New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-04-18
pPscTJcF WITH BIG GUNS.

The authorities in Washington are said TO be
considering the idea of appointing a special
hoard 10 ascertain whether any improvement
is possible in the mechanism and methods in
volved in practice with the larger guns Of the
navy. IL is an excellent suggestion. II, after
careful investigation, 1t is found that the recent
accident on the Missouri teaches any lessons not
learned before, the most should be made of
these. The scope Of the proposed inquiry, how
ever, should not be confined 10 the equipment
snd usages Of a single battleship, but should be
broad enough TO recognize hints afforded by ex-
perience on other vessels. and even by foreign
navies. Already this country enjoys an enviable
reputation for accuracy OF aim and rapidity OF
FIRE II WAYS can be discovered to advance the
standard. either in efficiency or safety, II is de-
eira bic 10 do So To assume that perfection
las been reached. when percepuble progress is
reported every few months, would be mistake
A criticism upon the turret system Of mount
fsng large guns, made few weeks ago by Sena-
Tor Hale has been recalled by some of the
newspapers since the Missouri disaster. The
chairman OF the Senate Naval Committee has
expressed a preference for the barbette. one
OF several reasons therefor IS that the effect
OF an explosion might be more serious IN a
rooted Enclosure than IN a barbette, which is
theoretically open overhead. As yet Il is hardly
safe To cite last weeks accident in corrobora-
non of that theory. The impression prevails
that Il was the second explosion, down in the
handing room, rather than the first IN the open
breech Of the gun which resulted in q loss of
LIE. The practical effect might have been the
same had an equal amount OF powder been
3Qnited under the holes for ammunition where
the barbette system was in vogue. The fact is
that when Great Britain returned TO the latter
plan. few years ago. she also adopted "gua
shield" for overhead protection, which closely
resembles the turret There IS little difference
between the systems except in name. 1t should
be added that France stu sticks 20 the turret
81 her latest battleships The proposed gun
p-actice commission may with proprfety give
this question fresh attention. but until Il recon-
rneads 6 change the public should hesitate to
draw conclusions.
Concerning the expediency OF another PROPOSE
ton there can be less doubt. Fer some time
naval constructors have been alert TO the need
ot mechanism which would qIickly and auto
mat1caliy close the opening in the floor OF
furret after q charge had been hoisted. Such
device would unquestiOrably reduce the risk
Of an explosion n the handling room in case
Of blow back" Whether Il would entirely
remove the necessity for the regulation which
Mt prescat for8iGs an accumulation of powder
IN the handling room is n point 10 be deter
miped oniy by experts. Obviously, though. 81
such would be the result OF tho Improvement
me guns could be safely served more rapidly
Len Otherwise. IL is TO be hoped that inventive
'1Ienl "a lie Bureau OF Construction and Re
VA soon supply the requisite apparatus
'"s minimum measure cf usefulness I'm