OCR Text |
Show 1 THE NEW NAVIES. If the new Brlti6h battleship Indefatigable, Inde-fatigable, r no. v building, proves to be the success that tho government looks for, are not the navies of the world face to faco with another revolution in warship design ao radical as to pend them all to the scrap heap in double-quick time? asks tho Spring-field Spring-field Republican. The Indefatigable Is to be propelled by internal-combustion gas engines, Instead of steam engines, and while this means, ot course, the continued use of coal for the production of the gas required as motive power, tbe change permits a modification of deck architecture that must affect seriously - tho fighting power of a ship. Funnels or smokestacks are eliminated, elimi-nated, and so are the boiler uptakes. With such obstructions swept away turrets for heavy guns on a vessel of 16,000 tons could be made Ave In number, num-ber, two guns in a turret, and so arranged ar-ranged as to admit of an all-around fire. The whole ten guns could be ! fired In broadside, and, besides, bow and stern Are could be much increased. in-creased. Comparing the armament ot a standard steam-driven battleship ot about 16,000 tons with that of a ship of the same size driven , by gas engines, en-gines, the Scientific American recently recent-ly showed that while the former was armed with four twelve-Inch, four ten-inch ten-inch and twelve six-Inch guns, the latter lat-ter could carry ten twelve-Inch guns and eighteen rapid-fire four-inch guns. In long-distance fighting the superiority superior-ity of the ship with the ten heavy guns capable of being fired at will on either bioadsldo is manifest, Lewis Nixon quoted as saying, in the New York Evening Post, concerning concern-ing tho English Admiralty's experiment experi-ment with the now Indefatigable: "There is absolutely no question tbat the internal-combustion engine is the ideal engine for battleship propulsion. pro-pulsion. It is more economical in first cost and maintenance than steam, burns loss fuel, reduces the physical strain on the engine force, and is smokeless and sparkless. I am kept fully informed as to progress abroad, and know that we are far ahead ot European countries In the art of gas-engine gas-engine construction ; but we leave England and other foreign couutrles to apply our engines, which I think is hardly creditable to us. American gas engines are now found In the torpedo tor-pedo boats of two European countries, but they, are not in American boats. . . .- There is now no question that a battleship can be built either here or In England, propelled by gas engines, en-gines, with not as much risk as with steam turbines. The attendant advantages ad-vantages are so overwhelming as to be startling. While .funnels will, of course, go, it Is perfectly possible to do away with military masts and all obstructions above deck excopt guns and gun protection." The introduction of the Dread-naught Dread-naught type of battleship has compelled com-pelled the rebuilding of modern fleets in order that a maximum of heavy gun fire at long ranges might be secured, se-cured, and the additional cost of these leviathans ha6 Increased seriously tho gravity of tho financial problem connected con-nected with navel construction and maintenance. The significance of the Dreadnought type is that it has sentenced sen-tenced the smaller types of battleships battle-ships to early extinction. Now tho effect upon the steam-driven Dreadnoughts, Dread-noughts, already built or under construction, con-struction, of the gas-driven type ot battiesnip seems iiReiy to he the same. A successful Indefatigable will likewise like-wise make obsolete in a 6hort time the Dreadnoughts, and every modern navy will have to be rebuilt immediately. imme-diately. The total cast of all vessels of the United States navy, built or building, at the preeent time, cannot bo less than S350.000.000. If the Indefatigable Indefatiga-ble means another naval revolution, these figures Indicate In a degree what the cost of reconstruction would be. |