132 ON THE SUITABILITY OF CURRENT DESIGN OF SUBMARINES 
Mr. E. H. Ewertz, Member :—I just want to say, gentlemen, that we seem to forget the 
main object that is before us in this talk about submarines. The general public, in their 
own mind, have a more definite idea about the submarine, how it should be built and han- 
dled, than you realize, even though the greater portion of them do not understand the 
subject in either its technical or practical aspect. 
Professor Hovgaard spoke of the mobility of the submarine with reference to im- 
pressing upon you the necessity of building large boats for offensive work and for the 
comfort of the men. It is a fact that boats of the smaller coast-defense type have sailed 
from Canada to England, from there to the Mediterranean Sea, and have operated in the 
Sea of Marmora, covering the distance to the entire satisfaction of their governments, 
and we also know that German coast-defense submarines have sailed down to the Mediter- 
ranean Sea and operated there. 
It is a misconception to class the coast-defense here as a type unsuitable for people 
to live in. People can live in them, but naturally they are not as comfortable as the larger 
boat; still, we are not building submarines for comfort, but for the service they can render 
our country. 
As far as the offensive boat is concerned, I believe with Captain Niblack that we should 
build this type as fast as our experience will permit, but let us protect our country first 
of all by building the defensive boat. We are facing a condition to-day which is a shame 
to this nation of ours relative to national protection, and the least we can do is to build 
such a type of boats as we are thoroughly familiar with and thereby place ourselves in a 
position so that we can protect our coast-line, a condition that we are not in to-day. 
We all agree that the government should take the initiative in the development of 
submarines, which it has not done in the past, for if it had not been for a few strong- 
minded men like Mr. Holland and Mr. Lake and others who have been interested in sub- 
marines, where would our submarines stand today? It is through the efforts of such men 
that the submarine has been brought to such a high point of efficiency that is has to-day, 
and the least we can do is to put our shoulders to the wheel to help these technical and 
commercial men to build boats for the protection of our United States. 
Nava Constructor R. D. Gatewoop, Member :—It is not, I want to say again, 
the constructor’s job to decide what type of submarine we shall build. It is our job to 
build whatever type someone else decides is necessary. The question at issue, as I un- 
derstand it, is what type is necessary. Captain Niblack indicated one type as opposed to 
the type described in this paper. In this connection I want to state that I was at luncheon 
about three years ago in Italy with Mr. Laurenti, a gentleman and engineer over there 
who corresponds to our Mr. Lake, or to the French M. La Boeuf. During the luncheon 
there was a discussion as to the relative merits of four types of submarines—250 tons, 
500 tons, 800 tons, and 1,200 tons—and Mr. Laurenti in his very expressive way com- 
mented upon these types as follows:—‘“Two hundred and fifty tons—very good type of 
coast-defense boat; you need plenty of them, and everybody should have them. Five hun- 
dred tons—that is a hybrid; no good; no one should have them. Eight hundred tons—very 
good; we should have them (meaning the Italians). Twelve hundred tons—better still. 
Not for us, for other people.” 
That was his sizing up of the submarine situation as it was then and pretty much 
as it is now. It is interesting, for his position in the submarine world is a very high one. 
