Daily press. [volume] (Newport News, Va.) 1896-current, 1907-07-17

no Improvement has been made. This
is not true. Line officers have lsacn
insistcnt in preventing repetition of
such errors. Had ii not been for Rear
Admiral lirownson, when Il captain.
the Alabama would have had the same
largo gun ports as the Kcarsargc and
Kentucky class. Before he was as
signed to command of the Alabama.
he represented To the Navy Depart
mcnt the danger of the defect. Tho
result of his energetic action and his
well known influence with the Navy
Department was that the six-inch
hrondsido gun ports were equipped
with Armstrong shields. There is no
reason to doubt that when the Ken
lucky and iicarsargc are oyerhaulcd
the defects of their broadsidc ports
Will he rcmcdied, aud that the large
openings in the turrcts will also he
better protected. Several designs for
the Improvement of their protection
have boon offered. II Is simply a
question Of selecting the best
"rhero is this to he said. however.
In action the Kcarsargc and kentucky
would have to depend upon their tur-
ret guns entirely. They carry 5-nch
guns IN hroad side, which In the same
calibrc MS the broadsidc battery of
the new Delaware class. These guns
are designed only to repcl torpedo at
tacks and therefore do not need great
protection. Tho only effective lat
terry for war purposes must be com
posed of Finch guns. All others can
be regarded MS of slight value except
for torpedo defence. Regarded from
this stand point the large turrct gun
a. "a,
In these ships and no doubt should
have been corrected long before this.
So far ms know. this is defect pc
culiar to the American service. but If
foreign critics are to be believed. 9th.
or navics have defects quito as vital.
In other words. no one has yet con
structcd the ideal battle ship
On Water Line Belt.
When his opinion was asked re-
garding criticisms of the low position
of the water line armor belt on the
ncwly designed battle ships of the
Delaware class Rear Admiral Evans
said:
ct has bcon my cndcavor to bring
the water line armor belt up by rid
ding the ships of unnecessary weights.
A report Will soon be made on this
subject. but do not believe that the
difference accomplished by this meth
cd Will he equal or more than that
due to the use of one days coal sup.
ply ut fun stcamine. believe the
watcrlinc armor belt Is Il mistake in
II ship unless it is so placed as to
give minimum protection possibly by
waterlinc armor when the fleet goes
into action. This is not Impossible
when the waterlinc armor belt is sub
merged. or nearly so
'ln the case of the Delaware class,
believe the 10-inch armor above the
watcrlinc armor belt reinforced as |
understand il viii he by the protective
deck Will give measure of protection
lacking in most of our ships now Tx.
pertinent seems to show that the pro-
lection afforded by tho water itself
is such that no armor protection is
required beyond six feet lelow the
watcrlinc. My views on the question
of armor protection are fairly well
known in tho service. am an enemy
Of soft end ships. 1t is my opinion
that n ship should he protected all
over and for this reason would thin
/ the armor belt which is now sub
merged and protect with armor OF
protectionatc tickncss the ends OF the
ships which are now unprotected"