WCP3277

[1]

H.M.S. CORNWALL.

Copenhagen.

10.VI.[19]09.

Dear Dr. Wallace,

Very many thanks for your interesting letter of April 25^th. My reasons for not answering this before were, firstly, my appointment to the "Cornwall" at rather short notice, &, secondly, a wish to wait until I could let you know definitely what was to be the fate of the "wireless" idea, in which you have been kind enough to take an interest.

When I last wrote to you, I had no idea of going to sea for some while: but this appointment, [2] which was unexpectedly offered to me, presented so many advantages that I accepted it without hesitation. I joined the ship nearly a month ago & left England on May 19^th.

The "Cornwall" is a modern armoured cruiser, & one of the two sea-going training ships for Naval Cadets, of whom she carries from 55 to 60. They join at the average age of 16¾ years, after being trained for 2 years at Osborne & 2 years at Dartmouth Naval College; & do a 6-months' cruise before going to ships in a fleet as midshipmen & responsible officers.

I have been appointed to the ship to instruct Cadets in Pilotage (including elementary Nautical Surveying); but the appointment is for the present cruise only, after which I shall probably [3] return to the Surveying Service. The Navigating Officer of the ship normally carries out these instructional duties, but, on this particular cruise, which will be mainly in the narrow & intricate waters of the Baltic, he is, & will be, so fully occupied with purely navigational work that he has little or no time for anything else.

I find the work exceedingly interesting & likely to be a most valuable experience, besides making a complete change from my life of the last 6 years & giving me a chance to try how my health will stand life at sea under the most favourable conditions. The cruise itself offered exceptional attractions for me, as it gives me an opportunity of seeing a part of the world which, though so close to our own shores, is rarely visited by men-of-war — &, of course, never by surveying ships. I expect to be home early in November.

As to the "wireless" invention, though its fate is not absolutely sealed, I am afraid there is little doubt about the matter. The Admiralty are still making trials, which have, on the whole, been successful up to date. But I yesterday received a letter from my Patent Agent stating that the Patent Office had quoted a number of specifications as anticipating our claims. He enclosed copies of these specifications, which go back to 1883. Oddly enough, it is the 1883 one — the earliest of all — [4]¹ which really, I think, disposes of our claims: this invention was not, of course, intended to be applied to the purposes of wireless, but of wire, telegraphy & telephony; yet it certainly anticipates the broad outlines of our idea, & the chances of our being granted a patent for the latter appear to me so small that I personally would not contest the objection. The idea is not new, and that is an end of it.

A search through all the volumes of practically unsorted specifications relating to telegraphs & telephones, back as far as '83 — or possibly further — was, of course, a thing [5] I could not attempt: whilst getting a patent agent to undertake this is a very expensive business — at the end of which the agent will not (& really cannot) guarantee that his search has been exhaustive.

However, I shall await the final decision of the Admiralty; &, if they decide they want the thing, then I will turn over the objection to them & leave them to get expert advice about it if they think fit. Our Patent Law, of course, plays into the hands of the patent agents & lawyers at every turn, & a commonsense opinion goes for nothing.

Now as to your scheme of building a large number of small, unarmoured ships of high speed, [6]² each carrying 2 heavy guns. I have taken the opinion of an executive officer & two engineer officers, all highly intelligent, competent & experienced men — broad-minded also & ready to consider an unorthodox theory on its merits — & one of the engineers a man of considerable note in the Service. Each of these men has independently condemned your idea for two or more of the following reasons:-

(i) To mount even 2 heavy guns (12"), the beam of the ship would have to be over 40 ft, or more than half that of the "Dreadnought": consequently, to obtain the necessary speed, for which fine lines are essential, the ship's length — in spite of her much lighter draught — would have to be nearly half the Dreadnought's length. Hence you would have a ship about half the size of the Dreadnought carrying only one fifth her armament.³

(ii) It is quite incorrect to say that, for an equal speed, a small ship of light draught requires less ^{proportionate} horse-power per gun than a big ship of heavy draught. the reverse is the case, as you will see from the following comparison between one of our latest battleship-cruisers, a small cruiser (or scout), & an ocean-going torpedo-boat destroyer, all of nearly the same date & the big ship actually of considerably higher speed than the other two. I should mention that a 12-pounder is considerably smaller than a 4" gun, so that the Doon's gun-power is absolutely negligeable[sic] in [7]⁴ comparison with that of the Invincible. I mention the number of torpedo tubes, but of course the thing we are considering is gun-power.

Name	Class	Length ft.	Beam ft.	Draught ft.	Displacet tons	Horse- power	Extreme speed	Guns	Torp[edo] Tubes
Invincible Boadicea Doon	Battleship-Cruiser Scout- Cruiser Destroyer	530 406 220	78½ 41 23	26 13½ 8	17,250 3,300 550	41,000 18,000 7,358	k[no]ts 28 25 25.8	Eight 12", Sixteen 4". Six 4" One 12 pr, Five 6 pr	3 submerged 2 above water 2 above water

(iii) The gun platform given by your small ship of shallow draught would be a most unsteady one in a seaway — an immense disadvantage.

(iv) The smaller the ship the greater the difficulty to obtain the requisite strength & elasticity to resist the shock caused by the recoil of a heavy gun, & the greater the likelihood that the jar due to firing one gun would spoil the aim of the gunlayer at the other.

(v) No wooden ship, or cheaply-built ship of any description, would ^{for long} stand the vibration due to travelling at 20 knots or more, or the actual shocks of the waves if, in a case of urgency, it were necessary to drive her through a head sea.

(vi) A big ship is far more economical of officers & men, & of stores, than a small one, quite apart from the question of gunpower.

(vii) The advantage afforded by reducing the size of target offered to [8]⁵ to the enemy is undoubted, but, as you will see from (i), the reduction would not be anything like so great as was assumed by your theory.

I have tried to be explicit, but as brief as possible, in wording these objections. Other weaknesses in the scheme were mentioned, but the above are the principal ones.

Please remember me most kindly to Mrs Wallace & your daughter. I hope you are all in good health & getting much pleasure our of your garden & beautiful outlook.

Again thanking you for your letter,

Yours always gratefully, | Vivian Brandon [signature]

P.S.

Should you have time to write, please address your letter to me,

H.M.S. "Cornwall",

Special Service.