The Washburn leader. [volume] (Washburn, McLean County, N.D.) 1890-1986, 1915-03-19
naval. PROBLEMS.
How to Protect Warships From
Mines and Torpedoes.
CAN BOTTOMS Be ARMoRED7

This 10 q Question That Can Bs An.
swersd Only by Experiment and May
Involve Radical Changes In Con-
struction Above the Water Line.
The next departure in the construc-
| ton of war vessels will be armoring
their bottoms. The mines and the
submarines have demonstrated that
side armor and impenetrable turrets
are of very small account when the
bottom Of a ship a be SO easily
pierced.
The problem of protecting the bot
tom may look insoluble, but it cannot
look more hopeless than the protection
Of the sides did fifty or sixty years
ago. The idea of getting enough ar
NOR upon the sides Of a ship to afford
substantial protection looked impossi-
BILE to naval architects Of two genera
lions ago. But bold inventors and con-.
structors tried the experiment. and it
succeeded.
Then the guns were increased In size
in order to penetrate the thin armor
Of the day, and the naval constructors
found 1t possible to add greatly to the
thickness Of the plates, and successive
improvements in the quality Of the
plates were effected.
The next step was to attack the
decks Of war vessels by vertical fire.
and the constructors introduced pro-
tective decks. Then the mine and the
torpedo were perfected, and the sub.
marine vessel was invented, and now
the problem Is to protect war vessels
below the water line.
It may or 1t may not be possible to
do this. but the experiment will be
made, and it is as likely to succeed as
some Of the earlier experiments. OF
course, bottom armor would add great
" to the weight of a vessel, but the
displacement can be increased enough
to give the necessary buoyancy.
Besides, it may be worth while to
take off some Of the turret and side
armor to save weight. OF course the
stability Of the ship would be increased
IL the heaviest plates were below the
water line instead of above. The sides
Of a vessel do not present a very large
target, and the protection of the bot
tom may be important enough to JUS
tify a reduction in the protection Of the
sides.
When the naval architects found it
necessary to increase the thickness of
the side armor they reduced the area
to be protected to the vitals of a ship.
the engine DON and the principal bat
terry. The bow and stern could be shot
to pieces and YET leave the central part
Of the ship intact, with the motive
power and the biggest guns.
This principle may be carried still
farther. Still less protection may be
given the sides and top of the "citadel."
in order to give more to the bottom.
which can be attacked by an invisible
enemy. The turrets are very heavy
and being placed high above the water.
they are where they have the greatest
effect in impairing the vessels stabil-
tty.
At the distances at which vessels
usually fight now the platforms of the
big guns present a very minute target:
the chances of their being hit is small:
for the sake Of protecting the bottom
it may be worth while to replace the
massive turrets with light shields de-
signed only to protect the gun crews
from small. rapid fire guns and frag-
ments of shells. and put the weight
where 1t will resist torpedoes and
mines.
1t may be that no bottom will stand
the explosion of a mine or u torpedo.
but the next departure In battleshlp
construction will test this. The efficacy
of the submarine has been demonstrat-
ed. and the present task of naval con
%structors is to devise protection from
it.-Philadelphla Record.