The New Naval War Game

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.


In the current issue of the SciEN'l'IFic AMERICAN SUPPLEMENT we publish a paper descriptive of a naval war game which is being played by naval officers on the other side of the water. It is intended to represent on a board the actual conditions which would obtain in a modern naval fight, and it is claimed by naval experts that it does this with such success that the game is at once a valuable training to the officers and a test of the comparative values of the various types ot warships. The full details of the game, which represents over ten years' work upon the part of the author, have not yet been published ; but the published data shows that it is played upon a board ruled into squares, representing the scene of action, the ships being represented by small models which are moved at their respective speeds (ten, fifteen or twenty knots, as the case iiiay be) at the will of the commanding officers. The game may be played as a duel between two ships or as a fleet action between a large number of ships. The models represent actual ships, and one player is assigned to each ship. The various elements in a warship, such as armor, guns, speed, etc., are assigned certain values by points, and as the game proceeds, the players, it would appear, are awarded so many points by the umpires, according to their tactics. It is claimed that the victory usually falls to the stronger ship or fleet--a fact that would seem to prove the correctness of the theory upon which the game' is based. At the same time, there are certainly exceptions to the rule, as in the case of a game recently played, in which the United States battleships " Indiana," "Oregon" and " Iowa" were pitted against double the number of Spanish ships, viz., the battleship " Pelayo," the three armored cruisers "Teresa,"" Cristobal Colon' ' and " Viscaya," and the destroyers "Terror" and "Furor." Here, in spite of the numerical superiority of the Spanish, the American ships, with their heavy guns and thick armor, would be almost certain to win. As the game worked out, the balance was slightly in favor of the Spaniards, owing chiefly to the distraction afforded by the attempt of the destroyers to torpedo the " Indiana" and "Oregon," which diverted the fire of these ships from the Spanish armorclads. It is considered tint, in nine chances out of ten, the game would result in the victory of the powerful few over the individually weaker many.

SA Supplements Vol 45 Issue 1160suppThis article was published with the title “New Naval War Game” in SA Supplements Vol. 45 No. 1160supp (), p. 195
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican03261898-18546supp

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