The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

1901.] MARINE REVIEW. is SUBMARINE BOATS. THE ENGLISH TECHNICAL FRESS DOES NOT LOOK UPON THE DEPARTURE OF THE BRITISH ADMIRALTY WITH FAVOR. In a recent issue the Review noted that the British admiralty had decided to construct several submarine boats after patient investiga- tion of the subject for a considerable length of time. This departure, tor such it must be regarded on the part of the British government, is not viewed with favor by the technical press of England. 'The English papers insist that submarines in their present development are failures. The Engineer of London, which has given considerable attention to the sub- ject, says: "Our excuse for writing once more about submarine boats is two- fold. In the first place their construction and use constitute the most important subjects in connection with navies which for the moment can be discussed. In the second place, we gather from communications which we have received that our attitude concerning the present and future of the submarine boat is misunderstood. We have endeavored to be explicit on the point. We believed that we had been clear. It has been said, however, by an eminent parliamentary speaker that the only way to con- vince an audience was to repeat the same statement over and over again, if possible, changing the method of presenting the argument. Following this rule, we must, we fear, go over old ground, but we shall endeavor, at all events, to use different language. "We have stated that it is wholly unnecessary for the British admir- alty to do what the French government is doing and has done; and we have said this because nothing done recently in France has supplied valuable information, or served to promote the development of the sub- marine boat on useful lines. One correspondent claims for the American boat Holland a large measure of success. We say of the Holland what we have just said of such vessels as the Narval, the Morse, or the Gustave Zede. We hold that it would be a waste of time and money for the Brit- ish admiralty to construct boats in any way resembling these in detail. They demonstrate nothing that has not already been known; but such vessels in no way represent the limit of submarine warfare. There are far more promising directions in which to work; and we shall not be sur- prised, if, say in six months, we are able to announce that the admiralty has been for over twelve months carrying on investigations and making experiments with a secrecy which is at once essential, and has been pre- served with all but complete success. The directing of a submarine boat is not, perhaps, wholly dependent on an eye, a compass, or a gyroscope. The resources of physical science have not been exhausted by either France or the United States, and there may be surprises in store in the future for those who are all impatience in the present. It is clear that many people believe that such a success has been achieved in France that the naval supremacy of this country has been already compromised. They are, however, quite unable to say. precisely what that success is, how far it is novel, and whether it is or is not conclusive. Its nature is, we think, very easily stated. It has been proved that a vessel can be submerged; that she can move about under water; and that she can discharge tor- pedoes. But this much has been known for very many years. We shall not confine ourselves to mere experiment, but speak of what is of more im- portance, the use of the submarine boat in actual warfare. If our readers will turn to our issue for Feb. 1 they will find an interesting article treat- ing of early attempts of this kind. More recently, that is to say, in 1861 or 1862, a submarine boat wag built at Charleston, and used against the federal blockading fleet. She was propelled by a screw turned by eight men, while a ninth man discharged a torpedo. While experimenting with her no fewer than twenty-seven men were drowned. Then she was tried as a surface boat with her hatches open. She attacked and sunk the United States ship Housatonic with a torpedo, and was herself sunk by the column of falling water thrown up by her own torpedo, and five more men were drowned. There is no trustworthy evidence that any of the Norden- feldt boats ever fired a charged torpedo intended to hit anything. The measure of success in this direction attained in France goes no further than the point which had already been reached, even assuming the results _ experiments are as satisfactory as the French press would have us be- ieve. "Granting that the submarine boat can descend and move under water, that, in fact, we do possess a tool or instrument of war, let us ask what proof is there that this tool can be used to good effect? So far the answer is that no proof exists. The French admiralty are necessarily silent as to what has been done. There is no official evidence available. It has been stated by M. Lockroy that one of the French boats has dis- charged a torpedo at a fixed target and hit it. But it is evident that it is one thing to take a submarine out of harbor in still water, move her within easy striking distance of a target, submerge her, and then fire a torpedo, The wonder would be if the torpedo missed the target. But impressive as such an experiment would no doubt be to French newspaper reporters, it would not for a moment deceive French naval experts, wino would, of course, maintain official silence, no matter what they thought. The conditions have nothing whatever in common with those of naval warfare. Battleships attacking a port would be in constant movement, steaming past it and shooting--in this way greatly adding to the. diffi- culties of the besieged. How would the slow, blind submarine boat discharge her torpedoes with any hope--we shall not say certainty, for that is out of the question--of hitting one of the attacking ships? How great would be the risk that she would run of being smashed by some of the projectiles falling into the sea. If a blockading fleet lay at anchor the patrol boats would be incessantly on the lookout; and even if the sub- marine succeeded in eluding them, she would find all the torpedo nets down. It is a noteworthy fact that no French naval authority has as yet said one syllable as to the conditions which submarine boats must satisiy if they are to be useful. No one supposes that they can ever operate far from a base, whether that base is a warship or a port. It seems obvious that the best field for the operations of a submarine boat is in the mouth of a navigable river, or in the entrance to a port or harbor. But for the defence of such places we already have mines; and failing these can the submarine boat effect anything that the Brennan torpedo cannot do? Judged by the standard of actual warfare, it may be reaffirmed that the French boats have up to the present achieved nothing. We do not say they have been tried as engines of destruction and failed; but simply that, for some reason best known to the authorities, they have not been so tried. If they had been and succeeded the French press would ring with the news. It is not enough that a vessel shall descend below the surface, and remain there moving slowly about for some hours; she must be able to hurt something; to sink an enemy's ship. We do not assert that the French boats cannot do this; we do say that they have not as yet given the least shadow of proof that they could do it under the conditions of actual naval warfare except by chance. "To do those who most favor the submarine boat justice, they do not pin their faith on France. They direct our attention to the Holland, We have given the report of Rear Admiral Charles O'Neil, U. S. N., chief of the bureau of ordnance, to the committee on naval affairs of the house of representatives, on the Holland. Regarded as a statement of facts, it will go far to dispel certain illusions entertained in this country. It is, we think, impossible to dismiss this report as the production of a man at once ignorant and prejudiced. No more eminent authority can possibly be had; nor does he stand alone. Rear Admiral Melville, chief of the bureau of steam engineering, holds similar opinions. Against these are the views of Rear Admiral Hichborn, chief constructor United States navy. But one or two extracts from the evidence will suffice to show that he favors submarine boats, not so much because he is sure that they are really good for anything, as because he thinks they could comfort nervous people. Asked if he thought two submarine boats for each port in case of war would be enough, he replied that they would not, but 'they would be a help to nervous people. We had a little experience of that during the last war. The people along the New England coast raided the navy department from morning till night for old monitors that had been condemned more than thirty years; and we took them down there, and the people kept quiet after that. The submarines would be as good a cure for nervous prostration as anything you could get.' It seems to us that just the same end would be answered by an official assurance that the submarine boats were really there, whether they were or not. The ethics of the case are scarcely affected by the presence or absence of a craft which could do nothing in any case; nor, even supposing the boats were effi- cient, does Admiral Hichborn propose to do anything with them at all approaching in magnitude that intended by a section of the French press. Admiral Hichborn's views are very modest:indeed by comparison: 'My view would be to keep them in the harbors. You would find the people of New York very restive if you undertook to take their submarine boats away, except to go outside a short distance, perhaps. They would not need to cruise up and down the coast, or anything of that kind. Harbor defence is what you want them for,' "Concerning the Holland we need not say more at present. One word of particular explanation is, however, necessary. It will be seen that she has on no fewer than four times burned up the armature of her motor. It may, no doubt, be urged in extenuation that it was not a good arma- ture. Yet the fact will remain that all armatures heat, and that, as set forth recently in our columns by Mr. Sprague, it is simply a question of time how soon they will be burned, unless special precautions are taken to keep them cool. This is next to impossible on board a submarine boat, and this fact greatly limits the amount of power that can be made available for propulsion. Some device may be hit upon to get over this difficulty, but it has not been hit upon yet." MODERN FOUNDRY PLANT, The Bullock Electric Mfg. Co., through its secretary, Mr. James Wilson Bullock, has acquired control of 15 acres of land directly opposite the present plant at East Norwood, O. Upon this tract the Norwood Foundry Co. will erect a foundry building 200 ft. long by 150 ft. width; a pattern storage house, fireproof construction, 50 by 150 ft., three stories high; and a modern office structure. All these buildings will be built of buff pressed brick with steel frames and trusses to conform to the present buildings of the Bullock Electric Mfg. Co. The foundry will be equipped with three electric cranes, the largest of which will have a capacity of 50 tons. The side bays, which will be 25 ft. in width, will be served by hand traveling and jib cranes. The plant will be in every way of modern character, and electricity will be used for power and light- ing throughout. While this foundry will be operated under the name of the Norwood Foundry Co., it will serve primarily the needs of the Bullock Electric Mfg. Co. It will also be in position to handle outside orders in the most satisfactory manner. That it will be operated successfully is guaranteed by the fact that it will be under the direction of Messrs. Hoffiinghoft & Laue of Cincinnati, a firm whose skill in handling foundry work is every- where acknowledged. Work is progressing rapidly upon the Buffalo plant of the Lacka- wanna Iron & Steel 'Co. of Scranton and Lebanon, Pa. The company has about 1,400 acres of ground along the lake front near Stony point. The tract includes an extensive harbor shielded by a breakwater, and the company has direct connections with twenty-six railroads entering the city of Buffalo. It is the purpose also to excavate a canal 200 ft. wide parallel to the lake shore from the harbor proper. This canal, which will run along the line of the blast furnaces to be built, will permit of the entrance of the largest ore boats. A contract has just been closed with the Wellman-Seaver Engineering Co. of Cleveland for the entire equip- ment of unloading and handling machinery. The capacity of the plant will be between 800,000 and 1,000,000 tons of steel per annum and it is expected that the first cast will be made in the summer of next year. A very interesting test of a simplex vertical boiler feed pump was made recently at the works of the Geo. F. Blake Mfg. (Co., East Cambridge, Boston, by F. Meriam Wheeler of the Geo, F. Blake Co., and William A. Fairburn, chief engineer of the Eastern Ship Building Co., New Lon- don, Conn. This pump is of a new type and contains many interesting features, promoting economy and smooth running at good speeds. It - has been built for a Russian battleship that is under construction in Rus- sia, and is capable of pumping against a pressure of 600 Ibs. per sq. in. when supplying feed water for a battery of Belleville boilers. The pump has 9-in. steam cylinder, 6-in. water cylinder and 12-in. stroke. The water consumption was found to be about 60 Ibs. per I.H.P. per hour, and with boiler steam at 300 lbs. the pump supplied the desired amount of water against the stated pressure of 600 Ibs. per sq. in.