K

(0bert pttt;jj

ltttt;;st0tt

^ mn t
xana

The date shows when

this volume

was taken.

AUbooks not in use for instruction or research are limited to

all

borrowers.

Volumes of periodicals and of pamphlets

comprise SQ

many

sub-

jects,that they are held in the library as much as possible. For special purposes they are given out for a limited time.
(

Graduates and seniors

are allovy^d iive volumes for two weeks.

Other students may have two vols, from the

circulating library for

two weeks. Books not

needed
'

.during recess periods should be returned to the library, or arrange-

ments made

for their

return during borrower's absence, if wanted.

^

Books

needed

by

n^ore than one person are held on the reserve

list.

Books

of

special

value and gift books, when the giver wishes it, are not allowed to
cirtulate.
,

Cornell University Library

UG409.G8 S38 1887

Gruson's chilled cast-iron armour.

3 1924 032 591 749

olin

'm

<^.

Cornell University Library

The

original of this

book

is in

the Cornell University Library.

There are no known copyright

restrictions in
text.

the United States on the use of the

http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924032591749

GRUSON'S
Chilled
Cast- Iron

Armour.

BY

JULIUS VON

SCHUTZ,

Engineer of Grusonworks.

Translated

into

English

Commander

H.

H.

GRENFELL,

R.N.

gonion
PRINTED BY WHITEHEAD, MORRIS & LOWE,
9,

Fenchurch Street,
1887.

E.G.

PREFACE.
THE
'

question of National Defence

is

occupying, at the present time, very great

also in America.

attention, not only in

England and her Colonies, but

with,

An

account

of the experiments

made

armour which has hitherto

and the development attained from, the only system of shown itself capable of resisting the attack of the heaviest
and gunners placed
interest to all

modern guns, and

behind
it,

of maintaining the protection given to the artillery

must necessarily be of

who

are professionally engaged on this

important subject.

Armour
by

is

acknowledged by

all

the leading authorities to be a necessity for the

defence of positions of such importance, that the safety of the State would be compromised
their loss or destruction,

and a perusal of the following pages

will

show that

in

presence

of the tremendous attack capable of being delivered by the heavy guns

now

carried

ships of war, no other system of armour offers a security approaching to that given

by by

the

Gruson Chilled Cast-iron Armour.

Its

great merit

is

that

it

is

capable of meeting fully any projected increase in

the power of the attack, great as this

it

may

be,

whereas with other systems of armour

powers
is

is

well

known
certain

that the limit to

It
is

their resisting
for this

within sight,
is

if

it

has

not

already been reached.

in

reason that an endeavour

use
of

now being
is

made

quarters
is

to

forego
;

the

armour altogether, inasmuch as

penetrable armour

worse than none

fact of

but military engineers

know

that this

merely

from an admission of the

the failure of these other systems of being able to

compete with the guns, and that so long as weapons of the heaviest' nature are carried afloat, similar guns must be employed for defence, and that in most cases to place
these guns behind efficient armour
is

the only

way

in

which

their full

and

effective

use can be ensured.

Based on

principles

which are technically sound, not only from a manufacturing,

its

but also from a military point of view, the Gruson

has been able to maintain

artillery,
it

and which

offers in

Armour is the only system which pari passu with the increased development of the future the same guarantee of effective protection which
position

has abundantly displayed in the past.

June, 1887.

CONTENTS.
PAttE

Introduction

Chapter

I.

Description

of

the

chief

types of

Chilled

Cast-iron

Armour

and

Minimum-Port
6
9
Ii

Carriages
I.

Protected Batteries

II.

Armoured Turrets
Gruson's Hydraulic Gruson's Hydraulic
II.

III.

IV.

Minimum Minimum

Port-Carriage, C/8o

13
16

Port-Carriage, C/84

Chapter

Firing Trials of Gruson I. Preliminary Trials

(8.3 in.)
1.

Chilled Iron

Armour during

the years 1869

1874
for n

of

a Chilled Iron

Gun

at the

Tegel Range, in

Armour Emplacement the years 1869 1871

in February,

72-pounder
18

Trial against the

Embrasure Plate of same,

March and December,

21

1869
2.
3.

Trial against the Left Side Plate of same, in April, 1870 Trial against the Right Side Plate of same, in June, 1870

25
... ...

4. II.

Trial against the dismounted

Roof Plate of same,

in October, 1871

25 26

Firing Trials
years 1873
1.

against Chilled Cast-iron

Armour

for

Inland Fortification, in

the

1874
first

27
Chilled Iron

Trial against the

at the

Armour Turret

for

two 5.9
,

in.

(15 cm) Guns,

Tegel Range, March, 1873

27

2.

Trial against the second Chilled Iron

Armour Turret

for

two

5-9 in.

(15

cm)
29

... Guns, at the Tegel Range, May /July, 1874 Trial against the Port Plate of the second Chilled Iron Armour Turret for two 5.9 in. (15 cm) Guns Attack of the Port Plate with 193 5.9 in. (15 cm) Long Shells a. ...
:

*.
c.

,,

,,

10

31

,,

,,

Chilled Shells
,,

... ...

32 32 32
33

d.

,,

20 6.7 in. 65 5.9 in.

(17

cm) (is cm)

B.
C.

Trial against the Left Side Plate of the second Chilled

Iron Armour

...

Turret,

for two 5.9 in. (15 cm) Guns... ... ... ... ... ... ... Trial against the Right Side Plate of the second Chilled Iron Armour Turret,

for

two 5-9
two 5.9

in.

D.
III.

Trial against the

for
in.

... ;.. .. (15 cm) Guns ... Roof Plate of the second Chilled Iron

...

...

...

34
35

Armour
in

Turret,

(15 cm)

Guns
Armour,
for

Firing Trials
1873/74
1.

against Chilled Iron

Coast

Defence,

the

years

36
first

Trial against the

(21

Port Plate of a Chilled Iron Armour Battery, for 8.3

at

in.
...

cm) Guns on Gruson's Firing Ground

Buckau, 5th December, 1873

36

2.

Trial against the second Port Plate of a Chilled Iron

(21

Armour

Battery, for 8.3

in,

cm) Guns on Gruson's Firing Ground

at

Buckau, 27th July and 21st

38
in.
...

August, 1874
3.

Trial against the

(21

Roof Plate of a Chilled Iron Armour Battery, for 8. 3 cm) Guns on Gruson's Firing Ground at Buckau, 21st August, 1874
...
.

42

IV.

Conclusions

...

...

...

..

.-

...

...

...

44

Chapter

III.

page
45

Piringr Trials against Gruson Chilled Cast-iron Armour during the years 1882 to 1886... I. Firing Trials against Chilled Cast-iron Armour for Inland Fortifications during the
years 1882 to 1885
1.

46
calibres long,

Trial against the side Plate of a Chilled Cast-iron

(12

cm) Guns 267

Armour Turret for two 4. 7 in. on Gruson's Firing Ground at Buckau, in

46

the months of December, 1882, to April, 1883

2.

Trial against the Port

(15

Plate

of a Chilled Ii-on

Armour Battery

for eight 5.9 in.

cm) Guns, 23

calibres long,

on Gruson's Firing Ground, l6th

July, 1883

...

54

3.

Trial against the Port Plate of a Chilled Iron

Armour Battery

for six J. 9 in.

4.

(15 cm) Guns, 23 calibres long, on Gruson's Firing Ground, l8th August, 1884 Trial against the Glacis Plate of a Chilled Iron Armour Turret for two 4.7 in.
(12
1

60

cm) Guns, 23^

calibres

long,

on Gruson's Firing Ground

at

Buckau,
5o

2th February, 1884

5.

Trial against the Port Plate of a Chilled Iron

(12

cm) Guns, 23!

calibres long,

Armour Turret for two 4.7 in. on Gruson's Firing Ground at Buckau,
63
Iron

28th August, 1884

6.

Trial against the Side Plate of a Chilled

(12

cm) Guns, 26 calibres long,

...
...

Armour Turret for two 4.7 in. on Gruson's Firing Ground at Buckau,
68
... ... ... ... ... ...

19th and 20th January, 1885

7.

Conclusions

...

...

7^

II.

Firing Trials

against Chilled Cast-iron

Armour

for Coast

Defence during the years

79

1883 1886
1.

Trial against a
12
in.

Glacis Plate of a Chilled Cast-iron

calibres long,

(30.5

cm) Guns, 35

Armour Turret for two on Gruson's Firing Ground at Buckau,

79

13th August, 1883

2.

Trial against a Side Plate of a Chilled Cast-iron

3.

4.
5.

6.

(30.5 cm) Guns, 35 calibres long, 86 22nd October, 1883 Trial against a Half Roof Plate of a Chilled Cast-iron Armour Turret for two 12 in. (30.5 cm) Guns, 35 calibres long, on Gruson's Firing Ground at Buckau, 26th and 28th May, 1884 9S 102 Conclusions of the Dutch Committee respecting Trials, i Trial against a Side Plate of a Chilled Iron Armour Turret for two 15.7 in. ... 107 (40 cm) Guns, 35 calibres long, on Firing Ground at Spezia, April, 1886 Second Trial against the Side Plate of a Chilled Iron Armour Turret for two 15.7 in. (40 cm) Guns, 35 calibres long, on Firing Ground at Spezia,

Armour Turret for two 12 in. on Gruson's Firing Ground at Buckau^

22nd June, 1886

118

Chapter

IV.
125 126

Comparative Analysis of the results obtained, and Conclusions The proportion between the greatest and least thickness of the Armour 1. 2. The proportion of the expanded length of the unprotected part of the Profile Curve to the greatest expanded breadth of the Armour The proportion of the vertical section to the Front Superficies of the Armour Plate 3. The proportion of the energy of the attack to the weight of the Armour Plates... 4.
;.

128
129

130
134 138

Empirical Formula for designing Chilled Armour

Conclusions

6.

Table showing the principal data of the Firing Trials against Gruson Armour.

THE
writer

extraordinary activity which in the present day

is

displayed in

improving

and developing the materials of war, imposes on every

to describe its existing condition the necessity of

who undertakes

frequently correcting and supplementing the information he furnishes, so

great are the improvements

year.

and progress made

in the

course of

each

Under
in

the

title

of

"The Gruson

Chilled Iron Armour,"

we

published

the year 1878 a short description of the

Batteries,

Gruson Armoured Turrets

which they had been

and

and an account
were able

of the firing tests to

submitted.

We

at that time to claim for the of attack, a claim

armour a notable
fully

superiority over the

means

which was then

admitted

by most authorities on the

trials

subject.

During the following years no further

sufficient basis for

took place,

as,

notwithstanding the increasing powers of the attack,

the data obtained remained an

amply

determining the

form and dimensions to be given to the armour.

In the meantime, however, great progress

was made not only

in

in the

construction
projectiles.

of

guns and manufacture

of

powder, but also

that

of

At

the close of the last decade Gruson's chilled iron projectiles

steel shot, as the

were

still

competing favourably with

problem

of

making
is

these latter as hard as glass, and at the same time tough and tenacious, had

not yet been solved.

As

far as

we know,

the credit of this improvement

due to the Krupp Works, whose armour-piercing day among the best made.
Although the
size of

shells are in the present

guns and the weight

of

their

charges were

increased, so long as the

material of which their projectiles were

made

remained the same, the proportionate increase of thickness necessary to

be given to the armour could be calculated
projectiles
;

but when a

new

material for

was introduced whose

effect

on the armour was anticipated to

necessity.

be much greater, but could not be with accuracy determined beforehand,

the resumption of firing trials

became an unavoidable

This second series of trials began in the year 1882, and as they may be considered to have reached a conclusion in the experiments which took
place at Spezia in April and June of 1886, the present time seems favorable
for

supplementing the

earlier data

and conclusions with the most recent

results,

and

for

establishing a comparison

between

them.

We

shall

repeat the earlier results so that, following a brief account of the chilled

armour and minimum-port carriages, a complete resume

of all the trials

will

be presented

which have taken place.

CHAPTER
Description
of

I.

the

chief types

of

Chilled

Cast-iron

Armour^ and Minimum-Fort Carriages.

toEFORE
'

proceeding to a description of the above-mentioned types, a

short notice of the material of Gruson's chilled iron

and

its

mode

of

manufacture may be desirable.

All

armour plating may be placed

(a.)

in

two

distinct

categories

Those which by virtue

of their hardness of surface deflect

shot which strike them.

(i,)

Those

into

which shot penetrate, but

in

which the

effect is

localized to the part struck.

The

first

comparatively hard armour was of

steel,

but the use of this

was given up on account of the brittleness into pieces under the blpws of the shot.
For a number
armour,
of years wrought-iron

of the plates,

which shivered

until, in 1868,

Gruson produced

his chilled cast-iron armour,

was the only material used for and by

means

of a series of trials established the correctness of his system.

The Gruson
cast in
chill,

chilled iron is
it

a mixture of different blends of pig-iron,

hardness.

to

which

owes

its

In accordance with the two chief qualities which he sought to obtain

in his metal,

Gruson chose two

and a

sorts of pig-iron for his principal materials,

each

of

which possessed one

of the desired qualities

soft

a highly carbonised,

steel-hard, white iron,

grey iron.

Although
materials, to

it

appeared impossible, by the mere mixture

in the

of the

two
soft

combine hardness and toughness

same stratum
to

of iron,

another

way

of solving the problem, to produce a hard surface

on a

elastic interior,

seemed

less difficult,

if

it

were possible

combine the
occur

two
this

different

materials together

with such a gradual change of their

line of separation should
;

respective properties that no

is

marked

and
in

the

solution which Gruson,

after years

of

effort,

succeeded

reaching in such manner that even at the present day his chilled cast-iron
possesses a superiority over that of other makers.

Gruson attained

his object

by a seemingly simple procedure.

By

the use of iron forms or moulds for casting, he prevented, by a rapid

cooling of the surface, the always existing tendency in

for the
It

a fluid casting,

carbon to separate

off in scales of

graphite.

would be foreign

to the scope of this compilation to specify the

iron,

details of the

manufacture of the chilled

and we

will only describe

the peculiar structure which characterizes the broken section of a piece

of the

Gruson

chilled cast iron.

Fig.

I.

Section of a Chilled Cast Iron Bar.

It will

be noticed

in

this figure,
is

bar, that

the

exterior layer

which shows the section of a chilled of a fine fibrous character, which passes

without visible lines of separation into the granular structure of the so-called mottled iron, which in turn gradually assumes the character

and

fine crystalline structure of the soft

grey iron.

This

is

the great difference which distinguishes Gruson chilled iron

A2

from that of other manufacturers

of

in

whose

iron the line

of

separation

the layers

is

always more or

less distinctly

marked, and the edge

between the hard and

soft metal visibly seen.

The Gruson

chilled

iron

possessed consequently
for

all

the properties

which are appropriate as a material

armour

plates.

Hard armour was

discredited because brittleness

was thought

to

be a

necessary accompaniment of

hardness.

Gruson's metal offers a hard

surface on a tough interior, combining thus hardness with tenacity.

The attempt
to

to distribute the effect of a shot over a large surface

difficulty of rolling

had

be given up on account of the

such large plates as

were required for this. Gruson's cast metal permits any required form and dimensions being given to the plates.
Finally, the curved exterior surface of
of

armour was rejected on account

the impossibility of

giving this form to wrought iron plates.

With

Gruson's metal any required external shape can be adopted.

Fully
realising

the

advantages

of
in

his

metal,

Gruson

completely

abandoned the views which prevailed

form,
ellipse.

England, and returned in every

respect to the previous course of action.

To

his plates

he gave a curved
a quadrant of an
it,

which

in

vertical

section

approached that

of

Such a
it

surface,

by

its

hardness, deflected the shot striking

and besides

possessed this advantage, that, by reason of their arched

form, the plates supported one another, and retained their position by their

weight, without the necessity of securing them by bolts.

Following

this

came

the reduction of the port to a minimum^ so as to prevent the entry of

shell,

splinters of

and, as a consequence thereof, the old type of gun

carriage had to be abandoned, and a

new one devised

in

in

which the pivot

round which the gun turned was placed

the

port

itself.

The

port

became considerably reduced

in size,

and was almost completely closed by

the chace of the gun, so that the port screens in use

were no longer

necessary, as there was but small chance of any splinters of projectiles

entering by the small opening reserved between the sides of the port and
the chace of the gun.

As

the

chilled

iron

can be made to take any desired form,

it

is

applicable to every system of fortification, of which, however, the most

usual forms are protected fixed batteries and revolving turrets.

I.

Protected Batteries.
six guns.

Fig. 2 gives

an external view of a protected battery for

The embrasure
plate

or port plates form the chief part of the

armour, and

stand on the so-called pivot plate, being supported on each side by a pillar
{see also Fig.
3).
is

At each end

the battery rests against masonry, which In front of the battery

is

protected by

earth parapets against shot.

a concrete glacis,

covered with substantial granite blocks.

Defence against curved

in front to

fire

is

given by the roof plates which join

the port and

pillar plates,

and

in rear rest

on masonry pillars

forming part of the casemates.

Fig
2.

View of a Chilled Iron

Armour

Battery.

J.

t*^ "^

' i

The adjoining edges

surface,

of

the

several

plates

are

planed to

a
is

flat

and each edge

is

is

provided with a groove, into which zinc

cast

when

the battery

mounted, or iron keys inserted.

fitting is necessary.
lies

Owing

to the

weight

of the plates

no further

The whole

structure

on foundation

plates,

provided on their

upper and lower surfaces with two ribs, of which the upper clasp the armour plates and render dislocation impossible, whilst the under ones are embedded in the masonry forming the foundation.

The form
and
it

of the port, pillar,

and roof plates

is

shown

in Figs. 2

and

3,

only remains to notice the pivot plates, which take their

the pivot bars of the carriages which are connected to them.

name from As already

explained, the port pivotting or minimum-embrasure carriages are of special

10

construction, the point round which the

gun

rotates being situated in the

port

itself.

As a
horizontal

large arc of horizontal training

is

required, the slide

racers,

is

furnished
for the
in

with four rollers travelling on two curved

and the pivot

movement being placed

is

vertically

beneath the point

the

port round which the gun works for elevation or depression, admits of any

exact training, and this

effected

by simple winch gearing.

Fig.

3-

Section of an

Armoured

Battery.

As

will

be seen from
is

this,

an armoured battery forms a spacious

structure,

which

connected

in the rear to the

casemates by means of

wide passages.
In the

basement

of the

casemates the magazines are placed, comof lifts

municating with the upper storey by means

and

staircases.

11

II.

Armoured Turrets.
of horizontal fire is necessary
is

In cases

where a greater arc

through the whole

than can

be easily obtained from a fixed battery, recourse

had

to revolving turrets

whose guns

fire

circle of 360.

Fig. 4 gives a section

of such a turret,

and

clearly explains the

mode

of construction.

Fig. 4.

Section of a Chilled Iron

A fmour

Turret.

The dome-shaped cupola

rotates

rests

on a wrought iron sub-structure, which

roller

on a

live roller ring

running on a

path fixed to the foundation,

and

is

protected from shot by a glacis armour.

roller

The lower
masonry

path of the turret which

ribs,

is

in section, is in

provided underneath with continuous

of the foundation.

which are embedded

the

On

this is the live roller ring, which,

being without a central pivot,

12

allows the whole interior space to be utilized, the

gun being capable

of

being mounted

in position

through

this central

space from below.

the sub-

On
structure

the rollers rests the upper roller path which carries

of

the

turret, built
its

up

of

iron plates

and angles.

The sub-

structure carries on

upper surface the ring

its

of cupola plates, whilst

transverse girders fixed at

lower part support the gun carriage.

The cupola has

(accurately

the form of a domCj or flat arch, as already mentioned

speaking, the
ellipse),

shape

is

that given
of

by the rotation
of

of

the

quadrant of an

and consists

number

separate plates,

which, as their centre of gravity, in consequence of their construction and

arrangement, passes through the middle point of the cupola, mutually

balance, and, owing to their weight, do not require to be otherwise

bound
filled

or tied together.

The adjoining

edges, moreover,

are

provided with

grooves, as mentioned in the case of the battery, which grooves are

with zinc or iron keys when the cupola

is

being set up.

The dome shape 'has

are deflected
;

the following advantages:

is

Attacking projectiles
there
is

the blow of impinging shot

;

distributed over the whole

lastly,

mass
bolts

of the plate

space

is

economized

and

no need
of

for

or nuts to bind the plates together,

is

and the construction

the

roof

facilitated.

As
being

in

the battery, the roof plates

lie

in

simple grooves, the joints

filled in

on mounting the cupola.

The

glacis armour,

shows, of

a ring

of

which protects the substructure, consists, as Fig. 4 curved plates, which either partly or completely

encircle the cupola, as

may be

advisable.

This
is

is

covered by a layer of

concrete, with granite blocks.

The cupola

rotated by vertical pinion

gear, working in a circular rack fixed to the upper roller path.

The gear

is

arranged for working either by hand or power.

in the

The

hand-gear consists of a capstan placed

the right in Fig. 4,

lower casemate, seen on

and means are provided

for giving either a quick or slow

turning motion.

Heavier cupolas are

of

fitted

with both hand and power turning gear, each

of action as required.
is

which can be placed

If

in

and out

power

is

used, the

engine

either

connected directly to the

of

turning gear, or this latter is actuated

by means

a hydraulic motor

and accumulator.

The necessary

orders for the turning of the cupola are given through

speaking tubes communicating from the look-out post of the officer in

13

command, who, standing on

a step, looks through a sighting hole

made

in

the roof of the cupola, and directs the position of the gun.

The employment
the Fig. 4.

of the various

chambers

in the

turret

is

seen in

The
cupola.

cartridges are passed from the magazine

upi

through a tube to the

middle platform.

The

shell

magazine

is

in the central

chamber below the

lift

takes the projectiles on to the platform under the cupola,

to the

from where they are taken by a crane

breech of the gun.

III.

Gruson's Hydraulic Minimum-Port Carriage C/80.

armoured batteries and cupolas are furnished with minimum-port carriages, the special feature of which is that the gun
stated, the

As already

rotates both vertically

port.

and horizontally round a point which

lies

within the

The upper
plates,

portion of the carriage, as Fig 5 shows,

is

formed

of steel

and

slides

on

recoil

on the lower portion or

slide, the recoil

being

controlled by two hydraulic buffers.

The

cylinders of these buffers are

fixed to the slide, the rods of the pistons, which are pierced with holes,

being attached to the upper portion

recoils, the piston

of the carriage.

When

the carriage

rods are drawn out, and the passage of the fluid in the

buffer through the holes in the piston checks the motion.

The gun
These

is

elevated or depressed by a hydraulic cylinder the ram of

which, by means of a cross-piece, raises or lowers the two trunnion-bearings.

last slide

up and down

in circular

grooves fixed to the brackets of

the carriage, the centre of motion being the imaginary pivot in the port.
of the gun is controlled by a slide-bar, which, as the Fig. 4 on a pivot placed in armoured structures vertically beneath moves shows, the port. The gun is connected to this slide-bar by a clip-shaped guidepiece in such a manner that on recoil it slides on the bar but always

The movement

preserves the axis of

its

bore parallel to the upper surface of the slide-bar.

(The axis

of the bore thus

remains during the movement of the gun

is

a tangent to an imaginary circle of which the centre

slide-bar.)

the pivot of the

14

Fig.

S-

Gruson's Hydraulic Minimum-Port Carriage C/8o.

In the smaller carriages the hydraulic

ram which elevates the gun

is

worked by hand-pumps
These consist

with the larger ones accumulators are used.

of long cylinders containing liquid, the pistons of

which

are weighted and operated upon either by hand or steam power.

These
the

cylinders communicate with the cylinder of the elevating press in

carriage.

On

opening a valve the

fluid

under pressure passes under the

the valve
is

ram
the

of the press

and

raises the gun.

is

When

closed the

gun

stops^

when

the escape valve

opened the

fluid flows

out of the press and

gun

sinks.

The accumulators

thus act as reservoirs and distributors of power.

in the

An

important saving of power

accumulator

is

effected

by using

Gruson's differential piston in the elevating cylinder of the carriage instead

of the ordinary form of piston, but a description of this
is

unnecessary

here.

The
ways.

installation of the accumulators

can be carried out in different

In batteries with
all

many guns

several accumulators are combined,

central reservoir of power.

and

the guns are

worked from one

15

In isolated turrets the accumulators are located in the basement, and can serve also as hydraulic cranes for changing the guns if necessary.

Many

carriages are fitted for working both

by accumulator and by hand.

in that case

Fig. 5

shows a carriage

for an

armoured battery, which

runs on two racers by means of

figure.

rollers.

In revolving turrets no training

The pivot movement

for this
is

is

seen in the

required to be given

to the carriage, the latter being as a rule solidly fixed to the sub-structure,

as before explained.

The leading particulars of a number of carriages type C/8o, which have been completed, are given in the following table. For other carriages, compare table (page 17), the data there given are approximately correct
for the type C/80.

Gun.

16

IT.

Gruson's Hydraulic Minimum-Port Carriage C/84.

differs

This carriage

from the type C/8o chiefly in the altered arrangeIn the latter the elevating press
it

ment

for lifting the gun.

is

attached to

the carriage, and moves with

on

recoil.

Fig.

6.

Gruson's Hydraulic Minimum-Port Carriage, CJS4.

As seen

in this figure, the carriage

proper consists merely of bearings

proper on which the carriage moves in and out is surrounded by a frame of plates bolted together, fitted on the is given inside with guides for the upward and downward movement, which of the to both slide and carriage by a press placed beneath the movement
for the gun-trunnions.

The

slide

gun

is

regulated as in
is

the carriage type C/80 by a

slide bar,

and the guide-

piece

carried round the chace of the gun, as seen in the figure.

slide-bar rotates round a pivot placed

The
of the

under the

port,

and the

axis

gun remains tangential

its

to an imaginary circle, of

which

this pivot is

the centre during

elevation or depression.

The

recoil cylinders are in this

type of carriage made fast to the

guide-piece, their pistons being attached to the front part of the slide-bar. As the carriage runs on its slide by means of four rollers, but little of

the force of the recoil

is

received on the slide.

in Fig. 6 is

The

carriage

shown
is

intended for an armoured battery, and

rollers.

runs on two curved racers by means of four

horizontal training

The

pivot for the

seen

in the figure.

17

Horizontal training being unnecessary in the case of a turret carriage,

the frame
turret.
is dispensed with, or rather is embodied in the substructure of the These carriages can be adapted for either hand or power working. The type C/84 has several advantages over the earlier form. It is more

compact, and also simpler, as the elevating cylinder does not take part in
the

movement
of

of recoil,

and moreover, the

recoil cylinders

and the

slide

being brought close up underneath the gun, the force of

recoil acts at the

end

a much shorter lever.

principal dimensions, &c., of the carriages, type C/84, ^re given
:

The

in the following table

Gun,
Extreme
Calibre,

Carriage.

JU
No.

-a.

lbs.

(about)

4-1 10.5 30
4-7 12 5-9 15 6-7 17 8-3 21

2,200

30 30
30 30 30

4,400
8,800

15,000 26,900

9-4 24

41,900
65,100
73,900

10-2 26
11-

30
30

28
305.

12-

30

97,000

13-8 35

30 165,400

16-8 40

30 247,000

18

CHAPTER

II.

Firing Trials of Gruson Chilled Iron Armour during

the years 18691874.
As
already stated,
trials

with the Gruson armour are divided into two

distinct series, those

1882-86.

The

subject of this chapter

between the years 1869 and 1874, and those between is the first series, which we have

already described in a pamphlet, but here again summarise.

In

doing so

we

take as our guide Major Kiister's account in the

Preussischen

" Mittheilungen

des Konigl.

Ingenieur-Comites,"

part 22.

The

quotations which

we

give from that account are reproduced

word

for

word.

I.Preliminary Trials
72-pounder (8.3
in.)

of

a Chilled-Iron Armour Emplacement

for

Gun, at the Tegel range in the years 18691871.

Trial.

Object and Scope of the

The
was

trial

suitable for armour,

was intended to clearly demonstrate if Gruson's chilled-iron and the programme of the trial did not therefore
in the later ones, the conditions of in actual warfare.

proceed on the lines of representing, as

attack such as might occur

The

firing

was

chiefly carried out with 8.3 in.

and 9.4

iii.

guns, which

On the other hand, the were principally used against coast batteries. armour was struck far more frequently than is possible with fire from on
board ship.

We

have

for that reason styled this trial a preliminary one.

19

Fig. 7-

Chilled Iron

Armour Emplacement

for a 'j2-pounder 8.yn. Gun.

Vertical

and Horizontal

Section through the centre of the embrasure.

THE MEASUREMENTS IN ALL SKETCHES ARE MILLIMETRES.

20

As

the

first trial of chilled

iron armour,

it

possesses an especial interest

and as the design

derived from earlier
of the

of the structure
trials,

had been prepared without any data

result of

and was indeed merely the

it

an estimate

power

of the attack,

is

desirable

to

give

a somewhat ample

description of the emplacement.

Fig. 7

shows a

vertical

and horizontal section through the centre

of the

embrasure.

side

The emplacement was composed of a curved embrasure plate, two and two roof plates. The peculiar shape and principal dimensions
Fig.

are seen in the figure below.

8.

Chilled Iron

Armour Emplacement for

a 'j2-pounder 8.3

in.

Gun

in

course of erection.

From a Photograph.
The side plates and also the
by dotted
lines.

roof plates

were tied together by wrought-iron

connecting rods; the edges of the roof plate are shown in the horizontal section

The emplacement

rested against masonry, of which the

21

second plate shown

in the figure
in

formed the

roof.

The whole

structure

was

covered with earth, as shown

Fig. 9, so that only the embrasure plate

was exposed

to the attacking

fire.

The

peculiar curve at the base of the embrasure plate, seen in Fig.

7,

was formed to receive the pivot of the minimum embrasure carriage, which was fastened to a ground plate not shown in the figure. All the plates were
cast in a foundry specially erected at Fig. 8

Tegel for that purpose.

shows the emplacement

in course of construction.
8,

On
left in

the surface of the plates, in Fig.

may be

seen the square seams

placed

the casting, which was then

made

in several small chill-moulds

is

together, and not in one large

mould

for each plate, as

now

the case.

1.Trial against the Embrasure Plate of a Chilled Iron Armour Emplacement for a 72-pounder (8.3 in.) Gun.
In February, March, and December, 1869.

The

particulars of

the attack, as well as the effect of the various

:

rounds, are tabulated in the following table

The

chief data

given in the

first

edition

are completed from the

pamphlet, " Vergleichende Zusammenstellung der neuesten Schiessversuche

gegen Panzer von Otto von Giese."

22

No.
of

Round

23

24
Fig.
9.

The Port Plate of the Armoured Emplacement

for a 72

pounder

(8.3 in.)

gun

after the 15th round,

1/3/69.

From a Photograph.
Fig. 9

shows the armour

at the

end

of the firing with the 9.4 in. gun.

The

cracks formed were so fine that they do not appear visible in the

photograph.

To

save ammunition, the firing was then continued with the long 8.3

in.

hooped gun at a distance of 166 yards. It should be noted that 8 shots, rounds 12 and 16 to 22, struck on about the same place, close to the port.

The experiment was intended merely

as a test of the material, without

trial

the conditions of actual warfare, but was, nevertheless, a very severe

on account of the small thickness of the plates.

The Experimental Committee considered

cast-iron as a material for

the applicability of

chilled

armour

to

be thoroughly demonstrated, even

size

though doubts were expressed as to the

necessary.
All the shot

and weight

of the plates

which struck broke up.

25

2.

Trial against the Left Side-plate of a Chilled Iron

Armour

Emplaement for a 72-pounder

14th

(8.3iii.)

Gun.

and

2 1 St April, 1870.

Gun
Shot

Rifled bronze 24 pounder 5.9

:

in.

(15 cm) gun.

Distance
:

166 yards (152 m.)

lb.

Solid chilled 76.5

(347 kg.) weight.

P.

Charge

5.5 lb. (2-5 kg.) to 6.6 lb. (3 kg.) P.

The
7.1

plate at the
in.

mean

point of impact had a thickness of

So''

10. 2
The

Six rounds struck at angles between

first

and 90.

three

hits

produced

no

result

the three last

in the

widened a casting seam, and formed several hair cracks

plate.

The

trial

was resumed on the 21st April with the

5.9

in.

hooped gun.

Gun

24 pounder 5.9 in. (15 cm) hooped gun. Distance: 166 yards (152 m.)
:
:

Shot

Chilled shell, weighted with sand to 78.3

:

lb.

(35.5 kg.)

Charge

u 13.2

lb. (5 to

6 kg.) P.

P
injured,

The rounds were aimed at the left, and the least portion of the plate. Mean angle of impact 70
Thickness of plate 10.2

to

75.

The
cracks
cracks,
II
in.

first

six

hits

10.6 Nos.
flat

in.

to

12

caused
to

a number of

through the

plate.

Rounds
pieces.

12

16

enlarged

the

and broke
diameter

off

No. 17 produced a hole of

off

in the plate.

No. 18 broke

several pieces

of the plate.

3.

Trial against the Right Side-plate of a Chilled Iron

Armour

Emplacement

for a 72-pounder (8.3in.) Gun.

nth

June, 1870.

Gun

24-pounder 5.9 in. (15 cm) hooped gun. Distance 82 yards (75 m.)
: :

Shot

Solid chilled 74.9

:

lb.

(34 kg.) with blunt point.

Charge

13.2 lb. ^6 kg.) P.P.

Angle

of

impact about 72".

of harder character than the left one.

The

right plate

was

26
plate

Mean

thickness of

10.2

in.

The

first

five

rounds

produced a number

of through cracks.
fall,

After the sixth shot, a piece of the plate threatened to but four additional shots on the same place failed to dislodge

it.

The

cracks showed

that

the

seams

formed

in

casting

injured the strength of the plate.

4.

Trial against the Dismounted Roof Plate of a Chilled Iron

Armour Emplacement

for a 72-pounder (8.3 in.) Gun.

7th October, 1871.

Gun
Shot

8.3 in. (21

:

cm) Mortar.
Shell, 176.5 lb. (80 kg.) weight.

Distance
:

41 yards (37.5 m.)

Weighted
:

Charge

4.4

lb. (2 kg.)
:

with the

first,

8.8 lb

(4 kg.)

with remaining rounds.

Velocity of impact

229 yards (209 m.)

Energy: 581.5 foot tons (180 mt.)

The

plate, of

mean

thickness of 7.1

in.,

was so placed against

its

supports as to be struck in the centre at an angle of 90.

The

four shots which struck produced no effect.

Summary

of 2,

3,

and 4 :

Considering the moderate thickness of these

left

plates, the resistance of the

side plate

must be considered

excellent.

The

trial

of

the right side plate demonstrated the disin

advantage of making the moulds

producing cracks.

pieces, the casting

seams

That against the roof plate showed the

against iron constructions to be very slight.
All the projectiles

effect of

mortar

fire

which struck broke up.

27

II.

Firing Trials against Chilled Cast-Iron Armour for Inland

Fortification in the Tears

187374.

1.

Firing Trial against the First Chilled Iron two 5.9 in. (15 cm) Guns.

Armour Turret

for

At the Tegel Range, March,

1873.

Scope and Programme

The
in 1871
trial

of the Trial.

was intended

to

form a comparison with the experiments

turret designed

72 against a wrought-iron

by Major Schumann,

of

the Royal Prussian Engineers.

of several plates;

This turret had a cylindrical cupola, formed

in.

the thickness of the port plate was 12.4

in. at

and the

thickness of the plates decreased to 4.7

Fig. 10.
Profile

the back of the cupola.

The
turret
5.9 in.

trial

of

the

Schumann

of the Port Plate of the First Chilled Iron

Guns.

had

given comparatively

Armour Turret for two

favourable results, and as Gruson

Scale 1/40.

had offered to construct at

cost

less

one

of

his

turrets
it

of

equal resisting powers,

desirable to adopt

seemed

not only the

same programme

of trial, but also

to follow the thickness given to

the wrought-iron plates.

In ac-

cordance with
of

this,

the port plate

turret

the

chilled

iron

was

given a

maximum

radial thickness

of 13.8 in. (see figure 10), which,

both in the two side plates, the back plate, and the roof plate, decreased to
4.7
in.

at the back.

The maximum

radial thickness of the glacis

armour was
feet.

9.1 in. in front, the height

and extension to the front being each 3.28

was 12.4 tons, of the side plate lo.i was mounted on the same sub-structure which had served for the Schumann turret. Guns: Short 5.9 in. (15 cm.) naval hooped gun; 5.9 in. (15 cm.) bronze
of the port plate

The weight
and the

tons,

turret

gun.

Distance: 412 yards (377m.)

Shot: 5.9

in. (15

cm)

filled shell,

61 lb. (27*7 kg.) weight.

5.9 in.

(15 cm)

chilled shell,

both

filled

and weighted 77.2

lb

(35 kg.) weight.

5.9

in.

(15 cm) solid chilled shot, about 79.41b. (36 kg.) weight.

28

Charge: Varying from

prismatic.

3.1 lb.

(1.4 kg)

cannon powder to 13.21b.

(6 kg.)

Velocity and energy

On

account of the variety in shot and charges

not

separately recorded.

Major

Kiister,

speaking of the results of

this trial, says:

" On the whole, the front plate received 55 hits, of which about 60 per cent, were chilled projectiles, the right* (left, looking

from the gun) side plate

projectiles
;

13 shots, of
hits, 19

which 9 were

chilled

the glacis plates 23

being chilled projectiles.

" Against the roof of the turret, 2 hits from the il in. rifled

mortar, distant 1,585 yards, with 8.8

lb.

charge and long shell

weighted to 441

lb.

"The long
produced no

or

common

shell

which struck the

solid

armour

visible effect at the point of impact,

on the other
radial

hand the

chilled projectiles

produced shallow indents and splinterof the next hits,

ing, for the

most part with concentric and also frequently

hair cracks,

which

last,

by the vibration

were

lengthened and deepened and eventually divided the plate into

several parts.
off

Sometimes

also thin pieces of plate

were knocked

the

exterior of

the armour, but on no occasion

latter."

was

there

any penetration into the

iron in plates of small thickness

Additional evidence was furnished of the unsuitability of using chilled

when exposed
lb.,

to mortar

fire,

the roof plate

1 1

of the cupola being fully breached

by the second shot

shell

of the

in.

mortar

at a distance of 1,585 yards (charge 8.8

441

lb.,

elevation 30).

By

far the best resistance

was shown by the

the
5.9

glacis armour,
in,

which did

not succumb to 23 chilled shots from together on a small surface.

hooped gun striking

Summary: The

general result of the

trial is rightly

considered by Major

Kiister as unfavourable.
chilled iron,
it

In determining the dimensions of the

radical difference

had been forgotten that the

as

between

chilled iron
in

and wrought iron forbade a

similarity in this respect

in this

the two systems,

was the case

instance,
chilled

and

in

consequence the advantageous properties

of

iron

for

armour could not be shown.

Even
right

if

this trial clearly

proved that when the thickness of

* Major Kiister's " right left " means looking from the turret. As during the new trials, and left is always taken to mean looking from the attacking guns, we shall adopt this latter

course also.

29
is

plating

is

small,

wrought iron

preferable to chilled cast iron,

it

did

not the less give indications that in the case of greater

thicknesses, cast-iron
It

would have the preference.

was noticed that all the projectiles on striking broke up into countless fragments; and, further, it was proved that the armour could only be destroyed by breaking it into pieces, which, however, the extreme hardness of the material and its extraordinary
resistance to molecular displacement rendered a very difficult task,
qualities

which were greatly assisted by the double curved form,

to be
still

and

likely

more strongly displayed with increased

thicknesses of iron.
In accordance with these conclusions, the
at the termination of these
first

Committee already,
of

trials,

recommended the use

itself.

chilled

iron

for

glacis

armour,

giving,

however, a provisional

preference to the use of wrought iron for the turret

It

was considered desirable to undertake further trials, as seemed in no way excluded of obtaining a practically favourable result by giving an improved form and
the possibility

increased strength to the armour.

2.

Firing Trial against the Second Chilled Iron Turret for two 5.9 in. (15 cm) Guns.

At the Tegel Range, May

July,

1874.

Scope and Programme

At the conclusion
his

of the Trial.
trial,

of the
at

above described
his

Gruson had professed

turret
of

readiness to

supply,
in

own

cost,

new

increased

dimensions,
essential.

and more

accordance with the conditions shown to be

At the suggestion of the Experimental Committee, the War Department undertook to supply the ammunition, but directed at the same time
that the trial should proceed in accordance with a definite aspect of the

subject obtained from a consideration of the numerous special necessities

of the case

brought to light by the preliminary

its

trial,

that the trial should

reality,

approach

in

conditions

as

near as possible actual

for

the

determination of which, use was to be

operations.
It

made

of the data furnished

by siege

was assumed

that the siege corps would be unprovided with the

heaviest armour-piercing guns, and that the firing would

5.9 in. long shell.

commence with

30

Profile of the Port Plate of the Second Chilled

'^"

"
in.

During a
Guns.

thirty
,
,

days'

siege
r
,

it

Iron

Armour

Turret for 2 5.9

Scale 1/40.

^^^

calculated that the

armour of the

turret

would be struck by from 1,000

and
it
if

to 1,500 shells,
entirely

was considered
a quadrant of

sufficient

the turret under

trial

withstood 200
in.

long shells from the 5.9

hooped

gun

at a distance of 1,093 yards.

If

this

proved to be the case,

then the armour was to be attacked

by the
dition

hooped gun, a conaccepted with confidence by

6.7
in.

Mr. Gruson.

With
fire

respect to

a further

trial

being made with heavy siege-guns,

turret,

would then only be opened on the

it,

supposing circumstances

allowed

when the

assailant

had advanced as near as possible

as to

to 1,093 yards from the turret iron shell.

so

say

make

the utmost use of chilled

The
And,

first

named

series

of rounds

was therefore

to

be followed by a

second, of 150

5.9 in. chilled shell,

delivered on the second ring plate.

of possibility that a

lastly, as it

was within the bounds

heavy coast

battery gun of 4.9

5.9

tons in weight might be brought to a distance of

1,093 yards from the turret, a third plate was to be attacked with 20 chilled shells from the 6.7 in. hooped gun, and finally, the roof plate with five hits

from the

1 1

in.

mortar.
to

The Armour

be tried consisted of four newly made plates,

viz.

One

port plate, two side, and one roof plate, which were placed on the

original sub-structure,
at the first trial

and supported

in

rear

by an old port plate rejected

on account of

faults in casting.

The
21.7
in.,

profile of the port plate is

shown

in Fig. 11,

which exhibits

chiefly
in. to

an increase in the radial thickness at the centre of the port from 13.8

16.5 in.)

and a corresponding thickness was given to both side plates The roof plate was also 16,5 in. thick. The glacis armour
plate.

remained unaltered and was merely supplemented with an additional

The change
of the port plate

in profile
is

between Figs. 10 and

11

of the external curve

at once observable.
light the fact that shot striking the

The

first trial

had brought to

upper

part of the curved surface at an acute angle did

more damage than those

31

which struck lower down at a greater angle.

in the first case

This curious result was

explained by the fact that the ordinary cast-iron and chilled cast-iron shot

broke up into large pieces, which made considerable indents

into the surface of the armour,

and

in the latter case this

broke up into atoms,

the

causing visibly less

effect.

In

consequence of

new
and

plate

was

given a more rounded form, as seen in Fig.

strike at a greater angle.

ii, so that projectiles

should

The weights

of the port, left side,

right side

plates

were respectively

19.7 tons, 16.4 tons,

and 16.36

tons.

A.

Trial against the Port Plate of the Second Chilled Iron

Armour

Turret for two 5.9

(a)

In. (15

cm) Gnns.
in. (15

Attack of the Port Plate with 193 5.9

:

cm) Long Shells.

Guns
Shot

Two
:

5.9 in, (15

cm) hooped guns C/72.

shell, filled, total

Distance
:

165 yards (150 m.)

5.9 in. (15

9.1 lb.

cm) long

weight about 61. i

lb.

(27.7 kg.)

Charge:

(4.14kg) P.P., equivalent to 13.71b, (6.2kg.) at 1,093

yards (1,000 m.)

Striking velocity
:

400 yards (366 m.)

Energy: 612 foot tons (189,46 mt.)

The
it,

stipulated 193 hits

flatly

were obtained

in

two days with 200 rounds,

|

of

which ^ struck the

curved part above the port, and

the part beneath

but in general the effort was

made

to distribute the hits equally over the

of his report
trial

whole surface.
"

Major Kiister says on page 20

on the

trial

The

result of

this first part of the

was completely

satisfactory, the turret at the end of the firing being practically

uninjured.
"
left

At the 33rd shot a

hit

one looking from the gun) broke

on the right edge of the right port (the off apiece about 2 in. wide and

deep, which injury, however, though the same spot was repeatedly struck, was only increased to a small extent, and that only superficially.

The

70th round produced a fine superficial crack, starting

from the injured place and running towards the inside of the port.
effect of the individual rounds was only recognisable on by oblique hits, causing indents about 0.08 in. deep otherwise the hit was unrecognisable except by a discoloration of

"

The

the

plate

the part struck."

In

view of

this exceptionally favourable

behaviour of the plate,

it

it

was
in.

decided, before proceeding with the programme, to attack

with 5.9

32

chilled iron shell so as to establish a

side plate which

to inflicting
(b.)

comparison between it and the slighter was to undergo the same ordeal with chilled shell, previous more severe injuries with the 6.7 in. shell.
5. 9in. (15

Attack of the Port Plate with ten

:

cm)

Chilled Shells.

Gun

As
:

before.

Distance

As
in.

before.
(15 cm) chilled shell, weighted about 77.2 in. (35 kg) weight.
in,
:

Shot: 5.9

Charge: 10.6

(4.8

kg) P.P.

Striking velocity

383.6 yards (350 m.)

"^t.)

Energy
These
It

705.98 foot tons (218.57

All 10 rounds struck

hits

between the

2 ports.
effect.

produced, as Major Kiister says, no visible

was therefore decided to proceed with the programme, and re-commenced with the 6.7 in. gun.
(c.)

firing

Attack of the Port Plate with twenty 6.7

Chilled Shells.
in.

in. (17

cm)

Gun
Shot

Short naval 6.7

:

(17 cm)

hooped gun.
about 12 1.5
lb.

Distance
:

165 yards (150 m.)

6.7 in. (17

:

cm)

chilled shell, weighted,

lb.

(54.9 kg) weight.

Charge

(9.10 kg) P.P., equivalent to 26.5 (1,000 m.)

lb.
:

20

(12 kg) at 1,093 yards

Striking velocity

441.6 yards (404 m.)

Energy:

1,478.05 foot tons (457.6 mt.)

first

The

shot struck 7.9

result.

in.

above the glacis plate on the middle

line,

and produced no

Rounds

2 to 6 produced

two short cracks running from the upper and

lower edge of the right port.

Rounds

and 8 lengthened and deepened these cracks, passing right

through the plate and separating the right corner, attributed by Major
Kiister to the defective condition of the upper girder of the sub-structure.

Rounds 9
in a

to 20

were

fairly distributed
in.

over the plate, their effect consisted

cracking

off of

the surface 10

long and wide and 0.4

in.

deep.

No

additional cracks
(d.)

were made.

Attack of the Port Plate with sixty-five 5.9 in. (15 cm) Chilled Shells.* Details of Attack as under (b.)
first

The

eleven hits produced a through crack between the two ports,

firing

This part of the

was only carried out

at the conclusion of the

whole

trial in

July, 1874.

33

which ran from the edge

of the left port to the lower border of the plate.

Rounds

12 to 47 increased the cracking and disintegration of the plate.

hit

The 49th

produced a vertical crack, running from the horizontal

Nos. 50 to 65 increased the damage.

crack to the lower edge of the plate.

Portions of plate had been shaken loose on the inside, and had fallen down.

Summary The
:

plate

had altogether received

No. of hits.

Projectile.
ill-

Energy.

193

5-9

(15 (17 (15

cm) Long Shell

) Chilled Shell
..)

611. 96 foot tons (189,46 mt.)

20
75

67
5-9

1478.05
705-98

,,

(457-6o
(218,57

...

..

288 rounds with

...

200.615 foot tons (62,110 mt.) energy.

Nevertheless, in the opinion of the Committee, the breaching of the

plate

was

still

far

from being arrived

at.

Major Kiister sums up (page 24) that the plate had displayed such a high degree of tenacity that it would doubtless have still resisted a far
greater

number

of such blows.

" That, in addition, the plate had

shown
in.

itself to

a high degree and, beyond

so that

capable of resisting 6.7

that,

in.

armour piercing
to have

shell

a very considerable number of 5.9

chilled shell,

the front plate

seemed not only

satisfied the

programme,

but was capable of withstanding a far severer ordeal, and with

complete success could serve as a basis for future constructions of

this category of armour-plating

both as regards form and thickness."

All the shot which hit broke up.

B.

Trial against the Left Side Plate of Second Chilled Iron

Armour

Turret for two 5.9

in. (15

cm) Guns.

Gun

Two
:

5.9 in. (15

cm) hooped guns C/72.

about 77.21b. (35 kg weight.)

Distance

165 yards (150 m.)

in.

Shot: 5.9

(15

cm)

chilled shell, weighted,

Charge

10.6

lb. (4.8
:

kg) P. P-

Striking velocity

383.6 yards (350 m.)

Energy

705.98 foot tons (218,57 i"t.)

hits

The

were proportionately distributed over the whole

in. in

plate,

and

produced abrasions up to 0.3

depth.

After the 12th shot, hair cracks connecting the points of impact were

34

formed.

The 39th
plate,

hit

made a

vertical crack

from the upper to the lower

Hits

edge of the

separating the plate into two unequal parts.

40 to 64 were placed on the larger portion and caused other two vertical and horizontal through cracks. Beyond the cracks no effect was visible
on the
inside.
firing

The

was continued against

this plate until the conclusion of the

experiment.
Hits 65
to 103

produced cracks and abrasions up to 3.9

in.

in

depth.

No. 104

hit dislodged small pieces of

metal on the inside.

Nos. 105 to 133 produced a rapidly increasing disintegration of the

fractured parts of the plate, and at the

134th round,

a projecting portion of

the

armour was raised up,

causing an opening through the plate.

C.

Trial against

tlie

Right Side Plate of the Second Chilled Iron

for two 5.9in. (16

Armour Turret

cm) Guns.

Details of attack as under B.

The
The
vertical

right
less.

plate

was harder than the

left,

and the abrasions

in

consequence
first

through crack was produced by the 37th

Hits 38

hit,

and divided the

plate from top to bottom.

64 produced two other through cracks,

number
of hair cracks.

and

horizontal, as well as a

The

trial

was discontinued
fire

after the 64th round, as this plate

had

behaved under the

exactly as the left one.

Summary

of

B and C

left side plate, the number of programme had not been reached, but only 1 34, the Committee considered the behaviour of this plate was They reported also that the requirement of 150 hits favourable. was enormously high, and that the plate had received the last 70

Although, in the case of the

hits (150) assigned by the

hits

under peculiarly unfavourable conditions,

as,

the roof plate

It is of

being injured, the proper supports were lacking.

interest

to note that the Committee, as the result of their observations,

recommended also for the made to correspond with

side plates that the profile should

that of

the port plate, that

is,

be more

35

perpendicular, or rounded at the bottom part and

more sloped

towards the upper portion, because the formation of cracks, as

rule,

began with oblique

was

hits.

No

difference of behaviour between the softer left and harder

established.

right plate

All the shot

broke up on striking.

D.

Trial against the Roof Plate of the Second Chilled Iron

Armonr Turret
Gun
:

for

two

5.9 in. (15

cm) Guns.

Rifled experimental
:

1 1

in.

(28 cm) mortar.

Elevation

30.

Distance
Shot: II

962 yards (880 m)

in.

(28 cm), long shell of 441

:

lb.

(200 kg) weight, weighted.

Striking velocity

107.8 yards (98.6 m).

of the 8.3
in.

Energy: 319.8 foot-tons (99 mt), equivalent to the energy (21 cm) shell at 2,732.5 yards (2,500 m).
Five hits were obtained from 45 shots. Nos. I and 2 struck the sighting hood and had no
result.

No. 3 made two through radial cracks to the edges of the No. 4 as I and 2.

plate.

No. 5 made two new radial cracks to the edges of the plate, so that broken into 5 pieces.

it

was

Summary

In

the opinion of the Committee, the roof plate had not

satisfied the requirements,

and they recommended

for subsequent

construction the use of wrought iron roof plates should be retained.

The general

result of the trial as

it

regards

to

is

stated

Kiister to be that not only had

been proved that

as a material for

chilled

cast iron

by Major was

applicable in the fullest

manner

armour

for revolving

turrets for land fortifications, but also that sufficient data

for determining all the

had been obtained

more important

details of construction.

36

III

Trials against Chilled Iron

in the Years

Armour

for Coast Defences

18734.

l.-Trial of the

first

Port Plate of a Chilled Iron Armour Battery

for 8.3 in. (21 cm) Guns.

On

Gruson's Firing Ground at Buckau,

Sth December, 1873.

Scope and Programme of the

Fig. 12.
Profile of a Port Plate of the Chilled Iron

Trial.

Already, in accordance

Armour

with

Battery for 8.3 in.

Scale 1/40.

the

Guns,

results
trials

of
in

the
i86g,

preliminary
the

Prussian

Government
from
Mr.
for

had

ordered
chilled

Gruson

armour

Langliitjensand.

As some
pre-

difference of opinion vailed

among

engineers on
trials,

the subject of these

a condition was attached

to

the

order that certain

of
this

portions

battery

were
trial

to

be subjected to

under conditions that

satisfy

they must
tests.

certain

These were that a port plate should be struck by 2 shots, one over the other, close to the edge of the port, from the 11 in. gun with a charge
corresponding to that of 88.
lb.

(the service charge) at

820 yards, without

becoming unserviceable thereby,

plate being unserviceable.

or that cracks formed should involve the

These

trials

had an entirely different aspect to the previous ones,

it

inasmuch as there

was a question

of land fortification, for

which armour

must be capable of withstanding a very great number of hits from medium guns, whereas coast fortifications are only liable to be attacked by a small

number

of shot, but these of the heaviest guns.

37

The

subject o the trial consisted of

an armoured battery like that

previously described, and was composed of two port and three pillar plates,

together with the pivot and cover-plates belonging thereto.

struction
is

The con-

shown

in Figs. 13

and 16

Fig. 12

shows the

profile of the port

CO 06

CM

o.
ni
>.

-?
.k

o +- o
a.

bD

M E

ni

-Si

5
1.

plate, the curve

corresponding to that which had been shown to be the best

at Tegel.

during the

first trials

The

target

was provided with a strong gun against broken

wooden

shield in front, which protected the attacking

off.

pieces of shot flying

38

top.

The breadth of the port The weight, 42 tons.

:

plate

was

14.4

ft.

below, and 10.8

ft.

at the

Gun
Shot

II in. (28
:

cm) gun.

Distance
:

17.5 yards (16 m)'.

in.

1 1

(28 cm) chilled shell weighted, total weight, 512

(34 kg) P.P., equivalent to 88
lb.

lb.

(232 kg).

Charge

75

lb.

(40 kg) at 820 yards (750 m).

Velocity of impact: 420 yards (385 m).

Energy

5,685 foot-tons (1,760 mt).

The effect of the first shot was a small and hardly perceptible indent and a short hair crack, and exhibited in a surprising manner the extraordinary reacting power of the material.

The

effect of the
a,

second shot, which struck on exactly the same place,

in.

was cracks

b,

c,

about 0.08

broad, of which, however, only a

was

visible at the

back

of the plate.

Although the port plate had thus complied

it

with the conditions of the contract,

interest attaching to the question, to place a third shot on the

was decided, on account of the same spot,

at the point of impact, the

which formed,
crack
e.
f.

in

addition to a fine crack

Summary

The

plate had exceeded the conditions of the contract.

trial

As
was

however, the result of the

total resisting

had thrown no direct

light

on the
it

power

of the material
trial

under prolonged attack,

decided to have a further

against the second port plate, and

to represent the conditions of warfare

by

distributing the hits over

the surface of the plate.

All shot broke-to pieces

on impact.

2. Trial of the Second Port Plate

for 8.3 in. (31

for a Chilled Iron

Armour Battery

cm) Onus, at Gruson's Firing Ground at Buckau.

27th July and 21st August, 1874.

Scope and Programme

The
to
trial of

of the Trial,

the second port plate was, in the strict sense of the word,
firing to

be a test of the material, and the

be continued

until the plate

was breached, without consideration of the accepted conditions under which

in

war the attack

of a coast battery

would be made.
hit,

It

was, moreover,

arranged to ascertain the result after the loth

to

so as to enable a parallel

be formed with the

earlier trials carried out in

England.

39

The weight

of the trial plate

was 44

tons.

Gun
Shot

1 1

in.
:

(28

cm) gun. cm)

chilled shell,

Distance
:

17.5 yards (16 m).

II in. (28

weighted;

total weight,

512

lb.

(232 kgj.

a
bo +j JZ a.

o o

Charge

75

lb.

(34 kg) P.P., equivalent to 88

:

lb.

(40 kg) at 820 yards (750 m)

Velocity on impact

420 yards (385 m).

Energy

5,690 foot-tons (1760 mt).

C2

40

The sequence, as well as the points of striking of the various hits, are shown in fig. 14. The two first shots, which struck the plate at angles of
79'^

and 52, had no

a, visible at

effect

whatever; the third

(at

an angle of

36^*)

caused

crack

the back of the plate.

b,

The

fourth hit produced crack

c.

under

a, splitting

the plate into two

halves, also crack

Rounds
3
in.

to 10

made an

external crack d, and an abrasion about

of the port.

deep near the

left

upper edge

The
back

condition of the plate after the loth round

was observed.

At the

of the plate cracks a, b

and

were

visible.

The trial was considered (Kiister, page 47) to be more severe than that made with a wrought iron plate in England in 1871, which was judged to have shown a more than needful resistance when it withstood nine rounds
from a 12 inch gun, with a
trial

total

energy of 43,000 foot tons.

In that
all

the two external layers of the English armour were perforated by

the shot, and the third injured, whilst the chilled armour had received

no material injury on the

connexion.

inside,

and had

in

no way

lost

its

inter-

"We,"

says Major Kiister in conclusion, "

may

state,

without

hesitation, that

a port plate of the construction and dimensions

as in the experimental plate,

of actual

would
its

fulfil

all

probable require-

power of resistance. This ments favourable judgment," he adds, page 48, " was further confirmed, and that to a degree beyond all expectation, by the subsequent
warfare as regards
trial of

the 21st August, 1874."

first

firing.

The conditions of attack were the same as in the Round 1 1 (continued from the first part) cracked
No. 13 dislodged a small piece on the No. 16 broke
left

part of the

the plate through

from the point of striking to the under edge of the plate.

this crack.

No. 12 increased
of the

upper quarter

plate.

Nos. 14 and 15 produced cracks on the inside of the plate, mostly

off

at the lip of the port.

pillar plate.

a narrow strip from the adjoining

17 to 19 remained without visible effect.

After the 19th, round the firing was suspended at the request of the

Committee, on account of the demolition of the protecting

having withstood nearly double the number of
assigned as likely to strike
it.

shields, the plate

hits

which probability

Following

this the

middle pillar plate was tested, one shot being

fired

41

at

it

without

effect,

excepting a slight indent.

This

pillar

plate

was

subsequently used in the construction of the battery at Langliitjensand, as

the effect of the hit was so slight that the point where
difficulty discoverable.
it

struck

was with

Summary

The

plate had withstood nineteen

1 1

in. chilled

shells

with a

total

energy of 108,010 foot-tons, without suffering any material

It is

alteration of form.

true that the second series of rounds had

dislodged certain portions which had been loosened by cracks.

Nevertheless, the armour must, in
its

subsequent condition, be
its

considered to have without question retained

protecting power,

which the Experimental Committee admitted.

The

trial

was, as already stated, a crucial test of the material

and not a

trial

under conditions
8.3 in.

of warfare,

and the

result

may be

summarized that the

surplus of resisting
date.

battery had shown a considerable

the

power against

attacking guns of that

3.

Trial of a Roof-plate for a Chilled Iron

8.3 in. (21

Armour Battery

for

cm) Guns.
1874.

2 1 St

August,

Scope and Programnne

of the Trial.
trial,

Firing against the roof plate was not carried out, as in the Tegel

with a

1 1

in.

mortar, but with

an

in.

gun, the attack being arranged to

correspond with the probabilities of hitting armour in coast defences.

2,190 yards was chosen as the attacking distance, and the corresponding

charge and angle of impact determined.

At

that distance the angle of descent of the

1 1

in.

shell is 5,

and the

trial plate

was

inclined to that extent to the front, the angle of impact on

the curve surface being about 20.

The
ness,

trial

plate
in

was

10.8

ft.
i

wide by 16.4
.08
ft.,

ft.

long.

The

greatest thick-

which was

front,

was
ft.

and from the centre to the back the

thickness was uniformly 0.7

Weight

of plate 28.4 tons.

Gun

1 1

in.
:

(28 cm) gun.

Distance

17.5 yards (i6 m).

42

Shot

II in. (28
:

cm)

chilled shell,

weighted

total weight, 51 1.6 lb. (232 kg).

lb.

Charge

57.3

lb.

(26 kg)

P.,

equivalent to 88

(40 kg) at 2,186 yards

(2,000 m).

Velocity of impact

366.5 yards (335 m).

mt). Fig. 15.
Fig. ij.

Energy: 4,306 foot-tons (1,333

The

target

made

is

shown by

Profile

and
Iron

Position of Hits of the

Trial Roof Plate of the Chilled

Armour Battery for

8.3 in. (21

cm) Guns.

21/8/74.

Scale: 1.40.

Five

hits

in all

were made

of these the

two

first

only starred the

surface, the third cracked the plate as shown, the fourth cracked the plate

into

two

parts, the fifth

made no new crack but extended

off

the previous ones

to the
2.2 lb.

under surface, and from crack 4 broke

a piece weighing about

which
:

fell

through.
the plate to

Summary

The Committee declared

have displayed most

of the port plate),

satisfactory powers of resistance, and moreover, considering the

small target exhibited

by the

roof-plate

(-^

it

was upon

improbable that a ship would be able to place so

it.

many

hits

All the shot broke

up on

striking.

43

.s

44

IV.

Conclusions.

The Gruson armour had

turrets

in the

above described

trials

exhibited so

striking a superiority to the guns, of that date that important orders for

and batteries were received from the Prussian Government. Not only were all those valuable properties attributed by Gruson to his material shown by the trial to be present, but others were brought to light which, with respect to the applicability of the metal for armour, were of
not less value.

The

trial
all

had clearly demonstrated the extreme hardness

the impinging shot glanced and broke up, being

of the metal, on which

thrown

off at

large or nearly right angles.

From

this followed the great

advantage that the greater part of the

off

energy of impact was not given

breaking the shot into fragments.

on the plate, but was expended

in

The hoped
in the

for effect of the soft layer

under the hard surface was also

of effect of such powerful

clearly demonstrated

by the fact that only continued firing produced cracks same way, the absence
elasticity of the

armour.

In the

blows can only be explained by an unusual

and, in fact, experiments have
to a high degree.

armour material,

shown

that the chilled iron does possess this

Whilst, on the one hand, this elasticity distributes the blow from the

point of impact over the whole mass, so

of the projectile,

it

also absorbs in part the

energy

whose
it

effect is in

consequence considerably reduced.

The curved form

for not only did

of the plates

was shown

to

be highly advantageous,

tend to effect the glancing of the shot, but also in

furtherance of the tendency of the metal only to crack radially, assists in

preventing loospned portions of the plate from being forced through to the
interior
;

in fact,

it

was observed that pieces already loosened were, by

subsequent

hits, firmly

wedged again

into place.
first

And,

finally,

the weight and thickness of the plates, which at

were

thought to be defects,

were shown

to

be advantages, as completely

separated pieces of the armour plates, after continued

displaced from
in

their positions,

firing, were not and the gunners within the battery remained

complete security.

As already

stated, the trial of the first

Tegel turret had disclosed the

the shells struck at an

remarkable fact that chilled shells striking normally were shivered into

atoms without causing injury

of

importance; but

if

acute angle they broke up into a few large pieces, which produced surface
abrasions to a greater or less extent.
of the first

In consequence, the
in the second,

flat profile

curve

Tegel turret was abandoned

and as the also here

profile

shown analogous appearance

adopted seen
in fig. 17 p. 48.

disclosed, the

rounded curved

was

46

CHAPTER

III.

Firing Trials of G-rusou Chilled Cast Iron Armour during the years 1882-1886-

TDETWEEN

1874 and 1882 no firing

the
results

trials

were made against Gruson

sufficient

armour, as

obtained

had furnished

data by

which to determine the necessary dimensions to

resist

the increasing

gun charges.
These were approximately determined by means
formula,
of

an empirical
the formula

derived

from the results

of

previous

trials.

In

= 0.294

/y/ foot-tons,

is

thickness of armour in

ft.

and foot-tons the

fortifi-

energy of the shot

cations.

in foot-tons.

The above formula

%.

applies to coast

In the case of interior fortifications the resulting dimensions for

the various calibres required to be increased 10

Very soon, however,

to

in

presence of the entirely altered conditions due

in the velocity and quality of material of the projectiles, it became a question whether the formula would still be of value. In 1874, for instance* the heaviest projectile with which coast armour was subject to attack was the ri in. shell with an energy of 5,685 foot-tons now we had to deal with the 12 in. with 16,150 foot-tons energy, entirely excluding
;

changes

greater calibres,
limited.

the employment of which

will,

probably,

always

be

At

that time, also, chilled shells

;

were used, as

their effect

was greater

than that of the soft steel shell

now, hardened

steel shells

were employed,

with which chilled shells were no longer able to compete.

As
trials

at the close of the last decade, important orders

Italy,

were received
to

from Austria,
of

and Holland

for

armour

at the

Gruson Factory, renewed

trials

the

metal

were

projected.

These

appeared

be

desirable

from another point of view, as after the manufacture of these

it

heavy armour plates had commenced,

appeared impossible to avoid

46

the formation of shallow fissures on the hard surface during the operation
of casting.

Although
slight depth,

it

could be anticipated that these cracks, on account of their

effect

would have no prejudicial

on the

plate,

it

seemed not

the less desirable to determine this point by firing

trials.

These

trials

fell

into

two

series

(a)

siege

guns against

inland

fortifications,

and

{i)

heavy naval guns against coast defences.

I. Firing Trials against Chilled Cast Iron Armour cations, in the years 1882-1885,

for

Inland Fortifi-

The
purposes.

5.9 in.

hooped gun was used

for these trials,

being considered, as

in the case of

the Tegel experiments, the largest calibre applicable for siege

The

trials

formed a complete series

in themselves,
it,

the chilled armour, by improving the profile given to

and showed how was able to recover

shell,

the superiority against shot, endangered by the improvement in steel

without increase of

size.

1. Trial of Side-Plate for a Chilled Turret for two

26,7 calibres long, at Gruson's Firing

4.7 in. (12cni)

Guns

Ground

at

Buctau.

23rd December, 1882, loth January, and 27th April, 1883.

Scope and Programme of the

The
chill

Trial.

object of

these

trials

was

to

ascertain whether

the so-called

cracks occasionally to be found in chilled armour had any influence

on

its

endurance.

The

firing should therefore

be continued

until light

be thrown on
Target
:

this point

through the formation of fresh cracks.

side plate of a turret for

two

4.7 in. guns,

containing

chill

cracks of the nature

mentioned, and being rejected by one of the

foreign officers inspecting the construction,

was selected

for trial.

The
to

construction of the turret in

question

corresponded nearly

The cupola had an outside diameter of shown in Fig. 4. 17 ft., and consisted of a port-plate, four side plates, and a roof -plate These both together were 10.5 ft. in diameter, and at in two halves.
that

the joining edge had a sighting embrasure for use with a manhole in

the roof.

The height

inside of

the turret from the upper edge of

ft.

the plates to the roller path was 11.8

Below the

roller ring the

47

space was closed by a masonry arch, differing from the arrangement

shown
(Fig.

in

Fig. 4.

The
of

glacis

armour was formed

in

of

six plates of

chilled iron.
5),

Both guns were placed

axis

minimum
ft.

port-carriages C/80

the

the bores being 4.4

apart,

25 elevation,

10 depression, and 3 lateral training could be given to the guns.

Turret and carriages were worked by hand gear,

revolution of the turret being

a complete

made by

four

men

in

one minute.

The
same

trial

plate

nearly similar weight,

was placed between two strong iron blocks of supported by masonry and concrete, on the

level as the gun.

shot
Fig.

0.08

wooden screen with a small aperture for the passag'e of the was placed in front as a protection against shot splinters (compare In the plate was a chill crack a about 18 in. long by 29). in. wide {see Fig. 17), and this crack was filled in with thin strips of
firing.

sheet iron, so as to be able to notice any widening which might be

brought about by the

The

plate also contained an irregular chill

;

seam b which arose

in.

from a crack in the mould

Lastly, beneath b

it

was 0.06 in. deep and 0.08

b'

broad.
in.

was a deeper crack

about 0.47-0.51

deep

and 0.08

in.

wide.

Before commencing the firing the extremities of

the cracks

were marked.
of the plate

Expanded, the surface

and
6.8
ft.

measured

10.5

ft.

horizontally
ft.

vertical.

Its
ft.,
1

actual

perpendicular

height was 4.8

maximum
Gun: Short
Distance

thickness 1.5
(15

3.8 tons weight.

in

5.9 in.

cm) hooped gun 23 calibres long, mounted

Prussian half-slide carriage.

:

24 yards (22 m).

solid shot

Shot

Gruson and Ternitz

empty.
17.1 lb. (775 kg)
:

and

steel shell 2,5 to 2,7 calibres long,

Charge

seven channelled P. P.
lb.

Velocity of Impact

488 yards (446 m), with shot weighing 76

(34,5 kg).

Energy: 1,129.5

foot-tons.

Round No.
Shot
:

Gruson's 5.9
:

in.

hardened

steel shell 78.3

lb.,

empty.

Point struck

Centre

line of plate,

28

in.

above lower edge.

is

Angle

of impact: 81.

(By angle

of

impact

meant the smallest

angle between the shot's trajectory and the tangent to the curve
of the surface of the plate at the point struck.)

: :

48

Effect
:

An

indent, o.i
of

in.

of

maximum

depth, formed within a bright

in. diameter, in which concentric circular rings of compression were seen.

round mark

about 6

some
and
3'

nearly

The The

plate

was

entirely uninjured, the cracks a

being

neither lengthened nor widened.

shot broke up in numerous large pieces.

Bound No. 2
Shot: As
in

round No.
:

i.

Point struck

6.3 in. left

in.

from the centre

line.

30

over the lower plate edge.

Angle
Effect
:

of impact: 79 10'.

Exactly the same as No.

in.

i,

an indent being formed of

maximum
plate itself

depth of 0.08

Crack

b^

showed no change, and the

was

in all respects intact.

The

shot broke up into numerous pieces.

Bound No. 3
Shot
:

Gruson's 5.9
:

in.

hardened

steel shell, 78.3 lb.,

empty.

Point struck

The

centre line.
in.

37

above the lower edge.

-Angle of impact: 68

40'.
Fig.
17.

Profile

and

Position of hits of the Trial Side-Plate of the Chilled Iron

Armour Turret for

two 4.7

in.

(12 cm) Guns.

Scale
:

23/12/82, lo/i

and

27/4/83.

1.40.

Effect
*

The same
lines.

as in rounds

and

2,

an indent 00.8

in.

deep, marked

NOTE. The
The

trial-plate, like all others

and horizontal

These

lines

are

shown
as

in the sketches as they

used later on, was divided into squares by vertical make our explanations more

easily understood.

surface of the Plate

is

shown

if it

was perfectly

flat.

49

by a bright spot 6
again noticeable.

in. in

diameter.

The compression

rings were

The The

old cracks

were unchanged, and the plate

intact.

shot broke up.

5'

As
effect

the crack

had been shown to be absolutely without prejudicial

crack a was subjected to a similar, and even more

on the
trial.

plate,

severe

Eonnd No.
Shot
:

4.

As

before.
:

Point struck

26

in.
in.

to left of centre line.

46
5

above lower plate edge.

a.

in.

under crack

Angle
Effect
:

of impact, 50" 5'.

was an indent 0.06 in. deep and about 3 in. in diameter, marked by an oval bright spot which, however, had Crack a was no rings of compression, as before noticed.
sole result

The

unchanged, the sheet-iron

as before the
hit.

filling-pieces entirely closing the crack

Shot broke up.

Round

No. 5
:

Shot

as before.
:

Point struck

26
58 6

in. left

of the centre line.

in. in.
:

above lower plate edge. above lower end of crack

34
20'.
a.

Angle

of impact

The
0.04
in.

centre of the part struck was marked by a scratch on the

iron filling-wedge

and edge
addition,

of the crack about 0.08 in.

deep and
broad,

long.

In

a bright spot about 4

in.

going upwards on the plate with an indent about 0.0 1

in.

deep.

Crack a entirely unaltered, and

still

fully closed

by the

iron

wedge.

Round No.
Shot
:

6:

loth January, 1883.

in. solid steel shot,

Gruson's soft forged 5.9

:

80

lb.

in weight.

Point struck

in. right of in.

:

centre line.

20

above lower plate edge.

8 in, in diameter

Angle
Effect
:

of

impact

82.
;

A bright splash
Shot broke up.

no indent and no marks of

compression.

50

Round No.
Shot
:

Gruson's forged and hardened 5.9

lb.
:

in.

solid steel shot,

weight

80

Point struck

34
55
3

in. left of in.

centre line.

above lower plate edge.

crack
a.

in. right of

Angle
Effect

of
:

impact: 41?

20'.
;

bright splash
it

no

visible indent

crack a unaltered.

As
firing,

did not

seem that crack a would be changed by further

the remaining rounds were placed on the middle line of

the plate.

Round

No. 8
:

Shot

Gruson's 5.9
:

in.

hardened

solid steel shot,

weight 86.7

lb.

Point struck

15 in. left of the centre line.

26

in.
:

above lower plate edge.

20'.
in.

Angle
Effect
:

of

impact

78

An

indent 6
rings

in diameter,

and 0.08

in.

deep, a few comc

pression

visible,

also

a fine hair

crack

in.

long,

beginning close above the point of impact, and running to that

of

round No.

2, [see

dotted line in Fig. 17).

Shot broke up.

Round

No. 9:
:

Shot

As

in

round
:

8.

Point struck

20
27

in. left of in.

centre line.

above lower plate edge.

Angle
Effect:

of

impact: 77 30'.
bright splash, extending to

mark

8.

No

indent or com-

pression marks.

Hair crack

c unaltered.

Shot broke up.

Round No.

10:
steel shell,

Shot: Gruson's hardened

Point struck
:

weight 81.6

lb.,

empty.

in. left of in.

centre line.

27.6

above lower plate edge.

10'.

Angle
Effect
:

of impact:

79

Crack

c closed up.
b^

Impact mark 0.2

4
in.

in.

deep, and a fine hair

crack running into

long, but not apparently connecting

with

c.

Shot broke up.

51

Round No.
Shot
:

11:
Gruson's 5.9
:

in.

hardened
centre

steel shot,
line.

weight 81.2

lb.

Point struck

9 28

in. left of in.

:

above lower plate edge on No.

79
10'.

10.

Angle
Effect

of
:

impact
c

Crack

unaltered and closed up.

Impact mark deepened to

0.3 in.

Shot broke up.

Round No.
Shot
:

12 Gruson's 5.9
:

in.

hardened

steel shot,

weight 81

lb.

Point struck

8 in. left of centre line.

24

in.
:

above lower plate edge.

84 30
;

Angle
Effect

of
:

impact

'.

A bright splash crack c unchanged. A new fine hair crack ^ 12 in. long,
line,

beginning 5
crack
b^.

in. left

of

the middle

and

in the centre of chill

Shot broke up.

Round

No. 13: Shot Gruson's 5.9 Point struck 5 in.

: :

in.

hardened

steel shot, 81.2 lb.

left of

centre line.

above lower plate edge. Angle of impact: 68 15'.

40
in.

Effect

A bright splash

crack

d lengthened about

28

in.

Shot broke up.

Round No. 14:

Shot
:

Ternitz 5.9
:

in. steel shell,*

in.
in.

empty, weight 82

lb.

Point struck

18

right of the centre line.

30

above lower plate edge.

wide, and 0.2

Angle
Effect
:

of

impact: 78in.

Indent 2.3

long,

in.

in.

deep.

No com-

pression markings were visible.

The

shot broke up.

Round No.

15
in. steel shell,

Shot: Ternitz 5.9

Point struck
:

empty, weight 81.8

lb.

16

in. in.

right of centre line.

36
*

above lower plate edge.

is

The

steel shell

of the Ternitz works

the armour-piercing shell adopted in Austria,

and displays superior hardness

Untempered

tempered

shell is to

steel shell was not used subsequent be understood.

to this, so that

by the term "

steel shell

52

Angle
Effect
:

of

impact

65.
i

round mark

in.

in

diameter and 0.09

in.

deep.

No

concentric lines.

Shot broke up.

Round No. 16
Shot
:

Ternitz 5.9
:

in. steel sheel,

empty, weight 82.71b.

Point struck

19

in.

right of centre line.

Angle

of

33 impact

in.
:

above lower plate edge.

in diameter,

70.
in.

Effect: Indent 1.8

lines.

and 0.2

in.

deep.

No

concentric

Shot broke up.

Round No.
Shot
:

17
Ternitz 5.9
:

in. steel shell,

empty, weight 83.1

line.

lb.

Point struck

10

in. right of in.

:

centre

Angle
Effect
:

of

33 impact

above lower edge.

in diameter,

72.
2
in.

Impact mark

and 0.2

in.
2,

deep, 2 parallel

hair cracks e

and

in.

long towards mark

15.

and one

3.5 to

in.

long, towards

mark

Shot broke up.

Round No.
Shot
:

18:
Ternitz 5.9
:

in. steel shell,

empty, weight 83.1

lb.

Point struck

5 in. right of centre line.

31

in.

above lower edge,

hits
i, 3,

between

and

17.

Angle
Effect

of impact
:

73.

of

mark 2 in. in diameter and 0.3 in. deep. The crack made by round 10 was extended to the lower edge the plate, and that caused by round 13 extended to the upper
edge, thus forming a vertical
it

plate

crack which passed right

halves.
in Fig.
1

through the plate and divided

of the crack caused

into
is

two

The lengthening
7

by round 18

shown

by dotted lines.

The

shot broke up.

of crack
trial

Summary

With formation
the

d breaking
chill

the plate into two halves,

for as this crack took its

the object of

was reached,

departure from the middle of the

deep)
it

crack

b\

(which was 0.5

in.

may with

certainty be considered that the chill crack

was

entirely without influence in determining the formation of d.

53

It is

further noticeable that 3 hits

fell

in close

proximity to
it.

the

chill

crack a without either lengthening or widening

This

want

of influence

on the part of the be expected

chill

cracks

which, considering
all

their very small depth in proportion to the thickness of the plate,

was reasonably
experiments.

to

was confirmed by

subsequent

As regards
noted

the behaviour of the plate the following

is

to

be

By examination
0.2 in.

of the target

it

through failure of the front supporting

was found that the plate, struts, had moved about

lost contact

towards the front and,

in

consequence, had

with

the lateral supports.

This, probably, had had a very great influence in diminishing

the resisting powers of the plate during the later rounds, a conjecture which had
all the more weight, inasmuch as the upper was not supported from the first, and, conwas quite free to move.

edge

of the plate

sequently, finally

plate
of

However, notwithstanding this unfavourable condition, the had withstood 18 hits, with an energy of 20,329.6 foot tons,
14,

which

with a total energy of 15,810.9 foot tons, had struck

within a small pentagonal space 2.5 square feet in size, before

a through crack was formed.

The
plate

8th round produced the

first

through crack, but the

was

in other respects so

completely intact that, judging by

the results of the Tegel

trial, it

would

still

take a long time to

breach

it.

All the shot broke

up on impact, but the Ternitz shot showed

considerable
actual,

superiority to the

Gruson

shot,

as

they effected

though small, indents into the

plate,

which had not

steel

been previously observed either with Gruson

shell.

or

chilled

54

2.

Trial of a Port-Plate of a Chilled Iron

5.9 in. (15

Armour Battery

for eight

cm) Guns, 23

calihres in length.

On

Gruson's Firing Ground at Buckau,

i6th July, 1883.

Object and Programme of the

Test of the armour-metal by means of
small space on the plate from the 5.9
the terms of the
in.

Trial.
hits

five

concentrated on a
in

hooped gun,

accordance with

government

contract.
for

Target.

The
The

armour battery

which the
into

trial-plate

was intended
3,

differed chiefly from the construction shown in Figs. 2 and

in that the port plate

was divided

two halves

{see Fig. 18).

pillar,

battery

was composed

of 16 half port plates, g

and the necessary foundation,

pivot,

and roof

plates.

The breadth
of the port

of the port half plates at the level of the centre

was
ft.

5.6

ft.,

that of the pillar plates 2

latter

ft.,

roof plate 4.6

in

The

had a length

of 14.

1 ft.^

and of the and rested

rear on so-called support plates, borne on one side by iron

pillars.

columns and on the other by masonry

led to the casemates.

The space between

The
ft.

roof plates

and

earth,

and the height

of

were protected by masonry the battery from base to upper edge

of the

front

was

9.2

port-carriages C/80.
13.
1

The guns were mounted in minimum The distance between port and port was
as

ft.,

angle of elevation 25, depression 10, and training 50.

target

The

was constructed
all

if

part of the battery, and

pillar,

consisted of two half port plates, a pivot block, two

three roof
plates,

and

reposing on both sides against masonry.

was a concrete glacis up to the port, and a stout wooden screen in front was placed to catch splinters of shot {see
In front there
Fig. 29).

The

half port plate of

subjected to attack had on the curve

horizontally
ft.,

a dimension

5.9

ft.

and

8.9

ft.

vertically;
ft.,

the

perpendicular height was 6.2

maximum
(ret.)

thickness 1.9

and

weight 10.3 tons.

Gun

Italian 5.9 in., 23 calibre gun,

G.C.R,

in

Gruson's

minimum

port carriage C/80.

Distance

42.6 yards (39 m), the

gun being

directly opposite the centre of

the port.

Charge: 16.3

lbs.,

Fossano progressive powder, 0.8

in.

55

Shot: Krupp steel 2.8 calibre

Velocity of impact
:

shell,

weight 85.3

lb.

(38.7 kg) filled.

about 454.7 yards per second.

1 1

Energy

of

impact
1

14.4 foot-tons.

Round No.
Shot
:

As above, weighted with

:

sand.

Point struck

ig

in.

from the

line

3.5 in.

above the

line

OA. OB.
in.

Angle
Effect
:

of impact

63.
in. in

Indent 2

diameter, and 0.4

deep.

Shot broke up into numerous pieces.

Eonnd No.
Shot
:

As

before
:

Point struck

19.7 in.
4. in.

from the

line

OA.
OB.
and
1.2 to 1.4 in.
in.

under the

line

Angle
Effect:

of

impact

74.
in.

An
fine

oval indent, 7.4

long, about 2 in. broad

flat

deep, round which was a

5

surface abrasion about 0.2

(2
in.
in.

deep,
long, long,

cracks,

down

to left
11

deep)

d,

3.5

in. in.

1.2 in.

deep

c,

hair crack

long; d, hair crack 6

/.

and

in the lip of the port

a short hair crack

Fig. 18.

Shot broke up.

Profile

and Diagram of

hits

of the Trial Port Plate of the Chilled

5.9 in. (15
:

Iron

Armour Battery for Eight

Scale

cm^ Guns.

16/7/83.

1.40

fl

'

"

^1

D2

56

Round No.
Shot
:

3:

Krupp

steel 5.9 in. shell, filled,

:

weight 85.3

lbs.

Point of impact

31.5

in.

from

line

6.8 in.

above

OA line OB
diameter, and 0.6
in.

Angle
Effect

of
:

impact

61 '^ 30'.
in. in
in.,

round indent 2.4

in.

deep.
2.

fine

crack 7.4
/, 5
in-

long and

0.6

reaching to hit No.

Hair crack

long.

Shell exploded.

Bound No. 4:
Shot
:

As

before.
:

Point struck

30.4

in.

from line OA.

4. in.

under

line

OB.

Angle
Effect
:

of

impact

73.

Indent

o.i in.

maximum

depth.

No

cracks.

Shell exploded.

Round No.
Shot
:

5:

Krupp
:

steel shell filled with sand,

weight 85.3

lb.

Point struck

26.8 in. from line

A,

on the

line

B,
in the centre of the four previous hits.

and nearly
Angle
Effect
of
:

impact

69.
in.

Indent 0.2

deep.
in.

Hair crack h 4
{g), also a

in.

long.

Crack

lengthened about 21.7

somewhat widened.

At

back

of

plate

a crack in the direction a

g,

which, however,
i.

seemed not

to connect

on the outside with either a nor

Shot broke up.

Summary:

The

plate

had withstood
square
ft.
;

five hits

concentrated on the small

fulfilled

space of

0,86

and consequently had

the

conditions of the contract.

cylindrical part in

All the shot broke up, the base

and

many

pieces, the

head and point were shivered

in shapeless atoms, coloured blue by the heat.

No

superiority in effect of the filled over the weighted shell

could be observed.

57

3.

-Trial of a Port Plate of a ChlUed Iron

5.9 in.

Armour Battery
long.

for six

(15 cm)

Gnns, 23

calibres

On

Gruson's Firing Ground at Buckau,

1

8th August, 1884.

Object and Programme of the

Proof of the armour metal by
five

Trial.

rounds from the 5.9

in.

hooped gun

corresponding to the terms of the contract with the government.

Contrary to No. 2

trial,

the hits to be distributed over a larger part of

the plate's surface, so as to note the difference of result.

Target

The armour
of
2,

battery for which the trial-plate was intended

similar

was
No.

exactly

construction

to

that

described

under

only differing in the

number

of guns,

of twelve half port-plates, seven pillar,

and was composed and the corresponding

foundation pivot and roof-plates.

In

other respects the des-

cription previously given applies also to this battery.

The composed
and

target,

to

be attacked

as

in

actual

warfare,

was
pillar^

of

two

half port-plates,
It

one pivot-block, two

as
in

three

roof-plates.

was supported

No.
the

2,

and
right

protected by a similar front screen against splinters.

half port-plate

The

under No.

2.

was attacked. Its dimensions were Weight 10.3 tons.

same

as

The same gun,

charge, and distance were employed,

Ronnd No.
Shot:

1:

Krupp
lb.
:

steel

5.9

in.

(15

cm)

shell

weighted with sand to

85.3

Point struck

21.7

in.

from

line line

8.3 in.

under

OA. OB.

Angle
Effect

of
:

impact

77.
in.

bright splash, 5.5

;

in

diameter and 0.4

in.

maximum

depth

a piece of the steel point was found in the metal near

;

the centre of the splash

other small portions of the shot were

similarly found near the point of impact.

The

shot broke up into numerous minute pieces.

58
Fig. 19.

Profile

and Diagram of

Iron

Armour

of the Plate under trial for the Chilled Battery for six 5.9 in. (15 crn) Guns. 1 8/8/84.
hits
Scale
:

1.40

Round No.
Shot
:

As

before.
:

Point struck

35.5

in. in.

from line OA.

underline OB.

4.7

Angle
Effect

of
:

impact

74" 30'.
2.8
in.

Indent 5.9 in. diameter and same a surface abrasion about 26.4

in.

deep.

diameter, and

Round the maximum

in.

depth 0.8

in.

fine

crack a from the point struck to 4

from the right edge.

The back

of the plate
;

was

intact.

Shot broke up

the pieces of shell

showed very great hard-

ness, exceeding that of the first round.

Bound No
Shot
:

3:

As

before.
:

Point struck

60
10

in.

in.

Within the

OA. OB. abrasion caused by Round

from the
line

above the

line

II.

Angle
Effect

of
:

impact

54 40'.
in.

Indent of 6

diameter and 2
in.

in.

depth

round the same

an abrasion of 0.8

maximum

depth,

joining that formed

59

by Round

2.
c,

crack b from

impact point to crack a

in.

vertical crack

stretching to 8
II.

from upper edge

a crack

in the direction of hit

In addition,

two

radial hair cracks at hit

i,

and one

at the lower

edge

of the abrasion

formed by Round

III.

Back

of

plate

Crack a was
under

visible,

running to 7.4
crack 14.8

in.

from the

right

edge

this a fine horizontal

in.

long, about

the level of Shot

II.,

but not visible in front [see Fig. 20).

Shot broke up.

Hardness about the same as Round

I.

Bound

No. 4:
:

Shot

As

before, but
:

filled.

Point struck

18

in.

from the

line

i8'5 in.

above the

OA. line OB.

in.

Angle
Effect:

of

impact

42 38
in
in.

Mark blackened by powder, 79

which a
flat

diameter,

at

lower
in.

right part of

indent of
radial

3T

diameter and 0*4

depth; no abrasion.

Two

hair cracks, e

and

f, 8'7 in.

and

5'5 in. long.

Back

of plate

unchanged.

Shell exploded.
Fig.
20.

Back of the Trial Plate of the Chilled Iron A rmour Battery for
(15 cwi) guns, after the fifth shot,
Scale
:

six 5.9 in.

\'&l'iil'&\.

1.40

Bound No. 5
Krupp's 5.9 in. (15 cm) steel shell, weight 84.1 Point of impact: 24 in. from the line O A.
13.4 in.
lb-,

burster 1.3

lb.

above the

line

B.

Angle
Effect

of
:

impact

50.
in. in

Flat indent 4

diameter, and 0.5

hit III.

in.

deep.

Hair crack/, lengthened to

60

fine crack g, 9.2 in.

Back

of plate unaltered.

Shell exploded.

Summary The
:

plate

had complied with the conditions, but no

trial

parallel

could be drawn with

No.

2,

although the conditions of attack

indents,

were apparently the same.

the
individual
hits

The
for

and

also the effects of

as

instance,

rounds 2 and 3

were

unexpectedly great, so that the suspicion was entertained that the

armour
and

[plate

was

softer than that tested

however, was refuted by the test

also

on the 16/7/83. This, pieces taken on casting the plate,

its

round No.

i,

notwithstanding

greater angle of impact,

in

gave such a

less effect that

undoubtedly there were differences

the quality of the shot.

The
projectile.
shell

superior effect of rounds 2 and

3, in

comparison with
quality
of

the trial of the previous year, pointed to a better

All the projectiles broke
less effect

up on

striking, the

filled

having

than those not charged.

a

4.Trial of a

Glacis

Plate of
23-2

Chilled Iron

Armour Turret

for

two

calibre 4.7 in. Guns.

On

Gruson's Firing Ground at Buckau,

1

2th February, 1884.

Object and Programme of

Test of the plate by
five shots

Trial.
in.

from the 5.9

hooped gun, as

also of

the dimensions prescribed for the armour.

Target

The

turret for
in

which the plate under

trial

was destined
to

corresponded

dimensions

and
in.

construction

the

turret

previously described for two 4.7

'^"

guns, 26.7 calibres long.

^'"

The
Turret for

glacis

armour was composed

of

Profile of the
the

Glacis-Plate for

Chilled

Armour
5.9 in.

"

two

Guns.

armour

The maximum diameter was 23.9 ft. Each

ft.,

of

the glacis

plate

had an

extreme breadth of 10.2

the chord.

measured on

The
Fig. 21.

other dimensions are given in the

The
-i-

trial

plate

was

fixed

between two
against

cast-iron

supporting-plates

resting

61

masonry, the lower part being protected by granite blocks, and security
against shot splinters was given by the usual

wooden screen

in front.

The weight

of the trial plate

was

10.5 tons.
(ret)

Gun

Italian 5.9 in.

(15

cm) hooped gun, 23 calibres long G. C. R.

in a

Gruson minimum-port carriage, C/80.

:

Distance

49.2 yards.
steel sheel, 2.8 calibres,

Shot

Krupp
:

weight about 85.3

0.8 in.

lb.

Charge

16.3 lb. progressive

:

Fossano powder

Striking velocity
Striking energy
:

454.7 yards per second.

1 1

14.4 foot-tons.

Fig. 22.

The Glacis Plate for an Armour Turret for two 4.7 m. (12
after the 6th round.
1

cni)

Guns

2/2/84.

From a Photograph.
Round
]Vo.

1:

Shot:

Krupp

steel shell, 2.8 calibres,

weight about 85.3

front of the plate
6.3

lb

weighted

with sand.

Point struck: The shot struck 17.7

glacis,

in. in

armour on the
in.

glanced, and then grazed

of the glacis.

the

above the

upper edge
Effect
:

A long

splash.

Shot broke up.

Bound No. 3: Shot As before.

:

62

Point struck

2.4 in. 2.4 in.

left,

near the centre

line.

above the glacis edge.

Angle
Effect
:

of

impact: 41 25'
result

The only

was a bright splash

of o-2 in.

maximum

depth.

No
Round

hair cracks found.

Shot broke up.

No. 3:
:

Shot

As

before.
:

Point struck

1 1

in. right,

near centre

line.

3.2 in.

above edge of

glacis.

Angle
Effect

of
:

impact

38 40'
in.

bright splash of 0.4

in.,

maximum depth

four star-shaped
;

hair cracks of 6
after

greatest length round point struck

hair cracks, 4 in. long,

also,

Round No.

3, tvio

showed

at Hit 2.

Shot broke up.

Round

No. 4:
:

Shot

As

before.
:

Point struck

12.6 in. left from the centre line.

1.6 in.

above edge of

glacis.

Angle
Effect
:

of

impact

40.

The

shot struck the upper edge of the covering glacis, making

in,

a cavity there 2.8

deep, also an indent 0.4

in.

deep on the plate

four short hair cracks, of which one connected with hits IV.

and

II.

Shot broke up.

Round No.
Shot
:

5:

As above.
:

Point struck

27

in.

right of centre line.

0.8 in. above glacis edge.

Angle
Effect:

of

impact: 46

20'.

cavity 3'i in. deep in the upper edge of the covering glacis.
in.

Indent on plate about 0"4

greatest depth.

Hair crack formed by

hit 3

lengthened, joining hits

III.

and V.

This was the only crack whose depth could be probed.

Its

greatest depth was 1.8 in.

Also two short hair cracks.

Shot broke up.

Round

No. 6:
:

Shot

As

before, charged.

63

Point struck

3.5 in. right of the centre line.

5.5 in.

above glacis edge,

hits
II.

(between

and

III.).

Angle
Effect

of
:

impact: 41

30'.

Indent, in which
;

was a sharp

chisel

mark

0.3

in.

in greatest

depth

below to the right a

effect of this hit

slight abrasion 0.2 in. deep.

Two

fine hair cracks.

The

was evidently somewhat greater than

the previous ones.

Shell burst.

Sumniary

The

resistance of the plate had proved

fine hair cracks formed, only
Its

amply

sufficient.

Of the

one could be measured

with a fine probe.

mean depth was

1.2 in.,

maximum

1.8 in.

The

smaller effect of the shot on the armour compared with

the previous trials showed without question that the effect varies
in inverse ratio

with the size of the angle of impact.

at the

Trials
this,

made
in

and

consequence

same time against coast armour confirmed the profile shown in Fig. 25 was
from
the

adopted,

which,

departing

previous

experience,

approaches that used

in the first plates tried at Tegel.

The

shot broke up as in the earlier trials into small pieces,

material,

showing an uncommonly hard

touched with a
file.

which could not be

5. Trial of a Port Plate of a CMUed Iron Armonr Turret for two

4.7 m. (12

cm) Guns, 33.5 Calibres long.

Firing

On

Gruson's

Ground

at

Buckau,

28th August, 1884.

Object and Programme of the

Test of the material by
gun.
five shots

Trial.
in.

from the 5.9

(15 cm)

hooped

The

plate belonged to the cupola of the

plate
side
half

same turret, of which a glacis was tried in the last experiment. It was fixed with two and a roof-plate, so that the whole target formed nearly a turret. At the back the target was supported by masonry
the plates

pillars, tied to

by three

cast-iron struts.

A wooden

screen with earth was provided in front to catch shot splinters.

64

At

the level of the port the plate had a radial thickness of

1.7

ft.

Its

greatest

expanded width was

ft.
;

10.6 ft.;

height, 6.9

ft.;

per-

pendicular height, 4.9

weight 14.6 tons.

(15

Gun:

Italian,

23

calibre,

5.9 in.

cm),

hooped

gun, on

Gruson
of

minimum
Distance
:

port-carriage, C/80.

49.2

yards, the

gun being normally opposite the centre

weight about 85.3
lbs.

the plate.

Shot

Krupp

2.8 calibre steel shell,

also

Gruson

steel shell,

and

solid

steel shot.

Charge: 16.3

lb.

progressive powder, Fossano, 0.8

:

in.

Striking velocity

About 4S4.7 yards per second. Striking energy: About 11 14.4 foot tons.

Round No.
Shot
:

1
steel shell,
:

Krupp

weighted to 85.3

lb.

Point struck

11.8

in. left

of the centre line.

20.5 in. above lower edge of the plate.

Angle
Effect
:

of

impact

81 20'
in. in

An

indent about 8

diameter and 3.5

in.

deep.

From

this

to the

port a splintering of the surface 4.3

in.

in greatest

depth.

No

crack visible on the exterior of the plate.

of the plate

The back

showed a

fine horizontal crack 15.7 in.

long, beginning at the level of the part struck at the

port and running to the right {see Fig. 24).

Shot broke up, exhibiting extreme hardness

Fig. 23.

of material.

Profile

and Diagram of

Armour

of the trial Port Plate of the Chilled Turret for two 4.7 in. (12 cvi) Guns. 28/8/84.
hits
Scale
:

1.40.

65

Bound No.
Shot
:

2
before.
:

As

Point struck

12.6 in. right of centre line.

34.7

in.

over lower plate edge.

Angle
Effect

of impact: ']0 35':

Indent 8

in.

in

diameter and

1.2 in.

deep; from above down

to this

an unimportant abrasion, 3 radial hair cracks, of which

in.

one, , stretched 7.1

down
:

to the

left.

Back
about 2

of

the plate

the

horizontal crack

was lengthened

in. in

the direction of the lower edge.

Shot broke up.

Ronnd No. 3
Shot
:

Krupp
:

shell, as before, filled.

7. 1 in.

Point struck

right of centre line.

25.2

in.

above lower plate edge.

Angle
Effect

of
:

impact

84, 45 '.
7.1 in.

Indent and slight abrasion of

diameter.

Point of shell

(1.2 in.

diameter) fixed in plate.

into hit
i

Radial crack
hit 2 to 7.1 in.

down

to right.

Crack a
edge

and running over

from the upper

of plate.

Back

of plate

crack a showing as a hair crack.

Shell burst.

Bound No. 4
Shot
:

As

in last
:

round.
in. left of
in.

Point struck

centre line.

35.8

over lower plate edge.

Angle
Effect

of
:

impact: 68 40'.
Indent and slight abrasion
;

point of shell fixed in

plate

cracks b and c; crack a lengthened to upper edge of the plate.

Back

of plate unaltered.

Shell burst.

Bonnd No. 5:
Shot: Krupp flat-headed steel
85.3
lb. (flat of
:

shell 5.9 in,,

weighted with sand to

head 3

in.

diameter).
in.

Point struck

On
:

centre line, 46
.52.
in.

above lower plate edge.

Angle
Effect
:

of impact

Indent 8

diameter and 2.4

hit.

in.

deep, slight abrasion from

above downwards to

::

66

Crack d from point struck down to hit 3, and upwards towards and joining crack a; a radial crack e to a.

Back

of plate

unchanged.

Shot broke up.

The programme was now completed, but

little, it

as the plate had suffered but

was decided
No. 6

to continue the firing with four shots in hand.

Eonnd

Krupp

5.9 in. steel shell,

:

weighted to 85.31b.

Point struck

in. left

of centre line.

43.7 in. above lower plate edge.

Angle
Effect
:

of impact

57.
in. in

Indent 4.7

diameter and 0.8

in.

deep

beneath, a slight

abrasion,

and a

radial crack in direction of hit 5.

Shot broke up.

Fig. 24.

Back of Trial Plate

of Chilled

Armour Turret for

two

\.'^in. (12 cni)

Guns

after ninth hit, 28/8/84.

Scale
:

1.40

Eound No.
Shot
:

As

in last
:

round

Point struck

0.8 in. right of centre line.

35.4 in. above lower plate edge.

Angle
Effect
:

of

impact

69" 50'.
piece,

wedge shaped

bounded by cracks,
in.

b, c

and d knocked
of

put,

maximum

thickness 4.7 in.

Also a chiselling of surface, 4 cracks a and b.

deep, at point of junction

Back

of plate

unchanged.

Shot broke up.

67

Round No.
Shot
:

8:
in. steel shell,

Gruson's 5.9

79.8

lb.,

weighted with sand.

Point hit: 13

in. right of in.

centre line.

23

above lower plate edge.

diameter and 0.4
deep.
Slight

Angle
Effect
:

of impact: 82 50'

Oval indent about 2.8

;

in. in

in.

abrasion around hit

two

radial hair cracks. 6 in. long,

2.

down-

wards, and one towards Shot

to

fine

crack, /, from Hit 3

under edge
:

of the plate.

Back

of plate

The two cracks lengthened

to

edges of the plate

crack

visible in rear.

Shot broke up.

Round

No. 9: Shot Gruson's

:

solid steel shot, 80 lb.

Point struck

On
:

centre line.

19 in. above lower plate edge.

Angle
Effect
:

of

impact

82 30'
in. in
:

Indent 5.9

diameter and 0.8

in.

deep.

Back

of plate

the piece of plate bounded by cracks a

and

/ forced back about The cylindrical

0.04

in.

part of the shot

was found

close to the plate.

in

Summary

The

plate

had shown a satisfactory resistance

far as

every respect.

All the cracks, as

could be determined, ran across

nearly radially to the rear, and in consequence even the broken

and loosened parts

by shot
to drive

of

plate

showed a more

than

sufficient

resistance to the blows of the shot.

9,
it

This was especially seen

which separated a piece of plate without being able

to the rear.

As seen by

the sketch of the back of the plate after the

still complete, although these 9 rounds had been concentrated between the ports on a space 6.9 square ft. in superficies.

9th round, the protection was

Of the Krupp
a superiority of

shell,

the

first

showed extreme hardness, and

others,

effect

over the

which however, was

favoured by the nearness of the port.

68

6.Trial of a Side Plate

two
4.7 in. (13

for a

Chilled Iron

Armour Turret

for

cm) Guns, 26.7

calibres long.

On

Gruson's Firing Ground at Buckau,

19th

and 20th January,

1885.

Object and Programme of the

Trial.

Test of a side plate for the above-mentioned turret by 15 rounds

(eventually increased to 20)
short 5.9
in.

of

hardened

steel shell

from the Prussian

hooped gun.
ran as follows
:

The programme The

firing

took place with hardened Ternitz

lb.,

steel

shell,

with a
distance
left

charge of 15.2
of 1,039 yards,

P. P. C/68, the equivalent

directed, to save

gun charge

for a

and was

ammunition

only,

on the

half of the plate.

And

the endeavour

was

to

be made by grouping the rounds

to

5,

as

shown by hits i, 3 and 5, to make a vertical crack dividing the plate into nearly two equal parts, so that the following firing should give a result
quite free from objection.

The gun was placed

moved 24
to the left.

for the first six rounds, as well as for

No.
it

20,

normally opposite the centre of the plate, and for the remainder

was

And
If

of the intended 20 hits 5 to

be with flat-pointed

steel shot.

the plate

was not breached

after the 15th

round (that was about 10

shots per square yard of the vertical projection of the target), and

showed

no loosening of parts at the back injurious to the

the resistance to be considered sufficient.

stability of the turret,

Five additional steel shells were then to be

fired,

and the

trial

concluded.
corres-

Target

The

turret for

which the

trial
4,

plate

was intended

ponded
cupola.

in

the main with Fig.

turret cupola

but differed in the profile of the

of 19.7
ft.,

The

had a maximum diameter

in. thick.

and consisted

of a port plate,
ft.

4 side plates, and a wrought-iron

roof plate of II.2

diameter and 4

The two
upper edge

sights

were placed on the roof and were used

through a manhole.

The height

inside

the

turret

from the
ring

of the cupola plates to the

edge

of the roller

I.

69

was
to
of

The arrangement of the lower spaces corresponded The ring of glacis armour consisted that shown in Fig, 4. ten chilled iron plates. The two guns were mounted in
1

1.2

ft.

minimum-port carriages C/80,

their

axes being 4.4

depression,

ft.

apart,
3 side

and

admitted

of

25

elevation,

10

and

training.

Turret and carriage were worked by hand, the former

being worked from an adjoining casemate by a capstan, by

means

of

which four men turned the turret through 360

in

one minute.

The

trial

plate

differed

considerably in form from those

previously tried, being constructed in accordance with the data

established

by these previous experiments. was considerably

flattened,

The

profile

so

that

on

level

ground angles

of

impact superior to 46^ were impossible.

The
plate,

trial

plate

was supported between two

side

and a roof
In

forming thus together nearly half a cupola.

rear

it

rested on masonry pillars supported by cast-iron struts.

glacis

The

armour was protected as before with concrete blocks to the

upper edge, and a screen was provided
in front to

level of its

catch splinters of shot.

The
Fig. 25.

thickness and dimensions of the

trial

plate are

shown

in

The
ft.,

greatest width expanded was, at the level of the

glacis 12.5

and

at the

upper plate edge

ft.

The weight was

19.6 tons.

Gun

Prussian short 5.9

:

in. (15

cm) hooped gun, 23 calibres long.

Distance

39.4 yards.

For the

first

seven rounds the gun was placed normally

;

opposite the centre of the plate

for the

other rounds

it

was

inclined at an angle to the left of 24.

Shot: Ternitz, 5.9

in. steel

shell 2.5 calibres

long, weighted with sand to

76

lbs.
lb.

Charge: 15.2

P. P. c/68

equivalent
foot tons.

to service charge at 1,093 yards.

Velocity: About 431,7 yards. Energy of impact About 687

:

Round No.

1.

Ternitz steel

shell,
:

as above.
in.

Point struck
edge.

55

left

of centre line, 37.4 in.

above glacis plate

70

Angle

of impact:

340 15'

Effect: Indent 4 in. broad,

and

0.3 in. deep.

No

cracks.

bo

Shot glanced upwards and

split into

many

small pieces, which

showed, as did also the subsequent

degree of hardness.

rounds,

a great

71

Bound No.
Shot
:

2:
Ternitz steel
:

shell,
in.

76

lb.

weight.

Point struck

54.3

from

left

edge

of plate.
glacis.

22.5 in.

above edge of
10'.

Angle
Effect

of
:

impact

40"
in.

Indent 4.3

broad and 0.4

in.

deep.

No
Round
No. 3:
:

cracks, shot glanced

upwards and broke up.

Shot

Ternitz steel

shell,
flat

flat

of flat 5 in.

The
it

headed, 73 lb in weight. Diameter part was sunk in centre about 0.4 in.

deep,

so that

had a sharp cutting edge.

The

shell

was

weighted with lead and sand to 76 lb. Point struck 46 in. from left edge of plate.
:

58.2

in.

above edge of
56'.

glacis.

Angle

of

impact

25

Effect: Indent,
side
5

3 in. broad

and

1.3

in.

deep.

Upwards and on

the

downwards

to point hit surface chiselled to

slight depth.

short radial hair cracks.

On

the back of the plate no crack visible.

Shot glanced upwards and broke up.

Round

No. 4:
:

Shot

Ternitz steel
:

shell,

76

lb.,

without sand

filling.

Point struck

37.5 in. from left edge of plate.

50'4

in.

above edge of
broad and 0.2

glacis.

Angle
Effect
:

of

impact: 29 27'.
in. in.

Indent 3.5

deep.

No
Ronnd
No. 5:
:

cracks.

Shot glanced and broke up as before.

Shot

As

in last
:

round.
in,

Point struck

68.4

from

left plate

edge.

13.8 in. above glacis plate edge.

Angle
Effect
:

of

impact

43" 22 30".
'

Indent 4.7

in.

broad and 0.3

in.

deep.

No
Round No.
Shot
:

cracks.

Shot glanced and broke up.

6.
filling.

Ternitz Steel Shell, 77.31b. in weight, without sand

E2

: :

72

Point struck

55 in. from
5
1

left

plate edge.

4.7 in. above glacis plate edge.

Angle

of

impact

46

'.

Effect: Indent 5 in. broad

and

0.5 in. deep.

Two
Round No.
Shot
:

short hair cracks

downwards

to right

and

left.

Shot deflected upwards and broke up.

7:

As

in

round No.

4.

In

order to avoid

bringing the gun back to the

initial

position later on, this round

was directed on the spot

edge.

originally

intended by the programme for the 20th round.

Point struck
:

55

in.

from the

left plate

16.5 in. above

edge

of glacis.

Angle
Effect
:

of impact

42 19'

Indent 5

in.

broad and 0.2

in.

deep.
6.

radial hair crack to Hit

No.

No
The
in
trial
;

crack visible at back of plate.

Shot glanced and brol<e up.

was suspended

after

Round

7,

and

continued

on

the
left,

20th January

the gun, in the meantime, being

moved 24

to the

accordance with the programme.

No. 8
:

Distance 39.5 yards.

Round

Shot

As

before.
:

Point struck

in.

from the

left

edge

of plate.

13.8 in. above the edge of the glacis.

(Hit No. 7 of the programme.)

Angle
Effect

of impact
;

43"

it'.
in.

Indent

5 in.

broad and 0.2

deep.

hair crack

upwards

to left, another
visible.

downwards.

At back

of plate

no cracks

Shot deflected upwards and broke up.

Round No. 9
Shot
:

As

before, weighted to 76 lb.

:

Point struck

39.4
1 1

in.

from

left

edge

of plate.

in.
:

above edge of
broad and 0.4

glacis.

Angle
Effect
;

of

impact

43, 44,
in.
in.

Indent 4.3

deep.

No

cracks.

Shot deflected upwards and broke up.

73

Round

No. 10
:

Shot

Flat-headed Ternitz steel shell 73.4

lb.

lb.,

weighted with sand and

lead to 76

Point struck

29.2 in. from left edge of plate.

4.7 in.

above the edge of

28'.
1.5 in.

glacis.

Angle

of

impact: 46
5 in.

Effect: Indent

broad and

deep; abrasions upwards and

downwards.

Two
The

cracks, a cracks, to
of

and
all

b,

about 4

in.

deep.

appearance, did not penetrate the interior

the

plate,

but were confined to

the surface

two

vertical hair cracks of small length.

At back

of the plate

no crack

visible.

Shot deflected up and broke up.

Round No,
Shot
:

11
Flat-headed Ternitz steel
to 76 lb.
shell,

72.8

lb.,

weighted with sand

and lead
Point struck
:

7.4 in. from the left plate edge.

59.8 in. above

edge

of glacis.

Angle
Effect

of
:

Impact: 25
in.

57'.

Indent 5.5

broad and 0.4

in.

deep.

2 hair cracks, c

and

d.

No
Round No.
Shot
:

crack visible at back of plate.

Shot deflected and broke up.

12:

As

in last round.
:

Point struck

26

in.

from

left

edge

of plate.

56.5 in. above edge of glacis.

Angle
Effect

of
:

impact

26" 22 30".
'

An

indent 3.5

in.

broad and 0.4

hits 2

in.

deep.

crack e between

and

4.

No
Round No.
Shot
:

visible crack at back.

Shot deflected and broke up.

13:
Ternitz steel
:

shell,

76

lb.,

without sand
of plate.
glacis.

filling.

Point struck

30. Sin.

from

left

edge

36.2

in.

above edge of

Angle

of

impact

34'^ 45'.

74

Effect

Indent, 4

in.

broad and

o.i in. deep.

No
Round No. 14:
Shot
:

cracks.

Shot deflected and broke up.

weighted with sand and

Flat-headed Ternitz steel

lb.

shell, 72. 1 lb.,

lead to 76

Point struck

13.8 in.

above

left

edge

of plate.

34.6

in.

above edge of
30'.

glacis.

Angle
Effect
:

of impact:

35^
in.

Indent, 7.1

broad and

in.

deep.

Irregular chisellings of small depth

3 hair cracks

/,. g,

and h

a hair crack,

upwards and to the side. No. i, from hit.

1

to the left edge.

No
Round

visible crack at back.

Shot deflected and broke up.

No. 15 Shot Ternitz
:

steel shell

76

lb.,

without sand

filling.

Point struck

29.6

in.

from

left

edge

of

plate, 26.7 in.

above upper

edge

of glacis.

Angle

of

impact

38 40'.
Fig. 26.

Back of Trial Side Plate of a Chilled Armour Turret for two

{12 cm) Guns, after the twentieth round, 20/1/85.
Scale
:

4.7 in.

1.40.

Effect

Indent 4.7

in.

broad, and 0.2

in.

deep
hair crack visible for

Two
28
in.,

radial hair cracks.

a.

At' the back of the plate, crack e as

beginning about 21.3

in.

from the upper edge, and running from the centre

line.

vertically

downwards about

8.7 in.

Shot deflected and broke up.

75

00

o
o
s

s: a.
ni
L.

bo

-i^

o +-> o
0.

bo

o
u.

::

'

76

Round No. 16
Shot
:

Flat-headed Ternitz steel shell weighted with sand and lead to

lbs.
:

76

Point struck

7.4 in.

from

left

plate edge.

4.7 in.

above upper glacis edge.

6'.

Angle
Effect

of
:

impact: 46",

An

indent with surface abrasions.

in

Shot's

head fixed

indent,

whose depth could not therefore be

measured.

A
A

crack k to hit 10 with abrasions.

crack
/

down

to

left.

Hair crack a widened.

Back

of plate

unchanged.

Shot broke up.

Round No.
Shot
:

17

As round
:

15.

Point struck

17.7 in. from left plate edge.

25.2 in. above edge of glacis

Angle
Effect
:

of

impact

39.
in.

Indent 5

broad and

o.i in. deep.

No

cracks.
of plate

Back

unchanged.

Shot deflected and broke up.

Round No.
Shot
:

18:

As

last
:

round.
19 in. from left plate edge. 50.4
in.

Point struck

above edge of
broad and 0.3

glacis.

Angle of impact: 30" 30'.

Effect
:

Indent, 4.7

in.

in.

deep.

A hair
Back

crack

to hit 14.

of plate

unchanged.

Shot deflected and broke up.

Round No. 19
Shot
:

As

last
:

round.
28
1

Point struck

in.

from

left

edge.
glacis.

1.8 in.
:

above edge of
broad, 0,6

Angle
Effect
:

of impact

43 35
in.
in.

Indent 6.7
in.

deep

no new cracks

crack a

widened 0.4

Back

of plate

unchanged.

Shot deflected and broke up.

77

Round No. 20:

Shot
:

Ternitz steel shell, 75.96

:

lb.,

weighted with sand to 76

lb.

Point struck

5.5 in.

from

left

edge,

28.4

in.

above

glacis.

Angle
Effect
:

of impact, 38 23'.

Indent 4

in.

broad, and 0.6

8,

in.

deep.

hair crack n to hit

of plate
:

a short hair crack upwards.

Back

Hair crack e lengthened to lower plate edge

visible at back.

(see fig. 26),

no other crack

The

joint of left support

opened about 0.08

in.

Summary

The

plate had resisted 20 steel shells, each with 887 foot tons
is

energy; that

891.5

foot

tons

per ton weight of plate,

or,

reckoning only the half plate attacked, 1,783 foot tons per ton,
without losing any considerable part of the protection
offered.

The only

effect

worthy

of note

was the crack

e at the back, which,

however, did not extend to the upper edge, and had no influence

on the resistance of the

plate.
glacis,

Crack
affected

a, after

removal of the
it

was seen

to run

below

the upper surface, but

did not reach the edge, so that the piece

was

in firm

connexion with the plate.

The
itself to

effect of the

new

flattened curve of surface had

all

shown

be extremely favourable,
flat-headed shell had

the shot glancing.

effect

The
still

more

than the pointed ones,

they did not produce serious injury.

The
was
that

plate
it

had exceeded the demand made upon

it,

which

should resist fifteen rounds.

Nevertheless, no approxi-

mation could be made as to what further amount of firing would break

it

up.

The
material,
glass.

Ternitz shell exhibited throughout an extremely hard

the

broken

pieces,

as

with Krupp

shell,

scratching

No

great difference tould be noted between the qualities

of projectiles.

of the

two kinds

78

Conclusions.

There

is

but

little

to add to the several

summaries

of the trials,

which

are very explicit.

All the plates

had

satisfied

the

demands made upon them, but as

was
to determine

the latter vary greatly, a few remarks are necessary.

The
This

object of the

first firing trial

if

chill

cracks were
shot.

injurious or not, the position of

trial,

which led to a concentration of the

as well as the following ones, clearly proved that these chill

cracks are without any influence on the power of endurance of the

plate.
In trials 2

5 a concentration of rounds, fired with full charge, took

place on a small surface of the plate, but the

tionately small, as the only object intended

number of hits was proporwas to note the behaviour of

of a test

the plate under this concentrated

Trials
of
i

fire.

must therefore be considered under the aspect

at

the

material, but

the

same time the

results led to

an important
the

alteration in the construction of

profile.

the armour, namely a flattening of

An armour

plate,
6,

improved

in

correspondence therewith, formed the

subject of Trial No.

which thus

may be
were
in

considered in distinction from

the previous trials as a test of the design of construction.

The
warfare.

conditions

of

this

trial

all

respects

those of

actual

The number
greater

of hits

which the plate had to stand was considerably

plate, equal to

20

on the half

40

for the

whole plate

^but

they
a
full

were distributed over the surface, and the attacking gun did not
charge, but only one corresponding to a distance of 1,093 yards.

fire

The
profile

result of this trial

showed most

distinctly that the conclusions

on
the

which the construction of this plate had been based were correct;

had proved

itself to

be advantageous, and the dimensions selected

appropriate.

We

will revert to this subject after describing the trials against coast

defence armour.

79

II.Firing Trials against Chilled Armour

for Coast Fortifications in

the years 18831886.

For the purposes

plates for

of the firing trials against coast armour, a

number
:

of

were employed, namely Three side plates for a turret ordered by the Dutch Government for two i2in. (30.5 cm) 35 calibre guns, and a side plate for a turret ordered by the The conItalian Government for two 35 calibre i5-7 in. (40 cm) guns.

two

different chilled

armour

turrets

struction of this last followed the experience gained with the trial which

preceded

it,

and

this

whole series of

trials

thus stands complete by

trials

itself.

Like those previously described, these

were originally called

for

by the existence of a number of

it

chill

cracks in the different plates, of which

was necessary

to

demonstrate the absence of injurious influence.

first trial,

This

demonstration could be considered as established by the

and the

subsequent ones treated as tests of material and design.

to the selection of

Corresponding

armour

for coast defence, the attack

was made with the

The number of hits, (30.5 cm) and 17 in. (43 cm) naval guns. however, exceeded those which, in all probability, coast armour would be
12
in.

called

upon

to withstand in practice,
results,
if

and attention must be paid

to this in

forming an opinion on the

the trials are to be considered from

the point of view of actual warfare,

1.Trial against a Glacis Plate of a Chilled Iron Armour Turret for two 12 in. (30.5 cm) Guns, 35 calibres long.

On

Gruson's Firing Ground at Buckau.

13th August, 1883.

Object and Programme of the

Apart from a general
test of the design

Trial.
of the plate,

and dimensions
J

by concentrating several rounds from the 25 calibre

these latter influenced
its

2 in. (30.5

cm) gun

close to certain chill cracks existing in the plate, to determine whether

resisting powers.

Target.

The

turret to

which the

trial

plate belonged corresponded in

the main to the type

shown

in Fig. 4.

The cupola was formed of 1 1 diameter of 33.5 ft. The height from
to the

chilled

plates,

and had a and

the edge of the roller ring

ft.,
ft.

upper edge of the ring of cupola plates was 15.7

that from the roller ring to the base of the lower storey 19

80

The
placed

glacis

armour was also

had a height
ft.

in

1 1

pieces, of

which

5 plates
ft.

in front

of 5.7

ft.,

the others 4.1

The

roof of the cupola, 21

sights placed

diameter, was in two parts, with the

in the joining grooves,

and used from a covered

man-hole.

The

horizontal training of the turret

was

carried out either

by hand or steam power, a.s convenient, a whole turn being made by steam in 4 minutes 20 seconds, and j-turn by hand in 4 minutes. The engine was of 26 I.H.P. Ten men worked the hand gear.

The guns were mounted

C/80,

in

Gruson's minimum-port carriage

worked by two accumulators. These were placed in the lower storey of the turret, and served also as hydraulic cranes for changing the guns. The carriage gave 12 elevation and 6 depression. No provision was made for lateral movement.
In the trial glacis plate there

was a

chill

crack stretching

almost without break from the upper to the lower edge in the
centre
line.

The

plate

was

built

up with four others so as

the
;

to form

almost half a ring of plates, the ends being supported by masonry

pillars.

Before the lower part of

plate

(see

fig.

28)

protecting layer of granite was placed

similarly covered with concrete
pillars.

the other plates were

at the

which terminated

masonry

The

chill
is

crack was throughout about 0.4

in fig.

in.

wide and

2.8 in

deep, and

shown

28 by a dotted line.

The
The

usual

wood and

earth screen

was

placed.in front to guard

against splinters of shot.

thickness of

the

trial

plate
ft.,

is

given in Fig. 28.

ft.,

Its

greatest expanded breadth

36.9 tons.

was

13.8

height 8.9

and weight

Gun: Krupp's 25
carriage C/80.

calibre,

12

in.

(30.5

cm) gun

in

Gruson minimum-port

Gun
shell,

fired with 6 depression.

Distance

29.5 yards.

Shot: Krupp steel

about 981.3
lb.

empty, 12

in. (30.5

cm), 3.5 calibres long, weight

Charge

264.6

lb.
:

P.P. C/80.

Striking velocity

About 486.4 yards per

sec.

energy:

14,519 foot tons.

81

Round No.
Shot
:

Krupp's
:

shell, as

above, weighted with sand and lead to 981.3

lb.

Point struck

8.7 in. right of centre line.

2.8 in.

above glacis edge.

deep,

Angle
Effect

of
:

impact

48.
in.

Chisel cutting 2.4

chill

maximum
19.2 in.

(greatest depth, at left

near hit on

crack, 1.7 in.)

Surface abrasion in

maximum
and
c.

broad and 20

in.

high.

Three short hair cracks

Glacis torn up, 6

a, b

Chill crack unaltered.

in.

deep at point struck.

upper edge of
of

Back
about 0.4

of plate intact.
:

General state of target

in.,

trial

plate had dropped

due to movement

masonry

pillar.

Shot broke up.

Round

No. 2
:

Shot

As
of

in
:

Point struck

in. left of
:

centre line on upper glacis edge.

Angle

impact
both

53.
chiselling of 'point struck 2.4 in. deep.

Effect: Indent

and

Abrasions
high.

round

hits

20

in.

greatest

breadth

and

22.8 in.

Horizontal crack
chill

d
:

through centres of both

Chill crack

hits,

crossing the

crack at right angles.

unchanged.
its

Back

of plate

Crack d visible throughout

whole length,

dividing the plate into two parts.

General state of target: The plate was pushed back

1.4 in.

on the

left

and

The

glacis

and had dropped about 0.4 in. was so torn away by hit 2 that the plate was laid
1.2 in. right,
in.

on the

bare over a breadth of 22.8

and

7 in. in depth.

Shot broke up.

Round

No. 3:
:

Shot

As

before.
:

Point struck

On

centre line

(chill

crack)

2.4 in.

above original

edge

of glacis.
chilled

The
struck.

surface

was

entirely

removed

at

the

point

Angle
Effect
:

of

impact

52
in.
in.

Indent 5.3

deep.
high.

Abrasion of surface increased to 30.7

in.

broad and 18.5

vertical

through crack

e,

stretching to the upper edge

82

from a point 8
a portion of the
crack 6.7
in.

in.

right of

centre line ran along 8

;

in.

from
chill

chill

crack

leaving
it

this,

struck into the

in.

below, leaving

again about 10

lower down,
of the chill

and finished downwards

crack was

to the left.
in.

The upper end

lengthened about 8

by a hair crack, but was

otherwise unaltered.

Back

of plate

Crack

e visible

throughout

its

length, dividing

the plate into four parts.

General state of the Target

crack e was

On

removal of the
crack and
right
its

glacis,

seen to cross the

chill

branches,

reaching the lower plate edge

13.8 in.

from the same.

in.

The

crack at lower part of the plate was 1.4

wide.
in.,

The
its

two upper parts of the plate had dropped about 4 upper edge pushed back about 5.5 in. more.

and

The

shot broke up.

Round No.
Shot
:

4:

As

before.
:

Point struck

About 27.6

in. left of

centre

line.

8 in.

above glacis edge.

Angle
Effect
:

of

impact

About 40.

The two upper parts of the plate were thrown inwards and a number of pieces knocked off the piece struck. The plate was thus breached. A new crack /. Chill crack
unchanged.

Back of the plate The back of the portion still standing was no longer visible, being covered by broken parts fallen down. Later it was seen that the crack e was widened at the lower part.
:

General

state

of

the

target

The whole

target

had

apparently been
trial

moved

considerably, as the joints

between the
in to 1.2 in.

and adjacent plates had been opened from 0.4

The
Siimmai'y
:

shot broke up.

chill

(.)

Behaviour of the
trial

crack.

As already

noted, the chief

object of the

was

to ascertain the influence of the chill crack,

and
line

for this

purpose three rounds were concentrated on a straight

15.7 in. long, with a total energy of 43,605 foot tons.

plate,

To

form a test of the design of the

the hits

should have

been

distributed,

in

accordance with the conditions of actual

it is

warfare, over the surface, as

not reasonable to

make

a plate

stronger, and so dearer, than actual practice requires.

83

oo

^
s

bo

CO

"^

84

On

inspection of the glacis,

it

was seen
chill

that crack

e,

instead

of following, as

was supposed, the

crack, crossed

and formed

a branch towards the bottom edge of the plate {see Fig. 28).
In the upper part of the

armour plate the crack

chill

e followed

twice for a short distance the

that the plane of fracture

crack

but

it

is

to

be noted

was a constant

curve,

and only joined

superficially the irregular zigzag of the chill crack

From

this

it

was

clear that the crack e

was

in the interior of the plate entirely

independent of the
small

chill crack, chill

as might be expected from the

in.)

depth of the

crack (2.8
in.)

in

proportion

to

the

thickness of the plate (27.6

Further evidence that the

chill

crack had no injurious effect

lay in the fact that crack e diagonally crossed, at the under part of

the plate,

the

four-sided

piece,

bounded by the

chill

cracks,
chill

without following either side or running into the lower

crack.

That
fulfilled.

chill cracks do
real

proved, and the

object

no harm seemed by this sufficiently of the trial was in consequence

(b!)

Behaviour of the armour plate and

plate had sunk about 0.8

of the structure.

close examination of the target

showed that the foundation under

in.,

the

trial

so that the nearest part of

the plates adjoining did not rest upon the foundation.

The inner projection of the bed-plate at the left joining edge was broken away, and both joints between the four plates not
fired at

had opened about

0.2 in.

Lastly an opening between

the concrete covering and the masonry pillar showed that the
latter
left

had been pushed back, the

in.,

right

one about 0.4

for

in.,

and the

one 0.3
wet.

which was accounted

sufficiently set, the

by the

fact that the

masonry had not

part
still

mortar being for the most

The
direction,

state of

the target showed

that the four unattacked

in a nearly
pillars

plates had moved round on the bed-plate

circular

and

had

pushed

the

masonry

back.

This

backward

yielding, together with the sinking of the foundation,

in.

made

it

possible that the crack e below had opened 1.4

without

bringing the lateral joining edges of the plate into contact with

85

those of the adjacent ones, the point of bed-plate breaking as a

result of this separation, as
it

had alone

to resist the

tremendous

blows given.

From
it is

the sinking of the plate observed after the

first

round,

evident that the

movement

of the target

had already taken

place at this round, and consequently the plate was standing loose
at the next round.

These circumstances explain the

glacis armour.

falling out of pieces

loosened
built

by cracks, which never would occur with a properly

up

which before the third shot was only loosely resting on the lower half, and had sunk about 1.6 in.,

That the upper half

of the plate

hanging between the adjoining

plates,

was not crumbled up by the

3rd shot into numerous pieces, points to an excellent quality of

material.

The
If

following result was

observed as worthy of notice

did not cause any very

a shot struck on a part from which the layer of white

iron had

been already removed,

it

much

greater injury than shots striking on an uninjured part, as the

hardness of surface seemed to extend

layer.

much deeper than

the white

The

cutting

away

of the surface only

showed an increased

toughness of material.

Although the stout resistance offered by the plate to concentrated

fire,

even after the foundation had

failed,
it

led to the

apparently valid conclusion that, in actual practice,

would be

found amply strong enough when made use of

of the turret, the

in the construction

Dutch Committee

for the Trial decided to

make
which

an

alteration in the construction of the front glacis plates,

chiefly consisted in the provision of pillars

plate,

on both sides of the

which made

it

impossible for upper pieces, which might be

broken

loose, to fall

down.
showing an unusually hard

All the shot broke into pieces,

and excellent

material.

86

2.Trial

against
for

Side

Plate for a Chilled Iron

Armour Turret

two 12

in. (30.5

cm) Guns, 35

calibres long.

On

Gruson's Firing Ground at Buckau.

22nd October, 1883.

Object and Programme of the

Trial.
in.

Test of the armour by 4 shots from the Krupp 12 and also to determine by the trial whether
[a)

{30.5

cm) gun,

The dimensions
appropriate.

selected

for

the

armour

of

this

turret

were

{b)

The behaviour
of influence

of chill cracks existing in the plate

trial of

would confirm

the results of the

13th August, 1883, as regards their lack

plate.

on the endurance of the

Fig. 29.

Structure for the Side Plate of the Chilled Iron

Armour Turret for

two 12

in.

(30.5 cni) Guns,

:

Scale

1.40.

Target

The

trial

plate

formed part

of the

cupola of the turret

by the Dutch Government. It was placed between four other side-plates and a roof-plate, so
previously described as ordered
as to form half

turret,

which

rested

at

the rear

against

three strong pillars of masonry, connected with the armour

by

three stout specially cast struts.

87

The

structure

is

shown

in Fig. 29.

Above the
baulks did not
three
layers
of

roof-plates

was a

layer of timber baulks as

screen against splinters of shot.

lie

on the

As seen in the figure, the roof-plate. They were weighted with

and the whole covered with earth

iron

rails,

some yards

high.
led,

In the inside of the turret, to which a staging

were

plummets and gauges

for

measuring any change

in the position of

the roof-and ring-plates, an exactly adjusted

either side of the central

pendulum hung on
roof, whilst the

masonry

pillar

from the

distance of the bottom surface of the

pillar

trial plate

from the centre

was ascertained by three gauges.

were ten
which
i

In the trial plate

of greatest

chill

cracks

made

in the casting,
in

depth 0.6

in.,

in the figure are

marked

dotted

lines with small

numerals
of

to 10.

The dimensions
Weight

the

plate are
9.5
ft.,

shown by

Fig. 30.

Its

greatest breadth expanded

46.7 tons.
(30.5

was

height 11.5

ft.

Gun

Krupp's 12

in.

cm) gun, 25
fired

calibres,

carriage C/80.

The gun
in.

with a depression of

on Gruson minimum-pt)rt 2*^ 12' 4 30'.

Distance

29.5 yards.
(30.5

Shot

Krupp's 12
lb.

cm)

steel

shell,

3.5

calibres,

empty, about

981.3

weight.
lb.

Charge

264.6

P.P. C/80.
:

Velocity of impact

About 486.4 yards. About 14,519

foot tons.

Energy

of impact

Round No.

1
in. steel shell,

Shot: Krupp's 12
Point of impact:

empty, about 982.6

lb.

weight.
in.

1.6 in.

right of the

centre line of plate, 35.4

above the lower edge.

Angle
Effect:

of

impact: 90.
abrasion

An On

round the
high.

hit

1.4 in. in

greatest depth, 19

in.

broad, and 20.5

in.

the point struck, the tip of the shot, which was forced
flat

flat,

<was welded on to the plate, and showed as a

diameter, with a slight rise in the

disc about 6 in. in

centre, but
flat

no indent was
brought
F2

apparently formed on the plate, only a

steel held so firmly to the

depression, but the

it

armour that when cut out

away on

its

point a piece of the chilled metal.

88

Five short radial hair cracks were formed from the point
struck.

horizontal crack a reached both edges

of the plate,

on

the

left

49.2

in.,

on the right 35.8

in.

Above the lower edge

of the
in.

plate,

along the crack, to the

in.

left of

point struck, an abrasion 1.2

broad, and 11.8

by

15.7 in.

long.

89

Back

of plate

On

inspection of the interior the crack a

was
to

seen to have gone right through and showed as a fine hair crack,

beginning 17.7
8.7 in.

in.

from

left

edge

of the plate

and running
off in

from the right edge.

in.

A crack ^ branched
above the edge.
:

the middle

about 17.3
the
left,

long towards the lower edge with a slight bend to

and

finishing 6.7 in.

General state of the target By means of the plummet it was found that the roof-plate had receded about 0.04 in. on the right and o.i in. on the left hand. Also at the base the plate fired at had been pushed nearer to the pillar, as was shown by the fact that the wooden gauges placed between the pillar and the
plate

were

in part broken.

The

joint

between the

trial-and roof-plate
its

was closed
in.

up,

and

those between the trial-plate and

plates at the side opened, on

the inner edge of the joint, an average of o.i

An
left.

opening

had been made between the masonry pillars and the

to

struts attached

them 0.04

in.

broad on the right and

the
interior

0.1 in.

on the

This condition of
pillars

showed that the masonry

of

had not been able to prevent a movement outwards

;

the whole structure

but this was so slight that

trial.

it

did not furnish

a reason for discontinuing the

Shot broke up.

Round No. 2
Shot: Krupp's 12
Point struck
:

in. (30.5

cm)

steel shell,
:

empty weight, 984

lb.

On

the centre line

74.8 in above the lower plate edge.

39.4

in.

above Round

i.

Angle
Effect:

of impact: 51.

A
in.

long chiselling at the point struck 27.6

long,

in.

greatest depth,
in.

19

and

4.7

in.

broad, abrasion around about 21.7

in the sketch.

greatest width, as

shown

Four

hair cracks about 8 in. long.

b,

A
and
left

crack

bending upwards to the

left

from the point struck,

6.7 in.

finishing 19.7 in. from

upper plate edge, and

from the

edge.

crack c from the

hit,

curving to the right, and finishing

after a sharp

bend

at the plate edge.

i

vertical crack, d, joining Hits

and 2

no prolongation

of this crack

below crack a was observable, but the same pro-

90

bably existed, as a crack in this direction was already formed by

the
first

round at the back of the plateof the plate

:

Back
b, c, d,

Horizontal crack a seen to stretch to

in.

both plate edges and opened about 0.04

The

other cracks,

were not

visible there.
:

General condition of the target

plate

by the plummet the

had not
its

roof-

had further receded on both sides about

the foot of the plate
roof-plate

o.i in., whilst

the

distance of the pillar from

altered.

The

had also pushed

back

slightly

supporting

plates.

The

joints

between the

trial

and the roof-plates had,

in con-

sequence, apparently, of the yielding of the support plates of

the latter, gone back to their original dimensions
;

those between
0.2 in.

the

trial

plate

and

its

side plates had closed

up about

This closing of the lateral joints seemed to point to a closing

together and consolidation of the

dome

or arch of the target

under external blows.

As

the joints between the masonry pillars

and

the supporting struts

yielding of the roof plate o.i

showed no material widening, the in. did not seem important.

The

shot broke up.

Round

No. 3
:

Shot

As

before, weighted with sand

:

and lead to 978.6

lb.

Point struck

26.8

in.

right from the centre line.

53

in.

above the lower edge.

from shot
i,

33.6

in.

35.4

in.

from shot

2.

Angle
Effect

of
:

impact

72".

at the point struck a chiselling out 2 in. deep, with abrasions

around, as in Fig. 33.

Eight radial cracks from the
hit,

e joining

hits

and

3,

joining 2 and
;

3,

and running upwards

b,

to the right
it

edge

of the

plate

did not run into

but ran parallel to

for a short

distance.
c

was lengthened upwards,

of

widened to about
cracks

0.3 in.

Back
round above
3,

the

plate

Two

additional

showed

after

starting from a point on the left edge, one with a nest

of small branches ending in crack a. the second finishing 8 in.

this.
It

seemed possible

that the larger of

these two

cracks connected with crack b on the inside, although on the

outside b reached nearly to the upper edge.

91

The

state of the

back

of the plate after the 3rd

round

is

seen

in Fig. 32.

The few through

moment.

cracks seemed for so heavy a plate

as not of serious

General state of the target

-1

The gauges showed

that the roof

00

a
nS i.

an

+j
s:

o o

S B

had been pushed back a further 0.08 in., and also that the whole On right edge of the plate had moved inwards some millimetres. the left the roof and edge of the plate had apparently not moved.

The

joints

between the

roof-

and

trial -plates

were opened

to

92

a further considerable extent as also the joints of the

right plate at the side,

trial

and
in.,

which showed an opening, on top 0.2

below 0.4
below.

in.;

that with the left plate

was

0.2 in.

on top and

0.2 in.

The
it

left pillar

and the strut having opened 0.2

showed an important change, the joint between in. No change was visible on
that on the

the right.
It

was unmistakeable,

left,

owing

to the yielding

of the plates, the strength of the

dome was

considerably reduced,

but

it

seemed nevertheless capable

shot broke up.
Fig. 32.

of withstanding a fourth hit.

The

Back of the Trial Side Plate of the Chilled Iron Armour Turret for two 12 in. (30.5 cm) Guns after the third round, 22/10/83.
Scale
:

1.40.

Bound No. 4:
Shot: Krupp's 12
lead to 981.3
in.
lb.

steel shell,

980.31b., weighted with

sand and

Point struck

29.6

in.

from the

left

plate edge.

25.6 in, above the lower plate edge.

33.1 in. from hit No.
i.

Angle
Effect

of
:

impact

About

750.

The

fourth round breached the plate

a,

and forced a piece

of plate

bounded by cracks
pillar,

g and

h, inside

the turret against the centre

left to fall

which caused other pieces of plate on the

down,

so as to partly close the breach again, the separated pieces of

armour remaining

therein. into 6 pieces

The

plate

was broken

by cracks

a, b, c, d, f, g.

93

Back

of the plate

The

cracks at back were

the falling of the parts of the plates in front; but no

much widened by new cracks were

observed, as the effect of the round had been concentrated on the

5^

5"

!^

CO

s:

a
bo

o o
a.
ho :*<

o
8

piece bounded by cracks a and g.

of the shot lay

Several pieces of plating and

on the

inside.
:

General state of the target

The

roof plate had not receded

94

further
pillars

by Round
and
struts

4,

but the opening of the joints between the

in.,

had increased to 0,6

so that a sideways

yielding of the whole structure

was shown

to have occurred.

This was confirmed when the earth was removed from the
target.

Between the

roof

and side plates on the

left,

which

before the firing were placed close together, an opening i.2in.

wide had been formed, and showed that both the

with their bed plates, had been pushed outwards.

left

side plates,

The

shot broke up.

plate resisted three rounds, with a total energy of 43,508

Summary

The

foot tons, or 914 foot-tons per ton of armour, without decrease

in the protection

afforded

to the interior of the turret.

After

these rounds the plate was separated into several large pieces by numerous cracks passing partly from side to side, and through the thickness of the plate, but no displacement of parts had

occurred.

The

surface

showed

injuries

round the points

hit,

which had

a certain extension, but only a few inches of depth.

No

penetration of the shot, or of their points into the plate,

had taken place.

Several obvious circumstances brought about the breaching
of the plate

by the fourth round.

already, before the round,

Crack
at the

g was formed
of the plate.

and

visible

back

Crack a went right through the

plate,

so that the upper small part on the left

Had

the other plates and the pillars

was already loosened. not moved, the piece would

it

in all probability

have withstood another round, but as

which, as a natural
turret.

was, the

whole

effect

of

the shot could be expended in dislodging the

piece of

plate,

consequence, was driven

inwards to the interior of the

The

chill

cracks in none of the four rounds had shown to

have any injurious influence on the plate.

As seen

in the drawings, the cracks set

up by the shot took

their course quite

independent of the
of the latter

chill

cracks,

and

in

no case
of

was even a lengthening

shot.

produced by the blow

The
viz.
:

steel shells

behaved

in this trial as in all

previous ones,
fist

they broke up into numerous pieces of the size df a

to

that of a pea.

95

3.

^Trial

against a Half-roof Plate for a Chilled Iron

Armour

Turret for two 12in. (30.5 cm) Guns, 35 caUbres long-

On

Grason's Firing Ground at Buckau.

26th and 28th May, 1884.

Object and

Programme

of the Trial.
in.

Proof of the roof for a turret by 4 shots from the Krupp 12

(30.5

cm) gun.
test in this case
sufficiently

The
trials

had

less reference to chill cracks, as the previous

had

shown
if

their

want

of injurious effect, but

was rather
to

directed

to

discover

the dimensions of the plate were

in.

sufficient

withstand the attack of the Krupp 12

gun.

Target

The
35,

trial

plate formed one half of the roof of the turret

trial

described under

No.

i.

The shape

is

seen in Figures 34
the turret.

and

as also the rib on

its

straight edge, which rested on a

corresponding

rib in the other plate

when placed on

The manhole
mentioned

in

the centre, as well as the sighting holes, are

in the previous description.

The
turret,

trial

plate was, corresponding

to

its

position in the

supported by three cast-iron plates of 39.1 tons weight " placed in a half ring and keyed together. The other " half plate

was replaced-by three

masonry
pillars.

similar cast-iron plates resting against three

The

cast-iron ring plates

were fixed by means

of ribs to

a base plate, and also the centre ring plates were

bolted together with two bolts.

In order to obtain increased angles of impact the trial plate

was not placed

horizon.

horizontally, but at
its

an angle

of 5, that

is,

the

imaginary plane of

location

made an angle

of 5 with the

number of small chill cracks existed in the trial plate, which were closed with steel wedges, and there were further in
the plate three holes 4.7
in.

in

diameter for use in placing the

plate in position on the turret.

The
provided.

usual

wood and

earth screen against shot splinters

was

The
Its

chief dimensions of the trial plate are given in Fig. 34.

weight was 46.7 tons.

calibre
I2in. (30.5

Gun: Krupp's 25
carriage C/80.

cm) gun

in

Gruson's minimum-port

The gun was

fired

with a depression of from

3''

44' to 5

6'.

Shot

Distance: 31.7 yards. Krupp's 12 in. 3.5 calibre steel shell empty, weight about 981.3
: :

lb.

Charge

176.4

lb.

P.P. C/80.
:

Velocity of impact

392 yards per sec*

Energy

of

impact

About 9,503

foot-tons.

Kound No. 1:
Shot: Krupp's 12
lead to 981.3
in.

steel shell, 978.61b.

weighted with sand and

lb.

Point struck

19.7 in. left of the centre line.

13.4

in.

from the round edge of the plate.

Fig
34-

Profile

and Diagram of Hits of

two 12
Scale

the

Trial Roof-plate of a Chilled

Iron

Armour Turret for

in. (^30.5
:

cm) Guns.

26 ak^ 28/5/84.

1.60.

-910

>,

6400

Angle
Effect

of
:

impact

24

14'.

Chiselling
1

out of

surface

0.9

in.

deep,

with abrasions of

23 by

1.4 in.

greatest extension.

radial crack a

from the point struck, and finishing 24.4

of the plate.

in.

from the straight edge

3 hair cracks h,
c,
:

d.

Back
length.

of

plate

crack a was visible throughout

its

entire

* NOTE. This figure is taken from the Official Reports of the Dutch Commission, and probably more correct than the figure 377 yards previously given.

is

97

General state of the target

the structure of the target

The

position of

the plate in
joints

between the ring plates

was apparently unaltered, the showing no change.

The

shot broke up.

Bonnd No. 2:
Shot
:

Krupp's i2
:

in. steel shell;

Point struck

On
:

centre

line,

49.6

weight 984.5 lb., empty. in. from the round edge.

Angle
Effect
:

of

impact

19 35'.

The

shot struck the central hole for lifting the plate and

a
1

chisel
1.8 in.

made mark on the upper half 4 in. deep with abrasions of by 19.7 in. greatest extension and small depth. Crack b
to the

was lengthened

round edge of the

Hair crack
in.

plate.

A new
^

crack e

from the point struck ran upwards to the

right, finishing 25.2 in.

under the straight edge.

crack a at
a.

15.7 in. long,

crossing

sharp angle, h 12.6

:

long.

Back of plate Crack a extended from edge to edge, e began back 25.2 in. below the straight edge, passed through the centre mounting hole and stretched in zig zag to the round edge. Crack y ran nearly radially from the centre mounting hole to the
at the

straight plate

edge 38.2

in. in

length, the direction differing con-

siderably to that on the front of the plate.

Crack

g was

visible at

back as

far as crack a (see fig. 35).

:

General state of the target

plate of the base ring

The

radial crack in the central

0.06

in.,

but the joints

had widened, and the plate sunk about of the ring plates were unaltered.

The

shot broke up.

Bound No. 3
Shot
:

Krupp's 12

in.

steel shell, 980.3 lb.,

weighted with sand and

lead to 981.31b.

Point struck

28.3

in. in.

right of centre line.

27.6

from the round edge.

52'.

Angle
Effect

of impact:
:

22

A long indent without

abrasions.
e,

crack / from the point

k,
I,

struck running to crack

three short cracks,

m, the

last
left,

reaching the round edge.

Crack a extended upwards to the

ending 4

in.

from the straight edge.

:

Back
plate.

of plate

Crack

i visible

throughout

its

length, / con-

necting with d, separating, as seen in the figure, a piece of the

Crack

m visible,

apparently connecting with

k.

98

General state of the target

plate
0.08

The crack

in the centre

supporting

was somewhat widened and the

to 0.1
in.

right half of the plate

sunk

in.

The

shot broke up.

Bound No.
Shot
:

4:

Krupp's steel sheel 981.5

:

lb. in

weight, empty.

Point struck

11 in. right of centre line, 17.8 in.

hits
:

from the round edge

between

and

3.
'.

Angle
Effect

of impact
:

23^ 25

The
in
i

shot hit the piece of plate loosened by cracks

addition to an
indent, caused
in Fig. 34.

b,

h and

/,

and,

abrasions upwards like

rounds

and

3, as

shown

Fig.

3S-

Back of the Trial Roof Plate of the Chilled Iron Armour Turret for
two 12
in. (30.5 cni)

Guns after

the sixth round, 28/5/84.

r edits

New
to hit
I.

cracks n,

0,

p,

to the

edge

of the

plate,

h lengthened

The
in.

piece of plate

bounded by crack

was

thrust

up

about 1.4

examination of crack b showed that it ran in the metal not visible at the close, to the round edge of the plate, but was

An

back

of the plate.

Back

of plate

the 4th round had not produced any

new

cracks crack, but had caused the sinking of the piece bounded by

99

and
in.

d.

This was 6
right.

in.

on the

left,

0.6 in. in the centre,

and

0.4

on the

The separated

part remained fixed in the

cracks.

The

general condition of the target was apparently unaltered.

Shot broke up.

The

plate

had thus

fulfilled

the terms of the contract, but as

trial

yet completely able to afford protection, the

it seemed was continued on the

28th May.

Round No. 5:
Shot: Krupp's flat-headed 12
in.

steel shell,

empty, weight 981.31b.

Diameter
Point struck
:

of flat part, 5.4 in.

41.7

in. left of

centre line, 23.6

in.

above the straight edge.

Angle
Effect

of
:

impact: 12

18'.
in.

long indent 0.4

q, r, s,

deep without abrasions.

all

3 cracks,
plate.

which were

visible at the

back of the

General state of the target

/

The
in.,

piece separated by cracks

still

and d had further sunk about

but

remained

fast in the

plate.

The crack

in the central

supporting plate was widened

to 0,4 in.

Shot broke up. fionnd No. 6 Shot As

:

in

round
:

5.

Point struck

On
:

centre line of plate 33

in.

under the straight edge.

Angle
Effect
t
:

of

impact

13

14'.

long indent without surface abrasions.

u.

Two

fine cracks

and

Crack / lengthened.
of

Back
and u

plate

lengthened to the edges of the plate,

visible.

No

further drop in part broken loose.

:

General state of the target

The

trial

had to be stopped

after the sixth round, as the butt for stopping the shot

was so

much

injured

as

to

offer

no further guarantee

for

arresting

subsequent rounds.

Moreover, as the
it

official

report of the Trial Committee stated,

hits

was not to be expected that a few more effect any great change in its condition.

on the plate would

The

shot broke up.

100

-1

1^1

k 00

a
bo
!->

is.

o o

ba

JS a.

S o
s
t-1

<4j

101

Snmmary: The
the

plate had withstood six rounds with a total energy of

is,

57,016 foot tons, that

198.3 foot tons per ton of material of

armour,

and

thus

displayed

an

endurance

beyond

the

necessities of actual service, as in this case the shot could never

strike at so great

an angle.

The dimensions

selected had proved

appropriate, and the advantage of the arched form had been clearly

demonstrated,

as, for instance,

round 4 struck a piece of plate

completely loosened, but was unable to drive this piece into the
interior of the turret, although the resistance of the arch,

owing

to the cracking of the

bed

plate,

had been considerably reduced.

The

6th round, also, struck an already loosened piece without

it

being able to dislodge

towards the

interior.

The

chill

cracks proved, as before, to have no effect on the

plate, as the cracks

endurance of the

produced by the

hits

com-

menced and ran

quite independent of the former.

The

great effect of the angle of impact on the injuries

resulting from the hits

was

of interest.

The

effect of the

rounds

directed against the lower part of the plate

was disproportionately

greater than that of rounds 5 and

struck the plate, found
after the ogival
it

6,

although these,

when they
appearance,

already weakened.

To

all

head of the shot had

hit the plate,

a second blow
it

was struck by the base of the shot, and this blow, to which seemed that most of the shot's effect was due, was heavier
proportion as the angle of impact increased.
of

in

The

greater angle

impact obtained by depressing the gun and inclining the

may be considered, in view of actual service, to have more than balanced the higher powder charge. Moreover, this heavy blow of the base of the shell may explain why they all
plate

broke to pieces on impact, which, considering the quality of

Krupp's
steel,

would have been a matter

of

surprise on the

assumption of a mere twisting of the ogival part.

102

4. Conclusions of the Dutch Commission respecting Trials

1 to 3.

As
to 3

already mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, the Trials

at the instance of

were undertaken

the Dutch Government,

who

appointed a Commission to carry them out, consisting of Lieut.-Colonel Voorduin, of the Engineers, Captain Scherer, of the Artillery, and Captain
Snyders, of the Engineers.
report of this commission was subsequently published by the Ministry of War, entitled " Verslagen omtrent schietproeven tegen Dutch

The

pantseringen, 1884."

The

report contains, in pages 149

157, the conclusions

on the results

obtained, which

we now reproduce

verbatim.

Conclusions and Decisions arising tlierefrom.

As regards

the first trial, the

glacis

armour plate

exhibited

tendency to crack through under the blows

chill cracks existing in the

of the hits,

independent of the

but exactly in

upper surface of the plate, or of their direction, the direction of a plane in respect to which the moment of

the part of the plate which

hung
If
it

over,

and was separated by

fracture,

must
an

be nearly a maximum.
section of

followed from this circumstance that -the

too small
it

the plate at the point attacked was

to

offer

adequate resistance to fracture, on the other hand,

that, in

was

clearly

shown

consequence

of its unfavourable profile, the plate, in

whose section

a considerable arching existed, was thereby in a measure already prepared

for fracture.

Moreover,
the pushing

this

first

trial

clearly

between the plates placed together

in the

showed that the glacis was too

if

side

connection

slight to

prevent

away

of separated portions, so that

in the actual structure

these defects cannot be avoided, the free

inside of the ring of glacis

movement

of the cupola placed

armour can very soon be compromised.

In opposition to these serious defects, the glacis

armour showed the

the

following good properties during the

trial

{a)

An

appropriate

degree

of

hardness

on

surface,

which

apparently renders penetration by the shot impossible.

(b.)

Great resistance against such penetration also in the so-called

transition layer, and, within
soft metal.

certain limits also, in the interior of

108

{c.)

Complete homogeneity

of the so-called "

Gruson metal "

in

the

different layers, with great fineness of crystals and entire absence

of internal casting faults.
[d.)

Non-injuriousness, within certain

casting, as cracks

limits,

of

faults

in

the

chill

or projections on the upper

surface,

which

sometimes arise

in the

manufacture.

On
at

the ground of these considerations, the manufacturer

close
of

was informed
the

the

the

trial

that,

subject to
its

the

approval of

War

Minister, the glacis armour, on account of

slight

dimensions and the

inappropriate proportions of

its sections,
it

was not
of

satisfactory,

and that

a request would be

made

to replace

by other

improved construction,

and that

also

measures should be taken to increase the connection, both

forming the ring, as well as of parts of the same loosened

of the plates

by blows.

The second trial against a cnpola plate made under the influence of such hard shot as those used in
in question

it

appear

likely that,

this trial, the

armour
of the

would break up into large pieces sooner than any part

be penetrated or loosened.

plate would

These plates certainly soon showed through cracks, which, as

difference, that so long as the parts of the plate

in the

glacis armour, all ran in the plane of the least section, but with the great

were not so cracked as

to

lose

all

connection between themselves, no displacement worthy of note took

slightest

place,

and not once the

dislodgement of these parts occurred.

disclosed

As good properties of the Gruson armour system, the following were by the trial {a.) The degree of hardness of the surface was sufficient to prevent
:

penetration into the plate, even of normally striking shot, and

the system offers consequently complete resistance to perforation,
or anything like
{&.)
it.

The

so-called chill cracks or similar defects on the hard part of

trial,

the plate, which were the cause of the

occasioned no special

disadvantage.
{c.)

Lastly,

it

appeared that after three rounds with such great energy,

of

and so large angles

impact, as in this case, not even

the

smallest piece of plate

armour or thrown inwards, so that

apart

from

was dislodged from the inside of the this armour offers a protection the advantages of the simple construction and
this

advantageous external form peculiar to

system

superior
02

to

that of any other system in existence or in construction.

104

The

forcing through of a comparatively loosened piece of the plate

by

the fourth round, which was necessarily followed

rear of the upper part of the plate,
glacis armour, a necessary result of

by the pushing
chiefly,

to the

was nowise,

as in the case of the

if

the form, but must

not

exclusively,

be explained by the

failure of lateral

connection between the

armour
cracks.

plates, principally at the lower edge, as also by the fact that one shot struck a very small piece of the plate already entirely separated by

This pointed to the necessity of providing against

this defective

condition as far as possible in the actual structure of a turret.

Further, the effect of the different hits

showed

^greatly

against the

original view of the manufacturer, who, however, later on, entirely agreed

with this opinion

of the

that
to
:

it

was desirable

so to construct the external curve

hits

armour

(as far as this could

be done), that normal

should be

almost impossible.

With regard
it

the

decisions

arising

from

these

considerations,

may be remarked
1.

The

trial

was made under the very severe conditions

gained in former
trials,

of the

contract,

which had been accepted by the manufacturer on the

conditions which
in
first

ground
on
our

of the experience

part

were
a

maintained,

although

used

a manner
shot

unfavourable to the plates.

For instance, the

of

was

aimed

at such

point that the part

the plate, below an

impact,

imaginary horizontal line through the point of

relatively small

had a
the

mass, by which,

perhaps,

the

cracking of
for.

plate
2.

by the

first hit

can be completely accounted

The two

following shots were placed close to the

first hit, but,

notwithstanding these three rounds which were close together,

and struck almost normally, not the

produced on the inner side
that in reality the

slightest

change

of

form was

of the cupola,

nor had a single piece

been loosened either from the plate struck or those adjoining, so

working of the guns could have been carried

on within the cupola without any interruption, a result which must

truly

be termed astonishing.
trial

The expectations which,

at

the

conclusion of the

against the glacis armour were

somewhat

diminished, were by this result after the 3rd shot considerably

surpassed.
3.

The 4th

shot

was directed against a portion

of the armour,

which

was not only completely separated from the plate by cracks, but Moreover, through the yielding also was of very small dimensions.

105

1
it

of the incompletely fixed plates, of play,

and became

in

had acquired a certain amount consequence the piece of the plate most

incapable of withstanding a blow.

Without doubt

it

is

to the
this

mass and the immovable locking together of parts to nature of armour owes in particular its powers of resistance.
4.

which

Had

not, following

what

is

stated under

3,

a part of the separated

piece hit by round 4 been completely forced out of the armour,

there would naturally have been no consequent falling
the parts lying above
it
;

down

of

so that the plate, after the 4th round,

although injured and cracked, might have been expected to remain

nearly,
5.
if

not entirely, in
of

its

original state.

The

m.ode

determining the resisting power of the plates

previously employed, by adding the total energies developed by

the different rounds, without taking into consideration the angle
at

which the shot struck,

is

of but little value.

The energy
used, and above

of the individual rounds, the quality of the shot

all,

the part of the energy thrown on the plate, due

to the greater or less approach to striking normally,

compose the

proper measure for determining the above-named resisting power.

In this respect the

greater in the

trial

In the usually

was considerably than is actually to be feared in war time. very short duration of an action between ships
the plate

demand made on

and coast
of

batteries, in

which the former are limited

in their

supply

ammunition, both as regards number and kind,

it is

hardly to be

expected that four of the same kind should

hit close

together on
in this trial.

one plate
6.

at nearly

go with such an energy as occurred

The circumstance
had
the
all

that in this trial really less favourable factors

play, forbade

coming

to the unreserved conclusion that all

the other cupola plates as well would be reduced by four shots to

same condition
justifiable.

as the trial plate, so that a condemnation of

the other plates on the ground of the result obtained did not

appear

To
plates

reach entire security in this respect, further

trials

against several

would have been necessary.

trial

As, however, the

had shown already that apparent defects

in the

plate could not rightly be treated as such, although the value of the plate

as

armour had been

called in question
trial

thereby, the contract afforded no

ground for demanding a

cost of the maker.

of the

other plates, entirely or partly, at the

106
cost

for the

what was ready for use and paid for and then replace it by similar material without security of having for the probably trebled expenditure an armour offering a proportionate increase of resistance, would have been a useless waste of money.
reject lightly at our
part,

To

own

most

This was

all

the more so because

if

the

armour did not

satisfy all the

extremely stringent terms of the contract, which the manufacturer had

bound himself

to accomplish,

still

the

armour

in question did constitute the

really best possible material for coast defences available at the time.

Moreover, it appeared very probable that the resisting power of the armour already delivered could be considerably increased by very simple

means.

On

all

these grounds the manufacturer was informed, the day after the

trial, that,

subject to approval of the

War

Minister,

and irrespective

of all

considerations as to the issue of this test, as well as of the consequent

estimate of the value of the cupola plates

now made

as armour, these would

provisionally be accepted according to the terms of the contract.

condition was added that, as far as

possible, without

sacrificing

The work

already completed, use was to be

trial to

made

of the experience gained in the

improve the said armour

in respect to fixing it

on the wrought-iron

substructure,

and

also as

touching the danger of the forcing through of

pieces broken loose.

For the armour of the

whole arrangement and
It

forts at

Ymuiden, the improvements

in the

in the erection of the

armour must apply.

was shown

also in the three firing trials against the cupola roof plate

even more

clearly, that a

probably general feature of the chilled iron plates

was

that they soon cracked through

of different sizes

and separated into numerous pieces and weights by the impact of hardened forged steel shell

such as those delivered by Krupp.

At the same time it was irrefutably shown that even in this case no failure of protection ensued, so long as a displacement and corresponding yielding of the different parts into which the plate is divided, does not occur. The claim of the manufacturer that his system of armour owes the greater part, if not the whole, of its value to the dome or arched form, which only can be used in this manner, received a striking confirmation in this trial. The trial gave, therefore, no reason for demanding any
change
in the roof plates already cast or those to

be made, but warranted,

on the contrary, the very valuable assurance that a means of protection

had been found

in the plates

which

offers

a sufficient cover for the safety

of the interior of the cupola against direct

greatest security to the turret motor and

and other fire, as well as the mechanism for laying the guns."

107

In conclusion, the report of the Trial

Committee mentions the changes

plates.
in

recommended

in the glacis

and cupola armour

These were,

for the glacis plates^

an increase

weight and thickness,

decreasing and supporting the overhanging part by means of brackets,

and improving the connection between the plates by means

iron keys.

of

wrought

For future cupola

plates,

a flattening of the profile curve, increase of

weight, and adoption of wrought-iron connecting keys.

To

briefly

sum up what has been

said

The

glacis plate

had not

satisfied the

requirements, the cupola plate had done so, but for future

construction changes were desirable, whilst the roof plate had surpassed
the tests arranged and had

shown a considerable excess

of strength.

5.Trial against a Side Plate of a Chilled Iron Armour Turret

for two 15.7 in. (40

cm) Guns 35
Seno

calibres long.

On

the Firing

Ground

at

della Castagna, near Spezia.

April, 1886.

2oth, 24th,

and 29th

Object and Programme of the

Trial.

Test of a cupola plate of a coast turret for two 35 calibre long 15.7 in. guns, ordered by the Italian Government, by 3 shots from the 100 ton

Armstrong

i6.9in.

gun (Type Lepanto).

i

The

points of impact to be separated at least

:

metre, or 39 inches.

Target
its

The
15

turret to

which the

trial

plate belonged corresponded in

chief points to the type Fig. 4.

The armoured cupola

consists

of

plates
ft.

in

a ring, and has an extreme diameter outside

of 46.6

The
opening,

roof,
is

which

is

provided with a manhole and sighting

put together in two parts, like the Dutch turret, and

ft.

has a diameter of 21.7

The

ring of glacis armour has 15

plates, which have on the side

of the turret
ft.

exposed to attack a

height of 6.6

ft.

on the others 4.3

is

the glacis armour ring

64.6

ft.

The extreme diameter of The guns lie in Armstrong

hydraulic minimum-port carriages.

The
so
flat

trial

plate

was made
trials,

in

accordance with the experience

gained in the previous

a
profile, that

and, in correspondence therewith, had

angles of impact of shot of more than 50

seemed excluded.

108

The
of the

plate

was

built into the

limestone rock on the shore

Seno

della

Castagna, near Spezia

(See Fig.

37),

and

rested on a bed plate let into the rock, weighing 40.8 tons.
Fig. 37-

Structure for the Side Plate of the Chilled Iron

Armour Turret

for two

15.7 (40 cm)

Scale
:

Guns.

1.200.

-"

'-Vj

.'>ll'*.-'*i

The
work.

side connection to the rock

plates,

was obtained by means

to its

of

two specially cast

each 44.1 tons in weight, with masonry

The

trial plate

was connected

two side-supporting
by means
of tongues

plates, as in the construction of the turret,

and grooves.
right the
plate.

On

the left side a tongue was cast on to the plate,

in the side plate, whilst

which entered a groove formed

tongue was

on the

and the groove in the trial In the groove on the upper edge of the trial plate, and in
in the side plate

109

the corresponding recesses in the supporting plates

traverse, representing the roof

was placed a

plate of the turret, 5.2 tons in

weight, which rested sideways, like a wedge, against the masonry.

This

left

a free opening, by which access could be had to the

inside of the armour.

The rock above

about 10
feet.

the

target was removed to a height of

filled

This space before each round was

with
to

wood

to diminish the injury to

the overhanging rock

and

partially protect the target.

The gun was protected against splinters of shot by a strong wooden screen in front. The upper part of glacis armour in front of the trial-plate was represented by a glacis of concrete.
In the trial plate there

casting in

chill,

were a number of cracks formed in shown by dotted lines in the figures, which also

give the dimensions of the plate.

The breadth
was
9.8
ft.,

at the level of the

upper edge
6.2
ft.,

of the
its

glacis

at that of the

armour plate

and

weight

86.5 tons.

Gun:

Armstrong, 16.9

in.

(43
in

cm),

100

ton

gun,

27

calibres

long
port

(Type
In

Lepanto),

Armstrong
angle

hydraulic

minimum

carriage.*

order to increase the

of

impact, the

base

of

was inclined 1 29' to the front, and the axis of the gun was at such a level as to point, with 1 depression,
the plate
at the base of the plate at a spot 8 in.
of the glacis.

above the upper edge

Distance

146.5 yards.
in.

Shot: Krupp 2.8 calibre 16.9

in weight.

(43

cm)

steel shell,

empty, about 2,205

'bs.

Charge

827.5

lb.

brown

P.

(one hole) from the Rhenish- Westphalian

Powder Factory.
Striking velocity (mean)

587 yards per second.

energy
1
:

): 47,481 foot tons.

Round No.
Shot
:

20th April, 1886.

shell as above,

Krupp

weighted with sand and lead to 2,205

'b.

is

* The gun was placed in a pontoon anchored to the shore. A good description of the carriage found in the Mittheilungen Tiber Gegenstande des Artillerie und Genie Wesens 18S3, page 34.
further description
is

given in the "Italia Militare" and Engineer 1883, page 73.

110

Velocity

At the muzzle, 591.5 yards.*

93 yards from the muzzle
:

588.7 yards.

At

the target:

587.1 yards.

<u

111

Point struck

8 in. right of centre line.

{See Fig. 38.)

46.4

in.

above upper glacis edge.

Angle

of

impact

44 30
18 in. long, 13.4 in. broad, and

Effect:

chiselling of the surface

2 in.

deep.
:

Also the following

crack a 0.2
plate.

in.

wide from the points

of

impact to the right

edge of the
crack c 0.3

A
e,

hair crack b to the right plate edge.

right.

A
d

in.

wide running downwards to the

crack

and one horizontally

and

finally

some short

hair cracks.

At the point struck

of the surface.

there were

some

insignificant abrasions

scaling off of the surface at the lower part of

crack

c, which ran close below the upper layer of the surface, and separated a piece therefrom of 4 in. greatest thickness was more important.

Back
plate,

of the plate

At
1

the back of the plate {see Fig. 42)

only one crack was found proceeding from the right edge of the

and ending about

the
position
of

1.8 in.

above the lower plate edge.

it

From

the

crack,

was assumed
a.

that

it

con-

nected with the crack in front marked

General
target
in.

condition of
it

the target.

An

examination of the

showed that

had moved

slightly, as

openings about 0.04

its

wide had been formed between the armour plate and

two

side supporting plates which, however, could in

no way prevent
of the

the continuation of the

trial.

This, however, had to be suspended

owing

to the destruction

stage to which the pontoon

by the blast from the gun was moored.

wooden

The

shot broke up.

Round No.
Shot
:

2: 24th April, 1886.

As

in

Round

I.
:

Velocity at the muzzle

,,

592.3 yards per second.

:

at 93 yards from the muzzle at the target

of
:

589.4 yards.

588 yards.

Energy

impact
:

47.632.8 foot tons.

Point struck

19.7 in. left of centre line.

27.6 31.5

in. in.

above edge of
from
hit

glacis.

No.

I.

Angle

of impact:

48

112

UiHlHIHIHHii'
o

>

:A

Ss.

113

Effect:

Surface excision

15. 8 in.

long,

13.8 in.

broad,

and 4

in.

maximum
layer, also

depth, surrounded by irregular abrasions of the upper

running radially from the point struck to the edge.

0.3 in.

Cracky
and k
I

mean

width,

0.6 in.,

0.2 to 0.6

in., i

0.4

in.,

in.

width, as also several short hair cracks.

c

The cracks a and

abrasion between hits
sides to crack a,

were widened on an average

to hit 2.

to 0.4

in.,

and the former extended

i

Deserving of mention was an

and

2,

which, running obliquely on both

had a depth

of 1.2 in. to 1.6 in.

At
0.8 to

the upper edge of the glacis a small three-cornered piece,

1.2 in. large,

was knocked out (marked

x' in

Fig. 38), as

also a four-sided piece

^ under

hit

i.

The

greatest

number

of cracks ran with the strong projecting

it

lower part of the plate, but, on account of the glacis covering,

could not be seen whether they reached the lower edge of the
plate or not.

Cracks h and

apparently ran under the upper

layer and joined in the interior with d, as the piece of plate

bounded by these and crack k was pushed out about

k had a width of
i

0.8

in.,

and

in.

or a depth of 1.6 in.

/

Thii supposition was

confirmed by the fact that cracks h and

of 0.4 in. to 0.6 in.

notwithstanding a M'idth

were not

visible at the

back

of the plate.
first

Back of the plate round was extended to

off

(Fig.

42)

crack a formed by the

the lower edge of the plate, breaking

in.

a small three-cornered piece 8

i

high,

2.4

in.

wide

at

bottom, and

in.

thick.
in.

Also about 19.7

above the lower edge appeared a nearly

in.

horizontal zigzag crack, 0.06 in. to o.i

wide, with a branch to

a,

the left and another to the right, running into crack

connect-

ing apparently with exterior cracks, f, g and quently marked with these letters in Fig. 42.
In other respects, the back of the plate

k,

and conse-

was

quite intact.
joint

General state of the target

On

examination, the
plate
in.

between the armour plate and

found widened
also the left supporting plate

its

right supporting

was

o.i in., whilst the left joint

remained 0.4

wide,

above the glacis

inside the target.

was cracked at a level of 27.6 in. edge which crack however was not discoverable

114

a
bo

o o
s: CL

115

In presence of this general loosening of the structure of the

target, the

manufacturer had the

right,

by the terms
the

of

the

contract, to postpone the third round

until

structure

was

again consolidated.

As

this

would have occupied a long time,

and the plate by

waived
his right,

its

excess of resisting power seemed able to

bear the 3rd round without additional support, the manufacturer

and the 3rd shot was delivered without repairing

to replace the

the structure further than

previously.

wooden

pier broken

The

shot broke up.

Round No.
Shot
:

3: 29 April, 1886.

As

in

Rounds

and
:

II.

Velocity at the muzzle

,,

S90.3 yards.
:

at

93 yards from the muzzle at the target 586 yards.

:

587.5 yards.

Energy

at impact: 47,322.7 foot tons.

f

Point struck

in. right of
in.

centre line.

90.5

above glacis edge.

I.

44

in.

from Round No.

Angle

of impact:

35 30'.
15.7
in.

Effect: Excision

long,

11. 8 in.

broad, and 1.6

in.

deep^ with

surrounding abrasions also running radially from the point struck

to the edges hair-cracks
/,

m,

n, 0,

p, and a vertical crack q 0.2

in.

want of lateral support the upper was forced downwards a little, so that the under parts stood out along crack a about 0.4 in. and along crack e about 0.2 in., and, in consequence, at the right edge a large piece of plate, seen in Fig. 38, had broken away and was pushed out. The greatest thickness of this fracture was 10 in., the other
wide.
In consequence of the

part of the plate

dimensions are seen

in the Fig.

No

widening of cracks formed by the previous rounds had

occurred.

116

117

^'^'

^'
after the third round.
,

Back

of the plate

new
was

Back of the Trial Side Plate

29/4/86.

Scale: 1.60.

crack running upwards -and to

the left from the centre line

seen apparently with

in

connection
/

the hair crack

;

on the

front surface
to the lower

k was lengthened

edge

of the plate,

and between k and b a nest of several small cracks had appeared

owing
rechlsi

to

links

shaped
4.4
lb.,

which a small wedgepiece weighing about

in

shown
3.5

dotted lines, had

It

fallen

from the inner surface.

measured
Close
small surface abrasion about 0.4 in. deep.

by

4.3

by

3.2 in.

to this

there was a

The sinking

of

the

upper
k

part

of

the

plate

was
0.9

also

observable on the interior of the plate, the upper part of which

stood outwards along cracks
0.8
in.,

a,

and

/,

about 0.6

in. to

in.,

and

0.2 in. respectively.

:

General condition of the target

The openings

in the joints

between the armour plate and

two
first

its

side supports formed

by the

rounds had, by the sinking of the former, closed up again,

completely, on the right to 0.4
in.

on the

left

wide.

As
the

the 3rd round completed the stipulations of the contract,

trial

was stopped, although the

shot broke up.

plate doubtless

would have

withstood further shot.

The
Sumniary
:

The

plate under trial had in every respect complied with the

conditions of the programme.

severe, as the energy which the

These maybe considered extremely gun used in the trial displays

is

under normal conditions, at the same distance,

tons (charge 772
lbs.

only 44,251 footlbs.),

Italian

powder;

shot,

weight 1,841.2

but in this case was increased by using a heavier charge.

Further,

the small distance between gun and target, which alone rendered
possible the development of so high an energy,

must be con-

sidered

and

lastly,

the

number

of rounds

as very large, in respect of the fact

must be looked upon that the gun is one of the

of

most powerful

in existence,

and that the cupola,

which the

trial

118

plate
it

was a

section, consists of 15 similar plates; and, moreover,

may be added
The

that the points of impact

were proportionately

very near each other.

three rounds which struck the armour represented an

energy

of 142,465.6 foot tons, or 1,618.2 foot tons

per ton weight

of plate. to

The
it

plate,

however, did not suffer to such an extent as

appear incapable of withstanding further shot of the same

calibre,

and

has to be added that the third round was received

lateral

under very unfavourable conditions, as the

failed.

support had

Nevertheless, the cracks

of very small dimensions,

caused after the third round

in the slightest

were

and only

degree

visible at the

back

of the plate.

The

chill

cracks

previously existing in the plate proved

all

themselves to be, as in

previous
plate.

trials,

absolutely without effect

on the endurance of the

crossed the former in
course.
all

The

cracks formed in the firing

directions without once following their

The The
the

profile of the plate as selected

was proved

to

be correct.

penetration of the shot was proportionately very slight, and

cracks formed were neither so numerous or so serious as

might have been expected from the severity of the attack.

Krupp's
as
is

steel

shell

showed the same excellence

of material

usual with the smaller shells of this firm.

in

Naturally, they

broke

pieces on striking
chilled

no shot having ever yet remained

whole after striking

armour obliquely.

6. Second Trial against the Side Plate tested in April, 1886, for a Chilled Iron Armour Turret for two 15.7 in. (40 cm) Guns,
35 calibres long.

On

the Firing

Ground

at

Seno

della Castagna, near Spezia.

22nd June, 1886.

Object and Programme of the

Trial.

To supplement
chilled

the results obtained in April,

1886,

by testing the

behaviour of shot of different calibres and manufacture on striking the

armour already
steel shells

tried.

The new
16.9
in.

firing trial

was occasioned by the circumstance that the three had broken up on striking the chilled armour into small
Krupp's
5.9 in. shell

pieces,

whereas

in earlier trials

had perforated wrought

iron plates without showing the least deformation.

119

Doubts had
of the

in

consequence arisen whether Krupp's 16.9

quality as the
shells

in, shells

were

same good
trials

of smaller

calibre,

and, at the

suggestion of the Trial Commission, the Italian

War

Minister decided to
First,

continue the

with several Krupp 5.9

in.

shells.

a 16.9

in.

steel shot of St.

still

Chamond make

(France) was to be fired at the upper and

intact part of the plate, so as to

shell.
trial

compare

its

effect with those of the

Krupp
Gruson

The

was, therefore, chiefly as a test of projectiles, for which the

plate,

chilled

already definitively accepted by the Italian

War

Minister, served as a target.

Target

The

structure

shown

in Fig. 42,

and previously described,

trial,

had seriously suffered by the preceding

the armour plate and
latter
its lateral

so that

between

supports, as well as

between the
at the joints.

and the masonry, openings had been formed

filled

In order to restore as far as possible, the lateral support, these

openings were now

with steel wedges, and zinc was also

poured

in.
:

Weight

of the trial plate

86.5 tons, kg.

in.

Gun:

I,

Armstrong's 5.9
carriage.

(15

cm) gun, 28 calibres long, cm) 100 ton gun, as

in

Albini

2.

Armstrong's

16. 9 in. (43

in the

in last trial.

Both guns
Distance
:

pontoon moored to the shore.

weight 79.4

146.5 yards (134 metres).

in.

Shot: Krupp 5.9

a St.

steel shell, 2.5 calibres,

lbs. (36 kg.),

and

Chamond

16.9 in. steel shot 2.5 calibres long, weight 2,205 'bs.

(1,000 kg.)

To facilitate
of the shots
last trial.

reference in the following account, the numbering

of the cracks follow those of the

and the lettering

(See Fig, 38).

Round No. 4:
Shot
:

Krupp's
:

steel 5.9 in. shell,

empty, 2.5

calibres,

weight 79.4
)

lbs.

Charge

32.2

lbs.

progressive Fossano
:

powder

(0.8 to 0.9 in

Velocity at impact

546.5 yards per sec.

Energy
Angle
Effect
:

in.
:

1482.6 foot tons.

right of the centre line, 52
in.

Point struck
of

34 impact

above the glacis edge.

44
of the surface at the point struck.

Unimportant abrasion

Back

of plate unaltered.

Shot broke up.

H2

120

121

Ronnd No. 5:
Shot
:

As
:

before.

Charge

39.7 lbs. progressive Fossano

:

powder

(0.8 to 0.9 in.)

Striking velocity

616.4 yards per sec.

energy: 1886,3 foot-fons.

:

Point struck
edge.

40

in. right

of the centre line, 9 in.

above the glacis

Angle

of impact

50

30'.

Effect: Abrasion of surface 2 to

It

in.

deep between cracks

and

c.

appeared that cracks b and

c ran superficially under the upper

layer of the armour, as the plane of fracture of the abrasion

was

covered with a layer of rust.

Back

of plate

unchanged.

Shot broke up.

As both

the 5.9

in.

shells

had broken up on striking the armour, the

part of the

Committee considered the

proceeded with the

first

programme was

satisfied,

and

firing of the

Armstrong 100 ton gun.

Round No. 6
Shot:
St.

Chamond
827
lbs.,

16.9 in.

steel

shot,

2.5

calibres

long; weight

2,205 ^^

Charge

one-hole

brown

P.

P.

(Rhenish-Westphalian

Powder

Factory).
:

Velocity at the muzzle

at the target of the shot

:
:

589 yards.
584.7 yards.
:

Energy

on impact

47,167.7 foot tons.

the upper and
still

Point struck

Aim was taken on

intact part of

the plate.

20
89

in. left of
in.

the middle line.

above the glacis edge.

hits).

(See the cross in the diagram of

In consequence of the

movement
20

of the

pontoon by the waves, the shot struck too low,

exactly on hit No. 2 of April 24.

in. left of

the centre line,

and

27.6

in.
:

above the upper glacis edge.

Angle

of

impact

The

shot struck a

much

injured point, where the

surface presented a nearly vertical plane.

122

to

00"

bo
[i,

5^

k^

'SI

Co

123

The angle
and 90.
Effect
:

of

impact was therefore apparently between

80''

The

shot struck out of the plate between cracks e and

already existing,

a number of pieces of different thickness

(in

maximum

20

in.)

Crack p was lengthened

thrust outwards

to

e,

which pushed the piece y,

to the right.

by the previous shooting,

:

Back
therefore,

of the plate

Two

fresh cracks, probably connecting

of the plate,

with cracks

and

n, visible

on the front
letters.

and

are,
in

marked with the same

Also a short crack r

the left pillar.

Between cracks k and

out of the surface 27.6
in.

appeared a wedge-shaped
in.

splitting

broad, 8

high,

and

6.3 in. deep.

The
dis-

loosened pieces had fallen perpendicularly and so were not

lodged.

Between crack a and the

in.
in.

right edge of the plate a small

three-cornered piece, 8

long in the side, was pushed out

about 2.4

The lower

part of the plate

was forced inwards by

in.
))

the shot

along crack d about 1.4

1)
)i

J
r

>>

2.4
1.6

,,

beyond the upper

part.

The displacement of the left pillar took place along the previous
crack
k,

whose under part appeared

on the front surface, but

to connect with cracks i or

visible

the

displacement

was not

observable on the front.

General condition of the target

The

left

supporting plate,

whose
of

front surface
shot,

broken

had suffered considerably from glancing pieces showed a through crack opening 0.4 in. to 0.8 in,,

as also the upper traverse which took the place of a roof-plate of

turret.

The upper

part of the plate was, notwithstanding, in close

still

contact with the supporting plates, and

possessed adequate

to

power of resisting other shot from the same gun, but the trial had be discontinued as no further 16.9 in. shot were at hand.
It is

to

be noted that the heated pieces of the shot at the

fire

last

round set

to the timber baulks of the screen in front,

which was speedily consumed.

The

shot broke up.

124

Back of

the Trial Side Plate of the Chilled Iron

\t,-T

Armour

Summary
O^ the trial

The

first

part

Turret for two

ifi-(\o

cm) guns after

Scale
:

the sixth round.

had showed once

22/6/86.

1.60.

more that

steel shot of small

calibre break

up on striking

an oblique surface of armour,

in

the

same

way

as

the

16.9

in. shell fired in

April.

The second part of the programme produced no tangible result, as the St. Chamond
shot struck the cracks on the

redds

linlcs

most injured part and a comparison

of the plate
of its effect

with that of the Krupp shell

was

in

consequence excluded.

This shot was, nevertheless,

of great interest,
little

showing how

the

time of breaching a plate can be judged by cracks

whose point of striking was marked by a circular and on the right and below, sharply edged erosion of the surface, hit a part of the plate already much injured by round 2, and its angle of impact must have been between 80
already formed.

The

shot,

and

90'^,

which was proved by the

fact that the

broken pieces

of

the shot were not deflected

upward on the curve

of the plate,

but were thrown directly at right angles to the

left,

where they
Not-

injured the projecting part of the side supporting plate.

withstanding

this,

the armour withstood also this round, or an

is,

attack in total of 192^970 foot tons, that

2,196.5

foot

tons

per ton of plate.

The

dislocation of the left pillar, visible at the

back

of the plate, must, in consideration of the

weakened support

of the

same by the

earlier rounds,

be reckoned as inconsiderable.
of the

Without doubt the whole upper part

be consequently affirmed that the
trial

armour would
it

have been equal to further shots from the same gun, and

may

plate possessed a resisting

capacity considerably in excess of what was necessary against

the attack of even the loo-ton gun.

Any Chamond

difference
steel shell

between the material

of the

Krupp and

St.

could not be determined on account of the

facts previously stated.

125

CHAPTER

IV.

Comparative Analysis of the results obtained, and

Conclusions.

THE
thereof.

result of

the

series

of

trials

is

best

shown by the

profile

and

dimensions of the armour which were

finally

designed in consequence

The

firing trials

against armour for inland fortifications, and those

against coast defence armour, described on pages 45 and 76, afford this
information.

From

the former arose the armour profile, shown in Fig. 25,

and from the

latter the profile of the plate tried at Spezia,

given in Fig. 38.

Both profiles proved at the trials to be correct, and both agree in regard
to the external curve.

Comparing the
the profile of the

last
first

neglecting the
Tegel turret

dimensions for the

10),

moment

with

(Fig.

we

find that, as already

mentioned, the later

trials

brought them back to a profile similar to that

which Gruson, by the

for the first

results of the preliminary experiments,

had chosen

Tegel

turret.

We
change
in detail.

have before stated the reasons which seemed to necessitate a

in this profile,

and

shall later

on have occasion to give them more

To form an opinion of the results of the trials it is indispensable compare them together, and we have consequently drawn up the Table
data of the
trials to

to of

be found at the end. and charges used

The Table

contains, in the columns 3 to 9, the guns

in the attack at the different trials, the figures

being extracted directly from

the reports of the trials.

The columns
for the

10 to 21 contain the chief dimensions and weights of the

plates tried, either taken from the drawings or calculated from them, and

most part

left

out in the

official

reports, as each figure

is

only of

value

when

it

can

be

compared with

the

corresponding figures of

other material tried.

126

It

may be asked

if

beyond the thickness and the

profile of a plate there

are other proportions requiring consideration.

In the literature of chilled cast-iron

armour these are not given, and even

the empirical formula for finding the thickness of chilled armour follows

by

analogy the formula for determining wrought-iron armour, and neglects

the other dimensions.
If

we

reflect that the destruction of chilled

armour
all

takes place not by perforation, but only by breaking up, then

the

dimensions seem more or

easier within
certain

less to

be of value, as

it

must without doubt be

limits to

break up a small plate by cracks into

of the

numerous pieces than a large plate

same

thickness.

We

say within certain

felt
if

limits, for

a limit doubtless exists, and indeed

has been always

and respected by the Constructor.

We

should

promise too much

we presumed, from

the

i8 firing

trials,

to exactly
it

define the most favourable dimensions to give to an armour plate, but

nevertheless seems well worth while, in so entirely empirical a subject, to

closely

examine the

results of the trials, so as to obtain a clear view,

if

possible, of

what these dimensions should be.

to an

We

now proceed

examination of the Table, and remark, in

first
of,

passing, that the figures given for the

Tegel turrets are merely to

as a rule, in our comparative

complete the Table, and are not

analysis.

made use

1.

The Proportions between the Greatest and Least Thickness

Armour.
In columns lo and
1 1

of the

of the

Table

we have placed
is

together the greatest

and least thicknesses of the plates of armour tried.

the profiles shows that the greatest thickness
level of the centre of the port,

comparison with

throughout found at the

and the

least at the

upper edge.

The few

variations are given in the Table.

Column
radial

12 contains the proportion of the smallest to the greatest

thickness, a proportion
plate.

which has the greatest influence on the

endurance of the

In the Tegel turrets for land fortification, these figures vary

I
:

between

2.3

and
i
:

2.5,

and
i
:

in the later plates, for the

I.7

same

class of fortification,

between
In

1.3

and

the

earlier

plates,

coast batteries,

the

proportion
i
:

(excluding the roof plates); in the later plates between (excepting the glacis

1.4

was and

i i

2.6
1.7

armour

plates).

127

The decrease
recent types
is

in the thickness of the

upper part

of the plates in the

so small that the respective figures point the

way

to a

comparison between the behaviour of older and newer armour plates.

led

As already to the same

stated in the

commencement
chosen for the

of this chapter, the later trials

first

profile as that

Tegel

turret.

This early

profile

had been g^ven up because chilled iron shell used against the upper oblique portion of the plates had a greater effect than those hitting the
lower and more perpendicular part.
both the

This fact was made apparent at the

trial

of

first

and second

Tegel

turrets,

and

is

confirmed in the

"

Proceedings of the Engineer

it.

Committee," so that there can be no doubt about

second question

is,

whether the explanation commonly given, and

adopted by ourselves, of the circumstance that chilled iron projectiles shiver into atoms on striking normally, but break up into large pieces when
striking obliquely, which pieces
correct.

injure the

upper part
12,

of

the plate,

is

In presence of the figures of

column

we

incline rather to the

opinion that the earlier plates were too

that the greater effect of the oblique

weak hits was

in their

upper portions, and

entirely due to this fact,

and

not to the material of the projectiles used.

Major Kiister remarks, on page 28

from the roof downwards, should decrease

of

the

Proceedings, that the

Experimental Committee recommended that the thickness of the plate,

They proposed at less rapidly. sharper curve, a more perpendicular by means of a the same time to give, profile to the lower part and a more oblique one to the upper, and stated
that the cracks had, generally, originated with glancing shot.
for a

The demand

that

more perpendicular lower section apparently rested on the assumption normal hits had less effect than glancing ones, and this demand was

perhaps the cause of the frequently given explanation of the varying

behaviour of the projectiles.

The
is

figures of

column 12 seem to us

to

show

that this explanation

not correct, inasmuch as no solid reasoning can be adduced

hit.

why a
Also,

shot hitting normally should have less effect than a glancing

the explanation that the larger pieces of chilled projectiles did more
to the

harm

upper part

of the

armour than the smaller pieces did

to

the lower

seems to us incorrect, as the

earlier reports of trials expressly state that

the cracks began with the glancing hits, but the cracking of the plate

must be independent

of

the greater or less injury to the surface,

in relation

and

be chiefly proportional to the strength of the blow

thickness of the armour.

to the

128

We,
of the
in

therefore, are of opinion that the profile of the first

in

Tegel Turret

was discarded
spite of
lastly,

consequence of erroneous assumptions, that the success

its

second Tegel turret was not due to

it,

steeper profile, but was,

the
plates

due to the dissimilar greater thickness of

cracking noted
to
in

and

that the

the

upper part of the second

decrease in thickness of

Tegel turret was

this part.

due

the

still

too rapid

2.The Proportion of the Expanded Length of the Unprotected Part of the Profile Curye to the Greatest Expanded Breadth of the Armour Plates.
Before mentioning this proportion, given in column 13 of the Table, a
_

word may be
plate of the

said as to the reason for calculating this ratio.

It is

under-

stood at once that a narrow plate will not resist shot so well as a broad

same

profile,

and

for this reason

it

would seem desirable to

establish a proportion

between the

total length

and the breadth.

This,

however, was found to be impossible, as the profile curve at the base of the
plate

makes a sharp bend^ and

it

if

the whole curve from top to bottom were

lead,

taken into consideration

would
;

owing

to the different character of

the profiles, to a false estimate

but on the upper part of the plates the

curve throughout

is fairly

regular,

and can be well made use

of in obtaining

a ratio with the breadth.

In

column 13 the

ratio of length to breadth in the

Tegel turrets

is

given as

1:2;

in

the later armour for coast batteries, VI. to

glacis armour)
i
:

XL,

this

becomes (excepting the

1.8 to

2.3,

and only the two

In the last, too,

half-port plates of the batteries

show a

ratio of

0.9.

the length was greater than the breadth, which

is still

more apparent when

is

the part of the plate's profile covered by the glacis armour

reckoned.

This

ratio,

which

differs

from the others, had

its

own

special reason.

In the battery plates the port occupies a large proportion of the external
surface,

and

in

consequence, in the relatively slight parts above and below

is

the port, the metal

left

by the casting

in

a state of tension, which

in the trials of the

facilitates the early formation of cracks.

For example,

8.3 in. battery in 1873

74, cracks of this nature

were formed, and

for this

reason

it

appeared preferable to divide the plates down the centre, and to

undoubtedly unfavourable loss of weight and mass.

obtain the accurate connection of them by keys placed therein, submitting

in this alteration to the

We

find greater differences in the coast

armour

(XII. to XVIII.) than

in that for inland forts.

129

For instance, comparing the rdof plates (XIV., XVII.) and the
plates

glacis

(XV.),
i
:

we
1. 4,

find

in

the older battery plates a ratio

it is

of

length to
i
:

breadth of

and

in the later turret plates

from

0.9 to

0.6.

These varying figures have

well
as

also their special reason.

The form

as

the weight of

the

heavy armour

plates

conditions of transport.
the

The form by

the size of

by the the railway truck and

is

governed

weight by
All

the carrying capacity of

the bridges

and other railway

of the plate

structures.

Gruson armour plates are transported on special wagons,

that for the Spezia plate having 12 axles,

and as the length

profile cannot be diminished, the breadth must be kept down.

In coast

battery armour this

to

is

not of great importance, as they are called upon

relatively

withstand

only

small

number

of

shot.

The

fact

is

characteristic that in the

Dutch as well as the Spezia plate only horizontal

natural,

or oblique cracks were formed and not vertical ones, as observed in the

higher

plates,

which

is

as the vertical section

is

very large

in

proportion to the horizontal section.

3.The Proportion of the

Tertical Section to the Front Superficies

of the

Armour

Plate.

The
the plate
give the

ratio of the vertical section to the

is

expanded front
and

superficies of

given in columns 14 to 19 in two forms.

ratio of the total superficies

Columns 14

to 16

amount and

total vertical section,

whilst columns 17 to 19 exhibit only the ratio of the part of the surface

exposed to shot to the corresponding vertical section.

two-fold ratio
is

The cause

of this

again the fact that only the part of the profile exposed to

shot possesses a uniform curve, the rest

making a sharp bend under the

little

glacis armour, but the figures in columns 16 and 19 show so

difference

that

we may
falls in
i

confine our analysis of them to those in column 16.

In the second Tegel turret

we

find the ratio to

be

11

and

12.2,

which

the
:

newer
i
:

turrets for inland fortification (excepting the glacis

6.8,

armour) to

7.6 to

and

in battery plates to

3.8.

The reasons
and we leave
it

for dividing the battery plates

have already been explained,

of section,

to be gathered from

them whether the plane

and

preserving nearly the normal weight, might not have been increased.

As regards

the

newer

turret plates (VI., X.

XI.), the proportions,

notwithstanding the decrease of superficies in relation to the Tegel plates,

was, without doubt, more correct, as horizontal cracks, in particular, were
not formed
in

them.

130

That, with the same vertical section, a broader and heavier plate
possesses a greater proportion of resisting power than a narrower and
lighter plate
is,

we

think, a certainty,
It

if

a state of tension

is

avoided in
by-

casting the former.

trial

would, however, be of great interest to establish

what

is

the best ratio of the vertical section to the superficies for a

given constant weight.

Such

trials,
if

however, would be very costly, as they

scale.

would only give

it

reliable results

conducted on a large

In consequence,

is

fortunate that such

trials,

though interesting, are not absolutely

necessary, as the proportions of the plates tried (VI., X., and XI.) proved

generally favourable.

In particular, the last

named
it is

plate of

new

profile

displayed such resisting power, that practically

really not in question

whether

the

same endurance would have been reached

between the
offer a

had

a small

reduction in weight been made.

We

consider the ratio of

it

7.4

vertical section

and the

superficies to be correct, as

seems to

guarantee against the pro-

duction of a state of tension in the casting.

In the earlier coast
turret plates in question

armour the
it

ratio

was
i
:

6.9

with the two

new

was

1.3

and

2.2.

As already

stated, the

form of these plates was governed by the necessities of transport, and as

the Spezia plate showed a considerable excess of resisting power,
it

becomes

a matter of
resisting

little

moment

whether,

with the same vertical section, the

to a certain extent with the breadth

power would have increased

or not.

4.The Proportion of the Energy of the Attack

of the

to the

Weight

Armour

Plates.
the

As already mentioned, we consider

the

weight of
power,

a plate to be

most important

factor

in

its

resisting
this

which

makes

it

desirable to establish a ratio

between

weight and the

energy of

the attack expressed in foot-tons.

of the

We

obtain thereby a sort of measure

amount
this

of the unit of attack in relation to the size of the plate,

and though

measure may not be

of great accuracy, the figures are of

interest as completing the data relating to the trials

made.
it

Had

the various plates been fired at

until

they were breached,

would have been best to establish a proportion between the total energy exerted by the whole number of hits and the weight of the plates.
This breaching was only effected in particular cases, so that it only remains to proceed on the assumption that armour of the same character

that

is,

for inland or coast defences

is

intended to withstand approxi-

131

mately the same number of

correct, as the

hits.

(This assumption

is

only conditionally

number

of

rounds to which a turret

its

may be expected
the turret plates

to be exposed
tried,

must vary with

respect).

position.

Among

however, no such great differences arose as to need special conin this

sideration

Our
to

ratio

only gives a
whilst

measure
in

of

the
it

attack which

a plate

had

expect,

the

manner

which

withstood
results.

it

can

only be ascertained from

comparison of the firing

We
in

now

pass to a consideration of columns 20 and 21 of the Table,

which are given the weights of the plates with reference to the energy

per ton of plate.

For the port plate

of the

second Tegel turret

this

ratio

cannot be
in.

simply expressed, as a change was made from the 5.9

in. to

the 6.7

gun,

and ordinary cast-iron as well as

side plates of the

chilled iron shells

were used.

For the and

same

turret

we have
trial

the figures 43 and 43.2 foot-tons

per ton of plate, which in the later

108.2 foot-tons, falling again in
It

trials {VI. to X.)

become

76.3, 81.9

XL

to 35 foot-tons.

appears from this that the work thrown on the metal of the plates
VI. to X. of the Table, was extremely high in comparison with

in the trials

that of the Tegel trials, even excluding the difference in the quality of the
shot.

The
first

ratio

between the weight

trial

of the plate

and the attack

is

for the

time restored in

XL,

the favourable issue of which

was due not

only to the good profile adopted, but also to the greater weight of the
plate.

The

total

performance of the plate

is

in

comparison with the two

Tegel side plates

therefore of interest.
first

In the latter the

through crack from edge to edge of the plate

to 39.

was produced by rounds 37

on
its

The new

plate (XL) received 20 hits

half section
plate.

from steel

shell,

equal to 40 shots distributed on the

whole

No

crack through from

edge to edge was formed, and

although the formation of such a crack

may

not be considered as an

unconditional measure of the resistance of the plate,

state that the total

we

think

we may

endurance of the later plate

its

in respect to that of the

older one,

showed that
the

construction and material had more than

of

exceeded

superiority

the

steel
trials.

shell

over

the chilled iron

projectiles used in
It
is

the respective

evident that the ratio of the attack, in the case bf the heavy
of

armour

for coast defences, to the unit

weight can be carried much

higher, as these plates are only liable to be struck

by a few

projectiles.

132

With

the older sort of coast defence plates, the attack, as seen in our

Table, increases from 128.9 to 1354, and 151.6 foot-tons.

These

figures,

however, are small to those of the later

trials,

XV.

to XVIII., which vary

between 205.6 and 548.9 foot-tons per ton

If

of plate.

our ratio

is

accurate, which

may be

called in

question, then the

in the

attack of 548.9 foot tons per ton of plate, as

was the case

Spezia

armour,

is

enormous.

Several points, however, have to be considered in

this respect before attaching value to

our

ratio.

Speaking

exactly,

it

cannot be said

that,

in

the

trial

of

inclined

armour, a plate has withstood so

many

foot-tons of energy, but only that

a vertical plate in the place of the one fired at would have resisted such a

number

of

foot-tons.

This advantage applies to

profile,

all

chilled

armour,

according to their curve of

in

greater or less degree, and can,

consequently, be neglected in comparing different forms of this nature of

armour.

On

the other hand there

is

a factor which cannot be neglected

every

projectile shivers to pieces on striking chilled cast iron armour, and, con-

sequently, cannot deliver a greater blow thereon than that which

to break

is

necessary

up the projectile into the pieces into which

it

separates.
quality

The
which

difference in the effect of

strike

two shots

of the

same

size

and

an inclined

plate, as well as the different energies

due to different

charges of powder, would, consequently, be proportionately small, supposing

each shot broke up

in the

same way
fired

into small pieces

but

it is

a matter of

no doubt that with shot

or similar deformation
plate
is is

with increased energies, the breaking up

more complete, and the blow delivered on the

no way increases directly with the

also greater, but this last in

energy of impact, but after passing a certain limit increases more slowly the
higher the energy

may

be.

An
an
calibre

increase in the

power

of the attack consequently

seems to follow
;

increase in

the energy of impact only in a secondary degree

of shot

and a better quality

influencing

that
in

is

toughness and hardness

the

a larger
^being

the

principal

factors

augmenting

power

of

the

attack.
If

we examine

the Spezia trials from this point of view

the

we understand

why

the Gruson factory confidently exposed

plate to the enorm'ous

attack of 548.9 foot-tons per ton of plate, as, in reality, only that part of the blow would be borne by the plate which was necessary to break up the
shot.

How

great that part was could neither be assumed nor calculated,

it

but in no case could

be equal to the

total energy.

133

A
attack,

third factor to be

mentioned

in this connection,

to

which

lately

considerable importance seems to be attached, as regards the effect of the

is

the form of the shot.

In

technical

papers

it

is

frequently stated

that

cylindrical

armour

cannot be considered as absolutely inferior to inclined armour, seeing the

latter

can probably be overcome with flat-headed projectiles.

We

have carefully examined the

trials

with this kind of shot, and do

not deny that flat-headed shot have a greater effect on inclined armour

than pointed ones, and

we admit
its

at the

of soft metal on a flat-headed shot, accuracy of flight can

same time that by placing a point be obtained

but

without interfering with

efficacy

on

striking,

we

cannot hold the

superiority of the flat-headed projectiles to be so great as to

make

us

believe that this

superiority

is

sufficient to

call

for

a change of any

importance

in the

present relationship between gun and armour.

Even

flat-headed shot are always broken up on striking chilled armour, and

consequently only give out on the plate that portion of their energy which

corresponds

to

their

power

of

resisting

fracture.

This

portion

will
flat-

probably be greater than in the case of pointed projectiles, as the

headed shot
effect will

bite better into the surface of the plate, but the increased
in greater injury to the surface of the

probably be shown

armour
from

and not have great influence in forming cracks, which mainly the weight of the blow inflicted.
Certainly,

arise

the effective component

of

the total energy, as regards

must only remain a fraction of that energy, and the relation betw^een flat-headed shot and inclined armour will consequently never equal
inclined armour,
that of pointed projectiles against vertical armour.
resisting

certain excess of

power being always provided for in the construction of the chilled armour, as was shown to be the case in the various firing trials, we do not think that the employment of flat headed shot would render any increase in the weight and thickness of the armour necessary, even if no
technical difficulty stood in the way.

Reverting

now

to the

main point

of our

argument,

it

appears that,

as that portion of the energy delivered on the plate by the projectile can

neither be estimated nor calculated, so the relation between the energy

and

the weight of plate can be used as an approximate measure only in the case
of trials

where shot

of the
is

same

quality and calibre are used.

This condition
trials,

not

fulfilled

when comparing

the earlier and later

as the chilled iron projectiles used in the former were far inferior to
I

134
latter,

the steel shell employed in the

and the demand on the metal's

trials, as,

endurance was
chilled shot
projectiles.

all

the greater in the later

corresponding to the

dissimilarity of the projectiles, the

amount
less

of the

energy delivered by the

on the plate was much

than that exerted by the steel

Naturally the Gruson Factory thoroughly noted this relation

in the

construction of the later type of armour, but they could with confidence

submit to the increased severity of the tests

in

presence of the great

improvements effected
the Factory

in

these later types of plates.

As we have

seen,

went

so far as to

make but

little

provision by an increase in

the size of the plates against the nature of the attacking projectiles, and

even considerably reduced them

in proportion to the attack.

5.

Empirical Formula for Designing Chilled Armour.

We

have made frequent reference,

in

the previous sections, to the

relation of the dimensions

and weight
trials.

of the chilled armour, both in con-

nection with the question of resisting power, as also as completing our

review of the results of the

It is

obvious that a formula for calculating the design of armour plates

this relation will, in

in

harmony with

proportion to

its

accuracy, be of

much

utility.

Should a
it

plate, for instance, for

some reason have

it

to be

made narrow,

weight than,

same would be convenient, but the sole existing formula proposed by the Gruson Factory only takes notice of the
would appear desirable
to cast

thicker in order to reach the

in other circumstances,

maximum

thickness of the plates.

The

difficulty consists in

bringing into

the formula a

number

of different factors, without

;

an exact knowledge of

the particular influence of each

and, on the other hand, as

we

shall see,

formula based on correct data would give results incapable of being used
in practice.

The Gruson
and leaves
it

formula, as

we

say, only refers to the

maximum

thickness,

to the constructor to estimate the other dimensions according

to his judgment.

The formula
to the fourth

gives the

maximum
number

thickness of the armour in proportion

of

root of

the

foot-tons

of

the

energy

of

the

attacking shot, and

applies, in the first instance, to coast defence armour.

135

For such armour

1.

this

formula

is

For port plates

2.

For side plates For glacis plates with earth

For
in front

^ 0.29 V foot-tons. d = 0.27 'y foot-tons.

d
4

3.

d
d

= 0.22

'y foot -tons.

4

4.

glacis plates with granite in front

^ 0.2

-y foot-tons.
case of armour

for

These dimensions are increased ten per cent, inland fortifications, the formula becoming
:

in the

4 1.

For port plates For side plates

For
glacis plates with earth in front

d d

^ =
=

0.32

V
4 4

foot-tons.

2.

0.29 -Y foot-tons.

3.

d =^ 0.24 'y foot-tons.

4

4.

For

glacis plates with granite in front d

0.22

V foot-tons.
compare the

Before discussing these formulae

actual

it

will

be

of interest to

maximum thickness of all the plates formula. The following Table gives this,
same
as in the Table at the end.

with the thickness given by the

the reference

number being the

136

It will

be seen that the difference between the actual and calculated

in trials III. to XI. is
in

armour thicknesses
difference of 2.9
in.

very

slight.

Trial VI.

shows a
trial

favour of the calculated thickness, and

XI.

4.1 in. in favour of the thickness actually given.

In the coast defence

earlier battery plates XIII.

armour the differences are greater.

and XIV. the actual thickness
is

In the

two

4.8 in. in excess

of calculation; in the turret plate XVI., 6.3 in., whilst in the Spezia plate,

XVIII., the figures are approximately the same.

On
agree

the whole

we may

say that the actual and calculated thicknesses

in

fairly well,

and though not

entire

accordance throughout, the

dimensions given to the later plates approximately agree with calculation.

The formula was

iron projectiles,
tion (Fig. 30).
latter

originally based

on the

results obtained with chilled

and armour plates

of nearly vertical profile in the

lower por-

The

chilled shots

were superseded by
this

steel projectiles,

which
profile

proved that the dimensions calculated for plates of the above

profile
its

were proportionately too weak, but as

Spezia plate could be calculated by

was abandoned

for a

more sloping one, the formula again regained

it,

correctness, so that the

the formula obtained with chilled

projectiles serving thus for steel shell as well.

The Gruson

formulae, since their first publication in the year 1882,

have

been repeatedly discussed by the technical press.

examination of them
is

The most comprehensive

found

in

the recent essay of Engineer Josef

Schwartz of the Imperial Austrian Marine Artillery, entitled " Ueber die

Panzerwirkung der Geschosse.

Pola, 1886."

Mr. Schwartz, on page 54 of his pamphlet, gives a graphic illustration armour thicknesses obtained by the formula varying from o to 41.990 foot tons, the foot tons being shown as abscisse and the calculated thickof 14

nesses as ordinates in his diagram.

He

remarks (page 53)

"The
first

curve

itself

follows a

somewhat curious

course, increasing at

very quickly, but soon an increase of 3,230 foot tons energy requires
" Suppose, for

only a very slight addition of thickness in the armour."

instance,"

he adds, "that an 11

in.

steel

shell,

with

12,920

foot

tons

energy
it is

is

impossible to understand

an exact match for a chilled plate of 37.6 in maximum thickness, why a 12 in. steel shell with 19,380 foot tons

thickness " and he concludes later that the

;

energy should not be more than a match for a plate 41.5 in. in greatest number of normal hits (angle
of impact 90) will

be always very small*

in proportion to the total

and

* Mr. Schwartz proceeds on the assumption that the armour is always hit at an angle of 90", which, however, as Column 9 of our Table shows, is not the case, even with armour of the pld
profile.

137

equally small

number

of

hits,

from which

it

may be assumed

that the

formula gives good results up to 19.380 foot-tons of energy.

Mr. Schwartz's deductions seem at

but

first

sight convincing in
trial,

all

respects,

we

rely,

notwithstanding, on the subsequent Spezia

which gave

proof that the formula,

when a

correct profile

is

adopted for the plates,

gives accurate results, even for the highest energies (47,481 foot-tons).

To
shot's

explain this apparent contradiction

we must

refer again to the

conclusions of the last section, where

we saw

that only that portion of the

energy took

effect

on the plate which was requisite to break the

energy
differ

shot to pieces.

Consequently, the greater the energy of the shot becomes,

its

the farther does

the

its nominal energy, and by Mr. Schwartz, has in consequence probably hardly any noticeable effect on the armour.

effective

from

increase

of

6,460 foot-tons,

referred

to

The nature

of the curve, calculated

from the formula, which at

first

increases quickly and then

more slowly, seems to us to show

that this

formula though somewhat arbitrarily constructed from

relations

among

the numerous

between the dimensions

of

the

plates,

does for the present

correspond very well to the actual conditions, and that no reason has been

shown on the ground

that

of those relations to construct a

new
plan

formula, but
is

on the contrary the simplest and most

correct

for

the

constructor of the armour to continue as before to calculate

thickness,

its

maximum
with the

and

to determine all the other dimensions in accordance with

his experience

and the

results obtained

from the

trials

made

plates.

Should the breadth of the

to

plate, then, for other reasons,

be decreased

an unusual extent,

it

becomes necessary

to restore, as far as possible,

the normal weight by increasing the thickness.

138

6. Conclusions.

It

was natural that the enquiries which we undertook

and

in the previous

sections should be based throughout on a comparison of the earlier

later plates tried,

and

their results, as after the earlier series of trials the

superiority of the

armour over the gun was generally admitted.

In the interval,

progress, and
similarly

between the series, the attack had made very great was necessary to determine whether the armour had advanced or had been left behind. It was shown by the trials that
it

the form of the older type of plates was not the most favourable, even for
the shot of those days, the thickness having been too

much reduced

at the

upper edge
It

of the plate.

was shown

also that the ratio of the superficies to the vertical section

in the old

was correct both

and new

plates,

and

in

the latter always

remained within admissible

In

limits.

comparing the weights

of the

armour with the energy

of the shot,

we

arrived at a very important difference.

The

ratio

in

the case of the

to the plate than in the more shown by the latter to the improved shot and heavier charges could only be explained by an important improvement

earlier

armour was so much more favourable

that the endurance

recent

trials,

in the

armour.
it

In the concluding trial against armour for inland fortifications,

was

shown
to the

that

armour of improved
of the attack

profile, in

which the proportion

not

of

weight

power

was nearly restored to that which was established

gave entirely analogous
if

in the case of the

Tegel

plates,

still

better

results as regards resistance than the Tegel plates, so that the

armour had

entirely kept pace with the notable progress in artillery.

The

trial at

Spezia against a plate of recent and improved profile gave

the same indication as regards coast defence armour, so that

we may

affirm,

without exaggeration, that the superiority of the armour to the attack shown
in the earlier trials

has been maintained, practically without change, to the

this is

present day
trials

and

proved to be the case both by the results of the

of the

that

is

by the behaviour

new

plates under fire

as well

as

by

the fact that the thickness of these recent plates

to that given
earlier trials.

corresponds almost exactly

results of the

by the formula which was obtained from the

139

Of

all

the

recent

trials

those carried at Spezia in April and June

naturally have a claim to chief attention.

For a long time previous

in

to the

trial it

had been much discussed

of

professional

circles

whether an armour plate could withstand three

rounds from the

lOO-ton

gun with an energy

47.481
In

foot-tons, the

opinion being generally against such a possibility.

consequence of

which

it

was

natural that

numerous representatives

of foreign

governments

availed themselves of the permission granted by the Italian

to attend the trials.

War

Office

As a matter
future
of

of fact,

it

was not the private

this trial,

interests of the

Gruson

Factory which were at stake in

armour.

but in great measure the whole

armour

the plate failed, it is more than 'probable that would have been given up, to which the opinion of many was already tending, and the proof of the disproportionate severity of the test of the plate, which we still maintain to have been
for coast defence
its

Had

demonstrated, would hardly have received

of such a result,

due attention

in presence

and have averted

this conclusion.

A
plate
is

correct estimate of the severity of the test applied to the Spezia

only obtained by a review of the earlier

trials

made with guns

of

the heaviest calibre against

compound and

steel plates.

made at Spezia with the Armstrong gun against wrought-iron plates manufactured by Brown, Cammell, and Marrel, and a forged steel plate by Schneider.
In the year 1876 trials were
l6.g in. muzzle-loading

All the plates

shells

had a thickness of 21.7

in.

Gregorini chilled cast-iron

were used, weighing 2,002 lbs., maximum charge 341. 8 lb., giving a velocity of 492.7 yards, and an energy of 30,058.4 foot-tons. The targets were in all cases perforated by the shot. In trials which took place in

December

of the

same year

the charge

was increased

to 396.9 lbs.

of

Fossano powder, but without marked increase

Heavier charges were employed
with the Armstrong 17.7
in.

in the velocity.

in the trials

made

at

Spezia

in

1882

muzzle-loader.

The

plates tried

were two

compound
All
of 1.6
ft.

by Cammell and Brown, and a steel three plates had a thickness of 10.8 ft., a height of
plates

plate
8.5
ft.,

by Schneider.
and a breadth

(For further details see " Mittheilungen fiber

Gegenstande des

Artillerie

und Geniewesens,"

1883, p. 241).

The compound
backing 47.2

plates had a facing of steel about 6 in. thick;

steel.

the

Schneider plate was of forged

in. thick.

All three plates

were

fixed to a

wood

140

The

following Table gives the chief data of the trials

Experiments against Armour-Plates with the Armstrong 17.7 in. M. L. Gun in the year 1882.

=1

141

The

following Table gives the principal data

Experiments against Armour Plates with the 16.9

in.

Armstrong

B. L.

Gun,

in

the year 1884.

Target.

142

three rounds, and also withstood

apart

from the two

5.9 in.

shells

a fourth

hit

from the loo-ton gun, striking on the most unfavourable and

at

most injured spot

an angle of

80'^ to 90, the lateral

support being

at the time entirely insufficient.

glance at Fig 45 shows that the plate, even

after

this

round,
it,

would have

given

every security

to

the

gun detachment behind

and the large and almost uninjured part of the upper half of the plate proved that it was still capable of withstanding further rounds from the

same gun.

The more unfavourable

as
as
it

the anticipations were before the

trial

as to

the endurance of the plate, they only gave additional point to the result

turned out, and the technical journals did not

fail

to recognise, as far
trial.

we

have seen them, the striking and exceptional issue of the

Our own opinion that the terms of the trial were beyond those to which coast defence armour can ever be called upon to resist, did not affect
this favourable issue.

We

do not mean to affirm that

development, although

artillery

may

already have reached the

limit of its

it is

certain the velocity of the 16.9 in.

of

shot used at Spezia

was only reached by means

an exceptionally heavy
148.5 yards, at

charge;

we

prefer to point more to the short range of

which the

firing

was conducted.
employed which are able
to

Assuming

that in the future guns are

trial

develop the energy of the Spezia

from a fighting range,

we

ask

How

plates

many rounds could such a ship's gun place on a single one of the 15 cupola Any one who had noted how great was the difficulty of laying ?

the

gun from the pontoon, when the motion was very slight, comes necessarily to the conclusion that it would be an entire impossibility to systematically place three rounds on one and the same plate from a heavy gun on board ship
Spezia.

an
that

opinion repeatedly expressed by naval officers at

Even supposing
on board
ships,

still

how many

of such

more powerful guns are in future mounted guns will a fleet possess ?
to

We
the

consider the object of coast defence armour to be

defend

guns

and

gunners

against

hostile
hits.

shell

fire,

and

to

withstand

being breached

by casual single
slighter
of

This

object

would,

however,

be

fulfilled

by a much

armour,
plate

and we therefore do not think

at

that

the

dimensions

the

tried

Spezia

will

constitute

143

measure

for

all

the subsequent armour to be constructed, which opinion

does not, however, detract from the high value of the issue of the Spezia
trial.

The small penetration of the shot maximum 4 in. on the parts not already
portion of
the
their
total

into

the

chilled

armour

(in

injured)

shows how small a

energy was delivered on the plate.

greater
is

The deeper
and
in

penetration,

the

the

blow on the

plate,

the
the

diminishing of the effective blow,

we

see the special advantage

iron.

of

system of chilled iron armour over armour of wrought

Quite apart from cylindrical wrought-iron armour, inclined armour of

the same nature invariably suffers the
fire of

much

injury in partial penetration from

heavy guns, and the blows

of the striking shot are so

heavy that

we

seriously doubt whether the ports of a turret carrying such

effect or give

armour

which

scope for the revolving movement, could be

made

strong enough to withstand them.

still

The case is more favourable as regards steel and compound armour we do not believe that in the present condition of manufacture these
can have given to them the same hardness as chilled iron armour
its

last

without at least

having serious influence on their tenacity.

this

Moreover, with armour of

class the smaller

amount

of weight,

which contributes so much to compensate the blows received, always acts

unfavourably in the presence of the heavy projectiles used
It

in the

attack.

indeed

may be

possible to

make wrought-iron

or steel plates of equal

weight to that of the Spezia plates, but for practical purposes such a proceeding would involve too great an expenditure.
of opinion

We

are consequently

that the chilled iron armour is in the present day in a more favourable position as regards the guns for the attack than the other systems of armour, in which as yet, so far as we know, no attempt has been made to construct turrets and batteries to protect 15.7 in. guns.

Although

accustomed

to

radical

changes

and improvements
it

in

technical matters,

we do

not think that this superiority of chilled iron

in the
this

armour
qualities

will

be disturbed

near future, as

is

based upon two

namely,
its

which

distinguish

system

from

all

others,

hardness and weight.

Whether those who,

will bring

like ourselves,

hold the

above opinion

as to

the object of coast-defence armour are right or not, or whether the future

about a great increase

in

the precision of the

fire

from ships'

guns, which formed the basis of the

programme

of

the firing trials at

144

Spezia, can with as

in

little

certainty be decided as
of

tlie

question whether
receive

the

future

the

power

the attacking guns will

a great
in

increase, but

we

believe

we may assume
will

with confidence that, even

the latter
of the

case,

no important increase
tried at Spezia,

be necessary

in the

dimensions

armour plate

inasmuch as the whole energy, of a

Should we, however, be also

shot

never takes effect on the armour.

mistaken in

this respect, the superiority of the chilled cast-iron

armour

in

relation to the
difficulty,

weapons

of attack could hardly

be

affected, as

no technical
of the

as we have shown above, exists to increasing the strength

chilled iron plates.

FINIS.

o
E

a o

GO

sz

o CO

o
OS 'c5
"QJO

CO
erf

tao

Q3

B.

Armour

for Coast Defence.

A.

Armour

for Inland Fortification

<1

X M

t\

CO
ra

^
a.
CD

o
o
a-

CD

12
B; 3:

<r pi

a>

o
Pi

&

"oo

&

00

en

o
oc
CO

to

SW

W
>d d

w s
CO

w
a

o
tr-

o
tr-

ee

ee

IB
13-

CO

CO

hJ

M
be

I-!

CO be

2
ir.

03

It"

CO 05

O
00

of

CO

cc
if'