Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1884-02-25
THE NEW CRUISERS
The Naval Advisory Board Replies To
NE. IsherWood.

Washington special to the New York
Times, has submitted to the Secretary of
the Navy a memorandum reply 10 eriti.
eisms made by Chief Engineer B. F. Ish-
erwood on the plans adopted in the con-
struction of the new steel cruisers in his
testimony before the Senate Committee on
Naval Affairs. Mr.. Isherwood's first OBJ
Jection was made to the Dolphin, the
smallest of the new cruisers, of which he
stated that she was merely a steam Yacht
from which it would be absurd TO expect
military service; that her machinery was
probably duplicate, or nearly so. of ma
chineTy built for a cOasting steamer bv fhe
contractor, Mr.. John Roach: that the on
tire design of the hull and machinery was
understood to have been made at the con-
tractors works, only the very general idea
being given by the board. To meet the
hrst of these objections the board saws:
"At the end Of two years only five of the
wooden vessels usually employed as flag
ships will be effective. and probably not
more than three will be available for
active service, as it is considered unwise
to recommend the construction of many
nghtlng vessels of this class when smaller
vessels are needed in greater numbers.
but rather to provide the accOmmoda-
ton for fleet officer and his staff upon
an armed dispatch boat In times
of peace the employment of the
Dolphin as a flagship will contribute
TO efhclency and dispatch of business by
enabling the commanding officer to visit
all ports on his station, inspect his fleet.
and investigate quickly matters such as
frequently require his presence, without
the expense and incumbrance of pr ceed-
ing IN slow, unwieldy flagship, affected
and influenced in all its movements bv its
purely military and formal character. and
the Dolnbin is in every way suited for
service as a blOckader or as a commerce
destroyer. 1t is difficult to estimate the
Vaiue which would have been placed upon
such a vessel during our war. A
lew shght changes on the Dolphin
would have made her the most for
mldable antagonist of the Alabama.
which was 2l2 feet in length, 80 feet beam
and IA feet draught, and about 800 tons
displacement" The board replies to the
statement that the designs of the hull and
machinery are understood to have been
made at the contractors works. bv fur
nlshlng list of drawings for the hull and
machinery made by the board and for
mally approved July l3, while the con-
tracts were only signed on August IS,
and says; The records of the depart
ment show that contract has never been
made for ship or machinery in which
the plans and specifications and calcula-
tlons were more carefully prepared in de-
tail"
Chief Engineer IsherwOOd's objections
to the Chicago, the largest of the new
cruisers, were: First, she is too small for
nrst-class cruiser by about $4,000 tons
displacement; second, she is not wooden
sheathed and coppered: third. her ma
chlnery is inefficient in type and will fail
at high speed; fourth, she has but half
san power, and cannot cruise under sail
alone; she will always have to use steam:
fifth, her speed will be entirely too little
and her endurance much too small: sixth.
her services in war will be limited TO our
own coasts, where she will not be needed.
instead OF abroad, in the destruction Of
an enemy's commerce. The board
does not reply directly to the first OBJ
JectlOn thus stated, but to the second it !
says: "Tbe views of the board on the
question of sheathing these ships with
wood and copper have been presented.
and while it should not be understood
that the board Is, under all circum-
stances, opposed to sheathing. which is
when carefully carried out.
the best method Of retarding cOrrosiOn and
lOuling, yet, though it will require care
and Judgment to keep the ships clean,
when they are clean they will be much
more efficient than the sheathed shin
could ever be, because the weight |
saved IN the hull on the dispIace-
ment has been used to increase the
armament coal, endurance, speed, etc"
10 the third objection it replies bv
presenting the advantages claimed for
the twin screws, the engines and other
machinery with which the Chicago is sup
pied. by British and other naval con- |
structOrs and engine builders. AS to the |
fourth objection the board saws: ssHis |
statements that her the Chicago'sl capa- |
Dlltles VIII be restricted to drifting be- |
lore the wind like a raft, and that the /
Chlcago is not superior to a merchant |
ship IN any respect. and many others in /
the same tone, are held up for record, up |
on which time will render a Sufficient /
verdict" The board does not reply to |
the ttth and sixth objections, except as |
in the preceding paragraph.
MIR. IsherwoOd's criticism on the other |
TWO cruisers was expressed as follows:
''The Boston and the Atlanta, duplicate |
vessels, being greatly smaller than the !
Chicago and designed on the same
general principles, except the machinery. |
which is good, have all the faults of that |
vessel IN an exaggerated degree. Like |
her, they are not wooden sheathed and |
coppered, and their proportion of sail /
power is still less, being considerably |
under One-half of full sail power instead |
Of tWO-thirds, as enormously represented. |
The arrangement of the Out-Of-water por- |
tion Of these vessels and of their battery |
is much inferior to what they might |
be. Neither their speed nor their en- |
durance viii be satisfactory. nor have /
they any qualities which would warrant |
their reproduction" To this the board |
replies: "With respect to the Boston and |
Atlanta the board deems it unneces- |
sary to proceed to deny seriatim the |
statements repeated from the charges in |
regard to the other ships, but would call |
attention to the fact that here the state
ments are sweeping general opinions in
regard to the official action of the deDart-
ment and the board, as we'll as the prob
able sailing qualities, general design, and /
arrangement of armament, while engi-
leering opinions are few" In.summlng |
up the testimony of Chief Engineer Isher- |
wood, the board states that ssAfter care
ul and thorough examination of it's con-
lents, such as is due to the eIaborately
prepared opinions Of an engineer of dis |
,lnguished reputation, that in the profess
'lonal discussion as there presented no
point is touched upon which has not been
,he subject of the careful consideration of
he board, nor does the treatment of these
points tend in the remotest degree to
essen our confidence in our acts and de-
:isions."