WAR VESSELS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 9302, 31 July 1908, Page 2

WAR VESSELS.

VALUE OF SUBMERGED ARMOUR.

The theory of recent critics ©£ the British Navy is that any part of a vessel's armoured belt lying below the water-line is almost useless. In the light of experiments carried out a few months ago by the British naval authorities, it appears possible that such armour may, on the contrary, turn out to be located just where it is needed. Actual trials with the old battleship Hero appear to show that an armoured vessel may be sunk by ordinary gunfire when no directed that the projectiles strike the hull under the water and below the armoured belt. An editorial writer in the "Scientific Ameiican" says: — "As a result of these trials, the British Admiralty is now about to undertake a series of' experiments, with the object .of ascertaining whether the system of artillery attack offering the greatest prospects of success is not one which aims at placing high explosive shells below the actual water-line of the vessel attacked; and if the result of the experiments should be to prove that such a system is a good one, it will at the same time be obvious that the best place for the main armour belt of the attacked ship is rather in the 4 low than the high position. The trials, which are to be carried out on the obsolescent battleship Revenge by the staff of the White Island Gunnery School at Portsmouth, have been decided Spon as a result of the sinking of the Hero in the trials to which reference has already been made. Tlie Hero was fired at on four separate occasions by battleships and armoured cruisers of the Channel Fleet, and after the first bombardment she sank in about twenty-five feet of water, so that all her upper works still remained visible. After the firing the ship was visited by a large number of officers and gunnery experts; but their examination utterly failed to show any reason for the vessel sinking. No armourpiercing projectiles were used in the trials, and the thick protection of the Hero was unperforated, while, so- far as could be asceratined, no shot had entered above the belt and been deflected through the bottom. This could hardly have been the ca6e, as the protective deck also was unperforated." Why, then, did the vessel sink P. The theory put forward by the naval authorities is that a high-explosive shell struck the water short of the ship, descended below the surface, and finally brought up against the unprotected part of the hull below the armour-belt. This theory was at first scouted by the experts, but it is now to be put to the test. The writer says:— "The battle^ ship Revenge is to take out to 6ea 'a specially constructed target, which will have a large proportion of its area under water. Firing will be carried out at various ranges, from 1500 yards upward, and at each range a series of shots will be fired ; the obiect being to discover how far short of the target the sights must be adjusted to insure the shcft striking at a sufficient distance below the water-line to escape contact with the main belt of armour. If the experiments are successful, that is, if they show that this method of underwater artillery attack is feasible, there is no doubt that it will be fully developed; for the effect of a high explosive shell striking below the water-level would be much the same as that of a torpedo. Even if euch a 6hot did not sink the vessel struck, the^ inrush of water would considerably impair her btability. The damage occasioned by the same shell striking above the waterline would not be nearly* so great; from which it will easily be ee&n that for a battleship to have the greater part of her main belt below water may prove rather to be an advantage than otherwise, especially if, as is the case with modern American vessels, there is a good secondary protection above the main belt. Besides, a submerged belt may conceivably prove a defence against torpedo attack."