The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1913-07-11
COST OF ARMOR PLATE.


In view of the discussion of the cost
OF armor plate FOR the U. S. Navy, 1t
is of interest to refer to the prices
paid for it as given in the Navy Year
book for 1912, as the price of armor
plate in this country from the first.
The five ships authorized March 3,
1886, the Amphitrite, the Puritan, the
Texas, the Maine and the Monterey,
were armored with plate that cost
$604.s5 per ton. The Brooklyn, which
was authorized in July, 1892, had ar
NOR plate that cost $646.41 per ton, as
did also the Oregon, which was author
lied March .. 1891. The Massachu-
setts, authorized March 2. 1891, con-
tracted for on March l, 1898, was ar
mored with plate costing $646.4l per
ton, although the prior contract of Jan
uary / 1887. for the Navy, made the
price $604.S5. The price of $646,41
seemed to the naval Officers to be too
much TO charge for armor plate, and SO
inquiry was set on foot by the govern
ment 20 ascertain whether il would not
be better TO build government armor
plate plant rather than TO depend upon
contractors for the supply. This in
quiry brought the price down first to
$54790 for the Kearsarge, authorized
March 2, 1895, and then TO $411.20, and
in that vicinity for a good many years.
There has been 10 great change since
then in the cost of armor plato to this
| Al.
the Bethlehem, the Carnegie, and the
Midvale Steel companies The present
contracts are with the same companies.
The armor plate for the Utah, author
lied May Is, 1908, cost $41S.31 per ton.
The other contracts, for the Michigan,
the North Dakota, the Florida, the AR
kansas, the Wyoming, the new Texas
and the New York, range from $416.56
to $435.05 The Oklahoma, authorized
March 4 1911, contract let on January
10, 1912, is to be armored with plate
that will cost $4,000, $4s0o0, $4,000
and $50s,0o per ton. The figures for
armor plate for vessels contracted and
built just prior TO those named cost
from $3S500 per ton to $453,00
In the same volume we find an esti
mate of the prices paid by foreign
countries for armor plate. A note states
that the Conformation is somewhat
doubtful, but the best available, !"
since these foreign governments do not
publicly give out the costs. The table
shows that Japan pays an average for
armor plate of $4,000 per ton. Aus
tria pays the same. Italy in its contract
with the Terni Company pays an aver
age for all armor of $4S2.5O. In it's
contract with the Carnegie company it
pays $4,000 per ton, Germany for
Krupp .armor pays $4,000 per ton.
France pays $4,000; England, $425.oo;
Russia, S36S,00 for average Of all, and
$4,000 per ton for the Krupp armor.
The United States pays an average for
all Of $4,000 per ton.
1t appears, therefore, that the United
States gets its armor plate for some
what less on an average than any for
eign country except Russia; but Rus
sia pays a great deal more for Krupp
armor plate than the United States
does for the same quality of plate.
The three American companies named
stand at the head of armor plate
makers in the world, except the Krupp
factory in Germany, and their product
is equal to that, so counted and SO rec
ognized in all Of the tables.
The threat of, the United States to
the armor plate makers that it would
build a National plant Of its own and
make its own armor plate appears still
to hold good and to hold down the
prices. Although the three companies !
named make identical bids all the time
on armor plates, these bids average
less than the cost to other countries, |
and so the United States has never vet !
put in its threatened Government plant. |
Senator Ashurst Of Arizona has sue
ceeded in getting through the Senate
a resolution Of inquiry as to the cost of
armor plate. No doubt when he gets
reply from the Navy Department, the
figures will be practically the same as
those given above, taken from the 1912 |
Navy Year Book.