FIGHTING SHIPS.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXX, Issue 8864, 26 October 1907, Page 3

FIGHTING SHIPS.

THE DREADNOUGHT ERA AND ITS PENALTY. (By Percival A. Hislam, in the London Daily Express.) For more than twelve months after the beginning of the Dreadnought not a single battleship was laid down by any of the European naval Pjwers. It was universally realised from the first that the effect of the new ship upon the shipbuilding jpolicies of the world must be revolu- ; -tionary, and the hands of our rivals were stayed while they awaited the details of the ship and her achievements, and racked their brains for a design which, if it did not surpass the pioneer vessel, should at any rate place ihem in a position to meet her gun for gun. They have succeeded bsyond all expectation. The temporary paralysis of naval construction abroad has been productive of perhaps unexpected results. The latest issue of "Fighting Ships," the naval encyclopaedia of Mr Fred T. Jane, which is deservedly increasing in popularity afloat and ashore every year, proves it to have been nothing but the lull preceding the storm —a storm o? new battleship designs which leave the Dreadnought as far behind as she left any of those ships she was supposed to render obsolete. Compared with the new ships building for foreign Powers, the Dreadnought is a back-number. When the Dreadnought was completed there were many better ships afloat than the German Deutschland; but for present purposes she will do very well for comparison. The most important item in a battleship is the .armament, and the Dreadnought has ten 12-inch guns, firing, roughly, 25,5001b5, of metal in two minutes, to the Deutschland's four 11-inch and fourteen 6.7-inch, firing about 23,0001bs in the same time. The Dreadnought' 3 guns have the greater power, but the quicktiring weapons of the Deutschland would have a far greater demoralising effect on an enemy. If gun fire is a reliable criterion of a battleship's the Dreadnought is about "iseven times inferior to the new vessels building for the Japanese navy -as the Deutschland is to the Dreadnought. The Japanese have only . recently taken to building their own • armoured ships, the Tsukuba, which visited England in June, being the first to be turned out ol the native . yards. She is a better vessel than - any British ship of the same class • afloat, and if the battleships "N" . and "B" (they are as yet unnamed) • are any guide, Japanese designs are in future going to lead the world. ' The following comparison of "N" • with the latest British ship is an interesting and significant commentary on the widely-held and officially fostered belief that all the information • obtained by the Japanese in the late war has been placed at the disposal ■of the British Government:— Bellerophon. "N." Displacement (tons) 18,60J 20,700 Speed (knots) ... 20.75 20 -Armament Ten 12in. Twelve 12in. 27 (?) 26 pndrs. Ten Gin.'

Twelve 4.7 in. It is absurd to suggest that these • ships are the product of the same . knowledge of the exigencies of war. The Bellerophon, whose anti-tor-pedo armament is better than the Dreadnought's, can fire 28,0001bs of metal in two minutes. The Japanese --ship, with practically the same speed -and protection, fires 48,8401 bs. These are startling figures. If the Dreadnought, with a gun-fire superiority •of 11 per cent, over the Deutschland, made that ship obsolete, what does m "N," with a superioii:y of 74 per cent., do with the Bellerophon. However, when England produced the Dreadnought she made her own bed, -and, whether her action was wise or otherwise, she must lie on it. Japan is not alone in outstripping us. It is true that the details of the new German battleships are more or less speculative, but there is no doubt that they will show a marked advance -on the Dreadnought. Pour alternative plans are given in Mr Jane's book, and the one which is believed to have been decided upon shows a ship of 19,000 tons with an armament •of no les3 than sixteen 11-inch guns and twenty-two 24-pounders for protection against torpedo attack. Every gun in the main armament can be trained on either broadside; but this •effect is only secured by placing three guns in each of four turrets, a system which few gunnery officers in the British service believe to be workable. The alternative is a 17,710ton ship with fourteen 11-inch guns —itself a sufficient advance on the Dreadnought. Four of these ships are to be completed by 1910. The newest battleships of the French, Russian, and U.S.A. navies

present no special features. They are all copies of—and, of course, improvements on —the British Dreadnought and Lord Nelson designs; but it is interesting to note that the latest German armoured cruiser is reputed to be armed with twelve 12" inch guns to our Inflexible's eight 12-inch, all the guns in either ship being capable of bearing on either broadside. The Inflexibles are known as "cruiser editions" of the Dreadnought, and no one who peruses Ships" can avoid the conclusion that when the Dreadnought was laid down a hornet's nest was put in incubation for our discomfort. .Perhaps the most significant page in the whole book is that on which are given the "Programmes of New Construction (Armoured Ships)" of the world fur the last four years. They show that since 1904-5 the chief naval Powers have begun the following armoured ships:—Great Britain 15, U.S.A. 13, Japan 13, Germany 12, France 8. In the last two years, the "Dreadnought era," England has begun or projected (including the doubtful battleship of this year's programme) six vessels to eight for the U.S.A., seven for Japan, and six each for Germany and France. The Whitehall and Westminster jugglers claim that this is adhesion to the two-Power standard. Are they blind, or do they take the British public for fools?