The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1904-10-31
DEFECTS IN BATTLESHIPS.
LUCKY SHOTS MIGHT INJURE SIX
or THEM.
Onncers Have Criticised the Absence OF
Armor From the Stern Upper Works
for Years, but Naval Constructors Dc
tended lt--Has Been No Secret In Navy.

Armor From the Stern Upper Works
for Years. but Naval Constructors DC
tended Ht--Has Been No Secret In Navy
Officers at the Brooklyn navy yard yes
to-day appeared to be greatly surprised
that any one connected with the navy at
San Francisco should have thought 1t wise
10 discuss publicly enough to have the dis
oussion get into the newspapers the so
called arrnor defect In the battleships Ohio.
Maine, Missouri, Alabama, Wisconsin and
Illinois. The defect, II 1t may be 30 re-
ferred to- has been known to the service lot
long time. but, 30 far as is known they
managed to keep the knowledge to them
selves until somebody talked out IN neet-
ing In San Francisco recently, the SUD-
stance of that talk being printed In San
Francisco despatch to THK Sun yesterday
morning.
The defective construction may be seen
In the battleship Illinois, which is about 70
no into dry dock at the Brooklyn yard.
The after turret, which encloses two OF the
ships i3-inch guns, Ia 30 placed that there
Is space Of about four or Ave feet between
the turret and the superstruoture 10 which
are the ships 8-inch rapid fire guns. That
part Of the superstructure Immediately
behind the tulTet Is without the 6-inch
armor belt which encloses the rest OF the
superstructure The unarmored section
is about twelve feet wide and is entirely
protected by the heavily armored turret,
except 30 much as Is oomprehended by
arcs Of about thirty degrees on the port
and starboard quarters.
1t would be possible, but not probable
off GERS at the Brooklyn yard said yesterday
for shot from an enemy's ship, II the
ship were Just In the right position, to
penetrate so much Of the unarmored sec
ton as is comprehended bv either arc
A shot coming from the port quarter might
carry away the aftermost Of the starboard
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
it was said, was about as much damage as a
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 maya zine
of the American ship or do any other very
great damage. 1t might. of course. and
probably would, explode whatever shells
for the ra pid-tre guns happened to be
in the racks near them, but few shells are
kept there and the damage would end
there.
But the point liz 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 Is Il serious defect in naval construc-
ton. They have insisted that no such
on alplIlI ha maIp n = N he q rh g.
manship of an enemy's gunpers
The naval constructors. on the other
hand. hold that the chances OF shot find
ing its way into the area of either the port
or starboar I'd arc above referred to are so
small that they are not worth considering
when the adva nta ges gained by leaving
off the armor from that part of the ship a re
ca refuy considered. The naval con-
ingenuity to keep the displa cement of first
class battleships down to the minimum
beca use 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
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
afternoon what he thought about the
alleged defect. and he said:
Il 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 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, il one admits
it to be a fault, Ia very much like strain
ing at gnat and swallowing 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
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 OF either the
port or starboard quarter That is equiva-
lent to saying that he would be chasing US.
sShips 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
| ia put out Of commission or strikes his
coloH In manguvnng ship OF this class.
turret would be sufficiently great. under
| moet circumstances. to take care OF that
ANAL vulnerable section, and II the big
| guns couldn't protect 1t then the broad
AIDE gums could be brought into play.
Therefore, we who have criticised this
STYLE of construction have done 80 on no
| theory that these ships were not abundantly
able to take care Of themselves.
at has been, rather. on the score that all
ships of the American Navy, especially
first class battleships, should be as invul-
nerable in all parts as 1t is possible to build
them. 1t would be easy to remedy this
defect, II it were 30 desired. in all the ships
where il exists That 1t hasn't been rem
edied is fairly good evidence that it is
NOT regarded by the service as particularly
serious defect That we are building no
more ships along these lines ia evidence
that the CONSTRUCTION Corps desires to turn
out only tho best when it has become con-
WINGED OF what the best really is.