NOTES ON THE ARMAMENTS OF BATTLESHIPS. 



35 



considerations, dwelling upon the necessity for giving adequate protection to 

 battleships. In doing so he really endorsed views which I had expressed in a general 

 form in the paper. My thorough conviction is that in many recent designs for 

 battleships protection has been sacrificed unduly; and in my judgment the designs 

 prepared in the United States Navy Department during the last five years are 

 superior as regards protection to many, if not to most, of the contemporary designs 

 for European battleships. An active and powerful offense is undoubtedly of great 

 great value as a means of defense in a naval action. On the other hand if defense 

 is unduly sacrificed, and if ships can be put out of action readily— by having their 

 buoyancy and stabilit}^ seriously lessened or their trim seriously changed by a volume 

 of fire from comparatively light quick-firing guns— then in my judgment a proper 

 balance of qualities of offense and defense has not been secured in the design. 

 Professor Hovgaard repeated in the discussion views which he had expressed 

 elsewhere as to the desirability of providing good torpedo armaments and stronger 

 protection against under-water torpedo attacks, in modern battleships. I agree 

 with him in thinking that many admirals will be disposed to seek what may be 

 described as the "decisive range" in action rather than to "play the game of long 

 bowls" which advocates of single-caliber big-gun armaments prefer. But in my 

 opmion the multiplication of torpedo-ejecting stations in battleships is not desirable, 

 nor IS It easy to provide the requisite space without prejudicially affecting other 

 important features of a design. By some accident the section which appeared in 

 the origmal manuscript of my paper and which dealt with the torpedo armaments 

 of battleships was omitted from the proof used for purposes of reading and dis- 

 cussion. It has now been restored to its place in the paper, and will suffice as an 

 expression of my personal view on this subject. In regard to the use of strong 

 under-water armor protection against torpedo attacks, I consider that it has been 

 demonstrated by actual experiments that such means of defense would not prove 

 effective against modern torpedoes. The watertightness of the skin and structure 

 of the vessel could not be preserved when such torpedoes got home against the 

 bottom of a ship even if it were armored. It may be proper to recall the circum- 

 stance that Admiral Bacon (who is an ardent advocate of the single-caliber big-gun 

 ship) made the striking admission in his paper on the "Battleship of the Future" 

 read before the Institution of Naval Architects last April, that no ship, however 

 large, could be expected to remain effective for further action after she had been 

 struck under-water by a modern torpedo. Independently of that opinion I am 

 convinced that experiments already made confirm the view I have expressed and 

 therefore I consider Profesor Hovgaard is unduly sanguine in supposing that any 

 feasible scheme of under-water armor protection on the bottom of a ship can be 

 devised and carried out. This statement of course is not intended to cast any doubt 

 on the feasibility of building a ship of the dimensions and characteristics which 

 Professor Hovgaard put forward a few months ago in the 1910 edition of 

 "Fighting Ships. " 



