By LORD BRASSEY, K.C.B., D.C.L., Assoc. Inst. C.E. THE Institution of Civil Engineers does not deal with public The Report of the Committee of the Chamber of Deputies on RATIO OF MILITARY TO AGGREGATE PUBLIC EXPENDITURE. Even for the Navy, expenditure should be watched with care, and reductions should be possible without cutting down appro- priations to essential purposes. In the most important classes of ships Great Britain holds a B commanding position. The latest official summary-which does not take into account the losses in the Russo-Japanese war-is as under. COMPARATIVE TABULAR STATEMENT OF THE NUMERICAL STRENGTH OF THE FLEETS OF GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, RUSSIA, GERMANY, ITALY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND JAPAN. It is not certain whether the building of all these has been actually begun. A decision has recently been arrived at to strike protected ships off the list in large numbers. While the policy of putting the less effective types out of commission, and reinforcing the squadrons with modern vessels, should command approval, erasures from the Navy List should not be pushed too far. If the vessels are sent to outlying anchorages, care should be taken that they are kept fit for service in the emergency of war, when the casualties must be numerous; for the power which has large reserves of ships must possess a great advantage. Every naval administrator must wish that British ships had a longer tenure on the list of effectives. To one who served at the Admiralty when the battleships of the "Admiral" class and the belted cruisers were laid down, it is hard to see them becoming obsolete so soon. The protected cruisers are of even later date. In the last 20 years more than 17 millions sterling have been expended on vessels on which reliance is no longer placed. There are naval architects of renown among the members of the Institution of Civil Engineers: can they throw more light on the future of naval construction than has been obtainable in the past? There is no surer way to economy than to build of the best quality, and to look as far as possible into the future in the preparation of designs. The criticisms of the French Committee on Estimates on the designs for some recent ships, and on their structural defects, are full of warning for all who have to deal with problems of construction, whether in Parliament or at the drawing-table. Shipbuilding for the Navy must necessarily be an answer to construction in hand elsewhere. There are navies which England must be prepared to meet, and which it is therefore the duty of the Admiralty closely to watch. As a first step in the consideration of the types which should be laid down for the British Navy, the work in progress for foreign navies may be passed in review. The list below is compiled from the latest Admiralty return. Effort, it is apparent, is concentrated everywhere on battleships and armoured cruisers. Protected cruisers are disappearing. No ships now being built are without protection by vertical armour. The ships in course of construction embody the ideas prevailing at the time when they were designed. For indications as to future developments the Report of the Committee on the French Estimates, to which reference has already been made, is of special interest. It deals at length with shipbuilding policy. In France, as in other countries, some authorities are for battleships, others for armoured cruisers. In the judgment of the Committee the solution may be found in a type in which the distinctive characteristics of the battleship and the cruiser will be, as far as possible, combined. Such a type is represented in France by the "Edgard Quinet," of 14,000 tons, in the United States Navy by the four ships of the "North Carolina " class, of 14,500 tons, and in the British Navy by the three ships of the "Minotaur" class, of 14,600 tons, and the six ships of the "Duke of Edinburgh" class, of 13,550 tons. It is the aim of the naval administration of France to complete annually three first-class ships. If all three were battleships of the latest type, costing more than £1,500,000 each, the French Navy estimates would be unduly burdened. The French Committee recommend that the annual shipbuilding programme should provide for two battleships only, the third vessel being of a less costly kind, yet not ineffective for the naval service. Armament and armour would be the same for both classes, the main armament being two 12-inch or 10-inch guns of the latest pattern, and the secondary armament 6-inch guns. All guns would be protected by armour, those on the upper deck being in turrets, and those on the main deck in casemates and an armoured battery. As to protection, a pamphlet entitled "Canons et blindages," recently published by General Puel, Director of Naval Ordnance at the French Admiralty, is cited as authority for reducing armour to two-thirds of the thickness now insisted upon in battleships. It is held that 8-inch armour should be sufficient. Both classes of vessels would be designed to steam at high speeds. Guns, armour, and speed being the same, the two types would differ chiefly in tonnage. For the larger vessels a displacement of 15,000 tons is proposed, thus giving the coal-endurance and the power of carrying supplies of ammunition and stores for extended ocean cruising. The smaller vessels, with a displacement of 10,000 tons and limited supplies, would be specially designed for the seas of Europe. The four vessels of the "Vittorio Emanuele III." type, now under construction for the Italian Navy, have been specially commended by naval experts, as combining the armour and armament of the battleship with the speed and coal-endurance of the cruiser. The chief features of their design are: displacement, 12,425 tons; speed, 22 knots; armament, two 12-inch and twelve 8-inch guns, with quick-firers; belt and upper works protected by armour, tapering in thickness from 93 inches to 4 inches; cost £1,120,000. The French Committee refer to the Italian designs as being very suitable for their own navy. The Italian battleships formed the subject of a Paper 1 by Admiral Sir John Hopkins, read at the Royal United Service Institution on the 6th February, 1902. In describing the "Vittorio Emanuele III.," the features on which Admiral Hopkins specially insisted were the reduced cost, as compared with the "King Edward VII.," a vessel contemporary with the " République" type of France, the complete belt of 10-inch armour, the protection of all guns by barbettes or turrets, the ample coal-supply of 2,800 tons, and the speed of 22 knots per hour, giving an advantage of 3 knots over all battleships then building for foreign navies. Something was probably gained in the Italian ship from the greater length-six times the beam, as compared with five and a half times, the usual proportion in British vessels. In the opinion of Captain Mahan, battleships must be built in numbers, and they ought to give mutual support. Sir John Hopkins spoke strongly for an advantage in numbers; and he summed up the position thus :-If we can get all we want in the larger ship, and cannot get it in the smaller ship, the bigger ship is desirable: on the other hand, when thinking of torpedoes and rams, grave consideration must be given to the heavy loss resulting from the destruction of the larger ships. Admiral Sir Edmund Fremantle followed on the same side: he would have thought that, when the building of 14,000-ton ships was begun under the Naval Defence Act of 1889, the more reasonable thing would have been to build a limited number of ships of 14,000 tons, and a large number of vessels of 11,000 to 12,000 tons. Sir Edmund Fremantle was anticipating, with a rare gift of prophecy, the recommendations of the latest Committee on the French Navy Estimates. Other authorities may be quoted. Mr. H. G. Gillmor,2 after comparing the ships building for all navies, assigns the first place to the "Vittorio Emanuele III." Mr. Jane observes 3: "Strategically, vessels of this type are the finest warships in the world. Tactically considered, they are extremely well protected, and their very high speed should tell. . . . Unless a rapid rate of fire is secured with the single 12-inch guns, the ship is likely to feel her loss of two heavy pieces. Few ships, however, seem so well designed to stand heavy gun attack." So, too, Le Yacht: "With a protection consisting of a wide and 1 "Is a Second-Class or smaller Battleship desirable ?" Journal of the Royal United Service Institution, vol. xlvi. p. 657. 2 Scientific American Supplement, vol. lii. (1901), p. 21673. F. T. Jane, "All the World's Fighting Ships," 1904, p. 254. |