and the estimated remaining life of the guns assuming 150 rounds as the life for two guns and 170 rounds for two in which a modified powder was used:

1 This gun fired to 150 rounds at proving ground after removal from ship.

Question 2. In the Katahdin tests did the 12-inch armor-piercing shell, at a range of about 8,000 yards, break up in passing through an 8-inch plate?

Answer. A 12-inch shell, loaded with sand, penetrated an 8-inch plate set up on board the Katahdin and was found broken up inside the target structure; as no fragments were found in front of the plate it can not be stated that the projectile broke up "in passing through.' The report on the firing states the shell "broke up after penetration."

Question 3. Did a three-fourths-inch plate placed about 10 feet behind said 8-inch plate stop a piece of said shell weighing about 150 pounds?

Answer. The report on the firing states "parts (of projectile) damaged rear bulkhead of structure, carried away several deck fastenings of Katahdin's conning tower, broke off bulkhead door and hurled it forward. Large fragment of shell near base and another large fragment near nose found within target structure." The question is supposed to refer to the rear bulkhead of the structure. This bulkhead was 14 inches in thickness instead of three-fourths inch. The report does not state the weight of the fragment that struck the plate, nor does the report state whether or not this plate stopped a piece of the shell; as the plate was considerably damaged it is fair to assume that it was struck by one or more fragments; the report does not state whether any fragments of the shell passed entirely through the structure; it is fair to assume that no large fragments passed through.

Question 4. Did the 12-inch shell which penetrated the 10-inch plate also break up in passing through?

Answer. Two 12-inch shell penetrated the 10-inch plate. The first was reported as probably remaining whole. The second struck near the hole made by the preceding one and broke away the plate so that the two impacts appeared as one elongated hole. The second shell was reported as having probably broken up after penetration. The observers were three naval officers, two Army officers, and Mr. Isham. The last-named claimed that both shell broke up; the opinion of the other five observers is the one already given.

Question 5. What were the specifications and proving-ground tests of these 12-inch projectiles to which they conformed under the contracts with the manufacturers?

Answer. The 1910 specifications for armor-piercing projectiles required that a 12-inch shell be fired against a 10-inch plate with a striking velocity of 1,760 foot-seconds. In order to secure payment at full contract price it was required that two projectiles be so fired and that both should pass through the plate and be recovered in effective bursting condition. In case the projectiles failed on this test an additional one was to be fired; if any one of the three was recovered in effective bursting condition the lot represented was accepted at a reduction of 10 per cent from the contract price. It is not known whether the shell fired at the Katahdin were purchased under these specifications or not, but older specifications did not differ materially from these. The striking velocity in the Katahdin firing was 1,763 foot-seconds.

Question 6. Do not authorities agree that battle ranges must be in excess of torpedo ranges?

Answer. It would be too much to say that "authorities agree" on this point. It has, however, been very generally held that the known possession by an enemy of an efficient torpedo would incline his adversary to the choice of the effective range of that torpedo as his minimum battle range. The object of giving battle being primarily to inflict damage on the enemy, a naval force would, if able to choose its range, select one at which it could inflict damage with least cost to itself; the solution of this question involves many factors besides the possibility of receiving injury from torpedoes. Question 7. Is not the maximum range of the torpedo to-day in excess of 10,000 yards?

Answer. I do not know of any country that has a 10,000-yard torpedo in service. Such a range is within the probabilities of the near future.

Question 8. Is not the minimum range for this year's target practice fixed at 12,000 yards and extends from there to the limit fixed by visual conditions?

Answer. The rules have not yet been promulgated; at the last practice the ranges used were from 8,000 to 12,000 yards.

Question 9. In the several days' bombardment of the San Marcos were her turrets penetrated in a single instance?

Answer. By "the several days' bombardment" of the San Marcos it is presumed is meant the two successive days' firing by the New Hampshire. There were no direct hits on the turret, but the barbette armor below the turret was struck by a 12-inch armor-piercing shell loaded with high explosive; the range was about 10,000 yards; the result was a complete penetration of the 12-inch armor. So much damage was done inside that it could not be definitely determined whether the shell exploded or broke up; fragments could not be identified.

Question 10. Do you know of any test in which a 10-inch modern plate or its equivalent has been penetrated at 12,000 yards?

Answer. So far as I know no such test has ever been made; consequently I know of no record of the success or failure of such a test. I know of no Government equipped with facilities for such a test.

Question 11. What is the reason that thicker armor has been recommended for the ships in this year's estimate?

Answer. It was considered necessary as a protection for the ships against the attack and penetration of the modern, long-point, capped shell.

Question 12. Will not future naval battles be fought at such great ranges that they will be decided by the big guns alone?

Answer. That is a matter of opinion. The trend of professional thought is toward dependence on the heavy turret guns as the main weapons of offense in daylight actions.

Question 13. Will not the small percentage of hits compel economy so as to produce results before the ammunition supply is exhausted?

Answer. The question is too indefinite to make it possible to give a categorical reply. The probability of hitting at given ranges would doubtless be one of the things considered by a fleet commander in determining when to open fire. Circumstances might, however, justify him in expending a considerable quantity of ammunition at such ranges as offered small probabilities of hitting. As thus qualified the answer to the question is, no.

Question 14. Will not the exclusive and restricted use of the large guns prevent "smothering" an enemy by volume of gun fire" which was possible at shorter ranges when all guns could be used and without any restriction as to the expenditure of ammunition?

Answer. There has never been a time when there was not some restriction as to the expenditure of ammunition. The probability of hitting with guns of all calibers has been greatly increased in recent years by improved apparatus and more thorough training, so that the term "volume of gun fire" does not have the same meaning that it used to have. A few hits with large shell would probably have as great an effect on ships of modern design as a large number of hits with smaller guns when the battery and personnel attacked were scattered throughout the ship instead of being largely concentrated in turrets and behind armor as now.

Question 15. If armor-piercing shell can not penetrate the water-line protection of a battleship at the minimum battle range, what excuse is there for continuing their purchase?

Answer. The question appears to make two assumptions, viz:

(a) That armor-piercing shell can not penetrate the water-line protection of a battleship at the minimum battle range, and

(b) That armor-piercing shell are not useful or necessary for attacking any portion of a ship other than the water line.

Neither of these assumptions is true. It has been demonstrated that armor can be pierced by armor-piercing shell, and there is a very large armored area on a battleship which it is advantageous to attack in addition to the water line. There is, therefore, ample reason for continuing to purchase armor-piercing shell.

Question 16. What percentage of hits was scored on the San Marcos at the longest ranges?

Answer. The information is not available. It would be valueless if given, since the New Hampshire's firing was primarily a spotting practice, and some of the salvos were intentionally fired short to give practice in estimating distance short.

Question 17. Is not the area of water surrounding a ship within which she would be destroyed according to Abbott's formula by the explosion of Isham shell greater than the target offered directly by the ship?

Answer. Assuming that the Isham shell is a torpedo shell containing 200 pounds of explosive gelatin, the probability of its explosion against a ship or outside of it destroying the ship is exceedingly remote. Abbott's formula is based on an explosion at a point at least 4 feet below the surface of the water; the Isham shell would not be exploded at that depth unless it were fired with such velocity as to secure a high angle of fall, certainly above 15°; in that case the probability of striking within a given area would be much less than it would be with the higher velocities and smaller angles of fall used in firing service projectiles.

Abbott's formula does not cover the destruction of a ship but fixes the distance from an iron plate at which a submerged explosion can exert a pressure thereon of 6,500 pounds per square inch, which pressure he found by experiment was sufficient to disrupt the plate.

Question 18. In engagements at long range would not Isham shell be as liable to strike near a ship and destroy her as an armor-piercing shell would be of hitting the ship?

Answer. Probably not. To give an answer mathematically correct, based on the theory of probabilities, the proposed initial velocity of the Isham shell would have to be known; without this data the question is merely controversial.

Question 19. Is it not absurd to attempt to smother a ship with armor-piercing shell fire at long range when a single Isham shell would destroy her if striking against her or in the water nearby?

Answer. I am not aware that anybody proposes nowadays to "smother a ship with armor-piercing shell fire" at long range. A categorical reply to this question would necessarily assume the correctness of the implied assertion that a single Isham shell striking a ship or striking near her would destroy her. This is not only not admitted but is denied.

Question 20. In short range engagements between battleships at night, or in a fog, would not all Isham shell striking short and ricocheting against a ship be effective while armor-piercing shell would be wasted?

Answer. It is impossible to give an exact answer; the most that can be said is that any shell that does its damage by means of an external explosion will, on the average, be more effective on ricochet hits than will be a shell which must penetrate to do damage. An armor-piercing shell, fired at short range, would very probably penetrate armor even on a ricochet hit.

A complete answer to this question, as in some preceding cases, would have to be based on exact data.

Question 21. Have you ever had any experience with dynamite or explosive gelatin?

Answer. No personal experience in handling or firing.

Question 22. Do you consider the textbook on ordnance and gunnery used at Annapolis (Fullam and Hart) a reliable authority on the flight of projectiles?

Question 23. Do you consider the same authority sound on explosives?

Answer. The textbook on ordnance and gunnery by Fullam and Hart is a valuable compilation of information on the subjects with which it deals. It makes no pretense to being an original authority upon matters like those referred to in questions 22 and 23 above. The value of its statements in connection with such matters would depend entirely upon the trustworthiness of the authorities from whom the information is derived and I have no information as to this in connection with either explosives or the flight of projectiles.

Question 24. What authorities do you consider sound on these subjects?

Answer. The following are very generally regarded as authorities on explosives, but I do not claim to be familiar with all that they have written on the subject and am far from being willing to indorse their views at all points: Guttman, Eissler, Nobel, and Berthelot. I doubt whether anything which has been published on the subject of explosives covers satisfactorily the points with which we have to deal in connection with the use of explosives as bursting charges for shells. Upon this point I am inclined to believe that the most valuable sources of information would be the manufacturers who make and distribute explosives commercially.

As regards the flight of shells the following authorities may be referred to: Bashforth, Owen (Maj. C. H., Royal Artillery), Mayevski, Ingalls, and Siacci. The theory with regard to the flight of projectiles which has been deduced and used by the above authors and others is the basis of all the range tables for rifled guns in use to-day. This theory enables us to calculate the ranges of the latest guns at high angles of elevation with a degree of accuracy which is a striking confirmation of the accuracy of the theory.

Question 25. How do you account for drift in the flight of projectiles?

Answer. This is a very involved question and no haphazard or partial statement should be made in regard to it. One of the elements causing drift is the combined

action of the resistance of the air and the gyroscopic action of the shell due to its rotation.

Question 26. Will you furnish this committee at your earliest convenience a computation showing the moment of a couple capable of overcoming the gyroscopic moment resulting in a 12-inch shell fired under service conditions at a range of 12,000 yards? Answer. A projectile fired in air from a rifled gun not only moves forward under the impress of the force of the propellant, but it is subject to the action of gravity tending to pull it to the ground, and is also revolving under the impress of the spin given to it by the rifling.

A projectile so moving is subject to a motion of precession about a line through its center of gravity parallel to the direction of the resultant air resistance. The formula for determining the speed of precession is as follows:

in which the several terms have the following meanings: A precession revolutions per second,

Fb gyroscopic moment,

C=moment of inertia about the long axis,

A=angular velocity of spin in revolutions per second.

Fb is composed of the resistance of the air, F, and the arm, b, of the couple through which this force, F, acts. As neither F nor b is determinable, except possibly empirically, it is not possible to calculate mathematically the gyroscopic moment in this case, and it is therefore not possible to state mathematically what is the moment of a couple capable of overcoming this gyroscopic moment.

It is a fact, however, which can be readily demonstrated by experiment, that an infinitesimally small force is sufficient to cause the gyroscope to deviate in certain directions from its original plane of rotation, when this force is applied otherwise than through the center of gravity, and it is to this fact that is due the precessional movement of a projectile in flight, the resistance of the air being a force applied otherwise than at the center of gravity.

Question 27. Are all battleships not protected by torpedo boats helpless at night or in a fog against torpedo attack?

Answer. Not necessarily, though picket boats are undoubtedly of great value.
Question 28. Would you risk sending out torpedo boats by day as scouts?

Answer. Answering personally-yes, if they were the best craft I had available for the purpose. My official position is not such as to permit me to give an answer that would formulate an accepted strategical principle.

Question 29. Would not the substitution of a single 14-inch gun in place of the two 8 or 10 inch guns in the after turret of our cruisers permit them to hit back at any enemy, which they can not do now?

Answer. If such a substitution were found possible, considering the structural strength and other conditions, there is no question that the single 14-inch gun could carry farther and do more damage than the two smaller guns now mounted. This fact does not, however, of itself furnish any justification for proposing such a substitution. Question 30. If equipped with such guns and supplied with Isham shell could they not again fulfill their function as the "eyes of our fleet?"

Answer. This is uncertain, as any answer to the question must be based on an exhaustive consideration of the functions of armored cruisers and also the efficiency of the Isham shell. In other words, the premises must be first established beyond dispute before conclusions can be drawn.

Question 31. What defense could any of our cruisers offer to fast battleships such as all navies possess, except that of the United States, of, say, 28 knots, armed with 12 or 14 inch guns?

Answer. Their defense against such an attack as is mentioned is unquestionably weak. It can not be assumed, however, that in warfare they would be subjected to such attack. It is not even approximately true that all navies except our own have the fast battle cruisers. It is incorrect and misleading to call these vessels "fast battleships;" they are essentially armored cruisers and such navies as possess them have them in addition to, not in place of, battleships.

Question 32. How can we watch an enemy if our cruisers and mosquito fleet can be run down and destroyed if sent away from our battleship fleet?

Question 33. Is not our Navy helpless to prevent the movement of an enemy's fast transports?

Answer. These are questions for the strategical authorities of the Navy to consider. I am not sufficiently well informed as to the plans of the Navy Department to take them up. It is not within my province as the Chief of Bureau of Ordnance.

[No. 3.]

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS,
Friday, January 12, 1912.

The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Lemuel P. Padgett (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. We have with us this morning Admiral Hollyday, Chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks. We will turn to page 39. of the bill.

Mr. TRIBBLE. Who were the other admirals who have appeared before the committee?

The CHAIRMAN. Admiral Andrews, Chief of the Bureau of Navigation, and Admiral Twining appeared day before yesterday. He is the Chief of the Bureau of Ordnance.

STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL R. C. HOLLYDAY, CHIEF OF THE BUREAU OF YARDS AND DOCKS, NAVY DEPARTMENT.

The CHAIRMAN. Admiral, referring to page 39, I believe the language is the same in that provision until you get to the top of page 40, where you change the word "repairs" to the word "repair." Is that a grammatical change?

Admiral HOLLYDAY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And then in the middle of the page you strike out the words "and for rent of wharf and storehouse at Erie, Pa., for use of and accommodation of United States steamer Woolverine." I would be glad to have your statement concerning that.

Admiral HOLLYDAY. The department has given up that place and the Naval Militia takes it now. They make their own arrangements. The CHAIRMAN. The department has turned it over to the Naval Militia?

Admiral HOLLYDAY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. It is still Government property?

Admiral HOLLYDAY. We rented it, and it never belonged to the Government.

The CHAIRMAN. How is it held by the Naval Militia?

Admiral HOLLYDAY. I do not know the arrangement. I only know about it because money was furnished by my bureau for a number of years, and up to last year they had a ship on the lake which we are allowed to have under the treaty. Some arrangement was made by which that ship was given up and turned over to the Naval Militia. We did not renew the lease this year.

The CHAIRMAN. What has been the expense incurred by the Government heretofore by reason of that lease and maintenance? Admiral HOLLYDAY. $600 a year.