;
single blow. A more suggestive in
, stance happened during the lat
Russo Turkish war. in the splendi.
attack Of the unarmored Russian gun
I boat ve5ta on one of the larges
, Turkish ironclads. The battle wa
: fought at rife range, and in sh0r
J time two Of the Vesta's guns wer
( dismounted, her Tudder was jammed
md = IRE near her maGsxine brOk
81 out, while tie TUX poured In Is Ire