GUN VERSUS ARMOUR.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 813, 10 May 1910, Page 5

GUN VERSUS ARMOUR.

A BATTLESHIP PROBLEM. The battleship, said Admiral Bacon, in a recent paper at the Institution of Naval Architects, is solely a gun-platform. Tho gun is at tho present moment the main weapon in deciding naval actions; therefore, progress in battleship design las continuously been in the direction of increased offensive gun power, and defensive armour protection against gun power. The development of gun power has followed closely upon the improvements in tho manufacture of steel. Improvements in propellants and strength, and more reliable material for .construction,. have '.increased the length of. range, and led J.o longer guns and higher pressures. 'The result has been that the accuracy, of the gun of to-day at 12,000 yards is considerably greater ■ than. tho accuracy of the gun of ..thirty years ago : at <2000 yards. At' the present moment tho development of the gun shows no signs of abating, and there is every reason to believe-that, if required, the power of tho gun can within the next few. years, be, considerably increased. , ■ -

The first important questions in design are—ls.such an increase,necossary? . What advantages would it confer, and what disadvantages would it entail? To. consider these we must examine the question of the 'defensive armour of a battleship. The distinctive feature of the battleship over the cruiser .is that,, in the battleship, speed is sacrificed, for defensive armour protection.' The armour is disposed with its greatest thickness in the belt, gun positions, and conning-tower, so as to protect those portions which are vital, so far as manoeuvring ■ and gun-fire are concerned. TJiere is no doubt that the gun of tho present day can, with armourpiercing projectiles at a range of about 6000 yards, penetrate any armour which can be practically mounted in a ship; and guns can be built which can penetrate this armour at ranges outside which it would be practically impossible to bring a fleet action to a decisive conclusion.

Therefore, if anything approaching modern design of battleships is to. be adhered to, it is perfectly hopeless to think of attempting to supply arnmor which would be impenetrable to any gunswhich may be constructed in. tho reasonable) future. This race between gun and armour which has been going .on for over half a century is being decided, for the moment, in favour of tho gun; nor is there adjudication of there being a chance of improving the armour, and strengthening general construction, so as to render ships reasonably iinmune from armour-piercing projectiles. So far. therefore, as regards mere perforation-of armour with armourpiercing projectiles there seems to be no immediate necessity for increasing, the power pf the gun. The armour-piercing projectile, however, is not the most efficient shell for effecting general damage on a ship, and penetration of armour is not tho sole object of gun-fire. The chief damage will probably be done bv heavy bursting charges. The heavier the bursting charge,, the greater the.; damage inflicted by each individual hit, and therefore, from this point of 1 view,, the larger tho gun and the larger tho projectile the better. If the gun is to bo increased in size, on the same displacement, one of these three things 'must happen:—(l) The number of guns must be reduced; or (2) the armour protection' must be • reduced; or (3) the speed must be reduced The extra weight required for the guns must be obtained from one of-these three sources. AVe, therefore, find. that while accuracy and efficiency" point to increase in size of gun, this increase must be obtained at a sacrafice;—"Engineering."