The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1904-10-31
DEFECTS In BAYTLESHIPS.
LUCKY SHOTS MIGHT INJURE SIN
OF THEN.
Omeers Have Criticized the Absence OF
Armor From the Stern Upperworks
for Years, but Naval Constructors De-
Tended It--Has Been No Secret In Navy.

for Years, but Naval Constructors DE.
Tended It-Has been No Secret In Navy.
Officers at the Brooklyn navy yard yes
terday appeared to be greatly surprised
that any one connected with the navy at
San Francisco should have thought 1t wise
to discuss publicly enough to have the dis
cussion get into the newspapers the So
called armor defect in the battleships Ohio.
Maine, Missouri, Alabama, Wisconsin and
Illinois. The defect, If it may be so re-
ferred to, has been known to the service FOR
a long time, but 80 far as is known. they
managed to keep the knowledge to them
selves until somebody talked out in meet
ing in San Francisco recently, the sub
stance of that talk being printed in San
Francisco despatch to The sun yesterday
morning.
The defective construction may be seen
in the battleship Illinois, which IL about to
go into dry dock at the Brooklyn yard.
The after turret which encloses two OF the
ships 13-inch guns, is SO placed that there
ia a space of about four or five feet between
the turret and the superstructure In which
are the ships 8-inch rapid fire guns, That
part OF the superstructure imm ediately
behind the turret is without the 6-inoh
armor belt which encloses the rest Of the
superstructure The unarmored section
Is about twelve feet wide and il entirely
protected by the heavily armored turret,
except 80 much as is compr"hcn,icu ny-
arcs Of about thirty degrees on the port
and starboard quarters.
1t would be possible, but not probable
officers at the Brooklyn yard said yesterday,
r1r hot 70 oh hn
ship were. just in the right position, to
penetrate so much of the unarmored sec
ton as is comprehended by either arc.
A shot coming from the port quarter might
carry away the aftermost Of the starboar I'd
8-inch guns and might kill most of the
gun crew. A shot from the starboard
quarter might do similar damage to the
corresponding gun on the port side. This
1t was said, was about as much damage as
shot Of this kind could do. There is no way
in which the explosion of such shell from
an enemy's ship could reach the magazine
Of the American ship or do any other very
great damage. 1t might, Of course, and
probably would, explode whatever shells
for the rapid-fire guns happened to be
in the racks near them, but few shells are
kept there and the damage would end
there.
But the point is not how much damage
such shot could do, but that it should be
able to do any at all. This is the question
which has been under discussion in the
navy for several years. Officers of the
line, it seems, are pretty generally Of the
opinion that the omission of armor plate
from this particular section Of the super
structure of ships of the Ohio and Illinois
class il a serious defect in naval construc-
ton. They have insisted that no such
assumption should be made as to the marks
manship OF an enemy's gunners,
The naval constructors, on the other
hand, hold that the chances of shot find
ing its way into the are a of either the port
or starboard arc above referred to are 80
small that they are not worth considering
when the advantages gained by leaving
off the armor from that part of the ship are
ca refuly considered. The naval con-
structors say that they have to use all their
ingenuity to keep the displa cement of first
class battleships down to the minimum
because of the great weight of essentials
these ships have to carry. including am
munition, coal and other supplies, to say
nothing of armament. Therefore when
with weight they do it, They say that
there is not one chance in 500 of the section
of the ship in question being hit. There
fore they concluded to get rid of about
200 tons of steel by emitting the armor on
a small section of the superstructure almost
wholly protected by the after turret.
One of the line officers of the service
was asked at the navy yard yesterday
A.
alleged defect. and he said:
81 think the less said about such things
in the newspapers the better. However,
the whole question is not by any means
new in the service. 1t has been under dis
cussion ever since that type Of ship was
put out. 1t is a fact that the scheme has
been very severely criticised, and it is also
a fact that we are building no more OF that
style Of ship. However, to make much
of the fault in construction, ii one admits
it to be fault, is very much like strain
ing at gnat and swallowing n camel.
in the first place, you can see through
how small space an enemy's shot would
have to pass in order to hit the vulnerable
part OF the ship. The unarmored section
is almost entirely protected by the turret
and its heavy armor. Then again, you
must remember that the enemy would
have to be just in the right place in order
to hit us in that particular spot. He would
have to be in our rear and off either the
port or starboard quarter. That is equiva-
lent to saying that he would be chasing US.
Ships Of this class were not built to run
away from an enemy. They were built to
run at him and stay with him until one
Is put out Of commission or strikes his
colors. In man9uvring a ship of this class
the area covered by the big guns in the after
turret would be stuff GENTLY great. under
most circumstances, to take care OF that
small vulnerable section, and IL the big
guns couldn't protect it then the broad
side guns could bc brought into play.
Therefore, We who hive criticised this
style of construction have done so on no
theory that these ships were not abundantly
able to take care OF themselves.
1T has been, rather, on the score that all
ships OF the American Navy, especially
first class hattleships, should be as invul-
nerable in all parts as 1t is possible to build
them. II would be easy TO remedy this
Ccfect, il it were SO desired. in al the ships