Submarine Warfare, Past, Present, and FutureFyfe, Herbert C.
History
Submarine Warfare, Past, Present, and Future
Fyfe, Herbert C.
Submarine warfare
Just now the former party is in the ascendant. M. de Lanessan has
contrasted the short range of the torpedo with the long range of the
gun, and has deduced from the conditions the necessity for two classes
of vessels (_a_) torpedo craft, and (_b_) battleships and armoured
cruisers. He has explained that in order that the gun should be given
its full value it is essential that the platform should be stable and
that a vessel of considerable dimensions was thus called for. It was
impossible upon such a platform to place many powerful guns, but a
necessary consequence was that these should be protected, and hence came
the need of heavy armouring. In short, the two qualities of offence and
defence were indissoluble, but they were not the only qualities called
for; speed and range in action were also necessary, and these again led
inevitably to the heavy battleship.
M. Fleury-Ravarin, commenting on the fact that many advocates of the
_guerre de course_ had asked if there did not exist a more economical
means of making war than that which consisted in opposing to certain
ships others of a like character, told the French Parliament that it
(the _guerre de course_) had never brought an enemy to submission, and
that in the existing conditions of naval warfare it was very costly,
whilst speed, its essential element, was of all elements at sea the most
elusive. Moreover, the organisation of the _guerre de course_ required
many naval bases so that not only was it more costly in the beginning,
but it demanded greater charges for maintenance. For these reasons this
system of warfare could not be raised to a method; it must remain an
accessory.
There can be no doubt that the popularity of the submarine craft with
ministers, writers, journalists, and populace is due very largely to the
idea that these vessels will in warfare prove capable of meeting and
defeating the battleships and cruisers which Great Britain will send
against France when the “Real Thing” arrives.
A writer who adopts the _nom de plume_ of “_Armour_” points out the
probable course of action in a naval war between France and Great
Britain. British squadrons would be deprived of value by giving them no
object to attack and preventing the possibility of establishing an
effective blockade. The French ships would be withdrawn to the forts,
which would be strongly fortified so as to secure them against attack.
The close watching of a port would be too dangerous to be undertaken,
and at night the squadrons would be obliged to withdraw to great
distances in order to escape the menaces of the submersible boats: and
at the same time the ingress and egress of cruisers—the only large
vessels that would put to sea—would be easy.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account