Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

usages, and conventions of the sea. The questions in the first category may be the more important from many points of view, but those in the second will probably have the widest interest. There will be demands for missing portraits and for illustrations of early ships and sailors. There are many terms, both in ancient and present use, for which explanation will be desired. Then, again, the origin of customs, the use of flags, and the antiquity or meaning of various practices will call for elucidation. There is much about the dress and pay of the seaman which it is desirable to learn, and then there are many recondite subjects, like the institution of freemasonry afloat, and the encouragement of theatricals in the ships of the blockading squadrons, with similar matters having a special interest of their own. Of course, there are many such questions to which it will be difficult to find answers, and, in any case, answers can only be found through some recognized method of intercommunication such as the Society for Nautical Research is now going to supply. It is to be hoped, therefore, that the society will find support in many unexpected quarters, that it may flourish, and be able in the future to make a start upon the still more ambitious projects which it has in view.-Army and Navy Gazette.

NAUTICAL RESEARCH.-At the first annual general meeting of the Society for Nautical Research, which was held at the Royal United Service Institution, the announcement was made that the Admiralty would subscribe for a large number of copies of the new journal which the society is to publish monthly under the title of the Mariner's Mirror. The original Mariner's Mirror from which the title is derived was a Dutch work called "Speculum Nauticum," by Lucas Wagenaar, published in 1584, which was translated by Anthony Ashley in 1588, the year of the Armada, and issued as the Mariner's Mirror. The new monthly is to serve as a medium of intercommunication between members of the society, and its scope is well illustrated in the sub-title, which reads: "Wherein may be discovered his (ie., the Mariner's) Art, Craft, and Mystery, after the manner of their use in all Ages and among All Nations." Mr. L. G. Carr Laughton, to whom the founding of the new society is mainly due, will act as editor, and no one better equipped for such a position could have been found. The objects of the society are "to encourage research into nautical antiquities, into matters relating to seafaring and shipbuilding in all ages and among all nations, into the language and customs of the sea, and into other subjects of nautical interest," and those who have not already become members should send as soon as possible to the secretary at 5, Ruvigny Mansions, Putney, S. W., in order to receive the first number of the journal.

THE ARMAMENT of Battleships.-The general principles of warship designs belong to no one nation. It needs, however, the practical as well as the theoretical experience of past years, gained both at sea and in office, of experimental work afloat and ashore, and of design work tempered by the judgment of its unbiassed users, to produce a ship, especially one for purposes of war, in which everything is not only placed to the best advantage, but which shall simultaneously possess the important quality of fighting power associated with peace time convenience and habitability. Just at the present moment, when the competition in naval armaments has pressed to the very utmost the output resources of the great armament firms in England, Germany, and the United States, the views of Sir William White, as they appear in an interesting paper on the subject of battleship armaments to the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers in New York, are of more than usual interest. Sir William White has probably designed more warships than any other naval architect, and his views have invariably been expressed with a temperate logic that goes far to carry conviction in the face of marked and able differences of view,

enunciated more emphatically, but almost inevitably based on shorter experience of the subject under discussion. Sir William's views in his latest paper indicate very clearly that his reputation for clarity of exposition has lost none of its force since he resigned the position of Chief Constructor to the Royal Navy.

The arguments in the paper under discussion reflect very fairly the views of the two camps into which gunnery schools may be said to be divided. One is the all-big-gun one-caliber school, while the other advocates a secondary armament for battle purposes. As Sir William points out at the beginning of his paper, the fundamental idea which has governed the armaments of warships in all ages is the desire to provide means of offence which will enable a ship to destroy her adversary in the shortest possible time with the minimum damage to herself, and active offence still constitutes the best, though not the only means of doing so. The best arrangement of armament for this purpose is discussed largely on the lines of Sir William's criticism of Admiral Bacon's paper on the "Battleship of the Future," read before the Institution of Naval Architects in London a year ago, and more space being at his disposal on this occasion, the pros and cons of the Dreadnought type are comprehensively analyzed, and deliberate opinions expressed as a result. Let it be said at once that Sir William advocates the re-adoption of the 6-inch gun as a fighting weapon in association with not more than four twin center line turrets arranged as in the South Carolina, an arrangement which it is said is to be adopted in the new Japanese ship being built at Barrow. Whether the big-gun advocates will believe that in the latter case the secondary armament is for fighting or for anti-torpedo boat purposes is another matter.

It is generally agreed that battle ranges have inevitably increased of late years, owing to the development of the torpedo, and to systems of fire control associated with improved gunnery. Conflicting views are held as to what the range will be. Climatic conditions, and a serious intention of attaining a decisive issue, may tend to reduce the range that would be chosen by the faster all-big-gun ships. Herein lies the crux of the situation. When the earlier Dreadnoughts were built, their speed gave them the advantage of choosing the range. Now that there are numerous ships of this type, as well as much faster torpedo craft afloat, there is a strong tendency to develop the smaller weapons. But for what purpose? Not for battleship attack directly. For indirect attack, for keeping up a "blanketing" fire with the object of making it difficult for the enemy to see the attacking ship and on the off chance of their effecting damage to unarmored structures and communications which influence fighting efficiency they may be useful, but it becomes a question, as Admiral Bacon said, as to whether adequate value for tonnage involved is obtained by their adoption. Obviously if they are installed at all they can be used for any or all purposes as long as they remain in action. The "volume of fire" obtainable from such quick firing would, some say, inflict considerable damage, and the experience of the Russians at Tshushima is generally dragged in to prove it. It is in this case. Well, in Captain Semenoff's book, quoted in the paper under review, we find on page 124 the remark: "That's only a 6-inch; no more portmanteaux' now!"-the word referring to the Japanese 12-inch shell. Again, on page 135: "There was a loud crash . . . . this was not a 6-inch shell, but the portmanteaux again. The men became seized with panic. Semenoff tells ably

""

[ocr errors]

of the utter destruction due to shell fire, but his words are apt to be misread; the heavy shell was what they feared, and a similar well-directed fire from the Russian ships-secondary or primary, or big torpedo-would have kept the Japanese far further away, obviously leaving the action even more to a question of "portmanteaux." With this practical experience in view, it is impossible to reconcile Sir William White's reason for believing that actual trials do not confirm the objection to mixed armaments on the ground that the simultaneous discharge of guns of different calibers

must be accompanied by diminished efficiency in the control of fire and in the proportion of hits to rounds made by guns of different calibers. As we stated some time ago, when gun fire is handled so as to obtain hits, not merely volume of fire, the rapidity of discharge is much below the possible rapidity of fire of the gun. Admiral Bacon suggests that it is merely a quarter of the potential rapidity, and aptly remarks that rapidity of fire, unaccompanied by rapidity of hitting, is a futile waste of ammunition. We hold most strongly that in the King Edward class, for instance, the accuracy of 6-inch fire is materially affected by the simultaneous discharge of the 9.2-inch and 12-inch guns. It suffers also in rapidity from the smoke nuisance.

66

In referring to the number of heavy guns to be mounted, Sir William advocates pairs, and goes on to note the extraordinary Italian practice of mounting three triple and two twin turrets in the Dante Alighieri class. Triple turrets involve insuperable objections to practical gunners of the "hit-the-target" order; beside being too many eggs in one basket they suffer from smoke interference and throw-off" to an excessive extent. The relationship of protective material and the adequate support of the same also receives attention. In many foreign vessels we find turret roller paths fixed directly to or supported on the vertical barbette armor-a most dangerous practice, as in action the combined efficiency of the heavy gun armament, in spite of heavy blows on the protective armor, is a primary consideration. Adequate clearance between fixed and moving portions of a turret should always be allowed in spite of the increased overall dimensions and weight necessary. Reference is made to the maximum number of heavy guns that should be carried by a warship. Here the author is on much safer ground. In tonnage, value for effect obtainable, it is hard to believe that it is possible to improve on the arrangement, first adopted in the United States battleship Michigan, of four twin turrets on the center line, the two inner turrets firing over the two end turrets. Such an arrangement possesses the great advantage of minimum interference between turrets due to "blast." The system adopted in the Inflexible class, in the Von der Tann or the Spanish battleships, of having two center line and two echelon turrets, really reduces these vessels in practice to the status-considering broadside work only-of six-gun ships. On paper, the echelon arrangement allows three pairs of turrets to fire ahead and astern on the keel line. On board, such a discharge causes unpleasant consequences, and the limits of safe training in practice are considerably less than the extremes shown on the drawings. Of course, automatic danger signals-generally shrill buzzers by the side of the turret training leversare supplied to warn the gun-layer when he risks his own or his neighbor's comfort from blast, but these are extremely apt to be unreliable in action, and the system of mounting guns to avoid this, even if the number of heavy guns be reduced, will probably be found best in service. The advantage conferred by confining the primary armament to the ends of a ship, as far as magazine accommodation is concerned, is very considerable. Side turrets, as in the Dreadnought or Minas Giraes, are inconvenient-the Nassau is very bad with four large turrets crowded together-owing to the difficulty experienced of making a good boiler and engine-room arrangement. Sir William White does not touch on the point beyond referring to the objection to mixing stokeholds and magazines, but it entails probably an additional row of boilers to make up for the staggered units cut out by an echelon arrangement, or an increased length over the machinery space to allow for a transverse magazine. This involves a corresponding addition to the length, weight, and cost of the heavy belt armor. In view of this and the question of interference, his deliberately expressed convictions that in no case is it desirable to mount more than eight heavy guns in a single ship, and that these are best arranged in four positions as in the Michigan class, will meet with less criticism than his third vi that they should be supplemented by a powerful and well-protected

dary armament. A large number of naval officers want a protected 6-inch battery reintroduced, in spite of their expressed conviction that its fire may be discounted at ordinary battle ranges when accompanied by a 12inch gun fire. Here is where Sir William White takes an opposite view. A secondary battery mounted as in the Michigan on the upper deck is, in our opinion, vastly better than the corresponding main deck battery of the Delaware. With, however, the smoke nuisance from the heavy guns, the continual anticipation of blast effect from overhead and the lower rate of fire inevitable from these causes, as well as from the desire for accuracy, it is hard to agree with him. The naval desire for the re-introduction of the 6-inch gun arises from a belief that it is a better anti-torpedo gun than the 4-inch. Opinions on this point also differ widely. If the increased caliber of heavy gun tends to put up battle ranges, then it probably is; but, as we stated in the article we referred to, the 4-inch should also be retained, in our opinion, for mounting in the superstructure.

At the conclusion of his paper Sir William White turns to the important point of future gun caliber, and draws a trenchant parallel between present practice and that of twenty years ago. All the arguments that held good for the increase from 12 inches to 13.5 inches hold good for an early advance to 15 inches or 16 inches. Such a gun is being made, we believe, at the present time. No argument is raised against such a caliber, except that of larger or more costly ships. This has never been heeded. Warships of all kinds are generally smaller than merchant vessels, and for many years the largest have never exceeded about 60 per cent of the greatest mercantile displacement. There are at present at least four ships being built with over 60,000 tons full load displacement, and an increase in warship size is inevitable in the early future. So it is with speed. The Von der Tann and Lion will set examples of a far-reaching kind. Nothing is said of the tactical influence of speed or armament in the paper under review, but it is obviously considerable. Meanwhile, in spite of Sir William White's generous treatment of the subject, we feel assured that the big-gun school, adhering to the results of their practical experience, will remain unconvinced that for fighting purposes anything less than the biggest convenient gun is worth having.--The Engineer.

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE SECRETARY AND

TREASURER OF THE U. S. NAVAL INSTITUTE.

TO THE OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF THE INSTITUTE:

Gentlemen: I have the honor to submit the following report for the year ending December 31, 1910.

[blocks in formation]

Totals...

$15,411 11 $6,227 80 $8,173 60 $7,875 96 $37,688 47

« EdellinenJatka »