The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1897-08-01
BArTLESHIP SEAMANSHIP.
4 MEN RI IN THE ART or
NAVAL WARFARE.

Before the naval Wrr Coiicwe-The Cone
pies Character OF tho Modern Battleship
Hns brought rrohirms Unknown Formerly
in MARINE FIEhtInE Tho Needs or Our Navy.
Charles IL. Cranip, head OF the Philadelphia
shipbuildinR company, has Just furnished to
the naval' world a new topic for study and ex-
tended. investigation. It. Is what he calls bat
t,eship scamanship." During Mr.. Cramps re-
cent absence In Europe Commander Goodrich
OF the Naval War College at Newport read a
paper prepared by Mr.. Cramp, in which the
latter pointed out that the seamanship re-
qiurcd in the management OF q battloship. not
only In action as ono OF q feet, or oven individ-
ually. but also In ordinary navigation, was diff
ferent from tho seamnnship required in tho
management Of any other kind Of seagoing
craft. In speaking Of the enormous RESPONSE
bilities resting upon an Admiral in managing a
feet Of battleships in action, Mr.. Cramp used
these words:
II maintain that the mman OF a noot OF
modern battleships on whose success in q cam
paign the issue Of q cause or the fate Of q ma
ton may depend. is by far tho greatest and
most trying trust that can ever in our time or
In the future be confded to one man."
In speaking OF the old order OF things in naval
fighting, Mr.. Cramp points out that there was
III Oo'phsao 4 ia oAAp5 uANODt III
Experience in q sloop of war qualified an officer
TO assume at once and in full efficiency equiva-
lent duties In q frigate, q seventy-four. or q
three-deckcr." He then declares that fighting
in q small modern warship Is entirely different
in it's demands upon the commander of q YES
sci from fighting In q battleship. This Is due
solely to tho difference in the character Of the
ships nowadays. He makes plain, however,
that n commander of a battleship, well skilled
In the art OF ~maneuvring and fighting, can
fight in almost any kind Of smaller vessel, and
therefore he urges that, so far as possible, the
officers of the navy shall have opportunity TO
study-and he says this can only be done by
actual work on tho deck of q v~essel-'battle-
ship seamanship." He is opposed, therefore,
to laying up battleships In time Of peace for the
sake of economy. He says on this point:
The dullest intellect now realizes that mod
ern fleets cannot be improvised. But some
apparently cling to the illusion that modern
seamanship can DO. This illusion. II followed,
must neutralize all the practical benefit Of the
new navy this country is building. For any
purpose Of warlike activity our large ships
might almost as well not exist as DO laid up"
The difference that exists between the pres
emit battleship and what might be called tho
pioneer Of modern battleships Ia made clear by
Mr.. Cramp thus:
81 cannot better illustrate my point than by
comparing the first and the last seagoing bat
tleships built and delivered to the Govern
ment by Cramp. The first was the New Iron
sides, built in:1s62. The last IL the Iowa, COM
pleted In 1897. Each represented or repre-
sents the maximum development of its day.
The New Ironsides had one machine-her main
engine, involving two steam cylinders. Tho
Iowa has seventy-one machines, Involving 1877
steam cylinders. The guns of the New Iron
sides were worked, tho ammunition hoisted,
the ship steered, the engine started and reversed.
her boats handled-in short, all functions of
fighting and mannuvring-by hand. The ship
was lighted by oil lamps and ventilated. when
ut all, by natural air currents. Though the
most advanced type Of her day, she differed
from the greatest battleship predecessor, the old
three-decker Pennsylvania, only in four inches
OF iron side armor and auxiliary steam propul-
sion. She carried fewer guns on fewer decks
than the Pennsylvania, but her battery was
nevertheless OF much greater balltstic power.
In the Iowa 1t may almost be said that nothing
IL done by hand except the opening and closing
Of throttles and pressing OF electric buttons.
Her guns are loaded. trained, and fired, her am
munition hoisted, her turrets turned. her tor
pedoes-mechanisms of hemselves-are tubed
and elected, the ship steered. her boats hoisted
out and In, the interior lighted and ventilated,
the great searohlights operated. and even Or
ders transmitted from bridge or coming tower
to all parts by mechanical appliances"
Mr.. Cramp emphasizes the difference be-
tween the fighting craft Of former and present
times by calling attention to the fact that at
the battle ofsTrafalsar.the Victoria, Temeraire,
and Redoubtable of Nelson's fleet were foul
Of each other for some time, and that mono Of
these ships sustained any serious injury because
of this contact. lie says that mo one imaSines
that three modern battleshlps could be foul
OF each other for many minutes. before some
OF them would begin TO sink from the effects
of contact alone. and irrespective OF any execu-
tion done by their batteries or torpedoes." He
calls attention to the fact that the commander
Of the modern battleship. to become efficient in
fighting. must know n vast deal more than the
commander of the old battle ship. He must
know not only tactics and seanlanship in the
old sense, but also something in n general way
OF the marine engine. the great variety In the
uses Of electricity on board ship, and the prin-
ciples OF modern laval architecture and ship
construction.
The loss OF the Victoria in a smooth sea dur
how Important is the knowledge OF the simple
radius OF the helm OF a ship. The accommo.
d dat %os Of o "a dsihiP to the s waSf aG caIa' E I'm matter 6ssm Of
also says, for experience that can BIO gained
only At sea and In time Of storm: 1t is only
NCAL Lhat IL l'Ililh " JIG " E)itttNb
Navy had a mort perilous experience off Hat
terai. Later the battleship Maine rolled so
when on Hatteras that several OF her crow
wore swept overheard: Mr.. Cramp cites the
experience Of the British battleship Resolu.
ton In tho Bay OF Biscay ON this point:
The British battleship Resolution was buff
feted, half wrecked; and driven into port in dis
tre;s BY a Bay OF Biscay storm. Other ships,
Resolution, rode out the storm not only with
out disaster. but, without eject upon their
fighting power; but suppose that hal hap
pened IN warfare. where the loss of one or more
battleships by disability Of that nature might
turn the scale of odds as between two hostile
fleets. From that to defeat, from defeat 10
Joss OF sea control, even temporarily, and from
loss NJ sea control to invasion might prove
short and easy steps.
There is nothing OF record that could he con-
sirued ,as valid reason why the RESOLUTION
should have been crippled by tho storm which
did not affect her exact duplicates. The ma
terial was equal. or az nearly equal as likeness
OF design and similarity OF construction could
make 1t. But the performance or tho be.
harior was unequal almost 10 The point Of
catastrophe, What, ,hen. could have been the
we're involved. material and personnel. and as
the equality Of the former was obvious, no
cause rnualna lnna Uip hls axrsut that thn Iattnr