New-York tribune., 1909-01-14
EVANS TONAVY CRITICS
SAYS ReuterdaM and Others Dis
t0rted His Report to Department.

Rear Admiral Robley D. Evans (retired) In
"FTampton's Magazine" for February. says thai
Henry Reuerdahl and other critics OF the American
navy have distorted his report to the Navy De
psrtmeut and misunderstood his suggestions for
certain improvements
There ts TO battleship In the United States navy
that would Ill and sink in hour because OF
the damage by 12-inch shells on her wateTllne
armor" writes Rear Admiral Evans. no matter
whether they made gateway or holes as big as d
door"
In answer to the charge by Mr. Reu,erdah that
all the American ships. old and new, and those
under construction, are faulty In design in water
line protection and would crumpe as did the egg
shell Russian fleet under heavy fire. Rear Admiral
Evans says:
We are not in the condition Of the Russian fleet
I'm the Sea OF Japan either temporarily or perna-
nenty, That our older battieshiIs do not di1er e
IN the matter Of design in TITS respect l am sure
%6sn depy 5asG and fd@aR iher % %at5
s9rce e9,is In ~ t e ss PsI@ s ysT 9r W m strong
is OF the opinion that this condition was in most
cases the result Cf placing on board unnecessary
weights. and not fault primarily OF design.
Admiral ~yans says that the talk about foreign
warships being able TO their bow guns when
ours would be smothered under tons Of water Il
the merest nonsense He writes.
The Connecticut has 10 feet freeboard-that Is.
her forward forecastle deck Is IS feet above
ter The King Edward vi has lS feet. and the
the american @ ship Why wiil the heavy sea punish
the so badly and not The other as weIi5
The Connecticut carries her main battery guns.
forward turret. % feet and inches above the
ter. the King Edward VII 2S feet and E inches
feet inches lesS-and the Kashna % feet-5
inches less tAan the connecticut WHAT, t!en. Will
be the condition OF those foreign ships when the
forward tuTret guns of the Connecticut sieuCed
Joy the heavy sea? Either the commentator did
know what he writing about intended
to deceive, which cannot be supposed. or some
mistake made in setting up the type for this
remarkable statement
During the voyage of the feet the admiral
tIced that the spray would lessen the effectiveness
Of the forward guns in battle. and he recon-
mended that. II possible, engineers should design
future battIeships that these guns might bs
higher. But says this to give American
ships advantage those Of other nations
whose guns are at the same level at present. Con
tinung. he says:
carrying my recommendations, but hope that
sooner later the designers Will overcome them.
But If IL - be done the cost OF less protection
To the ship | would prefer that change should
be made, for | firmly believe that low gun well
protected is better than a higher gun with
teriay less protection
In view Of the increased range Of torpedoes. and.
therefore the difficulty OF destroying torpedo
lsU,, them the Importance OF tue well placed
defence becomes great, and
This was my for CritcisinE present
rangement Of them. admit. to begin with, that
| have no scheme myself for mounting such guns,
nor have I beard any seagoing officer suggest
tors after hearing what have say the
subject will solve the problem for successfully.
as they have others which seemed at first sight
quite as difficult.