Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1905-1919, 1916-07-30

seriously deficient in the inadequate
provision OF fast, light craft"
ArmOrcd Cruisers Proved Useless.
we have great many older bat
tleships and armored cruisers on our
naval list" l said. What is their
value?" I'm an action fought be-
tween modern units of the heavy gun
type Mr.. Pollen replied, there is
undoubtedly no room for slow. lightly
armored, lightly gunned ships like
the armored cruisers of a decade
ago; nor indeed for any slow old
battleships. The value of these ships
TO naval power is simply as a re-
serve to fall back upon when the
ureadnaught fleets have destroyed
each other, or for subsidiary pur-
poses ike bombardments, or for ex-
ercislng the command of the sea in
areas where they are not likely TO
encounter fast modern ships of su-
perlor protection and armament. You
VIII understand that in saying this 7
am supposing that the capacity to
use the guns effectively is equal on
poth sides. If your side has a noted
superiority in method and skill in
gunnery, no ship capable of carving
gun capable of reaching an enemy
at long range could ever be out OF
place in action. But assuming equal
NY the old ship is at hopeless dis
advantage. There seems to be no
halfway house between the hattie
ship and battle cruiser at ono end
and the light cruiser and DESTROYER
at the other. The armored cruiser
was always fallacious conception"
we nave built and are building
many extremely powerful dread.
haughts, but the more recent ones are
all slower than the corresponding
capital ships here" I said. (which
is more Important speed or gunpow
DER, and how does the question of
arinor enter the equation?"
Queen Elizabcths Best Fighters.
IL Is premature to dogmatize," Mr..
Pollen replied. "Jutland shows the
nlBh value, indeed the necessity, of
speedy capital ships But whether
the necessary fast division should con-
sist OF ships of the Lion type, or be
ike the Queen Elizabeth, not so fast
but more heavily armored and gunned
than the Lions is another matter
1t is possible that when all the as
poets of the action are considered
British naval opinion will gravitate
toward single standard fighting ship
Of the Queen Elizabeth type.
But the issue of Jutiand was de-
When the British grand fleet came
into action the German ships with
drew quite rightly, because IL they
had remained in action they would
all have been sunk. But our battle
cruisers were in action, both with bat
tie cruisers and battleships of the
enemy for more than four hours
without all the battle cruisers on
either side being sunk. Each side
probably lost three battle cruisers,
but so far as the British ships are
concerned It would be incorrect TO
attribute their sinking to the fact
that they were too lightly armored.
All three were lost through single
shots causing explosions of q char
acter / am not at liberty to discuss,
but which could have been avoided,
and will be made impossible in all
future ships. We have no details
to explain exactly how the destruc-
ton of the German battle cruisers
came about, but it seems that they
were shot to pieces
Cruisers Need More Armor.
The baltic cruiser Is ship that
carries, say, four-f1fths the armament
Of a battleship, and armor of only
about half the thickness, But hah
the thickness Of armor does not mean
half the protection. II IL inches Of
armor will keep out a 12-inch shei,
that does not mean that SIX frchea,
Of armor will keep out half Of that
shell. II will be no protection at all.
The shell will go through as though
the armor were not there. I find 1t
very difficult to make up my mino
whether the battle proves battle
cruisers mistake or dreadnaughts a
mistake. That six cruisers could ne
rain in action for a consid cradle time
against battleships without being
sunk seems to show that armor Is
not absolutely necessary. They were
all hit frequently, and II apparently
did them no harm. 1t Is obvious that