Get ebook downloads in full at ebookmeta.

com

Virtual prototyping bio manufacturing in medical

applications 2nd Edition Bopaya Bidanda Paulo
Jorge Bártolo

https://ebookmeta.com/product/virtual-prototyping-bio-
manufacturing-in-medical-applications-2nd-edition-bopaya-
bidanda-paulo-jorge-bartolo/

OR CLICK BUTTON

DOWNLOAD NOW

Explore and download more ebook at https://ebookmeta.com

 Recommended digital products (PDF, EPUB, MOBI) that
you can download immediately if you are interested.

Additive Manufacturing Handbooks in Advanced Manufacturing

1st Edition Uan Pou Antonio Riveiro Paulo Davim

https://ebookmeta.com/product/additive-manufacturing-handbooks-in-
advanced-manufacturing-1st-edition-uan-pou-antonio-riveiro-paulo-
davim/
ebookmeta.com

Enhanced Virtual Prototyping Featuring RISC V Case Studies

Vladimir Herdt

https://ebookmeta.com/product/enhanced-virtual-prototyping-featuring-
risc-v-case-studies-vladimir-herdt/

ebookmeta.com

Bio Nano Interface Applications in Food Healthcare and

Sustainability

https://ebookmeta.com/product/bio-nano-interface-applications-in-food-
healthcare-and-sustainability/

ebookmeta.com

Redemption at Mirabelle An Island to Remember Book 7

Brenna Helen

https://ebookmeta.com/product/redemption-at-mirabelle-an-island-to-
remember-book-7-brenna-helen/

ebookmeta.com
Lie Beside Me 1st Edition Jack Cartwright

https://ebookmeta.com/product/lie-beside-me-1st-edition-jack-
cartwright/

ebookmeta.com

On the Cross Road of Polity Political Elites and

Mobilization 1st Edition Barbara Wejnert

https://ebookmeta.com/product/on-the-cross-road-of-polity-political-
elites-and-mobilization-1st-edition-barbara-wejnert/

ebookmeta.com

Willing The Un Series 1 1st Edition Izzy Sweet Sean

Moriarty

https://ebookmeta.com/product/willing-the-un-series-1-1st-edition-
izzy-sweet-sean-moriarty/

ebookmeta.com

Apt 4B Naughty Neighbors 3 1st Edition Olivia Monroe

https://ebookmeta.com/product/apt-4b-naughty-neighbors-3-1st-edition-
olivia-monroe/

ebookmeta.com

Programming Massively Parallel Processors 4th Edition Wen-

Mei W. Hwu

https://ebookmeta.com/product/programming-massively-parallel-
processors-4th-edition-wen-mei-w-hwu/

ebookmeta.com
LLMs in Production (MEAP V01): From language models to
successful products Christopher Brousseau

https://ebookmeta.com/product/llms-in-production-meap-v01-from-
language-models-to-successful-products-christopher-brousseau/

ebookmeta.com
Bopaya Bidanda
Paulo Jorge Bártolo Editors

Virtual
Prototyping & Bio
Manufacturing
in Medical
Applications
Second Edition
Virtual Prototyping & Bio Manufacturing
in Medical Applications
Bopaya Bidanda • Paulo Jorge Bártolo
Editors

Virtual Prototyping & Bio

Manufacturing in Medical
Applications
Second Edition
Editors
Bopaya Bidanda Paulo Jorge Bártolo
University of Pittsburgh Centre for Rapid and Sustainable Product
Department of Industrial Engineering Polytechnic Institute of Leiria
Pittsburgh, PA, USA Leiria, Portugal

ISBN 978-3-030-35879-2 ISBN 978-3-030-35880-8 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35880-8

1st edition: © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
This book is dedicated to our parents
Lucilia Pinto Dias and Antonio Dias (late)
Neena and Monapa Bidanda (late)
Claudina Coelho da Rocha and Arlindo
Terreira Galha (late)
Maria Alice and Francisco Bartolo
And our families
Helena and Pedro
Louella, Maya, and Rahul
For their constant support throughout this
project

Finally, we would like to give a special

acknowledgement to
Dr. Fengyuan Liu
Without her untiring efforts this book would
never have been completed
Preface

We are especially pleased to present the second edition of our edited book
in an area that is quickly emerging as one of the most active research areas
that integrates both engineering and medicine. Research in this area is growing
by leaps and bounds. Preliminary research results show significant potential in
effecting major breakthroughs ranging from a reduction in the number of corrective
surgeries needed to the “scientific miracle” of generating tissue growth. Billions
of dollars/euros/pounds have been invested in tissue engineering over the past
decade—a large and significant component of this is in the area of virtual and
physical prototyping. As a result, we have made significant changes to this edition
as you will see from our summary of chapters below.
Virtual and physical prototyping can broadly be divided into three categories:
modeling, manufacturing, and materials. This book focuses on the first part and
some areas of the second. The second book in this series will focus on the areas
in the second and third categories. As you will see from this book, the princi-
ples utilized draw heavily from the more traditional engineering fields including
mechanical engineering, industrial engineering, civil engineering (structures), and
bioengineering.
The first chapter by Ekinci et al. provides insights into the essentials and efficient
methods to design and fabricate optimal vascular network for tissue engineering.
The physiological considerations in design, the advantages, and in vitro studies of
the fabricated optimal vascular vessels are described and explored.
In Chap. 2, Ming Leu and his group of researchers review the use of virtual
reality technology for a virtual bone surgery simulation system, which can be used
for training in orthopedic surgery and planning of bone surgery procedures. Then,
they discuss the basic methods and techniques used to develop these systems.
Amorim et al. present fundamental aspects related to the generation and visu-
alization of models for three-dimensional printing in Chap. 3. Concepts including
medical imaging, preprocessing, segmentation, volume rendering, image data rep-
resentation, 3D printing, and biofabrication are present.
In Chap. 4, Naing et al. present a system of CAD structures based on convex
polyhedral for use with rapid prototyping (RP) technology in tissue engineering

vii
viii Preface

applications that allows the designer (given the unit cell and the required dimen-
sions) to automatically generate a structure that is suitable for the intended tissue
engineering application.
Scaffolds are key structures in tissue engineering as they provide an initial
biochemical substrate for the novel tissue until cells can produce their own
extracellular matrix. Therefore, scaffolds not only define the 3D space for the
formation of new tissues but also serve to provide tissues with appropriate functions.
Several techniques have been developed to produce scaffolds. In Chap. 5, Huang et
al. review the current state of the art of additive manufacturing techniques used
for tissue engineering. Different additive techniques are described, and their main
advantages and disadvantages are analyzed. Antman-Passig and Shefi, in Chap. 6,
present and describe the tissue engineering techniques and advanced fabrication
strategies for oriented scaffolds and nerve conduit for nerve repair.
Bioengineering strategies strongly depend on both material and manufacturing
processes. It is difficult for a single fabrication technique currently to meet
the requirements of all scale tissue regeneration. Many advanced biofabrication
techniques have been developed to produce tissue constructs with improved prop-
erties in both mechanical and biological aspects for broad biomedical engineering
applications. The seventh chapter by Aslan et al. reviews and discusses the use of
different developed electrospinning techniques and hybrid electrospinning and melt-
extrusion techniques to produce polymer and polymer composite nanofiber meshes
for skin repair and regeneration. In Chap. 8, Liu et al. describe and discuss different
types of bioprinting techniques and classify into three main categories: basic, semi-
hybrid, and fully hybrid additive systems. The main advantages and disadvantages
of the systems are analyzed.
In Chap. 9, Guardado and Cooper review the various attempts to use rapid
prototyping techniques to directly or indirectly produce scaffolds with a defined
architecture from various materials for intervertebral disc components, the nucleus
pulposus, and annulus fibrosus replacement.
In Chap. 10, Al-Tamimi et al. describe recent work on power bed fusion for
making tissue engineering metallic fixation implants. A general overview about the
fundamentals of bone characteristics, metallic biomaterials, and metallic powder
bed fusion techniques are provided as well as models of heat, mass, and momentum
transport phenomena associated with melting and solidification of metallic powders.
The chapter also provides in-depth information about powder bed fusion of titanium
and titanium alloys, cobalt-based alloys, and stainless steel for making bone tissue
engineering fixation implants. Examples of internal implants produced by EBM
or SLM discussing their mechanical and biological performance, stress shielding,
personalization, and the reduction of the total surgical procedure are presented.
The last chapter by Xu and Bártolo introduces the structure and the regeneration
process of the nerve tissue and explains the current strategies used to treat nerve
injury. A review on the current state of the art in the scaffold design requirements
and additive manufacturing techniques for nerve scaffold fabrication within the
tissue engineering context is provided. The techniques focus on the extrusion-
Preface ix

based techniques, vat-photo polymerization, and electrospinning. The associated

advantage and limitations are also discussed.
The production of this book has been a most enjoyable experience. We thank
the authors for their valuable and timely contributions to this volume. We would
also like to thank Dean Jimmy Martin, US Steel Dean of Engineering, University of
Pittsburgh; Prof. Martin Schröder, Dean of the Faculty of Science and Engineering;
Prof. Alice Larkin, Head of the School of Engineering; and Prof. Tim Stallard, Head
of the Department of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering, University of
Manchester, for their support of our academic endeavors.
We would especially like to acknowledge the unlimited patience and constant
support of Brinda Megasyamalan of Springer. Finally, we would like to acknowl-
edge the multiple contributions of Dr. Fengyuan Liu. Without her untiring efforts,
abundance of patience at our tardiness, and outstanding project management skills,
this edition would never have been completed. Thank you Fengyuan!

Pittsburgh, PA Bopaya Bidanda

Leiria, Portugal Paulo Jorge Bártolo
Contents

1 Optimised Vascular Network for Skin Tissue Engineering

by Additive Manufacturing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Alper Ekinci, Xiaoxiao Han, Richard Bibb, and Russell Harris
2 Virtual Bone Surgery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Ming C. Leu, Wenjin Tao, Qiang Niu, and Xiaoyi Chi
3 Three-Dimensional Medical Imaging: Concepts
and Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Paulo Henrique Junqueira Amorim, Thiago Franco de Moraes,
Jorge Vicente Lopes da Silva, and Helio Pedrini
4 Computer Aided Tissue Engineering Scaffolds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
M. W. Naing, C. K. Chua, and K. F. Leong
5 Additive Biomanufacturing Processes to Fabricate Scaffolds
for Tissue Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Boyang Huang, Henrique Almeida, Bopaya Bidanda,
and Paulo Jorge Bártolo
6 Engineering Oriented Scaffolds for Directing Neuronal
Regeneration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Merav Antman-Passig and Orit Shefi
7 The Electrospinning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Enes Aslan, Henrique Almeida, Salem Al-Deyab,
Mohamed El-Newehy, Helena Bartolo, and Paulo Jorge Bártolo
8 A Review of Hybrid Biomanufacturing Systems Applied
in Tissue Regeneration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
Fengyuan Liu, Cian Vyas, Jiong Yang, Gokhan Ates,
and Paulo Jorge Bártolo

xi
xii Contents

9 Low Back Pain: Additive Manufacturing for Disc Degeneration

and Herniation Repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
Alexandra Alcántara Guardado and Glen Cooper
10 A Review on Powder Bed Fusion Additive Manufacturing for
Metallic Fixation Implants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
Abdulsalam Abdulaziz Al-Tamimi, Mohammed S. Al-Qahtani,
Fengyuan Liu, Areej Alkahtani, Chris Peach, and Paulo Jorge Bártolo
11 Scaffold Design for Nerve Regeneration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
Zhanyan Xu and Paulo Jorge Bártolo

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
Chapter 1
Optimised Vascular Network for Skin
Tissue Engineering by Additive
Manufacturing

Alper Ekinci, Xiaoxiao Han, Richard Bibb, and Russell Harris

1.1 Introduction

Many clinical therapies utilise autologous and allografts to repair skin defects
resulting from genetic disorders, acute trauma, chronic wounds or surgical inter-
ventions. Tissue engineering (TE) of skin is an emerging technology that offers
many potential advantages in repairing skin defects over conventional autologous
grafts [1]. It overcomes the shortage of donor organs and reduces the added cost
and complications of tissue harvesting. Tissue-engineered skin can also be used
as a skin equivalent for pharmaceutical or cosmetics testing, eliminating the need
for animal testing [2]. A major issue in tissue engineering is that the artificial skin
may not develop adequate vascularisation for long-term survival [3]. An artificial
vascular system can be pre-embedded in a skin equivalent before it is implanted.
The embedded network has three primary functions: (1) to supply nutrients and
other soluble factors and to remove waste products from the surrounding cells,
(2) to act as scaffolds for culturing vascular endothelial cells and (3) to develop

A. Ekinci
Wolfson School of Mechanical, Electrical and Manufacturing Engineering, Loughborough
University, Loughborough, UK
e-mail: [email protected]
X. Han ()
HNU College of Mechanical and Vehicle Engineering, Hunan University, Changsha, China
e-mail: [email protected]
R. Bibb
Design School, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK
e-mail: [email protected]
R. Harris
Mechanical Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 1

B. Bidanda, P. J. Bártolo (eds.), Virtual Prototyping & Bio Manufacturing
in Medical Applications, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35880-8_1
2 A. Ekinci et al.

small sprouting capillaries that can be connected with existing blood vessels, also
known as angiogenesis [1, 4–6]. Nutrition supply in the human body is realised by
a very complex blood vessel network. It consists of vessels in dimensions between
several millimetres down to several micrometres in diameter. To mimic the system,
flexible structuring processes are needed. Traditional manufacturing technologies,
such as spinning, dip-coating or extrusion, can produce linear tubes with different
inner-diameters [7]. However, it is not possible to generate branched vessels, with
decreasing or increasing internal diameters to mimic the natural changes in blood
vessel networks.
Additive manufacturing (AM) technologies have made it possible for the first
time to manufacture artificial blood vessels and their networks of any sophisticated
geometry and connections. With AM, three-dimensional (3D) objects can be
produced from 3D computer-aided design (CAD) data by joining materials together
using a layer-by-layer manner. There are many AM technologies classified as
bioprinting systems, based on microvalve deposition, ink-jetting, material extrusion
and stereolithography (SLA) techniques [8, 9]. SLA has advantages in 3D printing
microvascular vessel networks due to (1) its high resolution, (2) its ability to
produce flexible materials and (3) excellent process control. The use of these AM
technologies will enable the generation and mimicking of complex blood vessel
networks under controlled conditions. Currently, various research groups have
successfully 3D printed and tested such vascular vessels [4, 10–13]. Wu et al. [13]
used transient inks to print a solid template within the substrate and then removed
the ink to create microchannels. Hinton et al. [14] invented a freeform reversible
embedding of suspended hydrogels method (called FRESH in their paper) to
print hydrated materials that enable the printing of complex vascular architectures.
However, in their work, vascular networks were printed with little understanding of
the physiological demands. Therefore, general design guidance is missing. Design
parameters such as branch levels, a branching point, branch angles, vessel diameter,
the daughter vessel asymmetry ratio, wall shear stress (WSS) and recirculation areas
should be considered carefully in the design of vascular vessels. Based on these
parameters, this chapter presents guidance on the design optimisation of a vascular
network manufactured by SLA for skin tissue engineering.

1.2 Design of Vascular Network

The main parameters considered in the design of a vascular network can be

described in two categories: (1) the macro-scale parameters and (2) the micro-scale
parameters. The macro-scale parameters include branch levels and branching point
locations, while the micro-scale parameters include branch angles, vessel diameters,
the daughter vessel asymmetry ratio, the WSS and the recirculation areas. Their
definition and illustration are shown in Fig. 1.1.
1 Optimised Vascular Network for Skin Tissue Engineering by Additive. . . 3

Fig. 1.1 The macro-scale (a) and the micro-scale (b) parameter definitions [15]

In Fig. 1.1a, branch levels and branching point are illustrated, while Fig. 1.1b
demonstrates parent diameter Rp , daughter diameters Rd1 and Rd2 , total branching
angle, WSS and the recirculation areas.

1.2.1 Macro-Scale Design

The design of vascular networks is focused on bifurcations, because, in normal

vasculature, around 98% of blood vessels bifurcate at each junction, while only
4 A. Ekinci et al.

Fig. 1.2 Distributed configuration of the vascular network with different branching levels: (a) 2
levels, (b) 3 levels, (c) 4 levels [15]

Fig. 1.3 The first version of

the vascular system [15]

2% trifurcate [16, 17]. As the 3D structures can be formed by stacking 2D vascular

systems, the locations of the branching points having different branching levels such
as 2, 3, and 4 levels are evenly distributed on the skin patch, which can be illustrated
in Fig. 1.2 (a–c).
The formula and calculation of different branching levels are given in details in
[15]. Based on this calculation, the first configuration sketch of the vascular system
is shown in Fig. 1.3.
It is shown that sharp junctions are used in all bifurcation points. These sharp
apices at junctions of bifurcated vessels need to be avoided because they are
considered risk factors for local mechanical weakness [18]. Rounding (increasing
the radius) the apex at each junction can be one of the solutions. However, larger
recirculation areas of blood are found in bifurcation vessels with rounded apices
compared with sharp junctions [18]. Thus, a careful design of the bifurcation
1 Optimised Vascular Network for Skin Tissue Engineering by Additive. . . 5

junctions is necessary. At the macro-scale, the main objective of the design is to

maximise the nutrient supply and the waste exchange to surrounding tissues and
cells; nevertheless, the local bifurcation design needs to ensure that the shear stress
on the vessel wall is in the healthy range at the micro-scale.

1.2.2 Micro-Scale Design

The WSS is a critical haemodynamic indicator that affects endothelial cell develop-
ment [17–20]. Many researchers have found that branching angles have a significant
effect on WSS in the bifurcation of a branch vessel [21–24]. The maximum
curvature of the junction is the most important factor that influences WSS. High
curvature also leads to stress concentration, which weakens the system mechanically
[18, 19, 25, 26]. The volume (V) of the junction is another important factor in
haemodynamics [27, 28]. A large volume leads to local recirculation of the blood
[27, 28]. Another physiological requirement at the micro-scale is to ensure minimal
recirculation areas where nutrient and oxygen may be trapped.

1.2.2.1 Branch Angle and Vessel Diameters

Design approaches to optimise a vascular network have been based on the minimi-
sation of the sum of the energy required for pumping blood through the network and
the energy required for the metabolic supply of the blood volume. To minimise the
energy, Murray’s law given in Eq. (1.1) is applied [29, 30]:

Rp3 = Rd1
3
+ Rd2
3
(1.1)

Using Murray’s law, the radii of daughter vessels (Rd1 and Rd2 ) can be obtained
based on the radius of their parent vessels (Rp ). It has been confirmed that most
natural vascular systems follow Murray’s law [31]. It is widely recognised that local
geometries of a vascular bifurcation, such as bifurcation angles, junction curvatures
and branching, are major features of the arterial system [20, 25].
The basic principle for a good junction design is therefore to ensure that the
volume of the junction remains in a desired narrow range while limiting the
maximum curvature. The exact range and limit depend on specific applications. Han
et al. [32] developed a mathematical model using parameters such as bifurcation
angles, and diameters of parent and daughter vessels. All the parameters in the
model influence the junction volume V and the maximum curvature Cmax . In their
paper, a systematic parametric study was carried out to establish a set of simple
design rules to achieve a balance between V and Cmax . A parametric map, which
can be used as a guide for designers, is provided based on the parametric study. The
parametric study shown in Fig. 1.4 calculated Cmax and V for bifurcation angle of
30◦ , 50◦ and 85◦ and more detailed information can be found in the study completed
by Han et al. [32].
Other documents randomly have
different content
 THE “MONITOR” AND “ALBEMARLE”
From a Painting by Müller.

FEDERAL GUNBOAT “ST. LOUIS.”

From Photographs supplied by the U.S. Navy Department.
Another most notable example in these improvised ironclads was the
ram Tennessee, which was designed and commanded by
Commodore Tatnall. This vessel played a conspicuous part in the
defence of Mobile against the Federal fleet under Admiral Farragut,
in August, 1864. The Tennessee was admirably designed for the
purpose intended, which was that of an ironclad, heavily armed, and
able to ram; but unfortunately for her, she could not be got
completely ready in time, nor was it possible to give her the
armoured protection or the weighty artillery which had been
contemplated at first; nevertheless, her commander fought her well,
and that she came absolutely to grief was due to hasty construction
and lack of material to put into her, rather than to any fault in the
design of the ship itself. Her battle with the Union fleet shows with
what grim determination the ship was fought.
“There was a brush with the ironclad ram,” says an American writer,
“but it was not serious, and the fleet came to anchor three miles up
the bay. Farragut was planning to attack the ram as soon as it should
be dark enough to prevent the garrison seeing which was friend and
which foe; but the ram anticipated him and steamed direct for the
flagship (the Hartford) in the midst of the fleet. The Admiral at once
gave orders for every ship to attack her, not only with shot but by
ramming, and a desperate contest ensued. The ram had the
advantage in that she was sure of striking an enemy with every blow,
while the fleet had to avoid running and firing into one another. Their
shot had no effect on the sloping iron sides of the monster, and when
the wooden vessels rammed her they only splintered their own bows
and only heeled her over. But the monitors, with their enormous
guns, shot away her smoke-stack and steering apparatus, and
jammed her shutters, while one 15-inch shell actually penetrated her
armour.”[38]
This heavy cannonade proved too much for her. With her armour
battered, her machinery damaged, her commander badly wounded,
her steering gear disabled, she lay helpless at the mercy of her foes
and surrendered.
Another type of ironclad which the Confederates employed was
known as the David, because though small it was hoped it would
deal as effectively with the big northern warships as its Hebrew
namesake had dealt with Goliath of old. The parallel, however,
ceases with the name. The first American David was tried at
Charleston, in October, 1863. She was cigar-shaped, 54 feet long,
and 6 feet in diameter, and carried a small steam engine to drive a
small screw propeller. Her one weapon was a spar torpedo, and
when she had exploded it she was expected to go to the bottom with
such of her crew as did not happen to be able to save themselves.
Many brave deeds have been done in war by combatants and non-
combatants alike, but the cool courage of the pilot or steersman of
the first David will take some beating. Her initial attack was directed
against the ironclad ship Ironsides, named in commemoration of the
“Old Ironsides,” and whether failure or success attended the
attempted destruction of the ship, those on the David knew they
were engaged in a forlorn hope. Only the funnel and pilot-house of
the little vessel were discernible above the sea level, and even they
were not very conspicuous. The David was hailed, and replied with a
volley of musketry, and an instant later a torpedo exploded against
the sides of the warship. It lifted her and shook her, but inflicted no
material damage worth speaking of, but the moral effect was
considerable, as the Federals knew the Confederates had now
devised a new means of attacking them. At the moment of the
explosion the four or five men composing the crew of the David
jumped overboard, as it was thought she would be swamped by the
backwash of the explosion. She did not sink, however, and the pilot
held on to her for his life, for he was the only man on board who
could not swim. The engineer swam to her, and together they took
her back to Charleston.
On the Mississippi and the other American rivers both sides
improvised as gunboats anything that had an engine in it and a
platform upon which a gun could be carried. Small tug-boats were
given turtle-back armour, too thin to be of use, whence some of them
got the name of tin-clads in contradistinction to the ironclads; big
side-wheel steamers were protected with anything that could be
utilised for the purpose, from logs to bags of ashes, and ordinary
river cargo steamers and barges were also found very adaptable. It
may, indeed, be doubted if in any war there has been such an
assemblage of opposing warships improvised from the most
unpromising materials as in the American Civil War. The majority of
them were not of great use as combatants, notwithstanding that their
crews usually handled them with reckless bravery, and after the
passage of the Mississippi mouth had been forced and the northern
warships were able to ascend the river, the fighting value of these
makeshifts became almost a negative quantity. In the absence of
superior force, however, there was no telling what they might
attempt, for their crews were as reckless as they were daring.
When the Civil War began, Edwin Stevens offered the Federal
Government, at his own expense, a small vessel called the
Naugatuck. This was a twin-screw vessel, which could be immersed
two feet below her load-line and raised again in eight minutes by
pumping out the water admitted into the tanks. The solitary gun was
mounted on a revolving carriage, and the recoil taken by rubber disc
springs. It was loaded, directed and fired from below the deck, the
loading being accomplished by bringing the depressed gun opposite
a hole in the deck, provided for the purpose.[39] She carried a Parrott
gun, a 100-pounder, and was one of the fleet that attacked the
Merrimac. Her twin screws enabled her to turn from end to end in
seventy-five seconds. She did good service on the James River, until
her gun burst; her crew, thanks to her protecting deck, escaping
injury. This vessel is chiefly of interest because of the method of
placing and loading the gun.

THE NAUGATUCK.
 THE GUN-CARRIAGE OF THE NAUGATUCK.

Ericsson’s inventive genius was responsible in 1861, before the war

broke out, for a vessel of 3,033 tons, which he named the Dictator,
but she was not launched until 1863, the builders being the
Delamater Iron Works. She was an iron-framed vessel, and had a
wooden skin 3½ feet thick. The iron protecting her sides was 11
inches thick, 5 inches of which were solid bars measuring 3 inches
by 5 inches, and the other portion was built up in single 1-inch
plates. Her ram, a heavy structure of oak and iron, projected 22 feet
beyond the bow. On deck she carried a single turret with an inside
diameter of 24 feet. The walls of the turret were protected by 15
inches of iron plates, each 1 inch in thickness, and weighed 500
tons. Her engine was of Ericsson’s vibrating lever type with two
cylinders 100 inches in diameter, and indicating 5,000 h.p. The
screw was 21 feet 6 inches in diameter, with a pitch of 34 feet, and
was cast in one piece, its weight being 17 ⅖ tons. The Dictator’s
armament was two smooth-bore 15-inch guns, known as Ericsson
guns, which were of the same type as he introduced into America on
behalf of Col. Stockton, and with a charge of 80 lb. of powder, threw
a round shot weighing 460 lb. The ship was 320 feet long, 50 feet
broad, and drew 22 feet of water.
In the subsequent monitors the conning tower was placed above the
turret as in the case of the Passaic. Monitors were built later with two
turrets, and a flying deck connected them. They were of much
greater dimensions than the single turret ships, and carried twice the
number of guns, and being considerably heavier and faster and
more extensively armoured, were exceedingly capable fighting
machines.
But the wooden warships were not destined to pass away without
making a gallant struggle well worthy of the traditions of centuries.
The last great battles in which they engaged were at New Orleans
and Mobile, and well they acquitted themselves. Stranded, rammed,
and almost set on fire, as they were time after time, they yet carried
on an unequal contest until they achieved splendid victories at these
places. Not even torpedoes, as mines were then called, daunted
Admiral Farragut, who, at Mobile, when a ship that was leading
hesitated and nearly threw the whole line into disorder, inquired,
“What is the matter?”
“Torpedoes,” was the answer.
“Damn the torpedoes,” roared Farragut from his usual place in the
rigging, to which he was accustomed to mount in order to see over
the smoke. Whereupon his ship, the Hartford, assumed the lead.
On the Atlantic coast the South endeavoured to maintain its unequal
contest by means of blockade runners and privateers. Foremost
among these were the Shenandoah, which has the distinction of
being the only ship to carry the Confederate flag round the world; the
Sumter, a small commerce destroyer, commanded by Captain
Raphael Semmes, who afterwards had the Alabama; and the last-
named herself. The Sumter was described by Captain Semmes as a
“stone which had been rejected of the builders,” and he says that he
endeavoured to work it into the building which the Confederates
were then rearing. “The vessel was reported to him as a small
propeller steamer of 500 tons burden, sea-going, with a low-pressure
engine, sound, and capable of being so strengthened as to be
enabled to carry an ordinary battery of four or five guns. Her speed
was reported to be between nine and ten knots, but unfortunately,
said the Board, she carried but five days’ fuel, and has no
accommodation for the crew of a ship of war. She was, accordingly,
condemned. When I finished reading the report, I turned to the
Secretary and said, ‘Give me that ship; I think I can make her answer
the purpose.’ My request was at once acceded to; the Secretary
telegraphed to the Board to receive the ship, and the clerks of the
Department were set at work to hunt up the necessary officers to
accompany me, and make out the proper orders. And this is the way
in which the Confederate States’ steamer Sumter, which was to have
the honour of being the first ship of war to throw the new
Confederate flag to the breeze, was commissioned.”
He got her into shape somehow, and she began her adventurous
career by running the blockade in a most daring fashion at Pass a
l’Outre, in spite of the presence of the Brooklyn, which was faster
and more heavily armed. She beat the northern ship simply because
she could sail nearer to the wind. After six months’ experience of this
ship, he says that “in her best days the Sumter had been very
inefficient, being always anchored, as it were, in the deep sea, by
her propeller whenever she was out of coal. A fast ship propelled
entirely by sail power would have been better.” She captured
seventeen ships, consistently dodged five or six northern ships, and
at last had to be laid up at Gibraltar. She afterwards sailed as the
Gibraltar under the English flag as a merchant vessel, and made one
successful voyage as a blockade runner to Charleston, South
Carolina, and went to the bottom of the North Sea soon afterwards.
The Sumter’s battery consisted of an 8-inch shell gun pivoted
amidships and four 32-pounders of 13 cwt. each for broadside firing.
The slide and circle for the pivot gun were constructed of railway
iron. She captured seven prizes in two days, and escorted six of
them into the harbour of Cienfuegos at once.
The Alabama was built at Birkenhead under a contract with the
Confederate States, and was paid for out of the Confederate
treasury. “The Alabama had been built in perfect good faith by the
Lairds. When she was contracted for, no question had been raised
as to the right of a neutral to build and sell to a belligerent such a
ship.”[40] Be that as it may, the settlement of the Alabama claims
proved an expensive item for Great Britain. She was responsible for
the destruction of no fewer than sixty-seven American ships, and
such was the terror she inspired that the armed frigate Kearsarge
was sent to hunt her down and exterminate her. Soon after
embarking on her privateering, the Alabama fought and sank the
Hatteras in the only engagement she was concerned in until she met
her fate at the guns of the Kearsarge. There was not much to choose
between the ships in size, but in all other respects the advantage lay
with the northern ship, which had further strengthened her sides with
a concealed belt of chain cables.
“As for the ships,” writes Captain Semmes in “Service Afloat,”
“though the enemy was superior to me, both in size, staunchness of
construction, and armament, they were of force so nearly equal, that
I cannot be charged with rashness in having offered battle. The
Kearsarge mounted seven guns—two 11-inch Dahlgrens, four 32-
pounders, and a rifled 28-pounder. The Alabama mounted eight—
one 8-inch, one rifled 100-pounder, and six 32-pounders. Though the
Alabama carried one gun more than her antagonist, it is seen that
the battery of the latter enabled her to throw more metal at a
broadside, there being a difference of three inches in the bore of the
shell-guns of the two ships. Still the disparity was not so great but
that I might hope to beat my enemy in a fair fight. But he did not
show me a fair fight, for, as it afterwards turned out, his ship was
iron-clad. It was the same thing as if two men were to go out to fight
a duel and one of them, unknown to the other, were to put a shirt of
mail under his outer garment.... By Captain Winslow’s own account,
the Kearsarge was struck twenty-eight times; but his ship being
armoured, of course, my shot and shell, except in so far as
fragments of the latter may have damaged his spars and rigging, fell
harmless into the sea. The Alabama was not mortally wounded until
after the Kearsarge had been firing at her an hour and ten minutes.
In the meantime, in spite of the armour of the Kearsarge, I had
mortally wounded that ship in the first thirty minutes of the
engagement. I say ‘mortally wounded her,’ because the wound
would have proved fatal but for the defect of my ammunition. I
lodged a rifled percussion shell near her sternpost—where there
were no chains—which failed to explode because of the defect of the
cap. If the cap had performed its duty and exploded the shell, I
should have been called upon to save Captain Winslow’s crew from
drowning, instead of him being called upon to save mine. On so
slight an incident—the defect of a percussion cap—did the battle
hinge. The enemy was proud of this shell. It was the only trophy they
had ever got from the Alabama. We fought her until she would no
longer swim, and then we gave her to the waves.”
 CAPTURE OF NEW ORLEANS—ATTACK ON FORT PHILIP.
From a Contemporary Steel Engraving, showing improvised warships employed.
The Shenandoah was the name given by the Confederates to the
Glasgow-built auxiliary steamer Sea-Horse, which was the only ship
to carry the southern flag from Dixie’s Land to the Cape, thence to
Australia, and up to the North Pacific. She found her chief prey
among the American whalers.
 CHAPTER VI
IRON SHIPS OF WAR—continued

The Admiralties, naval architects, and a great many other people

throughout the world were troubled for several years through trying
to reconcile all the divergent and often contradictory claims put
forward as to what should constitute a fighting ship. Those who
troubled most were those who knew least of the subject. The naval
architects, having to make the necessary calculations, were not
without some knowledge of the limitations of the materials at their
disposal; and the Admiralties left matters to the experts, whether
employed by Governments or in private shipbuilding establishments,
confident that those who were best acquainted with such a technical
subject would be most likely to set forth something possible of
attainment and destined to show certain definite results. And this has
been the attitude of all Governments towards all inventors, whether
their inventions were of practical utility or were merely the outcome
of seeing visions and dreaming dreams. This does not imply,
however, acceptance of the official theory that Government experts
know everything.
Many people, after the American war, went turret-mad, and became
possessed of the idea that this country should own a numerous fleet
of monitors, so numerous, indeed, that every port all round the
British coasts should have two or three of such vessels in order that
an enemy’s fleet, usually conjectured by the turret enthusiasts to
consist of large two or three-decked battleships, should be met by a
succession of monitors each manned by a fresh crew and full of
ammunition, and reduced to submission if possible, or sunk, or
scattered as was the Spanish Armada, an historical allusion which
these good people found very useful as adding a picturesque touch.
Nor were the enthusiasts of other countries behind those of Great
Britain in their advocacy of their pet theories. Naval economists, who
yet wished to swim with the current of naval enthusiasm, did not
hesitate to point out the economy of construction to be effected by a
fleet of monitors or of small vessels carrying turrets. Some
contended that no guns were too heavy to be sent afloat, so that
they should smash any armour by the weight of their projectiles; and
ingenious were the calculations to demonstrate how easy it would be
for a heavy gun, such as was used for land fortifications, to be sent
to demolish a hostile vessel whatever her dimensions and
armament. Others clamoured for the heaviest possible armour, even
if only moderately powerful artillery should be installed, coupled with
great ramming power. That every part of the ship should be so
heavily armoured as to be invulnerable was another contention
which found much favour, its adherents forgetting that too much
armour would sink the vessel; but its opponents rejected it in favour
of the concentration of the armour over the vital parts of the ships,
and leaving the ends unprotected or nearly so. Other claims were for
high speed, great coal capacity, large sail power, lofty freeboards,
seaworthiness, steadiness of gun platform, small size, shallow
draught, and comparative invisibility to an enemy’s gunners.[41]
As it was manifestly impossible to build ships which should meet the
requirements of all the nation’s advisers and be suitable to be sent to
perform all kinds of duties anywhere, armoured ships began to be
constructed of special types according to the work expected of them.
The first division was into battleships, armoured cruisers, and coast
defence ships.
As the result of Captain Coles’s advocacy of the turret system, which
he began in 1861, the Admiralty, when converting a number of old
and new wooden ships into ironclads, had one of them, the Royal
Sovereign, cut down, covered with armour, and given four armoured
revolving turrets placed on the upper deck in the middle line of the
ship. She marked the conversion of the Admiralty to the new order of
things which steam power and iron armour in combination had
rendered possible. One step in the process of conversion was that
sail power was no longer considered necessary in fighting vessels,
another was that the combatant part of every ship intended for heavy
fighting should be afforded as much protection as possible, and a
third step was that the guns should be few in number, of
considerable power, and so disposed as to have the widest possible
range. This ship could fire all her guns on either broadside, and also
had a direct fire ahead and astern. She started her career as a 131-
gun line-of-battle ship, but after her alterations she carried five 12-
ton muzzle-loading guns, of which two were in the foremost turret
and one each in the others. She was also the first of the converted
vessels to be given a steel protective deck, in her case two inches
thick, but it was not curved so as to place the edges below the water-
line, and it consequently would not have afforded any protection to
the vessel had a shot penetrated the armour at the water-line. Her
low freeboard would have rendered her difficult to hit, and she would
have been able to approach an enemy and deliver a telling fire at
comparatively short range without running undue risk of receiving
much damage in return.

THE “PRINCE ALBERT” (SISTER SHIP TO THE “ROYAL SOVEREIGN”) AS

CONVERTED TO A TURRET SHIP.
From the Model in the Royal Naval College, Greenwich.
 H.M.S. “MINOTAUR.”
Photograph by Symonds & Co., Portsmouth.
The dimensions of the first British turret ship compare curiously with
those turret ships which followed her in rapid succession, both in the
British and other navies. She was 240 feet 7 inches in length, with an
extreme beam of 62 feet and a draught aft of 24 feet 11 inches.
Even after the launch of the Warrior the Admiralty ordered a few
wooden ships, but in 1866 decided upon the adoption of iron
warships. One of the last and certainly one of the best to look at of
the wooden armour-plated ships was the steam frigate Lord Clyde,
but as a sailer she had many defects, of which slowness was not the
least. In her case the armour extended to the ends of the ship, and
nowhere was it less than 4½ inches in thickness, while at the water-
line the armour plates were 5½ inches thick. The sides of the entire
battery deck from stem to stern, and from 3 feet below to 3 feet
above the ports, were plated with 6-inch armour, of which one
thickness of 1½ inches was bolted to the ship’s frame, and the other,
of 4½ inches, was placed upon the outside of the planking. The
armour went 6 feet below the water-line amidships, and for the sake
of lightness was only 4½ feet deep at the ends. The gun ports were
8 feet 9 inches above the water-line, or 2 feet 6 inches higher than
those of La Gloire. She was the first vessel in the British Navy to
carry an armour-plated bow battery on the main deck. This armour
plating also was carried upwards to protect an upper-deck bow
battery mounted under the ship’s forecastle. This arrangement
enabled her to fire four guns ahead, while exposing to the enemy’s
fire only the curved surface of her bow armour. She also had a
distance of 15 feet between each gun port on her main deck. Her
engines of 1,000 h.p. nominal, and 6,000 indicated, drove a two-
bladed Griffith’s adjustable propeller 28 feet in diameter.
From 1860 to 1866 ten broadside ironclads were added to the navy,
the last and the largest being the Northumberland of 10,780 tons. All
these vessels, except the Hector and Minotaur, carried muzzle-
loaders, but these two had breechloaders of the early Armstrong
screw type, which were soon superseded by more powerful
weapons. The Minotaur carried fifty guns, the Northumberland
twenty-six.
Then followed the abandonment of the broadside and the
confinement of the heavy armament of an ironclad to a central
battery protected by thick iron side armour and armoured bulkheads,
the only other portion of the ship to be thus protected being that near
the water-line. The first of these in the British Navy was the
Bellerophon, launched in 1865; she was of 7,550 tons displacement,
and her engines, of 6,520 h.p. indicated, drove one screw and gave
her a speed of fourteen knots. Her thickest armour was 6 inches,
and her heaviest gun a 12-ton muzzle-loader. Altogether she carried
fourteen guns, including one in a small armoured citadel in the bows.
Great though the advantages were of the screw propeller, it was
admitted that it was not without many drawbacks. The single screw
took up a lot of room, weakened to some extent the structure of the
stern, and if anything happened to the engines or propeller the ship
was helpless and had to depend entirely upon whatever sail power
she might possess. To overcome this difficulty Messrs. J. and W.
Dudgeon were the first to build, from the designs of Mr. John
Dudgeon, a twin-screw ocean-going steamship. Twin and triple
screws had been used before, but were driven by the one engine.
Before this, however, Messrs. Dudgeon experimented with a small
iron vessel, of 400 tons, called the Flora, which was given two
independent engines and screws. The propellers were placed under
the counter, and proved the advantage of this position over that of
the practice, where two screws were used, of placing one before,
and the other behind the rudder. The advantage of placing the screw
either in a space cut in the deadwood, or, in the case of twin
propellers, under the counter, was much greater than the method at
one time adopted of placing the screw behind the rudder. Under the
newer method the steering power of the rudder was not impaired;
but under the older method, when the screw shaft was carried
beyond the rudder, a slit known as a “shark’s mouth” had to be made
in the rudder so that the upper and lower portions would be able to
pass the screw shaft. The practice of equipping the vessels with
wells or recesses into which the screw could be lifted was found to
possess but slight advantages for warships, and was ere long
abandoned. The best that could be said for it was that when a ship
was travelling under sail only, the screw could be lifted from the
water and the strain upon the wooden stern caused by dragging the
screw, whether of the fixed or folded patterns, through the water, or
running loose, was avoided altogether.
The Hebe was the third vessel on this principle built and engined by
Messrs. Dudgeon, and the advantages of the twin-screw system
over the single screw were again strikingly manifested during a
series of manœuvres. The Hebe was an iron vessel of 470 tons, and
165 feet long. The screws were three-bladed, 7 feet 6 inches in
diameter, and had a pitch of 15 feet, and were worked by two
separate and independent engines each having two cylinders 26
inches in diameter, with a 21-inch stroke of piston, and being
collectively of 120 nominal h.p. The tests showed that the vessel with
both screws working ahead could made a complete circle in four
minutes or less, and in still shorter time with only one screw working
and the helm thrown over, or with the two screws working in opposite
directions.
The tests were severe, but they proved more effectively than any
tests before had done the great superiority of the independent acting
twin screw over the single screw; and the results in far greater
manœuvring power, speed, and reliability were so satisfactory that
the Admiralty was most favourably impressed. The Messrs.
Dudgeon, in 1863, built the steamship Far East, and her launch and
trial trip took place in the presence of the representatives of the
Admiralty. She was fitted with twin screws which had a diameter of 8
feet 2 inches, and a pitch of 16 feet. The shafts of the screws were
carried through a wrought-iron tube bolted to a false iron bulkhead
clear of the ship’s frame. The Admiralty not long afterwards adopted
twin-screw propellers. The advantages of the twin screw were that
were one to be disabled, the other could propel the ship without
trouble, and that as an aid to steering, one screw could be sent
astern and the other worked ahead, so as to turn the vessel in little
more than her own length.
The Penelope, launched in 1867, was the first twin-screw ocean-
going ironclad belonging to the Navy, and she was, moreover, the
first government owned warship in which each screw had its own
engine, as compared to the two screws geared to one engine in the
floating batteries of the Crimean days. She was of 4,470 tons
displacement, and her engines of 4,700 indicated h.p. gave her a
speed of between twelve and thirteen knots. Each of her twin screws
was fitted to a distinct stern with separate deadwood and rudder, an
arrangement which neither added to the steering capabilities of the
ship nor increased its structural strength at the stern. The Penelope
had recessed ports to allow of increased training of the guns.
Captain Coles, to whom, notwithstanding the sad fate which
overtook the Captain, this country is somewhat indebted for his
consistent advocacy of the adoption of the turret on sea-going ships,
urged upon the Admiralty the superiority of the turret over the
broadside system. His contrivance differed from that of Ericsson in
the important particular that Ericsson’s turret was supported on a
pivot which rested upon bearings at the bottom of the ship, whereas
Captain Coles’s turret rested upon bearings supported in a specially
constructed room resting upon the beams of the deck, which, in turn,
were strongly supported from below. In regard to the thickness of
armour there was little to choose between the two. Captain Coles
brought his design before the notice of the United Service Institution
in 1860, and although it attracted a great deal of attention among
naval constructors and manufacturers of naval artillery, only one
nation was then of sufficient courage to order an experimental ship.
That nation was Denmark, and it is to that country that the honour
must be given of having the first ship in which the broadside system
of gun-fire was entirely abandoned and the turret system installed
instead. This vessel was the Rolf Krake, an iron double-turreted
monitor with lowering bulwarks. She was engaged in the war against
Prussia, in 1864, when she took part in a fierce duel with the
Prussian batteries at Eckernsünde. The batteries fired 24-pounder
rifled Krupp guns, and though the ironclad was struck about one
hundred and fifty times, her armour was sufficient to withstand the
shot, and she certainly inflicted a great deal more damage than she
received.
Numerous experiments were made in France and in this country with
the object of determining the special characteristics of a vessel
which should meet the rapidly altering condition of affairs caused by
the increase of the power of the guns and the development of the
torpedo from the stationary mine, which was so terrifying in the
American War, to the torpedo which could attack a vessel at anchor,
or even be directed at one moving slowly. The requirements were a
moderate displacement, increased protection, and ability to carry
heavier guns capable of fore and aft fire as well as over the
broadside. The problem was not an easy one by any means. The
cellular double bottom system was extended as a precaution against
torpedoes; the number of guns and the extent of the armour were
lessened, but the thickness of the armour was increased in order to
protect the vital parts and the guns from the fire of the newer and
more powerful ordnance, while to compensate for the increased
weight in the middle third of the ship, the beam was made greater in
proportion to the length.

FOUNDERING OF THE “AFFONDATORE” IN THE HARBOUR OF ANCONA.

Reproduced by permission of the “Illustrated London News.”
 WRECK OF THE “CAPTAIN.”
From a Contemporary Wood Engraving.
Matters were in this experimental stage when the first engagement
was fought between European fleets, each of which included sea-
going ironclads. The battle of Lissa, in 1866, was no less remarkable
for the crushing defeat which the Austrians inflicted on the Italians
than for the fact that that defeat was against all that the naval
experts had considered to be the natural order of things. The Italian
fleet was more numerous than the Austrian; it had more ironclads, its
armament was greater, it had a greater number of wooden warships
of various sorts and sizes; but as a powerful offset to all these
advantages it had an amount of muddle and disorganisation truly
appalling. The Italian fondness for big ships and big guns was as
much in evidence in the fleet of 1866 as in the immense armoured
ships Duilio and Dandolo, which that country built a few years later,
and to which a more extended reference is made on another page.
Its principal ships in the attack on Lissa and the subsequent
engagement with the Austrian fleet were the Re d’Italia and the Re di
Portogallo—two American-built vessels of 5,700 tons, old
measurement. They were plated with armour 7 inches thick. They
were designed to carry, the former two 150-pounders, and thirty 6-
inch guns and four smooth-bore guns; and the latter two 300-
pounders, and twenty-six 6-inch guns. These ships were poorly
constructed, and the design was so faulty that the rudders were left
without protection and open to destruction by ramming or gun-fire—a
weakness of which the Austrians took full advantage. There was also
a turret ram called the Affondatore, 4,070 tons, built at Millwall, and
armed with two 300-pounder Armstrong guns in two turrets, which
was supposed to epitomise all the lessons of the American War. Her
ram projected 26 feet, and what with this and her big guns and her
thick armour, the Italians expected her to do wonders. As sea-boats
the three were about equally bad. There were also two French-built
small rams, Terribile and Formidabile, of 2,700 tons. The French at
that time favoured comparatively small ships with large rams for
coast and harbour defence, giving them iron plating 4½ inches thick,
and 6-inch rifled guns as their principal weapons. Of the broadside
ironclads there were four, of about 4,700 tons each, and belted from
stem to stern at the water-line. There were, besides, two armoured
gunboats which carried two 150-pounder Armstrongs and some
smaller guns. The Italian fleet also had a number of steam-engined
wooden vessels. The Austrian fleet had six very indifferent ironclads,
slow, none too well armed, smooth-bores of no great size
predominating, and a few other vessels, mostly of wood, of little
fighting value, but capable of holding in check the Italian wooden
ships for a time at all events. The Austrian ships were the Drache,
Kaiser Maximilian, Prinz Eugen, and Salamander, whose tonnage
ranged from 3,400 to 3,800, each carrying 4½-inch armour of home
manufacture; the steam line-of-battle ship Kaiser, four steam
frigates, and some smaller boats. These were practically ready for
sea when hostilities were commenced. The two unfinished ironclads
Habsburg and Ferdinand Maximilian were got ready in an improvised
fashion and given smooth-bore guns; and the Don Juan, another