Sharpened edge of the circular ironclad Noel proposed
Proposal No. 8 of John Elder in 1868©Warshipsresearch.blogspot.com
Proposal No. 10 of John Elder in 1868©Warshipsresearch.blogspot.com
Model of circular floating battery by John Elder. National Maritime Museum Greenwich ID SL2545
Model of Russian Popovka Novgorod 1873. National Maritime Museum Greenwich ID SLR105
Major C. Field published in 1900 an article dealing with proposals for warships which were never realized. At that moment was in England series of types of warships settled built in batches. In the past was that quite different. Since the introduction of the French ironclad La Gloire launched on 24 November 1859 was choosen for a methof of constant experiments or as he wrote: “In some foreign navies this system of constantly trying to make a ship radically different to anything that has preceded it still goes on, notably in France.” And there were numerous proposals, ideas and even models of warships by naval engineers and/or officers, private inventors which never were realized. One example was a couple of a circular ironclads by commander Noel inspired by the Russian circular ironclads (monitors) or popovkas designed by rear-admiral Andrei Alexandrovich Popov (21 September 1821 Russia-6 March 1889 Russia) and built as the Novgorod (1871-1874) and Vice-admiral Popov (1874-1876). Both ships were to serve in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. Popov was not the ony one interested in circular ships, for instance John Elder published in The Artizan, dated 1 July 1868 an article "Circular vessels of war" over the effects of widening the beam illustrated by several more or less circular ships. In the Transactions of the Institution of Naval Architects, volume XVIII, 1876, is an article published by E.E. Goulaeff, “On Circular Iron-clads”, p. 43-61 and in the discussie pointed Jamieson of John Elder&Co. Out that the late John Elder already in May 1868 read a paper dealing about this subject, discussed it officers of various governments included Popov and that Popov even visited Glasgow in 1868 probably to gett full details. Goulaeff said clearly in his paper that Popov came in early 1869 with his circular ships concept.
Field described the popovkas as”In almost every point they are a failure ant is not likely that anyone would now expect a circular ship to be anything else. Imagine the power necesssary to drive the unwieldy affair throught hthe water, and the impossibility of speed.”
Dealing with the proposal of Noel his comment was equal negative: “The ship in the picture gives one the impression of a gigantic Quoit, and is, in fact nothing more rga a flaoting redoubt. It is, of course, intended for coast dfenece, and nowadays, whe we have grasped the fact that we must defend our own coast, or that of our enemy puts it out of court at once. The twelve big guns that peer over the armoured breatsworks are so mounted that on being fired, they recoil below it to be loaded. The edge of the ship was to be a huge sharp steel ring, so as to slice into an enemy; she was to have three screws, and four keels.
Brassey, sir Thomas. The British Navy: its strength, resources, and administration, volume III, Part III, Opinions on the shipbuilding policy of the Navy, London, 1883 dicusses the value of circular ships like the Povkas. Commander Noel (p.496) pleaded for circular ironclads to get an efficient coast-defence fleet. For the Thames and South-coast harbors he suggested 4 ironclads 1st class of around 8,500 tons and 6 circlar ironclads 2nd class of around 5,000 tons be stationed at other harbours. His opinion is followed that by the famous Sir E.J. Reed (p. 99) who stated that “Fore special purposes some modified form might be prerable, but generally speaking, the circular form is the best for floating armor to protect an included space, and also for giving that equal all-round command with your guns which is so desirable at sea. Starting then with this circular armoured citadel, and wishing to propel it at speed, there are several ways in which we cam deal with it.” and “I believe the circular form is itself quite compatible with high speed, and certainlu it possesses very great and numerous advantages in other respects.” Reed published a paper “On Circular Iron-clads published in the Journal of the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies, volume 20, 1876. In the same journal is the Naval Prize Essay of Noel “On the Best types of War-Vessels for the British Navy” published. It was in this essay that Noel described his circular ironclad or floating fort proposal:
1st-class, about 8,500 ton, diameter of 210 feet, 12-30.48cm/12” 35-ton guns mounted on an imrpoved Moncreiff system behind a breastwork of 14” armor, 6 feet high and circular in form with a diameter of 100 feet, deck outside breastwork is curved downward toward the outer edge of the ironclad and plated with 3.5” iron, the under surface nearest to the dge plated with 3.5 armor. Edge protected by a steel rim of immense strength, sharpened to cut the bow of an attacking ship which wanted to ram her. Speed 10 knots. Weight armour breastwork 500 tons, upper surface of armoured deck 1,700 tons, under surface 450 tons, total weight same as that of HMS Devastation.
2nd-class, about 5,000 ton, diameter of 150 feet, 10-25.4/10” 18-ton guns mounted on an improved Moncreiff system behind a breastwork of 12” armor, 5 feet high and circular in form with a diameter of 80 feet, plating outside 3” thick. Weight armour breastwork 270 tons, upper surface of armoured deck 700 tons, under surface of edge 230 tins, total weight about 1,200 tons.
Sir Gerard Henry Uctred Noel (5 March 1845 Stanhoe, Norfolk, England-23 May 1918 Fincham, Norfolk, England) served in the Royal Navy between 1895-1915 ending his career in the rank of Admiral of the Fleet. He published in 1874 the prize essay “The Gun, the Ram and the Torpedo. Manoeuvres and tactics of a naval battle in the present day”.
Source
Field, major C., “Warships that have never floated”, The 1d Pictorial Magazine or The Penny Pictoral Magazine, No. 35, volume 3, week ending 3 February 1900, p. 435-438 . Edited by Charles P. Sisley.
