This article is not in any way intended as a suggestion of a new idea, or as a complete outline of the proposed plan of stowage. There seems to be a very general dissatisfaction with the method at present employed in stowing the larger calibres of fixed ammunition for rapid-fire guns in wooden boxes, but the dissatisfaction seems to have produced no results. It is hoped that a general discussion of this subject might accomplish the perfection of some system of stowage that would bring about the results needed.
It is admitted that there are several advantages in the present system of stowage. There seem to be three prominent advantages in the system of enclosing the ammunition in a wooden box. The ammunition is easy to handle in getting it on board ship and into the magazines, it is easy to label and paint the boxes so that the character of the enclosed shell is known at a glance, and the ammunition is protected from any injury that might result from careless handling.
These advantages are easily disposed of by the advocates of a different system. The question of ammunition supply ordinarily is not how rapidly the ammunition can be gotten aboard, but how fast it can safely be delivered to the guns. Leaving out chance, in a battle between equal ships equally expert in shooting, the victory would assuredly go to the ship that could safely keep her guns constantly supplied with the necessary amount of ammunition. It seems that no remarkable amount of ingenuity would be required to compensate for the advantage of having the color of the boxes indicate the character of the contained shell. The problem of painting or marking the cartridges themselves should not be difficult of solution. The protection from injury by careless handling is a real and decided advantage gained by the system of having the ammunition boxed, but the principle that all ammunition requires the most careful handling should render this protection unnecessary.
On the other hand, there are many and grave disadvantages in the stowage of ammunition in boxes. The question of the extra stowage space required for the encasing boards becomes very important when the quantity of rapid-fire ammunition required in action by a ship is carefully considered. The two greatest objections to the use of the encasing wooden boxes are so closely and unavoidably allied that they may best be treated as one: a very considerable amount of time is necessarily consumed by the shellman in getting the cartridges out of their casings, and there is the real and ever present danger from having loose pieces of wood in an exposed position on a deck exposed to hostile gun-fire. Even if the possibility of having only one boxed shell on deck at a time could for a moment be considered, there is danger during the time necessary to cut the lashings and throw the wood overboard.
It being out of the question to take the cartridges out of the boxes in the magazines, especially in small ships, the question arises as to how the ammunition can be stowed so that it may be delivered to the gun positions ready for use.
It is attempted to solve the problem in the following manner: let the cartridges be stowed horizontally in racks especially built to accommodate them. To use a specific case, let us consider the four inch ammunition.
Allowing for the extra size of the flange at the base of the cartridge, it seems that a circular hole 4 3/4 inches in diameter should be a sufficiently large space to accommodate a 4 inch cartridge. This space is intended to include a 1/8 inch steel diaphragm extending longitudinally between vertical rows of cartridges to the skin of the ship or to a bulkhead as the case may be. Two objections to this method of stowage at once present themselves. If the cartridge is not sufficiently supported there might be danger of its becoming bowed; and in a seaway damage might result to the ammunition from the motion of the ship.
Considering these objections in the order stated, it seems that if the cartridge were supported at the base of the cartridge case, about the middle of the case, and at the base of the shell, with the nose of the shell fitting into a small circular hole in a thin diaphragm or bulkhead, no injury to the cartridge could arise from this source. If the nose of the shell do fit into a small hole in a diaphragm, as suggested above, and a gate be made to close against the base of the brass case, the cartridge would be held rigidly in position in spite of a vessel's motion in a seaway. Any motion of the ship in a plane perpendicular to the length of the cartridge could be prevented .from injuring the ammunition by having the circular space in which the middle of the cartridge rests cut out in a sufficient part of the circumference of a circle to give a good grip on the cartridge. Supposing then, the cartridges to be stowed in horizontal rows, it would be necessary to get a gate quickly out of the way of the row next below after the ammunition in the upper row had been exhausted. In order to accomplish the two purposes of quickly moving a gate out of the way and of fixing the base of a cartridge firmly in position while the ship is in a seaway, it is suggested that the gate be secured in position by a moderately strong spring catch. These catches would probably be needed at intervals of four or five feet, and to safely secure the catches it would be necessary to place vertical bulkheads of somewhat more than 1/8 inch thickness at this distance apart, and to increase the width of the edge near the gate sufficiently to allow the securing of the spring catch. As a precautionary measure, it would be necessary to have small depressions in the gate in rear of the caps.
The extra steel diaphragms or bulkheads might slightly increase the original weight of the magazines, but the advantages claimed for this system are a greater ammunition supply in the same magazine space, and the sending of the cartridges to the guns ready for use without unnecessary work for the shellman, and the risk of flying splinters.
This problem has been solved in some foreign navies; why should it not be solved in ours?