attack in major strength by a blue fleet advancing against Japan from the south and east.

Personnel: There has been no important decrease in personnel in any of the navies of the leading naval powers. While there has been no marked increase in personnel of the active navies, all powers are proceeding with the execution of plans to increase the numbers and efficiency of their naval reserve contingents.

Shore establishments: The administrative authorities of the leading naval powers have generally reduced materially their naval shore establishments, following out an announced policy of retrenchment. The Japanese have recently announced a policy which is intended to insure more economical administration of their naval shore establishments by concentrating work in the larger establishments and reducing to a more or less inactive status their smaller stations. It is to be noted, however, that the present Japanese budget carries an estimate of 8,084,335 yen for equipment of navy yards and stations and 2,993,148 yen for naval districts, of which latter sum 1,930,740 yen is believed to be intended for air stations.

MODERNIZATION AND NEEDS OF THE NAVY

BATTLESHIPS

The treaty provides for protection against air attack and additions to the underwater body of the ships to provide against torpedo and bomb attacks. The results attained with the torpedo in the late war and the development of the aerial bomb since then require that these additions be made without delay.

The modernization recommended will require the following funds: (1) To modernize 6 coal-burning battleships by fitting additional deck and torpedo protection and by converting to oil-burning..

(2) To fit additional torpedo protection to the New Mexico, Mississippi, Idaho, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Nevada, and Oklahoma

$18, 360, 000

4, 375, 000

22, 735, 000

Mr. FRENCH. Have you these estimates prepared in such a way that you could indicate how much of this expenditure would be required the first year, and also over what period of time it would be economically wise to carry forward the program?

Secretary WILBUR. The bill authorizing the expenditure of $18,360,000 is pending in the Senate.

Admiral EBERLE. That is for the reconditioning of the six coalburning battleships, for their complete modernization, except elevation of guns.

Secretary WILBUR. We can furnish that data.

Mr. FRENCH. Will you then insert in the record data that will indicate the amounts that would be expended in one year, and the number of years over which it could proceed, economically?

Secretary WILBUR. We have the plans pretty well scheduled and they are as follows:

The work proposed on one of the coal-burning battleships would require in the neighborhood of 15 months. The total time required for the work on all six vessels would depend on the program adopted. Giving consideration to the questions of economy in expenditures, prompt carrying out of the work and minimum disturbance of fleet operations, it appears that a reasonable program would be to place one battleship of each class in each of three different navy yards, to be followed in each navy yard by the remaining vessel of the same class about the time the work on the first vessel is completed. It is estimated that this would permit the accomplishment of the work in from two to two and a half years.

The work proposed on one of the oil-burning battleships would require from six to eight months, but a considerable portion of the work could be carried on in the absence of the vessel and it is estimated that one navy yard could complete the work on all seven in about two years and a half, if the vessels were made available as required.

On the above assumptions, half of the total amount to be appropriated should be made available for the first year's work, namely, $11,367,500.

GUN RANGES, ELEVATIONS, ETC., OF CAPITAL SHIPS OF THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN

a

Mr. FRENCH. Admiral Eberle, at this point I wish you would have inserted table that was prepared last spring showing gun ranges, elevations, etc., of the ships of the United States and of the British Empire. I think the table I have in mind was included in a report that came up at the last session.

Admiral EBERLE. It is in the report of the Acting Secretary of the Navy dated May 8, 1924, to the chairman of the House Naval Committee.

Mr. FRENCH. Yes; I think you understand the tables I refer to. (The tables referred to are as follows):

Capital ships of the United States (size, elevation, and range of guns)

Capital ships of the British Empire (size, elevation, and range of guns)

1 Approximately only. Nelson and Rodney have 30° elevation and range over 30,000 yards

2 Battle cruisers.

Mr. FRENCH. Under the table covering the British ships it appears that the British cruiser Hood has a gun elevation of 30° and a maximum range of 30,300 yards. It also appears that eight of the British battleships, with an elevation of 20°, have a range of 23,800 yards and that 10 have a range of 24,300 yards. Also it seems that two of their cruisers have a range of 24,300 yards and one a range of 23,800 yards.

Again, turning to the table touching the United States ships, it appears that five of our ships, with an elevation of 30°, have a range of from 34,500 yards to 35,700 yards, which of course is a range far in excess even of the Hood and of anything else in the British Navy.

Also it appears that nine of ours, including the five I have indicated, have a range of 24,000 yards or more; that one other has a range of 23,500 yards, one other a range of 22,000, and the remaining seven a range of 21,000 yards.

Admiral, we were wondering how accurate the information is touching the data as it pertains to the British ships. Is it quite accurate, or is it the estimate upon the basis of gun elevation, the bore or caliber, and your own calculations upon such premises?

Admiral EBERLE. I think that the gun elevations of the British are about right. The range-table is a mathematical computation. In the shooting it is an actual factor. The range tables for various elevations as we call them, are first computed from the muzzle velocity, and the weight of the shell, and then these tables are tested out at the proving grounds. Each type of gun that is built-what we call the type gun-is given a thorough test before others are built, and all the data is checked on that, to see if it agrees with the computations in the design of the gun.

Mr. TABER. Have these ranges been determined by actual test in every case, or are they to a certain extent a matter of calculation? Admiral EBERLE. Do you mean the British or ours?

Mr. TABER. Both.

Admiral EBERLE. All guns are tested at the proving grounds. We have ours very thoroughly tested, and I think you will find that the Chief of the Bureau of Ordnance will be able to tell you that these tests are very close-and the British, too-to the computations.

Mr. FRENCH. As I recall it, I do not believe that we found these figures in Jayne's manual last spring. Is that correct? I think that the figures were furnished from the Navy Department.

Admiral EBERLE. Yes; they were.

Mr. FRENCH. That being the case, we were wondering whether or not they were estimates upon the basis of the data that you had or the result of actual test and information that the British Government was willing to publish to the world.

Admiral EBERLE. It is the best information we can get. Whether they are withholding anything, of course we can not tell. But I think that the exchange between the British and the United States navies, especially during the World War, was very full. We know their methods, and they know our methods of arriving at these results, and I think that these ranges can be relied upon.

Mr. HARDY. How much of a job is it to change the elevation of the guns on the ships?

Admiral EBERLE. It is not a very great job. It means enlarging the gun ports in the turret and putting in longer elevating screws to permit lowering the breech more, and also some modification of the ammunition hoists and counter recoil in the turret. But you do not change the mount of the gun at all.

Mr. HARDY. Supposing we wanted to equip 8 or 10 of our guns to better advantage suddenly, how soon could you have them ready? Admiral EBERLE. We would have to get this new elevating gear, etc., and we have not manufactured that. In some of the ships that we have just been overhauling we have repaired the counter recoil system. We would have to cut out the gun ports-that is, the opening where the gun goes through has to be cut out in order to give a greater elevation of the gun, and longer elevating screw installed.

Mr. HARDY. So if we had to meet an emergency we could not do it quickly?

Admiral EBERLE. It would take some little time to do it. Another thing is that we try to avoid laying up many of the ships of the fleet at once. In the Battle Fleet, which is our main fleet, we have a schedule for regular overhaul periods of six weeks per ship a year. Two ships overlap two weeks; but at other times we have only one ship out of the fleet overhauling, unless there is an accident or some other emergency; and what we want to do in modernizing the turrets is to begin the work during the overhaul period and extend it two months. Then our plan would be to send one ship to the navy yard for about three months and remodel every second one, that is, the next ship would come there for the regular overhaul period, but by the time the second ship got there they would be ready for her, and the first one with modernized turrets would go out. That is the plan that we have in case modernization of turrets takes effect. So the greatest number of ships that you would have out of the fleet at any one time would be two, but the one not being modernized, could rejoin the fleet very quickly. She would be just having a regular overhaul; while if we began modernization on two at the same time, of course, that would tie up both of them for about three months. The main thing is to assemble the material before the ship goes to the yard for overhaul, the installation being quite simple.

SCOUT CRUISERS

The cruiser has several functions in naval warfare. Primarily the 10 cruisers we have built and the ones for which the broad design has been prepared are to be used as scouts for obtaining information for the main body of the fleet. Cruisers are given high speed in order that their service may be more efficiently rendered, as well as for their ability to avoid encounters with vessles more heavily armed and armored, such as the battleships and battle cruisers. Another equally important function of these swift, armed vessels is to defend convoys and protect our commerce against attacks from enemy raiders, torpedo vessels, and even submarines. Again, they are useful in operating against the enemy's oversea commerce by raids, such as were performed by the German Emden in the late war. They are also needed to screen the main body of the fleet against torpedo attack and cover our own torpedo attacks. In this they are assisted by the destroyers within their limited capacity.

As a result of the Limitation of Arms Conference we are debarred from building heavily armed and armored ships. To some extent cruisers will assist battleships as fighters and in performing the functions enumerated above, must expect to encounter, singly or in numbers, cruisers of the enemy, and therefore must be provided with abundant armament and even armor, if it is possible to give them armor with the speed requirements demanded by their general services. It is for this reason that we are compelled to build them to the full maximum size allowed by the treaty for the limitation of naval armament; namely, 10,000 tons, as it is found that ships of lesser size must suffer in all of the qualities required; namely, guns, armor, sea-keeping qualities and steaming radius.

If all light cruisers, first and second line, completed since January 1, 1912, and those now building or authorized, are considered, the figures are as follows: United States, 10 of 75,000 tons total; British Empire, 57 of 318,370 tons total; Japan, 28 of 171,005 tons total. It will be seen, therefore, that the 16 light cruisers recommended by the General Board, total tonnage 160,000, do not place us on a parity with the British Empire.

The only thing I want to emphasize there is the date, January 1, 1912.

GUNBOATS

We have asked for six gunboats for the Chinese rivers. These vessels are of extremely light draft, not exceeding 4 or 41⁄2 feet and are limited in length to about 200 feet in order that they may safely navigate the intricate waters of the Yangtze River and its tributaries. The designs laid down will permit these gunboats to operate as far as 1,400 miles into the interior of China. Besides a large num