UNARMOURED BATTLESHIPS

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1365, 16 February 1912, Page 3

UNARMOURED BATTLESHIPS

OUTCOME or "ALL liKi GUN" SHI P.

Jit. Charles Gaunt writes to "The Times" as follows:—''Shall we in the near future send our battleships out lo light bereft of the armour plating w,liieh today forms such an important part of their lieing? At lirsl sight this is an apparently ridiculous <|iK<.-tion, and you turn from it instinctively as from Ihe queries of a madman. Vet let iisslop and consider the theory now quite often put forward: Tlmt tho armour plating on our batlleships is unr.ecess.Try and even dangerous. While it is startling in its revolutionary nature. Hie idea is not without a certain soundness. J I is ba.-ed upon the superiority of the gun over Iho nrnintir plato. I'rom Hie time of the epoch-making armoured l'rencl) batteries engaged at KinUtini down b the pre.-eut day ii bitter duel has been fought between the cun and the armour plate. Sometimes the armour plate, has won, but always the gun has regained the mastery; and this mastery over the armour plate obtains to-day, with the additional factor, (hat for its given weight something like finality has been reached in iirmour plate resistance. And the big guns of to-day shoot through this finality with ease.

"To-day the 12in. weapon at ranges under SOOO yards is credited with a penetrative power to pierce all armour carried by battleships afloat at the present time; while at 8000 yards the 8501b. projectile pierc?s no less than 17in. ol'Krupp steel. But it is rather to the future we should look. The new lS.iiin- weapon mounted on the battleships of the Oricn class and cruisers of the Lion class throws a 12501b. shell, which pierces 12in. of Krupp steel at Ia.OOO yards! To go further, the new German liin. gun is credited with, a penetration of Win. of steel at the muzzle. This gun is of 50 calibres, and weighs 92 tons. But this is not all. Humour credits the appearance of a lfiin. gun in the near future. Ho much for the indictment of the annum , plate. To-day the heaviest armour carried by suprrDrcadnoiighls is in England 12m., the United States and I'raure the same, while Uiu. onlv obtains in Germany. "Of course, it must be admitted that the armour will keep out the. shells of the. secondary armanent, which, by the way, is largely of an anti-torpedo-boat nature. But nowadays battles are not fought with secondary armaments. In the past, k,r instance, when the Americans smashed thii Spanish fleet, the secondary armament did the execution, and on examination of the wrecks of the Spanish vessels after tho principal engagement scarcely a tmce could be found of the work of the biggest guns of the American warships, the irholo destruction being done by the Sin. and 6in. weapon;. Truth to tell, shooting with the 12in. gun wr.s very much in its infancy in those days. But all that is changed to-day. Now one.or more hit per minute per 12in. or lH.oin. gun is confidently looked for in the British Navy —where three hits a minute have been attained—and with ten of thesi' guns firing a 12501b. shell and each scoring ono hit a minute it is inconceivable that any armour could Veep out for long the concentrated fire of nearly six tons of metal crashing home every minute. Therefore, it hardly seems worth while in burden our ships with armour to keep out the fire of the anti-torpedo armament when (ire minutes' accurate fire of the bigger weapons would reduce tho finest battloship afloat to a scrap-heap. Such, is tho belief, right or wrong, of the anti-armour theorists.

"Accepting this very revolutionai.v theory for the moment, the question arises, What advantage will an unarmourdcl ship have over an armoured one to more than balance the undoubted, if only partial, protection of armour? The answer is—greater speed and heavier guns and more of them, the conviction of the anti-armour theorists boins flint tlio weight of the armour could Ik , better utilised. The weight of a battleship's armour is certainly not less than 51)00 tons. That transferred into the propelling and pun power would produce a "capital" ship as revolutionary and epochmaking as that bolt from the blue, the Dreadnought. Imagine a super-supcr-Dreadiwught, with a speed of -10 knot.", and armed with 20 lGin. Runs firing projectiles weighing about a ton apiece. Such a ship could destroy a squadron of pre-sent-day battleships by reason of the terrible ■ smashing power of its guns and its ability to choose its own range and out-steam and out-manoeuvre its opponents. The imagination reels at the conception of the novrer of its gunfire. "Whether the*'no armour' theory will ever obtain acceptance cannot bo decided now. It possesses a prima-facie and plausible case, well worthy of examination and discussion. Certainly many naval ■ men swear by speed as a protective medium, and no bne quits knows what miracles of propulsion the internal conibns.tion engine may possess. That it will revolutionise present-day propelling practice seems certain. The next decade will .show us exactly what the motor-engine is capable of. But there is little doubt of iiw success. Whether the. armoured battleship will be contemporary with it remains to be seen. Kitmour declares that the British .Admiralty is not unacquainted with (lie theory; and, after all, it must not be forgotten that destroyers are meant for attacking battleships, and rely upon their speed for protection. Therefore, let us keep an open and unbiased mind regarding the "theory of unaruiourod battleships."