Protected Cruiser “Charleston”—Class of Three Ships

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

We have recently added to the navy three protected cruisers which, in view of developments since the Japanese war, are of doubtful value, These are the “Charleston,” built at Newport News; the “Milwaukee,” built at San Francisco; and the “St. Louis,” built by Neafie&Levy, of Philadelphia. In view of the size of these ships, 9,700 tons, it is unfortunate that they should be so poorly protected. Their armor plans show a protective deck only 2 to 3 inches in thickness, and a partial belt of 4-inch armor, with 4-inch armor for the protection of the central battery. The ships carry each fourteen 6-inch 50-caliber guns, one mounted forward, one aft behind shields, and the other twelve being carried on the gun and main decks within the central battery. The vessels have made speeds of slightly over 22 knots on trial. which is half a knot above the contract requirement. Fifteen hundred tons of coal can be stored in tljJ bunkers, The fighting value of these ships is small; though they are no worse than the contemporary, British ships of the “County” class, several of which have visited our eastern harbors in recent years, In a modern engagement, these vessels would be quite unable to engage the up-to-date cruisers of some foreign navies, and against ships of their own type they would be terribly cut up by shell fire of the rapid-fire batteries. They will be useful for scouting purposes; but could engage only ships as poorly protected as themselves

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American