National Republican., 1885-02-07


ammunition, spars, boats ground tackle,
and miscellaneous small equipment.
Let us figure next on the coal. The
very best results yet attained with Amer
lean coal, under tho most favorable cir
substances, show minimum combustion
Of 10 pounds per horse 20 Hor per hour
with natural draught. This means, for
a 5,0O0-horso power engine, q consumption
of At tons Of coal per houI, or 102 tons per
twenty -four hours, full stcaming. II
must be borne in mind that those are all
inside figures, leaving no margin what
ever. A comparison Of these estimates
with the carefully computed data of the
i5OO.ton cruiser Chicago will show that
tho allowances for weights made by the
advisory board are on an average from
to 10 per cent. in excess OF mine. But
granting the minimum TO be sufficiently
may assume that l05 tons OF coal will drive
our $500 ton ship fifteen knots an hour
for twenty-four hours. That would re-
quire $50 tons of coal for q weeks full
supply. No American cruiser could af-
ford to take the sea in time Of war on
less than weeks coal for full power
steaming, because we arc not provided as
England, France, and Germany are with
outlying coaling stations. Now take
80 from 1850 and we have 300 tons left
for battery, ammunition, provisions,
water, boats, spars, rigging, sails, anchors,
cables, &c, the thousand and one articles
that enter into the
MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT OF A MAN
oF.wAR.
This residue of 900 tons then would be
the net carrying capacity OF, i,50O ton
ship, engined for fifteen knots, and coaled
for seven days endurance. These are the
elementary problems of naval architec-
ture, aud no discussion of the subject
can be intelligent or intelligiblo which
fails to recognize them.
But after we have created our fifteen
knot cruiser we have nothing but con-
ventional ship. There is nothing about
her to command especial attention or to
produce particular moral effect. She
would simply belong to class OF vessels
already fully developed elsewhere. But
IL her speed could be increased to eigh-
teen knots and her coal endurance to ten
days at fall power, she would at once as
sumo now and formidable status. Well
then, inquiries some novitiate, why don't
you make an eighteen knot ship of her,
with coal supply for ten days? The an
swer TO this inquiry is again matter of
arithmetic. We have seen that q 5000
horse power engine, weighing at least $50
tons, will drive our ship fifteen knots an
of coal. But to drive tho same ship
eighteen knots an hour would
require 5000 horsepower engines, weigh
ing not less than 1,2O0 tons, and consum-
ing at full power 100 tons of coal per day;
1900 tons for ten days. But at the start
we had only $500 tons hotation in our
4,500 ton ship after deducting the weight
of the hull whereas 1900 tons of ma
chinery and 1,6O0 tons of coal make $500.
1t therefore appears that the idea of max
ing au eighteen knot ship with ten days
coal endurance on 1850 tons displacement
10 an sbsurdity.
1t will perhaps be remarked that the
English have built ships on less than
$500 tons that have steamed eighteen
knots for example the Iris and Mercury,
of $3.50 tons each, and the Esmeralda, OF
5000. That may be true so far as six
hours trial is concerned with assorted
coal, picked stokers, forced draught, and
comparatively smooth water. But what
have in view is
SEA SPEED, SUSTAINED FOR DAYS
regardless of weather or circumstances
The Esmeralda is doubtless as good
5000 ton ship as ever was built. But she
is after all 5000 ton ship and her capac-
tiles must fall within the limitations in
separable from such dimensions. The
principal impression that | derived from
the elaborate descriptions of the Esmer-
aida that filled the English press a month
or two ago was that her builder, Sir Will
liam Armstrong, was an undoubted ex-
pert in the manipulation Of printers ink
whatever ho might be in marine srchi-
lecture.
The whole problem Of the speed of
ships resolves itself into q question of
weights. Fineness of model is, of cou rso,
an element; but however fine tho model,
the relations of power to weights and of
weights to Gotation remain unchanged.
Small vessels may be engined to attain
high speeds for short distances, but to do
so they must sacrifice coal endurance.
Both power and endurance cannot bo
combined in any small ship with any
known motor.
In all this must not be understood as
arguing against small or medium sized
ships. | wish only to point out the
reasons why too much ought not to be
expected of them. \ certain number OF
them should be included in any pro-
gramme of naval reconstruction.
THE BEGINNING THAT HAS DEEM MADE
is good one as far as 1t goes; as good as
could have been made with the limited
means voted. But whom we come to con :
slider the question Of designing ships
which will restore our naval prestige to
the relative point at which the old Wam-
panoag left it, We must obviously look
for something better than fifteen knots
and hence bigger than 1850 tons. If our
government could commission to-day
four unarmored cruisers capable Of eigh-
Aeen knots sea speed and ten days full
oal endurance, TO carry four ten inch
guns each, they would make q greater
impression on the world at large than a
hundred cruisers Of conventional speed,
endurance, and armament could do. But
they would have TO be vessels of from
1900 to 5000 tons displacement, and they
would cost about So, 25000 apiece
A. Z. b.