Omaha daily bee., 1889-11-03
GREAT BRITAlN'S BIG GUNS.
A Controversy Regarding Bngland's
Naval Armament.
IMMENSE COST OF AMMUNITION
Vast Expense Involved in Their Con-
sfruction and Operation-A Con-
trnst with Those OF Thirty
Years Ago.
Eneinnd's Naval white Elephant.

tCopurtgH 1889 bB James Gordon Bennett)
LONDON, Nov. 2.-INew York Herald
Cablc-Special to The BEEl-A contro-
versy of no slight Importance has arisen, aud
is likely to last, over the big guns of the
British navy. 1 have noticed that the Her
aid contains from time to time information
on subjects connected with the royal navy
which does not appear elsewhere, and which
is obviously derived from special and au-
thentic sources But the public do
not yet quite understand what is
going on and too many persons have an in
terest in keeping the truth concealed from
them to permit of this deficiency being
speedily rectihed. The facts, however, must
come out by degrees. Lord Armstrong, in
presiding over meeting of his company on
Friday, defended the damage to the 10
ton gun on the Victoria and complained that
it had been subjected to tests of undue
severity. We ought not to put great press
ure upon a gun, apparently, until we get
into action, and then If 1t bursts, the fault
can easily be laid on the men who
have beer blown to pieces There is scarcely
practicable man in the service who puts
absolute trust in a 1l0-ton gun, but Lord
Armstrong is quite right saying that he
has nothing to do with that. The guns are
ordered of his firm, and his business is to
make them. Whether they are fit for service
or not is an affair to be settled at the ad-
mralty Observe these words of Lord
Armstrong's, for they have greater
significance than appears upon the
surface "Whether monster guns be
mistake or not IS very
fairly debatable question. monster gun is
incidentally monster ironclad, and 1 have
never advocated either one or the other"
That both are mistake is beginning to be
she opinion of some of the greatest naval
officers in England, and perhaps Lord Arms
strong shares that opinion. We can build q
monster ironclad, but no one can be sure
how it will act In battle. We can not build
o monster gun without immense delay, and
when we have got it we are half afraid
of firing it off. The maker himself
tells us that we ought not to put too large
charge of powder in it. What, then, are we
10 do with itl Is it MADE to be looked atl
Now let me tell you little more about costly
playthings. Last year two l6.25-inch guns
were turned out from the Armstrong works
and supplied to the navy. They cost 93S, ,2S5
without carriages. Five 13.5-inch were sup
piled from the royal gun factory costing
910.SS3 each. A 12-inch gun costs e6, 500
each, and two were supplied. Some of
these guns were put in hand the previous
year, but all that could be turned out for
actual use were these nine 1t is quite i'm
possible to get these guns made fast enough
to tit out new ironclads so that even If we
get the ships it is by no means certain that
they would be Of any utility for the defense
OF the country, at least for a considerable
time after they are afloat. Some of our
finest ships to-day are without their full
hat have
ammunition, and those which have ammunl-
tion have no guns. Even at best it must
take several years to put all this right. If,
then, England holds fast to the system of
building monster ironclads and ordnance she
must make up her mind to spend prodigious
sums of money and to keep on spending
them, for big gun ls like big house-there
is no end to its cost. For instance, IN the
old days 6S-poupder smooth bore
cost about as Id for shot,
but for powder alone 1l0-ton gun
costs e5S lss Sd every time 1t Is fired. The
this a pretty bill to present to the nation
every time one of these guns is fired? beg
you to understand that there is no doubt
about the facts have just put forward.
take them upon the authority of a most un-
deniable witness-General Anderson, director
of artillery-who must be supposed to know
more about the subject than any other man
In the country. General Anderson Is O
brother-in-law OF the prime minister, and he
has held his office since the early part of
1885. When he was giving evidence before
a committee of the house of commons, Stan
hope secretary of war, asked him this ques-
tion:
.Will you tell the committee what the cost
of firing a shot from one of these big guns
would be at the present timep
General Anderson answered.: at Is diff
cult, perhaps, to tell exactly, but it would
cost rather over 9200 in round figures"
The war office itself gives the amount at
G24O a shot
Your readers will now be able to appreciate
little more completely the remark made by
Lord Armstrong on Friday last.
There have been fired from one of the no.
ton guns on board the Victoria no less than
ten and one fourth tons of gunpowder and
nearly twenty tons of proiecliles."
mere trial, therefore, of these guns
costs more than the total expense of making
an eight-inch gun. Throughout we will sup
pose that twenty rounds are fired from it,
and that then it bursts or shows signs of do
lug SO IL IL is called on for further work.
Ihe powder ana prolectlle WOnlu Dy tnat
time have cost "a, 800 and the gun itself
a25, 00O-altogether SEQ 500. In the case i'm
agined, but not imaginary, for one of the
guns on board the Victoria, the answer to l,
is precisely this: The amount of money
would be utterly thrown away, even under
tho best Of circumstances. Does II
not seem mere madness to expenc
these vast sums on guns which never have
yet been properly tested and concerning
which the artillery entsrtain the greatest
misgivingsl These are questions which viii
be discussed more and more as time goes on
Tho general public do not know and cannot
be expected TO know whether the admiralty
and war oIiice authorities are on the wrong
track or not, but the suspicion Is growing
strohg that they are not themselves prepared
TO say that they arc not. Do they be-
lieve in the big gun businessl From all
that can hear should say that they do not
A mere fad has been carried to length
which would be- ludlcrous were it not costl,
TO the nation. Thirty years ago the tota
cost OF the armament Of a frst-class ship o
war of the Duke of Wellington
was el7,00O. She carried 10
guns. The Bsnbow of the present day car