Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-11-14

fortunate accidents of recent years, for II
we find that the cause of these is inherent
in submarine boats and without remedy.
then there is indeed justification for looking
askance at the whole system. but If we find
this not to be the case there can be no ex-
for the timid proposals sometimes
heard looking toward the abandonment OF
this valuable weapon. The list covers the
English boats AL" and AS" the French
boats Farfadet and Lutin and the Russian
boat Dolphin all of which have been sunk
in recent years with serious loss of life.
In the case of the Dolphin an unusual
number of men were in the boat and the
ballast tanks were flooded with the
hatch open. Very naturally the boat filled
through the hatch and sank Comment on
such gross and almost unbelievable fncom-
petence and folly is unnecessary. No pro-
vision of design can ever forestall such an
accident, and as the cause was obviously
not inherent in the boat, 1t may be dis
missed without further discussion.
The case OF the Farfadet was somewhat
similar The boat was apparently pre-
pared to dive or diving, when it was dis
covered that hatch had been improperly
shut and was leaking. In some unex-
planned manner. the crew, while attempt
ing to close it, fully opened it instead and
the vessel partially filled and sank. This
was a very distressing case, as it appears
that the crew lived for many hours after
the occurrence having succeeded in limit
ing the flow of water. The amount taken
IN, however, WAS 10 overcome the
buoyancy due to the drop weights and of
the ballast tanks, which in this particular
vessel We're of smaller capacity than is
now considered good practice. This par
ticular instance, then, was promarily due
to combination of possible carelessneSs
with a badly designed hatch, and as
proper hatch design is simple matter
there would appear to be no reason to fear
the repetition of such an accident.
In the case Of the English AS" the boat,
while running at a high speed under alb
an open hatch, which the crew did not sue
coed in closing in time to prevent the catas-
trophe. The evidence before the court Of
inquiry shows clearly that the boat was in
an abnormal condition with regard to her
buoyancy and indicates. moreover, that
this was even less than the comma nding
officer thought Under the circumstances,
with this particular design of hatch, pru-
dence should have suggested the closing of
the hatch which need not necessarily have
been open>in which case the catastrophe
would not have happened Remembering
this and remembering also that the cond-
ton was an abnormal and unnecessary
one and not contemplated in the design, 1t
is certain that this case does not reveal
any usual and necessary danger. and the
accident must therefore be classed with
the preceding ones.
In the case of the English AL" the top
of the coming tower was struck by a
steamer, the collision resulting in leakage
but otherwise in no serious damage to the
structure. However, after the collision, the
boat Travelled the whole length under the
ship, during which time sufficient water
had leaked in to sink her, though it is by
no means certain that the leak was of suf-