NOTES ON THE ARMAMENTS OF BATrLESHIPS. 23 



analytical manner the different factors which influence the problem, and makes it 

 relatively easy to evaluate them and to assign to each of them their proper weight. 



1. Disposition oj Guns. — I fully agree with Sir William White, that when 

 the end positions are utilized by placing two turrets at each end of the ship, mounted 

 as in the Michigan, any further addition to the number of gun turrets is undesirable 

 since it can only be made by sacrificing to some extent the arc of fire of such addi- 

 tional g"uns, and by incurring interference. The Michigan arrangement seems 

 indeed the ideal. 



On the other hand it appears to me that if it is possible to design, or rather to 

 develop, an efficient triple turret, this installation should be adopted. We shall 

 thereby be able to mount twelve guns in one ship, all of which shall have the maxi- 

 mum arc of fire. At the same time all the advantages inherent in the Michigan 

 arrangement will be retained, viz., favorable conditions for storage of ammunition, 

 freedom from gun interference and facility of mounting a powerful secondary battery. 

 The relative risk by thus concentrating three guns in each turret will not be greater 

 than incmred by the twin turrets in the Michigan, since in both cases 25 per cent, 

 of the primary battery will be put out of action by the disablement of one turret, 

 and the target presented by four triple turrets is smaller than that presented by six 

 twin turrets. 



The tactical concentration obtained by mounting, for instance, twenty-four 

 guns in two ships instead of in three ships seems to me an undoubted advantage. 



2. Anti-torpedo-boat Battery. — If, in addition to the 6-inch guns proposed by 

 the author, a battery of lighter "man-killing" guns is to be carried, it appears to 

 me best to place them on disappearing mountings, such as those designed by the 

 Creusot firm in France, where these guns are lowered when not in use, so as to be 

 sheltered by the side armor. The number of such guns must then be reduced, but 

 it seems better to possess a smaller number of protected guns than a greater number 

 of guns which are almost certain to be demolished in ship or fleet actions. 



3. Caliber of Guns. — Even it if be granted that the technical difficulties which 

 stand in the way of increasing the caliber may be solved satisfactorily, so that these 

 heavier guns may be worked as quickly as the present 12-inch guns and so that they 

 may have as long a life, it still remains to be proved, as pointed out by Sir William, 

 that equally good or even better results cannot be obtained with 12 -inch guns. 



The heavy guns are to my mind essentially armor piercers, and armor piercing 

 can only be done by heavy guns. The larger guns now being introduced are, 

 however, to be superior to the present 12 -inch guns, chiefly in their greater 

 sheU effect, it being generally admitted that the armor-piercing effect of the 

 12-inch guns is adequate. Now shell effect cannot generally be expected to 

 aft'ect the vitals of a ship directly; its action is based on a demohtion of unar- 

 mored or lightly armored parts, and is essentially external. This work is indeed 

 very important, but may perhaps better be carried out by a greater number of 

 1 2 -inch guns which give a more widespread fire than by the concentrated effect 

 of a smaller number of heavy guns. 



