The New York herald., 1921-12-03
CAPITAL SHIP LIMIT
HAS ROUGH EDGE
America and Britain Would
Lose 10000 Tons Each and
Japan 10000.
IN REPLACEMENT PLAN
Naval Affairs Expert Believes
This Part of Hughes Pro-
posal Is Defective.
IN REPLACEMENT PLAN
BY eraser ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

ny GhASEh SCHOhN STH Ell IhEH,
| Special Despatch 10 THE NEW York HERALD
New York Herald Bureau,
Washington, ID. c.. Dec. 2.
The reasons for limiting the size Of
| future capital ships under the Hughes
plan have been made clear by our naval
the largest ships OF each Of the three
great naval nations is about 36, 900 tons,
and so $4,000 tons was deemed fair to
all. While our largest ship, the Mary
land. displaces 32.600 tons. the British
Hood displaces 41.200 tons. and so the
average becomes plain.
But the application of this $4,000 ton
limit of size TO the tonnage limits for
each nation gives cause for worry The
United States can build fourteen $500
ton displacement ships on her tonnage
allotment of 100000 tons. The resultant
figure is 100000 tons.
rhe same is true In the casc of the
British. because they have the same re-
placement tonnage limits. The Japanese.
on the other hand, could build but eight
900 tons. Great Britain and the United
States would. therefore, lose $4,000 tons
each on the total capital ship tonnage,
while the Japanese would lose 10000
tons.
Obviously there is a, rough edge In
the Hughes plan which must in some
way be smoothed off before the re-
placement situation can be finally ad-
justed. No nation can afford to lose
this tonnage, and while this technicality
does not affect the Hughes plan In prin-
cipfe II interrupts progress. There is
no disagreement on the part of any of
the nations, but a definite solution of
the problem will affect the capital ship
tonnaEeallotments all down the line
and may possibly cause some disagree
ment on other points.
Panama Canal Limits.
One Of the most foolish ideas yet pre-
sented to the public has been the idea
that the United States suggested the
$4,000 ton limit OF capital ship size be-
cause of the limits Of the Panama Canal
This Is absolutely untrue. At present
we have $4,000 ton battleships on the
stocks which will be able to pass
through the canal In the event they are
built to completion. and OF course that
is not 20 be thought of. IT is entirely
possible that a $4,000 or $4,000 ton bat
tleship or a $1,000 ton battle cruiser
could be built which could pass through
the locks. The idea In limiting the size
OF the capital ship TO $1,000 tons Is to
limit the expense.
A $4,000 ton ship will cost close TO S40,-
100000. A $4,000 ton ship would cost
close TO 5000, 900. And in the smaller
ship there Is room for progress. The
Io 1ef SIC 10 chi a.. p,-f%;
to-day displaces normally only about
$500 tons Our largest battleship. the
Maryland, displaces $1,000 tons. The
Japanese NeGato is supposed to displace
little more than "a 900 tons.
In the battle cruisers OF the world
there is a difference. The battle cruiser
is usually much larger than is her COM
parative battleship For instance, the
British Hood displaces 41.2o0 tons, and
the largest British battleship. the Queen
Elizabeth. displaces about $4,000 tons.
They both have main batteries of eight
IS inch guns. Our battleships OF the
Maryland type displace $4,000 tons. while
our battle cruisers OF the United States
class displace 43,500 tons. They both
carry but eight 16 inch guns
While in the case OF both navies the
battle cruisers are the newer ships. en-
bodying the very latest In their design.
and just for this reason they would
naturally be larger than their older but
corresponding battleship types, the great
difference In displacement is very evil
IDENTIFY because OF some other reason.
And that reason is speed.
warship Essentials.
Every warship must have four essen
tlaIs in its makeup-size. speed. arma-
An
every warship IS compromise between
these essentials. Tn the battleship the
sue Is dependent upon the gun power
and the protection rather than the speed
for the battleship is the hard hitting
type which must be able to take the
hardest blows In q naval action. And
so in this type speed Is sacrificed 10
allow for the other essentials and the
speed Is what eats up displacement The
battle cruiser. on the other hand must
sacrifice protection and gun power in
order TO obtain speed on a reasonable
displacement. Engines take up great
space and great space means thinned
out protection and great displacement.
And for the reason that she can give and
take more punishment the battleship 10
the backbone of all naval power.
From this IL is easy to see that the
battle cruiser of $4,000 tons will be far
less powerful than the battleship of tho
same displacement. That Is the reason
why in the past Americas naval ex-
perts have concentrated on battleshps
OF course when It was possible 10 get
battle cruisers, as II was IN 1915, our
naval experts asked them, but when our
sea strength was at stake in the halls
OF Congress our naval men concentrated
on battleships.
H. nwg L. n. L..
'ro some this may sound as though
the battle cruiser was not important to
the United states or any other nation,
but that IL far from the case. speed is
protection" said Lord Fisher. and in a
certain sense no was right. With speed
at her disposal the battle cruiser can
give battle OF run away as she chooses.
She Is very valuable In actions for flank
movements and TO attempt to get across
an enemy's bow or stern. Her advan-
tage IL speed. and this is a tactical ad-
vantage. The present United States
| fleet consists OF battleships only and 80
! IL is weaker for tactical reasons, than
1 AZ it had two or three battle cruisers In
place OF the same number of battle
! ships.
A displacement of $4,000 tons. II is
| TO be seen, In not great one for modern
battle cruisers. IL certainly does not
make for great progress In the type.
But $4,000 tons does allow for progress
in the battleship types. Progress I'm war
ships or anything else is demanded by
modern civilization as a whole. whether
that civilization is japanese, Anglo
Totf IyeAO tv. Il