Ericsson, however, was probably the first to produce plans of a practical revolving turret mounted on board a vessel, as there seems to be no design of one antedating those he sent to Napoleon M. in 1854. Ericsson's Monitor, also, was the first completed vessel carrying a re volving turret, and while many of her details were faulty, others were original and ingenious in the highest degree.
Whether the fight between the Monitor and the Merrimac was a drawn battle, as some assert, or a complete victory, the results are the same. The Monitor, as in some sense a savior of the country, was accorded an importance its intrinsic merits did not warrant. Other monitors were built, improved in some respects, but embodying many of the defects of the original and some of their own. Almost every nation in Europe also built vessels of the monitor type, but having no patriotic reasons to revere them, the evolution of the turret ship proceeded rapidly, though the value of broadside fire from numerous guns was never quite forgotten, and in many designs, in a modified form, it displaced the turret. This modified form was of two types, called the bow battery and central battery, the latter exemplify ing the fullest development of the idea, which was to secure heavy end-on fire without much sacri fice of weight in the broadside.
In 1863 the British converted several vessels into turret ships with four turrets (Royal Sov ereign class) ; the North German Confederation Affondatore of 4400 tons, and Russia, the Nether lands, Norway, and Sweden began the construc tion of numerous monitors of the American low freeboard type. The reaction against the turret ship is noticed in the vessels produced in the next two or three years, which are mostly central battery ships. The long row of guns on the broadside is given up, for it was seen to be im possible adequately to protect so great an area with armor. The guns were decreased in num ber, but increased in size, and gathered in a group amidships. To secure fire ahead and astern, some guns were mounted in the angles of polygonal citadels or in circular barbette towers over the corners of the battery. Of the great Powers, Russia alone adhered chiefly to the turret, although she built one or two cen tral battery ships. In 1866 Great Britain re ordered the Arminius, a turret ship of 1600 tons, similar to the Rolf /crake: France laid down a number of turret vessels of about 3000 tons (Taureau class) ; Italy laid down the turret ship verted to turret ships in the high freeboard Mon arch. and the rather low freeboard Captain. The uselessness of sail power in heavy fighting ships was not yet appreciated; and the Captain, with her very moderate height of side, attempting to carry sail in heavy weather in the Bay of Biscay., capsized and went to the bottom with nearly every soul on board. The danger of masting low freeboard ships was then fully appreciated. France continued to develop the barbette ship in the Ocean and Friedland types. Italy con structed only central battery or how battery ships until 1872. Russia built nothing but turret ships, except some armored cruisers (begun in 1870). Great Britain followed the Monarch and Captain with several low freeboard turret ships, revert ing again in 1873 to the central battery in the Alexandra. one of the last and best of this type. France built a few central battery ships with barbette towers in addition, but continued the development of the barbette, with or without an unprotected auxiliary battery. Germany built chiefly central battery ships in the period 1865 73. Italy built no ships at this time. Russia built three or four central battery craft (but they properly belonged to the cruiser class) and one heavy turret ship, the Pictr rclikii.
In 1873-74 a radical change was introduced in the British and Italian navies. Up to this time, with few exceptions, the armor belt of battle ships had extended from how to stern. In 1873 Italy began the construction of the turret ships Deilio and Dandolo, and Great Britain laid down the Inflexible. These ships were remarkable in many ways. They were of unprecedented size (almost 12,000 tons) : almost their whole bat tery was concentrated in four enormous guns behind very thick armor; the complete belt was given up and a central citadel, extending only a small portion of the length (in the ease of the Inflexible, less than one-third), but of enormously thick armor, protected the vitals, hut did not absolutely insure stability if the unarmored ends were destroyed; to assist in reducing danger in ease of injury to the ends, a submerged ar mored deck extended from the citadel to the bow and to the stern a few feet below water; and lastly, their turrets, instead of being on the mid dle line of the ship, were placed in 'echelon; the forward one close out to one side of the ship, and the after one close out to the other. This method of mounting theoretically doubled the lire ahead and astern; practically the principal re sult was to reduce the weight of fire on one how and one quarter and almost destroy fire directly ahead or astern because of interference of the upper works. From this time on the develop ment in each of the principal navies was along different lines. The British next built two duced copies of the Inflexible; then some small single-turret ships shaped like a shoe—high aft, low forward; then two more modified copies of the infiesiNe. In the Admiral class (Col lingwood, Benbow, etc.), which followed, the short belt of the Inflexible w•as retained and made narrower by the height of a deck, the main bat tery was mounted in barbettes on the middle line, one forward, one aft, and an auxiliary battery of 6-inch guns provided, though they were not protected by armor. Following these came two more shoe-shaped single-turreted ves sels of large size (10.500 tons). These were the Sensperci/ and her sister, the ill-fated Vic toria: they carried two 110-ton guns in the turret forward, a 10-inch gun on the poop. and a battery of twelve 6-ineh guns, which was protected by thin armor. In one of the Admiral class and in the Victoria and Hanspareil the very heavy gun reached its maxi MUM in weight. In the next ships laid down the weight was reduced from 110 tons to 67, and the calibre from 16.25 inches to 13.5. These ships, the :Vile and Trafal gar, were great improve ments on their predecessors, and, although their auxiliary batteries were weak, they were well protected. as was the hull. The next design was that of the,Royal $orcr eign class of 14,150 tons, the first of which was laid down in 1889; in these vessels the modern battleship is foreshadowed, but it was not until the Magnificent class (1893) that the principal details were well settled. These car ried 12-ineh guns in turrets and 6-inch guns in armored sponsons. The later ships resembled these quite closely, but in the Bultcark class (1899) the water-line belt was carried to the bow instead of merely covering the vitals amid ships, and in the Albion (1898) and Common wealth (1901) classes it was carried to both bow and stern. In the last named four guns of 9.2-inch calibre were added to the auxiliary bat tery of C-inch pieces. and the displacement was brought up to 16.350 tons.