Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-01-05
TIE HAR VESSEL OF THE FUTURE.


could be brought together, there would be
enough to make handsome beginning
for new navy. And one principal
cause Of this waste has been the absence of
any policy or programme on the part OF
the Government It has never been de-
cided what kind of ships are best fitted
for the purposes OF the Government, and
therefore instead of concentrating upon
some definite experiment, the appropria-
tions have been scattered and squandered
to no useful result. Take the recent acct
dent to the Tennessee as an illustration.
She is steamer built for speed. It is
said she can make nearly twenty knots an
hour under full steam. But she is such
shell that collision with an ordinary mer-
chant vessel nearly sinks her, and she has
to take to the dry. dock for months. What
use would such ship be in time of war !?
She could not ram any enemy. She could
not fight any enemy. All she could do
would be TO run away very fast indeed,
and that would hardly further the ma
tional cause.
The accident to the Tennessee, however,
has brought forward Naval Constructor
Poor with some timely remarks upon the
subject of our future navy. He points out
the worthlessness of such vessels as the
Tennessee. He shows that such ships
could not possibly encounter the class of
ironclads now being built in Europe that
in fact single shot from the latter would
be sufficient to destroy the Tennessee.
He expresses the opinion that it is also
quite useless to build vessels for ramming
purposes, no matter how strong, if their
displacement is much less than that of the
vessels they are to encounter He OBJ
serves: What can ram of 1000 tons
displacement effect against a ship that
I" has ten or twelve inches of iron, with a
displacement of 10000 tons, the speed of
both ships being about equal It would
"end in the destruction of the ram, for
"she would act as though she had struck
"a rock, and do herself as much injury as
:" she did her opponent, if not more. The
principle of ramming is correct one !;
8" but the ram power to be used must be
graduated to the class of vessels which
"she has to meet" Exactly so; and
therefore no ships ought to be built for
ramming but on the largest scale. ANY
small ram, as two or three thousand tons,
would merely rebound from the sides of
ironclads like the Infexible, if they did
not, which is still more probable, crush in
their own bows, and go to the bottom like
stones.
Mr.. Poor appears to be in favor of heavy
vessels. with very powerful machinery, and
a single gun of the largest caliber, so de-
Tended as to be invulnerable. He says /:
" In my judgment it is desirable that each
"single gun shall be put afoat and so well
protected that it will cope with the best
already built" This idea has some force,
but it is open to some formidable OBJ
jections. A war vessel which carries a
single gun is put entirely hors du combat
if anything happens to her loading or firing
or turning machinery. And it is well I'M
derstood that when every precaution has
been taken it is still quite impossible to
put this machinery beyond the reach of
injury. There must be some part of the
gun or the turret exposed, and so long as
this is the case it is always possible that
shot now used may bend or break some
thing, and thereby in a moment reduce the
whole vessel to the condition of an I'm.
armed ram. The tendency of late years
has been to diminish the number of guns
in broadside, and there are many iron
clads built now which carry only two
heavy guns (thirty eight, forty-fve and
sixty-four ton guns). But these always
are armed in addition with several smaller
guns for use in an emergency, and the
probabilities are of course against both
their great guns being crippled at once.
So far naval construction has not got
beyond great guns and heavy armor. The
idea Of light, swift, unarmored vessels, which
our Advisory Board has lately advanced,
has nothing in the shape of experience to
justify it. 1t does indeed seem probable
that such vessels would make good priva-
teers, but til in the last degree unlikely
that they could do any fighting, nor could
they defend themselves when driven into
corner. For if they were built for speed
they would not be solid enough to carry the
heaviest kind of naval artillery, and nothing
less would be OF any use to them. And then
again they would of course be met by
similar vessels on the part of the enemy,
for this is class of ships which would
not need to be built on purpose. The truth
is that we need genuine ironclads, of suf-
ficient power to encounter anything that
can be brought against them. As the case
stands one such vessel as the In1exible
could play havoc with the whole of our
navy, and nothing but torpedoes would
check her, while they might fail to do SO.
Congress will probably boggle great deal
over the question of expense, but an
effective navy is after all very economical
provision in the long run, for it may at any
time prevent a war which would cost
thousands of millions of dollars.
TIE PRICE OF SILK.