The Washington times., 1923-02-10
ADVOCATES
STRONG
NAVY
Day of Dreadnaughts Almost
Gone, Writes Rear Admiral.
Cites World War.
By REAR ADMIRAL
w. F. FULLAM, u S. N, Retired,
One Of the foremost naval
authorities.


One Of the foremost naval
authorities.
In the following eTcIatsiUe ar
ticte for The Washington Times,
Rear Admiral w. f. FsLIGnt,
u. S. ~, retired, cT-iticizes Sec
rotary of the Navy Denby's RE-
quest for Sc, 500 900 to modern
Sze some of the old nGval vessels,
pointing oat that It Mould be far
aCiser to spend the money for
Girpl1nes and Submarines.
The proposition to expend
$30,000,000 or more to increase
the gun-range and to improve
the above-water and underwater
protection of our present battle
ships in order that they may the
better resist torpedoes, mines, and
bombs, presents many interesting
and serious problems. This policy
should not be approved until it is
thoroughly analysed and its
soundness demonstrated beyond
question. Let US briefly ex-
anime it.
Futility Of Patching.
In the first place the plan to
snend so much money on the ships
that have been declared to be the
ack-bone'' of our navy is tanta-
mount to an admission OF the fol-
lowing facts:
I-That the dreadnaught is very
vulnerable to air and submarine
attack.
2-rhat the air-pIane. used In
controlling gun fire. has I'M
creased the practicable range OF
lThat the upper decks are
zoo week to resist heavy. bombs
and the plunging fire OF heavy
guns.
4-That the underwater hull
cannot, at present, resist modern
torpedOes, heavy mines, and heavy
bombs that explode as depth bombs
below water.
-5-That these weaknesses IN the
Dreadnaught force us to the IlH- :
fortunate expedients OF loading
the ships down with more deck
aF1nor, and adding "blisters ana
''buIges" under water. as pro-
lection for the ships hull.
6-As q result Of these changes,
the ships win sink deeper In the
water and their speed viii be re-
tluced by the defensive projecting
''biisters' attached below the
water line.
BattIesllips Weaknesses.
All these weaknesses in the Dread
naught have been known for years.
Attention has been called to them
repeatedly by progressive officers at
home and abroad 1t was demon
strated in testimony before the
Naval Committees Of Congress two
years ago. and verified by the bomb
ing of the German ships, that. the
dreadnaught as now designed is so
weak that it's years. If not its days,
are numbered. That submarines
and mines in the world war had
circumscribed the battleship's use"
fulness and that air forces, as re-
Gently developed, had jeopardized its
very existence.
Despite these powerful arraign-
ments, the. political and official
forces that blocked the 1916 build
ing program turned a deaf ear,
pooh -poohed submarines and air
forces, and would have pushed the
battleships and battle cruisers to
completion had it not been, most
fortunately, for the DEGREES of the
Washington conference that happily
stopped the battleship race.
1t is not enough to say that some
of these ships, had they been COM
pleted, would have been provided
with these new offensive and de-
fensive features. The best naval
minds in the world today are of
the opinion that, before these ships
are patched up, and before the new
British dreadnaughts can be built,
the power of the torpedo; the mine.
the bomb, and the attacking skill
of the submarine and airplane will
be so increased as to wreck the
new construction as it has the old
model, The attack will again
overpower the defense.
Multiplying the Conference.
No sooner had the Washington
conference adjourned than we be-
gan TO hear the meanings and
gfoanings and calamity predictions
or the 1915 siX-year- old out of date
building-prOgram advocates. They
were silenced. within limits, by the
TACT that the present Administra-
ton very properly considers the
treaties to be both righteous and
wise.
But their conservative behind.the.
times mental processes which blind
them to the inevitable future
domination of air and submarine
forces In naval warfare still act
10 shackle their minds. 1t may be
said, therefore, that this project
TO attempt to patch up our battle,
ships in vain effort to resuscitate
the defunct 1916 program by some
kind Of naval blood TRANSMISSION.
To be sure there has been some
gain in the discussion. Conservative
minds have been forced, against
their will, to admit the value of
submarine and air forces. The
Navy Department and Secretary
Hughes also have stressed our need
or sea going, long range submarines
light cruisers. airpiane carriers and
airplanes. This is most fortunate
Tor the navy is sadly in need OF
these types. Without them the
navy. even with a hundred battle
SHIPS. would be powerless. II
would be a weak navy.
What Is q Strong Navy?
The writer believes in a strone
navy. The United States mus
have a strong navy. But what il
strong navy? That Is the ques