OF MEN-OF-WAR AND THEIR EMBODIMENT IN DESIGN. 81 



DISCUSSION. 



The President: — Gentlemen, you have heard the presentation of paper No. 1, by Rear 

 Admiral Rodgers, entitled "The Tactical Relations between Different Classes of Men-of-War 

 and Their Embodiment in Design." This paper is now open for discussion. We have a 

 contributed discussion which the Acting Secretary will read. 



Captain W. C. Watts, U. S. Navy (Communicated) : — It has been a great pleasure 

 to me to read this excellent treatment of a difficult question, and I feel flattered to have been 

 given an opportunity to comment on it. Naturally, I approach the subject with diffidence 

 and preface my comment by expressing my full agreement with the various general princi- 

 ples and conclusions of the author. My brief remarks are more in the nature of amplifying 

 certain phases of the discussion and may seem unnecessary where perhaps only an enlarge- 

 ment upon the author's views. 



In considering the subject of "defensive strength" of ships, it seems that some mention 

 should be made of the fact that in some types of vessels a part of the battery is essentially 

 of a defensive character, though the act of using it is of course offensive and the degree of 

 defense derived from it is in proportion to the vigor of its offense. For example, in a battle- 

 ship the anti-aircraft battery is essentially for protective purposes, and to a less extent the 

 same applies to the secondary battery, as is indicated by the term "torpedo defense battery" 

 frequently applied to it. This point is brought out by the author in another part of the 

 paper, immediately before the "conclusion," but it is believed to be appropriate to emphasize 

 the fact that these batteries would hardly be installed on a capital ship if the possible menace 

 from such craft as destroyers, submarines, torpedo planes and offensive aircraft did not exist. 

 Battleships are essentially "strength" ships, to use the author's apt expression, and the sacri- 

 fice of weight to a battery designed to stand off an enemy that the battleship, in fulfillment 

 of its mission, would not seek, is as truly a concession to the requirements of protection as is 

 the weight of armor. Thus, in considering the whole question, it might clarify the situation 

 if we recognize that guns, from the viewpoint of the discussion in this paper, may be of offen- 

 sive or defensive character, although naturally the latter are freely used to assist the for- 

 mer, when in special circumstances this is possible and when the necessity of their employ- 

 ment for their primary mission is not present. 



The torpedo is spoken of by the author as an offensive "weapon of position," emi- 

 nently adapted for fast ships. This is borne out by its inclusion in the armament of most 

 vessels of this type in all navies, where it becomes in some instances the primary weapon 

 of offense. When carried by battleships, however, the controlling principle is not so clear 

 as to the purpose for which installed, whether offensive or defensive. In fact, it must be 

 regarded as partaking of both these characteristics for employment in certain special cir- 

 ciunstances, and is therefore in the nature of a compromise in this respect. To include tor- 

 pedoes in the armament of a battleship has involved submerged tubes and the necessarily very 

 large torpedo rooms that constitute a striking exception to the system of subdivision else- 

 where insisted upon in the structure of the ship. This is, of course, a weakness and a lessen- 

 ing of the protective properties of the ship, which, to be justified, must be more than offset 

 by the advantages, as either an offensive or defensive weapon, of the torpedo itself. This 

 is an example of how sacrifices must invariably be made to include additional weapons, and 



