Third Prize Essay

Royal United Services Institution. Journal ISSN: 0035-9289 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rusi19 Third Prize Essay Lieutenant E. V. F. R. Dugmore R.N. To cite this article: Lieutenant E. V. F. R. Dugmore R.N. (1907) Third Prize Essay, Royal United Services Institution. Journal, 51:357, 1323-1344, DOI: 10.1080/03071840709416888 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03071840709416888 Published online: 11 Sep 2009. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 3 View related articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rusi20 Download by: [University of California Santa Barbara] Date: 19 June 2016, At: 23:46 Subject :- “WRAT IS THE RELATIVE VALUE OF SPEED AND ARMAMENT, BOTH STRATEGICALLY AND TACTICALLY, IN A‘ 31 ODERN BATTLE-5XIIP, AbD IIOW FAR SHOULD EITHER BE SACRIFICED TO THE OTHER IN THE IDEAL SHIP 1 ” By Lieutenant E. 1‘. P. 12. ZIUGXORE, R.X. Motto :- “ For the King, the Law, and the I’eoplc.” ENGLAND is tho countiy to wliicli, above all others, lier Navy is pre-eminently important; as has been urged with such wearisome fre- quency, her very existence depends on,it. Let the question, therefore, be regardcd from her position. She is gifted with *geographical advantages far beyond those of any other naval Power; she has pro- vided herself in the course of ages with outlying bases to meet strategic requirements; and, having no land frontier to protect, can put all her interest into her flect. There sliould be no half-henrtedness about it; the fleet is for hsr preservation and not for aggression, and passive resis5ance is in her cCwesynonymous with ineffectual resistance. Hence we may at once dismiss one detail of compromise-cost. Having got rid of cost, let us expel another objectionable con- sideistion-the “ too inany eggs in one basket ” idea. Onielettes capot bo made without breaking eggs, and risks mnst be run to accompiish ,anything; there let the matter end-at least for the capital ship-and let it be confined to niercliantmen and insurance conipanies, who are not, apparently, timid or nervous, judging by the siae of the liner, Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 23:46 19 June 2016 which mz$t at any time becomc a total wreck as the result of collision or contact, with the rocks of tlio fogbound coasts she frcquents, or fall .a victim to fire or the enemy’s cruisers. Suffer the, unfortunately real, drawback to the colossal battleship to be dismissed for ever, for there is enough requiring thought without saddling ourselves with this spectre. We have to make up our minds to many necewry evils in worldly affairs, let this be one we accept without compromise. If we lose our ship, costing nearly 22,000,000, let us for once put it down to Kismet, and say: ‘I We did our best; it cannot be helped.” If big , ships arc. iiecessary, then we must havc big ships. \17hat a wiglit is lifted off the mind, arid lioiv mattcrs \vould bo yimplified if wc could dispose of ,711 nnints RS ea.sily! 4x2 1334 ’ THIRD PRIZE ESSAY. Much has been written and much discussion has taken place on various themes in connection with Navies, an$ the subject of this paper has not been neglected; but these matters have generally been treated in an abstract manlier without tlie attempt to arrive at definite conclusions by taking eveiy argument for and against, assessing a value and disposing of it. Most articles are partisan, and an advocate fGr one requirement will state everything in its favour and overlook considerations in favour of its oppositc, tlius deciding on the intensc value of his ownparticular fad to his satisfaction but not to that of his opponent. The most reasonable course appears to be to work to tlie final conclusion aiid ]lot from it. There arc many details in which we cannot but express ignorance; liypothetical values must be assigned to tliem so that we may obtain some tangible result, and if these sup- positious elements are not concurredhi, or arc proved to be faulty by subsequent experience, then a different value may be attached to the various desiderata, and the ~rholearguinent may be, revised to mwt the altered conditions, and no haim done. Three ways of investigating a problem are by:- 1. Deductions from facts; giving precise results. 2. Practical csperience and experiment; giving more or less concise results, depending on the degree of finality of the experience or experiment. 3. Deductions from assuniption; giving results sometimes satis- factory but frequently the reverse. The problem with which this paper is to deal is one in which tlie third method must necessarily largely figure, while tlie iiifoi-mation at disposal is so restricted as to lead one to expect little help from the first two methods. For stratcarry we have some practical experience; for ,tactics, next to none. Strate,g has but altered in degree; tlie principal factors still mist, substituting fuel supply for water supply as tlie bugbear of the admiral, to limit his action and the distance from his bases. We do not hear of important cases of shortage of ammunition in tlie old days, escept, pcrliaps, tlie battle of Malaga, fought after Treat expenditure at Gibraltar: indeed, the battle of the Pas de Calais, lasting four days, points to no difficulty in this respect.. Thc huge capacity of the line-of-battle ship was ample for tlic lengthy engage- ments of tlie past. ITowadays the battleship is much more limited In supply; but, on the other hand, the modern sea fight will be of shorter duratioit A ccntury ago a ship was rendered helpless for want of water; now L battlesliip becomes a floating fort, probably depleted of ammunition, almost at the mercy of the smallest torpedo-boat, for Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 23:46 19 June 2016 want of fuel. Fuel can, however, be carried to tlie battleship, or she is competent to calculate to a nicety lier requirements to enable her to reach a coaling station. Water vas not carried to the ‘‘ vooden wall,” and she was entirely subject to wind to allow her to go in search of it. The two conditions are analogous, and many lessons in strategy are to be gained \from our ancestors. For tlie study of tactics there are few worthy of consideration; difficulties are presented mliich do not admit of abstract treatment. At the same time, the tactical question affords greater opportunity for conclusive argument, which the natural advantages conferred on either belligerent by relative or geographical position, not to be overlooked, does not permit in the strategical problem. Practical experience is TlXIRD PRIZE ESSAY. 1323 of more importance for tlie unravelling of tlie tactical puzzle, and this we do not possess, as no naval battles liave been fought with modern appliawes where the colditions were in the least respect equal numerically or as reprds the personal element. ‘ Lisa was scarcely a modern action; the sea conflicts of the South ilmerican Republics give no data; the Chino-Japanese campaign was unequal in every instance; the sanie applies to the Spanish-American war; and the late war in th? Far East, witli the unhomogeneous nature of the rival fleets and tlie dissimilarity in personal ability, gives us little valuable in- formation, except as to what may result from a well-placed shot and tlie use which may be made of suiierior speed only undor certain conditions. Further, strategy docs not requiro sucli B large amount of practice to provo tlio importance of its principles, and theory offers more facilities for the solving of its problems. In making coniparisons there is always a tendency to exaggerate points of resemblance and to disregard points of difference. An attempt will be made tv avoid falling ilito the trap, and, with that aim in viow, bias in favour of the merits of one or otlier of the elements will be eliminated as far as hum;tnly possible. U7e will start from tlie beginning with open minds aml work to a conclusion with opinions grown in the course of tlie discussion, when it is lioped some tangible and concise lam may be laid doivn. THE SHIP. It is first necessary to select tlic ship which is to undergo altera t’ion in order to prod~cctlie nieaiis of comparison. In a problem wherein cornpromise lies <as the whole gist of the question, it is obvious that tho “Dreadnought,” in wliich design it may be said that what has been called tlie ‘‘ compromiseless ” ship lias been most nearly attained, will not do for our 1iurpose. The saving of weight effected by tlie intro- duction of tlie turbine lias permitted an excessively high speed-for a battlc-sliip-+t!i an enormous armament, which would be impossible with reciprocating engines in a ship of tlie same size. V7ith the great qualities of speed, armament, and armour wliicli slic possesses there is, presumably, little room for compromise; further, we do not know er,ougli about the ship 01- tlie success of a turbine battleship to take her as B guide.‘ After all, it is not of much consequence what type we employ for purposes of comparison so long as the most is made of tlie dimensions of a ship brought up-to-date in otlier details. Two battleship; are to bc evolved, one of high speed, the other of large armament. As we require a substantial difference in these items to Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 23:46 19 June 2016 obtain comlusivc wsults, to judge of their behaviour strategically and tacticnlly, the standard used will be, in tlic main, the 17-knot !)attle-ship of tlie ‘I Najestic ” class, with lier ai-mour protection brought <ip-tedate, and sucli modifications as are practicable to tlic constructor.

Load more