30 NOTES ON THE ARMAMENTS OF BATTI,ESHIPS. 



practise during the last few years. To those who do not have access to official 

 records, this progress is almost phenomenal. It is only a few years ago that 2,000 

 yards was accepted as a very reasonable battle range. Recent battle practises indi- 

 cate that this range may be increased to 7,000 or 8,000, and even to 10,000 yards 

 and more. There is one important condition, however, that is often overlooked in 

 assuming that actions will take place at such long ranges, and that is a condition 

 which no one can control, and the controlling effects of which are very likely to be 

 experienced in axtual battle; I refer to the atmospheric conditions. In one very 

 important body of water in northern Europe, it is a rule rather than the exception 

 that you cannot see clearly 2,000 yards away. It frequently happens on our own 

 coasts that the atmosphere is so hazy that you cannot see accurately 5,000 yards 

 away. These atmospheric conditions must have a very important bearing on the 

 range at which battles can be fought. Anyone, therefore, who assumes that an 

 arrangement of armament which provides for a very long battle range is neces- 

 sarily the best one because we will have long battle ranges, leaves out of account 

 the important consideration of atmospheric conditions. Moreover, Vv^hile we have 

 made very great strides in naval materiel, and while I have greatfaith in the efficiency 

 of the later developments of big gun ships, I am not one of those who consider that 

 all preceding designs of another type are worthless. In fact, in my judgment, such a 

 conclusion is very far from the truth. In the final test of battle, both as regards 

 ships in the main line and in reserve, the ships which immediately preceded the all- 

 big-gun ships will give a very good account of themselves. So I do not think we 

 will be justified in dismissing that portion of our Navy as being obsolete and with- 

 out value. 



Personally I feel very much indebted to Sir WilUam White for presenting his 

 views on so important a subject in so concise and impartial a manner, and I greatly 

 I'cgret that the limitations imposed upon us prevent any very detailed discussion of 

 the paper, by the presentation of facts deduced from our own professional experi- 

 ence. (Applause.) 



Naval Constructor Joseph H. Linnard, U. S. N., Member: — Mr. President, 

 most of the points I had thought to make comment upon have already been touched 

 upon by the previous speaker, but it may be said that the paper is largely a pro- 

 test against the present tendency in battleship designs. I think we all have to 

 admit that there are fashions in ships as well as in other things, and those who protest 

 against the fashions are apt to find that their arguments, however well considered, 

 fall frequently upon deaf ears. Fashion, although sometimes based in part upon 

 reasoning, is also largely based upon caprice. Now fashion in warships at the pre- 

 sent time indicates larger displacements. No nation is willing to take a battleship 

 that displaces less than the contemporary battleship of other nations. Nor is it 

 wiUing to have a battleship of less speed, nor is it wilUng to have a battleship 

 that has apparently less guns on it. The point which seems to draw least atten- 

 tion in the modern fashion is the question of protection, of which Professor Hovgaard 



