Page:The Development of Navies During the Last Half-Century.djvu/138

 advanced that a vast number of gunboats is a more advantageous force than a few very large vessels. Those, however, who have practical experience of the sea, and who have endeavoured to benefit by the history of the past, will at once reject such a doctrine. Looking back, I observe in the old days that though four-deckers were to be found in the fleets of our adversaries, we abstained from adding them to our own; that at one time, as a result of war experience, we converted three-deckers into two-deckers; and that this type of vessel was then most largely represented in our fleet. It could cope with the bigger vessel, and if assisted by a companion, with success. On the other hand, it is argued that two frigates never took a line-of-battle ship, and hence one big vessel is better than two small ones; but the argument is fallacious, because frigates were not battle ships, and as a rule did not attempt to attack them. Examples of their doing so and being sunk by a single broadside are to be found in naval history. In the same way we may say now that two cruisers cannot take the place of a battle ship in a sea fight. Yet as actions then were entirely decided by the gun, it might be thought that the greater number of these weapons carried the more efficient the vessel, and such an increase was only effected by adding to the number of decks. Still, we did not do it. And now we have ram and torpedo to contend with, weapons which attack the most vulnerable part of the ship, and which no increase in her dimensions can enable her to withstand. Though a vessel of 20,000 tons could be constructed with armour