The National tribune., 1882-08-19
SWIFT WAR SHIPS.
Sir William Armstrong; lecture on the Advantage
of Light UnarmOred Vessels.

Sir William Armstrong; lecture on the Advantage
of Light UnarmOred Vessels.
Sir William Armstrong delivered an adj
dress at meeting of the Institute of Civil
Engineers in London, of which he is the
president, and spoke chiefly of the armOr
plating of war ships and the penetrating
power of guns. Armor, he said, seemed to
be gradually contracting to the banishing
point, as to resist the most powerful guns
now made armor Of at least two feet in
thickness was required. He advocated the
construction of light unarmored vessels of
great speed. He said: For the cost of one
iron clad we could have three unarmored
ships of far higher speed and carrying collect
lively three ornaments each equal to that of
the armored vessel. Being smaller, they
would be more difficult to hit. Being
swifter, they could choose their positions, and
be free to attack or retreat at pleasure.
Being more nimble in turning, they would
be better adapted both for ramming and for
evading the ram of their adversary. Finally,
the conditions of superior speed and agility
would favor their use of torpedoes and sub
marine projectiles; although it was ques-
ton whether, for the sake of a much-needed
simpliication, it would not be better to con-
fine that species of attack to separate vessels
especially constructed for that one particu-
:. ''--"-- e the utmost advantage
sl conceded to the iron
c-." being impenetrable
rs opponents-she could
lC. st of three against one,
unless by the use of securely protected artil-
lery she could keep her assailants at bay and
gradually destroy them by her fire if they
persisted in their attack If iron-clads were
not needed for the purpose of opposing IRON
clads, it was difficult to see for what pur-
pose they were wanted at all. For every
other kind of service a numerous fleet of
smaller and swifter vessels, unencumbered
with armor, would clearly be preferable. To
protect our commerce, to guard our exten-
siye seaboard against invading fOtillas, to
lend naval assistance to our colonies in case
of need and generally to maintain our su-
premacy at sea, we required far more
numerous navy than We possessed or could
afford to possess unless we vastly reduced
our expenditure on individual ships, and to
do this we must dispense with armor. 1t
was alarming to think how unpreparad we
were to repress the ravages which even q
small number of swift marauding vessels,
properly constructed and armed for their
purpose, could inhict upon the enormous
property we had .at all times afloat, and how
little we could hope to clear the sea of such
destructive enemies by cruisers imprOyised
out of ready made steamers destitute of all
the conditions necessary to render them ef1i-
cient for such a service. Sir William Arm
strong then adverted to harbor defence. He
pointed out that many of our iron-clad forts
had already outlived the stage of artillery
progress for which they were adapted. He
observed that our navy was at present armed
with guns which could not be expected to
contend successfully with the best modern
guns that could be used against them. Hap
PLY, most of the older ships of foreign
powers were in the same predicament; but
all their new vessels and some of their older
ones were being armed with artillery which,
weight for weight, was far superior in power
to that of our navy. There seemed to be
more hope of permanency now than at any
former period; but whether this were so or
not we could not without danger remain
passive So long as experience of novelties
was deficient it was q case for cautious
procedure. In the meantime no expense
should be spared in judicious experiments
seeing that the expense of experiments was
trifling in comparison with that of mistakes.
Above all, the government should pursue
such course as would bring into full play
the abundant engineering resources of this
highly-mechanical country for increasing
the efficiency of our national defences