The Battleships “Kearsarge” and “Kentucky”

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.


The distinguishing feature of the “Kentucky” was the method adopted of carrying the 13-inch and 8-inch guns of the main battery. With a view to obtaining as wide an arc of fire as possible, these guns were mounted in superposed or double-deck turrets, as to the merits of which there arose a very wide diversity of opinion among naval men. The 13-inch guns are mounted in the lower turret, upon the roof of which is carried a smaller turret for the 8-inch guns. The two turrets being constructed integrally, one turning mechanism serves for both pairs of guns; but each pair is, of course, provided with its own elevating gear. The obvious advantage of this mounting is that the 8-inch are never masked by the 13-inch guns, or by the superstructure, as is the case in the “Oregon,” and all four of them are, therefore, available not only for end-on fire, but for fire on either broadside. The disadvantages are that a single successful hit by the enemy would probably put all the four guns of the turret out of commission at once. Another and perhaps more serious drawback is that four of the heaviest guns have to wait upon one another, and the rapidity of fire is, therefore, diminished. The ideal mounting for rapidity and general efficiency of fire is to carry each gun in a turret by itself. It can then be fired as often and whenever the officer in command desires, and without any reference to the fire of any other gun. Another element of danger is the open communications from the guns to the magazines, a fault for which, both in these and later ships, we were to pay dearly. Also the central battery of fourteen 5-inch guns is exposed to destruction by a single large shell. The “Kentucky” is a small battleship as size goes nowadays, with a displacement of 11,540 tons, a trial speed of 16.9 knots, and a bunker capacity of 1,591 tons. At the waterline she is protected by a belt 16% inches thick amidships, tapering to 4 inches at the bow; the belt is not continuous, but terminates in the wake of the after main barbette, the protection of the after portion of the ship being left to the protective deck, which here is from 3 to 5 inches in thickness, being elsewhere in the fiat portions of it 2%, inches in thickness. Above the belt the side of the ship for about two-thirds of its length amidships is protected by a wall of 5-inch armor which extends to the main deck. Above this is a casemate battery protected by a wall of 6-inch armor, within which is mounted a battery of fourteen 5-inch guns, seven on a side. Also the ship carries twenty 6-pounders, eight of them on the gun deck, and twelve of them on the superstructure deck. All of the guns are served by electric hoists, and the big guns are also handled electrically. These ships are powerfully armed for their size; but, judged by modern ideas, their freeboard is low, being only about 13 feet, and the secondary battery, according to the ideas of the days in which they were built, was too light. But, curious to relate, the reversal of ideas as to the armament of ships has been such that, in respect of her secondary battery, the “Kearsarge” is thoroughly up-to-date, carrying a main armament of heavy guns, and a secondary armament of 5-inch guns for repelling torpedo attack. An improved type of this gun is to be mounted on our latest 20,000-ton ships of the “Delaware” class

Scientific American Magazine Vol 97 Issue 23This article was published with the title “Battleships” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 97 No. 23 (), p. 408
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican12071907-408

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

Subscribe