NOTES ON THE ARMAMENTS OF BATfLESHIPS. 31 



has fully spoken. Yet to some of us that very question of protection seems to be 

 the one toward which, if we are to have a fashion, the fashion should be directed. 



The tenor of Sir William's argument is the limitation of the number of guns 

 de^'oted to a single ship, and this naturally falls in with the point of view of those 

 who believe in greater protection. If we agree that displacements cannot be 

 reduced, we can put our capital represented by displacement into armament, pro- 

 tection or speed; and, as Professor Hovgaard very justly remarked, it seems to 

 many of us that we have not balanced in our modern ships the parts devoted to 

 each of these features. If, then, we limit the amount devoted to armament by 

 reducing the number of guns, or by limiting their size, we can devote more dis- 

 placement to protection. 



In the spring meeting of the British Institution of Naval Architects a paper 

 was read in which the writer indicated his belief that the tendency would be to 

 reduce protection and to increase very greatly speed, and perhaps armament, and 

 this may be the tendency of fashion; but if the views that have been so strongly 

 presented here this morning carry weight, the eventual result will be to ward increas- 

 ing protection rather than increasing armament. 



The disposition of guns upon the center line exclusively has been touched 

 upon by previous speakers, but the alternative arrangement, by which at least a 

 pair of turrets are placed upon the sides of the vessel, has been strongly advocated 

 by many on the ground of increased end-on fire, which some consider extremely 

 necessary. Even if one grant the desirability of increased end-on fire, it has never 

 appeared to me that the arrangement of side turrets accomplishes the results 

 desired. If we take the fire directly forward, as exemplified in the South Carolina- 

 Michigan design, we are able to fire without danger, as has been explained by 

 Admiral Capps, four guns directly ahead. Nominally, we are able to fire six guns 

 directly ahead, with three turrets arranged, one in the center line, and two on the 

 sides; but I believe I will be sustained by officers who have managed battleship 

 turrets and gun-fires, that this is not a practical proposition. In other words, a 

 ship cannot be steered exactly at an object — the target or the enemy — and wiU, 

 even if it is approaching directly, sheer off to one side or another in its progress. 

 Now it takes but a very small angle in any of these arrangements with side turrets 

 to blank one turret or the other, so that for all practical purposes the center turret 

 and the turret on one side or the other are the ones that are fired, but not both of 

 the side tiurets in the circumstances in which ships are steered at sea; and even if 

 we can fire the three turrets directly forward or aft, it is obvious, in an attack at 

 least, that position cannot continue any length of time without bringing the two 

 enemies — the ships opposing — in contact, and hence can but momentarily exist. 



The question of secondary batteries is somewhat compUcated by the progress 

 in size and weight of guns of nominally the same caliber, and it may be said that 

 the latest 5 -inch guns we are using on our ships have practically the same weight 

 as the 6-inch guns of an earlier date; so that the 5 -inch guns we have mounted may 

 be practically described as 6-inch guns with a 5 -inch hole in them, and if we consider 



