(e) Summary.-The comparative advantages and disadvantages due to increase of size of a single battleship summarize as follows:

It seems, from the foregoing discussion and summary, that the sole disadvantage of major importance resulting from increase of size of a battleship, considered singly, is that it costs more; on the other hand, the larger ship is more powerful and has greater resisting qualities, is faster under all circumstances, and has a greater steaming radius and "cruising life." As the greater cost results in better naval "return for money invested," as regards the single ship, this seeming disadvantage is not one in reality.

IV. PROBABLE LIMITS OF SIZE OF BATTLESHIPS Increase of size (displacement) must largely be gained by increase of length and of beam because any appreciable increase of draft is prohibited by the depth of water available (or likely to be available) in harbors and in channels leading to navy yards (dry docks).

It seems pertinent here to consider what the probable limits of size of ships may be. The apparent limits at present are

(a) The difficulties in securing the necessary structural strength, i. e., a matter of material.

(b) The locks of the Panama Canal, which are 1000 feet long by 110 feet wide, and should take a ship 980 feet long and 110-foot beam.

(c) The depth of water leading to our principal dry docks, which may be assumed at about 35 feet.

If the structural difficulties can be overcome there would seem to be no reason why ships should not reach the limiting dimensions thus imposed.

A ship 980 feet long, with 100-foot beam and 33-foot draft and with a "block coefficient" of 0.60, would displace approximately 55,000 tons. It should be noted that the assumed ratio of length to beam is near 10: I, which is better suited to a vessel of the so-called "battle cruiser " type than to vessels of the battleship type where the requirements of "useful displacement," stability and steadiness of gun-platform call for a ratio of length to beam of about 6 or 7: 1. Such a ratio in the case of a battleship intended to pass through the Panama Canal would indicate a maximum length of 700 feet and a probable limiting displacement of about 45,000 tons.

V. NUMEROUS BATTLESHIPS CONSIDERED TOGETHER

War is a matter of defeat or destruction of the enemy's armed forces; hence it is a matter of fighting power, which quality in the case of battleships is supplied by the armament, which is provided with protection (resistance) in order that it may continue to be effective while receiving the enemy's fire.

War is also a matter of movement in order that the opposing forces may come into contact (battle) in order to obtain a decision; in ships this quality is included in the broadest meaning of the term mobility.

War is also a matter of supply, since the forces must have ammunition, food, clothing, etc., and, in the case of ships, fuel in order to retain the quality called mobility; the matter of supply affects the endurance of the forces, i. e., the time that they remain of effective fighting value.

These attributes of war have already been dealt with from the standpoint of the single ship. War is further a matter of coordination of the available forces in order that the most effective use may be made of them; this co-ordination is employed in two principal ways, i. e., strategy and tactics.

Strategy relates to movements and dispositions made before contact with enemy forces with a view to increasing the probabilities and the consequences of victory. Tactics relates to move

ments and dispositions made after contact with enemy forces, "contact" meaning such proximity as renders battle imminent. Sooner or later strategical operations must result in battle.

Since numerous battleships are now being considered together, i. e., in their collective relationship, and as the premise that a given number of battleships of increased size is superior to an equal number of battleships of smaller size (older) needs no demonstration, it becomes necessary to include further elements of consideration regarding numbers. Such premises are found in an examination of numbers with regard to:

(1) Equal collective (total) strength.

(2) Equal collective (total) cost.

Both of which are covered by consideration of "a less number of battleships of increased size (larger battleships) versus a greater number of smaller size."

(a) Tactical Considerations. For other service than a fleet action diffusion of power may be needed, within certain limits of course, such limits being largely a matter of judgment (as differentiated from mathematical calculation); but, as participation in a fleet action is the function and "reason for existence" of a battleship, the question should be largely studied from that point of view. It is to be assumed that the primary function of a battleship is to fight her armament while under way in company with other battleships and while engaged in battle against opposing enemy battleships which are also under way, i. e., tactics.

With increased size of battleships greater fighting power can be concentrated in a given length because more of it is embodied in individual units, which is highly advantageous from a tactical point of view if proper application of it be made. This advantage increases as the total fighting power involved increases, as it really is measured not only by what may be called "hitting power per mile," but is affected by the "number of miles opposed." The "distance" between larger ships may have to be actually greater in order to give the individual ships adequate sea-room in which to maneuver, but this only obtains in case of very marked difference in length (size).

A less number of larger as compared with a greater number of smaller battleships lends itself to better control of total fighting power because of the more centralized control, i. e., the total

strength is contained in fewer units, which are manifestly easier to co-ordinate than a greater number of units.

The less number of larger battleships is preferable from a tactical point of view because of greater flexibility, i. e., there are fewer individual units to be co-ordinated in their movements.

The greater number of smaller ships present more numerous targets and hence call for distribution of fire by individual ships composing the smaller number of larger ships; and, vice versa, the greater number of smaller ships must concentrate two (or more) ships on one target, whereby the rate of fire is slower, in order to obviate interference in fire control. Since the larger ships are more efficient fighting units and are better protected, and if the proportion of "smaller" to "larger" ships is not assumed as great as two to one, this situation is not necessarily to the disadvantage of the larger ships individually, as those larger ships which are concentrated on have superior protection as well as superior individual fire and, in the meantime, those larger ships which are not concentrated on, direct their superior fire on weaker ships.

The probably greater speed of the larger ships is tactically advantageous as it may well enable them to gain a superior position, i. e., a position where their fire is more effective because, the enemy cannot use his total fire.

The probably greater ammunition supply of the larger ships is a tactical asset because it enables them to maintain a given fire effect for a longer time.

The command of the guns in the larger ships should be higher, which is very advantageous in bad weather and for action at very great ranges. Also the larger ships should be better gun-platforms, especially in heavy weather.

The disadvantages, tactically speaking, are:

(a) Disablement of a "larger " ship is a greater actual and also a greater relative loss of fighting power than the disablement of a "smaller" ship. To offset this disadvantage there is the larger ship's less liability to damage because of her better protection, heavier armament and greater ammunition supply, higher speed.

(b) Handiness cannot be relatively as great, and, in order to permit of reasonable safety in maneuvering, "distance may have to be made greater.

(c) The larger ships individually present bigger targets. From tactical considerations, the advantages and disadvantages of increased size of battleships, considered together, summarize as follows:

(b) Strategical Considerations.-Some of the strategical considerations have already been indicated, but for the sake of clearness they will be mentioned again here.

Strategy is largely a matter of having a certain amount of fighting power at certain places at certain times. In so far as battleships are concerned, strategy chiefly demands massed power, which is represented by a number of battleships in company. Larger battleships are of greater value in a strategical sense because they permit the concentration of relatively greater power by the movement of relatively fewer units.

In regard to the diffusion of power sometimes mentioned in connection with strategical requirements, it should be noted that the aim is to be superior in force at the vital point and that this desired superiority of force can be obtained as well by means of fewer and more powerful individual units as from more numerous and less powerful individual units.

Times and distances enter so vitally into considerations of strategy that ships which have greater mobility and endurance are