The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-10-06
DEWEY AS A GREAT
NAVAL COMMANDER
HIS VICTORY AT MANILA COM.
PARED WITH OTHER FIGHTS.
1t Excelled Nelson's Victory at
Aboukir, Fully Equaled Lord
Howe's in l794, and Rivaled Mel
sons Famous Victory of Trafalgar.
A Worthy Pupil of Farragut.

sons Famous victory OF trafalgar.
A Worthy Pupil of Farragut.
Edgar S. Maclay in Lesles Weekly.
Rear Admiral Deweys victory at
Manila has been the occasion OF so
much rejoicing that it would be we'll
to consider on what grounds the real
of the affair are based and how
it compares with other great naval
battles. II is a coincidence worthy of
note that this is the centennial year Of
the battle of the Nile which was fought
between the English fleet under Nelson
and the French commanded by Brueys,
in A5oukir Bay, under circumstances
remarkably similar to those under
which the Americans fought at Ma
Mia. AS in Deweys case, the enemy
had anchored their ships in D wide bay.
and in order 10 get at them Nelson was
compelled to sail into the harbor and
attack the French on their own terms.
The battle of the Nile, very properly,
has been considered one of the decisive
naval engagements of the world, for it
resulted directly in the abandonment of
Egypt by the French. In no less de-
gree was the fight in Manila decisive
in its effects, for 1t deprived Spain of
a territory greater than Belgium, Dem
mark, Greece. Portugal and Switzer-
land combined. and was nearly equal
to England, Wales. Scotland and Ire
land. In the battle at Aboukir Bay
Nelson had thirteen ships of the line,
with an aggregate tonnage of 20,660
tons, carrying 7.4O1 men and 93S guns,
with 1i,000 pounds of hot-weight to
a hroadside. Brueys also had thirteen
ships of the line, besides a few small
er craft, carrying 5000 men, and hav-
ing guns capable of throwing 1900
pounds of shOt-weight to the broad
side. At Manila Dewey had six fight
ing ships of 19.09S tons, carrying ,694
men and fifty-three guns in the main
batteries. while Montojo, the Spanish
commander, had eleven ships of 1914
tons, manned by 1,734 men and forty
two guns. From these figures It will
be seen that in point of tonnage the
opposing American and Spanish forces
were about the same as the French
and English fleets at Aboukir Bay. the
former being 19,09S against 1914 as
compared to the 20,660 and 22,343 of the
English and French.
DIFFERENCE IN SHIPS.
In considering modern naval action
as compared with those one hundred
years ago. we must remember that the
mere number of ships, guns, and men
engaged have come to be matters of
less significance. 1t is the amount of
offensive and defensive force that is
tpI iy,a a critr
the story. This we see when we find
that Dewey, with only six ships had a
tonnage of 19,09S against Nelson's thir-
teen ships of the line with their 90, 660
tons. An even more striking illustra-
tion is had in the fact that in 1910 the
British navy had 1,04S warships and
15l,572 men, while in 1SS6-when Eng
land was immeasurably a greater nav
al power--she had fewer than 800 ships
and less than 10000 men,.
As to the number of men and guns
engaged, ii will be found that Dewey
and Montojo operated a destructive
force--aside from the consideration of
steam power ramming, and torpedoes,
which, of course, We're untried agencies
in Nelson's time-vastly superior in ev-
cry respect to those of the English
and French fleets in 1898, notwith-
standing the smaller number of men
and guns employed. In Nelson's day
ten men were allowed for handling each
gun, and about eight minutes. under
the most favorable circumstances, for
each discharge, so that Nelson or
BrueYs was doing we'll to deliver IL, 600
pounds Of shot-weight every eight
minutes. Our vastly improved meth
DDS of breech-loadnS enabled the
Americans and Spaniards to discharge
their heavy guns at the rate of at
least five times in eight minutes, so
that when the total shot-weight of
their broadsides was 5000 pounds, il
was In reality five times that weight
10000 pounds, when we come to allow
for the quick hring of modern ordnance
as opposed to the cumbersome and
tedious muzZle-loading of 179S. 1t is
not an unfair comparison, then, tC
place the broadside shot-weight of the
American and Spanish forces at Ma
Mia al 10000 pounds as compared TO the
11,000 and 1900 of the English and
French at Aboukir.
MODERN GUNNERY.
In this comparison no consideration
has been given to the enormous super
iority of rifled guns. steel and pointed
projcctiles, or OF the fearful effects of
exploding shells. Elongated shots or
shells were unknown 20 Nelson or
Rrueys. who used round solid missiles,
and the nearest they could come to the
disastrous effect Of shell was by
| heating a solid shot before inserting it
| in the gun. 1t Is easy to get at the
| shot-weight per broadside in Nelson's
/ generation, for the projectiles were
| uniformly round and of solid iron. The
weight of the modern shot is not so
| easily arrived at, it being of different
| shapes, mostly cylindrical and more or
! less pointed. and f. variety of metals
/ and substances going into its compost
! tion. But when we consider that a
| thirteen-inch rifle throws shell
| Weighing 100 pounds with sufficient
velocity to pierce seventeen inches OF
| niCkel-steel plate we can readily see
that the destructive force at Nelson
| command sinks into insignifcance
when compared with the modern ord
nance, and that the number Of men
| engaged is by no means an index OF
| the strength of the fleet. One thirteen
| inch gun, with the modern appliances
for loading and quick-fring, would al
most be equal to Nelson's entire broad
side ut Aboukir.
The English losses at AbouSir Were
2lS killed and 67S wounded. while those
of the French are placed at about 2,o0l
or slightly less than onc-fifth of their
entire force. At Manila the Americans
had only half dozen wounded, while
the Spanish lost half of their number
These figures seems the more remark
able when we remember that Nelson