THE GUNS OF THE FUTURE.

Globe, Volume III, Issue 274, 28 April 1875, Page 4

THE GUNS OF THE FUTURE.

(From the Standard .l In all that relates to the materiel of war nothing can be worse than misplaced confidence. It is quite possible that at the present hour a nation may be placing implicit trust in means of offence or defence which in the time ol actual conflict will prove fatally inferior to the appliances of the enemy. This is especially the case with regard to naval armaments. A few rounds of shell from one of the sea forts of Sebastopol sufficed to shake the faith of professional men in the “ wooden walls of old England.” The alarm spread far and wide when the ironclad Merrimac destroyed the wooden ship Congress. Now that heavy rifled guns and massive armour are universally adopted for ships of war, elements of uncertainty yet remain, and we are still threatened with change. The highly mechanical character of modern naval armaments offers peculiar advantages to weak powers. Without acknowledging that England is otherwise than strong, we may still observe that this mechanical element in war tends largely in her favor. The musterroll of her armed men is a scanty affair compared with foreign military forces. But her coast-line admits of defence from a navy which is the finest in the world, and so long as that navy is duly proportioned to the navies of other powers, England is practically safe. But naval warfare is not a ques-t-ion of numbers only. The mere multiplication of pigmies will not make a giant. One ship might face a dozen, providing she carried armour that would keep out their shot, and guns that would pierce their sides. Even our harbors and our rivers might be ravaged if an enemy had two or three ships sufficiently armoured to defy our guns. This might happen although our adversary was in every other respect an insignificant antagonist. England is now building a ship to carry 24 inches of armour, and she is making a gun which will be 81 tons in weight. It may be said here is proof enough of England’s superiority. Unquestionably the ship is splendidly designed. So also is the gun, which we are to have ready some time about next July, and which will doubtless turn out to be a wonderful weapon. Artillerists speak of the coming monster as “an awful gun.” Crowds assemble at the forge whenever one of the huge coils is to be pummelled by the new steam hammer at Woolwich Arsenal. Even in the making of the 38-ton gun masses of iron weighing 28 tons, at a welding heat, have to be laid under the hammer. For the larger gun an incandescent mass of 45 tons has to be fetched out of the fire, and duly hammered. The furnace has the capacity of a cottage, and the tongs by which the glowing cylinder is lifted out of its burning bed weighs no less than 30 tons. A steam crane bears the whole weight of tongs and coil, and everything proceeds without accident or hitch of any kind. At night the sight is truly grand, and well repays those spectators who take the trouble to be present. The art of making big guns is now being thoroughly mastered. The art of using such guns is also undergoing rapid development. Now that it has become necessary to load a gun by machinery, and the way to do this is clearly ascertained, where is the limit ? It is not the interest of England to stand still. It was thought and said by the advocates of steel that the growth of the guns would be fatal to the wrought-iron coil principle. But events are now pointing to a conclusion the very opposite of this. The facility with which guns are built up at Woolwich shows the value of the coil system in the construction of heavy ordinance; That really satisfactory guns are thus made cannot be disputed, though we shall say something more on that point presently. Just now we are addressing ourselves to two points, which are these, that England possesses the power of readily making the biggest guns in the world, and that there is a necessity for giving rapid development to that power. Other nations are not likely to be blind to the advantage which accrues from the possession of guns exceptionally powerful. Already it is known that steel tubes are being made, having a diameter of 6in greater than that of the tube of the 81-ton gun. These tubes may be intended for the lining of the American smooth-bore guns, which are to be converted into rifles. Possibly they are for the use of the French Government, or for the Italian. At all events, such masses of steel are being made, and are destined to play some part in connection with foreign artillery. Most certainly the appearance of a 100-ton muzzleloading gun among foreign armaments is by no means a remote contingency.

But what are we prepared to do ? Assuredly the great Steam hammer at Woolwich Arsenal can accomplish something more for us than the making of an 81-ton gun, big as that undoubtedly will be, with its bore of 16in in diameter, and 24ft in length, firing a projectile weighing 16001 b, propelled by 8001 b of powder, the range of the weapon being seven miles. All this is very formidable, but it is not by any means all that can be done. We may double the weight of the gun, making it 160 tons, having a calibre of 20in, and a bore of at least 30ft, This would be a magnificent piece of ordnance; but even then there would be something beyond, and why should we stop short of that which must be gained at some period or other ? Let us contemplate the further step at once. Why not have a gun with a bore of

24in—simply 2ft? The weight would be 275 tons, the charge of powder would be 10001 b, the weight of the projectile nearly two tons and a half, and the range eight or nine miles! This is not a mere dream, but a perfectly practicable piece of work. The cost would probably be a trifle less than £IOO per ton, or about £25,000 for the entire piece. In weight of projectile such a gun would be something more than a 5000pounder. Perhaps when we had made such a weapon we might think we had gone far enough. As for armour, the projectile of the 275-ton gun would possibly penetrate 3ft with corresponding backing. As we showed some time ago, Dr Collis Brown has modelled a ship which shall actually carry three feet of armour. This armour would also be presented at a slope, so that our 5000-pounder would have its work to do. As for cost, there is the consideration that one such gun will give results such as no number of smaller guns could accomplish. The Inflexible, sheathed in part with 2ft of armour, will carry four 81-ton guns, costing £BOOO each. Her four guns, therefore, will cost more than one 275-ton gun. Yet how would such a vessel as the Inflexible be able to stand the attack of so tremendous a weapon? The 5000-pound projectiles, unless striking with considerable obliquity, would readily smash through the thickest part of the armour, and two or three such visitors, having a bursting charge of 3001 b of powder, might decide the fate of the ship. Surely the result would be cheap at the price 1 A few more data concerning the 5000pounder may interest our readers. The length of its bore would be 36ft, That of the “ Woolwich Infant,” of 35 tons, is 13-J-ft, the bore of the 38-ton gun being 3ft longer. The 81-ton gun, as already stated, will have a bore of 24ft, The “ Woolwich Infant ” has a maximum external diameter of rather less than sft. The 81-ton gun will measure in this respect 6ft. But the 275-ton gun would measure 9ft. Such would be its full height if lying flat on the ground. A tall man would come a yard short of the top of the gun, the latter simply lying on the bare earth without a carriage. This suggests another idea—namely, that the new steam hammer at the Arsenal would scarcely be able to cope with such a monster. Doubtless there would be need for more space than now exists under the hammer ; but this could be readily obtained by lengthening the legs of the frame, and so raising the entire apparatus, a plan which was successfully adopted with one of the older hammers. We may be challenged to answer a further question . Supposing such a gun to be made, what can we do with it 1 Again we refer to the Inflexible. Her four 81-ton guns will weigh altogether nearly 50 tons more than the one we are now considering. How the gun should be mounted is a matter which may be safely trusted to the mechanical genius at the command of the Government. Probably the ship herself should differ somewhat from the design of the Inflexible, but we haye no doubt that Mr Barnaby will provide whatever is required for giving strength to the British navy. We can quite imagine that our readers .still feel sceptical about this colossal gun. They will be more ready to fall back on the 20in gun of 160 tons. This will be a highly respectable gun, certainly, and we are very likely to see it made. Our 81-ton gun doubled the 38-ton, and our next step may be a double on the 81-ton. At all events, there is, progress, and it is comforting to know that there are no barriers in the way except those of our own creating.