New-York tribune., 1909-04-14
THE SIZE OF FIGHTING SHIPS

General as has been the adoption Of the
Dreadnought type of batteship by all the lead
ing naval powers, there is not Yet perfect una
nimitv as to the wisdom Of building such yes
sells even among the experts Of the country
which constructed the first one. At a meeting
of the Institution of Naval Architects in London
on March 81 Lord Brassey. a past president of
the organization, evoked discussion of the
subject by a paper entitled Types Of Warships
Omitted from Recent Programmes.
Lord Brassey thinks DreadnouChts useful for
service I'm the open sea, away from torpedoes'
but believes other vessels may also be employed
advantag geously in line of battle, and he feels
that there is need of new class OF vessels
for coast and inshore defence He frankly
avowed sympathy with the familiar objection
70 big ships on account of their cost, and reit-
Grated CAPTAIN Mahan's argument that facility
of dispersion is sacrificed when a fleet is com
posed of large units instead of small ones.
Lord Brassey also quoted with approval a re
mark of Colonel Cuniberti. italian naval
constructor. 10 the effect that blind imitation Is
often unwise because one nations needs may
be quite different from another's
Though the other speakers agreed with Lord
Rrassey on several miner points which he
raised, there was practically no agreement with
him on the main question. The dissent was
courteous of course. hut distinct, Sir Philip
not present TO defend his plan. but at least two
other eminent naval architects, Professor J. II.
Riles and Sir William White showed that they
had been impressed with the merits of the new
type of battleship. The first Of these experts
fills the chair Of naval architecture i'm the Uni
versitv of Glasgow. and has served the British
Admiralty often on special committees The
second was for more than twenty years the
responsible designer of British warships. though
at present he has no official post. Professor
Riles made it clear that he recognized the
advantage which Commander Sims, inspector
Of target practice so convincingly presented
10 President Roosevelt few years ago Tt
would cost far less to mount twenty big guns
on only two ships than 10 divide them among
five like the Connecticut. He is also salts
fed that q greater concentration of fire Is
feasible with big ships than with small ones.
Evidently regarding the concentration Of fire
as more important than facility Of dispersion
under an enemys attack. Sir William White
observed that Napoleon always managed to
fight with a force which was large compared
with that the enemy could then oppose him
with"
While there was practically no new argument
adduced on either side. the fact that there
a discussion is significant. Though there seems
to be preponderance of opinion in favor of
the one-calibre hattleship, it would he prema
ture to assume that it is the only kind of vessel
10 be built IN the r1lture for heavy fighting
Undoubtedly many of the older battleships un-
der the English or American flag could render
good service in any emergency which might
arise in the next few years. It is by no means
certain that reaction in opinion may not yet
lead to a duplication of the Connecticut and
the Lord Nelson.