The Washington times., 1915-03-16

merged 2l-lnch torpedo tubes The Cali
fornia has four submerged torpedo
tubes, supposed to be of the 2l-inch
caliber though this detail has not been
made public as yet.
Comes now the very important ques-
ton of fuel-carrying capacity, and
horsepower of machinery. The Queen
Elizabeth is credited with boilers Of
IS, 5s,00O-horsepower capacity, and with ca
pacity to carry 1900 tons of fuel oil. On
the other hand the California will have
much less boiler capacity, probably
Judging, again, by the data OF other
American battleshps generally similar
about 4O,O00-horsepower. This how
ever is for the present conjecture. as
the figures have not been made public.
The Queen Elizabeth represents the sac
rihce of armor-wcight In order to get
more boiler and engine capacity; also
the sacrifice of number of great guns,
In order to get still greater guns.
Turn the Queen Elizabeth and the
California out into the broad Atlantic
for duel, and this comparison of at
tributes would be presented:
The Queen Elizabeths' 15-inch guns
would shoot a long way farther than
the California's 1i-inCh guns; but II the
CALIFORNIA should land one of her shells
on the lighter armor of the Queen
sistance.
The Queen Elizabeth would be able
to out-maneuver the California, owing
to her greater speed. Her game would
be to keep out of range of the Cali
fornia's smaller guns, while keeping
within range of her own bigger guns.
The l5-inch guns shoot with wonderful
accuracy a distance of about ten
miles; beyond that they must be so
elevated that accuracy is sacrificed to
get the range. Hut IL il conceded that
the 15-inch guns have n great advnnt-
nge over those of 14-inch caIiber.
Consume More Fuel.
The Queen Elizabeth's 4,oOO-ton OIL
carrying capacity compares to probably
5000 tons for the California. But the
Queen Elizabeth must also use a great
deal more fuel in order to run her
bigger battery OF boilers and maintain
her greater speed so that the cruising
radius in miles probably is about the
same.
Between these two types of vessels,
naval men insist. comparison is difficult.
One Is best for one use, the other for
another use. 1t Is generally accepted
that the British admiralty had very
specific service in mind when 1t laid
down the vessels of the Queen Eliza
beth class. Perhaps It was the very
service that the Queen Elizabeth Is now
performing-namelY, the shellin" out of
the fortifcations on the Dardanelles.
The big ship has been able to stand off,
out of range OF the biggest guns of the
forts, and drop her immense shells ex-
actly where they would do the most
execution. In short. the Queen Eliza
/ beth is to naval warfare just what the
42-centimenter howitZers of Germany
were to land fighting, as ahown at
1iege, Namur. Maubeuge. and Antwerp.
For Offensive Work.
> Is the American navy hopeIessIy he
! hind the British, by reason of failure
to parallel these new craft OF the
| Queen Elizabeth types
The American authorities insist that
It is not. because. they maintain. we
have no use for the Queen Elizabeth
type Of vessel. That type Is distinc-
lively a craft for heavy offensive work.
covering long distance, requiring speed
and maneuvering. 1t is not a Vessel
for heavy offensive work: and the ideal
of defensive work still rules In the plan
ming of the American feet.
There is one most interesting com
/ lecture among naval people as to the
purpose that was in the admiralty 9