The Indomitable was designed from the outset to overwhelm the existing and predictable rival warships of the European navies, and the most direct of these were the two new Italian battleships "Durio" and "Dandolo", which began construction in 9073 and were under construction. Barnabe and Hood planned to equip the "Indomitable" with a 60-ton cannon, which would have been enough to overwhelm the "Durio" and "Dandolo", which were originally planned to be equipped with 35-ton cannons, but they were not satisfied, and said that this was not the final decision, and it would depend on the actual situation in the future, and they did not rule out the choice of larger artillery. The Italians were forced to take their own seats, and the main guns of the "Durio" and "Dandolo" were also increased to 60 tons.

After that, the mutual stimulation of each other made the choice of the caliber of the main guns of both sides rise steadily, 14 inches, 15 inches, and finally reached 16.25 inches of 81-ton guns. In the end, the Italians couldn't hold back and simply placed an order for a 17-ton gun of 100-inch caliber from Armstrong.

This time, however, the British Admiralty sensibly did not continue to play with the Italians, because it was easier said than done to say that "we believe that British warships should be equipped with the largest guns that can be built and operated foreseeable, even if they weigh hundreds of tons, if the materials can be forged." It is not easy to put down these big guys on the hull of the "Indomitable", whose displacement has been basically determined. In March 9075, Barnabay was giving Houston? Stewart's report admits that the biggest problem with the installation of the 100-ton gun, which is still under development, is not the weight of the gun and shells. Rather, the size and dimensions of the artillery.

Even after replacing the originally planned 60-ton guns with 81-ton guns. Space in the central armored fort was already tight. And when the turret turns. The 81-ton gun had a distance of 27 feet from the muzzle to the center of rotation of the turret, and when it was time to turn to fire from the opposite side, the barrel would undoubtedly touch the fore and aft deckhouses, so it was questionable whether the two main turrets could fire from the same broadside. So, to avoid this problem, Henry, who at this time succeeded Hood as Chief of Naval Ordnance? Beuys suggested a modification of the fore and aft deckhouses. At the same time, due to the fact that it was a breech gun. The long barrel does not fit fully into the turret, which means that it is impossible to reload the ammunition inside the turret.

Barnabe argues that Henry? Beuys took the first problem too seriously, which he had already considered when designing the fore and aft deckhouses. For the second question, it was true that the loading machinery had to be placed outside the turret. The loading machine, manufactured by the Royal Arsenal of the Woolvian period, was mounted under an armoured slope-like bulge outside the turret. When it is time to reload the gun, first turn the turret so that the muzzle is facing this slope, then depress the muzzle, and the ramrod will withdraw the ammunition into the chamber. After reloading, the turret turns back to the target direction and raises the gun to fire. The power for all these actions is provided by hydraulics. In this way, the actual rate of fire per gun is 1 round per 11 minutes. This is also a helpless way.

Another reason for the delay in the construction period. It is Reed's criticism of the stability and anti-sinking nature of the "Unyielding". For this reason, it even led to the suspension of the "Indomitable" for a long time.

Although Reid was the proposer of the central armored fort. However, the central armored fort he envisioned still occupies about two-thirds of the total length of the ship. In this case, the unarmored head and tail segments are relatively short, even if water enters. And now, Banabe has shortened it to such a point in one go, is the step too big? Will the long, empty section of the head and tail, protected only by watertight compartments, provide sufficient resistance to sinking in case of destruction and burning?

The debate began with Reed's questioning of the durability of the Durio and Dandolo. The Italians scoffed at Reed, claiming that his judgment was unfounded, and that they had great confidence in the sank resistance of the warships of the central armored fort structure. Unable to respond abroad, Reid turned his criticism to the Indomitable.

Reed wrote to Barnabe in 9077, claiming that he had calculated that if the bow and stern were completely flooded, it would be difficult for the central ironclad fort to remain unsinkable. Watertight compartments are susceptible to shell damage, so it is questionable that watertight compartments alone provide sinking resistance.

In fact, since the "Durio" and "Dandolo" are purely watertight compartments in the first and last sections, it is not entirely unreasonable to say that Reed's doubts are not completely unreasonable. Barnabe and his assistants also didn't fully trust the striking effect of the watertight compartments, so they arranged coal bunkers along the side for added protection. And they believed that the "Indomitable" had a large width, and the section protected by the central armored fortress could provide sufficient lateral and longitudinal stability. The watertight compartment is filled with cork, which blocks water ingress and provides buoyancy. Therefore, even with a roll of up to 30 degrees, the warship can still maintain combat effectiveness.

The Admiralty's view of this is that it wishes to compromise the views of both sides. Now that they had approved the plan for a 110-foot-long central armored fort, they naturally wanted to be foolproof. Houston? Stewart said he believed that inviting Reed to see the model of the Indomitable would increase his confidence in the ship's ability to sink. Barnabe also said that the existing design was perfect enough, and that extending the central armored fort to 200 feet would inevitably increase the displacement and lead to a reduction in armor thickness and gun caliber, making it impossible for the Indomitable to overwhelm the Durio and Dandolo.

To further illustrate, Barnabay countered Reed's questioning by submitting a lengthy memorandum on April 16, 9077, citing the Admiralty's report approving the design of the Indomitable and comparing the differences in protection between the Indomitable and the Ravage, pointing out that the extreme situation in which Reed described the complete destruction of a large number of watertight compartments and the incineration of cork layers could not be withstood by any ironclad ship, including the Ravage. Not to mention designing a warship that can withstand this kind of damage, it is not easy to cause such damage in battle. The design of the "Indomitable" has taken into account not only the destruction of shells, but also the impact of underwater attacks. He also pointed out that his brother-in-law actually entered the misunderstanding of unforeseeability in the design of warships.

Not to be outdone, Reed instead questioned the Indomitable's stability after the first and last ingress. He also wrote a long letter to refute Barnabe's arguments. He noted. Cork structures are very fragile. Insufficient protection against the penetration of shells is not provided. And the resistance to the shell was too small to consume its kinetic energy during penetration. In the event of an explosion, it is easy to be destroyed by crushing, and once destroyed, it cannot be guaranteed to block water and provide buoyancy. In response to Barnabe's attack on the "Ravage", he replied that although the "Ravage" armor is relatively thin, those shells that may not even be able to penetrate the "Ravage" armor can cause serious damage to the unprotected head and tail section of the "Indomitable", causing the warship to lose stability and gradually capsize.

Out of responsibility and rigor in the work. Barnabay gave Reed's letter to Houston? Stewart. He claims that he trusts the Indomitable to maintain its integrity in the face of a large number of hits now more than he did when it was first designed. At the same time, he reminded Houston? Stewart, the controversy has the potential to spill over into society, as Reed is enlisting some prominent figures in society to support his views. Once that happens, it will be difficult to convince the big players who have a significant impact on the shipbuilding budget but lack naval engineering expertise.

Houston? Stewart gave the insights of both sides to Henry, the chief of naval ordnance? Beuys, who turned it over to the Admiralty. After looking at the arguments on both sides, Henry? Is Boyce giving Houston? Stewart's letter said the shell was presumably through the cork layer before exploding. Therefore, it is unlikely that the cork layer will be blown to pieces, after being penetrated by shells. It is still possible to maintain a large degree of integrity. And the chances of repeated hits of shells at the same position causing the expansion of the piercing are small after all. He believed that the kind of destruction that Reed envisioned was too extreme to occur in a naval battle. In addition, in response to Reed's view that the watertight compartment is difficult to repair after it is destroyed, he thinks that the water pump can be used to offset some of the water ingress.

Lacking approval within the Admiralty, Reed made his views public in order to gain support. On June 18, the Times published an article by Reed, detailing the structure of the Central Panzer Fort, especially how fragile its unprotected bow and tail were, and questioning whether the warship could be stable and unsinkable if it was destroyed. Thus, as Barnabe had previously estimated, the debate within the naval engineering community finally extended to society, and in a country as much as Britain valued sea power, there was nothing more likely to attract the attention of dignitaries and the public than the question of the design of an ironclad ship under construction, and thus the controversy became more widespread.

Many within the Navy did not approve of Reed's attempt to complicate the debate, and on the night the article was published, George Brown, who later became First Secretary of the Navy. Gossen bluntly spoke out about his displeasure with Reed. Insisting that he had faith in the Indomitable that such a situation of extreme destruction was almost impossible.

The next day, Barna Petain published his response in The Times, recounting the arguments he had previously refuted Reed. But it immediately provoked a new round of attacks from Reed. "Every paragraph of Barnabe's memo is wrong. He misled the public with naval officers. "At the same time, Reed's old superior, Spencer, who served as auditor of the Admiralty from 9061 to 9071? Robinson, in the June 20 paper, echoed Reed's argument in fiery and pungent language, claiming that in naval engineering, Barnabe was only worthy of being Reed's student. Interestingly, back in 9070, when Reed questioned the stability of the hapless "Captain", Spencer, who was the auditor of the Admiralty at the time? Robinson, however, was commissioned by the Gladstone Cabinet to speak on behalf of the Admiralty to calm public suspicions. I don't know if this gentleman is the hundreds of unjust souls on the "Captain" who capsized due to lack of stability, and has been guilty for many years.

For a time, the Times became a battlefield of arguments between the two sides, and you came and went, endlessly. On June 21, Barnabe refuted Spencer? Robinson. On June 25, Spencer? Robinson again published an article to refute it. On June 26, 1871, Joseph? Waller joined the debate, expressing concern that Reed's concerns about the Indomitable would recur after the capsizing of the Captain. On 9 July, an editor of The Times published an editorial accusing the Navy Design Committee of ignoring the misgivings of the government and the public, turning a blind eye to the lessons learned after the capsizing of the "Captain," and erroneously insisting on the stability of warships. Meantime. "Insightful" noted. This is the case. The Admiralty is hypocritical and rigid, unable to keep up with the progress of the times, clinging to the sails in the age of steam, ignoring the changes brought by ramming horns and torpedoes to naval warfare, and blindly clinging to artillery and gunnery. In a word, the Admiralty is the most incompetent and in need of reform in the government.

This editorial contributed to the controversy, but it did not contribute to the solution of the problem. The question of the design of warships can only be answered by relying on solid discussions. Not necessarily Barnabey, Hood and Houston? Stewart could not see the revolution that steam and torpedoes brought to naval warfare. They are constantly exploring how to face these changes.

Under pressure from the government and public opinion, the Admiralty was forced to make a number of initiatives in response to the cries of public opinion. A week after the editorial, Reed published two open letters in The Times claiming that the Admiralty had published a stability chart of the Indomitable, "even though that was wrong," he said. At the same time, he revealed the news that the Admiralty had invited three civilian figures: Flode, Armstrong Rendaul, Joseph? Waller, to test the stability data of the Indomitable.

On commission from the Admiralty, Fred created a model of the "Indomitable" with a displacement of 1 ton. A stability test is performed in a test tank. The test report stated that the purpose of the test was to test the condition of the Indomitable after the destruction of the watertight compartment in the unprotected bow and tail sections. And whether it will lead to the capsizing of the warship. Tests have shown that the current design of the Indomitable can still maintain the stability and unsinkability of the ship's hull in severe sea conditions, the various battle damage conditions pointed out by Reed, or even the damage between the double layers of the ship's bottom under the central armored fort, which can lead to water ingress. At the same time, by adding an anti-sway water tank in the ship, the water ingress caused by the damage of the hull can be introduced into the anti-sway water tank, which can further reduce the risk of the warship capsizing. However, in this extreme case, it should also be returned to the home for repair as soon as possible.

In addition, as for Reed's main concern, namely the impact resistance of cork structures, the report commented that due to the shaking of warships caused by rough waves, soot-filled interference, and the difficulty of accurately judging the distance, wind direction and speed, the probability of a large number of concentrated hits is very small. But even so, although the explosion of a shell in cork is indeed more destructive. However, in the case of lightweight construction, the shell will explode within 1/150th of a second after impact, unless it is incident at a large inclination, during which time the shell will have penetrated the hull 6 to 10 feet, i.e., it has penetrated the cork layer and exploded in a mixed layer of canvas and hemp wool, which will greatly reduce the power of the explosion and avoid devastating damage to the cork layer and damage to the adjacent watertight compartment. This was demonstrated with 64-pound shells on the gunboat "Nettle". Moreover, the watertight compartment has a good impact resistance, and if it is closed strictly with each watertight door, it will provide better anti-sinking. Therefore, the existing design form can be assured.

To think that this would silence Reed and his supporters would be an oversimplification. As soon as the report was released in December, Reed immediately accused it of being a fig leaf used by the Admiralty to cover up mistakes, "written with sin and deceit." The Times article also claimed: "If the boat is safe, it can only be that the opponent's shooting skills are too poor." And Thomas, a member of the Admiralty Design Committee, who supported the report? Basel's response was: "Hillbilly...... Just worry less about the Admiralty. ”

In this way, the controversy continued until January of 9078. The Times has once again called for an independent commission to evaluate the Unyielding design. In response, Hamilton, who later served as the Navy's Ordnance Director and Secretary of the Admiralty, said: "Since it is a man-made ship, of course it will be destroyed in the event of an extreme blow." But in the face of the firepower that we know so far, I believe she can withstand it. ”

The reason why this controversy has lasted so long is that after the capsizing of the "Captain", the safety of the Navy's capital ships has become an issue that is easy to attract attention in society, and the credibility of the Admiralty has also been doubted by public opinion and the public. Therefore, when Reed made the issue public, the uproar caused was to be expected. In such a situation, it is very necessary for an authoritative person to clear up the mystery and make a fair conclusion.

Immediately after the capsizing of the Captain, the Admiralty set up a committee to evaluate the safety of naval vessels, and on this basis, many of the old design concepts were re-examined, and a series of new engineering theories such as Glode's study of ship stability were born. Therefore, with the accumulation of years of research, Frode is undoubtedly an authority in this area. But even though he was not a staff member of the Admiralty, he was commissioned by the Admiralty to examine the design of the "Indomitable", and his research partner, Joseph ? Waller was a member of the Admiralty's design committee, so Frode's suspicions of currying favor with the Admiralty and covering up the truth were also frowned upon. (To be continued......)

PS: My three-year-old son came back from kindergarten and said to me angrily: "Dad, the teacher is not good at all, he always kills me, and he doesn't pat me to sleep at noon." ”

Me: "It's impossible for a teacher to take care of so many people like a mother, you have to be obedient." ”

Son: "It's good to let the teacher and mom change, my mom accompanies me in kindergarten every day, and the teacher sleeps with dad at home." ”

It's a little exciting to think about. ????

Collect! Ask for recommendations! Ask for a subscription! Click! Ask for a commuter pass!