The Locomotive - Lighthouse Survival Blog
The Locomotive - Lighthouse Survival Blog
The Locomotive - Lighthouse Survival Blog
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
1901.] THE LOCOMOTIVE. 175<br />
to a comparable degree, by other explosives also; but the new explosive appears to be<br />
decidedly superior to all others that have yet been tried.<br />
<strong>The</strong> recent comparative tests of maximite and "explosive D," which were made by<br />
this government at Sandy Hook, are described in a recent paper by Capt. E. B. Babbitt<br />
which is printed in Engineering News. <strong>The</strong> final test was to be the firing of a twelve-<br />
inch armor-piercing shot at a twelve-inch harveyized armor plate. An experiment of<br />
this kind was bound to be both impressive and (to a certain extent) dangerous; and the<br />
experimenters led up to it by what might be called easy stages. Shells loaded with the<br />
explosive, but uncapped, were first fired through plates of various thicknesses, and these<br />
tests having been successful, the experimenters proceeded to the trials with shells loaded<br />
and capped. <strong>The</strong> first one is described picturesquely by Capt. Babbitt:<br />
"At last," he says, "the final test was reached. Imagine the tensions as, from a<br />
safe distance, we stood with eyes to our glasses, anxiously watching the distant field.<br />
<strong>The</strong> target, a 5|-inch tempered steel plate, well backed with oak, defiantly faces the<br />
long, slender 12-inch rifle. <strong>The</strong> red flag waves from the firing bomb-proof. It is an-<br />
swered. <strong>The</strong> flag falls, a bank of smoke from the gun, a flash of light at the plate, a<br />
dense, black, foreboding mass of smoke interspersed with flying timbers and bits of<br />
plate, two mighty roars in quick succession, a sigh of relief and satisfaction from the ob-<br />
servers, and, for the first time, a 12-inch armor-piercing shell, loaded and fused, has<br />
passed through heavy armor. While later, heavier plates were used, and the results<br />
were therefore more satisfactory, the first success ever stands out most vividly in the<br />
minds of the experimenters."<br />
In the final trial a shell, loaded and capped, was fired against a 12-inch plate, as has<br />
already been said. <strong>The</strong> official record of this last%est is as follows: " A 12-inch armorpiercing<br />
shell, charged with 'explosive D,' 58.6 lbs. Weight of charged shell, com-<br />
plete, 1,010 lbs. Fired May 17, 1901, with Frankford Arsenal detonating, armor-pierc-<br />
ing fuse, complete, against a piece of 12-inch face-hardened steel plate. Pressure in<br />
gun, 20,000 lbs. per square inch. Velocity about 1,875 feet per second. Shell deto-<br />
nated in plate, and completely demolished plate and backing,— all being carried forward<br />
and swept away. Fragments of plate were thrown to a distance of 200 to 300<br />
feet, and gave evidence that the plate was penetrated by the shell."<br />
<strong>The</strong> consequences of a shell of this sort penetrating the interior of a battleship can<br />
be only feebly imagined. Capt. Babbitt concludes his paper with the words, "I think<br />
I am safe in saying that the results just enumerated are unique, and so far surpass those<br />
previously obtained as not to admit of comparison with them."<br />
In looking over some of the back numbers of our exchanges, we observe an item in<br />
the Engineers' List for March, 1898, to which we desire to refer, in the interest of fair-<br />
ness. In the issue of that paper for November, 1897, an article was printed without<br />
proper credit to this company (as it appeared to us at the time), and in <strong>The</strong> Locomotivk<br />
for the month of January next following we expressed our sentiments on the subject<br />
1<br />
quite fully. In the copy of the Engineers' List for March, 1898, which is now before us,<br />
the editor of that paper makes an explanation (which we had overlooked until today) to<br />
the effect that he copied the article from another mechanical paper in which credit to us<br />
was omitted ; and he adds that he was not aware that it came from <strong>The</strong> <strong>Locomotive</strong><br />
originally. We therefore desire to retract all that we said about the assumed dishonesty<br />
of the Engineers' List, and to apologize for the lateness of this reparation.