The Herreshoff Brothers and their Torpedo Boats, Part IX

[1] Quotes from “Report of the Secretary of The Navy, William C. Whitney Dec. 1, 1886.” P.16. & “App. No. 3 Report of the Admiral of The Navy, David Dixon Porter. November 15, 1886.” P. 57. Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy with Accompanying Documents for the Year 1886. Washington GPO 1886.

[1] Sources: Congressional FY Appropriations, TBs built, & TB Shipbuilders- Richard V. Simpson, Goat island and the U.S. Naval Torpedo Station: Guncotton, Smokeless Powder and Torpedoes, AMERICA THROUGH TIME, Foothills Media LLC. 2016 Appendix E, pp. 182-88. Secretary of the Navy Annual Reports 1886-1900. Torpedo Boats 1-35 Tables prepared by the Sandy Lee.

Following the success of CUSHING (TB-1), Congress appropriates funds for 34 additional torpedo boats through 1899. Slowly at first, one to three in a single fiscal year (FY), jumping to ten in 1887, and 14 in 1899. In some years Congress mandates a minimum speed; 23 knots in 1891, 30 knots for three torpedo boats in 1897 and again in 1898, but in most years require "the highest practicable speed for vessels of their class", leaving the details to the Navy.

[5] John R. Spears, The History of our Navy; from its origins to the End of the War with Spain (1775 – 1898); Vol V War with Spain, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York 1902. Pg. 90. Also "Report of the Secretary of the Navy Dec. 6, 1887, William C. Whitney", Pgs. iii-iv.

[6] "The Building of Warships; Annual Report of Secretary Whitney; The Poor Results Attained by the New Cruisers (i.e., the ABC cruisers)- Broad Plans for Making the Navy Stronger", New York Times, Dec. 4, 1886.

[7] Sir Edward J. Reed, M.P. (late Chief Constructor of the British Navy) & Edward Simpson RADM USN (Late President US Naval Advisory Board), Modern Ships of War. (Harper & Brothers, New York, 1888) Pgs. 167-8. Provides specifics on John Roach actions to provide domestic steel plating for the ABCD ships.

[8] The purchase of quality domestic steel would remain a major problem for about 15 more years. Paul E. Pedisich, Congress Buys a Navy, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis MD. 2016. Pg. 62.

It is a fractured market. There are 24 separate designs- 16 are one-offs, eight are classes consisting of two or three ships. The construction is spread across 15 shipbuilders (Figure 2), including two foreign built torpedo boats (German Schichau and English Yarrow) purchased on an urgent basis for the Spanish American War. Only three American companies build more than three: Herreshoff with six awarded in three contracts (Figure 3), Columbian Iron Works and Bath Iron Works with five each.

[8] The purchase of quality domestic steel would remain a major problem for about 15 more years. Paul E. Pedisich, Congress Buys a Navy, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis MD. 2016. Pg. 62.

For another historical view of ADM David Dixon Porter and the early Herreshoff torpedo boats see J. M. Caiella “Prelude to the Beginning” in the Naval History Magazine April 2023 Vol. 37 No. 2.( USNI, Annapolis, MD.) Pages 6 & 7.

Company	Location	TBs
Herreshoff Manufacturing Co.	Bristol, RI	6
Colombian Iron Works	Baltimore, MD	5
Bath Iron Works	Bath, ME	5
Wolf & Zwicker	Portland, OR	3
William R. Trigg Co.	Richmond, VA	3
Charles L. Seabury & Co.	Morris Heights, NY	2
George Lawley & Sons Co.	Boston, MA	2
Lewis Nixon Shipyard	Elizabethtown, NJ	2
Iowa Iron Works	Dubuque, IA	1
Charles Hillman Ship & Engine Building Co.	Philadelphia, PA	1
Harlan & Hollingsworth	Wilmington, DE	1
Friedrich Schichau Werke	Elbing, Ger	1
Yarrow & Co.	London, UK	1
Total		35

Figure 2 Torpedo Boat Builders (TBs 1-35) Sources US Navy Contract Records Annual Reports of the Secretary of the Navy. Compilation by Sandy Lee.

TB	Contract	Contract Award/Signing	Contract Completion
CUSHING (TB-1)	$82,750	Mar. 1888 Contract signed	Apr. 1890 Accepted
PORTER (TB-6) & DUPONT (TB-7)	$144,000 each	Mar. 1888 Contract signed	(TB-6) Aug. 1897 Final acceptance. (TB-7) Sept. 1897 Commissioned
MORRIS (TB-14), TALBOT (TB-15), GWIN (TB-16)	$163,000 Total (14)- $85K, (15) & (16)- $39K each)	Oct. 1897 Award	(TB-14)- Commissioned May 1898. (TB-15 & 16)- Commissioned-Apr. 1898

Figure 3 Herreshoff Steel Torpedo Boat Contracts with US Navy. Source Annual Reports of the Secretary of the Navy.

The torpedo boat buys end with the development of the larger 400-ton torpedo boat destroyer, 16 of which are first authorized in FY 1898.

[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.

We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more

[4] All quotes are from "Report of the Admiral of the Navy to the Secretary of the Navy 1886", Appendix 3 to Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy with Accompanying Documents for the Year 1886. Washington GPO 1886. Pages 54-69.

For a table of the TB-1-35 market identifying individual vessels, builders, design characteristics and service life see Appendix A.

[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.

We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more

Appendix A: US Navy Torpedo Boats WTB-1 & Steel TBs 1-35 (Compiled by Sandy Lee)

Secretaries of the Navy Organize to Build Modern Warships with Offensive Power

[4] Thomas Wildenberg and Norman Polmar. Ship Killers: A History of the American Torpedo. (Annapolis, MD, USNI Press, 2010) pgs. 16-17.

In 1889 newly elected President Benjamin Harrison selects for his Secretary of the Navy Benjamin F. Tracy (Term March 1889- March 1893) a Medal of Honor recipient in the Civil War and like Harrison a proponent of a naval strategy focused more on offensive power, than coastal defense and commerce raiding. Tracy notes we are "absolutely at the mercy of states having less than 1/10th the population, 1/30th the wealth and 1/100th the area." To correct that, "the country needs a Navy that will exempt it from war, but the only Navy that will accomplish this is a Navy that can wage war." He proposes a 100-ship Navy, including the first battleships, and at least five torpedo boats, for which Harrison provides the funding by increasing protective tariffs to historic rates.[2]

[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.

We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more

[2] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy 1889, Part I. "Secretary Report Nov. 30, 1889". Wash DC GPO 1890. Pgs. 3-5, 10-14. "Reorganizing Navy Dept.; G. O. 372 Effective July 1, 1889". Army and Navy Journal Vol 26, June 29, 1889. P 905.

Tracy also forthrightly addresses two recurring matters; the first to the Herreshoff's advantage, but the second a detriment to the value of the Herreshoff brothers' strong relationship with BuOrd through the Torpedo Corps officers at the Newport Torpedo Station.

[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.

We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more

1. Building in private yards vs navy yards- He writes the Department "is firmly of the opinion" that building by contract with private firms is the best method. With government encouragement capital has been invested, workmen trained, an enterprising spirit unleashed, and expectations of government inspectors have been met. "All these advantages are lost by a policy that confines the construction of vessels exclusively to the Navy Yards." Torpedo boats continue to be built in private yards.[3]

[3] Ibid., P 26

2. The organization of the Navy Department as regards ship design and construction- Noting that the Department cannot provide "the unity of direction" required by modern warships with the existing practice of the Bureaus operating independently his General Order 372 of June 25, 1889, places the general design and construction of all warships under a Board consisting of the Chiefs of the Bureaus of Yards & Docks, Construction and Repair, Equipment, Ordnance, and Steam. The general plans of all new ships are to be approved by the Board before any work is undertaken and the Board is required to "promptly reach" its decisions.[4]

[4] Ibid., Pgs 38-9.

The Bureau of Ordnance (BuOrd) no longer holds exclusive authority over torpedo boats.

[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.

We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more

The following Secretary Hillary A. Herbert (Term March 1893- March 1897), a Confederate Army veteran, assumes office in the second term of the Grover Cleveland administration. He has served eight terms in the Congress starting in 1877 and was Chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs. He favors a more limited building program than that proposed by Tracy, but strongly supports organizational changes to provide that "unity of direction." His General Order 433 of October 2, 1894, places as much authority as possible (under the congressional restrictions then in effect) in one Bureau – The Bureau of Construction & Repair (BuC&R) is charged with:[5]

[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.

We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more

[5] "Naval Bureau System", Report of the Secretary of the Navy Hillary A. Herbert, Nov 17, 1894, Annual Report of the Secretary of the Navy for the Year 1894 Wash DC GPO 1894. Pages 13-15.

1. "The responsibility for the design, structural strength and stability of vessels built for the Navy."

2. Securing "harmony" in the preparation of new vessel designs.

3. Control of changes in the design. Changes from the original designs, of any character, whether in hull, machinery, armor, armament, or of outfit or equipment must be submitted to the Department through BuC&R for their recommendation and comment. Changes initiated by BuC&R, affecting any other Bureau was submitted to the Secretary through the affected Bureau.

The Bureau of Construction & Repair (BuC&R) is in the lead, if not in overall charge, unless overruled by the Secretary- a scenario we shall see play out in Part X in the aftermath of the Navy acceptance trials of PORTER (TB-6).

[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.

We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more

The Herreshoff Brothers Torpedo Boat Story

[4] Thomas Wildenberg and Norman Polmar. Ship Killers: A History of the American Torpedo. (Annapolis, MD, USNI Press, 2010) pgs. 16-17.

We divide the remaining story into three parts with a postscript to follow:

[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.

We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more

● This Part IX covers the Herreshoff bidding losses for the FY 1891 TB-2, and FY 1895 TBs 3, 4 & 5. First, they lose TB-2 because of the Navy Bureaus strong desire to build their own design. Then more significantly comes the loss of the competition for TBs 3, 4 & 5. "Significant" because the competition seems to encourage innovation and directly solicits the composite hull materials as applied by Herreshoff to their Americas Cup Defenders. They need to change something or leave the business.

● In Part X the brothers change strategy for TBs 6 & 7, entering into a secret agreement with the Secretary of the Navy to build faster vessels, free from Bureau oversight. They deliver superior vessels, but in the process risk any future constructive relationship with those Bureaus.

● Part XI begins in FY 1897 with the disastrous failure of Herreshoff to win a contract for a 30-knot TB. The success of TBs 14, 15 & 16; models of economy of construction and operation. The subsequent Herreshoff bidding failure and departure from the torpedo boat business.

[2] William duBarry Thomas. “The Genesis of a Professional Society”. SNAME Transactions. Vol.101, 1993, pgs.31-9.

● The Postscript will address questions and comments received through the series.

[2] William duBarry Thomas. “The Genesis of a Professional Society”. SNAME Transactions. Vol.101, 1993, pgs.31-9.

TB-2

[4] Thomas Wildenberg and Norman Polmar. Ship Killers: A History of the American Torpedo. (Annapolis, MD, USNI Press, 2010) pgs. 16-17.

Figure 3: Comparison CUSHING (TB-1) [i], ERICSSON (TB-2) [ii] & Bureau Design of TBs 3, 4 & 5 [iii]

[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.

We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more

[i] Developed from sources listed in Part VIII of this series.

[ii] “Ericsson (TB-2)” Journal American Society of Naval Engineers, Vol. 6 1894. Pgs. 794-95.

[iii] “Three Torpedo Boats”, New York Times, Dec. 9, 1894. “No Special Premium (for speed) Offered”. New York Times, Dec. 4, 1894. “TBs 3, 4 &5”, Ships Section Journal American Society of Naval Engineers, Vol. 6 1894. Pgs. 795-99. Trial speed & Boiler data from Table No. 1 Dimensions and Other Data from Torpedo Boats of the US. Assist Naval Constructor H. G. Gilmor, “Torpedo Boat Design”, Transactions Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineer, Vol. 7 1897, Pages 51-79. (TB-3) boilers from Passed Assistant Engineer C. N. Offley USN, “The Contract Trial of the US TB FOOTE (TB-3)”, Journal ASNE. Vol 9 Issue 4. Nov. 1897. Pg 665. Months to complete from BuC&R Annual Reports. Crew “BuC&R Annual Report Oct. 1, 1894”. Philip Hichborn, Chief. Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy 1894. (Wash, DC, GPO) Pgs. 430-1. Propelling machinery weight from “TB 3, 4 & 5 Contract”, George Albert Converse Collection, Box 1, Folder 1 MSS 0068, DeGolyer Library, SMU.

Models	CUSHING (TB-1) [i]	ERICSSON (TB-2) [ii]	TBs 3, 4 & 5 [iii]	Comment
Builder	Herreshoff	Iowa Iron Works	Columbian Iron Works
LWL	138 ft-9 in	150 ft	160 ft
B	15 ft	15 ft 6 in	16 ft
Draft Mean	4 ft 10 in	4 ft 9 in	5 ft
Displacement Tons	105 tons	120 tons	130 tons
Bunker Capacity	33 tons	40 tons	45 tons
Propelling Machinery Weight	54.5 tons	58.46 tons	60 tons (TB-3) 59.2 tons per Contract Actual 50.82 tons	Source- Gilmor, "Torpedo Boat Design", SNAME 1897
Torpedo tubes	One fixed in bow; Two trainable on deck	One fixed in bow; Two trainable on deck	Three trainable on deck	Bow tubes were later removed
Deck guns	Three 1-pounder rapid fire	Four 1-pounder rapid fire	Three 1-pounder rapid fire	Some Navy records list three guns TB-2
Boiler & Engine Arrangement	Two engines in one engine room with a boiler room forward and one aft	Two engines in one engine room with a boiler room forward and one aft	Two engines, each in a separate watertight compartment, with a boiler room forward and one aft
Boilers	Two Thornycroft 250 psi; grate surface 76.6 sqft; 4750 sqft heating surface	Two Thornycroft 250 psi; grate surface 85 sqft; 4698 sqft heating surface	Two tubulous 240 psi (As built Mosher boilers grate surface 91 sqft; 5260 sqft heating surface)	TB-1 data from Journal ASNE 1892 Pg. 703. TB-3 Substituted Mosher boiler In place of Bureau design ASNE 1897. Pg 662
Engines full power ihp	1750	1800	2000
Engines – Twin screw	Quadruple expansion five cylinders; 111/4 x 16 x 221/2 x 2 @ 221/2 x 15 stroke	Quadruple expansion four cylinders; 111/2 x 16 x 211/2 x 30 x 16 stroke	Triple expansion four cylinders; 12 x 191/4 x 2@ 22 x 16 stroke
Contract Specified speed for 2 hours	At least 22 knots	At least 24 knots	At least 24.5 knots
Trial Speed	22.53 knots	Failed to complete successful full power trial	24.5- 24.8 knots
Crew	4 officers, 12 men, 3 machinists	4 officers, 12 men, 4 machinists	4 officers, 12 men, 4 machinists
Contract signing to completion of acceptance trials	24 months	~ 60 months. Accepted without completion of trials	(TB-3) ~ 27 months (TB-4) ~ 31 months (TB-5) ~ 35 months
Contract price per vessel	$82,750	$113,500	$97,500
$/ton displ	$788.00	$945.83	$686.62
$/ton-knot	$35.82	$39.41	$28.02

See Figure 3 for a Comparison of CUSHING (TB-1), ERICSSON (TB-2) and the Bureau Design for TBs 3, 4 & 5. Note the slow progression to greater speed and increased vessel size.

[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.

We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more

Procurement of TB-2

[4] Thomas Wildenberg and Norman Polmar. Ship Killers: A History of the American Torpedo. (Annapolis, MD, USNI Press, 2010) pgs. 16-17.

In the Act of June 30, 1890, Congress provided $125,000 for one torpedo boat for which the Navy issues an RFP in October specifying a steel torpedo boat of about 112 tons; the intention is to obtain a vessel resembling CUSHING, but without the ram bow and developing at least 24 knots. The hull and machinery, including engines boilers, and appurtenances, are to be built in accordance with plans and specifications provided by bidder. Speed premiums and penalties are specified similar to CUSHING.[6]

[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.

We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more

[6] "Report of the Secretary of the Navy, B. F. Tracy, Nov. 26, 1890" Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy 1890.Wash DC GPO 1890. Pages 15-16.

In response Capt. Nat develops two designs, both of which are submitted in the HMCo bid.[7]

[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.

We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more

[7] Source of information on NGH's two TB-2 designs are 1890 archival documents contained in the Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection, Herreshoff Marine Museum including TB profile and sectional view sketches, draft HMCo specification to which the TBs are to be built. TB "2A" and "2B" are identifications created by NGH. TB "2A"is the larger 156-foot vessel also identified as Half Model 1420; "2B" is the 144-foot vessel also identified as half model 1418. It is clear from these documents that "2B" is an improved CUSHING. The features of the 156-foot TB "2A" are less understood. There are also Oct. & Dec. 1890 & Jan. 1891 data on weighing of these models in NGH's NA&E Notes.

Text

[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.

We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more

1. An improved CUSHING- TB-“2B”- 1/48th scale half model 1418 (See Figure 4) 144 ft LOD x 14ft- 9 in Beam x 10 ft extreme depth; displacement 112 tons net

● Price $93,200 with $4000 additional for galvanizing[8]

[8] Source for pricing of the TBs is "Report of the Secretary of the Navy B. F. Tracy Dec. 3, 1891" Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy 1891. Page 5. In the document the two HMCo designs are identified to their gross tons; 134 for TB "2A" & 100 for TB "2B". The added price for galvanizing the hull is from Journal American Society of Naval Engineers Vol. 3 1891. Pages 126-7.

● Profile (per preliminary sketches) a TB similar to CUSHING with two smokestacks and two conning towers, but with plumb bow and stern.

● Machinery "entire to be a duplicate of … CUSHING but to embody all minor improvements the builders can suggest by the experience they gained during the CUSHING trials."

● The more efficient hull shape makes possible the increased speed of 24 knots.

Figure 4 NGH Half Model 1418. NGH Design TB "2B" Source THE HERRESHOFF CATALOGUE RAISONNÉ (HCR)

[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.

We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more

2. A new larger vessel- TB-"2A" 1/48th scale half model 1420 (See Figure 5) 156 ft LOD x 16 ft Beam x 11 ft extreme depth: displacement 150 tons net.

● Price $125,000 with $5500 additional for galvanizing[9]

[9] Idem

● Profile similar to TB-"2B"

● Two larger quadruple expansion five-cylinder engines 14 x 20 x 28 x 2 x 28 x 161/2 stroke (vs CUSHING 111/4 x 16 x 221/2 x 2 @ 221/2 x 15 stroke) The larger engines developed 2400 ihp vs CUSHING's 1750.

Figure 5 NGH Half Model 1420. NGH Design TB "2A" Source HCR

[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.

We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more

John Brown Herreshoff attends the bid opening in Wash. DC on Dec. 20, 1890. In a repeat of TB-1, with only one vessel to be awarded, there are only two bidders.

[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.

We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more

● HMCo two bids- 100 tons $93,200 and 134 tons $125,000

● Cowles Eng'g. Co. Brooklyn, NY, 112 tons, $119,140 (Designer and builder of a tubulous boiler similar to Thornycroft. Participant in competition for tubulous boiler to be installed in coast defense vessel MONTEREY previously discussed in Part VII of this series. See end note. [10])

[2] William duBarry Thomas. “The Genesis of a Professional Society”. SNAME Transactions. Vol.101, 1993, pgs.31-9.

[10] William Cowles in 1888 patented a tubulous boiler like Thornycroft, but with a different distribution of tubes. Cowles and Ward both provided to the US Navy boilers for test in the program to install tubulous boilers in the coast defense vessel MONTEREY. The tests of the Ward boiler in Dec. 1889 and the Cowles boiler in May 1890 found that in most tests the Ward boiler "came out ahead". See Charles Ward, "Tubulous or Coil Boilers" Paper XXVI, Proceedings of the International Engineering Congress, Division of Marine and Naval Engineering and Naval Architecture, edited by Commodore George W Melville Engineer in Chief U.S. Navy, Chief Bureau Steam Engineering Navy Dept, Vol. 2 New York, John Wiley and Sons. 1894. Pages 6, 15-18.

We do not have a record of what is said at the bid opening, but Capt. Nat writes that evening in his diary, "Bids opened in Washington for torpedo boat No. 2. Awarded to HMCo."[11] But he is wrong, there is no award, rather the Navy subsequently rejects both proposals. The reasons are not clear, Secretary Tracy writes in his 1891 annual report that the Navy decided all plans and specifications submitted by the bidders were unsatisfactory and none was accepted. Chief BuSteam, RADM Melville, in the same report, offers a different explanation; there was such uncertainty as to the lowest bidder owing to the great difference in the details of the designs, the Department decided to prepare its own designs and initiate a new bidding process to build to Department plans and specifications.[12]

[8] The purchase of quality domestic steel would remain a major problem for about 15 more years. Paul E. Pedisich, Congress Buys a Navy, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis MD. 2016. Pg. 62.

[1] NGH “Estimate of Machinery for Torpedo Vessel of Adl Porter Design,” Naval Architecture & Eng’g. Notes; Book 2 of 5. Spring of 1884. Two pages. On page 2 Capt. Nat provides two engine designs A & B. He notes (in Nov. 1886) that B was adopted, but never finished. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection, Herreshoff Marine Museum.

[2] “Report of the Admiral of the Navy to the Secretary of the Navy 1886”, Washington, GPO 1886. Inscribed, “Mr. Herreshoff compliments of the Admiral”. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection, Herreshoff Marine Museum.

[3] David Dixon Porter archival collections include " avid D. Porter Papers, (1806-1890)" at Syracuse University. "David Porter Papers" Clements Library, Univ of Michigan, including a 200 page long ""My Career in the Navy Department". "David D. Porter Family Papers", Library of Congress.

[11] NGH diary for Dec. 19 & 20, 1890. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection, Herreshoff Marine Museum.

[12] "Report of the Secretary of the Navy, B. F. Tracy, Dec. 3, 1891". Page 5. "Report Chief Bureau of Steam Engineering Geo. W. Melville, Oct. 12, 1891". Page 458. Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy 1891.Wash DC GPO 1891."

Looking back, it is evident from the below report of April 23, 1891, in the Newport Daily News that the Bureaus saw an opportunity to develop their own plans and specifications and oversee the vessel's construction by a private builder.

[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.

We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more

"The Secretary of the Navy has practically decided to reject the bids presented by … Herreshoff and Cowles …The Department believes that it can design a boat more suitable for naval service than that contemplated in either of the bids received. Designs are in fact already being prepared in the Construction Bureau for a torpedo boat of 120 tons, and when they are complete the department will advertise for proposals. Opportunity will, however, also be accorded bidders to present their own plans."

[5] There are various terms used to describe boilers in this paper. There are two primary types

1. Fire tube including Scotch type, cylindrical, and locomotive in which hot fire box gases pass though tubes to heat water in a cylindrical drum.

2. Water tube, including tubulous, coil, sectional, square, and three-drum in which water passing through the tubes is heated by hot gases in the firebox.

The last sentence is highlighted because that opportunity is not offered in the forthcoming advertisement for bids.

[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.

We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more

A tabular comparison of the new "Department" design to the Cowles and the HMCo 156-footer was published by ASNE (Figure 6) below.

[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.

We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more

Figure 6 Source Journal American Society of Naval Engineers, Vol. 3 1891. Page 260. A later correction to the Department design set displacement 120 tons; beam 15'6"; engine stroke 16; LP cylinder diam. 30”. Journal ASNE Vol. 3 1891. Page 460.

There is little difference of significance between the designs except possibly in engine type and horsepower per ton. The Lower IHP/Ton of the Department design may have been a contributing reason why the resulting ERICSSON (TB-2) never completed a successful full power trial at the specified 24 knots.

[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.

We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more

Design Feature	Department	Cowles	Herreshoff
Engine Type	Quadruple expansion four cylinder	Triple expansion three cylinder	Quadruple expansion five cylinder
IHP/Ton Displ.	15.0	19.4	17.9

An advertisement is issued the following June 19th to build the Department design; two bids are recorded at the opening two months later;

[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.

We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more

● Iowa Iron Works, Dubuque, IA - $113,500

● Cowles Eng'g. Co., NY- $117,610

The Army Navy Journal reports, "some little surprise was occasioned when no bid from them (i.e. Herreshoff) appeared."[13] There should have been no surprise, as it was well known that Herreshoff builds only their own designs.

[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.

We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more

[13] "New Vessels of the Navy" Army Navy Journal Vol. 29, Aug. 29, 1891, Pg 7.

An Award is made Oct. 8, 1891, to the Iowa Iron Works for delivery in 12 months. The award is preceded by a report from a Board; Naval Constructor Philip Hichborn and Chief (Steam) Engineer N. P. Towne. They find the company experienced in building machinery, boilers, and river boats since 1870; in active production with 160 employees while possessing facilities adequate for 300; and "with a few additional tools and the employment of a limited number of skilled workmen" capable of building TB-2 including engines and boilers.[14]

[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.

We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more

[14] "The Iowa Iron Works" Army Navy Journal Vol. 29, Oct. 17, 1891, Pg 135.

The award brings additional benefits to the Navy. The Secretary noted it fostered a shipbuilding industry "at a point remote from all possible attack."[15], and a New York Times reporter writes, "No effort … of the Navy Department has so popularized the Navy in the West as the awarding of the torpedo-boat contract to Dubuque, Iowa…"[16]

[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.

We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more

[15] "Report of the Secretary", Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy 1891. Page 6.

[16] "New York Times Re TB-2", Army Navy Journal Vol. 29, Jan. 9, 1892, Pg 341.

ERICSSON (TB-2)

[4] Thomas Wildenberg and Norman Polmar. Ship Killers: A History of the American Torpedo. (Annapolis, MD, USNI Press, 2010) pgs. 16-17.

(TB-2) experiences a troubled construction and trials until finally accepted by the Navy in February 1897. [17] Moved from the building yard in 1894, ERICSSON spends an extended time in the Gulf of Mexico before reaching the Brooklyn Navy Yard to complete contractor work-up for acceptance trials where attempts in 1894 and 1895 fail because of low pressure piston rod failures. Investigation shows these to be under size compared to CUSHING. A contributing factor is the quadruple, four-cylinder engine arrangement that makes cylinder inspection difficult.[18] ERICSSON is commissioned by the Navy without completion of acceptance trials. In 1894 preliminary trials on the Long Island Sound ERICSSON demonstrated a full power output of 1879.75 ihp and in a later run with the tide, but at reduced power (1557.68 ihp), a maximum speed of 22.36 knots.[19]

[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.

We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more

[17] Example of Army Navy Journal news on ERICSSON and recurring delays. From Vol 31- "ERICSSON over a year behind schedule", May 12, 1894, Page 649. "Launch of ERICSSON", May 19, 1894. P 667. "Bureau Steam Eng. Re ERICSSON propeller damage during trip down Mississippi River", Aug. 25, 1894. P 915. From Vol 342- "Navy Department Report re ERICSSON propeller damage on Long Island Sound", Sept. 8, 1894. P 27. "Navy to give ERICSSON two trials", Sept. 15, 1894. P 43.

[18] Edw. L. Beach, Inspector of Machinery for ERICSSON, "The Accident of the Torpedo Boat ERICSSON" " Notes Section Journal American Society of Naval Engineers Vol. 7 1895. Pages 572-78.

[19] TB-2 Ships Section Journal American Society of Naval Engineers Vol. 6 1894. Pages 793-95.

Herreshoff Experience with (TB-2)

[4] Thomas Wildenberg and Norman Polmar. Ship Killers: A History of the American Torpedo. (Annapolis, MD, USNI Press, 2010) pgs. 16-17.

The brothers experience with the (TB-2) competition must have been troubling. It is their first loss after 15 years of providing torpedo boats to the U.S. Navy; LIGHTNING, STILETTO & CUSHING. Further the Navy has diverged from the British model of having the boats built to contractor provided drawings and specifications. If this is to become a build to Navy Department supplied plans market, there is no place for the Herreshoff Manufacturing Co. (HMCo), an enterprise created and driven to compete on the superior performance of their own designs.

[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.

We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more

Congress Acts to Obtain Better Warships

[4] Thomas Wildenberg and Norman Polmar. Ship Killers: A History of the American Torpedo. (Annapolis, MD, USNI Press, 2010) pgs. 16-17.

Congress in March 1893 to obtain better designs; [20]

[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.

We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more

[20] Sam G. Lemly JAG, "JAG Issues Regarding Contracting of New Vessels" Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy Being Part of the Message and Documents Communicated to Two Houses of Congress, (Beginning of the Second Session of the 53rd Congress Wash DC GPO,1893.) Pgs. 94-6.

● Increases the flexibility allowed the Secretary in making awards by replacing the requirement "the contract should be let to the lowest and best responsible bidder" with new wording, "in awarding the contract for any one of these ships the Secretary of the Navy shall award the contract at the price of lowest bid to that one of the parties bidding on any such ship which in his judgment it is in the interest of the government to have to do the work."

● Increases the chance of having vessels constructed in accordance with the best designs obtainable by giving bidders the opportunity to submit proposals under two classes

○ Class 1 construction of hull and machinery including engines boilers and appurtenances and equipment complete in all respects In accordance with plans and specifications provided by the Navy Department.

[2] William duBarry Thomas. “The Genesis of a Professional Society”. SNAME Transactions. Vol.101, 1993, pgs.31-9.

○ Class 2 construction of hull, machinery etc. In accordance with plans and specifications provided by the bidder; bidders being allowed to adopt the plans and specifications of the Department and embody them in their designs.

[2] William duBarry Thomas. “The Genesis of a Professional Society”. SNAME Transactions. Vol.101, 1993, pgs.31-9.

There will be no repeat of (TB-2) where the Navy disallowed bidding to a contractor design.

[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.

We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more

TBs 3, 4 & 5

[4] Thomas Wildenberg and Norman Polmar. Ship Killers: A History of the American Torpedo. (Annapolis, MD, USNI Press, 2010) pgs. 16-17.

Figure 7 Torpedo Boats 3, 4 & 5. Sketch developed from Navy Bureaus design (pre-construction). Source- "Three Torpedo Boats", New York Times, Dec. 9, 1894.

The Missing Herreshoff Designs

[4] Thomas Wildenberg and Norman Polmar. Ship Killers: A History of the American Torpedo. (Annapolis, MD, USNI Press, 2010) pgs. 16-17.

The Herreshoff story relating to these torpedo boats is unique. Although there is evidence in newspapers and U.S. Navy documents of multiple bid combinations submitted by Herreshoff we can find no information in the design records of Capt. Nat and HMCo. Herreshoff researcher, Claas van der Linde, suggests, "it is as if NGH has thrown everything away that might remind him of having lost those bids!"

[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.

We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more

Procurement Plan TBs 3, 4 & 5

[4] Thomas Wildenberg and Norman Polmar. Ship Killers: A History of the American Torpedo. (Annapolis, MD, USNI Press, 2010) pgs. 16-17.

In July 1894 Congress authorizes the Secretary of the Navy to use $450,000, previously appropriated to build a pneumatic dynamite cruiser, for the construction of three torpedo boats. The primary objective is to improve upon TB-2, but delays in construction of ERICSSON preclude incorporating any lessons learned.[21] [22] The advertised general specifications of the Navy Department design are as shown in Figure 3. No speed premium is offered, but a penalty for not achieving contract speed is retained. The Dec. 1894 advertisement for the steel twin screw boats allows bidders to submit both "Class 1" and "Class 2" proposals as directed by Congress. Then a January 1895 modification allows Class 2 designs to substitute for steel, "any other metal or alloy in building either hull or machinery. Such other metal or alloy, to be subject to inspection and tests and to be to the satisfaction of the Secretary." [23] [24] [25]

[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.

We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more

[23] TB-3, 4 & 5 information compiled from "Report of the Secretary Nov 17, 1894, Hillary A. Herbert" Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy 1894. (Wash, DC, GPO) Pgs. 3-4. "Report of the Chief BuC&R Oct. 12, 1894, Philip Hichborn" Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy 1894. Pgs. 430-31 includes details of Class I and 2, general design characteristics; requirement for stability calculations as designed and under flooding conditions; 2-hour speed trial with speed penalty if speed between 23-24.5. Below 23 reject or accept at reduced price mutually agreed. "Report of the Chief BuSteam Sept. 29, 1894, Geo. Melville." Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy 1894. Pg. 503. Machinery requirements. Each engine and boiler must be in a separate watertight compartment.

[24] Army Navy Journal Vol. 32 Jan 19, 1895, P 346.

[25] "Want the Navy Built Up" New York Times, Feb 23, 1895. Senate Committee on Naval Affairs agrees to amendment leaving to Secretary of the Navy decision on the type of metal used in construction of torpedo boats. Current law allowed only steel.

[21] "No Special Premium Offered: Proposals to be Advertised for Three New Torpedo Boats'' New York Times, Dec. 4, 1894. "Secretary Herbert has delayed letting the contracts until it was learned from actual trial what the Ericsson could do, but as that vessel's misfortunes seem to have been the result of no fault of her design, bids will be immediately asked."

[22] "Report of the Secretary" Nov 17, 1894, Hillary A. Herbert. Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy 1894. Pgs. 3-4.

The Herreshoff brothers could not have been more pleased by the actions of Congress and the Navy's procurement plan allowing contractor designs. Also, the application of metals other than steel, seemed to be written specifically for them because of the great interest generated by their recent America's Cup defenders.

[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.

We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more

● 1893 VIGILANT (HMCo 437)- Tobin bronze hull plating fastened to steel frames with bronze rivets.

● 1895 DEFENDER (HMCo 452) - Tobin bronze underwater hull plating fastened to steel frames with bronze rivets, aluminum alloy topsides fastened to steel frames with bronze rivets, and aluminum alloy deck riveted to aluminum alloy deck beams.

For information about Captain Nat's experimentation with bronze and aluminum and their application to the Cup defenders see Appendix B.

[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.

We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more

The Navy closely follows the work. In summer 1893 an Assistant Naval Constructor inspects the work of installing the Tobin bronze plating on VIGILANT. His official report favors its adoption for ship bottoms. "The yearly expenses of a bronze ship would be greatly reduced, owing to the saving in the amount of coal necessary to obtain the same speed (as the fouled hull of a steel bottom) and also to the fact that it would not be necessary to dock the ship every six months for the preservation of the hull."[26] Secretary of the Navy Herbert is brought current on this work when he inspects HMCo on August 27, 1894.[27] Later in 1895 Naval Constructor Hobson conducts an inspection of DEFENDER, "… at the request of the Herreshoff's, who desired to show the Department the value of aluminum in ship construction." The Secretary upon receiving the report withholds it from publication; reason for which is not known. [28]

[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.

We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more

[26] Army Navy Journal, Vol. 31, Sept 9, 1893. P 39.

[27] NGH Diary Entry Aug. 27, 1894. Access courtesy Halsey C. Herreshoff.

[28] Army Navy Journal, Vol 32, July 27, 1895. P 794

Bids TBs 3, 4 & 5

[4] Thomas Wildenberg and Norman Polmar. Ship Killers: A History of the American Torpedo. (Annapolis, MD, USNI Press, 2010) pgs. 16-17.

Bidder	Class 1 Steel $	Class 2 Steel $	Class 2 Composite $	Notes
Bath Iron Works, Bath ME	142K each/3 @ 426K
John Dialogue & Sons, Camden NJ	1 for 139K 2 for 137K each 3 for 136K each
Columbian Iron Works, Baltimore MD	1 for 107K 2 for 103K each 3 for 97.5K each			Initial bid erroneously submitted as Class 2. Accepted as Class 1
Hugh Ramsay, Perth Amboy NJ	3 for 378K A 2^nd bid at- 3 for 347.7K	Design #1- 3 for 438K Design #2- 3 for 378K Design #3- 3 for 347K
Union Iron Works, San Francisco, CA	1 for 135K each 2 for 129K each 3 for 120K each	Design #1- 1 for 125K Design #1- 2 for 120 K each Design #1- 3 for 116 K each Design #2- 1 boat 240 tons, 28 kts 243K
Fulton Engineering & Shipbuilding Works, San Francisco CA	1 for 148K 2 for 145K each
Iowa Iron Works, Dubuque IA	3 for 137K each
Herreshoff Bid A		Design #1 steel- 3 for 113.85K each	Design #1 - Lower hull, keel, stem & sternposts of high bronze; upper works & coal bunkers of aluminum- 3 for 138K each
Herreshoff Bid B		Design #1 steel- 1 for 113.85K	Design #1- 2 for 138K each
Herreshoff Bid C		Design #1 steel- 2 for 113.85K each	Design #1- 1 for 138K

Figure 8 TBs 3, 4 & 5 Initial Bids Feb.19, 1895. Source: “Bids for Torpedo Boats”, Army Navy Journal, Feb 23, 1895. P.427. Columbian bid protest “The Lowest Bid May Be Rejected” New York Times, Feb. 21, 1895. “Protest of the Next Lower Bidder”. New York Times, Mar. 2, 1895.

[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.

We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more

Because of the great interest evidenced by the large number of bidders the Secretary reopens the time to receive "any suggestions for the improvement of the proposals they made," for another 41/2 weeks. Among the improvements offered. [29]

[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.

We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more

[29] Army Navy Journal, Vol. 32, March 9, 1895, Pg 450; March 23, 1895, Pg 487; and March 30, 1895, Pg 511

● Union Iron Works proposes a single boat, Class 2 steel, for $116,500, with a guaranteed speed of 26 knots.

● Herreshoff proposes a single boat, Class 2 steel, for $113,000, with a guaranteed speed of 25½ knots, and a separate offer for a Class 2 Composite hull, for $138,000, with a guaranteed speed of 26 knots.

Money is tight, from the $450,000 appropriated, $75,000 is set aside for armament and there needs to be a contingency for the unexpected. BuC&R and BuSteam appoint boards to report to the Secretary their evaluation of the bids and designs. On April 3rd Secretary Herbert appoints CDR George A. Converse to lead a Board to review those reports and the proposals to ascertain the value, if any, of the modified plans involving increased speed, over the Government plans, to warrant the increased price over that of the lowest Class 1 bid. There is not a better choice than Converse, now Inspector of Ordnance-In-Charge of the Newport Torpedo Station and President of the Torpedo Board. He has torpedo boat experience going back to LIGHTNING, STILETTO and CUSHING, and with a tour in Europe has first-hand knowledge of the work of Normand, Thornycroft and Yarrow.[30]

[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.

We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more

[30] Converse is identified as the OIC Torpedo Station beginning with the BuOrd Annual Report of 1893. He is appointed President of the Torpedo Board by the Secretary's letter of April 30, 1894 (Box 1, Folder 3 MS0068 George Albert Converse Papers, DeGolyer Library, SMU). "TBs 3, 4 & 5 Board Appointing Order", Secretary of the Navy Herbert letter April 3, 1895, (Box 1, Folder 3 MS0068 George Albert Converse Papers, DeGolyer Library, SMU). Specifically, the appointing order directed Converse;

Examine plans and specs TB 3, 4 & 5.
Determine whether the plans provided by the Department (Class 1) are better than any of those submitted by the bidders (Class 2) and, whether,
Vessels or any of them, should be constructed IAW proposals of Class 1 or Class 2, due consideration being given to the various prices offered.
Should the Board be of the opinion that one or more of the designs submitted by bidders are preferable to those provided by the Department, identify the points in which such designs excel.
The board will be provided with two joint reports dated respectively 25th & 27th BuC&R & BuSteam relative to acceptance of the bids.

Navy Decision TBs 3, 4 & 5

[4] Thomas Wildenberg and Norman Polmar. Ship Killers: A History of the American Torpedo. (Annapolis, MD, USNI Press, 2010) pgs. 16-17.

We have found no report from the Converse Board. We do know the process is closely watched by the press especially the New York Times and the Army Navy Journal. They never mention a Converse Board report. Following receipt of the bids the "general impression" is the Union Iron Works will get one of the contracts because of the Department desire to build on the West Coast. The Secretary is reported as being "compelled to abandon his intention of building the 243-ton (28 knot) boat proposed by the Union Iron Works, on account of the heavy cost."[31] The New York Times reports "the Naval experts who have been examining the plans and bids have submitted a report to the Secretary." Engineer in Chief Melville and Chief Constructor Hichborn are mentioned. The "opinion is candidly expressed that the department plans serve the purpose of the government better than any submitted by bidders with the exception possibly of the plans of the Union Iron Works for an enlarged torpedo boat of greatly increased speed." The funds available settle the matter in favor of the Columbian Iron Works, the low bidder to Department plans. [32]

[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.

We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more

[31] Army Navy Journal, Vol. 32, Feb. 23, 1895, p. 423 and Mar. 30. 1895.P. 511.

[32] "Sifting the Bids for Torpedo Boats: Recommendations Made by the Naval Construction Board" New York Times, Mar. 27, 1895. "Baltimore Will Build Torpedo Boats" New York Times, Apr. 14, 1895.

Figure 9 FOOTE (TB-3) about 1897 with trainable deck mounted torpedo tubes and rapid-fire guns installed. (Source US Naval History and Heritage Command photo NH 74093)

[40] Annual Report of The Secretary of the Navy November 28, 1881. Washington GPO 1881 Pgs. 3, 5, 6.

We use cookies to allow us to better understand how the site is used. By continuing to use this site, you consent to this policy. Click to learn more

Coming Up Next

[4] Thomas Wildenberg and Norman Polmar. Ship Killers: A History of the American Torpedo. (Annapolis, MD, USNI Press, 2010) pgs. 16-17.

Herreshoff brothers have suffered two losses. Something must change. Maybe there is hope in the appropriation for the next three torpedo boats. The Secretary has decided he wants larger and faster boats. He directs Chief Constructor Hichborn to prepare plans for a torpedo boat of 180 tons and a speed of 27 knots.[33]

[21] Frederick J. Rowan A.M.I.C.E., M.I.E.S. The Practical Physics of the Modern Steam Boiler. (P. S. King & Son, London; D. Van Nostrand, New York, 1903). Pg. 481.

[22] The details of HMCo #44 are taken from (1) “Torpedo Boat Experiments” Irish Times, Jan. 10, 1879, page 3. (2) “The Herreshoff Torpedo Boats” Recent Practice in Marine Engineering Two Volumes. Edited by William Henry Maw. Publisher: London Offices of Engineering, London & J. Wiley & Sons New York 1884. Pages 280-6. This document is available online at www.hathitrust.org. All quotes about HMCo #44 are from this paper.