History of the manufacture of armor plate for the United States navy . Bethlehem Iron Company and the Carne-gie Steel Company each receiving a share of the workthus unsuccessfully attempted, and at higher prices thanthe United States was then paying these companies forthe same class of armor. The Russian Government has now adopted the mostadvanced armor process of the present period and will al-most entirely remodel the Kolpino plant at an additionalcost of many millions to keep pace with the improvementsin armor manufacture, but, judging by its past experience,it is reasonably certain that th
History of the manufacture of armor plate for the United States navy . Bethlehem Iron Company and the Carne-gie Steel Company each receiving a share of the workthus unsuccessfully attempted, and at higher prices thanthe United States was then paying these companies forthe same class of armor. The Russian Government has now adopted the mostadvanced armor process of the present period and will al-most entirely remodel the Kolpino plant at an additionalcost of many millions to keep pace with the improvementsin armor manufacture, but, judging by its past experience,it is reasonably certain that the plant will never producearmor as cheaply or of so reliable quality as the worksunder the control of commercial steel manufacturers. IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN ARMOR AT $800 PER TON. \_Secretary Long appeared before the Senate Naval Com-mittee in February, 1898, and stated that it was impossi-ble to obtain bids for the armor for battle-ships 7, 8, and\ I o l-H 00 W o [5 ^ 8 E to en s o c 3 oz O > o00 o r O 00 ro- w > D w>O >r> > F > ^ rO 00 O (—1m. ARMOR PLATE FOR THE NAVY. 17 9 at the limit o£ $300 per ton fixed by the Act of March3, 1897, and the Act of July 19, 1897, and recommendedthat the price be increased to $400 per ton. Congressadopted the Secretarys recommendation in the Act ofMay 4, 1898, making appropriations for the naval estab-lishment for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1899, andauthorized the payment of $400 per ton for armor forbattle-ships 7, 8, and 9, exclusive of royalty for the face-hardening process, which price the Navy Department final-ly induced the armor manufacturers to accept, the con-tracts being closed on June 3, 1898. Fortunately the warwith Spain was of short duration and the new battle-shipswere not required, but, if hostilities had been prolonged,the ships could not have been available for that war, andby reason of the delay will not be finished in the con-tract time. The dilatory action of Congress may also re-sult in claims
Size: 1358px × 1841px
Photo credit: © The Reading Room / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., boo, bookcentury1800, bookdecade1890, booksubjectunitedstatesnavy
