The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1907-12-22
SUNDAY. DECEMBER %. 1907.
Is Our Battle.ship Fleet Inefficient

Henry Reuterdahl the wen-known
naval artist. has revived in the January
number of McClures sundry allegations
respecting the deficiencies of the Ameri-
can fleet that have been exploited for the
last year or two in the service journal.
The Navy. The writer processes a patri-
otto motive in bringing 10 the attention of
wider public facts long known TO naval
officers, having been freely commented
on in official reports and technical jour
nails. Believing that the pressure Of pub
lie opinion should be brought TO bear to
bring about reforms in naval construction
which he regards as imperative. Mr.. Reu-
terdahl describes the physical condition
Of the feet in way that is calculated to
amaze the layman, if 1t does not excite
shame and indignation. We believe the
facts cited by Mr.. Reuterdahl are not
controverted, but it should be said. by
way of caution, that his Interpretation Of
the facts and the significance he gives to
them are by no means universally ac-
cepted in naval circles.
Mr.. Reuterdahl's main criticism of our
battle ships is that their main armor belt
Is located below the water line. of all our
battle ships" he says. mot enc shows its
main armor belt six inches above the
water when fully equipped and ready for
sea Above this is the secondary armor,
which can be pierced by large shells. The
danger in this arrangement is obvious.
\ hole torn by an exploding shell at or
near the ships water line would imperil
the vessel, particularly in heavy weather.
During the battle of Tsushima. one Of
the Russian battle ships was struck three
times in the same spot on the water line.
under the forward turret She heeled
over at once and sank in an hour
While the vessels Of foreign navies have
armor belts extending from five to eight
feet above the water line. our vessels
have been built. and are now being built.
without protection of the water line
the first essential of a battle ship" Mr..
Reuterdahl says that there is no defense
for placing the armor below the water
line; 1t is kept there simply because il
has been placed there in the past"
Fault is found by Mr.. ReuterdahI with
the low freebOard Of our battle ships
another feature Of divergence from for
eign types Of naval construction. The
low freehoard IS defended as afrording a
smaller target 70 the enemy's guns. but
Mr.. Reuterdahl adopts the view repeat
edly urged on the Navy Department that
one-third or more Of a battle ships anna
ment would be put out Of action in rough
weather or while steaming at high speed.
Not long ago the battle ship Virginia
shipped 10 tons Of water into her forward
turret with all her ports closed. ct
would be impossible in rough weather 20
aim and fire the forward turret guns-one-
half. that is. of our heaviest guns. which
form the main reliance Of the modern
battle ship The broadside guns are In
even worse case. Our fleet would be
heavily handicapped, in Mr.. ReuterdahTs
opinion, If the enemy chose to fight. as
he probably would. in bad weather He
notes that the battle ships 10 be launched
three years from now will have bows Of
proper height as a result OF special pres
sure from President Roosevelt.
Protection Of magazines is so seriously
defective that Mr.. Reuterdahl declares
that never since the use Of powder upon
fighting ships has there been such danger
10 the magazines as exists in every bat
tie ship and armored cruiser in the Amer
lean fleet" Open turrets furnish a direct
passageway from the fire of the guns to
the ships magazines. On more than one
occasion the destruction Of a battle ship
by ignition Of the magazine from gun fire
has been narrowly averted through the
presence Of mind Of the crew.
Burning powder grains fell from the
eight-inch turret Of the Georgia into the
room az the bottom of the turret shaft
where gan charges are handled. THE
men in charge Of the handling room i'm
mediately closed the magazines. grabbed
up the bags of powder. and carried them
to place OF safety before they could
be set on FIRE" Finally. there is nothing
10 prevent shells. entering the ports. from
falling to the bottom Of the turret shaft.
exploding there, and igniting the maya
zines. our gun crews. too. are INSULT
GENTLY protected. the gun ports are much
larger than they need be. and ammunj
ton HOSTS incapable Of supplying am
munition as fast as it can be fired. Hap
PLY, the latest ships TO be designed VII
afford proper protection TO the magazines.
Why do these alleged defects exist. and
why is there so strong an opposition
within the department 70 remedylng
them? Mr.. Reuterdahrs answer is that
the naval bureaus are incompetent. and
that they are unwilling to confess failure
The defects Of the navy are due. in his
judgment. to "an absolutely impracti-
cable organization. whose very nature
compels it TO resist Improvement" He
condemns the bureau system strongly
As system for the intelligent conduct
OF business il is simply impossible" It
goes wrong. it wastes enormous sums of
money. and worse than all. it cannot
possibly give US the one thing we must
have, an efficient navy" 1t must be
abolished and a new system OF organlza-
ton substituted:
What is needed is quite clear The Secretary Of
the Navy being civilian. generally with short
tenure Of Office must hate expert advisers. There
must be board behind him whose opinion he is
legally authorized by Congress to accept This
board, in the hrst place. must know exactly the