Daily press. [volume] (Newport News, Va.) 1896-current, 1908-02-05
DEFENSE OF OUR NAVY.

(which cares more about being right |
than being sensational For this rea- !
| son the reply which II makes to the
article of MIR Rcuterdahl IN McClure's !
criticising the navy, will be accepted |
rs of the highest authority. Mr.. Rem |
terdahl's most alarming statement |
was that the main amor belts of |
American ships are below the water
| line when the vessels are fully loaded |
| IT Is well known. OF course. that in |
Inll modern battleships the heaviest |
aimor Is placed TO protect the water
| line. whore single we'll placed sho, !
might sink a ship Water itself Is so
good protection that 10 shot could |
penetrate the submerged portion OF II !
ship more than n few inches below the
water line. On the ctlicr hand, shot
fired into the upper part of ship
has little chance Of doing any serious
damage. AT least. such shots cannot
sink II ship. Tho thick arnlor belt,
| tiicrerorc. is comparatively narrow. 1t
needs TO extend only so far below the
water line rs TO afford protection dur
ing the roll of the ship. When ship
mounts II heavy wave her PROV is
| thrown well ont of tho water. If she
Is thrown so far out that the hull be-
low the armor belt is exposed. shot
fired at that instant would penetrate
the vitals OF the ship and when she
dropped back she would Immediately
Ill and sink. This danger was not
pointed out by Mr.. Reuterdahl, though
he dwelt at some length on the dan
GER OF shot striking Just above the
water line on II ship ON which the
arnor belt was placed too low In
! that CASE the ship would take in water
with every dip into the waves and
| probably would sink in Il short time.
CT tho two perils. having the armor
belt too high 10 probably greater than
having the armor holt too low, but tho
aim. OF course. Is to strike Il medium
which Will give protection against
both
Mr. Routcrdahl asserted that not
one OF orr ships shows more than
| six inches OF thick armor atoyc the
water line when fully equipped md
ready for sea. Tho Scientific Amcri
can replies that as a matter of fact
our ships show from eighteen inches
| TO II 12 feet OF chick armor above
| the water line, The actual draft OIL
u ship will OF course, vary with the
load shu IL carrying The width OF
nrmor belt Is planned to meet normal
draft which is obtained when tho
ship is loaded TO about two thirds nj
her capacity. When loaded to he.
greatest capacity the top OF the ar
nor belt will be close to the water
line, With each days consumption
Of coal II will rise and ut the end OF
n long voyage ship might show sew
eral feet OF afmor belt which at the
beginning was submerged. The
chances are very remote that n ship
ever would fight when fully loaded ii
an enemy were whiting Just outside
the harbor. she would load only to the
desired depth before going out To
fight, aud II the enemy had to be
sought for, the coal consumption dur
ing the search would raise her TO nor
nal draft or higher. At the worst. a
heavily laden ship could throw over
hoard enough ballast to raise her 10
Il desired height before an enemy
could close in upon hcr. 1t may,
therefore, be safely concluded that
under any battle conditions ever like
~ Ia be encountered our ships have
ample protection. 10th above and be-
low the water line.
Other statements Of Nh Reuter-
dahl bear examination no better than
the assertion regarding amor belts.
He alleged that in foreign navies the
forward decks are from % 10 oS feet
above water. Except the Dreadnought.
there Ia no ship In the British navy
with 2S feet of irceboard British
ships ol the same age and typc as
onrc are USUALLY OF lower frecboard
Our hroalsido gins. instead Of being
80 low That they would he useless in
IN scawny. are actually higher than
those IN the German, Japanese or
| British nayles. The porthoies in the
turrets OF the Kentucky and the Kear-
| sarge are large as compared with
I those cf more modern ships but the
statement that they show openiugs
ten fcot square IS amply untrue. The
large rorthcles were necessary FOR
| the typo of gun mount used nj the
| time these ships We're built. The
criticism regarding open shafts from
he tnrrcts 10 the magazines is ack-
Inowledsed to he warranted. hut IL il
pointed out that there are various
safety devices which remove the dan
ger II regulations are strictly ohserv-
| ed. These shafts were designed to
secure greater rapidity OF FIRE and be-
fore the special danger OF narebacks
from amokcless powder had been de-
velcpcd. They do not represent a stu
pid blunder on the part of orr naval
constructors. tclt are feature which
lreonircs remodeling to meet newer
iconiitious, and Congress has boon
esked TO make an appropriation for
thai purpose.
/ Tina absence Of .n,,,n,,> .,,iou Il,
hattleslips IS considered an advant-
ase rather thar an error. since the
J fighting range ot battleship is much