The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1908-05-30
EVANS AGREES
WITH CHARGES
Says ReuterdahI Is Correct
In Some of His Views on
Ships of Navy.
ARMOR BELT is TOO LOW.
SHIPS ARE MADE
OUATE TO COMBAT WITH TOR
PEDO ATTACK AND FLYING
BRIDGES UNNECESSARY.

Washington, D. c., May 3O.-Rear
Admiral Robley D. Evans. ex-comman-
der in chief o fthe Atlantic battleship
fleet on the cruise around South
America, in a report published as a
senate document, emphasizes in sew
eral particulars criticisms made by
Henry Reuterdahl in a magazine arti-
Gle on The Needs of Our Navy"
Both Admiral Evans and Reuterdahl
believe that efficiency will be increas-
ed by increasing the present height Of
the deck, and on the question of width
of the main armor belt their positions
are much the same.
Admiral Evans says on this point
that it appears that better protection
might have been afforded had these
belts been placed originally about six
inches to one foot higher. He also sup
ports the position Of Reuterdahl on the
point of the inadequacy of the defense
of American ships against torpedo at
tack.
Flying Bridges Unnecessary.
Discussing needed Improvements,
Admiral Evans says that homogenity
Of the various units of the fleet is es-
pecially desirable, especially as regards
coal consumption ana steaming radius.
All flying bridges and after bridges.
Evans says, are unnecessary except on
flagships.
Coming towers. he adds are not
suitable. and should be replaced by a
new design recommended by Naval
Constructor Robinson, who made the
trip around South America with the
fleet and upon whose report Evans
criticisms are based.
The present fire control masts. Ev-
ans says, are not we'll adapted to their
uses and should be changed in struc-
ture. The searchlights, he maintains,
should be placed in different locations
and the tunnels should be shortened.
The use Of inturning screws he be-
lieves is an error. Ammunition hoists
are too low to supply the amount of
ammunition required by modern rapid
ity of firing.
DiSagrees to Freeboard.
The board of construction has con-
SAGSL cQ TIE ItIUi VI AOuStIuClOI NOD
insOn and the comments of Evans. and
reports that it finds itself in general
agreement with a large majority of the
suggestions. The board disagrees with
Evans on the question of freeboard
and also on the height of the broad
side guns. The board stands pat on
the question of the location of the
main armOr belt and makes this COM
ment:
The distribution of armored pro-
lection on battle ships. like so many
other questions relating to battle ship
design. is necessarily a compromise.
an dthe fundamental principles gov
erning such distribution which have
been heretofore observed, are, in the
opinion of the board, entirely sound
and should be adhered to in the flu
ture.
The board concurs in the recon-
mendation for the elimination OF
bridges and other unnecessary top
hamper. 1t admits that the criticism
Of Evans is just on the question of fire
control masts and says experiments
are in progress to determine the eff
t1ciency of elevated towers for fire
control stations and also for the best
arrangement Of bulkheads for giving
efficient protection to a ships hull
against torpedo attacks.