Armor, Naval French government in 1843, under the direction of General Paixhans, whose reputation as an artillerist had already been established by the application of shell fire to naval artillery, and also by the design of a type of gun long known under his name. These armor plate tests were continued without interruption for more than four years, and are noted for certain definite and valuable principles fully determined, which may be summarized as follows: (1) That a solid iron plate gave fully onethird more resistance to penetration than an equivalent thickness of laminated plating. (2) That a 4 inch solid plate was invulnerable to the heaviest fortress gun (68 pdr.) at point-blank range. (3) That a backing of oak or similar wood, in addition to the planking of a vessel, was necessary. (4) That through-bolting of plates to the ship was an element of positive danger. In addition much knowledge was gained and furnished to manufacturers concerning the ductility and toughness of metal required for such plates. These results were first practically utilized by France in 1854, at the outbreak of the Crimean war, when a small squadron of steam floating batteries was constructed, sent to the Black Sea, and in their first action silenced the Kinburn forts effectively in an engagement of six hours at ranges not exceeding 1,200 yards, without material damage to the vessels. As an immediate result of this work, France and England, at the close of the Crimean War, at once commenced building armored frigates, so that each nation had in commission before the end of 1859 a complete squadron of first-class cruising armored frigates, the progenitors of the battle-ship. The Crimean war gave practical birth to rifled artillery as well as to armored protection, and the development of rifled gun power was so rapid that by the end of 1860 a thickness of 4 inches of plating was no longer sufficient. As fast as iron-forging plants could be developed to meet the demands for thicker plates, the size and power of guns increased, until, when thicknesses of armor plating of 12 inches and over were attained, the limitations of naval architecture were reached to provide carrying pow er. That steel was inherently a more resisting metal than wrought iron was already well known, but no exact knowledge existed in the early 60's as to positive means of controlling the manufacture of steel in large masses, so that steel 874 plates were too untrustworthy for acceptance. In England, therefore, the compromise method, known as the Compound Plate, was first brought to successful manufacture, and became standard throughout the world as a substitute for iron about 1875. The Compound consisted of a Solid Iron Plate Armor as Applied to the French Cruiser "Gloire." hard steel face-plate welded completely to an iron back, the latter being about two-thirds of the total thickness. The brittleness of the steel was thus counteracted by the toughness of the iron. Originally, these two plates were heated separately to the welding point, then piled together and welded under the hammer or in the rolls, but no effective weld could be obtained on account of the high percentage of carbon in the steel face. A modification, therefore, Present Arrangement of Steel Armor. was made, by which the two plates instead of being brought directly in contact, were kept at a short distance one above the other, while the intervening space was filled with molten steel of a low carbon, thus grading, as it were, the welding possibilities. In this way perfect welding was secured. Armor, Naval During this development the French manufacturers, Schneider & Co., had undertaken a complete and careful investigation of steel manufacture in rivalry to the German factory of Krupp, with the result that as early as 1878 this firm could produce 12-inch, allsteel plates fully equal in resistance to compound ones, with the advantage of certainty of future improvement in the most necessary qualities of the material itself. These two systems, distinguished as Compound and Steel, maintained an equality in rivalry for several years. For a long period it had been well known that steel could be alloyed and its properties modified by the introduction of small percentages of some other metal. As an instance, the ancient Damascus sword blade was the product of a steel alloy, the alloy itself and its method of incorporation being secret. Even when the science of chemical analysis had so far advanced as to discover the ancient alloy constituent, it was long before the alloy itself could be reproduced on account of the difficulty of successful incorporation, so that of the very many secret processes now prevalent in the manufacture of special grades of steel, almost all are based upon the peculiar conditions involved in creating the particular alloy, for no possible combination could remain secret under the power of revelation of chemical analysis. Schneider & Co., in France, took up this line of development for their armor-plate manufacture, and between 1885 and 1889 scored another complete success in the production of Nickel steel, which is a common or carbon steel with an alloy of not more than about 5 per cent. of nickel nor less than 3 per cent. These plates surpassed in resisting power both the Compound and the Steel plates, but they had scarcely gained a confident footing when a most serious rival appeared, and this time the point of origin was the United States, and the originator an obscure foundry man, who took up and perfected a process that had in general been known and used almost since the discovery of steel itself in the days of Tubal Cain, but that had been entirely overlooked in the frantic search for improvement. In metallurgy the term 'cementation' is applied to a process by which a piece of highly heated steel buried in charcoal dust or other highly carboniferous material is allowed to slowly cool, during which time it absorbs carbon to a marked degree and depth from its surface, thus greatly hardening the outer material. Under proper treatment, this har Arms 700 ft. per second. The ball cartridge complete weighs 392 grains, and the rifle, with bayonet, 9.69 pounds. The barrel is protected by a wooden case to prevent burning the hand by the heating of the barrel in rapid or long continued firing. The Lee Enfield rifle of the British army is a breechloader on the bolt system, with a detachable magazine for ten cartridges. The accompanying illustration shows the new rifle for the British army. The carbine used by cavalry is simply a short rifle with a smaller magazine, being a weapon lighter and more suitable to a mounted man. The modern tendency appears to be to reduce the length of the ordinary infantry rifle and make it available for all services, while for purely infantry purposes a lengthy sword-bayonet may be attached when necessary. The cylinder of a revolver is usually chambered to hold six cartridges. The calibre of the barrel is larger than that of a rifle, as the weapon is only used at short ranges, and it is necessary to have the bullet of a weight that will not only wound a man, but stop him from closing. The Colt six shot revolver, calibre .38 or calibre .45 is used in the U. S. army. The ordinary sword or sabre has a blade of fine steel, and is adapted both for cutting and thrusting. The Oriental sabre or scimitar and the naval cutlass are short weapons with a broad curved blade adapted for cutting only. The sword blade, when straight and narrow, is called a rapier, and is used only for thrusting. The ordinary sword of an infantry officer is generally of the rapier type, but is used more as a badge of authority than as a weapon of offence. All officers in the U. S. army wear swords of the same pattern, a light serviceable curved sabre. In the Philippines and in the South African campaigns dismounted officers carried carbines or rifles instead of swords, in order to avoid being singled out for special attention by the enemy's riflemen. The lance used by European cavalry has a shaft of bamboo or ash, with a head and shoe of steel. The British lance is 9 ft. long, and weighs about 4 lbs. There has always been a controversy among European nations about the respective merits of sword and lance at close quarters. The good points of each weapon are perhaps best utilized in the existing system of arming front-rank men with the lance, while the remainder of a squadron trust to their swords. No lances are used in the U. S. cavalry service. See GUNS and RIFLES; also Farrow's American Small Arms (1905). and Publications of the U. S. Ordnance Department; Greener's Arms The Gun and its Development (1881; 7th ed. 1899); Bartlett's Some Weapons of War (1883); Bond's Treatise on Military Small Arms (1884); Burton's Book of the Sword (1884); Hutton's Cold Steel: Treatise on the Sabre (1889); and Maindron's Les Armes (1900); also Gerrare's Bibliog. of Guns and Shooting (1896). Arms, COAT OF, the bearings on an individual shield. Originally embroidered on the surcoat; hence the name. See HERALDRY. Armstead, HENRY HUGH (1828-1906), Eng. sculptor; educated at the Royal Academy, became R.A. in 1879; modelled sev eral of the allegorical groups on the south and east sides of the base of the Albert Memorial, Kensington Gardens, London; carved oak panels in H.M. robing-room in the New Palace, Westminster, illustrating the history of King Arthur and Sir Galahad; and executed many portrait-busts and statues, as that of Lord John Thynne in Westminster Abbey. Armstrong, port, Baranoff Island, Alaska, is a good harbor. Armstrong, 'ARCHIE' (d.1672), a Scottish sheep-stealer, who became official court jester, and was notorious for his freedom of speech, an example of which was the grace he said in Archbishop Laud's presence: Great praise be given to God, and little laud to the devil.' But having ridiculed Laud once too often, he was banished from court, and spent his closing years in luxury in London and in Cumberland. He is introduced by Sir W. Scott into The Fortunes of Nigel. See Doran's Hist. of Court Fools (1858); Chambers's Book of Days, vol. i., pp. 180-5. Armstrong, DAVID MAITLAND (1836), American painter and decorative artist, was born at Newburgh, N. Y., and educated at Trinity College, Hartford. He studied art in Paris and Rome, and for four years served as U. S. consul-general for Italy. He had charge of the American Art Department at the Paris Exposition of 1878, and received the decoration of the Legion of Honor. His best known paintings are Twilight on the Tiber and The Column of St. Mark's, Venice. Armstrong, JOHN (1758-1843), American soldier and diplomat, was born at Carlisle, Pa., and for a time was a student at Princeton. In the Revolutionary War he was successively aide-de-camp to Generals Mercer and Gates, and for a time served against Burgoyne. He was afterward Sec. of State, and later Attorney-general of Pennsylvania, and was a U. S. senator from N. Y. in 1801-2, and again in 1803-4. From 1804 to 1810 he was U. S. min 377 ister to France, and in 1806-10 was minister to Spain. He was Sec. of War in 1813-14, but resigned as the result of the illfeeling aroused by the capture of Washington and the failure of the Canadian expedition. He wrote Notices of the War of 1812 (1836). Armstrong, SAMUEL CHAPMAN (1839-93), American educator and soldier, was born in the Hawaiian Islands. After graduating at Williams College he entered the U. S. army, and in 1863-65 was colonel of the Eighth U. S. Colored regiment, retiring after the close of the Civil War with the brevet rank of brig.-general. He founded and became principal of the Hampton Normal and Agricultural Institute in 1866, and did much there to improve the educational status of the negro and Indian students. For two years after the war he was superintendent of the Freedmen's Bureau for several counties in Virginia. Armstrong, WILLIAM (fl. 1596), or KINMONT WILLIE (from the name of his castle), 'the starkest man in Teviotdale," and the dread of the English border, is known to fame through the ballad of Kinmont Willie, which records his rescue by Scott of Buccleuch, the Scottish warden, from Carlisle Castle (1596), in which he had been imprisoned by the irritated English borderers. See Scott's Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border, ed. T. F. Henderson (1902). Armstrong, WILLIAM GEORGE, first Baron Armstrong (1810-1900) was the son of a Newcastle merchant. After leaving school he studied law, but after a few years of practice forsook it for scientific pursuits. In 1845 he invented the hydraulic crane and soon afterwards the hydraulic accumulator, besides making many other applications of hydraulic power. The Elswick Engine Works, near Newcastle, were founded for the manufacture of the rifled ordnance gun that bears his name. It was adopted by the government, and in 1859 he was appointed government chief engineer of rifled ordnance. In 1863, however, it ceased to use the gun, and practically returned to the simpler muzzle-loading type, which it retained until 1880. Armstrong, resigning his appointment, returned to Elswick, where he developed his works, which were now free to supply heavy ordnance to foreign countries. Besides the Elswick gun factory, he also founded the Elswick shipyards for the construction of steel warships. He was created a peer in 1887. See his Electric Movement in Air and Water (1897). Army. An army, in its broadest sense, signifies a body of armed and trained men organized Army for warfare. The term is applied to three different things-viz. national, regular or permanent, and field armies. A national army is the total available force of men trained (or partially trained) in the use of arms which a nation can call upon to fight in time of war. A regular or permanent army is that portion of the national army which is actually serving with the colors. Field armies are those portions of the national army which are engaged in a campaign, and are chiefly composed of regulars and volunteers. In all ages the maintenance of a force of armed men has been a paramount factor of national existence. A large and well-organized standing army is the main element in the composition of a first-class power, though notable exceptions to this rule are furnished by the United States, whose geographical position and foreign policy render superfluous any great military strength, and Great Britain, whose national defence lies primarily in her navy. The continental military nations of Europe raise their armies on the principle of universal military service viz. compulsory enlistment, short service in the regular army, and a long period in the reserve. Consequently the armies of the chief continental powers far exceed those of the United States and Great Britain, who follow a system of voluntary enlistment. The strength of a field army chiefly depends on the nature of the operations to be undertaken, and the character and numbers of the enemy's forces. For example, the four German armies which invaded France in 1870 consisted of 45,000, 136,000, 118,000, and 70,000 men, respectively. Gen. Kuropatkin had in round numbers 700,000 men in his army in Manchuria in January, 1905, and the Japanese army was even stronger. On the other hand, the United States army which captured Santiago de Cuba in 1898 numbered less than 15,000 men, and the British-Egyptian army which completed the conquest of the Sudan in the same year was only 22,000 strong. In the first case the enemy consisted of a well-organized modern army; in the last they were merely savage tribesmen. Though a field army varies in numbers, it is divided into certain parts-companies, batteries, regiments, brigades, divisions, and corps-each of fixed strength. It chiefly consists of infantry, cavalry, artillery, engineers, and commissariat and med、 ical corps. The whole is under the command of one man, who, with the aid of various staffs, feeds, transports, and manœuvres his troops. Army To illustrate-an army in the U. S. service consists of two or more army corps, each of which is composed of the following: three divisions, each having three brigades (9 regiments) of infantry, one regiment of cavalry, one regiment (9 batteries) of field artillery, one battalion of engineers, one company signal corps, four field hospitals, one ammunition column, one supply column and one pack train; a total of 58,182 officers and men to an army corps. Infantry forms the bulk of a field army; the proportions of the other arms depend on circumstances, the chief of which are the nature of the country in which the campaign takes place, and the special character of the operations. In a mountainous country, or a low swampy country without roads, horse and field artillery and cavalry are at a disadvantage, and their proportion to infantry is smaller than if the ground were flat and open. In the former case the engineers are increased for improving communications. In a country devoid of railways, the quartermaster's department is increased for the extra transport required; where railway lines exist, the engineers are increased for their repair and maintenance, and for operating the roads. For the operations of siege warfare, the heavy artillery and engineers are increased for carrying out bombardments and constructing siege works respectively, and the mounted troops are decreased. When fighting an unusually mobile enemy, the mounted branches are increased, and the reverse. Historical Sketch.-1. Ancient armies. The military forces of the earliest times were little better than armed multitudes, possessed of a certain amount of rough organization, but unable to travel great distances, or carry out any very serious operations. In the 16th century B.C., the Egyptian forces under Sesostris, numbering, according to tradition, over half a million men, conquered and laid waste all the country as far east as India. Chariots and horsemen were important factors in the Egyptian method of fighting; but victory still depended on the infantry, which formed the bulk of the army. The reverse was the case with the well-organized Persian armies which existed about a thousand years later, the horsemen now far exceeding the foot-soldiers. The Spartans, Athenians, and Macedonians were the first European nations to possess good armies. The general Greek military organization was on a militia basis, and no standing army was maintained. Every freeman was bound to take up arms at the age of eigh 378 teen. For the first two years he served at home, but after that, until he was forty, in any foreign country where the state was at war. The most important element in the army was infantry, which was divided into two main branches, the hoplitai and psiloi. The former were heavy troops, and in action were arranged in the favorite Greek fighting formation, the phalanx-a body of 4,000 men drawn up in lines from eight to sixteen deep generally, although the column was fifty deep at the battle of Leuctra in 371 B.C. The psiloi. were lightlyarmed troops, who carried out the skirmishing duties of the army, harassed the enemy, and hung round the flanks and rear of the phalanx with the cavalry in time of battle. The Greek army reached the zenith of its efficiency under Alexander. The recruiting, transport, and provisioning branches were all well organized. The Roman armies which ruled the world from about the 3rd century B.C. to the 8th A.D. were probably the finest, comparatively, that have ever existed, more because of their perfect discipline and organization than because of individual prowess, which had previously been the main features of hostile armies. They were at first formed entirely of militia. Every one between the ages of seventeen and forty-six except the very lowest and poorest class-could be called on to bear arms in the service of the state. Consular armies were raised every year for some expedition or campaign, at the end of which they returned home and were disbanded. This course was found impracticable for some armies which were employed in very distant lands, and so they were often kept under arms for several years, a fact that eventually led to the formation of a standing army distinct from the militia, by which it was augmented for the prosecution of great foreign wars. The legion, which was the chief unit of Roman armies, was composed, on service, of about 3,000 infantry and a squadron of cavalry, and was lighter and more extended in formation than the Greek phalanx. It was consequently superior in mobility, and better adapted for offensive operations. The infantry of the legion was divided into four classes-hastati, young men lightly armed, forming the first line; principes, heavily-armed men of great strength, forming the second line; triarii, the oldest men, heavily armed and armored, in the third line; and velites, or light troops, corresponding to the Greek psiloi. The first three classes were each divided into ten manipuli, Army commanded by centurions. After the adoption of standing armies the legion was increased to over 6,000 men, and was divided into ten cohorts. Infantry was still the main element in an army throughout the long period during which the Frank and German armies ruled Europe, after they had overthrown the Roman power. All freemen bore arms, and in war were obliged to follow and obey the rulers of their respective tribes. No standing army was kept up, but the warlike spirit of the nation was so strong that it was considered the highest honor to bear arms, and every man was practically a trained soldier. 2. Mediæval armies. About the 9th century, the feudal system,' a form of which prevailed in Egypt about 1900 B.C., and which had been slowly developing for some time past, finally established itself as the basis of European army organization. It arose originally through the young men of a nation gathering round the nobles, serving under their banners in war time and garrisoning their castles during peace. Each of these bands practically formed a small standing army, being paid for their services by gifts of booty or land. The profession of arms came to be regarded in time as an honorable and profitable calling, and the bands grew stronger and more numerous. The nobles owed allegiance to the king, and when the latter required an army it was formed of these feudal bands, supplemented by a levy of militia from the free men of the nation. The Crusades first showed the advantage of co-operation of this kind, although the different armies participating were practically independent of each other. The chief branch of the feudal armies was cavalry. It was divided into two classesthe knights and their retainers, the men-at-arms; and the hobelers, or light horsemen. Among the former the horses were protected by armor. The riders were armed with lance, sword, and mace, and were covered from head to foot with very heavy armor, which rendered them quite help less when unhorsed. Individual skill and bravery counted more than organization and discipline, the decision of a battle being often left to the result of a combat between two knights. The foot-soldiers were also divided into two classes-archers, with bucklers and steel caps, and armed with longbows, swords, battle-axes, and brownbills; and the light infantry, with iron gloves and long knives. The infantry branch of the army was greatly neglected, its training uncared |
