simplest. The inevitable was cheerfully accepted. But when these new guns made a jump from 67 to 111 tons, and the number carried by a single ship fell from four to a pair, the policy of thus relying upon such a limited heavy armament, though reinforced by a number of smaller guns, began to be questioned. The case in favour of monster guns is that they represent concentrated power and the ability to do immense mischief if successfully applied. A single projectile from such a piece could disable the stoutest battle ship or penetrate the thickest armour carried. Nor, with the assistance of hydraulic apparatus, is their manipulation more complicated than with guns of half their weight. Though themselves offering a large mark, their very bulk is a protection against light projectiles. As against these points in their favour, three main objections may be stated. First, that the portion of a ship covered by the extremely thick armour is so small that hitting it under the varying conditions of a sea fight must be a chance. Second, it therefore becomes more profitable to attack the larger unarmoured area, or at any rate that area will be struck by the greater number of projectiles. For such work moderate sized guns are sufficient and superior to those throwing enormous bolts, which would pass through thin armour without impediment. Thirdly, there is the risk of half your principal armament being disabled by an accident or by a single lucky shot from your enemy. On the whole, therefore, I think the balance is in favour of smaller guns, and I view monster ordnance as one of the abnormal growths
