Bg oot 
OF BATTLESHIP DESIGN. 99 
Thus, although we have restricted the number of turrets to five, and the number 
of guns to ten, confined our armor to vitals only, used only moderate speed, and 
employed every technical and engineering means to reduce displacement, we have 
arrived inevitably at a large ship. Moreover, any ship of less displacement, that is, 
any “smaller” ship, must be inferior in armament, armor, or speed. Any ship of 
greater displacement will probably involve a too great expenditure for harbors and 
docks, and the military gain that could be effected would not be commensurate with 
the increased cost and other disadvantages incident to great displacement. 
COST. 
A study of the relative costs of large and small battleships should properly in- 
clude not only the first or “prime” cost, but the cost of maintenance as well. Above 
certain displacements it should also include the cost incident to increased harbor 
and docking facilities, and it has already been shown that this can readily involve 
such a large expenditure as to materially restrict the dimensions and displacement 
of capital ships. As regards first cost, perhaps the briefest way to indicate the 
practical relation in battleship construction existing between cost, displacement 
and effective gun power is to state that, by increasing the cost one-half and the dis- 
placement one-third, it is possible to produce a unit with double the effective gun 
tire. if 
Consequently, if smaller and more numerous units are constructed for the same 
expenditure, each with an effective gun fire equal to one-half that of our type ship, 
we may expect to provide only three smaller vessels for every two larger ones; and 
the effective gun power of the two large ships would be one-third greater than that 
of the three smaller ships (7. ¢., in the proportion of 2 to 1.5). Moreover, the cost 
per annum of manning and maintaining the more numerous fleet will be materially 
greater. It may be conservatively estimated that this increased cost of mainte- 
nance of the three small ships over that of the two larger ones will be less than 5 
per cent per annum. Assuming the life of a capital ship to be twenty years, it will 
cost 100 per cent more to man and maintain the more numerous fleet. It is also 
to be observed that, although the cost per unit for “large” ships is much greater, 
the risk of total loss is correspondingly smaller on account of the better subdivision 
possible to provide on the larger ship, and the greater distance from the skin of the 
ship at which it is possible to place the boilers and magazines. 
FIGHTING VALUE. 
Many advantages of the larger units become greater and more accentuated 
when the fighting value of a fleet of units is considered. This is particularly true 
when we compare fleets of equal cost. It has been shown that for a given expendi- 
*Paper by Chief Constructor F. T. Bowles, U. S. Navy, 1902, The Society of Naval Architects and Marine 
Engineers; also paper presented by Professor Welch in the spring of 1911, Institute of Naval Architects. See 
also comparison of contemporary United States designs. 
