Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1904-04-01
resist projectiles from other ships?
Mr.. HALE. Does the Senator

w
Mr.. BACON. was trying to direct a
question to the Senator, but | saw his
attention was diverted.
Mr.. HALE. l will look straight at
the Senator's good face and will look at
no other.
Mr.. BACON. The point to which |
desire TO ask the attention of the SEN
atof, ana IL is rather in furtherance of
the suggestion he makes now as to the
superiority of the $1,000, 900 ship rather
than The SS,oO0000 ship, is this: Will
not the development of submarine
weapons of naval architecture. if it
continues in the ratio in which it has
recently increased, make it possible
that IN the near future. that being
relied on as the principal weapon of
oliense, these great ships, while they
may be perfect in their capacity for
resistance TO projectiles from other
ships. will themselves become almost
obsolete. by reason Of their inability to
defend themselves against torpedoes
and other submarine vessels and
weapons of that kind?
Mr.. HALE. Nov. that is matter
which we have considered in committee
ana thlnk the fair way to look at it
is that the present war in the East
may develop condition which will
show that so large proportion of the
expenditures for naval ships should not
be concentrated upon battle ships. Eu,
nobody will know what to do-Grea.
Britain. which is watching with eagle
eye everything that is taking place
there. because her great possessions
are there. does not know what to do
until the smoke clears up. Nobody
KNOWS now whether a battle ship that
costs between seven and eight million
dollars, or a torpedo boat that costs
100000. will be the more effective battle
engine in the years to come.
Therefore. as the House bill has ~,
on only one battle ship, where last year
we put Oh five. and has two armorcG
cruisers, which to my mind will be
found more valuable than the big bat
tie ships, and then certain small
cruisers for speed to accompany the
fleet, we did not think it desirable to
still more change our program until
I use my same metaphor-the smoke
lifts from the war which is going on in
the East. and we see whether such a
revolution in naval architecture and
naval ships has been wrought in one
season as was caused by the adv { Of
the little Monitor, when she steamed
into the bay below the mouth of the
Potomac and saved Washington and
Subvertcd every idea that anybody
evcr had had Of the efficiency OF ships.
expense on some things that may be
proved to he valueiess in one season
found in my investigation one thing
which I had not known before. IT was
4 startling thing. We are building all
our battle ships with revolving turrets
We put in them the big guns, and l.
and 13-inch guns. you have got down
TO Finch guns. and / wish we We're
down to the 10. We put them all in re-
volving turrets.
A few years ago the naval board.
thinking it was IL picturesque inno-
walton, provided for a second story--a
second turret--to be put on top of the
main turret. and they built two ships,
the Kearsarge and the Kentucky, with
those turrets. l have copy of their
those We're to be the ships of the
future. They argued it all out. We
built them. We gave them the money
to provide for them. One of them went
to Germany and received Il great
ovation. and our officers and men had
a very gratifying time. But the Ger
man naval officers Remarked: IF the
United States is going to build that
kind Of n ship in the future. and put
its money into those ships. we will not
trouble ourselves much about them.
because they are not practicable
The next year the Board turned
around and said they did not want any
more of those ships. and We took their
word: and we provided these immense
ships with One-stOry revolving turrctS
for the big guns My study has been
interesting. Looking over this book Of
the modern battle ships, which is ac-
copied by the different naval establish
ments of the world as to a degree
official although not gotten UP by any
department. l did not discover to my
surprise. any British turreted battle
ships. l could not find any such
turrets for large guns. 1 said. at can
rot be we are going on Dullu1nS reNOlN-
ing-turreted battle ships. and England.
whirh is the great naval power in the
world and the authority. is not build
ing Them" and I sent to the Depart
ment and asked if that were true. and
| got this:
All British first-class battle ships
less than 10 years old have their 12;nch
guns en- barbette.
They will not touch revolving
turlct.
Mr.. PATTERSON. Just what is
that?
Mr.. HALE. The revolving turrct is
a cylinder
Nj PATTERSON. 1 mean Ell
barbettc.
Mr.. HALE. 1t is platform instead
Of a turret. 1t IS a platform outside
upon which the guns are imposed. and
they are hooded. but they
are stationary. They are platform
guns.
Then I followed this thing up to see
y ny it was that while we arc going on,
asking no questions. and building moth
ing but revolving turrets for these
guns. England is not building one OF
hem. The reason is that tbpy are