Chapter IV: The Evolution of the Submarine (2)

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.

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."

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."

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.

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.