McBride W.M. Technological change and the United States Navy, 1865-1945
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
21. Representative James A. Tawney, Chairman, House Appropriations Com-
mittee, quoted by Richard Hough, Dreadnought (New York: Macmillan, 1964), 37.
22. The First Sino-Japanese War (1894–95) featured armored ships but not mod-
ern battleships such as those that fought in the Russian and Japanese navies in
1904–5. The initial shot of the First Sino-Japanese War was fired by the Japanese
protected cruiser Naniwa at the Chinese cruiser Chi’ Yuan. The first Japanese bat-
tleship, Fuji, was laid down at the Thames Ironworks in 1894 and not completed
until after the war with China. See Hansgeorg Jentschura, Dieter Jung, and Peter
Mickel, Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1869–1945 (Annapolis: Naval In-
stitute Press, 1977), 16 and 95–96.
23. “Preliminary Statement, Committee on Designs, 3 January 1905,” in The Pa-
pers of Admiral Sir John Fisher, vol. I, ed. Lieutenant Commander P. K. Kemp, RN
(London: Navy Records Society, 1960) (hereafter cited as Fisher Papers, I), 215–16.
24. Committee on Designs Statement “The Battleship,” Fisher Papers I, 217.
25. According to one Japanese official, “By the time the 6-inch guns were com-
ing into play the action was already going against Russia”; quotation by Special
Committee on Design, Fisher Papers, I, 218.
26. A nautical mile contains 2,000 yards as compared to the 1,760 yards in a
statute mile.
27. Special Committee on Designs, “The Battleship,” Fisher Papers, I, 218–19.
28. Ibid., 219.
29. Ibid.
30. Jon Tetsuro Sumida, In Defence of Naval Supremacy: Finance, Technology,
and British Naval Policy, 1889–1914 (London: Unwin Hyman, 1989), especially
chap. 2.
31. Admiral of the Navy George Dewey, President of the General Board, to the
Secretary of the Navy, 26 September 1903, General Records of the Secretary of the
Navy, Record Group 80, National Archives, Washington, D.C. (hereafter RG 80),
1897–1915, File 15365–3.
32. Commander Bradley A. Fiske, USN, “American Naval Policy,” USNIP 31
(1905): 1–80.
33. See, for example, the discussion of Fiske’s essay by Rear Admiral C. F.
Goodrich, USNIP 31 Part I (1905): 693–98.
34. Commander Bradley A. Fiske, USN, “Compromiseless Ships,” USNIP 31
(1905): 549–53.
35. Ibid., 550.
36. Ibid., 550–51.
Notes to Pages 68–71
264
37. Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan, USN, Collier’s Weekly, 17 June 1905, quoted
by Fiske, “Compromiseless Ships,” 551–52.
38. Fiske, “Compromiseless Ships,” 552.
39. Ibid.
40. Fiske’s proposal was analyzed and judged technically sound; see Assistant
Naval Constructor Richard D. Gatewood, USN, “Approximate Dimensions for a
‘Compromiseless Ship,’ “ USNIP 32 (1906): 571–83.
41. Captain A. T. Mahan, USN, “Reflections, Historic and Other, Suggested by
the Battle of the Japan Sea,” USNIP 32 (1906): 447–71.
42. Ibid., 452.
43. Ibid., 466.
44. Ibid., 458.
45. Ibid., 460.
46. Ibid., 461.
47. Lieutenant Commander William S. Sims, USN, “The Inherent Tactical
Qualities of All-Big-Gun, One-Caliber Battleships of High Speed, Large Dis-
placement and Gun-Power,” USNIP 32 (1906): 1337–66.
48. Lieutenant R. D. White, USN, “With the Baltic Fleet at Tsushima,”
USNIP 32 (1906): 597ff.
49. Sims, “Inherent Tactical Qualities of All-Big-Gun Battleships,” 1341.
50. Ibid., 1342.
51. For surface ships, the horsepower to speed curve becomes very steep above
cruising speed—typically around 15 to 17 knots. A one-knot increase in speed will
require the addition of extremely large amounts of horsepower (discussed in the
case of the 1916 battlecruisers in the next chapter). The strategic focus of the British
and Germans, for example, was the North Sea. They could afford to convert hull
volume allocated to fuel (range) to additional propulsion machinery (speed). Lim-
ited by the vast reaches of the Pacific, such a trade-off was impossible for U.S. war-
ships. Speed could only come from additional propulsion machinery—which of
course required additional fuel in an increasing volumetric (size) design spiral.
52. Sims, “Inherent Tactical Qualities of All-Big-Gun Battleships,” 1347–48.
53. Ibid.
54. Ibid., 1365–66.
55. See Elting Morison, Admiral Sims and the Modern American Navy (Boston:
Houghton Mifflin, 1942), 174.
56. Park Benjamin, “The Shout for ‘Big Ships,’” The Independent, 31 January
1909, clipping in the Papers of Admiral William S. Sims, Manuscript Division,
Notes to Pages 72–77
265
Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. (hereafter Sims Papers), Mahan Folder,
Box 71.
57. For the genesis of the dreadnought-type battleship, see Oscar Parkes, OBE,
British Battleships, Warrior to Vanguard: A History of Design, Construction, and
Armament (London: Seeley Service, 1957), 466–76.
58. See Hough, Dreadnought, 47.
59. Much like one aspect of the military view of the atomic bomb—an efficient
replacement for 1,000-plane bomber raids.
60. See Morison, Admiral Sims, chap. 8.
61. Sims to Lieutenant Commander A. P. Niblack, USN, 14 March 1902, quoted
in Morison, Admiral Sims, 130.
62. Elting Morison describes this article and the subsequent Senate investiga-
tion and Newport Conference in detail, focusing, of course, on Sims’s role; see
Morison, Admiral Sims, chaps. 12–13.
63. See Morison, Admiral Sims, 184.
64. See Secretary of the Navy to Lieutenant Commander Frank Hill, 15 Febru-
ary 1908, RG 80, 1897–1915, File 26000–3.
65. Lieutenant Commander Hill to Secretary of the Navy, 24 February 1908, RG
80, 1897–1915, File 26000–3.
66. Telephone message memorandum, White House usher, Mr. Hackett (for
the President) to the Secretary of the Navy, 19 February 1908, 4P.M., RG 80, 1897–
1915, File 26000.
67. See Albion, Makers of Naval Policy, 214.
68. Ibid., 213.
69. Senator Hale in the Congressional Record, Fifty-eighth Congress, 2nd Ses-
sion, 2727, quoted by Albion, Makers of Naval Policy, 214. The two smaller battle-
ships, known in the navy as the “Hale” class, were sold to Greece during the 1914
Greco-Turkish dispute.
70. In addition to his testimony and written statement to the Senate Naval Af-
fairs Committee, Rear Admiral Converse also prepared a lengthy report on the
Reuterdahl article for the secretary of the navy. See “Statement Regarding Criti-
cism of the Navy,” 3 March 1908, and “Exhibit ‘A’ to accompany Report Dated
March 3rd, 1908 of Rear Admiral Converse,” in RG 80, 1897–1915, Files 26000 and
26000–11.
71. Originally commissioned as a line officer, Capps was sent to Glasgow for
naval architectural training and transferred to the Construction Corps in 1889. Al-
though naval constructors held commissions with naval rank after 1899, for exam-
ple, “commander,” naval usage—determined by line officers—did not allow them
Notes to Pages 77–80
266
to use these titles. Instead they were referred to as “assistant naval constructor” or
“naval constructor” until this practice was ended by Secretary of the Navy Josephus
Daniels in 1918. After that, naval constructors were referred to by naval rank, that
is, “Commander, Construction Corps, U.S. Navy”; see History of the Construction
Corps of the United States Navy (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1937), 42–43.
72. Capps, Report Concerning Alleged Defects in Vessels of the United States
Navy, by Washington Lee Capps, Chief Constructor, U.S. Navy, and Chief of the
Bureau of Construction and Repair, Senate Document No. 297, 60th Congress, 1st
Session (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1908), (hereafter
cited as Capps, Alleged Defects), 1–2.
73. See the information relative to foreign armor belt design in Office of Naval
Intelligence, “Memorandum on the Distribution of Water-Line Armor,” 28 Feb-
ruary 1908, reprinted in Hearings Before the Committee on Naval Affairs, United
States Senate on the Bill (S.3335) to Increase the Efficiency of the Personnel of the
Navy and Marine Corps of the United States, (hereafter cited as Senate Hearings
[S.3335]), 110–11.
74. Testimony of Rear Admiral Capps, Senate Hearings (S.3335), 73.
75. Capps in Testimony of Sims, Senate Hearings (S.3335), 170–71.
76. Senate Hearings (S.3335), 62.
77. Testimony of Rear Admiral Converse, President of the Board on Construc-
tion, Senate Hearings (S.3335), 23.
78. Testimony of Sims, Senate Hearings (S.3335), 163.
79. Ibid., 167.
80. See Rear Admiral Capps’s testimony, Senate Hearings (S.3335), 52–53.
81. The solicitation of private-sector designs was in response to a clause in the
naval appropriation bill approved on 29 June 1906.
82. Secretary of the Navy V. H. Metcalf to Senator Eugene Hale, 9 March 1908,
RG 80, 1897–1915, File 26000–4; also printed in Senate Hearings (S.3335), 253–57.
83. Rear Admiral Caspar Goodrich, commandant of the New York Navy Yard,
had also responded to General Order 49 with some pointed criticism regarding the
location of the armor belt: “I have the honor to suggest that placing the waterline
armor so low in our original designs was a pardonable error; that retaining it so low
in succeeding vessels was, to say the least, obstinate; that to retain it so low in fu-
ture ships, if this does not border on the criminal, certainly involves a responsibil-
ity which none should care to accept. . . . It is a faulty system [technical bureaus
and Board on Construction] at which my remarks were directed, and not at any in-
dividual past or present.” See Goodrich to Secretary of the Navy, 12 August 1907,
Notes to Pages 80–82
267
and Secretary of the Navy to Goodrich, 18 February 1908, RG 80, 1897–1915, File
26000–1; also Rear Admiral Goodrich to Secretary Metcalf, 27 February 1908, RG
80, 1897–1915, File 26000, Key Folder.
84. Senate Hearings (S.3335), 253–57.
85. Ibid.
86. Ibid.
87. Rear Admiral Robley D. Evans to Secretary of the Navy, 6 March 1908,
quoted in Board on Construction memorandum to Secretary of the Navy Metcalf,
26 March 1908, and in 2nd endorsement by Board on Construction on letter of Sen-
ator Hale, 9 April 1908, included with Secretary of the Navy to Senator Hale,
13 April 1908, RG 80, 1897–1915, Files 26000 and 26000–7.
88. Secretary Metcalf to Senator Hale, 13 April 1908, RG 80, 1897–1915, File
26000–7.
89. See testimony of Lieutenant Commander Sims in Senate Hearings (S.3335),
155–98; and Morison, Admiral Sims, 192–95.
90. Morison, Admiral Sims, 200.
91. Secretary Metcalf to Senator Hale, 19 May 1908, RG 80, 1897–1915, File
26000–5.
92. Ibid.
93. For an overview, see Morison, Admiral Sims, 201–14.
94. Commander Key to the Secretary of the Navy, 9 June 1908, Records of
the 1908 Battleship Conference, Naval Historical Collection, Naval War College,
Newport, R.I.
95. Ibid.
96. Ibid.
97. Sims to William Loeb (Presidential Secretary), quoted in Morison, Admi-
ral Sims, 203.
98. A ship hull can be thought of as a beam subjected to alternating peak loads
(buoyant force of the water) in its middle and then at each end. These loads,
coupled with the downward weight of the ship (including components such as a
12-inch gun mount), exert significant forces on a ship’s structure.
99. The General Board was quite concerned with German dreadnought con-
struction, and viewed the Germans as a more ready yardstick for American naval
power.
100. Key to President Roosevelt, 6 January 1909, Sims Papers, Box 64.
101. Admiral of the Navy Dewey to Congressman William Alden Smith, 16 June
1906, Dewey Papers, Box 23.
102. Key to Sims, 30 April 1917, Sims Papers, Box 68.
Notes to Pages 82–88
268
Chapter 4. Technological Trajectory
1. For a discussion of Neo-Schumpeterian models of technological innovation,
technological trajectories, and technological paradigms, see Henk van den Belt
and Arie Rip, “The Nelson-Winter-Dosi Model and Synthetic Dye Chemistry,” in
The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology
and History of Technology, ed. Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes, and Trevor
Pinch (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1994), 135–218; especially 136–39.
2. As discussed earlier, the question was moot as Congress, fearing imperialistic
adventurism, restricted the steaming range of the navy’s first three battleships ap-
propriated in 1890. The navy’s fourth battleship, Iowa, authorized in 1892, was not
subject to any range limitations in response to President Harrison’s call for a mod-
ern fleet to protect American property throughout the world. See Walter R. Her-
rick, The American Naval Revolution (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University
Press, 1966), 74 and 143–44.
3. See John C. Reilly Jr. and Robert L. Scheina, American Battleships, 1886–
1923: Predreadnought Design and Construction (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press,
1980), 22.
4. Captain C. W. Dyson, USN, “The Development of Machinery in the U.S.
Navy During the Past Ten Years,” Journal of the American Society of Naval Engi-
neers (hereafter ASNE Journal) 29 (1917): 217. Also see Engineer-in-Chief Hutch I.
Cone, USN, “Naval Engineering Progress,” a lecture to the Naval War College,
9 August 1910, reprinted in ASNE Journal 22 (1910): 1019.
5. One comparison placed the steam turbine at one-half the length and height
and two-thirds the weight of a reciprocating steam engine delivering a comparable
power output; see “Comparison of a Turbine and a Reciprocating Engine for
the United States Navy,” Scientific American, reprinted in U.S. Naval Institute Pro-
ceedings (hereafter cited as USNIP) 32 (1906): 1615–16.
6. The high speed of the turbine caused the propeller to rotate at a speed above
its optimum efficiency. Cavitation, with attendant propeller blade erosion, was the
result. See Rear Admiral C. W. Dyson, USN, “The Passing of the Direct-Con-
nected Turbine for the Propulsion of Ships,” ASNE Journal 31 (1919): 555–76.
7. The concept of a reverse technological salient originated with Thomas
Hughes, who defined it as uneven growth of the components of a technological
system which requires the attention of engineers and technicians so that the sys-
tem can be made to function optimally; Thomas P. Hughes, Networks of Power:
Electrification in Western Society, 1880–1930 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1983), 14.
8. William H. McNeill, The Pursuit of Power: Technology, Armed Force and So-
Notes to Pages 89–92
269
ciety since A.D. 1000 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), chap. 8; and
Alex Roland, “Science and War,” Osiris 1 (1985): 258.
9. For example, in 1910, the Engineering Experimental Station was evaluating
steam traps, steam nozzles, and an air compressor offered for naval service by pri-
vate industry. See Annual Report of the Experimental Station, 1910, in Record
Group 405, Records of the U.S. Naval Academy and Correspondence of the Su-
perintendent, U.S. Naval Academy Archives, Nimitz Library, Annapolis, Md. (for-
merly Record Group 405, National Archives, Washington, D.C.); (hereafter RG
405, USNA).
10. Melville’s statement was quoted in Hearings before the Committee on Naval
Affairs, House of Representatives, Sixty-fourth Congress, First Session, On Estimates
Submitted by the Secretary of the Navy, 1916 (Washington: D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1916), 3384.
11. Bradley A. Fiske, From Midshipman to Rear-Admiral (New York: The Cen-
tury Company, 1919), 580.
12. Testimony of Captain Bradley Fiske, Hearings Before the Committee on
Naval Affairs, United States Senate on the Bill (S.3335) to Increase the Efficiency
of the Personnel of the Navy and Marine Corps of the United States (Washing-
ton, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1908) (hereafter Senate Hearings
[S.3335]), 147.
13. Ibid., 148.
14. For histories of the Consulting Board, see Daniel J. Kevles, The Physicists:
The History of a Scientific Community in Modern America (New York: Knopf,
1979), chaps. 8 and 9; Thomas P. Hughes, Elmer Sperry: Inventor and Engineer
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1971), chap. 9; David K. Allison, New
Eye for the Navy: The Origin of Radar at the Naval Research Laboratory, NRL Re-
port 8466 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981); idem, “The
Origins of the Naval Research Laboratory,” USNIP 15 (July 1979): 63–69; and
William M. McBride, “The ‘Greatest Patron of Science’?: The Navy-Academia Al-
liance and U.S. Naval Research, 1896–1923,” Journal of Military History 56 (1992):
7–33.
15. A history of the early development of the Parsons turbine and its applications
to marine propulsion can be found in Edward W. Constant II, The Origins of the
Turbojet Revolution (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980), 69–79.
16. The disparaging comments of Mark Robinson at the 1897 meeting of the In-
stitution of Naval Architects were typical; see The Institution of Naval Architects,
1860–1960: An Historical Survey of the Institution’s Transactions and Activities Over
100 Years, ed. Kenneth C. Barnaby (London: Royal Institution of Naval Architects
Notes to Pages 92–93
270
in association with Allen & Unwin, 1960), 197; and Charles Parsons, “The Appli-
cation of the Compound Steam Turbine to the Purpose of Marine Transportation,”
Transactions, Institution of Naval Architects (hereafter INA Transactions) 38 (1897):
232–42.
17. For an account of the Wampanoag, see Elting Morison, Men, Machines, and
Modern Times (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1966), chap. 6.
18. Parsons had more success selling his turbine in the merchant marine mar-
ket. By 1903, two passenger ships on the Clyde and ferries on the Dover-Calais and
Newhaven-Dieppe routes employed Parsons steam turbines. See Charles Parsons,
“The Steam Turbine and its Application to the Propulsion of Vessels,” INA Trans-
actions 85 (1903): 284–311.
19. See William Le Roy Emmet, The Autobiography of an Engineer (New York:
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1940), 135–36; and John W. Ham-
mond, Men and Volts (New York: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1941), 275–78.
20. Emmet, Autobiography of an Engineer, 175–76.
21. Ibid., 107–15; and Hammond, Men and Volts, 237.
22. See Hughes, Networks of Power, 211, for a description of the Insull–Consol-
idated Edison agreement with General Electric for the development of the 5,000
kw turbogenerator.
23. AEG entered into a similar agreement with the Swiss firm of Brown, Boveri
& Company, who held the European rights to the Parsons turbine; see Hughes,
Networks of Power, 179.
24. Ibid., 232–33.
25. The Rateau turbine fell victim to Parsons’s reputation when the French gov-
ernment selected Parsons turbines, manufactured under license, for the six battle-
ships of the 1906 Program. See “France Adopts Turbines,” translated from Le Yacht
and reprinted in USNIP 33 (1907): 878; and Siegfried Breyer, Schlachtshiffe und
Schlachtkreuzer, 1905–1970 (Munich: J. F. Lehmann, 1970), 442–43.
26. Scientific American, “Comparison of a Turbine and a Reciprocating Steam
Engine for the United States Navy,” reprinted in USNIP 32 (1906): 1615–16. Also
see Cone, “Naval Engineering Progress.”
27. In 1907, the director of naval construction in Germany announced that, as
a result of cruiser tests involving reciprocating and turbine propulsion, all future
warships of the Imperial German Navy would be equipped with turbines. See “The
Turbine Warship Luebeck,” The Engineer, reprinted in USNIP 31 (1905): 990;
and “Germany Adopts Turbines,” International Marine Engineering, reprinted in
USNIP 33 (1907): 878.
28. Testimony of Rear Admiral Converse, Senate Hearings (S.3335), 42.
Notes to Pages 93–95
271
29. See Rear Admiral C. W. Dyson, USN, “A Fifty Year Retrospect of Naval Ma-
rine Engineering,” ASNE Journal 30 (1918): 289–91, for a discussion of the Curtis
turbine problems in North Dakota.
30. “A Marine Steam Turbine Reducing Gear,” Iron Age, reprinted in USNIP
35 (1909): 1301.
31. For a brief description of each system, see William Hovgaard, Modern His-
tory of Warships: Comprising a Discussion of Present Standpoint and Recent War
Experiences for the Use of Students of Naval Construction, Naval Constructors,
Naval Officers, and Others Interested in Naval Matters (London: E. & F. N. Spon,
Ltd., 1920), 378–81.
32. See Dyson, “Development of Machinery in the U.S. Navy,” 224–26; Francis
Hodgkinson, “Progress in Turbine Ship Propulsion,” a paper presented to the (U.S.)
Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 14 November 1918, and reprinted
in ASNE Journal 31 (1919): 193–94; and George Westinghouse, Broadening the Field
of the Marine Steam Turbine, The Problem and its Solution (The Melville-MacAlpine
Reduction Gear) (Pittsburgh, Pa.: “Printed for Geo. Westinghouse,” 1909).
33. C. A. Parsons and R. J. Walker, “Twelve Months’ Experience with Geared
Turbines in the Cargo Steamer Vespasian,” INA Transactions 53 (1911): 29–36; and
“Speed Reduction Gears for Marine Turbines,” The Engineer, reprinted in USNIP
36 (1910): 305.
34. “A Hydraulic Transmission Gear for Marine Turbines,” Engineering Maga-
zine, reprinted in USNIP 36 (1910): 293–96.
35. Fessenden claimed to have offered his plans for an electric-driven ship to
the navy as early as 1899, and again in 1902 and 1904. In 1908, the Navy Depart-
ment told him to take his idea to the “electric companies.” See Fessenden to the
Secretary of the Navy, 21 August 1911, Record Group 80, General Records of the
Secretary of the Navy, National Archives, Washington, D.C. (hereafter RG 80),
1897–1915, File 24666–22.
36. American naval expansion had absorbed an average of approximately 17 per-
cent of the annual federal budget during Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency; Roger
Dingman, Power in the Pacific (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 3.
37. See Fessenden to Secretary of the Navy, 14 August 1908, RG 80, 1897–1915,
File 26272–13a.
38. In September 1908, the U.S. naval attaché in Berlin reported on the claim
for reduced fuel consumption in the new turboelectrically propelled submarine
mother ship, Vulkan. This report was in the possession of the Bureau of Steam En-
gineering when they reviewed Fessenden’s turboelectric propulsion proposal. See
Board on Construction Endorsement on National Electric Signal Company Pro-
Notes to Pages 95–98
272
pelling Plant for Battleships Nos. 30 and 31, 25 January 1909, RG 80, 1897–1915, File
26272–13.
39. Acting Secretary Newberry to Fessenden, 19 August 1908, RG 80, 1897–1915,
File 26272–13a; also see n. 37 above.
40. Emmet to Navy Secretary George von L. Meyer, 4 October 1909, RG 80,
1897–1915, File 26840–208.
41. Memorandum from the Secretary of the Navy to the Bureau of Steam En-
gineering, 8 October 1909, RG 80, 1897–1915, File 26840–208.
42. Lieutenant Commander J. McNamee, USN, to the Secretary of the Navy,
10 November 1909, RG 80, 1897–1915, File 26840–208.
43. Emmet to Congressman Weeks, 26 January 1910, RG 80, 1897–1915, File
26840–208.
44. Emmet to Arthur Sherwood (his brother-in-law), 27 January 1910, and Sher-
wood to Secretary Meyer, 29 January 1910, RG 80, 1897–1915, File 26840–208.
45. See Elting E. Morison, Admiral Sims and the Modern American Navy
(Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1942), chaps. 12 and 13.
46. Memorandum from Engineer-in-Chief Cone to the Secretary of the Navy,
3 February 1910, RG 80, 1897–1915, File 26840–208.
47. Memorandum from the Secretary of the Navy to the General Board, 10 April
1911, RG 80, 1897–1915, File 24666–14.
48. Dyson, “A Fifty Year Retrospect of Naval Marine Engineering,” 297.
49. Secretary Meyer to Congressman Knowland, 21 April 1911, RG 80, SecNav,
1897–1915, File 26466–15.
50. The loss of this auxiliary machinery work did not sit well with the civilian
machinists at the Mare Island Naval Shipyard, where the electrically powered USS
Jupiter was being constructed. See congressional complaints lodged by the Vallejo
(California) Chamber of Commerce and Vallejo Trades and Labor Council in RG
80, SecNav, 1897–1915, Files 24666–14, 24666–15, and 24666–22.
51. Emmet to Assistant Secretary of the Navy Beekman Winthrop, 29 August
1912, RG 80, 1897–1915, File 26840–181; the battleships were most likely Nevada
and Oklahoma.
52. Memorandum from the Aide for Material to the Bureaus, 3 September 1912,
and Memorandum from the Chief, Bureau of Steam Engineering to the Aide for
Material, 17 September 1912, RG 80, 1897–1915, File 26840–181.
53. “Electric Propulsion of Ships,” Electrical World, reprinted in USNIP 38
(1912): 367–68.
54. Lieutenant Commander P. W. Foote, USN, “Turbine Electric Propulsion
of a Battleship Compared with Other Means,” ASNE Journal 27 (1915): 54–82.
Notes to Pages 98–101
273