The Washington times., 1901-11-14

ihe NfIIaul lhT UStleNlllB lIidl iHe iliIit
is not far distant when all the leading
roads of the country may be united un-
der one general management. or at
least be operated in perfect concert,
and with 4 common end in view.
ButtIcships and Armorcd Cruisers.
It is not strange that the proposition
greatly To enlarge the navy should de-
velop differences of opinion concerning
the types of vessels which should be
built, and the relation which they
should bear TO each other in point of
numbers. The end to be reached is. of
course. maximum of efficiency at a
minimum of cost, efficiency being the
first essential. In determining this
question OF efficiency the two elements
TO be considered are strength, offensive
and defensive, and speed. Without
good lighting capacity. the highest
speed would be of but little value in
actual war. ON the other hand, the
cannot be fully utilized unless the yes
sells have a fair rate of speed.
Naturally this brings up the question
of the relative value of battleships and
cruisers. The Baltimore American"
urges that we are getting too many OF
the former and not enough of the lat
ter. and argues that the Spanish-Ameri-
can war demonstrated the superiority
of armored cruisers. 1t may well be
doubted whether that conflict furnish
ed enough evidence to prove the su-
periority of any particular type of yes
sells. The Battle of Manila Bay proved
nothing, for there were no battleships
engaged on either side. At Santiago
the two vessels that rendered especially
effective service were the Brooklyn and
the Oregon, the one an armored cruiser
and the other a battleship, while the
Spanish vessels were all of the cruiser
type. Ordinarily a battleship cannot
run down a cruiser, but in this respect
the Oregon proved herself an exception
al vessel. on the other hand there
probably is no armored cruiser aflOat
that could successfully cope with one
of our first-class battieships in actual
combat
In the present stage of naval devel-
opmert, both classes of ships seem 10
be necessary, but if the best qualities of
both could be represented in one yes
sci undoubtedly ii would give US the
highest degree OF effectiveness. How
far this can be done is a matter for
the experts in naval construction to de-
termine. Unquestionably some prog
ress is being made~in that direction.
"
twelve thousand ton battleship of about
nineteen knots speed, which is in ex-
cess of the capabilities of many cruis-
erE. II one ship of the kind can be built
more can, and there is no reason to be-
lieve that the maximum of speed has
been attained.
The main difference between the arm
ored cruiser and the battleship is in
the weight and arrangement OF the
armor. so that after all the question is
chiefly one of how heavy the armor
should be. This is matter that nom
professionals can hardly discuss with
satisfaction 10 themselves or to others
1t is essentially within the province of
experts, and even they are frequently
at issue with reference both to the
armor and The batteries of warships.
But in view of the character of foreign
navies. il cannot be said with anything
like assurance that our navy is top
heavy in the matter of battleships. We
may have fewer cruisers than We ought
TO have, but we surely have none too
many vessels of the more massive type.
Our navy should be constructed with
reference to the kind OF vessels it would
have to meet in case of war with first
class naval power, and for any fight
ing fairly to be anticipated nothing has
yet transpired to indicate that it would
be wise TO discontinue the building Of
batueships and rely entirely upon
cruisers.
With his usual good sense and courtesy,