Naval Warfare: Theory and Ships, 1917

Reported in Scientific American, this Week in World War I: March 3, 1917

A 5-inch gun firing in night exercises. The scene is lit entirely by the flash of the gun—a new photographic technique in 1917.

Scientific American, March 3, 1917

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


By early 2017 there was a growing recognition in the U.S. that the country might have to join the Great European War. The vast Atlantic and Pacific oceans, so long a formidable obstacle to potential enemies, were beginning to seem less formidable given the increasing speed and range of modern warships—particularly submarines.

The special issue of Scientific American on this date 100 years ago looked at naval power worldwide, particularly as it stacked up against the U.S. Navy. The issue is a mix of the leading naval warfare theorems of the day, with a look at the realities of the current war—especially the battle of Jutland and the ongoing submarine war. Some readers might also detect undercurrents of fear, paranoia and bravado in the articles. Here, though, we’ll just look at a sampling from one article on the value of the battleship, which was still considered to be the steel heart of any modern navy:

The USS New York was laid down in 1911, mounting the modern 14-inch naval gun. By 1917 standards it was slightly under-gunned, slow, and was fueled by less efficient oil-sprayed coal (hence the smoke). Credit: Scientific American, March 3, 1917


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.


“Barring England and Mexico, an attack upon the United States, in its initial stages, must be conducted in many vessels across many miles of sea. In the event of war, therefore, with an enemy across the sea, our first duty will be to gain touch with his attacking expedition as far from our coast as possible and convenient in order to harass and eventually annihilate it. Slow battleships seem to have no place in our ‘attacking’ fleet. We should have types capable of ‘controlling the surface’ from our shores to the advancing enemy. By this means we shall lessen, it not eliminate, the danger of enemy submarines, and give our own mobile offensive type of submarines an added value. Gun power, radius of action, and speed are essential for this work. These are the pivotal attributes. To gain them, all purely defensive attributes will have to be sacrificed. Every nation must eventually reach a maximum limit of displacement, which it would be ruinous financially to go beyond. In our case this limit is for all times fixed by the size of the Panama Canal locks.”

Given the hindsight from 2017, it was somewhat unrealistic to think that either Germany or Austria, then in the third year of their war and desperately straining for resources, would have been able to collect enough ships, fuel and manpower to mount an “attacking expedition.” When the U.S. entered the war, it was German submarines that quickly became a persistent menace to shipping.

A modern “thousand-ton” destroyer lays down a thick smoke screen during maneuvers—a good tactic in 1917 (and decades before the invention of radar). Credit: Scientific American, March 3, 1917

-

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Our full archive of the war, called Scientific American Chronicles: World War I, has many articles from 1914–1918 on naval warfare during the First World War. It is available for purchase at www.scientificamerican.com/products/world-war-i/

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