104 MILITARY AND TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION 
These are papers of which I happen to have been the author, and I was interested in 
the subject treated from the tactical standpoint. I am glad to welcome a discussion on 
broader lines, that is, of strategy, and this paper is really so full of meat that when it is con- 
densed in the form Mr. Gatewood has condensed it, I only feel sorry that the condensed 
notes which he has just read cannot be published also, because I think the points are even 
more admirably expressed in the condensed notes than in the full paper. The full paper gives 
the argument, but the condensed statement, made by the author, is a delightful presentation, 
to my mind, of the whole question of battleship design. 
There is one phase of the subject which Captain Hovgaard has touched on, and that is 
that we have not gone in for speed in our navy. The General Board, which is the board 
which considers general questions of design, and always largely on broad principles, has 
passed on the question of extreme speed as being one which we have settled rather ad- 
versely and conservatively. 
The question of big guns naturally comes into this general subject. However, there is 
no use trying to shoot farther than you can see, and the question in battle is not so much 
the question of extremely long range, but a question of how far you can spot the fall of the 
projectiles. You do not get very far without seeing what you are doing. It is very easy 
to exaggerate the importance of a 16-inch gun as against a 15-inch gun. Firing at 11 to 
12 miles, as they do in the fleet now, where you only see the flag on top of the target and 
not the target itself—that is, you only see the flag from the gun itself—it is easy to exag- 
gerate the importance of this long-range proposition and also of high speed. 
I think the Society gains a great deal at these meetings, where the people are assem- 
bled who are interested in getting a big shipbuilding program placed in this country—while 
you are not so anxious this year as in other years—still on the general proposition I think 
it is well for the Society to take the broad, big view, and this morning I am particularly 
trying to emphasize the value of the discussion of these questions on the part of technical 
people along broader lines. 
Along these lines I am much gratified, personally, to see this type of paper appear in 
the Proceedings of the Society. Mr. Gatewood, as a naval constructor, has served in the fleet, 
and we are getting somewhere near the ideal in our navy when the seagoing naval construc- 
tor and the seagoing line officer with the seagoing engineer officer all arrive at points on the 
same broad line of the requirements of the country in accordance with its policy, and also along 
sound strategic lines in accordance with sound tactics. Speed is very much more largely a 
strategic than a tactical question. That is one of the points I want to commend in Cap- 
tain Hovgaard’s comments. 
ProFEssor HovGaarpD:—In view of what Captain Niblack has said, I want to qualify 
what I said about the speed of ships. I did not mean to recommend extreme speed for bat- 
tleships; on the contrary, I think extreme speed should be relegated to the battle-cruisers. 
I meant to recommend a somewhat higher speed than the standard speed of battleships at 
any given time. That can only be done by the most wealthy countries. 
As to the range, of course I am aware that 12-inch guns can be fired at almost the long- 
est ranges where it is possible to observe the fall of the projectiles. The point is that at 
the extreme ranges, where spotting is possible, the heavier guns are more effective than the 
lighter guns. 
Mr. Ernest H. Ricc, Member:—Captain Hovgaard’s last remarks somewhat antici- 
pate a point that I was going to make. Mr. Gatewood’s paper is, as Captain Niblack has 
