Connecticut western news., 1882-02-01
SWIFT WAR SHIPS.
Sir William Armstrong's Lecture on the Advantages of Light Unarm- ored Vessels.

Sir William Armstrong delivered an address 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 thep penetrating power of guns. Armor, he said, seemed to be gradually con, tracing to the vanishing point, as, to resist the most powerful guns now made arnaor of at least two feet in thickness was Required. He advocated the con- struction of light unarmored vessels of great speed. He said: "For the cost of one iron clad we could have three unar- mored ships of far higher speed. and carrying collectively three armaments each, equal to that of the armored ves- sel. Being smaller, they would be more difficult to bit. Beiug swifter, they could choose their positions, and be free to attack or retreat at pleasure. Being more nimble at 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 tor pedoes and submarine projectiles; al- though it was 8 question whether, for the sake of much needed simpli6cation it would not be better to confne that species of attack to separate vessels specially constructed for that one par ticular purpose. Even if the utmost advantage she could possess were con- ceded to the iron -clad-namely, that of being impenetrable by the guns of her opponents-she could not prevail in 8 contest of three against one, unless by the use of securely protected artillery 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 purpose they were wanted at all. For every other kind of service 8 numerous fleet of smaller and swifter vessels, unencumbered with armor, would clearly be preferable. To pro- tect our commerce, to guard our exten- sive seaboard against invading fotillas, to lend naval assistance to our colonies iu case of need and generally to main tain our supremacy at sea we required a far more numerous navy than we pos sess or could afford to possess unless we vastly reduced our expenditure on indi- vidual ships, and to de this we must dispense with armor.
 "It was alarming to think now unpre- which even a small number of swift marauding vessels, properly constructed and armed for their purpose, could in- fict upon the enormous property we had at all times afoat, and how little we could hope to clear the sea of such de- structive enemies by cruisers improvised out of ready made steamers destitute of the conditions necessary to render them efficient for such service. Sir William Armstrong then adverted to harbor defense. He pointed out that many of our iron-clad forts had already ouflived the stage of artillery progress for which they were adopted. 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. Happily, most of the older ships of foreign Powers were in the same pre- dicament; but all their new vessels and some of their older ones were being armed with artillery which, weight for weight, was far superior to that of our navy. There seemed to be more hope of permanency now than at any former period; but whether this was so or not we could not without danger remain passive. So long as experience of nov cities was deficient It was case of eau tious procedure. In the meantime no expense should be- spared in judicious experiments, seeing that the expense of experiments was trifing in comparison. Above all, thegovernments should pursue such course as would bring into full play the abundant engineering re- sources of this highly mechanical coun- try for increasing the efficiency of our national defenses."