The College, the Technical School and the Naval Academy
(See page 123, February, 1930, Proceedings)
Captain Wilbur R. Van Auken, U. S. Navy.—Commander Rossell is to be congratulated upon introducing some new ideas on the Naval Academy for open discussion in the Naval Institute. It is seldom nowadays that an article appears in the Proceedings which is subject to such controversy. There is, however, never a “closed season” upon the Academy. As many graduates say, “The Navy school is not what it used to be when I was there.” Every graduate of the Academy, and in fact all officers of the Navy, are always interested in what the Academy is doing, and how everything is coming along. There is probably no institution in America where graduates keep in as close touch with their Alma Mater, or are in a profession where they are working and living with fellow graduates, as we do in the Navy. And it is to the credit of the Navy and the Academy to know that sons of graduates, and sons of officers who came into the Navy during the War, are “Navy Juniors.” The lieutenants’, ensigns’ and midshipmen’s lists probably show more sons of officers today than at any other time in the Navy’s history. That these college graduates, and others who are in the various branches of the Navy, think so highly of the Naval Academy is a great tribute.
There are certain statements in this article and deductions with which the writer disagrees. In the first place, it is believed that the very excellent table of entrance requirements compiled gives an erroneous impression. While it is true that a candidate enters the other institutions in somewhat the same manner as he does the Academy, it is also a fact that practically no candidates can pass the examinations to any of the other institutions who have not graduated from a high school of high standing. This is not so at the Naval Academy. Candidates have for years, and are now, still entering the Academy in many instances who have had only two years of high school, and not a very good high school at that. The writer feels safe in stating that an average of three years in high school of the enlisted men going to the Naval Academy Preparatory Classes and passing is a good average. Based upon this, therefore, I take issue with the statement, “On the whole it appears that incoming midshipmen are at least as well prepared academically as the rank and file of students starting in as freshmen at colleges or technical schools.”
On the subject of physical condition, the writer believes that those who enter the Naval Academy are infinitely superior physically to those entering other colleges and universities. It goes without saying that the improvement in intramural athletics and highly competent supervison by expert trainers and coaches leave little to be desired.
Under the subject of “Character of Course at College of Arts and Sciences,” it is believed that colleges are far from being standardized as to their curricula and requirements. From observation of institutions for the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps, namely Harvard, Yale, Northwestern, and Georgia Institute of Technology, it is felt that each of these institutions has a different curriculum and different system, and works along lines which are not comparable. At the same time, however, the graduates of each institution scatter throughout the country and achieve eminent results.
In connection with the study of “Character of Course at the Naval Academy,” it seems a little far-fetched to class the practice cruises as “major laboratory sessions,” and speak of the professional training “in the light of mental attitude of the class of ‘labor’ which midshipmen are to control in later life.” It appears that this discussion of the Academy’s course is too much inclined to be theoretical, idealistic, and lacking in the perspective of seagoing training, sea experience, and training for command. It is felt that a picture of the Academy course and training from the point of view of the shoregoing officer or college authorities is not fair to the spirit and sea traditions of the Naval Academy. In the writer’s opinion there is a great tendency to get away from the mission of the Naval Academy to train naval officers of the line.
Under the subject “Trends in Higher Education,” the author says that engineers have now got to be broader gauge men as turned out of technical schools. In speaking of “broader gauge” it is believed that this refers to leadership, management, and big administration. Even though this is for civil life, the fundamental principles of leadership of the Army and Navy are being applied today in many cases of ex-officers who are broader gauge men than the narrow engineers formerly turned out. And it certainly is true that the “broad gauge” engineers are occupying higher salaried positions in the big corporations than the brilliant, technical, specialized engineers who have gone along in a certain groove throughout their careers. That the technical schools are changing their system somewhat tends to show that it is coming along toward that which has been at the Academy for fifty or more years—the training for command.
As to what has been happening at the Naval Academy for the past twenty-five years, there is no doubt but that each administration and academic board has been improving, reconstructing, and building on the great organization which has always existed there. With the change of times and methods, there have been drastic changes at the Academy. It is believed that the superintendents and academic boards, composed of seagoing officers in the main, have been true to their trust. A glance at the history of the Academy since the Civil War cannot but bring out the fact that under such superintendents as Admiral David Porter, Admiral Worden, Admiral C. R. P. Rodgers, and so on down the line to the present time, there have been leaders of the Navy at the helm. With their assistants on the Academic Board, which they have had the right to choose, they conserved the years and training at the Academy so as to maintain the high traditions of the Navy. To those who have not sat in on the Academic Board meetings, and listened to the straight-from-the- shoulder discussions, and the careful consideration given by various subcommittees to problems, it would be a revelation to know that the decision of this board on any subject is probably for the best interests of the service. There can be no doubt that many of its recommendations have been criticised, but very few changes have been introduced of an important nature which have later gone into the discard. In this connection, as a matter of interest, the numbers on the active and retired lists, Navy Register of January 1, 1929, who have taken an active part in directing the Academy’s policies is rather enlightening. On the rear admirals’ list there are two who have been superintendents, four commandants, thirteen members of the Academic Board, and twenty-six who at one time or another were instructors. This, therefore, is a total of forty-five out of fifty-seven on the rear admirals’ list. On the captains’ list there are three who have been commandants, thirty-five who have been members of the Academic Board, and approximately ninety- nine who have been instructors. These figures are from memory in consulting the list, and represent the minimum number. It is possible that all have not been counted, and without attempting to take the exact number of commanders, it is estimated that approximately one-third of the present commanders’ list have been, at one time or another, instructors.
On the retired list there are five rear admirals who have been superintendents, seven who have been commandants, and three who have been members of the Academic Board.
It is thus seen that a fair cross section of the line of the Navy have, in the past thirty years, been directing the policies of the Naval Academy. It is believed that at all times they have carefully observed the reaction of the forces afloat to the new graduate. They have constantly received criticism from officers of the fleet and Department, and from parents of midshipmen. They have also had the advice of many eminent educators, business men, and representatives in public life on the Board of Visitors as to the needs of the Academy. The action on these recommendations has been delayed somewhat until money or more officers were available for duty at the Naval Academy. But it is only fair to say of those in authority, who worked unceasingly to improve conditions at the Academy in the past, that they were strong enough to take criticism, consider it, and act upon it if necessary.
In penning this discussion, Morro Castle entrance at Santiago, Cuba, lies in the setting sun to remind me of those who led our fleet in its first major engagement. Our graduates were there! As to whether the graduates are better informed technically or not, and whether they are wiser and better balanced, is a difficult question to answer. Of course, they are better informed technically than twenty-five years ago because there have been tremendous advances made. However, it must not be forgotten that in the realm of science and engineering there stand out graduates such as Michelson, Sprague, McFarland, Emmet, Cooley, Hollis, and Durand, who achieved notable distinction in civil life. And of these graduates of years ago we must not forget that, as midshipmen, there left the walls of our Alma Mater such other men as Luce and Alfred Mahan of War College fame; Robert M. Thompson, successful in business and always thinking of the Academy; John W. Weeks and Curtis D. Wilbur, who held the portfolios of Secretary of War and Secretary of the Navy in the same cabinet; H. G. Smith, Homer Ferguson, and J. W. Powell, leaders of the shipbuilding industry; and Winston Churchill, the author. These, and many others now coming along, got “their fundamentals and inspiration” after passing through the “Old Main Gate.” And in the Navy it would be difficult to pass through the graduates’ list and not remember what technical advancement was made in engineering, ordnance, radio, and aeronautics by so many distinguished naval officers who graduated in the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s. Their imagination, foresight, enthusiasm, ability, and energy brought to the Navy its present battleship engine installations, hulls, ordnance, electrical devices, including radio, aeronautical design, and fire control of today. It is therefore seen that while the course may have been elementary years ago, it must have had enough fundamentals to train men who stood well up in the front rank of civil life and the naval profession.
As to the course in ordnance and gunnery, there was no fire control, in its present sense, until about twenty years ago. And the present stage of gunnery, gun-mount development, and one might say modern ordnance and gunnery, was in its modern beginning about twenty-five years ago. However, looking over the list of graduates of the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s, there is no doubt that some of the greatest brains in powder, steel, and mount design came from these periods. It is further believed that then there was more attention paid to the fundamentals of ballistics, elastic strength of the guns, chance and probability of gunfire, than there has been since. The course in ordnance and gunnery has been constantly changed to meet the advancing conditions afloat and the modern devices of the Bureau of Ordnance. However, the writer believes that there is not the time in the course today for the midshipmen to get at the fundamentals of ordnance and gunnery that there was thirty to forty years ago. In view of the more or less standardization of gun design, range tables, and the limitation of guns and velocities, it is perhaps unnecessary for the average midshipman to have as great a knowledge of this as before. In fact, there is not time now to handle all of the details of ordnance and fire control that there used to be. In the fleet, however, there is no doubt that the young ensign and lieutenant is confronted with far more responsible ordnance and gunnery duties than he was a quarter of a century past. And the present advanced gunnery exercises of the fleet, where the important duties are performed in the main by young officers, are certainly demanding a greater skill and judgment. And the younger officers in gunnery today are producing such results as to be a credit to the Academy and themselves. The graduate of today is expected to know as much about gunnery officer of a ship of twenty years ago.
As to the liberalization of the Academy course, it has been generally recognized a four-year course at the Academy is all that the service can afford to give midshipmen. Many times there have been arguments for five and six years, but there have been so many things against this arrangement that this scheme appears to be out of the question. On the other hand, the Pye-Knox- King Board of 1919 recognized this fact, and recommended the General Line Course. That the General Line Course was not adopted before 1927 was largely due to the lack of officers available for assignment to that course. From present indications, the General Line Course appears to meet a long felt need, and will undoubtedly be improved as the years go on. Along with this consideration, however, attention is invited to the Department’s report of the Board on the General Education of the Navy, which was published in the Naval Institute Proceedings of August, 1929. This accepts many of the drawbacks which the Academy curriculum must suffer in four years, and yet attempts to make a definite plan of education throughout the line officer’s career. The necessity for the postgraduate school seems to be now without question—and the important duties performed by its graduates in the various technical subjects is the criterion of its importance. The maintenance of the material afloat, and the direction of design and production ashore, have been so intelligently done that the postgraduate curriculum and system, based upon the Naval Academy training, have given excellent results. And recently the showing made by the Navy in winning six Rhodes Scholarships in one year, in competition with all university graduates in the country, is another answer as to whether the Academy course is liberal.
From conversations with educators, ideas have been proposed such as to appoint a commission to consider the Academy curriculum, composed of naval officers and educators. The president of one leading university, who has been a member of our Board of Visitors, regards this as a suggestion toward the solution of the problem. Another eminent college president believes that the Naval Academy system of training has advantages over that of all other colleges in that graduates who have attained successful results at sea are constantly brought back as instructors and heads of departments. He believes that if colleges could bring back many of their most successful graduates to direct certain courses in various subjects, and have enough of them, the colleges might be on a par with the Naval Academy. But, of course, it is impossible for any college to find enough graduates who have the time and means to leave their profession for two or three years and return to teach. In any event, the Naval Academy has been enriched by the suggestions of many of these eminent educators who have been selected as members of the Board of Visitors at the Naval Academy from year to year. And since the establishment of the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps there has come to be a greater bond of sympathy and friendship between the Naval Academy and the institutions which have placed the naval training in their curricula. In future years there will be a larger number of officers to choose from for duty at the Naval Academy who have been trained in the methods of leading universities where they have been on duty with the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps.
In answer to the author of this splendid article, the writer ventures the prediction that the Academic Board will seriously consider his suggestions, and whatever it decides to do will be for the best interests of the Academy and the service. Further, there is no doubt that each adminstration of the Academy has added another link to the long chain of Naval Academy achievements and reputation. Decades will come and go, times and modern inventions will continue to make increasing demands, and the Academy will meet them. The changes that come, however, should be no reflection on the well-known flag officers of the Navy who grew up with the Academy, guided it and later took up high commands afloat. Their undying faith and high sense of duty was passed on from generation to generation, and the Invisible Spirit of the Graduate goes back to those who sacrificed the emoluments of civil life and stayed with the Navy through thick and thin. We, the officers of the present generation, must never forget what has gone on before. Let us respect the experience and the names of our predecessors in the service who carried along the traditions of the American Navy from the days of John Paul Jones down the long line through David Porter, Farragut, Sampson and Evans, on to the leaders of today.
The Value of Engineering Competition
(See page 33, January, 1930, Proceedings)
Lieutenant Carl J. Lamb, U.S.N.R.—I have had some experience in both marine and naval engineering, having made Naval Reserve cruises aboard some ten destroyers, and having had the opportunity of discussing the engineering competition with the members of several classes of postgraduate engineers. I am therefore interested in Commander Weber’s article and believe that it presents excellent support of the competitive plan.
The United States Shipping Board has an engineering competition, operative on half- yearly periods, based upon a minimum mileage traveled each period, and having a fixed “bogey” for each vessel. Certain large merchant fleets also have an engineering competition, based upon total operating cost a mile, for fixed periods.
In spite of adverse criticisms often expressed by many naval officers, the writer believes that Lieutenant Commander Weber has demonstrated the unquestioned value of the engineering competition to the naval service from both economic and military viewpoints. The article aptly proves one basic truth: any system, regardless of age, complexity, or theoretical value, will only be a success when administered with vigor, loyalty, and careful planning, and will fail to be a success if not so administered.
The suggestion is advanced that, rather than have the competition on the basis it is at present, it might be possible to set a “bogey” for each vessel based upon its condition, new, at time of joining the fleet, and then compute yearly scores based upon comparisons with the predetermined fixed values. With such a plan, it would not be advisable or necessary to change the fuel allowance during the life of the vessel, except in case of marked improvements, changes in h.p. rating or reconditioning of the plants, as has been done recently on some of the battleships. The competition would then become one between ships, to determine each year which one could beat the original value assigned by the greatest percentage, and there would be no incentive to “let down” due to fuel allowances being reduced after winning first place. The basic urge and opportunity would remain to try each year to be better in the value originally laid down by the largest possible percentage.
It would be interesting to know if the British, Japanese, and French navies have engineering competitions and if so, what forms they follow. It would also be of interest to know if the United States Coast Guard has such a competition, and the system in use.
The College, the Technical School, and the Naval Academy
(See page 123, February, 1930, Proceedings)
Lieutenant (J.G.) Harry Sanders, U. S. Navy.—Commander Rossell’s interesting article serves a most useful purpose in evoking thought on a subject of vital importance to the Navy. He has shown quite conclusively, I believe, that the Naval Academy course has kept pace with the changing standards of higher education.
It appears that under any system of education the basic requirement is the formation of an attitude of mind, a habit of thought, and a manner of approach which will enable the student to successfully cope with the work of his profession. In these days of intense specialization a college education means only conveying the student across the threshold of his future work. If he is given a broad general basis of principle, an intelligent insight into the application of these principles, and an appreciation of the relationships of his work to the kindred great sciences, he has gained much.
The Naval Academy is fortunate in having several unique advantages over civilian schools. Its primary mission is the development of military character. The midshipman is taught by precept and example from the rich heritage of our naval tradition to develop his own character towards the highest ideals of the service. Such a foundation on which to build a solid character, such guidance for his future, such a broadening outlook upon life, is a priceless acquisition.
Two of the most prominent and most valuable traits that the Academy develops are adaptability and teachability. Both of these terms savor of a generality of viewpoint. The very nature of the service requires these virtues and they appear to be highly developed.
In the matter of academic work, the Naval Academy system makes each midshipman produce results in the classroom at very frequent intervals, often daily. Such a rigorous system makes hard, well-regulated study mandatory. I believe that the small sections, the frequent recitations and marks, contribute much to high scholarship. Such a system elicits a broader as well as a more detailed understanding of the particular subject and therefore a better basis for that association of ideas which is the essence of general education.
While the midshipmen may lack some cultural study, yet they have an unusual opportunity for first-hand assimilation of general information on the summer cruises. It is well accepted, I believe, among modern educators that travel is one of the most boardening of educational influences. Furthermore, as Commander Rossell points out, the cruises enable the midshipmen to observe and understand the men whom they afterwards will command.
It is perceived, therefore, that the Naval Academy, gifted with unique broadening influences, can teach fewer cultural subjects than most engineering schools and yet give a more general education. Commander Rossell’s proposal offers to provide more cultural study without undue curtailment of technical work. His point regarding the teaching of fundamentals and basic theories is particularly good. To serve as an illustration, in order to predict with great accuracy the behavior of the various types of direct-current motors and generators it is only necessary to correlate a diagrammatic sketch of the winding with two or three fundamental natural laws which may be conveniently expressed by two or three simple formulas. To remember the characteristics of these various machines is quite a feat—and one which requires much obstinate work. But given the principles, to think them out is quite simple.
As a recent graduate who has had time to carefully consider his Academy course, I feel that the Naval Academy education is of a high order of excellence. Commander Rossell’s article views introspectively this splendid training with the motive of working further improvement.
A Method of Calibrating Range Finders at Sea
(See page 137, February, 1930, Proceedings)
Commander W. A. Lee, Jr., US. Navy. The method of checking range finders at sea, as given by Commander Parker, while possibly subject to observational errors, is certainly better than to check at all. In calculating the formula for the correct range, he seems, however, to have gone to unnecessary trouble.
He measures first the range R' to one end of a test base B. This range R' corresponds to an angle © subtended by the length of the range finder, b. He then brings both ends of the test base B into coincidence, and reads the scale S. The range S corresponds to an angle subtended by the base b equal to $. Both of these angles are in error but the error is the same in each. There is no error in the difference (<3?—©). The angle ($—0) is the angle subtended by the test base B at the correct range R.
As a result of the first measurement, we have © equal to b/R'. As a result of the second measurement, we have <3? equal to b/S. (<t>—©) then equals b(l/S—1/R')- And the correct range R is equal to B/(4>— 0), equal to B (R X S)/b(R' — S) #.
The above formula seeems to me to be more exact, as well as simpler, than the one given by Commander Parker. It is realized that unavoidable observational errors will exist, and that probably both formulas are more exact than necessary. Using the average measurements in the two cases cited by Commander Parker, but using the formula above, we would have:
By using the starred values in the left- hand column above, we can make a slide- rule solution, which is probably accurate enough for all practical purposes.