MISTAKES IN DREADNOUGHTS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 1077, 1 August 1912, Page 4

MISTAKES IN DREADNOUGHTS.

AUSTRIA’S NEW BATTLESHIP.

A rumour that Austria's first Dreadnought, the Viribus Unitis, is suffering from miscalculations in the preparation of her design is practically confirmed, says the Daily Chronicle, by the very weak denial that has been published semi-officially. This statement is to the effect that there have been no miscalculations, and that if there have been they can easily be remedied, or, if they cannot be remedied, that they do not matter very much after all. It is explained that the trouble is that in calculating the weight of the twelve rain guns (which are to be mounted in four triple turrets), the weight of the mounting was forgotten. The difference amounts to 20 tons per gun, or 240 tons in all ; and if this is the only fault. the Austrian authorities are certainly right in saying that it doesn’t matter very much, since it only means that the ship will be between two and three inches lower in the water.

But the prominence that has been given to the matter in the Austrian Press seems to indicate that the defects are much more serious than this. Certainly an extra immersion of three inches would not alone suffice to lead the authorities to counteract the error by using thinner armour, or by the suicidal process of using thinner guns. The Austrian Admiralty may find some consolation in the fact that excessive draught is a common fault with pioneer Dreadnoughts. Our own Dreadnought, designed for a draught of 26>ft actually draws 3iJ-ft, when fully loaded. There is, of course, always a considerable difference between normal draught and the “full load” draught—the Dreadnought, for instance, carries only 900 tons of fuel at normal load, and 2700 at full load; but the draught in the latter conditions is considerably over what was esti-' mated, and is sufficient to totally submerge the main nin armour belt.

The Dreadnought, however, was admittedly an experimental vessel, and her faults were not repeated. Germany, on the other hand, began her Dreadnought building with four vessels of identical design, laid down within a few weeks of each other. It is well-known that one, the Westfalen, is several feet deeper in the water than was intended, so that all lour must necessarily suffer trom the same defect. The result of the increased immersion is to decrease speed, to submerge the armour belt, to reduce the “command” of the guns, and to reduce the area which the ship can navigate in safety. The first Italian Dreadnought, the Dante Alighieri, displaces nearly 1500 tons more than she was designed lor. A committee appointed to enquire into the matter reported that it would be quite possible to save the extra weight elsewhere without detracting from the ship’s efficiency, but decided that it was not worth while. They stated that the loss of speed would be less than half a knot.

The two Dreadnoughts building for the Argentine Republic in the United States afford an instance of another kind of miscalculation. The contract for these ships (Moreno and Rivadavia) was secured in the lace of British competition by the Fore River Company, who contracted to place an armament of twelve I2iu and twenty-four smaller guns in ships of 27,940 tons at a cost of £2,190,000 per ship. The British estimates were from .£200,000 to £300,000 higher than this, but the Argentine Government accepted the lowest tender. It has since been reported, however, that the builders—-in the words ot the Times correspondent at Santiago—“now find it impossible to comply with the conditions regarding speed and armament without increasing the size to 32,000 tons, and that the Argentine Government will refuse to grant a request for a corresponding allowance ot about £400,000 per ship.’’ As regards cost, Russia has bad an even, worse experience. The original estimate lor the battleships Poltava. Petropavlosk, Sevastopool and Gangul, completing on the Baltic, was £2,280,000, but it is now anticipated that each ship will cost £3,200,000. This is equivalanl to £l4O ton of displacement, which may be compared with the £7B per ton of the British Rion. The battleship Andrei Petvozvanui,' recently completed lor the Russian fleet, cost £1,000,000 in excess of the estimate.