The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1894-04-01
TIT.


tion Of Great Britain TO one Of the least I'm
portant Of European powers
III
Mr.. Msclay sees that it Il the seriousness o
| the subject from the English point Of view
| which explains why volume after volume ha
| been written. and every art Of figure jug
Cling has been employed. in the effortto en-
plain awaI the defeats sustained by the Eng
llsh navy in the war Of 1912. Those more OF
| less Ingenious ATTEMPTS at self-sxeulpatioI
| are examined By the author at some length
II seems that one OF the most popular meth
DDS Of accounting for the British naval dis.
asters in that contest has been that Of com.
pairing the ships engaged by means Of ton.
mage. BY this method English writer's make
out that the American frigatss we're from forty
TO fifty per cent larger than their antagonists
But Mr.. Maclay shows that tonnage. .,
determined In those DAYS by NO means
gives an accurate idea OF the force Of
war ships. The system OF messurina
was TO declare that half Of the breadth
Of the vessel at the broadcast part was
to be considered the depth. Thrse-nfths oil
the breadth was to be deducted from the
length OF the vessel. the remainder 10 be null
tiplisd By the breadth. and the product to be
multiplied By the depth. and this result was 10
be divided By ninsty-nve This was an arbi-
trary rule. adopted for the purpose OF Rscsr-
tanning something On which to gauge the col
lection OF revenue. and was designed prima-
rlly for merchant craft. Applied to such ves-
sells. IL gave a tolerably accurate idea Of the d.
mansions, az meroha ntmen were built on the
same general lines. The author Of this book
contends, however. that this system OF meas
urinR. when applied TO English and America an
built frlgates. was obviously unfair. why7
I-Gal = 81 l.
volved in the war OF 1912 we're " full built. I"
the deck plans bearing q strong resemblance
to that OF modern canal boat while the
American frigstes were constructed on much
finer lines. their deck plans showing q
decided tapering from the broadcast part
Of the deck toward both the bow and the
stern. The deck plan OF the British friRate.
on the other hand. showed that the extreme
breadth OF the deck was maintained nearly the
whole distance between the bow and the stern.
Nor was this the only difference; the rake Of
the stem and stern posts Of the American
frigate was greater than In the case OF her
British opponent BY measurements taken at
the Custom House in Baltimore In 1912 it was
proved that q merchant vessel built on tho
lines Of the British frigate Macedonian regis
tered 800 tons. and was able to carry 400
hogsheads OF tobacco. while . ship OF the
same tonnage. but built more on the lines Of
the Macedouian's antagonist, the United
States. could carry only 100 hogsheads.
Mr. Maclay proceeds further to demonstrate
that even II the two friRates had been built on
the same general lines. the m easuring formula
above given was sufficiently elastic to enable
British naval historians to arrive at consolinR
and agreeable figures rather than the truth.
It appears that an increase OF ten feet over all.
and OF six feet in beam. and six feet 10 hold.
L.. H.
116 feet long and carrying flfty-hve euns) SO
Der cent, ret It would not admit OF moro than
four extra guns Adding ten feet to frigate's
beam and ten feet to her hold. although greatly
increasing her tonnage. would not admit Of
Q single additional gun In her armament
Tho American 44-gun frigate Of the war OF
1912 was from ten to fifteen feet longer
than the British 3S-gun frigats. but owing to
the rake OF the stem and stern posts in the
American ships not single extra gun could
be put into the broadside thero being Just flf-
teen ports to the side In both the Am erican and
British vessels. We learn. for instance
through Mr.. Maclay. that when the United
States returned to port with her prize. the
Macedonian. both ships were measured. and
the former was found to be ton feet longer. but
to have eight inches less beam than the
English friRate. Here the American vessel
apparently had ten more feet OF deck, yet her
were unable to get q single gun
more to the broadslde on the gun deck than
the Macedonian carried. both ships having
fifteen ports to the side.
Not content with ascriblng to American
frigates q marked superiority OF size. Eng
lish naval writer's have maintained that our
vessels carried . much greater weight OF
u
frisate was armed with "a FOUNDERS on the
main deck. while the English ship carried only
16-pounders. At the time OF the war Of 1914
however. 24-pounders. considered as the chief
armament OF frigates. were largely tentative.
with the weight OF authority and experience
against their use. English commanders in
sisted that 24-pounders were too heavy and
could not be worked As effectually as 10
poundera Experience had taught them that
iS- poundsrs were the medium weights from
which the highest efficiency was dsriva-
BILE; and when 24-pounders were introduced
In the American frigates they condemned
hem as innovations contrary to all ssta blishsd
rules. and pictured the disasters that would
result from the experiment In the years pre-
cedIng the war OF 1912. American and British
officers frequently exchanged visits. SO that
he latter were thoroughly aware OF the kind
of guns the American ships carried. and fire.
lusntly made them the subject OF criticism.
We are told that Capt. Garden OF the Mace
ionian on more than one occasion met Capt.
Decatur on the United States. While dining
,ne tay at the lAttsr's table he particularly
pointed out the inef cheney OF the 24-pounders
IN the deck Of the United States saying that
hey could not be handled with ease and
'apidity In battle. and that long 18-poundsrs |
would do as much execution and were as
-.