8 NOTES ON THE ARMAMENTS OF BAl^'LESHIPS. 



suffice on this occasion to re-state the writer's conclusions and to briefly 

 summarize the reasons therefor. These conclusions are admittedly open 

 to debate and other views may be maintained on the basis of solid argument. 

 The case is necessarily one for compromise, and therefore for difference 

 of opinion as to the best course to be pursued. 



There are two positions for heavy guns which by common consent 

 confer supreme advantages, and are always utilized. These positions are 

 at the center line of the deck : one commanding right-ahead fire, with large 

 arcs of horizontal training reaching well abaft the beam on each side; the 

 other possessing corresponding command right astern and over large arcs 

 of training reaching well before the beam. Until the Michigan and South 

 Carolina were designed it was the general practise to mount one or two heavy 

 guns — two in nearlyall cases — in each of these positions. Superposed turrets 

 on one turntable were tried in some cases, and 8-inch gunswere mounted in the 

 upper emplacement; but this practise did not find much favor and may be 

 considered to have dropped out of use. It was a new and bold departure in 

 the Michigan and South Carolina to place two turrets in each of the supreme 

 positions, and to arrange for firing the guns in one turret over the top of 

 the other turret. That arrangement proved successful, however, and has 

 been largely adopted in recent ships of all navies. When associated with 

 the mounting of guns in pairs this system permits the effective use of eight 

 heavy guns; if three guns are mounted in each turret then twelve heavy 

 guns can be given equal arcs of command, and all the guns can be used 

 on each broadside. 



The writer has always favored and still favors the system of mounting 

 heavy guns in pairs. French designers long preferred separate mountings 

 for single heavy guns, and placed two gun stations amidships — one on 

 each side. The French system was tried in the British armored cruisers 

 Imperieuse and Warspite, and as the result of trials it was not repeated; 

 the French themselves subsequently abandoned the arrangement. Twin- 

 mountings were universally employed for a long period, and, in the writer's 

 judgment, that plan embodies a reasonable compromise. Considerable 

 economy is thus effected in the weight of the mountings and armor protec- 

 tion for a pair of heavy guns as compared with what is needed with separate 

 mountings for each gun; and although the risk of simultaneous disable- 

 ment of two guns is necessarily incurred when they are carried on a single 

 turntable and within the same armored station, that does not seem to be 

 an imdue risk, \\nien three guns are mounted on one turntable and exposed 

 to similar risks of simultaneous disablement then, in the writer's judg- 

 ment, too many "hostages are given to fortune," and economy in weight 



