NOTES ON THE ARMAMENTS OF BATTLESHIPS. 25 



possible, on a displacement which is not now considered excessive, to endow a ship 

 with a powerful armament of 12 -inch guns, a battery of some twenty-four submerged 

 torpedo tubes and a 4-inch underwater armor, placed externally on the bottom of 

 the ship; the speed to be at least one knot more than the ordinary battleship speed. 

 A battleship of same size of the type now in vogue, armed with a number of, say, 

 14-inch guns, but with only four to five torpedo tubes and with a relatively weak 

 bottom, will stand very little chance of surviving an action at close range with a 

 ship of the above proposed type. 



I believe that the attention has been fixed too much on the artillery. In the 

 struggle for the attainment of supremacy in this respect, it appears that the tor- 

 pedo has been forgotten or put in the background. 



The development has become one-sided and the result has been inharmonious 

 designs, for while the modern Dreadnoughts are extremely powerful in some respects 

 they are very weak in others. 



Quite apart from the question of torpedo armament, it has become a necessity 

 to give the battleships a much better protection against submarine attack than is 

 at present the case. This is due to the fact that the torpedo itself as well as the 

 vessels which carry torpedoes as primary armaments, and notably submarine boats, 

 have recently developed to the point where the risks of destruction now encoun- 

 tered by battleships due to submarine attack are at least as great as those due to 

 attack by artillery. We should, however, never increase the weight given to the 

 defensive in a battleship, without at the same time increasing the weight given to 

 the offensive, and a more powerful torpedo armament is the natural correlation of 

 an increase in underwater protection. (Applause.) 



Naval Constructor David W. Taylor, U. S. N., Vice-President (Com- 

 municated) : — The Society is to be congratulated that the distinguished author of 

 this paper should have enriched its proceedings with a contribution on a subject of 

 vital interest to so many of our members and based upon professional experience 

 unsurpassed by any naval architect to-day. If there are those among us who 

 materially disagree with him on some points, they should be prepared to bring 

 forward substantial facts and figures to sustain their position. 



It seems to me, however, that the majority of the conclusions of the author will 

 be accepted by those who have given much consideration to the subject matter. 



Certainly, as regards the disposition of heavy guns recommended, it cannot 

 but be pleasing to the distinguished member of our Society who was responsible for 

 the bold departure taken upon the Michigan and South CaroHna to find the author 

 not only endorsing it, but pointing out the fact that it has been largely copied in 

 other navies. "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." I would like to point 

 out, however, in this connection, that the "vertical echelon" disposition of turrets 

 upon the Michigan and South Carolina was not adopted until careful and thorough 

 experiment had shown its entire feasibility. The great question was whether it 

 would be possible to fire the two guns of the upper turret immediately over the 



