“Yorktown” (horse-power)$39,825.00“Baltimore” (horse-power)106,441.00“Newark” (horse-power)36,857.00“Philadelphia” (speed)100,000.00“New York” (speed)200,000.00“Columbia” (speed)300,000.00“Minneapolis” (speed)414,600.00“Indiana” (speed)50,000.00“Massachusetts” (speed)100,000.00“Iowa” (speed)217,420.00“Brooklyn” (speed)350,000.00–––––––––––$1,915,143.00
When the administration of Mr. Whitney ended in March, 1889, he left over to his successor the most important work in the way of new departure yet attempted. Of his successor, General B. F. Tracy, of New York, Mr. Cramp, speaking of the man and the task before him, says:
“Secretary Tracy entered the Navy Department under very favorable auspices. He was himself free from entanglements, political or personal. His previous public life, aside from service as a colonel and brigadier-general in the Civil War, had been confined to legal and judicial positions, his highest post having been that of Justice of the New York Court of Appeals, the Court of last resort. To the affairs of the Navy Department in general he applied the judicial habits formed on the Bench. In technical matters, he enjoyed at the outset of his administration the continuing services of Commodore—nowbecome Rear-Admiral—Walker, whose term extended till December, 1889; and who, by the way, had the honor, after eight years of service as Chief of Bureau, to command the first American squadron of modern war-ships known to history as ‘the White Squadron.’
“With regard to the task of rebuilding the navy, which was then, and still is, the chief responsibility of a Secretary, Mr. Tracy had but to carry on a programme already well begun. He was not, however, content with following simply the lines laid out before him. He at once proceeded to lengthen them and to widen their scope. Under his administration was begun and carried out the ‘battle-ship and armored cruiser programme’ which gave to the navy the fleet that made our success in the Spanish War so swift and so easy.
“The distinguishing traits of Tracy’s administration were the unbroken co-operation between the executive and legislative branches of the government in everything pertaining to the new navy, and the remarkable progress made in size, power, speed, and other prime qualities of war-ships, together with the almost incredible development of all contributory industries. In this connection should also be mentioned the constant and powerful support which President Harrison gave to the Secretary of the Navy in every possible manner, from first to last.
“In his methods of considering propositions laid before him, Mr. Tracy was always deliberate and cautious; but in executing a programme once resolved upon, he was equally prompt and peremptory. He never determined to begin anything until he could foresee the end of it, and when he had reached a conclusion on that basis he was wont to push practical operations with untiring energy. In some respects, when giving preliminary considerationto subjects, he may have been less self-reliant or more disposed to feel the influence of his military subordinates than Mr. Whitney was; but in energy of execution he had no superior. As a general consequence, Mr. Tracy’s four years in the Navy Department made a history that compares favorably with that of any predecessor from the foundation of the Department itself in 1797 to his own time.
“One of the first and most important matters that came before Secretary Tracy was the design of the armored cruiser ‘New York,’ the appropriation for its construction having been one of the last acts of the Congress that went out with Mr. Whitney. This ship was intended to be an echo to the ‘Blake’ and ‘Blenheim’ type of protected cruisers, and they were the largest heretofore constructed. The question was asked by the Secretary of the head of one of the Bureaus, during the discussion of the details of the ship, if there could not be an improvement in the salient features of the design over the ‘Blake,’ as merely copying her was obnoxious to him. He had heard of the ‘Dupuy de Lome,’ the first of the armored cruisers, and he conceived the idea of adding vertical armor on the sides of the ship in addition to the sloping armor of the protected deck as an additional protection, and of sufficient importance to warrant its adoption in the new design. He argued that no projectile could penetrate the outer plates and strike the sloping plate at the same angle in both, etc.
“Strong objections were urged by the head of the Bureau who had been consulted about it, and the legend of weights of the ‘Blake’ as published and the distribution of them in the ‘Blake’ were shown with the assertion that nothing could be done. The Secretary became more persistent as the opposition increased, and the wires betweenthe Department and the British Admiralty became hot from the number of messages that passed as to the ‘Blake’ and ‘Blenheim.’
“While the Secretary was perplexed with the opposition of officers who should have aided rather than opposed him, we happened to meet, and he asked if I could duplicate the ‘Blake’ and her performance if side armor of moderate thickness were added, and also asked my views of the ‘Dupuy de Lome’ and other ships of the same kind.
“I promptly stated that I could do it, and explained the idea of ‘Dupuy de Lome,’ also giving him the names of three other armored cruisers the French had under way. I went into the Secretary’s room at 3P.M.and discussed the whole subject with him till 8P.M.; then left, and promised to return promptly with additional information.
“At the next interview I furnished the Secretary with a complete detail of what would be required to make an armored cruiser on the ‘Blake’s’ dimensions and performance, and stated that I would like to bid in Class II on an alternative design with side armor.
“The Secretary handed my details and allotment of weights to the proper officer, and the Department proceeded to get up the plans and specifications. Frequent interviews with the Secretary occurred as the work progressed, and I felt sure that under Class II, permitting alternative designs, the contract would be awarded. Before the time for awarding the contract had arrived, I found that the plans were being developed under the conditions that I had given the Secretary; but when the plans were exhibited before bids were sent in, it transpired that the boilers had been placed three abreast inthe government plans, bringing them within a few feet of the side of the ship.
“I then designed a plan for arranging the six boilers in pairs, making the coal-bunkers on the sides of the ship. This arrangement of coal-bunkers facilitated the prompt coaling of the ship and the handling of it. It also permitted a liberal amount of ‘coal protection’ for the boilers and engines, which was considered of important value at that time, and, what was of more weight than any other consideration, the introduction of two longitudinal bulkheads that extended the entire length of the engine and boiler spaces on each side of the ship. With three boilers abreast, the ship was liable to be sunk at any time by a collision with a coal-barge or passing schooner; any penetration of the side abreast of boiler, besides resulting in a speedy foundering, would certainly unship the side boiler, adding thereby an explosion to the other damage.
“With the boilers in pairs, it would be necessary for a ramming vessel to penetrate the side and two bulkheads and enter ten feet to do any damage, so the chances of being destroyed by ramming would be reduced to a minimum. I also lengthened the vessel over the Department’s plan, but kept all the conditions of specifications intact, except as to dimensions.
“After the bids were opened, it was found that ours was the lowest in Class II, and lower than any other bid, taking the competition as a whole. The Secretary then called a conference, at which all the bidders and the Chief Constructor were present, and, after thorough discussion of all the points involved, awarded the contract to the Cramp Company under the bid in Class II on the modified plan I had suggested and offered as to boiler arrangement and other details conformable to it.
“The ship was named the ‘New York,’ and on trial trip she largely exceeded her contract speed and requirements of coal endurance and in all other respects; while the ‘Blake’ on trial was a failure; her engines had to be practically rebuilt, and then did not come within the scope of reasonable competition.
“Mr. Tracy can fairly claim credit for the design of the ‘New York,’ and the project for the construction of the ‘Indiana,’ ‘Massachusetts,’ and the ‘Oregon’ class of battleships was also due to his foresight.”
It is not within the scope of this Memoir to trace the progress of the new navy ship by ship, or even by naval programmes from year to year. For the purpose of this work, it suffices to say that, of the total number of battleships, armored cruisers, and first-class protected cruisers actually in service at this writing (1903), Mr. Cramp has built about a majority as against all other American ship-builders combined. There are ten battleships in commission, of which Mr. Cramp has built five; two armored cruisers, both built by him; ten protected cruisers of the first class, of which five hail from Cramps’ shipyard: that is to say, a total of twenty-two vessels, all first-class in their respective types, of which Mr. Cramp has built twelve as against ten by all other American ship-builders put together, navy-yards included.
BATTLESHIP RETVIZAN—DOCKING WITH SUBMARINE
BATTLESHIP RETVIZAN—DOCKING WITH SUBMARINE
BATTLESHIP RETVIZAN—DOCKING WITH SUBMARINE
Of course, we exclude from this reckoningthe two show-ships built by Armstrong for a South American government and foolishly bought by our Navy Department in the paroxysmal flurry incident to the outbreak of the Spanish War. The main excuse for buying them was that, if we did not, Spain would. So be it. Better to have let Spain buy them, if they could not have strengthened her navy more than they did ours. At any rate, had Spain bought them, we might have captured or destroyed them, as we did nearly all her ships. They would probably have been worth capture or destruction, but they were never worth buying.
Since 1887, a period of sixteen years, Mr. Cramp has completed fifteen ships for the navy (including the “Vesuvius” and “Terror”), and is building three more at this writing. In every case these ships embody in plan and design more or less of his own knowledge, skill, and experience. In some cases the designs are altogether his own. In others the machinery is his, with important modifications of the Department’s hull. In no case has he built a ship wholly upon the plans of the Department. While this has redounded to the benefit of the navy, it would be idle to say that it has been in the long run advantageous to Mr. Cramp. On the other hand, its tendencyhas been otherwise: A certain class of naval officers have chosen to consider Mr. Cramp’s constantly recurring propositions to modify and improve their designs as having the force and effect of criticisms, and, to say the least, they have not been grateful to him for his pains. On the contrary, no little jealousy and some resentment have been the results, and he has been made to feel their consequences more than once. The chief misfortune of this state of affairs is that it precludes the cordial co-operation which should exist between officers of the Navy Department and a contractor engaged in building naval vessels, and creates in its stead a sense of antagonism which tends to augment the difficulties of naval construction, which are great and perplexing enough at the best.
But Mr. Cramp has not concerned himself with the building of naval ships alone. He has delved into the problems presented by the uses to which the ships are put when completed. The results of his observations in this direction were embodied in an address to the Naval War College read before that institution, June 18, 1897, by invitation of the Commandant, a little less than a year before the Spanish War. The experience of that struggle, brief as itwas, and decided almost wholly by sea power, made this paper little short of prophetic.
Some extracts from it will serve to exhibit the trend of Mr. Cramp’s thought in the direction of the practical uses and needs of ships-of-war after they leave the ship-builder’s hands. Among other things he said:
“The accomplishment of the objects of sea-warfare will depend partly upon the character of the armaments and partly on the wisdom with which their operations are directed; nor can any one gainsay that the wisdom of direction will depend on the conversancy of officers with the nature and necessities of the material units of which the armaments are composed.
“These propositions being taken for granted, it becomes clear that there can be no effective system of teaching the art of naval warfare which does not embrace exhaustive study of and consequent close familiarity with the instruments by which the principles of the art are to be carried into force and effect.
“From this point of view it must be admitted that questions within the province of the naval architect and problems which he is best qualified to solve form an essential part of such a curriculum in its largest and most comprehensive aspects.
“The unvarying tendency of naval progress is to exalt the importance of the naval architect and to augment the value of the constructor as a factor in the sum-total of sea power.
“The naval armament of to-day is a mechanism. If we view it as a single ship, it is a mechanical unit whose warlike value depends on its excellence as a fighting machine.If we view it as a fleet, it is an assembly of mechanical units, the warlike value of which will depend alike on the excellence of each unit as a fighting machine, and on the adaptation of each unit to its consorts to produce the most symmetrical efficiency of the group as a whole.
“For this reason, the word seamanship, in the old-fashioned or conventional sense, has ceased to cover adequately the requirements of knowledge, skill, and aptness which the modern conditions of naval warfare impose upon the officer in command or subordinate.
“By this I mean not to depreciate seamanship pure and simple, but to point out that modern conditions require an enlargement of the meaning of the term and a broadening of its scope of function far beyond the exactions of any former period.
“In the old days there was no essential difference in ships except in size. Experience in a sloop-of-war qualified an officer to assume, at once and in full efficiency, equivalent duties in a frigate, a seventy-four, or a three-decker. Familiarity with one ship, irrespective of rate, was familiarity with all ships. Tactical lessons learned in manœuvring one fleet were alike applicable to the manœuvring of all fleets. Even the application of steam as a propulsive auxiliary in its earlier stages did not radically alter the old conditions. At all events, it did not practically erase them, as the present development has done.
“This growth of complexity and elaboration, and this almost infinite multiplication of parts and devices in modern ships, have entailed upon the naval architect and constructor demands and difficulties never dreamed of in the earlier days. The staff required to design and construct an ‘Iowa’ is multiplied in number, and the complexityof its organization augmented, as compared with that required for the design and construction of the ‘New Ironsides,’ almost infinitely.
“Similar conditions apply to command and management; so that, while the building of a modern battleship entails enormous work and responsibility on the naval architect, constructor, and staff, the effective use of her as a tool in the trade of war presents an equal variety and intricacy of problems to students of the art of naval warfare in this college.
“Such questions and such problems cannot be relegated to the category of details. Even if we consider the art of naval warfare in the aspects only of strategy and tactics, both will be affected for better or for worse by the behavior and performance of the units composing the force in operation. This being admitted, it follows that the behavior and performance of the units will be as the knowledge and capacity of captains and their staffs, and that no extent of skill and capacity in the admiral directing the whole can overcome or evade the consequences of incapacity and failure on the part of a captain commanding a part.
“As the speed of any fleet is that of its slowest ship, so will its manœuvring power be limited by the capacity of its poorest captain. As it might easily happen that the slowest or least handy ship and the poorest captain would be joined, the quality of the other ships and the ability of the other officers would go for nothing.
“In view of the complex character of the ships themselves, and the difficulty and danger of manœuvring them under the most favorable conditions, as pointed out, the experience of the first general action will demonstrate the necessity of having all the battleships in a fleet as nearly alike as possible in size, type, and capacity of performance.Such provision would not equalize the personal factor of different commanding officers, but it would at least give them all an equal chance at the start.
“For this reason I have always considered it unwise to multiply types or to modify seriously those which the best judgment we are able to form approves.
“These considerations seem conclusive against multiplication of types, and in favor of adhering to one that plainly meets the requirements of our national situation and policy.
“The composition of a battleship fleet under such conditions would minimize the tactical dangers and difficulties referred to earlier, but they would still remain very great, and nothing can mitigate them except frequent and arduous drill in squadron of evolution, so that our captains may become familiar with their weapons before being called upon to use them in actual battle. There will be scant opportunity to drill a battleship squadron after the outbreak of war.
“In my judgment, it is hardly possible to overvalue the importance of homogeneity in fleet organizations, and I am sure that the very first and perhaps greatest lesson taught by an encounter between fleets of modern battleships will be the advantage of similarity of type and equality of performance in the units of action.
“To this element of the art of naval warfare, then, I would invite your most earnest and penetrating attention and study.
“Assuming this problem to be satisfactorily solved and the material of the fleet in the most effective possible condition, so far as relation of units to each other and to the sum-total is concerned, we have still left for consideration the difference between men, the lack of uniformity inpersonnel. Homogeneity of material may beattained by adherence to a wise programme of design and construction; but homogeneity ofpersonnel, in the sense of uniform capacity and efficiency among individuals, is beyond human art or science to produce, because the difference between men is the decree of a higher power. The existence of this college is itself a devout recognition of that great fact, because its whole objective is to mitigate or minify as much as possible this inherent human frailty, by exhausting the resources of training and study, of precept and example.
“I do not by any means argue that the commander of a ship should be a naval architect or constructor. But, having familiarized himself with the principles of that art which touch directly and immediately his function of handling his ship under sea conditions of common occurrence, and having gained sufficient knowledge of her traits, he should be able to form an instant and correct judgment as to her point of best behavior in any sea-way. It goes without saying that sea experience is the only school in which these problems can be worked out.
“Knowledge of that character cannot be acquired by study of the experience of others. Close and earnest attention to this course of, at best partial, information cannot serve as a substitute for experience of one’s own. At most it can only provide a sound basis on which to take quick advantage of one’s own experience, when confronted with an actual situation.
“This brings me to the proposition that the modern battleship, with all its complexities, weights, and peculiarities of design and model, entails upon commanding officers a new requirement which I can find no better terms to describe than ‘battleship seamanship.’ It is a development of the seafaring art which, as events have proved, is by no means yet mastered in the greatest and most activelyexercised navy of the world; therefore it would be too much to expect its mastery in navies of far less magnitude and, hence, less means for distribution of opportunities to gain experience.
“It therefore follows indisputably that navies of the lesser magnitude should constantly exhaust their means of enabling officers to gain sea experience by keeping all their large ships in active evolution all the time.
“Having thus viewed the modern battleship as a mechanical unit herself, we may profitably pass to brief consideration of the great number and variety of mechanisms composing her. In the strict professional or technical sense, these mechanisms concern mainly the engineer and the electrician. But as the foundation of all warlike efficiency inpersonnelis discipline, and as the foundation of all discipline is the inevitable principle of a single head, one commander, who is to all intents and purposes an absolute monarch, it should follow that ‘the king can do no wrong.’
“I have already remarked that the captain need not be a naval architect or constructor to comprehend and be able to apply the group of principles of that art which touch his functions directly in managing his ship as a whole; likewise, I would say here that he need not be engineer or electrician in his relation to the numerous and diverse mechanisms whose proper operation and control are essential to the efficiency of his command.
“But, if he really commands, he must know enough about the instruments that do his work to know when they are doing it well and when not; to know whether his subordinates immediately in charge of the several devices are operating them properly or not; to know when defects exist and when they have been made good. If he does not know or cannot learn these things, he mustdepend wholly on subordinates immediately in charge; and their reports will be law to him, or if not law, at least decisions from which he has no appeal. Manifestly such a situation is utterly incompatible with the independent and self-relying autocracy which is the essential and fundamental principle of naval command, without which discipline must sooner or later vanish into mere empty form or conventional myth. These facts, even more than any other considerations, argue for uniformity of type, previously touched upon, so that in learning the traits of one battleship the officer acquires experience and knowledge applicable at once to the discharge of his duties in another.
“The foregoing discussion is limited to matters affecting the unit of action, the single ship, and the captain. Passing to consideration of the unit of operation, the fleet and the admiral, we find another array of problems equally within the scope of this paper.
“Let us assume that the composition of the fleet has been made as nearly homogeneous as possible, by carrying out the principles previously stated for ships and their captains, and that the admiral finds himself in command of an ideal fleet as to material andpersonnel. Actual differences in efficiency among the several units of action will still remain, and it will become the first duty of the admiral to ascertain and locate these diversities with unerring judgment and unsparing perception. He should know to a nicety the personal equation of every captain and the effective individuality of every ship.
“Among the captains he should be able to differentiate the traits of relative quickness of perception, promptness of action, readiness of responsibility, and boldness of execution.”
Among the most important services of Mr. Cramp to the new navy was his instrumentality in bringing about the system of classifying bids. Prior to 1885, whenever contract construction was to be done, the plans of the Department, pure and simple, were the standard. If any bidder proposed to deviate from them in any way,—no matter how palpable the improvement,—his bid would be held irregular and thrown out. The issue came on the machinery of the ships authorized by the Act of March 3, 1885. Of these four ships, the “Baltimore’s” plans had been purchased abroad, hull and machinery, and were accepted practically without change. But the Department’s design involved the then nearly, if not quite, obsolete compound engine for the other three, “Newark,” “Yorktown,” and “Petrel.” Mr. Cramp, desiring to bid on the “Newark” and “Yorktown,” was doubtful whether he could develop the indicated horse-power, which the form of contract required him to guarantee, with the Department’s compound engines. He was, however, confident that he could do it with triple-expansion engines of his own design.
To overcome the difficulty, he suggested to Secretary Whitney that, in issuing the circular asking for proposals, a classification of bids beprovided for. This suggestion was at once adopted, and bids were authorized to be offered in three classes: Class I, the Department’s plans pure and simple; Class II, the Department’s plans modified by the bidder as to hull or machinery or both; and Class III, the bidder’s plans wholly. This arrangement broke up the embargo of the Bureaus, and admitted the results of the study, experience, and skill of practical ship-builders. Some of the Bureaus fought the plan with all their energy, but the contest they made had no other result than to convince them that Mr. Whitney was thede factoas well as thede jurehead of the Department,—a quite novel experience for them! Some time afterward Classes II and III were merged, so that all departures from the Department’s plans, whether modifications of them or complete substitution of bidder’s plans for them, were grouped under Class II, which has become the established practice in inviting proposals. Mr. Cramp’s bids have usually been in Class II; involving in most cases more or less extensive modifications of the Department’s plans, and in two cases, the “Philadelphia” and the “Maine,” his own plans complete. The value of this new departure lay in the fact that it gave the Navy Department the benefit of all the progress ofthe country in the ship-building art as actually practised by men who were building ships for a living, and emancipated it from the dominion of the cloister. It has become a part of the permanent policy of the government.
CRUISER VARIAG—RUSSIAN
CRUISER VARIAG—RUSSIAN
CRUISER VARIAG—RUSSIAN
The history of Mr. Cramp’s contributions to the new navy must, at this writing, be left an unfinished chapter. Having built and delivered to the government five first-class battleships, two first-rate armored cruisers, five first-class protected cruisers, together with a double-turreted monitor, a gunboat and a torpedo vessel, he is yet building three armored cruisers of the largest dimensions and most approved type. His contributions to the literature of the subject, ranging over a score of years, have been in their way of hardly less importance and interest than his achievements in producing its warlike material. Their full test, in all forms and through all channels,—hearings before committees, communications to the Navy Department and its Bureaus, newspaper interviews and magazine papers,—would, if reproduced in extenso, fill two volumes larger than this one. Suffice it to say here that there is no practical subject pertaining to naval art or science, from the design and construction of ships-of-war to their management in service, which he has not from timeto time discussed as opportunity offered or occasion required. If he has at times shown a spirit approaching intolerance when dealing with invasions of his profession by inexperienced, untrained, or incapable men, it may be explained by the logic of a favorite quotation of his own, “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread!” Be this as it may, it is yet to be said that, if not always charitable in his criticisms and not always liberal in the standard of competency which he has set so high and maintained so vigorously, his professional motives have always been worthy and his efforts sincere and earnest. Whatever may be the future growth or achievements of the modern American navy, the name of Charles H. Cramp will ever be found indelibly stamped upon its historical origin and primary development. The ships he has built have won battles, gained campaigns, and vanquished the enemies of the country in war. They have held the lead in renewing the one-time waning naval prestige of our flag, and in restoring the sea power of the United States to its rightful rank among the nations.