The record-union., 1891-12-18
AFTERNOON SESSION.
ARMORED WARSHIPS.
Are Not the Protected Cruisers More
Effective!

Enective.
In an article on armor for naval vessels,
Albert Williams, Jr, writes in the
E5ltaleering Magazine:
''At present, then, the prevailing idea
is that the attack is far ahead of the de-
fense, so far as artillery and armor are
concerned-to say nothing of the question
of high-explosive torpedoes, submarine
or aeriel, automobile, gun-fred fixed
and in all the variety of other forms
which inventive ingenuity has suggested
or tried. If this idea proves to be The cor
rect one, and no unexpected development
IN resisting power is soon reached, it will
result i'll the abandonment of every
heavy armored vessel; or, rather, no more
of this class will be designed and the
ones now existing or building will gradu-
ally tall into disuse. In such case the
war vessels of the future will be of the
protected type, or entirely without
armor except gun-shields and protection
against the smaller rapid-firing guns,
perhaps retaining defective deck plating.
fhe ships, by eliminating the weight of
armor, Will have just SO much more
offensive capacity for a given displace-
ment. They may. on the other hand, be
made smaller, cheaper and more man
ageable without sacrifice of offensive
power. 1t is on considerations of this
kind that our naval constructors have
given most of their attention to the de-
velopment of the fast unarmored or pro-
tected cruiser type, with fairly effective
battery, and moderate draft or displace-
ment. The few United States battle
ships, like The Maine, Texas. Indiana and
the barbor-detense vessel Monterey, thus
far projected, are Of modest dimensions
and cost compared with some Of the
European monSters-or nonstrosities.
The naval problem is, to large ex-
tent, a financial one. A given amount of
money being allotted, the question is how
best to secure the worth OF the money
Is it better to concentrate it in a few large
armor-clads, or divide the expense, the
risk and the fighting power among a
! greater number Of smaller vessels indi-
vidually weaker than the big ships, but
! handler for general service and perhaps
| collectively stronger in battle? Would it
not be bad policy to put all the eggs into
one basket, in view of the contingencies
and accidents OF warfare?
I'm the Middle Ages, when gunpow1er
was first introduced, the arlnor of Knights
and men-at-armS was gradually increased
in weight to meet the new weapons AS
the quality ofpowder and guns improved
armor was added to until it reached point
where II knight was unhorsed it re-
quired several squireS to get him into the
saddle again, or if man fell he could
not pick himself up unaided. The next
step was to limit the armor to the more
vital portions, retaining only the cuirass
and helmet. Finally even these were
thrown away. Somewhat similar may
be the transition in modern navies. The
guns having beaten the armor, ships may
have to discard their coats of mail and
rely upon offense as the best protection,
just as the intelligent pugilists defend
themselves by the counter rather than by
the simple guard.
decisive naval actions happen only at
long intervals. When the next one does
occur. however, a good deal more will be
learned than is now known. Doubtless
some great surprises are in store for the
| powers that have pinned their faith to
heavy armor.n