Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-04-06
DOUBLE TURRETS OPPOSED
ADMIRAL HICHBORN's VIEWS on
THE SUBJECT.
objections Are Almost Altogether
From n Military Standpoint-The
Heat and the Gases.

| kearsarge on their recent test, Admiral
| Hichborn. chief of the bureau of construc-
| ton and repair. has not changed his views
as to their unsuitability for military pur-
| poses. He has prepared a statement on the
subject, in which he says:
There is ar old saying that it is the I'M
expected that happens. and many years
of experience in ship design and construc-
| ton has so far convinced me of the truth
Of this saying that 1 am always on the
alert to look out for the unexpected other
wise the accidental.
"In the last war the vessels of our navy
fulfilled all that required of them
in every particular and without single
failure. despite the intricate mechanism of
the modern warship, with it's steam by
draulc. electric and pneumatic auxiliaries.
None of these vessels however, was fitted
with the double turret, and 1 am so firmly
convinced of the disastrous consequences
of such a design in actual warfare that
fear the result would have been other
wise had the two battle ships fitted with
the double or superimposed turrets been in
service.
Designs for the three battle ships. Penn
sylyania. New Jersey and Georgia. au-
thorized by the last Congress. have not yet
been commenced. but a suggestion. / be-
lfeve. has been made that they be con-
structed with double turrets. as in the
kearsarge and Kentucky. now building
The objects sought to be attained by such a
design concentration Of the main bat
terry. and the possibility of covering a
greater arc of fire than with the guns dis
tributed IN single turrets
These are theoretical advantages which,
believe. would be found of little or no use
in actual practice. The kearsarge and
Kentucky, so far as the double turrets are
concerned. are as yet untried. but although
the design widely exploited several
years ago. no other nation has deemed it
desirable to incorporate it in the construc
ton of their battle ships.
Objections to Double Turrets.
1.-The objections to its use are by no
means of a structural nature. Owing to
the concentration of weight and the neces-
sity for supplying ammunition TO two sets
of guns through one revolving structure. it
is. of course. somewhat more Of a problem
to install double turret. but thu difficult
ties in the way, far as structural mat
terS are concerned, have been overcome by
the bureau of construction and repair on
the kearsarge and Kentucky. and from
all accounts the double turretS on these
ships are thoroughly well supported and
under excellent control as regards rotation.
The objections to the double turret. from
my point of view, are almost altogether
military, and may be expressed in a few
words. | believe that the offensive eff
cheney of both the eight-inch and twelve
inch guns Is materially less than If they
We're mounted In separate turrets, owing to
their mutual Interference and lack of indie
pendent control. Furthermore, l believe
that the arrangement is necessarily mora
vulnerable than if Independent turrets We're
adopted. 1t is true that the ammunition
supply of the eight-lnch turret is somewhat
better protected than II mounted independ-
emily. but In eight-fnch turrets. as usually
installed. the ammunition supply is very
thoroughly projected in any case. Assum-
ing that each turret is as likely to BE- dis
abled when mounted together when
mounted separately. there is no question
that if the twelve-inch turret were dis
abied the eiSht-inCh gun would also be
thrown out of action. while it Is almost
certain that If the eight-inch turret We're
disabled the twelve-inch would also be In
Capacitated.
Moreover the eight-inch guns. training
as they do. are serviceabie for attack only
against the same point the heavy guns,
and Therefore. for the time being. virtually
out of commission as against a more vul-
nerabie point of the opposing vessel or ves-
sells
Heat md the Gases.
''At Santiago the heat at the guns was so
great that many of the men serving them
tainted; at Manila Dewey's officer in charge
of the firing had to come outside the turret
of the Olympia IN order to breathe and see
The smoke was so thick in the turret and
the poisonous gases set free by the explo-
sons were dense that he found the place
to which theory had assigned him rendered
quite impossible by conditions which theory
had not Observation-Disclosures the intrusive
unexpected. SO he finished the battle
standing on top of the turret and quite ex-
posed to the shot of the enemy.
The fact that black powder was used by
us in our fight with Spain. and that smoke
less powder will be used in our future bat
ties, does away with a part of the objec-
ton so far as it relates to smoke. but leaves
the conditions as to poisonous fumes worse
tEan ever
Both heat and gases would soon become
tn5ufferable in closed turret where four
guns were firing rapidly.
"A noted ordnance officer. when the ques-
ton of smoke in turrets under discus
sion, suggested TO leave the top off and let
the smoke out Such a suggestion would
be quite inpracticable when it came to
leaving off the upper turret.
THE double turret places upon one man
the responsibility for the management of
four heavy guns. a circumstance which in
Itself seems conclusive argument against
success for such responsibility is in my
opinion. beyond human endurance in the
excitement Of battle, with the turrets filled
with heated and poisonous vapors-it is
then again when the unexpected will hap
pen, and the rapid concentrated fire which
was relied upon will fail to materlaliZe as
does the much-yaunted speed of an over
powered ship"