The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1882-10-08
they should not contrive, In the present state
Of feeling in Germany, to recover their for
mer ascendancy.
A Warning from Alexandria.

IL is well known that Admiral FARRAGUT,
who was an old-fashioned sailor, never had
any fancy for ironclads. He knew more
about unarmored ships, and was ready to
take his chances on one OF them in an en-
gagement with land batteries. And at Mo-
bile Bay his confidence was justified, for his
feet was able to run by the forts.
Even at the bombardment of Alexandria
by the English fleet, where the latest types
OF ironclads were used-the enormously ex-
pensive vessels which the great powers have
been competing with each other In pro-
ducing-it seems the weakest vessels came
of best, certainly 30 far as casualties were
concerned. They did not lose man, while
the largest proportion Of casualties occurred
on the best protected ships.
Nor must 1t be forgotten that while the
English fleet included very heavily armored
vessels, it also contained besides the ships
totally unarmored, many which were only
thinly protected. The Alexandrian forts were
armed with guns enough capable OF pene-
trating and sinking the majority OF the iron
clads, according to all the teachings OF tho
experimental contests between guns and
armOr. Yet armored and unarmorcd, heavily
plated and lightly plated vessels, alike es-
capped destruction. The reason seems to be
that 1t Is not merely necessary that the gun
shall be powerful: the shot must strike the
vessel at the exact angle to do any very great
and irreparable mischief.
ut is quite impossible for me-" said Sir
BEAUCHAMP SEYMOUR in his despatch after
the bombardment, Ito account for the very
small loss sustained by her Majestys ships
on this occasion, considering the amount OF
shot and shell which struck them, and the
injuries inflicted on the hulls Of the Sultan,
Superb, and Alexandra, and in lesser de-
gree on those OF the Invincible, Penelope,
and Inflexible." All Of the six ships he names
are ironcads OF the first class, the Infiexible
leading the English navy in the thickness OF
its armor. Yet of such injury as was done
by the Alexandrian guns they suffered more
than the unarmored vessels, the little gun
boats which took so active part In the fight,
and could have been sunk by the run Of the
guns mounted in the forts, II they had had a
fair shot at them.
Probably the good fortune enjoyed by the
gunboats was due to their activity and the
facility with which they were man9uvred.
They did not present q steady mark for the
Egyptian gunners who handled their guns
pretty well according to all accounts. The
unarmored vessels, we are told. were not
struck except by fragments Of shell which
were scattered over their decks. And the
comparatively short list Of casualties during
the engagement may be explained in large
part by the circumstance that the British
vessels were run by steam machinery, which
makes possible much smaller crews than for
merly, when the men on q man-of- war ran
over each other.
Enough, finally, has been learned from tho
bombardment OF Alexandria, the most impor-
tant action in which the later ironclads have
been engaged, to justify us In keeping out
Of that contest between guns and armor upon
which the great European powers have
lavished 80 many millions Fleet cruisers
OF not too heavy draught, armed with few
powerful guns, and which can be handled
with ease, were never 80 desirable for navy
aS now