The daily Alaskan., 1915-03-22
NAVAL PROBLEMS.
How to Protect WarShipS From
 Mines and TorpedoeS.
CAN BOTTOMS BE ARMORED? ?
This Is a Question That Can Be An swered Only by Experiment and May Involve Radical Changes In Con- struetion Above the Water Line.


 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 ship eau be so easily pierced.
 The problem of protecting the bot tom may look insolublc, 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 ship to afford substantial protection looked impossi. ble to naval architects of two general tons 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 It 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 hre, and the constructors introduced pro- tectiye 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 it may not he possible to do this. but the experiment will be made. and 1t Is as likely to succeed as some of the earlier experiments. Of course. bottom armOr would add great ly to the weight of a vessel, but the displacement can be increased enough to give the necessary buoyancy.
 Besides, 1t 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 If the heaviest plates were below the water line instead of above. The sides of a vessel do not present 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 m,rCGSe the thickness of the side armor they reduced the area to be protected to the vitals of a ship, the engine room and the principal bat tery. The bow and s-2rn could be shot to pieces and yet lCa"e the central part of the ship intact. with the motive power and the bi.,-est guns.
 This principle may be carried still farther. Still less protection may be given the sides and iop of the citadel. In order to give IT" . tU the bottom. which can be attac:,"d by an invisible enemy. The turre;s are very heavy and being placed hi n aiovc the water. they are where the! lave the grcat2sl effect in impairiu% the vessels Stabl ity.
 At the distances at which vessels usually fight now the Ii4tforES of the big guns present q ve!i 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 iraS- mentS of shells. and put the weight where It will resist tOrpcdnps and mines.
 It may be that no bottom will stand the explosion of a mine or q torpedo. but the next departure in battlcShip 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.-Philadelphia Record.