THE EVOLUTION OF THE SUBMARINE
Among the many submarines which were built previous to the beginning
of the present century, very few taught lessons of positive value, for
the great majority of these experimental craft were total failures.
Knowledge of the causes of their failures is important, however,
because it teaches us what errors in construction to avoid. Practically
all of these early submarines were built secretly; when failures
resulted the vessels were abandoned and the results of such trials were
not published, consequently the succeeding designers were very apt to
make the same mistakes.
It was not until the past decade that any general description of many
of the early submarines was published and made available to students of
this problem. In looking over the published plans and descriptions of a
number of those early submarines, I have been convinced that many lives
and much capital could have been saved had the results of the various
experiments been openly disclosed for the guidance of later designers.
The desire to navigate in the depths of the sea has possessed the minds
of many men since the beginning of history, and even at very early
times several crude submarines were devised in the attempt to solve the
problem. But, as I have related in the preceding chapter, it was not
until the period of the war between England and her American colonists
that any important progress was made. Bushnell's little submarine,
called the _American Turtle_, was built at that time. It took its name
from its shape, which resembled the back shells of two turtles joined
together.
From the rather complete description of this vessel contained in one
of Dr. Bushnell's letters, it appears to have been propelled by a
screw propeller to obtain forward or reverse motion. It was ballasted
in such a manner as to give the vessel great inherent stability. It
had water ballast tanks which could be filled to give the vessel
negative buoyancy, if desired, or to reduce the positive buoyancy so
much that the vessel could be readily drawn under water by another
screw propeller which was operated by a vertical shaft extending
through a stuffing box into the vessel. This submarine carried a mine
on its back, and provision was made to enable the operator inside the
submarine to attach the mine to the bottom of a ship at anchor. This
vessel was regulated in such a way that the mine could be exploded by
a clockwork mechanism after the submarine had reached a safe distance
from the vessel.
With this submarine a mine was placed under the bottom of the English
frigate _Eagle_, anchored in New York Bay, but the mine drifted clear
before the clockwork mechanism caused it to explode, otherwise the
frigate would undoubtedly have been destroyed. General Washington
complimented Dr. Bushnell on having so nearly succeeded in his attempt
to sink the ship.
[Illustration: SKETCH OF THE CONFEDERATE SUBMARINE "HUNLEY"
Made after she was recovered and hoisted on the dock years after the
war.
(Drawing by R. S. Skerrett.)]
This submarine was unquestionably a successful model. It had one
important feature that many designers have failed to appreciate, and
that was great inherent stability. Great stability in a submarine
means the carrying out of the now popular maxim "Safety First."
Sufficient static stability is a guarantee that during all the
manoeuvring evolutions of a submarine she will always remain right
side up and not dive into the bottom unless the hull is punctured or
flooded at one end or the other.
Bushnell's model was not suited to high speed, but high speed was not
essential in the days of the sailing ship. If this design had been
developed further, so that several men could have been used to operate
the propeller, it should have given a good account of itself.
Robert Fulton's boat, to which I also have made reference in the
foregoing chapter, differed from Bushnell's in its method of submerged
control, which was by vertical and horizontal rudders at the stern. It
also carried a collapsible mast on which a sail could be spread for
surface navigation.
A Bavarian by the name of Bauer built a submarine in 1850. Its method
of control was by shifting a weight forward to dive and aft to rise.
It was a flat-sided and flat-decked vessel with comparatively thin
plating and entirely unsuited to resist the pressure of the water at
any considerable depth. It collapsed in the harbor of Kiel during one
of its trial trips. Bauer kept his presence of mind, however, and when
sufficient water had entered and raised the trapped air pressure inside
of the boat equal to the pressure outside, he opened the hatch and swam
to the surface. This vessel remained partly buried in the mud into
which it had sunk until 1887, when it was located during the deepening
of Kiel harbor and taken to Berlin, where it is now kept in the Museum
of Oceanography as an exhibit of Germany's first submarine.
No further important advance was made in the art of submarine
navigation until the period of the Civil War, when the Confederates
built several small submarines, called "Davids." One of these was
called the _Hunley_, after her designer. During her brief career she
suffocated or drowned thirty-two men, including her designer.
During my early experiments with the _Argonaut_ in 1898 I received
a visit from Col. Charles H. Hasker, of Richmond, Virginia, who
explained in detail the method of operating the _Hunley_. She was
a cylindrical-shaped craft, about thirty feet long and six feet
in diameter, with both bow and stern flattened to form a stem and
stern-post, respectively. Water-ballast compartments were located in
either end of the vessel. She was propelled by eight men, who turned
the cranked propeller shaft by hand. These men sat on benches on either
side of the shaft. She had the usual vertically hung rudder aft, and a
diving rudder forward to incline her bow down for diving, or to raise
her bow to bring her to the surface (see page 150). Unfortunately she
lacked longitudinal stability, and during her experimental trials twice
dove head first into the bottom. Of her experience I have given an
account elsewhere.
The lesson to be learned from the disastrous trials of this vessel was
that sufficient statical stability should always be secured to prevent
the vessel taking on an excessive inclination due to shifting of water
ballast or movement of crew.
[Illustration: THE NEW ORLEANS SUBMARINE
Built by the Confederates during the Civil War.]
Another submarine built by the Confederates shows a much safer design.
It is shown as the New Orleans submarine. According to the story told
by a native of New Orleans, this vessel was built during the Civil War
to destroy the Northern ships. The story of her launching has been
given in a foregoing chapter.
It is evident that the designer of this vessel miscalculated and
made his boat so much overweight that she could not be given sufficient
buoyancy to bring her to the surface by the means provided. From a
study of the form of this vessel, she should have been very stable, and
I am of the opinion that she could have been successfully navigated
submerged had she been properly ballasted.
[Illustration: THE "INTELLIGENT WHALE"
Built by O. S. Halstead of Newark, N. J., and sold to the U. S.
Government in 1870, now in Brooklyn Navy Yard.]
During the years 1863 and 1864, Messrs. Bourgois and Brun brought
out for the French Navy the largest and, in some respects, the most
completely equipped submarine that was produced during the nineteenth
century. This was _Le Plongeur_, a vessel about one hundred and forty
feet long, ten feet depth, and twenty feet beam, with a displacement of
over four hundred tons. Her motive power consisted of compressed-air
engines of eighty horsepower. The compressed air was carried in air
tanks at a pressure of one hundred and eighty pounds per square inch.
It is reported that the capacity of the air tanks exceeded one hundred
and forty cubic metres.
[Illustration: LONGITUDINAL SECTION OF THE FRENCH SUBMARINE "LE
PLONGEUR"
This vessel was built by Messrs. Bourgois and Brun in 1864 and was
backed by the French Government. She was the largest and the most
costly vessel built in the attempt to solve the problem of successful
submarine navigation up to about the beginning of the 20th century.
(See text.)]
Her submerged control system consisted of the usual water-ballast tanks
for reducing the vessel's surface buoyancy preparatory to submerging.
The final adjustment of displacement was to be effected by means of
cylinders which could be forced out through stuffing boxes to increase
her displacement or withdrawn to reduce her displacement. It was hoped
that by manipulating these cylinders she could be put in equilibrium
with the water she displaced, and that she could then be steered in any
desired direction by the vertical and horizontal rudders placed at her
stern.
Theoretically this is an ideal method for submerged control, but in
practice it works out badly, especially when a vessel has little
stability, for the reason that there are so many disturbing influences
to cause the vessel to take on dangerous angles in diving. If free
surfaces exist in the water-ballast tanks, the slightest change from
a level keel causes the water to flow to the lower end of the ballast
tank. This is apt to augment the inclination still further, and cause
the vessel to dive, or, _vice versa_, to broach. The density of the
water also varies, especially where freshwater rivers empty into
salt water. At times quite different densities are found at various
depths. The fresh water and salt water, instead of rapidly mixing,
seem to have a tendency to remain in strata which extend, in some
cases, considerable distances off shore. Therefore it is practically
impossible to secure and maintain a vessel in perfect equilibrium. The
movement of the crew forward and aft, or the effect of the sea, which
imparts a vertical motion to the water beneath the surface, all tend to
destroy both trim and equilibrium to such an extent that many failures
have resulted in vessels of this type.
_Le Plongeur_ was no exception to this rule, because it was found
impossible to control her depth when running submerged, and she would
either dive into the bottom or broach to the surface. One report
stated that even in depths of thirty feet she would make progress "by
alternately striking the bottom and then rebound to the surface like
an elastic india-rubber ball."
One other novel feature introduced in _Le Plongeur_ was an "escape
boat," which was carried on top of the main hull, to which it was
secured by bolts. A double hatch connected the submarine and the escape
boat together. In case the submarine became disabled or entangled in
wreckage and could not be brought to the surface, the crew could enter
through double hatches into the escape boat, secure the bottom hatch,
and by turning the securing bolts from the interior release the escape
boat and ascend to the surface.
Mr. O. S. Halstead, of Newark, New Jersey, completed, in 1866, a
submarine vessel on which the United States Government made a partial
payment. This vessel is known as the _Intelligent Whale_, and is now
installed as a permanent exhibit on the Green at the Brooklyn Navy
Yard, New York. The vessel had a vertical and horizontal rudder at the
stern for submerged control. According to official reports, she must
have functioned fairly well when submerged.
One of the features of this vessel consisted in its ability to be
converted into a diving bell when resting on the bottom. A large
trap-door was arranged in the bottom of the vessel. After filling the
whole interior of the vessel with compressed air equal in pressure to
the pressure of the water at the bottom of the vessel, the trap-door
could be opened and the air pressure would keep the water from rising,
the same as in a diving bell.
A study of this vessel shows that she must have been a very stable
craft and not likely to dive at an excessive angle or to stand on
end, as was the tendency of many of the early diving boats. A report
signed by Gen. T. W. Sweeny, U. S. A., and Col. John Michal, Col. T. R.
Tresilian, and Major R. C. Bocking, engineers, strongly endorsed this
vessel.
On the strength of the above-mentioned reports and endorsements,
the government, through the Navy Department, appointed a commission
composed of Commodore C. M. Smith, Commodore Augustus L. Chase, Chief
of Bureau of Ordnance, and Edward O. Mathews, Chief of the Torpedo
Board, "to examine, inspect, and report on the merit of said boat." As
the report of this commission confirmed the capacity and efficiency of
the boat for submarine purposes, the government made a contract for her
purchase for the sum of $50,000 (£10,250).
The contract specified certain conditions which were to be fulfilled
before the final payment was made, one of which was that Halstead
should "write out fully and describe, without reservation, all the
inventions, secrets, and contrivances necessary to enable any competent
person or persons to operate and manage said boat as contemplated,
desired, or designed, more especially the methods of furnishing,
managing, controlling, purifying, and renewing the air when and in
quantity as needed, so as to enable those in the boat to descend and
ascend or remain under water any reasonable length of time; also, to
open the doors in the bottom of the boat and keep the water from coming
therein at any reasonable and regulated depth." For this information
Halstead was to receive such further sum as a board of officers might
grant. Halstead was to have the further right to apply to Congress for
additional compensation.
In carrying out the provisions of the contract, the government, on
May 27, 1870, took over the _Intelligent Whale_ and then paid $12,050
(£2,470) on account of the contract. Shortly after this Halstead was
instantly killed. Differences then arose between Halstead's heirs and
others who claimed an interest in the contract. It does not appear that
anything further was ever done with the boat to carry out the terms of
the contract. She lay neglected for years on the old "Cob dock" in the
Brooklyn Navy Yard, but was recently erected as an exhibit on the Green.
Some years later that famous inventor, Mr. J. P. Holland, brought out a
submarine vessel called the _Fenian Ram_. This vessel was about thirty
feet long and six feet in diameter. She was navigated, when submerged,
by the use of vertical and horizontal rudders located at the stern. The
novel feature introduced in the vessel was an under-water air-gun which
was designed to fire a shell under water.
Mr. Holland was originally a school teacher in Ireland, from which
country he was exiled because of his political beliefs. On coming
to the United States he became affiliated with the Fenian movement.
Previous to his construction of the _Fenian Ram_ Mr. Holland built
experimentally a small one-man boat. The money to build the _Fenian
Ram_ was subscribed by the "Clan-na-Gael" and other Irish patriotic
societies, and an associate of Mr. Holland recently informed me that
over $200,000 (£41,000) was subscribed to enable Mr. Holland to carry
on his experiments. After the collapse of the Fenian movement the
_Fenian Ram_ was towed up to New Haven, Connecticut, and hauled out on
the banks of the Mill River, where it has lain ever since, hidden under
a pile of lumber.
One of the former leaders of the Fenians informed me that the scheme
was to build a number of submarines of about the size of the _Ram_.
They were to have been carried across the Atlantic in a special
ship with water-tight compartments extending below the water line,
into which the submarines were to have been floated and a sea door
closed. On arrival on the English coast, this special ship, which
was apparently a harmless merchantman, was to locate the British war
vessels in some one of the harbors, sail in and anchor near them; then
the little submarines were to be released from their mother ship and
proceed to sink as many of the British ships as they could by firing
explosive shells into them below the water line. The novelty of such an
attack was relied upon to spread consternation among the British fleet
and thus enable the submarines to escape.
In 1878 Mr. G. W. Garrett, of Liverpool, took out a patent and
constructed a small boat whose equilibrium was to have been maintained
by the admission of water into a cylinder and forcing it out by a
piston. In 1879, Mr. Garrett brought out a larger vessel, called the
_Resurgam_, in which his means of control were forward diving rudders
similar to those of the Confederate _Hunley_. The novel feature of
this vessel was the installation of a very large steam boiler in
which sufficient heat could be stored to enable the vessel to make a
submerged run of several miles after the fires were shut down. This
vessel was lost during her experimental trials.
Mr. Garrett then interested Mr. Nordenfelt, the inventor of the
celebrated Nordenfelt gun, in his boat. Mr. Nordenfelt improved upon
Garrett's boat and built vessels for Greece, Turkey, and Russia. His
first boat was sixty-four feet in length by nine feet beam, with a
displacement of about sixty tons. The method of submerged control,
which he devised, consisted of the use of two downhaul screws located
in sponsons on either side of the vessel. These screws were operated by
bevel gears and were run at sufficient speed to overcome the reserve
of buoyancy. The vessel was intended to be always operated with a
reserve of buoyancy. To submerge, therefore, it was necessary to run
the propellers at a speed sufficient to exert a thrust to overcome
this buoyancy and pull her bodily under water. After reaching the
desired depth, forward motion was then to be given by the usual screw
propeller, and she was expected to make progress on a level keel and in
a horizontal plane. The level keel was to have been maintained by the
use of a horizontal rudder placed in the bow.
This method of submerged control for submarine vessels of moderate
speed seems to me to be an excellent one in principle. I have been
surprised that further development has not been made along these lines.
I think the final abandonment of the Nordenfelt type of vessel was
due to failure in carrying out the details of design rather than to
faulty basic principles. A former chief engineer of Mr. Nordenfelt
informed me that the heat from the large amount of hot water stored
up in the reservoirs--for submerged power--made the interior of the
vessels almost unbearable for the crew when the hatches were shut down,
and that he did not believe the submarines ever made any submerged
runs after being delivered. I also judge, from his description of his
experiences with the vessels, that they lacked longitudinal stability
and were difficult to hold in the horizontal position, which Mr.
Nordenfelt claimed was a _sine qua non_ for a submarine boat. I concur
in this claim.
In an article on his boats, Mr. Nordenfelt stated that they were
very sensitive, and that he had purposely made them so in order that
the horizontal rudder might easily maintain the boat in a horizontal
position. My experience has led me to prefer great statical stability
rather than sensitiveness.
Mr. Nordenfelt's boats had means for discharging the smoke from
the fires under the water. This was done so as not to betray the
submarine's position to surface vessels. He also seems to have been the
first to incorporate torpedo tubes within his hull for the discharge of
the Whitehead torpedo.
The Spanish Lieut. Isaac Peral built, in 1887, a vessel in which the
motive power was supplied from electric accumulators. It was operated
by the usual vertical and horizontal rudders. Its submerged control was
bad, but its electric propulsive system worked well.
Mons. Goubet built several small boats during the period from 1885 to
1890 with a propeller which worked on a universal joint so arranged
that the direction of thrust could be changed to drive the boat under
water or to bring her to the surface when submerged. This propeller
took the place of the usual vertical and horizontal rudders.
Prof. Josiah L. Tuck built, in 1885, a vessel called the _Peacemaker_,
the novel feature of which consisted of a "caustic soda" boiler for
generating steam for submerged work.
In 1886 a Mr. Waddington, of England, brought out a small electric
accumulator boat with downhaul screws arranged in vertical tubes. He
also used side rudders to assist in control of depth. It is reported
that this vessel functioned quite successfully, but she was abandoned,
and Mr. Waddington does not seem to have developed anything further.
In 1892 George H. Baker brought out an egg-shaped vessel which he ran
submerged by the use of side propellers driven by bevel gears. These
propellers were carried in frames so that they could be inclined to
exert a thrust downward or upward, or at any desired angle so as to
pull the boat downward and drive her forward at the same time. This was
an improvement over Nordenfelt's side propellers, which ran on fixed
vertical shafts. This vessel functioned fairly satisfactorily at slow
speeds, but neither the form nor driving mechanism was suitable for the
higher speeds required by modern practice.
A number of other boats were built, but there does not appear to be
anything new in principle in them.
This brings us up to 1893, when the United States Government made
an appropriation of $200,000 (£41,000) for a submarine boat and
advertised for inventors to submit designs. This was the first time
that it was officially recognized in this country that there _might_
be possibilities in this type of boat. Most of the naval officers,
however, were very sceptical of the practicability of such craft, and,
from the conservative point of view, they were perhaps justified, as no
satisfactory boat had been built up to that time.
A program of requirements, which undoubtedly would produce a weapon
valuable for defence, was made up by the Navy Department, and these
requirements were designated in the following order of importance:
1. Safety.
2. Facility and certainty of action when submerged.
3. Speed when running on the surface.
4. Speed when submerged.
5. Endurance, both submerged and on the surface.
6. Offensive power.
7. Stability.
8. Visibility of object to be attacked.
This standard of accomplishments is as important to-day as when it was
first promulgated.
This first appropriation was brought about by a recommendation to
Congress, made by Commander Folger, Chief of Ordnance, who had been
much impressed with the possibilities of submarines after witnessing
a test of the Baker boat in Lake Michigan. Commander G. A. Converse,
president of the Torpedo Board, also made a report certifying that it
was his belief that a larger vessel operating on the Baker principles
would, with some modifications, prove valuable for defensive and
offensive purposes.
France at this date was the only other country which was giving
official encouragement to the development of the submarine. She was
conducting experiments with the _Gymnote_, a small vessel of the diving
type, and had under construction a much larger vessel to be operated
on the same principle. This vessel was afterward called the _Gustave
Zédé_, but she did not go into commission for some time, as her
submerged control was found to be bad. One report of her trials states
that, "with the committee of engineers on board, her performance in
attempting to keep an even depth line was most erratic, and frequently
a thirty-degree inclination was reached before the boat could be
brought up. On one occasion she hit the bottom in ten fathoms with
sufficient force to unseat the engineering experts."
The _Gymnote_ was five feet ten inches in diameter amidships and
fifty-nine feet ten inches in length. The _Gustave Zédé_ was ten feet
nine inches in diameter and one hundred forty-eight feet long. It is
very difficult to secure sufficient metacentric height in a boat of the
above proportions, which probably accounted largely for their erratic
behavior when submerged.
In response to the United States Government's advertisement for
designs of submarine boats, only three inventors submitted plans and
specifications. These were Mr. George C. Baker, Mr. J. P. Holland, and
myself. Mr. Baker submitted designs of a boat sixty feet in length and
of about one hundred and twenty tons displacement. This vessel was
expected to have a speed of about eight miles per hour. The method
of submerged control and known characteristics were the same as have
already been described in connection with his boat as built in 1892.
Mr. Holland proposed to build a vessel eighty-five feet in length,
eleven and one-half feet in diameter, of one hundred and sixty-eight
tons submerged displacement, and of one hundred and fifty-four tons
light displacement. This gave a surface "reserve of buoyancy" of only
fourteen tons, or less than ten per cent. The method of control was by
the use of vertical and horizontal rudders on the same principle as was
used in his _Fenian Ram_, described above.
In 1897 Mr. Holland published in _Cassier's Magazine_ an article on
submarine navigation, giving some of his experiences with the _Fenian
Ram_. This article explains very well the state of the art of submarine
navigation in 1893. One of the early difficulties encountered was how
to know the direction one was going when submerged. Referring to his
experience in the _Fenian Ram_, Mr. Holland said:
"Experience with submarine boats had been so very limited up to
1881 that more difficulty in steering a straight course by compass
while submerged than while moving on the surface was scarcely
expected. The writer had no suspicion that his boat could not be
steered perfectly until he had tried it after making about half a
dozen preliminary dives to adjust the automatic apparatus. Having
become doubtful of the reliability of the compass, he had it
carefully compensated, and then made a trial submerged run in New
York Harbor, heading the vessel toward a point which he knew was
about twelve minutes' run distant.
"The boat dived at an inclination of about fifteen degrees, and
it was noticed that when she again reached a horizontal position
the compass needle swung around a complete circle and vibrated a
good deal before coming to rest. The boat was then discovered to
be about ninety degrees off her course. It was steered again in
the proper direction, and then inclined upward at a sharp angle to
find whether the action of the compass would be as erratic while
rising as while running downward. One end of the needle dipped to
the bottom of the cup when beginning the ascent, and remained there
during the rise. When the boat approached a horizontal position, a
few feet below the surface, the needle swung around as violently as
it had done during the boat's descent, and then came to rest again
at a point that indicated the boat to be far off the true course.
"As it appeared quite clear that the run was not made in the
direction intended, and that about one mile must have been covered
from the start, ten minutes having already passed, the boat was
brought to the surface of the water just in time to prevent her
from running on rocks that lay about twenty yards straight ahead
and sixty yards down from the starting point.
"The boat had been started to run over one mile up stream, and
the mile-run ended sixty yards down stream, with the boat heading
exactly opposite to her original direction. This erratic action
of the compass was discovered to be due to heeling, or inclining
from the horizontal position, and that it could not be corrected in
that boat on account of the near proximity to the compass needle of
considerable masses of iron that were liable to have their position
changed while the vessel was submerged."
To overcome the above-mentioned difficulties, Mr. Holland invented a
device and was granted a patent (No. 492,960) for a triangular drag,
which was expected to keep the vessel on a true course when under
water. This triangular drag was the novel feature of Mr. Holland's
1893 design, and was intended automatically to steer the vessel on
a straight course when submerged. It was intended to operate on the
following ingenious principle:
While the vessel was running on the surface the steering gear was under
the control of the steersman. In this condition the compass could be
adjusted, as the vessel was on a substantially level keel and the
masses of metal remained fixed in their relation to the compass, but
when the vessel was caused to dive the masses of metal changed their
relation to the adjusting magnets and the compass was thrown out of
true. Therefore, on beginning a dive the vessel was first started on
the surface on the course it was intended to follow submerged until
the triangular drag, being drawn through the water, assumed a direction
parallel to the axial line of the boat by reason of the rush of water
against said drag, and especially against the rib thereon. As soon as
the boat was on her course the steersman was expected to disconnect his
hand steering gear and allow the drag to control the rudder to hold her
to her original course. Mr. Holland maintained that any departure from
a straight line would cause the drag to produce swinging motion of a
lever, which was expected to throw the rudder in a reverse direction,
thus returning the ship to her original course.
Another automatic steering device operated by the pressure of the
water was expected to automatically control the depth of submergence,
it being only necessary, theoretically, to move a control lever to
a point on a dial corresponding to the desired or predetermined
depth of submergence, and the horizontal diving rudder would then be
automatically manipulated to incline the bow of the boat down so as to
dive until the desired depth was reached and then to be manipulated to
throw the bow up or down to maintain that depth.
In further describing his 1893 design for the _Plunger_, for which he
received the award based on a guarantee of performance, Mr. Holland
describes her as follows:
"The boat now being built for the United States Government satisfies
all the requirements detailed earlier in this article. It will have
a length over all of eighty-five feet, and diameter of eleven and
one-half feet; total displacement, one hundred and sixty-eight tons,
and a light displacement of one hundred and fifty-four tons. The
guaranteed speed on the surface will be fifteen knots, the speed awash
fourteen knots, and submerged eight knots. At full speed the boat
will have an endurance of twelve hours and a radius of action of one
thousand miles at slower speed. The endurance, when submerged, will be
ten hours at a speed of six knots. The boat will be propelled by triple
screws, operated by three independent sets of triple-expansion steam
engines, capable of developing 1625 indicated horsepower. There will
also be electric storage batteries and a motor of 70 horsepower for
submerged running. The armament will consist of two expulsion tubes and
five Whitehead torpedoes.
[Illustration: THE PLUNGER (HOLLAND TYPE SUBMARINE), LAUNCHED IN
AUGUST, 1897
Machinery not drawn to scale. The engines of 1,600 horse-power,
with the necessary auxiliaries, nearly filled the after portion of
the vessel.]
"Steering on the horizontal plane while submerged is accomplished
by an automatic apparatus that performed very well in one of the
boat's predecessors. Steering in the vertical plane is also done
automatically, and with considerable exactness, while submerged.
Steering in both planes can also, at the same time, be controlled
manually. There will be a steel armored turret, four feet high, to
protect the pilot and smokestack, and the hull will be covered by
three feet of water while the vessel runs awash to attack.
"When engaged in harbor defence duty its position will be outside
the outer line of harbor defences; that is, beyond the reach of the
guns defending the entrance. While performing this duty it will lie
awash; that is, with only the top of its turret over the surface
of the water. On the approach of an enemy's vessel the smokestack
will be shipped and the aperture on top of the turret through which
it passed will be quickly closed watertight. She will then run in
a direction to intercept the enemy's ship, still remaining in the
awash condition, until she comes near enough to be discovered by
the lookouts on the ship, when she will go from the awash to the
entirely submerged condition. The distance from the ship at which
she will dive will depend upon the weather. In rough weather she
can come quite close without being observed. Having come within a
distance that the operator estimates at two or three hundred yards
from the ship, the diving rudders are manipulated so as to cause
the top of the turret to come for a few seconds above the surface
of the water. During this short exposure of the turret--much too
short to give the enemy a chance to find its distance and train a
gun on it capable of inflicting any injury--the pilot ascertains
the bearing of the enemy's ship, alters his course or makes another
dive if necessary. If he finds that the submarine boat is within
safe striking distance, say one hundred yards, a Whitehead torpedo
is discharged at the ship. A heavy explosion within six seconds
after the torpedo is expelled will notify the operator that his
attack has been successful, and he may then devote his attention
to the next enemy's ship that may be within reach. When the boat
is running on the surface of the water, with full steam power, and
it becomes necessary to dive quickly, the pilot gives the order,
'Prepare to dive.' The oil fuel is instantly shut off from the
furnace, the valves are opened to admit water to the water-ballast
tanks, an electric engine draws down the smokestack and air-shaft
into the superstructure, and moves a large, massive sliding valve
over the aperture on the turret through which the smokestack
passes. These operations will be completed in about thirty seconds,
when the boat is in the awash condition and prepared to dive. In
twenty seconds more it will be running horizontally at a depth of
twenty feet below the surface of the water and quite beyond reach
of the enemy's projectiles."
I submitted designs of a twin-screw vessel eighty feet long, ten feet
beam, and one hundred fifteen tons displacement, with 400-horsepower
steam engines for surface propulsion and 70-horsepower motors for
submerged work. This design introduced several new and striking
features into the art of submarine navigation which have been the cause
of considerable scientific discussion. The design called for a _double
hull_ vessel, the spaces between the inner and outer hulls forming
water-ballast tanks; the design also called for twin screws and four
torpedo tubes, two firing forward and two aft.
[Illustration: LAKE DESIGN AS SUBMITTED TO THE U. S. NAVY DEPARTMENT IN
1893
Novel features consisted in: (A) wheels for running on the bottom; (B)
rudder forming also a steering wheel when navigating on the bottom;
(C-C) propellers for holding vessel to depth when not under way; (D-D)
depth regulating vanes or hydroplanes for causing vessel to change
depth while under way and to accomplish the changes of depth on an
even keel; (E-E) horizontal rudders or "leveling vanes" designed to
automatically hold the vessel on a level keel when under way; (F) a
weight automatically controlled by a pendulum; (P) mechanism to correct
trim; (G) gun arranged in watertight revolving turret for defense
purposes or attack on unarmored surface craft; (L) propeller in tube
for swinging vessel at rest to facilitate "pointing" her torpedoes; (M)
conning tower; (N) telescoping smokestack; (O) observing instrument
arranged to turn down on deck when under way; (T-T) torpedo tubes, two
firing forward and two aft; (W-W) anchoring weights to hold the vessel
at rest at any desired depth between the surface and bottom; (X) an
"emergency keel" which would be automatically released if the vessel
reached an unsafe depth. She was a double-hull vessel, water being
admitted to the space between the inner and outer hulls and in trim
tanks forward and aft to effect submergence. A diving compartment was
also provided to enable the crew to leave or enter the vessel while
submerged.]
The novel feature which attracted the most attention and scepticism
regarding this design was--so I was later informed by a member of the
Board--in the claim made that the vessel could readily navigate over
the water-bed itself and that while navigating on the water-bed a door
could be opened in the bottom of a compartment and the water kept from
entering the vessel by means of compressed air, and that the crew
could, by donning diving suits, readily leave and enter the vessel
while submerged. Another novel feature was in the method of controlling
the depth of submergence when navigating between the surface and the
water-bed. The vessel was designed always to submerge and navigate
on a level keel rather than to be inclined down or up by the bow to
dive or rise. This maintenance of a level keel while submerged was
provided for by the installation of four depth-regulating vanes, which
I later termed "hydroplanes" to distinguish them from the forward and
aft levelling vanes or horizontal rudders. These hydroplanes were
located at equal distances forward and aft of the centre of gravity
and buoyancy of the vessel when in the submerged condition, so as not
to disturb the trim of the vessel when the planes were inclined down
or up to cause the vessel to submerge or rise when under way. I also
used, in conjunction with the hydroplanes, horizontal rudders, which I
called "levelling vanes," as their purpose was just the opposite from
that of the horizontal rudder used in the diving type of vessel. They
were operated by a pendulum-controlling device to be inclined so as
always to maintain the vessel on a level keel rather than cause her to
depart therefrom. When I came to try this combination out in practice I
found hand control of the horizontal rudders was sufficient. If vessels
with this system of control have a sufficient amount of stability,
they will run for hours and _automatically maintain both a constant
depth and a level keel_, without the depth-control man touching either
the hydroplane or horizontal rudder control gear. This automatic
maintenance of depth without manipulating the hydroplanes or rudders
was a performance not anticipated or claimed in my original patent
on the above-mentioned combination, and what caused these vessels to
function in this manner remained a mystery, which was left unsolved
until I built a model tank in 1905, in Berlin, Germany, and conducted
a series of experiments on models of submarines. I then learned that
the down pull of a hydroplane with a given degree of inclination
varied according to its depth of submergence, and the deeper the
submergence the less down pull. This works out to give automatic
maintenance of depth so long as the vessel is kept at a constant trim
on a substantially level keel, and I have known of vessels running for
a period of over two hours without variation of depth of one foot and
without once changing the inclination of either the hydroplanes or the
horizontal rudder.
The capability of this arrangement of hydroplanes and horizontal
rudders to control the depth of submergence was questioned and
doubted for many years. As late as 1902, nearly ten years after I
first submitted this method of control to the United States Navy
Department, Naval Constructor L. Y. Spear, U. S. N., testifying before
the Committee of Naval Affairs, House of Representatives, in reference
to the "Lake even-keel boat" and my use of hydroplanes, said, "As an
expert I do not think he will make his hydroplanes work"; and strongly
contended that submergence by inclining the vessel itself was the
proper method.
Several years later, in 1908, in Paris, I met Captain Lauboeuf, the
celebrated French naval constructor, who has perhaps done more toward
perfecting the French submarines than any other designer, and he
informed me that after the French Government had its sad experience
in the loss of the _Lutine_ and _Farfadet_ with their crews, it had
changed all their diving boats into even-keel boats and was now using
substantially my method of even-keel submergence with hydroplane
control. He also informed me that it had, at that time, thirty-five
new boats under construction to operate on the even-keel principle,
eighteen of which were of five hundred and fifty tons displacement.
Captain Lauboeuf was kind enough to compliment me as having been the
first to introduce this method of submerged control.
Commander Murray F. Sueter, Royal British Navy, in his most complete
work on "The Evolution of the Submarine Boat, Mine and Torpedo, from
the Sixteenth Century to the Present Time," published in 1907, said:
"After scrutinizing all the information available, I am certain
that several features of the 'Lake' design will be embodied by most
nations in the construction of future boats, the chief of which,
perhaps, are 'the even-keel method of submergence' in preference to
the 'dynamical dive' of the Holland boats; also the provision of a
safety keel and diving compartment. This latter forms a ready means
of communicating with the surface should the boat, through some
small mishap, find herself on the bottom and unable to rise."
Sir Trevor Dawson, formerly (R. N.) manager of "Vickers," in discussing
submarine boats before the Institution of Naval Architects in 1907,
said:
"Mr. Lake mentioned the question of the importance of horizontal
stability and the use of hydroplanes. I think these have been
used by the Holland Company in America in connection with the
experiments they made for the American Government. In one of
the boats I saw they gave me particulars of such experiments.
I know, too, that they have been used considerably in France
with satisfactory results, and I think his contention as to the
importance of horizontal stability, as things exist to-day, is
fully justified."
Captain Edgar Lees (R. N.), who was the officer in charge of the
British submarines, said:
"I may say, with regard to the features that Mr. Lake has brought
to our notice--the hydroplane, for instance, and getting good
freeboard and seaworthy boats--the mere fact that they have been
largely copied and that most nations build these submarine boats
is, as Mr. Lake contends, a conclusive proof that he has been
for years on the right tack. Well, I do not think at the present
moment submarine boats are being built in any country without
hydroplanes, in order to dive, if desired, almost horizontally."
One of the latest contract requirements of the United States
Government, specifying the characteristics of the new boats to be built
under the appropriation for submarines for the year 1915, stated:
"The vessel shall make also the necessary trials to demonstrate her
ability to effect initial submergence, to maintain submergence under
way, and to change depths without exceeding an angle of inclination of
one degree." This, in substance, calls for "even-keel submergence" when
one considers that it was common for early boats of the diving type to
take on an inclination of fifteen to twenty degrees, and inclinations
of as much as forty-five degrees were not unknown.
All governments and submarine builders have at present in their latest
boats adopted the method of even-keel submergence by the use of
hydroplanes, and I am gratified that this method of control has been
finally adopted as the standard, as I believe none of the latest modern
submarine boats will make the uncontrollable dives to the bottom common
in the boats of the diving type, which have been accompanied in many
cases by the loss of their crews.
I did not make a proposal to build a boat from my designs as submitted
in 1893, but offered to coöperate with the government in developing
submarines under my patents, which were then pending, on such terms
as the government might desire. Not being fortunate enough, however,
to secure the financial assistance of the government in developing my
inventions for the protection of our country, I turned my attention for
a time to applying my inventions to commercial purposes and to prove
the practicability of navigating on the bottom.
For this purpose I built, in 1894, the _Argonaut, Jr._, which I
mentioned in the preceding chapter, and will now describe more fully.
This vessel was provided with three wheels, two on either side forward
and one aft, the latter acting as a steering wheel. When on the bottom
the wheels were rotated by hand by one or two men inside the boat. Her
displacement was about seven tons, yet she could be propelled at a
moderate walking gait when on the bottom. She was also fitted with an
air-lock and diver's compartment, so arranged that by putting an air
pressure on the diver's compartment equal to the water pressure outside
a bottom door could be opened and no water could come into the vessel.
Then by putting on a pair of rubber boots the operator could walk
around on the sea bottom and push the boat along with him and pick up
objects, such as clams, oysters, etc., from the sea bottom.
Experiments with this vessel on the bottom of Sandy Hook Bay convinced
a sufficient number of people who were permitted to witness the
experiments that submarine navigation in this manner was practicable,
and I succeeded in raising sufficient capital to build a larger vessel
to continue my experiments on a broader scale. Therefore, in 1895, I
designed the _Argonaut_.
[Illustration: "ARGONAUT" AS ORIGINALLY BUILT. LAUNCHED IN AUGUST, 1897
Built to further demonstrate the possibility of navigation over the
waterbed of seas or the ocean. She covered thousands of miles in her
experimental work, testing out the practicability of the submarine for
various kinds of commercial work.]
At this time I was living in Baltimore, Md., so I made a contract
with the Columbian Iron Works and Dry Dock Company, of that city,
for her construction. This company was also building for the Holland
Torpedo Boat Company the _Plunger_, which was being constructed for the
government under the 1893 appropriation. Both vessels were completed
about the same time. They were launched in August, 1897, and went into
dry dock together.
The _Argonaut_, as originally built, was thirty-six feet long and
nine feet in diameter. She was the first submarine to be operated
successfully with an internal-combustion engine. She was propelled with
a thirty-horsepower gasolene (petrol) engine driving a single-screw
propeller. She was fitted with two toothed driving wheels forward,
which were revolved by suitable gearing when navigating on the
water-bed. They could be disconnected from this gearing and permitted
to revolve freely, propulsion being secured by the screw propeller. A
wheel in the rudder enabled her to be steered in any direction when
on the bottom. She also had a divers' compartment to enable divers to
leave or enter the vessel when submerged, so as to operate on wrecks
or to permit inspection of the bottom or to recover shellfish. She
also had a lookout compartment in the extreme bow, with a powerful
searchlight to light up a pathway in front of her as she moved along
over the water-bed. This searchlight I later found of little value
except for night work in clear water. In clear water the sunlight would
permit of as good vision without the use of the light as with it;
while, if the water was not clear, no amount of light would permit of
vision through it for any considerable distance.
[Illustration: THE "ARGONAUT" AFTER LENGTHENING AND ADDITION OF
BUOYANT, SHIP-SHAPED SUPERSTRUCTURE, INCREASING THE SURFACE BUOYANCY
OVER 40 PER CENT]
As the _Argonaut_ was principally built in order to further test out
the possibility of navigating on the water-bed in exploration and
commercial work, she was propelled, both when on the surface and
submerged, by her gasolene (petrol) engines. Storage batteries were
carried only for lighting purposes. The air to run her engines was
first drawn into the vessel through a hose extending to a buoy
floating on the surface. Later she was fitted with pipe masts, which
enabled her to navigate on the bottom in depths up to fifty feet. She
functioned satisfactorily from the start. We found we could readily
navigate over any kind of bottom, soft or hard, by regulating her
buoyancy to suit, and she would, due to her buoyancy, readily climb
over any obstruction that did not reach higher than her forefoot.
[Illustration: SUBMARINE WITH CUSHIONED BOTTOM WHEELS
Showing how such a vessel will surmount a steep declivity while a boat
of the diving type (D) will likely "bury her nose" into it or strike
with sufficient force to disarrange her machinery. If the submarine has
sufficient statical stability she will maintain substantially a level
keel even when riding over a steep declivity.]
There were three things which caused us to delay her departure on a
submarine exploration trip for a few weeks. The first was the escape of
gasolene (petrol) fumes in the boat. When first built, fuel tanks were
built in the hull itself and formed an integral part of the vessel.
Special care was given to make these fuel tanks tight. They were
tested under hydraulic pressure and found to be tight, but the fumes
from gasolene (petrol) are very searching, and, after filling the fuel
tanks and keeping them filled over night, gasolene fumes were found to
exist in the boat the next morning to such an extent that I would not
venture to make a start until a fuel tank had been built outside of the
vessel, where any escape of fumes would not form an explosive mixture.
I followed this practice in all our later gasolene-engined boats, which
largely eliminated the danger from carrying gasolene as a fuel. A
number of explosions have occurred in other types of gasolene-propelled
boats, in some cases with fatal results, from gasolene fuel being
carried in built-up tanks within the hull itself.
The next cause of delay was due to the escape of and collection
of carbon monoxide within the vessel. This developed on our first
submarine run. After we had been down about two hours some of us
commenced to experience a dull pain at the base of the brain and a
decided feeling of lassitude. On coming to the surface a couple of our
men collapsed completely, and one was very sick all night. I could not
understand the cause of this, as nothing of the kind had occurred in my
previous hand-propelled vessel, so we made another submerged run the
following day, and after about the same period of time the pain in the
head and weariness came on again. I then discovered that the engine
would occasionally backfire out into the boat and that gas was escaping
past the piston rings into the base of the engine and from there into
the boat. To overcome this difficulty I installed what I called an
induction tank, which was piped up to the air intake of the engine and
also the engine base. A check valve admitted air into this induction
tank. When the engine was started the check valve was automatically
lifted and induced a flow of air through the tank, in which a slight
vacuum was maintained, which also served to draw the gases out from
the engine base. In case of a backfire, the check valve automatically
closed and the gases from the backfire were caught in the induction
tank, from which they were drawn out on the next stroke of the engine.
This solved the difficulty, and thereafter the air was always fresh and
pure when running submerged even after a submergence of several hours'
duration.
Like Mr. Holland, I also had difficulty on our first submergence in
always knowing where we were going. Our compass was first installed in
the boat itself, where it was surrounded by steel. The compass adjuster
had searched for and found what he considered the most _neutral_ place
in the ship to install the compass, and had adjusted it by magnets in
the usual manner, but it was too "loggy" for correct navigation and
we were forced finally to install it in a bronze binnacle directly
over the conning tower, where it could be viewed by mirrors from the
steersman's station. This cut out most of the adjusting magnets, and
the compass was nearly accurate on all courses. Submarine navigation
thus became reliable.
On the completion of these changes the _Argonaut_ was taken down the
Chesapeake Bay to Hampton Roads, where several months were spent in
examining the bottom conditions in the bay and out on the ocean,
and in locating and picking up cables and in examining wrecks. The
Spanish-American War was on at this time, and an effort was made to
interest the government officials in charge of the mines at Fortress
Monroe. I tried to get some of the officers to go down in the
_Argonaut_ and see how easily observation mine cables could be located
and cut if desired, as I was making almost daily submerged runs in
their vicinity. Finally I received peremptory orders not to submerge
within a mile of the mine fields, as I might accidentally sever one of
the cables, and then, as the officer in charge said, "There would be
the devil to pay in Washington."
It was about this time that Admiral Sampson's fleet was holding
at great expense its long vigil outside of Santiago, waiting for
Cervera's fleet to come out. Our fleet was kept outside the harbor
for fear of the mines, while here in Hampton Roads all this time was
a vessel capable of clearing away the mine fields, but which was not
given serious consideration, as it was thought that the submarine was
impracticable. Experiments were also made showing the possibility
of establishing submarine telephone stations at known locations on
the bottom of the ocean. In January, 1898, while the _Argonaut_ was
submerged, telephonic conversation was held from submerged stations
with Baltimore, Washington, and New York. In 1898, also, the _Argonaut_
made the trip from Norfolk to New York under her own power and
unescorted. In her original form she was a cigar-shaped craft, with
only a small percentage of reserve buoyancy in her surface cruising
condition. We were caught out in the severe November northeast storm
of 1898 in which over two hundred vessels were lost, and we did not
succeed in reaching a harbor in the "horseshoe" back of Sandy Hook
until three o'clock in the morning. The seas were so rough, and broke
over her conning tower in such masses, that I was obliged to lash
myself fast to prevent being swept overboard. It was freezing weather,
and I was soaked and covered with ice on reaching harbor.
This experience caused me to apply to the _Argonaut_ a further
improvement, for which I had already applied for a patent. This was
to build around the usual pressure-resisting body of a submarine
a ship-shape form of light plating which would give greater
seaworthiness, better lines for surface speed, and make the vessel
more habitable for surface navigation. It would, in other words, make
a "sea-going submarine," which the usual form of cigar-shaped vessel
was not, as it did not have sufficient surface buoyancy to enable it
to rise with the seas, and the seas would sweep over it as they would
sweep over a partly submerged rock.
[Illustration: THE "ARGONAUT," AFTER BEING LENGTHENED AND REBUILT, IN
1898, SHOWING SHIP-SHAPED, WATERTIGHT, BUOYANT SUPERSTRUCTURE]
The _Argonaut_ was therefore taken to Brooklyn, twenty feet added
to her length, and a light, watertight, buoyant superstructure of
ship-shape form added. This superstructure was opened to the sea when
it was desired to submerge the vessel, and water was permitted to enter
the space between the light plating of the ship-shape form and
the heavy plating of the pressure-resisting hull. This equalized the
pressure on the light plates and prevented their becoming deformed, due
to pressure. The superstructure increased her reserve of buoyancy in
the surface cruising condition from about ten per cent. to over forty
per cent., and she would rise to the seas like any ordinary type of
surface vessel, instead of being buried by them in rough weather.
This feature of construction has been adopted by the Germans, Italians,
Russians, and in all the latest types of French boats. It is the
principal feature which distinguishes them in their surface appearance
from the earlier cigar-shaped boats of the diving type. This ship-shape
form of hull is only suited to level-keel submergence, and must be
controlled by hydroplanes.
I also departed from the cigar-shaped inner hull and was granted a
patent on a form of pressure-resisting hull with rising axes. This
improvement overcame the tendency to dive by the head common to the
cigar-shaped form, increased the surface speed on an equivalent
displacement, and gave a considerable increase in metacentric height
over a vessel of equivalent length and beam.
Some incorrectly informed writers of books and magazines have, through
their lack of complete information, given the credit of inventing
and developing this seagoing type of submersible to the Krupps of
Germany, to former Naval Constructor Lauboeuf, of France, or to former
Naval Constructor Laurenti, of Italy. For the purpose of giving a
correct history of this development, perhaps I may be pardoned and not
considered overconceited if I mention a few facts in connection with
the development of this type of boat in European countries.
On April 2, 1897, I applied for a patent on a combined surface and
submarine vessel, the specifications of which began as follows:
"This invention relates to a combined surface and submarine vessel and
may be employed either as a torpedo boat _or for freight and general
cruising purposes_, or for submarine work of all kinds. It has for
its object, first, to combine with a submarine vessel cylindrical in
cross-section a superstructure built upon the submarine vessel and
affording a large deck surface, buoyancy, and a high freeboard for
surface navigation, the space between the submarine vessel and the
superstructure adapted to being filled with water when the vessel is
submerged, and thus rendered capable of resisting the pressure of the
water, etc." A patent was granted in due course with fifty claims, and,
according to the records of patent offices throughout the world, this
is the pioneer patent covering this form of vessel.
When Krupps took up the matter of constructing submarines for the
Russian and German governments, they decided upon this type of vessel,
as they held that it offered a greater opportunity for development
than the diving type. A contract was drawn with their directors for
the construction of the "Lake" type of boat, which they accepted by
wire. This contract covered the erection of a plant in Russia for the
manufacture of "Lake" submarines on a division of profits and also the
construction of ships in Germany on a royalty basis. It also covered my
employment by them in an advisory capacity. I was living abroad at the
time, and the papers were sent to my directors in America for their
approval.
In the meantime I had submitted to them various plans of submarines,
copies of my patents, and even my secret data, including copies of
patents pending, all to enable them to go ahead, as I considered the
agreement settled by their wire of acceptance. I had also advised them
how to overcome certain difficulties in boats which they then had
under construction for the Russian Government at their Kiel plant, the
Germania Werft.
Before I succeeded in getting the power of attorney from my directors
in America authorizing me to sign up the agreement, the great
industrial revolution started in Russia, immediately after the
Russo-Japanese war, and the Krupps informed me that, owing to that
fact, they had reconsidered their idea of going into Russia and
withdrew from the arrangement. Their attorney in Berlin informed me
that on looking up the patent situation they had found that "I had not
protected myself in Germany and that they were free to build 'Lake'
type boats in Germany and expected to continue to do so." This was
true, for, like most pioneer inventors, I had not succeeded in securing
sufficient capital to finance and protect my fundamental inventions in
all countries, which would have involved very large amounts in taking
them out and paying the yearly tax.
So much for Germany.
In 1905, while residing in Berlin, Germany, I was called to Rome and
sat three days with a commission appointed by Admiral Mirabello, at
that time Italian Minister of Marine, regarding their construction of
submarines. I then learned that the Italian Government had started on
a plan of building submarines of substantially my type, that they had
several under construction at their Venice Arsenal after the design of
Major Laurenti, a naval constructor; that certain difficulties which
they explained to me had arisen, and that they had not succeeded in
getting any of their boats to function satisfactorily submerged. I came
to the conclusion that their trouble was due to lack of longitudinal
stability, and advised the Commission how to increase this. Shortly
afterward I was advised that they had corrected their trouble and that
the boats then worked satisfactorily.
Major Laurenti, at this time, resigned from the Italian Navy and
became affiliated with the Fiat Company, and has designed quite a
large number of successful submarine boats, all of which have buoyant
superstructures and are designed to operate on a level keel by the use
of hydroplanes. These boats are of the "Lake" type, so far as invention
goes.
There is a difference, however, between invention and design.
Invention introduces a new method, a new principle, or a new form
of construction, to accomplish a certain purpose in a new way. Many
modifications of design may be made which do not involve invention.
As an illustration, on August 14, 1907, Major Laurenti applied for a
United States patent on a submarine or submersible boat in which the
attempt was made to secure a patent on slight variations of design over
the "Lake" type. The patent office records show that many amendments
were made and hearings held in the endeavor to evade the foundation
patent of Lake, No. 650,758, which was applied for April 2, 1897, over
ten years before Laurenti applied for a patent. The patent office
consistently and persistently held that the slight difference in design
did not involve invention over "Lake." After arguments and hearings,
extending over a period of over three years, Major Laurenti was finally
obliged to accept a patent restricted to details of construction, most
of which were in themselves not new to me, as they had already been
used in various modifications of my inventions and consisted in such
changes as would naturally be worked out by any good hull or engine
draftsmen while developing the designs of a vessel.
Our patent laws are too free in allowing the granting of patents on
modifications of design while fundamental patents are still in force.
This works great hardship on original inventors, forcing them to
take out a great many patents on features of design rather than on
invention. I have taken out nearly one hundred United States patents
with over one thousand one hundred claims covering a few fundamental
inventions, some of which cover details of construction for which I
should not have been forced to seek protection.
All original inventors complain of this system. I know of several
instances where patents on modifications of design have been granted,
which modifications have been in common use for several years by
others, but were only considered as a design and not as an invention.
Then some designer hits on the same arrangement and considers he has
made an invention, and applies for and takes out a patent which has
already been in common use but has been looked upon purely as a design
by its originator rather than an invention. Then the original designer
may be hauled up before the courts and put to great expense to prove
that it was in prior use as a design.
While Captain Lauboeuf and the Krupps have taken out several patents on
detail mechanisms for use on submarine boats, they have never--so far
as I am aware or the patent records show--attempted to claim to be the
original inventors of the type of submarine with buoyant ship-shaped
form of hull consisting of a pressure-resisting body surmounted by a
watertight, non-pressure-resisting body which gives suitable form for
surface speed and seaworthiness, which is the principal characteristic
of vessels built by them. I feel, therefore, that certain misinformed
authors should, in the interests of the truth, correct their statements
if they issue new editions of their work or write further on the
development of the submarine.
During the years of practical experimental work with the _Argonaut_,
Mr. Holland continued in his efforts to get the _Plunger_--building
under the 1893 appropriation--in shape for submerged trials, but
without success.
The large steam installation, sixteen hundred horsepower, was largely
responsible for this. As I remember, there was only about eighteen
inches between the main engines, with large steam supply and exhaust
pipes overhead and under foot. These engines were designed to run at
over four hundred revolutions per minute. The boiler was located nearly
in the centre of the vessel and so nearly filled the ship that there
was barely room between the top of the boiler and ship to creep from
"forward to aft."
[Illustration: THE "HOLLAND"
This vessel, while holding to the same general principles of
construction and method of control as used in the "Plunger," was much
better proportioned and had a much better distribution of weights.
It was her performance that led the House Naval Committee in 1900 to
authorize the construction of additional submarines of the Holland
type. Her armament consisted of one torpedo tube forward and an aerial
torpedo gun for firing aerial torpedoes, designed to be used somewhat
on the same principles as used on the gunboat "Vesuvius."]
The heat was so intense that the trial crew found it impossible to
live in the boat, so for their full power dock trials valve stems
were run up through the deck to enable the engines to be started from
there. Arrangements were made also to take the indicator cards from
the deck. She was also fitted with a heavy armored conning tower,
as per Mr. Holland's description previously quoted. This, combined
with the high position of the boiler and engines, together with her
cigar-shaped form, which gives a diminishing water plane, reduced her
stability almost to zero. I was informed that when the attempt was
first made to start up one of her engines her stability was so little
that the turning effort on her propeller shaft nearly caused her to
"turn turtle," and that she rolled over on her side to such an extent
that the conning tower struck the dock stringer. The constructor at the
Columbian Iron Works then put heavy chains on her so that she could not
turn over. Every inducement was made to the Holland Company to enable
it to make this vessel satisfactory, as Congress, in 1896, authorized
the Secretary of the Navy to contract for two more "submarine torpedo
boats of the Holland type, _provided_ that the Holland boat now
being built for the Department shall be accepted by the Department
as fulfilling all the requirements of the Contract." She was finally
abandoned in 1900 without ever making a submerged run or fulfilling any
of her guarantees of performance under which the award was secured.
Mr. Holland as early as 1897 must have concluded that the _Plunger_
was destined to failure. In fact, no submarine, even up to the present
day, has ever equalled the performance guaranteed under the _Plunger's_
contract. He therefore built a much smaller boat, called the _Holland_.
This vessel was fitted with internal-combustion engines instead of
steam, and was finally accepted by the United States Government in lieu
of the _Plunger_, and placed in commission in 1900. She was the first
submarine torpedo boat to go into commission in the United States Navy.
Her characteristics were: Length, fifty-three feet four inches;
beam, ten feet three inches; displacement, sixty-four tons surface,
seventy-five tons submerged; power, internal-combustion engines, fifty
horsepower; surface speed, six to seven knots claimed; submerged
speed, five knots claimed. The only official report I have seen gave
her a surface speed of five and two-thirds knots. I believe she was
purchased by the authority of the Act of June 7, 1900, which read as
follows: "The Secretary of the Navy is hereby authorized and directed
to contract for five submarine torpedo boats of the 'Holland' type of
the most improved design, at a price not to exceed one hundred and
seventy thousand dollars (£35,000) each: _Provided_, That such boats
shall be similar in dimensions to the proposed new 'Holland,' plans and
specifications of which were submitted to the Navy Department by the
Holland Torpedo Boat Company, November twenty-third, eighteen hundred
and ninety-nine."
[Illustration: THE "HOLLAND" RUNNING ON THE SURFACE
Courtesy of the Engineering Magazine]
The United States was, therefore, at the beginning of the twentieth
century, fairly launched on a policy of submarine boat construction,
and other governments rapidly followed suit. France had, in the
meantime, brought out two new boats, the _Morse_, 1898, and the
_Narval_, after the designs of M. Lauboeuf, launched October 26, 1899.
The _Gustave Zédé_ had also been modified by adding hydroplanes so that
she became controllable submerged.
The _Morse_ was one hundred and eighteen feet long by eight feet three
inches beam, with a displacement of one hundred and thirty-six tons,
of about the same type as the _Gustave Zédé_. The _Narval_ was one
hundred and eleven feet six inches in length by twelve feet four inches
beam; one hundred and six tons surface displacement and one hundred
and sixty-eight tons submerged. She was, like the author's 1893 design,
a double hull vessel controlled by hydroplanes. She was fitted with
"Dzrewiecke" apparatus for carrying and discharging torpedoes, two
of which were carried on either side. The _Narval_ was a successful
type and appears to have been the first French naval vessel to adopt
a ship-shape outer hull of lighter plating. She was also, so far as
my records show, the first French boat to be fitted with two motive
powers--viz., steam for surface work and electricity for submerged
work. To distinguish her in these particulars from the purely electric
boats of cigar-shaped form, like the _Gustave Zédé_ and _Morse_, Mr.
Lauboeuf called her a submersible.
Very little was known about the French boats at this time (1900), as
their method of construction and experiments were kept secret, but
enough information leaked out as to their reported success to cause the
British public much uneasiness, and they began to demand that their
Admiralty should also take up the development of the submarine. No one
had, so far, evolved a satisfactory type in England, so when the fact
became known that the United States Congress had made an appropriation
for five Holland boats, the British public became still more insistent
that they should also have submarines.
About this time, so I was informed by Sir William White, who was then
chief constructor of the British Navy, Lord Rothschild brought to
him Mr. Isaac L. Rice, president of the Electric Boat Company, who
controlled the Holland patents and who offered to build duplicates of
the United States boats for England. Sir William thought this gave the
Admiralty the opportunity to satisfy the public demands and to meet
the French, their hereditary enemy--this was before the establishment
of the "Entente Cordiale"--in their development of the submarine.
Consequently an arrangement was made for the manufacture of this type
of vessel for England by the Vickers Company. An agreement was drawn,
so Sir William informed me, giving "Vickers" an exclusive monopoly of
building submarines for the British Navy for a period of ten years,
the consideration being that they should have available for the use of
the British Admiralty all the details of the development work of the
Electric Boat Company in America. This, plus their own experience and
development work in England, which should be kept secret, should enable
England to keep on an equal footing with France.
Sir William informed me that he thought this had been a mistake in
policy, as it had deprived the government of the opportunity to secure
improvements that had been developed by other inventors and builders
who had made greater progress on independent lines.
England, therefore, started to build her first submarine, known as
the "A" type. These were practically duplicates of the United States
_Adder_ and _Moccasin_ type, now also designated as "A's" Nos. 1 to 7.
England has been particularly unfortunate with this class of submarine,
several of them having plunged to the bottom with the loss of their
crews during peace-time manoeuvres.
[Illustration: Modern French Submarine of Lauboeuf Design. Constructed
by Schneider and Company]
[Illustration: Modern Italian Submarine--Fiat Construction--Laurenti
Design. Vessel of the Double Hull Buoyant Superstructure. Hydroplane
Controlled Type]
[Illustration: German "U" Boat--Krupp Design
VARIOUS TYPES OF MODERN FOREIGN SUBMARINES
27 and 28, vertical rudders; 29 and 30, hydroplanes for controlling
depth of submergence; 9, periscopes; 21, engines; 20, motors; 22,
storage batteries; 4, drop keel; 31, torpedo tubes.]
The majority of the British and American boats are developments
from the original _Holland_ of Mr. Holland's design. Increasing the
stability, greater subdivision of ballast compartments, refinements in
steering gear, and the addition of hydroplanes forward have enabled
Mr. Holland and his successors to produce submarines that operate
very well. These boats, however, with only one pair of forward planes,
still require constant manipulation of the horizontal rudder to control
them when submerged. This rudder, controlled by power gear, is very
effective and will, by expert manipulation, hold the submarine to
practically even depth. The only danger the writer can see is that the
diving rudder gear might fail to function after it is set in the diving
position, in which case the vessel might continue diving until she
struck bottom or reached a depth great enough to cause her to collapse.
The modern submarines, therefore, as built and used in all the world's
navies, owe their final success to principles of construction and
control devices invented and introduced into the art by two American
inventors.