THE MORNING DAILY. THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 1908. IS AMERICA UNPREPARED?

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 9046, 12 March 1908, Page 4

THE MORNING DAILY. THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 1908. IS AMERICA UNPREPARED?

Recently the United States Secretary for War, Mr W. H. Taft, speaking at Buffalo, emphasised America's unpreparedness for war. "We are making our navy more respectable yearly," added Mr Taft, "and are hopeful that Congress will make the army proper the nucleus of a rapid defence." He further stated: —"Our coast defences at Hawaii, at the Philippines, and at the Isthmian Canal, are still incomplete." It was certainly a bold admission on the part of the head of the Navy Department, but evidently he did not exaggerate the position of affairs. Shortly before Mr Taft's speech an article appeared in "McClure's Magazine," in which the condition o* *he fleet comes in for some very severe criticism. The writer avers that the great fleet now en route to the Pacific would be likely to meet the fate of that under Admiral Rojdestvensky at Tsushima if pitted against modern war vessels. The article is written by Mr Henry Reuterdahl, an associate of the United States Naval Institute, and, the American editor of Jane's "Fighting Ships." But it is believed in some quarters, according to the "Standard," that though the pen is that of Henry Reuterdahl, the voice is that of Admiral Evans, now in command of the great "Armada." Mr Reuterdahl affirms that "of all our battleships not one shows its main armour belt six inches above the water, when fully- equipped and ready for sea. The condition of our armoured cruisers is almost tho same. The United States has five big battleships now building, not one of them, in spite of the continual protest of our sea-going officers, with its main belt above the water line." Mr Reuterdahl, by a series of figures, shows that it would be impossible in heavy weather "to aim and fire the forward turret guns, which form the main reliance of the modern battleships. In the same weather, foreign battleships, with their high bows, could fire their forward turret guna with ease. The handicap is still worse for our armoured cruisers. . . The broadside gun" on our ships are in even worse position than those in the forward turrets. In the 'Georgia,' 'ldaho,' and 'Connecticut' classcontaining the twelve largest battle-

ships afloat —they are only about lift above the water. None of these guns could be fired to windward while the ships were steaming at battle speed against even a moderate sea." Mr Reuterdahl points out that the Navy Department has been repeatedly appealed to on this matter of low freeboard; yet the latest ship afloat, Admiral Evans's flagship, the "Connecticut," in only ISffc above waterline at the bow, as compared with the "Dreadnought's" 28ft. He states that the new battleship "Virginia," with all her ports closed by steel bucklers, shipped 120 tons of water into her forward turrets on a trip from Cuba to Hampton Roads. "With these ports open for action during bad weather, each wave would send through tons of water. The electrical installations would be shortcircuited and burnt out, and t'ie turret and its guns would be rendered motionless." After pointing out some further grave defects, Mr Reuterdahl remarks that while he believes the men and officers in the American Navy are "not surpassed nor equalled" by any navy in the world, he b ; .tterly arraigns the hard and fastsystem of promotion by seniority only which prevails in the American Navy, and he attributes practically all the serious defects to tho present "Bureau" system of administration, on which the American Navy is built, equipped, and worked.