BATTLESHIP OF THE FUTURE

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 238, 6 April 1912, Page 1 (Supplement)

BATTLESHIP OF THE FUTURE

KCKTiIKI! IM'IiKASB IX SIZK. An article on •"l'l'e-entDay Tendencies in Wars hip Design," wliieli is certain to attract wiili' attention, appeal's in till! marine number ul < 'assier's Magazine. Ih. l :* author is -Mr. T. (I. Owens, director and chief naval constructor of Viekers, lAil. I'i inn this survey of the outlook, the advocate of smaller and cheaper battleships will receive scant encouragement, lor Air. Owen believes that the tendency is towards still greater displacements than have already been reached. lie. shows that the popular belief that tin-re was it limit to the number of big guns which can be placed in a vessel on account of tile liability of tue structure of a warship to be damaged through the sustained tiring of the total number ol' guns comprised in the primary armament rests on no solid foundation, and points out that ships with thirteen instead ol ten big jjims (as in British ships) are now being built. The writer deals with the .subject with all the knowledge of a naval constructor of wide experience, and with the dillidence of one who realises the sudden changes which occur in naval equipment, and lie concludes:

"The role of the prophet is never an enviable one, but it would appear, taking into consideration everything affeetin<» present-day design and requirements', that for the next decade there will be a tendency to increase, in size. Dreadnoughts are being actually built to-day approximating 30JKH) tons displacement, rnnd with the ever-increasing power of artillery, the call for extended armor protection, the tendency to increased coal-carrying capacity on the normal draught, and the greater weight and elaboration of internal systems, it appears to me that the limit in size has not yet been reached, even assuming that the number of primary guns, the speed and the thickness of armored protection remain approximately as at present. This applies to battleships pure and simple. It should not be forgotten that even at the 1 present time fast armored cruisers carrying guns of the same calibre as in the primary armament of the presentday battleships, though fewer in number, and having speeds of from six to eight nautical miles per hour more, exceed the battleships in displacement by from 4000 to 0000 tons, so that in the near future we may also expect such craft to exceed in displacement their contemporary battleships. They may not, however, show quite such large differences in displacement as at the pressnt time, for even though the units of primary armament in such cruisers should be increased to keep pace with the battleships, the speeds will not differ much from those of pre-sent-day cruisers, the probability being that only in exceptional cases will speeds exceeding twenty-eight to thirty knots be required." , THE DECISIVE ISSUE.

There is, however, the financial aspect of the matter, and on this Mr. Owens has something to say. He points out that in the long run the smaller ship is not necessarily the cheaper ship:— "A battleship of 20,000 tons displacement may prove most acceptable to the academic strategist, but if such a ship were built for a Power whose probable enemy possessed battleships of 20,000 or 27,000 displacement, the expenditure upon the smaller ships cannot be regarded as ensuring the national safety of the country owning them, since prima facie the 20,000-ton ship could never be a successful combatant against a 27,000-ton ship, except on the score of superior numbers or much more skilled management. It must be remembered, moreover, that the expenditure upon an efficient f!«et is not only made up of first cost, but also of working charges. "It may be taken, therefore, that for all practical purposes the complement of a 26,000-ton ship will not be much greater than that of the 20,000-ton ship, on this question of complement depends many items besides pay, victualling, clothing, consumable stores, etc. The propulsive expenditure, including coal, oil, etc., will not be very much more for the' larger ship. The stores will be very little greater. The cost for general overhaul need not be proportionately increased. Thus, the total working expense may not be very appreciably higher for an increase of 30 per cent, in displacement, and there could be an increase of four guns of the primary armament, six to eight guns of the secondary armament, or, alternatively, an increase of speed with the same measure of armored protection in both cases, while the general equipment would remain practically the same."