FUTURE NAVAL COMBATS.

Thames Star, Volume X, Issue 3127, 25 February 1879, Page 3

FUTURE NAVAL COMBATS.

I will now venture an opinion as to how future war will be carried on in regard to naval combats and the destruction of an enemy's commerce, this latter striking a blow at his most vital part — namely his pockets. Let us suppose, in regard to the first of these propositions, that two fleets met on the open seas bent on mortal combat, their comraanders-in-chief crammed (as they are naturally enough at present) full of theory as to how they would fight a hostile fleet should it ever fall to their lot to do so. They talk and think of double line, single line, double column or single column, &c. Well, Mon■ieur Commandant-en-Chef, there is your enemy drawn up in line of battle before you—rams, torpedoes and all other deadly inventions, prepared ; the commander-iu-chief will probably hold a council of war, and according to an arranged plan in goes the fleet at the enemy; If the enemy remains quiet as in a sham fight, pood ; but he (the enemy) also is prepared with his system of attack, and before the action has lasted five minutes all plans must be disconcerted, the commanderinchief's signals unseen or disregarded, and every thing pell-mell; Bhips frequently ramming their friends, torpedoes going off in the>wrong direction or at a wrong time, and^who knows what will happen ? I have often thought for hours (while commanding the Turkish fleet) as to what should I do were I to meet an enemy's fleet, and I have come to the conclusion that much depends on the chapter of accidents. lit these days there is too much theory—still I don't see what else we can have—loo much calculation, perhaps too much science, in naval men's brains. For ray part, I am convinced that the first thing to do is to be most careful iv your choice of captains, to have confidence in them, to leave much to their discretion during a naval engagement. I do not say that I disapprove of a well-digested plan being laid down to start with; but I doubt its being carried out with success as in the old days of sailing vessels, when weather gages were profited by, and when seamanship was half the battle I can but think that every captain of an ironclad will have to fight his own ship irrespective of the commander-in-chief. Above all, the commander-in-chief of a fleet should avoid placing his ships in too close order. A good thing was said by an English officer of rank some days before the fatal accident so will known to all the world, which occurred lately to the German fleet off Dover. The Germans have the dangerous habit of sailing their fleet in close order. The officer I refer to being asked what cause he would pursue if obliged to attack the German fleet, answered, " I should let them alone, being sure that they would sink each other by collisions in a very short space of time through manoeuvring* in close order." Thus my opinion is that " open order, individual responsibility and freedom of action to each commander," should be the order to be given by the commander •in - chief. There are many naval officers who trust entirely to destroy the enemy by ramming. I can only say to them, " Your idea is good in theory, but remember that two can play at that game." By all mtfans use your ram'when any enemy is crippled; in fact I think that all fleets should be attended upon by ram vessels who should lie by until one of the enemy's ship's is in difficulty, and then rush at the injured ship with the ram. Guns m such vessels are almost superfluous. To sum up this question, I think that a Commander-in-chief's motto should be, " Keep your ships in hand as long as possible, then leave the rest to good captains, brave crews, well workedguns, and Providence."—llobart Pasha in North American Review.