Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1894-05-03
Biggest Gun Against Thickest Armor

tween gun and target which have tax
en- place on that famous proving
ground
The trial for superiority is to be be
tween the attacking power of the 13
inch breech-loading rifle and the re
sisting strength of the 1S-inch side ar
NOR of the 10, ,28S-ton battle ships
In other words, it is between the heav
lest gun and the thickest armor ever
made in this country. And even thai
statement does not fully represent the
case. The 13-inch rife is not only
the largest gun ever made here, but
the largest likely to be made for years
to come; and a similar assertion is
proper of the thickness of the ship ar
NOR.
In illustration of this fact we may
point out that, although onr newest
and largest battle ship, the Iowa, will
have over 200 tons more displace-
ment than the three vessels of the In.
diana class, yet, instead of carrying
13-inch guns, as they do, she is to
have as her largest, 12-inch guns,
which weigh one-fourth less. This re-
duction is in accordance with the new
policy of various leading navies. The
12-inch gun, with it's superior con-
struction and powerful charges, can
penetrate at short range any ship ar
NOR now afloat. But the chief reason
for the new policy is found in the i'm
portance attached to the possible man
ipulation of guns by hand power, SO
that in case of injury to the hydraulic
or other apparatus they may not be
wholly useless. Greater ease of man
ipulation and greater frequency of fire
have always been advantages for the
smaller calibre, provided it is large
enough to do the penetrative or smash
ing work required of it. But q deci-
sive addition to these advantages is
that of ability, in case of need, to
work the gun by hand power, which
has now been made available, by i'm
proved mounts, up to the point re-
quireG for the largest calibres fixed
upon for the British navy and our own.
It is true that even some time ago
our naval ordnance authorities desired
to manufacture 1G-inch gun, one of
the arguments for using such a cali
bre being the increased resisting
strength given to ship plates by the
new surfa ace-hardening process which
seemed to show that more power
might be required of the attack. But
no appropriation has ever been made
for such calibre, nor is any provid-
ed in the pending naval bill. In order
to use such a gun, the plan of a vessel
to carry it would come first in order,
and no such vessel is even recommend
ed. On the contrary, as in the Iowa,
the tendency is the other way. Hence,
the statement remains good that the
gun to be tried at Indiana Head this
week is of the largest cal1bre that our
navy will see for years to come.
Turning to the army, we find that
the largest gun that it has ever manu-
factured or has in prospect is the 12-
inch. This is heavier, it is true, than
the navy rifle of the same calibre, and
is more powerful, not needing the same
as to length, weight and
other matters that are imposed on ord
nance to be carried in ship. But
the navy 13-inch is much larger than
The army 12-inch. Gen. Flagler has
argued effectively in favor of building
l6-inch guns for our forts. holding
that if some ships in foreign navies
still carry such guns they should be
practicable for forts, where they can
be mounted, manipulated, and protect
I'D more easily. Our ordnance authori-
by the experience of the British 16-
inch guns, they could avoid the droop-
ing tendency and other defects which
have put those out of favor. But be this
as it may, the pending Fortifcations
bill, which makes provision until July
|, 1895, does not authorize any guns
larger than the 12-inch, SO that again
we conclude that no rifle heavier than
the one mounted at Indiana Head for
test will soon be construct
ed here.
Then, as to the armor, we find that
The Harvey supercarbonizing process
has already led to reductions in the
thickness of plates. The side armor
IF the Iowa is reduced to IA inches,
and this saving of weight has allowed
he water-line belt to be one-fourth
onger than in the Indiana class, and
also the normal coal supply to be 200
,ons greater, thus giving much great
,r radius of action. It is true that
some of our future battle ships or har-
Dor defenders may carry maximum ar
nor exceeding IS inches in thickness;
put no such ship has yet been author
zed or planned for our navy, and ac-
we cannot now expect thick
u. nj fes for nractical use