米国海军航空兵之父威廉·墨菲特将军，年轻时是著名参议员提尔曼的好基友。
提尔曼在1916年提出超级战舰提案时，墨菲特参与了其前期论证，并撰有以下文章。
原文引自：
"BUILD THE LIMIT."
[By Commander W. A. Moflett, United States Navy.)
The history of modern battleship construction shows that their displacement has steadily increased. Our first battleship, represented by the Oregon, displaced 10,300 tons; the next, the Kentucky class, 11,500; the Maine class, 12,500; the Georgia class, 14,900; the Connecticut class, 16,000, etc., increasing at an average rate of about 1,000 tons a year.
There has been constant endeavor to keep the displacement down, for obvious reasons, cost principally, of the individual ship; docking facilities, draft of harbors, as well as supposed, if imaginary, tactical advantages. The designers of each nation strive, on a given displacement, to outstrip all others in turning out the best all-round ship, but the inexorable limit of displacement has invariably resulted m compromises, each nation turning out what it considered best, sacrificing one element to another, speed to guns, endurance, armor protection, etc.
There were, and are, schools in our own Navy as well as in others that opposed increasing displacement, but each year has seen displacement steadily increasing, none the less. The first radical increase came with the Dreadnaught from 16,000 to 20,000 tons. Up to this time the constructors of the world, including pur own, fondly imagined that the standard type of battleship had been reached in a ship of about 16,000 tons, 18 knots speed, main battery of four 12-inch guns, in two center-line turrets, intermediate battery of 6-inch guns, and 3-inch guns for torpedo defense, represented by our Connecticut. They were aroused from their false security by the thinking, practical men of the British Navy, who brought forward the epoch-making Dreadnaught, making a bold increase of 4,000 tons in displacement and 2 knots in speed. Our own Navy had an inspiration about this time and our designers gave us the South Carolina class, all big-gun- ships and turrets on midship line—notable above all else for this last-named feature, which was ultimately followed by all other designers.
The Dreadnaught immediately scrapped all other battleships, in the British as well as in all other navies. This is where Great Britain's rivals, especially Germany, had their great opportunity. They should have promptly scrapped their old ships and spent all their available money for battleships that would outbuild the Dreadnaught. We did, in a half-hearted way, and have continued to do so since, but not boldly. We are, and have been, too conservative. We have, since the DreadnaugTit, and like all other nations, steadily increased the displacement, and in the last few years have actually had the courage to go beyond Great Britain in displacement, so that we have the Pennsylvania class, actually larger by 4,000 tons than the latest ship by the British, and it is reported in the newspapers that the General Board has even recommended ships as large as 36,000 tons.
England's reasons for not wishing, to increase the displacement of her battleships beyond what it is are obvious enough. She had a bad scare after the Dreadnought's design became public, and found Germany laying down many ships of equal and larger displacement, and she lost no time in outbuilding her in numbers in these then large ships. She does not want this experience duplicated. She has the largest navy in the world, and realizes that it is a practicable impossibility for any other nation to catch up with her as long as they confine themselves to ships of the same size as her own.
On account of cost, docking, draft of harbors, and other supposed good reasons, as well as the long exploded and farmer-like argument of "too many eggs in one basket," the designers of all navies have attempted to keep down the displacement and to crowd into the limited displacement the maximum of elements that go to make an efficient battleship. But one element or another has always had to be sacrificed, and to date this has been principally speed. As a rule the caliber of the guns of the main battery, especially since the allbig-gun battleship idea, has been near the limit of the mechanical arts at the time; also the amount of armor protection has not been sacrificed. The consumption of displacement for speed increased in such a rapid ratio that designers all gave pause, and stopped near 21 or 22 knots. However, the yearning to get speed would not down, and resulted in the battle cruiser, where armor and the number of guns were sacrificed to speed. But the inexorable demand for the battleship possessing all desirable elements steadily increases, resulting in increased displacement, except in the case of Great Britain, whose reasons against it are well taken—from her standpoint.
Why not take a lesson from historv and frankly decide what we want, what characteristics a battleship should have, what speed, endurance, battery, armor, etc., it should have, and then build it regardless of displacement? Is it not fair to assume, nay, is it not certain, that if battleships' displacement has increased from 10,000 tons in 1896 to 32,000 tons in 1916 that it will continue to do so until the limit is reached? Why not go the limit at once 1 By so doing, we scrap the battleships of every navy in the world, and by spending the money we would spend on smaller ships we build a smaller number of vessels, but the most powerful fleet in the world.
Other navies would have to follow our example and build ships like ours or give up the competition. We could stand the cost better than any other nation. It is therefore an advantage to us to make navies cost as much as possible. We have more money than any other nation and will have more, comparatively, at the close of the war, when most of them will be bankrupt. It is therefore to our advantage to make individual ships cost more.
The limit for us in the size of battleships is the Panama Canal locks. It is also the limit for any power that might go to war against us, for none would sacrifice the advantage of being able to send its fleet through the canal. The limit, therefore, of displacement for our battleships is within 1,000 feet in length and 110 feet in beam, the dimensions of the Panama Canal locks. Let us, therefore, go the limit at once, while we have the opportunity to do it, ahead of all our rivals and build the limit at the same time in everything; that is to say, in speed, caliber of guns, endurance, fuel, and ammunition, etc.
In regard to speed, some may urge that the highest practicable speed is unnocessarily'high. Not long ago 16 knots in battleships was considered ample and 26 knots in destroyers. Now 21 knots is the minimum for battleships and 30 knots for destroyers and battle cruisers. Why not go as high as the mechanical arts will permit?
Go the limit, too, in caliber of guns. It is said, "Build a gun no larger, in caliber, than necessary." But who can say what is "necessary"? Only a few years ago the 12-inch gun was amply "necessary" in the opinion of most people. To-day the 15-inch gun does not seem to. be large enough, and even we are contemplating putting 16-inch guns on our battleships. The newspapers report 17-inch guns going on German ships. Fourteen or sixteen inch guns may be as large as "necessary," but who, being engaged with an enemy equal in other respects, would not prefer to have a battery with larger caliber than one's adversary? And if you had also superior speed, how much greater the advantage.
One great but seldom mentioned advantage of the large ship, as compared with the smaller, is as a gun platform, especially at high speed and in a rough sea. At 18 knots in a moderate sea the 16,000-ton ship can hardly fire her turret guns, and she rolls and pitches to such an extent that her chances of hitting are small. The 27,000-ton ship is, under the same conditions and even at higher speed, comparatively steady, and her guns can be fired more effectively. But the 60,000ton ship will hardly know she is at sea, and while her 27,000-ton rivals are trying to get the range and fire on the roll she will be as steady as a church and as regularly making salvo hits.
Finally, but for us of greatest importance, the political side. The average American, the man in the street, may be ignorant, of naval affairs, but one thing every American wants and knows he wants—that is, to see his country first. For years he has believed she was first in everything. Recently he has had a rude awakening, at least as far as the Navy is concerned. But still, each in his heart feels that our Navy should be first and hopes that in some way it may be made so.
There is but one way, and that is by building the limit in size of battleships. Build a smaller number if Congress will not give us what the Navy asks for—even one-half the number as would be built of 32,000 or 36,000 tons. In this way we will scrap England's navy, as well as all others. In no other way can we ever hope to have the first navy in the world—in no other way can we hope to overtake Great Britain. Money is force if properly and wisely used. We have more money than any other nation, and therefore more force. Let us use it. We can afford it. No other nation can.
Build the limit in displacement, in speed, in caliber of guns, with proper proportion of fuel and ammunition endurance, etc., and we will have, indeed, the first real superdreadnaught, of approximately the following dimensions:
Length over all ——feet——995
Length between perpendiculars —— 975
Beam —— 105
Draft —— 32
Speed, maximum ——knots——35-36
Endurance at maximum speed ——hours—— 72
Estimated horsepower —— 250, 000
Total displacement 'tons —— 60,000
Battery:
Ten 18-inch B. L. R.
Sixteen 6-inch R. F. G.
Antiaircraft guns.
Antisubmarine guns.
Saluting battery, ete.
Four submerged torpedo tubes.
Can anyone doubt that a fleet of such ships would incomparably better defend our coast and more quickly seek out and smash the enemy's fleet than any number of smaller ships?
|
发表于 2015-8-31 15:47
楼主
发表于 2015-9-1 09:03
