IT is a well known engineering principle that any design of the first magnitude must be a development of previous practice and based on features gathered from the four corners of the technical world. far attempt to trace the origin of many of these features would be a task for a historian and, the result would be of small value except as a matter of academic interest. In abroad way, however, the history of shipbuilding and designing in the United States shows numerous fields in which Americans have been pioneers or instruments in the highest development of the ideas of others. The well known inventive genius of the American can be recognized as a basic influence in myriad mechanical details incorporated in the great ships If war or peace of all the maritime nations. These details, though great in their final result, cannot be considered as a direct influence on the design of the individual ship. This influence, however, can be found even in the early history of this country when the American clipper ship was the fleetest sailer on all the seven seas. From this point to the present day the same influence can be traced through such great events as the marine application of the steam engine; the development a f the armored revolving turret for the mounting of heavy guns; the application of electricity to all auxiliary power purposes on board ship; the appearance of the American type of the modern submarine, which, in its original form or as a basis for further development, is found today in the navies of England, Japan and Russia; the introduction o n war vessels of the many comforts and conveniences a f modern life, thereby permitting the fighting personnel to be maintained in the highest state of physical and mental training. These and many others are features which, through internal and external sources, have influenced, by the agency of American designers, the present-day development of that great fighting machine, the battleship. In the consideration of this type, it is well to pass over the great events of previous years and the details of to-day and treat only of those features which, to the naval architect, give a ship an individuality of its own. Such a feature is what is now generally known as the American turret arrangement which it will be interesting to examine in some detail. A battleship has frequently been described as a machine whose output is fighting capacity. In the development of any new type of machine, one designer will emphasize some one feature or arrangement, while other designers considering other features of greater importance will make enlarged provision for them. With the advance of time and increased experience, there is a gradual adoption of a standard type of machine, to which all manufacturers more Or less conform. It is the purpose of this paper to show that the designers of the war vessels of the United States in their first all-big-gun battleship adopted as the emphasized feature of the fighting machine, a battery arrangement which, after experiment with various other battery arrangements, is now generally accepted by the designers of all nations as the standard battery arrangement (of guns) for the all-big-gun battleship. In thus setting the standard battery arrangement of fighting vessels, the influence of the United States on the world battleship design cannot be overestimated. The armament that is the guns upon the number and arrangement of which fighting capacity depends-is the most striking feature of a battleship. In the development of the all-big-gun battleship, the designers of the United States naval vessels at once adopted an arrangement of all turrets on the center-line of the vessel whereby at the forward end of the vessel number two turret fired over number one turret and at the after end of the vessel number three turret fired over number four turret. In this manner all guns were enabled to fire on each broadside, and naval authorities are practically agreed that not less than 85 per cent of the firing will take place in the arc forty-five degrees fonvard and forty-fve degrees abaft the beam. This arrangement was adopted in 1906 by the United StMes in its first all-big-gun vessels, the South Carolina and Michigan and the all-turrets-on-center-line arrangement has been followed in all battleship designs for the U. S. Navy since that date. Assigning what we considered undue importance to end-on fire, foreign designers adopted anangements which gave them end-on fire by the sacrifice of broadside fire to such an extent that from twenty to thirty and more per cent cf guns could not be fired on the broadside, where they would most often be required. It should be noted thM every battleship of the all-big-gun type in the U. S. Navy can fight every gun on the Broadside- provision which does not obtain in any other navy of the world. To-day, however, the wisdom of the “South Carolina” arrangement is generally recognized, and such arrangement is coming into general use in all armored vessel construction. That the importance of the principle of center-line turrets is not merely the view of an interested American naval officer is proven by the following foreign COmm(ts. In a paper on “The Armaments of Battleship,” contributed by that pre-eminent naval architect, Sir William White, to the American Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers in November, 1910, he wrote: "There are two positions for heavy guns which by common consent confer supreme advantages, and are always utilized. These positions are at the center line of the deck; one commanding right-ahead fire, with large arcs of horizontal training reaching well abaft ,he beam on each side; the other possessing correspon,ling commanrt right astern and over large arcs of training reaching well befo)e the beam. Until the 'Michigan' and 'South Carolina' were designed it was the general practice to mount one al' two heavy guns-two in neatly all cases-in each of these positions. Superposed turrets were tried in some cases, and 8-inch guns were mounted in the upper emplacement; but this practice dir not find much favor anel may be considered to have dropped. out of use. It was a new. and bold departure in the 'Michigan' anel 'South Carolina' to place two turrets in each of the supreme positions and to arrange for firing the guns in one turret over the top of the other turret. That arrangement proved successful, however, and has been largely adopted in recent ships of all navies. When associated wit h the mounting of guns in pairs this s y s t e m permits the effecti ve use of eight heavy guns; if t h I e e guns are mounted in each turret then twelve heavy guns can be given equal arcs of command, and all the guns can be used on eadl broallside. . . . "Now there” is a marked disposition to p lace all the heavy-gun stations at the center line of the deck, so that all the guns may be available on both broadsides. is a return to a disposition adopted in the earliest British t u I ret ships built nearly half a century ago. The 'Hoyal Sovereign' (1862) and the 'Prince Albert' which followed immediately after her, each had four turrets so placed. It may be noted that the VKJLA Un i ted States Navy took the stand in this last movement, and further has the credit of demonstrating the possibility of associating powerful bow and stern fire with the maximum of broadside fre over large arcs of training, by placing some turrets higher than other and firing over the lower turrets on certain bearings." In commenting on the above paper by Sir William White, The Engineer, published in London, says editorially in its issue of December 2nd, 1910: "In tonnage value for effect obtainable, it is hard to believe that it is possible to improve on the arrange:nent, first adopted in the United States battleship 'Michigan,' of four twin turrets on the center line, the two inner turrets firing over the two end turrets.” In its annual comments on warship design, “The Naval Annual” for 1910, edited by Lord Brassey, says; “ . . . . The 'Michigan' and 'South Carolina,' of 16,000 tons, have a speed of nearly 19 knots and eight 12-inch guns, an mounted in pairs on the center line, the second and third turrets being on a higher plane than those at the extremities of the vessel, so as to allow of their guns pointing over the end turrets, enabling four guns to be directed right ahead and astern. Now, if they can be so fired without detriment to the outer gun positions, the design possesses the advantage that, with two guns less than our 'Dreadnought,' an equal broadside fire is secured. It only gives, . however, an end-on fire of four guns against six. Another novelty in the 'Michigan' pair December 9, 1911 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN 511 is the means whereby elevation is secured for observation, signalling, etc. Masts in some form are required. The tripod method was adopted in the 'Dreadnought: It is not novel, having been advocated by Cowper Coles and applied to the 'Captain' for sailing purposes. I gave less interference with turret-gun fre than ordinary rigging. But the three iron masts forming the tripod are of great weight, and probably mainly on this aCCJunt the Americans have, in the 'Michigan,' placed two masts constructed like an Eifel Tower of steel lattice work. Though ofering a comparati vely large target, presumably it is .expected that projectiles will pass through without doing great damage; but if the resistance is sufcient to explode a shell a diferent result may follow." Jane's “Fighting Ships” for 1907, said: "There is some good reason to believe that taking all things into consideration the 'South Carolina' type is the best all·big·gun ship yet put in hand." Jane's “Fighting Ships” for 1908, referring to center·line battery arrangement, says: ” . . . . The disposition of artillery in the 'Delawares' is peculiar, all turrets being in the center line. There is little doubt that this design is superior to the echelon system in the matter of training. The British 'Invincible' class, though nominally able to bear all eight guns on either broadside, can only do so ovar a very limited arc of training, while every 'Delaware' turret has a fne arc on either side." And again in 1910, on page 503 of Jane's “Fighting Ships,” Captain William Hovgaard strts: "The ideal arrangement of the heavy gun-turrets seems to be the American, frst adopted in the 'Michigan,' where two turrets are placed at each end of the ship in the center·line, the guns nearest amidships fring over those nearest the ends. By this disposition the guns obtain the maximum arc of fre, the position of the upper turrets is commanding and dry, the arrangement of ammunition rooms is simple, and ample room is left amidships for an efcient and well protected secondary and anti·torpedo boat battery. With turrets placed on the broadside Or on a low level in the cent'r·line between end turrets, these advantages will not b obtained, and notably the relative loss in arc of fre, as in case of the broadside turrets of the 'Dreadnought,' the 'Nassaus,' and thE new French 23,000 ton battleship, will very considerably reduce the efciency of the guns. "I then we want to increase the power of the primary battery beyond that obtainable with the 'Michigan' arrangement, and without abandoning the said advantages, three ways are open: "(a) A third twin·turret may be placed on the cen- tel-line at each end of the ship inside the two other turrets and fring over these. "(b) The caliber of the guns may be increased. "(c) Three guns may be mounted in each turret." Commenting on tile visit of the United States feet to Europe, the Journal of the Royal United Ser'ice Institution for December, 1910, states: "I may b of interest to recall that the two American dreadnought battlhips, the 'Delaware' and 'North Dakota,' are vessels with a displacement of 20;000 tons, and in addition to their main battery, composed, like that of our own earlier dreadnoughts, of ten 12-inch 45·caliber guns, they also carry a more powerful anti-torpedo defence armament of fourteen 5-inch Q. F. guns, which for the most part are mounted in a central battery behind armor protection. All the big guns are on the center line of the ship, this being a characteristic feature of the turret arrangements in Amelican designs, two of the turrets being raised above the others in order to obtain a sufficiency of right ahead and “Tight astern fire and this method ot placing. 4he lurrets is the one now adopted for our latest ships, as giving the advantage that all the guns can be fired on either broadside. Thus, while the 'Dakota' and 'Delaware' can bring all ten of their 12-j;nch guns to peaz en either, side, our earlier dreadnqughts including tle 'St. yin{ent' and her Sisters, can only bring eight. On the other hand, the end-on fire of our ships is heavier." It should be noted that the Wi8e arrangement of the turrets of the 'South Carolina' and 'Michigan' was not tht! result of chance, but was adopted only after actual experiments on the monitor “Tallahassee” (then the “Florida") had proven that it was possible to fire a 12·inch gun over a turret without injury to the occupants of the lower turret. It is believed that tbe battery arrangement of the “South Carolina” and “Michigan” will remain a standard arrangement in the future, and that further increases in fighting ca.. pacity will be secured by increasing the caliber of guns, or by incfEasing the number of guns in a turret, or by both me a sures in the all-nt e r line vertical echelon turret arrangement. The Business Management of the Navy (Oontfnuoo from page 013.) The width of the latest docks has been increased to 110 feet, the same as established in the locks of the Panama Canal. Two contractors having failed to secure results with the New York dock, the second contract was orderd to be cancelled ol account of no progress having been made, and competition for the completion of this im- portant work was limited to the six largest frms of recognized engineering ability and fnancial standing. The contract, placed in November, 1909, under these conditions, Is being well carried out and the grelt dock at the New York Navy Yard will be fnished in January, 1912. The large dock at the Boston Navy Yard was enlarged slightly, at a cost of only $15,000, so that it now can comfortably dock the “Florida” and “Utah." Competition, both in the feet and at navy yards, has been a greM factor in reducing the expenses of a growing feet. The present high standard of shooting is due to the system of competition introduced some ten years ago. Comparison between the shooting in 1898 and to-day shows that to-day we are 1,200 times better. Steaming competitions have lately been introduced, so that economy in the use of coal, oil, waste, and other supplies, and the efciency in steaming, determine the ships' standIng. The idea is that a ship must be able, frst, to get on the battle ground quickly and surely; when she is there, she must be able to shoot rapidly and straight. Instead of having seven store accounts we now have but one, which has simplifed book-keeping and clerical work. The old Naval Supply Fund, which had a capital of $2,700,000, ha been liquidated and this sum has been released to the Treasury for other purposes. It is hoped that a correct personnel bill will be secured, by which the ages of our ofcers may be reduced and greater efciency brought about. The bill recommended will produce captains from 45 to 48 years of age, and rear-admirals at 55 instead of about 60. It is also desired to add two vice-admirals and an admiral, in order that the commander· in-chief of our great battleship feet should have a position commensurate in importance with his command, and that he should not be outranked, when meeting foreign feets on special occasions, at home and abroad, by an admiral of a single ship or of an inferior navy. In conclusion, let me add that the aim of this administration has been to introduce into the management of the navy modern, effieient business methods, t reduce correspondence and cut out red tape. Economies have been established and output increased. Nor has the department, in its effiorts to reduce expEnses, forgotten the paramount importance of the highest military efficiency and a preparedness for any emergency. To-day, when needed, it holds, to preserve the peace, a larger and more efficent feet, at a smaller cost for upkeep. The changes in organization have justifed themselves by results and are paying-the final test of all business management.