June 20, 2025
The Herreshoff Brothers and their Torpedo Boats, Part XII
A series of papers on bringing innovation to the "New Navy"
Part XII: The End of the Line
TBs 14, 15 & 16–1896-1898
by John Palmieri
See on-line THE HERRESHOFF CATALOGUE RAISONNÉ for detailed information on HMCo. vessels including photos, half model images and descriptive documents
Figure 1 HMCo. #190 USS MORRIS (TB-14) (Naval History and Heritage Command NH 67082) Alfred Niblack, was an experienced torpedo officer at the time of the above quote.[1] A “warrior -engineer”, he was “the very ideal of the progressive-minded officer (challenging) the status quo with suggestions for improvements to increase efficiency and military effectiveness.”[2]
[1] Albert P. Niblack (1859-1949) USNA class of 1880, retired as a vice admiral in 1923. Experienced in torpedo boats early in his naval career, Niblack completed the torpedo warfare course at the Newport Torpedo Station in summer 1888, including training in STILETTO; became a Newport Torpedo Station instructor in 1894; served as naval attaché in Berlin, Rome & Vienna from 1896 to the start of the Spanish-American War, when he assumed command of USS WINSLOW (TB-5). He was well-versed in European and US torpedo boat technology. Respected for his command at sea, he was also a renowned scientist and writer of naval subjects. Source- “A. P. Niblack Biography”, Naval History & Heritage Command. Annual Report of the Secretary of the Navy, 1888 pg. 206, 1894 pg. 212, & 1898 pgs. 357-8.
[2] Andrew K. Blackley, “Laying the Groundwork for Sims: Alfred P. Niblack as the First USN Inspector of Target Practice and the Gunnery Revolution of the US Navy”, Naval War College Review , Autumn 2023, Vol 76, No. 5. Pg. 131.
Introduction
[1] citation
[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.
This is the 12th paper covering the Herreshoff Brothers and the eight torpedo boats (TBs) they delivered to the Navy over 22 years, 1876-1898. It is to be followed by a 1904 Postscript. The series begins in 1860, a transformative year for the young Herreshoff brothers, the U.S. Navy and the nation. It follows the developments of the Herreshoff Manufacturing Co. (HMCo.) as it seeks to apply its technology into a resurgent “New Navy” led by strong individuals and increasingly powerful technical Bureaus.
[3] Benjamin Buckingham (Assistant to the Secretary) 1896 correspondence with George Converse, discussed in Part XI. This letter contains the commitment the Secretary of the Navy wanted Herreshoff to build as much as the law allows.
● MORRIS (TB-14) HMCo. #190- 140 ft. 22.5 knots
● Sisterships TALBOT (TB-15) HMCo. #191 & GWIN (TB-16) HMCo. #192- 100 ft. 20 knots
There is much at play in the 1896-98 period. Part XII offers insight into the issues by summarizing the Herreshoff’s TB strategy, offering a synopsis of the Herreshoff-Navy sea-going TB experience, discussing a final 1898 TB bidding loss, and commenting upon the lasting impact of TB work on HMCo.
The Series has been a search for the facts, the technologies, the deliverables, the influences, the individuals and organizations having an impact. As noted throughout the Series there are unanswered questions- the search is not finished.
HERRESHOFF BROTHERS TORPEDO BOAT STRATEGY[4]
[4] Sources.
1) Benjamin Buckingham letter to George Converse dated March 24, 1896 concerning pursuing Herreshoff 65-foot second & third class TBs as discussed in prior Converse letter. George Albert Converse Papers and Photographs, 1861-1897, MSS 0068, Box 1, Folder 3. DeGolyer Library, Southern Methodist Univ.
2) NGH NA&E Notes Book 3 of 5. “Preliminary Design Vidette or 65- ft. Torpedo Boat” Feb. 11 & 22, 1896. Halsey Herreshoff Collection. Herreshoff Marine Museum.
3) NGH NA&E Notes Book 3 of 5. ‘Preliminary Design 100-ft. , 20-knot Torpedo Boat to carry Whitehead torpedo & one RFG “ Feb. 26, 1896. Halsey Herreshoff Collection. Herreshoff Marine Museum.
4) As early as 1895 there are reports of HMCo. offering to build 20-knot torpedo boats for export. London American Register- May 11, 1895, p 7 “London Times Philadelphia May 7th- Messrs. Herreshoff, the Rhode Island yacht builders, are sending a bid to the Spanish Government for the building of six torpedo-boats of 18 to 21 knots speed, for use as patrol boats on the coast of Cuba.”
No HMCo. TB strategy document has been found, but John’s actions and Capt. Nat’s design activities in early 1896 suggest they were pursuing an overall Torpedo Boat Strategy encompassing a series of designs from 65 feet up to the 200+ ft. 30-knot boats. The HMCo. building shops and launchways were size limited and precluded building the larger Torpedo Boat Destroyers (TBDs). (That is with one possible exception – see the section titled “Offers for New Builds”.) At the low end they planned to leverage HMCo.’s success at delivering high-speed steam launches and yachts by selling the Navy high-performance small Second and Third-class torpedo boats for harbor work or carry on cruisers and battleships. In between were 20-22.5 knot TBs ranging in size from 25 to 100 tons.
We have discussed the initial 30-knot design in Part XI. In the view of Theodore Roosevelt, among others, a poor decision by Secretary of the Navy Herbert shut HMCo. out of the contract awards.
The 65-foot boats were discussed in correspondence between Benjamin Buckingham and CDR George Converse before John’s March 1896 visit to Secretary Herbert.[5] In Feb. 1896, Capt. Nat developed a preliminary design of a 65-foot, 10-ton wooden hull TB based on the model for OUR MARY and JERSEY LILLY (HMCo. #148 & 149). With a larger triple expansion engine, and a square water level boiler twice the heating surface of the JERSEY LILLY, he projected speeds of 16.5 knots- an improvement of 4.6 knots over JERSEY LILLY. But in the end HMCo’s 65-foot TB proposal went nowhere.[6]
[5] As discussed in Part XI, Benjamin Buckingham is staff Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy and George Converse is OIC Torpedo Station Newport, assigned additional duty as the “General Inspector” of the torpedo boats building at HMCo..
[6] It is possible the Navy considered the designs favorably, to be implemented quickly in the time of a threat.
The mid-size and mid-performance TBs are a continuation of work Capt. Nat started with CUSHING. In Feb 1896 he completed the “preliminary figures” of a steel hulled 100 ft., 24.3-ton displacement, 20 knot, TB armed with two Whitehead torpedoes and one rapid fire gun (RFG); powered by a single DuTemple type water tube boiler and a single triple expansion engine.[7] It was at the low end of the vessel displacement capable of achieving 20 knots, and a step towards defining the 20-knot design HMCo. would ultimately submit in the 1896 competition.
[7] Preliminary Calculations for a 100 ft, 20 kt Torpedo Boat. (Source Capt. Nat’s Naval Architecture & Engineering Notes Book 3 of 5; Feb. 1895-Nov. 1899. Entry Feb. 26, 1896. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection. Herreshoff Marine Museum.)
In April 1890 the Herreshoff brothers delivered the US Navy’s first sea-going torpedo boat, CUSHING (TB-1) to acclaim for design and performance. (See “US Navy’s First Sea-Going Torpedo Boat CUSHING 1886-1895", Part VIII of this series.) Only to be followed by years of frustration as they failed to win another contract. Responsibility for TB design and construction had passed from the Bureau of Ordnance (BuORD) and the Torpedo Corps, centered at the Torpedo Station in Newport, to the Bureaus of Construction & Repair (BuC&R) and Steam (BuSTEAM) in Wash. DC. These Bureaus saw competently prepared Bureau plans and specifications as the means to achieve the Congressional objective of extending building to less qualified yards on both coasts and mid-continent rivers. This ended a shared experience of innovation, begun in 1876, with the delivery of the first torpedo boat, Herreshoff’s 58-ft. LIGHTNING (See Part III, “LIGHTNING: A Win for the Herreshoff System” ), to one where the Bureaus (C&R & STEAM) considered Herreshoff designs to be generally inferior and of a cheaper, less durable character than the designs of the Department (aka “Bureau”) design.
Herreshoff’s fortunes changed in 1895 with the award of the contract for TBs 6 & 7 (PORTER & DUPONT). (See Part X, “Success, Torpedo Boats 6 & 7 1895-1897”). The award recognized Herreshoff offered something the Bureaus could not- a guarantee to meet Secretary of the Navy Herbert’s desired speed of 27.5 knots and at a price below that of the builders using the Department design. While recommending the Herreshoff award, C&R and STEAM documented their design misgivings, thereby threatening Herreshoff with a contentious plan approval process. Secretary Herbert would have none of it. He wanted to see what Herreshoff could produce free from Bureau oversight. Bureau inspectors were ordered out of the Herreshoff yard. In their place CDR George Converse , Torpedo Corps officer and OIC Torpedo Station Newport was appointed the resident inspector, responsible only to the Secretary and forbidden from communicating with BuC&R or STEAM. The process was a success- TBs 6 & 7 were delivered in a timely manner, beating their guaranteed speed by about 1 knot and proved superior to the Department designed (TB-8). Assistant Secretary of the Navy (ASN), Theodore Roosevelt noted;
“Commodore Dewey (President of the Trial Board) told me FOOTE (TB-8) was altogether inferior to the Herreshoff boats.” [9]
[9] “Theodore Roosevelt personal letter to CDR Davis, Commandant New York Navy Yard dated June 28, 1897”. Library of Congress. Images 706 & 707 of Theodore Roosevelt Papers: Series 2: Letterpress Copybooks, 1897-1916; Vol. 1,1897, Apr. 9- July 12.
Despite the positive trial board reports the Bureaus recommend to the Secretary that TBs 6 & 7 not be accepted by the Navy, causing Roosevelt to write;
“I fear that the Bureaus of Construction and Engineering (i.e. Steam) have done the Navy real harm by their actions towards the Herreshoffs.”[10]
For Roosevelt, keeping Herreshoff in the TB competition was a way of getting the best for the Navy, as he wrote Secretary Long on June 22, 1897.
“To my regret the Herreshoffs did not put in a bid for the new fast torpedo boats yesterday. The board of officers on the PORTER (i.e. the Trial Board) have forwarded a savage attack on the Bureaus of Construction & Repair and Engineering (Steam) in reference to their course toward that boat. This, however, I have simply confiscated and filed as there seems to be no point in allowing the controversy to continue. If the other torpedo boats do, as well as the Herreshoff boats, of course the fact that the Herreshoffs didn’t bid will be of small consequence; but they have been the successful pioneers of torpedo boat building in this country, and I should like very much to have them keep on if only as a spur to the others, because we must get the best torpedo boats afloat.”[11] [12]
But TBs 6 & 7 success, demonstrated in the delivery trials of 1897, came too late to influence the important decisions being made in 1896. [13]
The brothers must have realized building for the Navy without Bureau participation and support was an untenable arrangement for the long run. As ASN Roosevelt feared, they had to be on their guard and less enthusiastic about bidding for Navy contracts; more demanding about contract terms; wary and less likely to compromise on details.
Secretary’s change, but the technical bureaus remain. Supported by friends in the congressional committees they would have their day and rightful influence.
Bureau retribution and reassertion of authority was not long in coming. In Oct. 1896 (See Part XI, “HMCo.’s 30-Knot Torpedo Boat Loss 1896”), before TBs 6 & 7 have been trialed, Herreshoff lost in the first 30-knot torpedo boat competition. With one boat reserved for the West Coast, the two remaining TBs were set for award to the low bidder, the Bath iron Works (BIW). The decision was made on the recommendation of the Chiefs Bu C&R and STEAM and endorsed by Acting Secretary of the Navy McAdoo (who was filling in for Herbert on an extended European tour.) BIW’s offer was an English design of small size and limited capability; the BIW and Herreshoff design could not be more different.
● BIW – 147 ft., 143 tons (trial), two boilers, 4200 ihp
● HMCo.- 198 ft., 225 tons (trial), four boilers, 5400 ihp
The decision was made over the objection of the Chief BuORD, who argued that in a competition for the US Navy’s first 30-knot TBs the objective should be to distribute the awards to find the best; not award all to one design of the low bidder. Based upon performance of CUSHING alone, Herreshoff had demonstrated they deserved an award to see what they could do.
The BIW award was confirmed by Secretary Herbert on Oct. 5, 1896, only two days after his return from Europe. We have not found a record of the reasons for his decision. There is a report of something “irregular” in the Herreshoff bid, but John had resolved such issues before. Why such strong Secretary support of Herreshoff TBs 6 &7 and nothing in the 30-knot competition? Did he possibly learn something on his tour of Europe? Was he just tired from the trip and not up to a fight with McAdoo and the Chiefs? Did Herreshoff in reaction to Bureau antagonism propose “irregular” contact terms as a means of protection? Further research of Navy records required. Record Group 45, Area files of US Navy 1840-1910 is a place to start.
Now we return to the summer 1896.
1896 COMPETITION FOR THE
22.5 & 20-KNOT TORPEDO BOATS
Figure 2 Tabular Comparison of the Successful 22.5 & 20- knot Torpedo Boats Awarded October 1896[A] [B]
Figure 2A TBs - General Characteristics
Figure 2B TBs- Machinery Comparison
[A] Technical data for TBs 12- 18 are as designed and proposed at time of torpedo boat contract award Oct. 8, 1896, and displayed in Table No. 1 “Torpedo Boats of the US Navy”, W. G. Gillmor Asst. Naval Constructor, “Torpedo Boat Design”, Transactions Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. V, 1897. Pgs. 51-79. An updated version “Dimensions and Other Data from Torpedo Boats and Destroyers of the United States.” Compiled by Asst. Naval Constructor H. G. Gillmor, USN . Journal American Society of Naval Engineers, Vol X 1898 and “Ship History” Documents online from Naval History and Heritage Command. history.navy.mil. “Principal Data of the Trial Trips of Torpedo Boats”, Journal American Society of Naval Engineers, Vol XI 1899 pgs. 508 & 892. “Report of BuC&R”, Sept. 24, 1898, contained in Secretary of the Navy Annual Report 1898. Pg. 517.
[B] Pricing taken from “Torpedo Boats Nos. 12 to 18” Journal American Society of Naval Engineers, Vol. 8, 1896 Pgs. 801-801-3. Pricing data also in “Torpedo Boats for the US Navy” Army Navy Journal Vol 34. Sept. 26, 1896, pg. 50 & Oct. 3, 1896, pg. 77.
[C] TB 12 accident on official trial killed seven men; entire force in one fire room. Experienced low water in one boiler. Ten tubes pulled out of the steam drum. Journal American Society of Naval Engineers, Vol X 1898 Pg. 1175.
[D] “Principal Data of the Trial Trips of Torpedo Boats”, Journal American Society of Naval Engineers, Vol XI 1899 pg. 508.
[E] “The MORRIS Makes Fast Time”, New York Times, April 19, 1898, pg. 4.
[F] “The United States Torpedo Boat MORRIS” by Passed Assist. Engr. M A Anderson & Assist. Naval Constructor H G Gillmor. Journal American Society of Naval Engineers, Vol X 1898 pgs. 502-8.
[G] “The United States Torpedo boats TALBOT & GWIN” by Passed Assist .Engr. M A Anderson & Assist. Naval Constructor H G Gillmor. Journal American Society of Naval Engineers, Vol X 1898 pgs. 493-501.
[H] “Bu C&R Report” Secretary of the Navy Annual Report, 1898. Pg 559.
[I] “Principal Data of the Trial Trips of Torpedo Boats” ASNE, Vol XI 1899 pg. 892.
The Bidders and the Awards[14]
Ten companies submitted multiple bids for the expected award of ten 22.5 and 20 knot torpedo boats. In all there were twenty-two designs. Two companies (HMCo. and Wolf & Zwicker Ironworks Portland, OR) included offers to build exact replicas of CUSHING. Bath Iron Works (BIW) offered to build boats the same size as the 22.5 and 20 knot TBs, but achieving speeds of 25 and 22.5 knots respectively. Four companies (Columbian Iron Works Baltimore, MD; Moran Brothers Seattle, WA; HMCo; and George Lawley & Son South Boston, MA) offered single price combination bids packaging both 22.5 and 20 knot TBs.
On Tuesday Oct. 6th (the day following the 30 kt. TB decision) Secretary Herbert reconvened the meeting to decide the awards. The available $500,000 was insufficient to build the desired ten boats; seven TBs were awarded. A HMCo. combination bid for one 22.5 knot TB (TB-14) and two 20 knot TBs (TB15 & 16) was accepted. HMCo. is the only contractor awarded the maximum three boats allowed by the congressional appropriation. Wolf & Zwicker, Portland, OR was awarded two 22.5 knot boats. Columbia Iron Works, Baltimore, and the Charles Hillman Ship & Engine Co. of Philadelphia, were each awarded one 20-knot TB: both built as Type 1 to the Bureau plans.
HMCo. DESIGNING & BUILDING TBs 14, 15 & 16
Contract Bid Designs
In the summer of 1896 Capt. Nat was extremely busy completing the design details and supporting construction of TBs 6 & 7, while creating the preliminary designs of the three torpedo boats to be bid in September. L Francis Herreshoff remembers Capt. Nat as “…even too busy to take time off for his usual Saturday and Sunday sails…”[15] Also during this time (1896-98) HMCo. added to the design staff, for a short uncertain period, an experienced naval architect and a draftsman.[16]
The preliminary calculations upon which the contract bids were based were completed in August and September. (Figure 3). The carved models are pictured in Figure 4. The midship sections are very similar in shape. Power calculations are only contained in the 22.5- knot boat notes. It is Capt. Nat’s intention that the single screw, 20 knot boats would be powered by one shaft (boiler and engine) of the larger, twin screw 22.5 knot boat.
Figure 3 - Capt. Nat’s Preliminary Calculations for 20 & 22.5 Knot Torpedo Boats
Figure 3A - Preliminary calculations for 22.5 knot (TB-14/HMCo. #190) 140 feet wl. Extracted partial page showing sketch of vessel with raised focsle, two conning towers, and displaying two boilers facing one another in the fireroom, twin screw driven by 12-1/2 x 18 x 25 x 13-1/2 engines producing slightly more than the 1700 hp required to achieve 22.5 knots. Source: “Preliminary Calculations” for 22-1/2 knot TB (MORRIS)” dated Aug. 12, 1896. NGH’s Naval Architecture & Engineering Notes, Book 3 of 5. Pg 34. Halsey Herreshoff Collection. HMM
Figure 3B - Preliminary calculations for 20 knot torpedo boat (TB-15/HMCo. #191 & TB-16/HMCo. #192) 100 feet wl; Extracted partial page showing sketch of vessel displaying raised focsle with one conning tower. One boiler, single screw vessel. No boiler, engine description, or horsepower calculations. Source: “Preliminary Calculations” for 20 knot TB (GWIN & TALBOT)” dated Sept. 2nd, 1896. NGH’s Naval Architecture & Engineering Notes, Book 3 of 5. Pg 38. Halsey Herreshoff Collection. HMM
Figure 4 - Capt. Nat’s Half-Models. Both show a straight keel over about 2/3 of length, then running straight to a stern, similar to the 30-knot design; but they differ from each other in bow and stern configurations. Source – THE HERRESHOFF CATALOGUE RAISONNÉ.
Navy Inspection
There was no special relationship with the Navy, as in effect with George Converse for TBs 6 & 7, wherein these boats would be designed and built independent of resident Navy inspectors from the Bureau of Construction and Repair, and the Bureau of Steam. In the Fall 1896 Asst. Naval Constr. H. G. Gillmor was assigned to HMCo. as Superintendent of Construction for Torpedo Boats 14, 15 and 16. He is joined by Passed Assist. Engr. M. A. Anderson from BuSteam.[17] HMCo. drawings were now submitted to them for written approval, documented on each drawing, a formality that George Converse did not require. We have found no instances of friction between the Herreshoff brothers and the inspectors, but it must have been an affront to Capt. Nat to require approval by a constructor only five years out of school.[18] Cooperation between the two parties was possibly influenced by Navy Dept. pressure to deliver the boats at the earliest date for potential service in Cuba against Spain.
The inspectors collaborated on very positive technical reports of the two HMCo. designs published in the ASNE Journal.[19] For example they find TB-14 to be; “Unusually light construction, though amply strong for the service for which they are intended.”[20]
This differs from previous Bureau descriptions of Capt. Nat’s lightweight construction as a lesser product, i.e. cheap.
Design Development (Figure 5 & 6)
Capt. Nat worked diligently to maximize the commonality of design between the twin-screw TB-14 and the single-screw TBs 15/16. Examples; [21]
● The triple expansion engines are identical, except in TB-14, they are right and left-hand.
● Boilers are similar, with changes to accommodate arrangement within the hull.
● Propellers are identical.
● Rudders are of the same form and hung in the same manner.
● A common steering system design with many components the same.
● Anchor windlass is the same, and as installed in CUSHING and PORTER/DUPONT.
Click on images to view larger.
Figure 5 - MORRIS (TB-14) General Arrangement HMCo. Dwg 001-013; HH.5.426. (Source Haffenreffer-Herreshoff Collection, MIT Museum).
Figure 6 - GWIN & TALBOT (TB-15 & 16) General Arrangement HMCo. Dwg 001-012; HH.5.425. (Source Haffenreffer-Herreshoff Collection, MIT Museum).
Comparison to Other TBs Awarded Oct. 1896 (See Figure 2)
Capt. Nat’s designs and HMCo. construction processes proved superior to the competition as had TB-6 & 7 (PORTER & DUPONT) proved superior to the Bureaus’ design of ROWAN (TB-8).
● Competitive price.
● Lighter displacement boat, yet carrying the same armament payload.
● More efficient in propulsion machinery weight per IHP.
● Commonality of system design and components between the 22-1/2 and 20 knot boats.
● Faster speed on official trials.
● Faster delivery- contract award to completion.
1898
War
Agitation for war with Spain had been building for some time. Military action started on Feb. 15, 1898, with the sinking of the USS MAINE in Havana harbor. Two months later, April 21, 1898, Congress declared war on Spain. Most fighting at sea ended with two quick naval victories; Commodore Dewey entering Manila Bay on May 1st and RADM Schley destroying the Spanish fleet as it sortied from Santiago Bay, Cuba on July 3rd; though a peace treaty was not signed until Dec. 1898. [22]
Under the threat of war, the Navy, driven by ASN Theodore Roosevelt, launched an effort to purchase foreign warships, and convert merchant ships and steam yachts into auxiliaries for coast defense and patrol duties.[23] Deliveries of existing naval construction contracts were accelerated, individual shipbuilders made offers for new builds, and Congress stepped up to approve the largest naval shipbuilding program up to that time.
In January 1898 Roosevelt, preparing for the increased naval construction to come, provided Secretary Long an assessment of recent torpedo boat experience, noting “utmost difficulty with all torpedo boats built by the Columbian Iron Works”, and that “Herreshoffs, although very uncomfortable people to deal with, have done well.” He recommended the Navy ask for bids only from firms “we believe have done excellently, or can do excellently,“ as the “only safe course to be followed in the long run.” He recognized this would “give rise to very bitter feeling, and to much harsh criticism,” and “if not practicable he would reject all bids excepting from the very best firms.”[24] Noble ideas, but no change was made to the procurement process.
Accelerated Construction & Trials TBs 14, 15 & 16[25] (Figures 7 & 8)
Figure 7 - Under construction, South Construction Shop, 1897. Foreground raised focsle two-conning tower MORRIS (TB 14). Background to the right, single conning tower GWIN (TB 16) with TALBOT (TB 15) behind and in position to be first to launch. Source- US Navy Photo 19-N-14-29-2.
Based upon news accounts acceleration of construction starts in mid Jan. 1898 with HMCo. progressing “as fast as possible”. (There are no entries in Capt. Nat’s diary related to accelerating construction of these TBs.) On March 15, as HMCo. was turning TBs 15 & 16 over to the Navy, Secretary of the Navy Long requested “all the haste possible” to deliver TB-14. HMCo. responded, by “rushing night and day”. In March, HMCo. advanced TB-14 construction progress by an impressive 23%. Special efforts were made by the Navy to provide the government furnished armament. On April 6th, with TB-14 not yet launched, the Navy asked Herreshoff to have the boat ready for trials within a week. They responded mightily, launching on the 13th, holding the first Builder’s trial; on the 15th and a successful Navy Acceptance trial on the 18th. Following the acceptance trial, the President of the Board of Inspection and Survey, LCDR. T. O. McLean reportedly stated, “…she could easily have made 25 knots, but as the contract speed was only 22 .5 knots there was no occasion for higher speed than she had shown.”
Figure 8 - Key Construction Dates TBs 14, 15 & 16 [26]
The three boats began active wartime service on May 12th, the day following TB-14 being placed in commission. They were ordered to depart Newport to patrol the New England coast following sighting reports of Spanish torpedo boats.[27] See Figures 9, 10, 11 and 12.
Figure 9 - USS MORRIS (TB-14) at full speed, firing torpedo off Newport, July 1906 (Naval History and Heritage Command NH 82835)
Figure 10 - USS MORRIS (TB-14) firing torpedo from after deck tube, while lying to (Naval History and Heritage Command NH 82839)
Figure 11 - USS TALBOT (TB-15) (Naval History and Heritage Command NH 58112) Nimitz commanded TALBOT for a short time in July 1909 as an ensign to assist in the salvage of a Navy vessel aground on Brenton reef off Newport. At that time he was also commanding the submarine PLUNGER.
Figure 12 - USS GWIN (TB-16) at full speed during US Navy Acceptance Trials (EAG Smith Photo)
Offers for New Builds
In this emergency, shipbuilders such as Herreshoff and Bath Iron Works, approached the Secretary with offers to quickly build new torpedo boats (TBs) and torpedo boat destroyers (TBDs). Of the TBs and TBDs authorized and contracted in 1896 & 1897 (Discussed in Part XI) only Herreshoff’s TBs-6, 7, 14, 15, 16 and Columbian Iron Works TB-18 were ready for service at the start of the war.
In March 1898 John Brown Herreshoff had several meetings with Secretary of the Navy Long. offering to immediately contract to construct- [28]
1. Two TBs of the TB15/16 design to be completed in ninety days.
2. Two 32.5 knot TBDs on lines similar to the latest Thornycroft 31-knot destroyers and to be delivered by Jan. 15, 1899 (About one year) for $350,000 each. Reportedly this was the result of “the Herreshoffs studying up on the latest things in torpedo boat construction” and Capt. Nat maintaining “a keen eye to business.” Further reporting stated John had provided Secretary Long with “plans by Capt. Nat” for ten TBDs of a Herreshoff design at a price of $300,000 each. We have not found this design in Capt. Nat’s records.
If the news reports are correct, it would have resulted in a $3,000,000 contract, the largest in company history, and must have been offered under conditions assuming complete conversion to war production. Including cancelling existing plans for the 1899 America’s Cup, involving major structural repairs to the aluminum plated 1895 DEFENDER (HMCo. #452) to participate in the Cup Defender Trials, and the design/construction of the new contender COLUMBIA (HMCo. #499).
None of the new build offers were accepted. Rather the McKinley administration and Congress had very specific ideas about what was to be built.
Naval Appropriation Act of May 4, 1898
In early March the Congress unanimously passed, and the President signed, a $50M defense appropriation including $15M for new ships. Failing in the effort to purchase foreign warships and conversions in the necessary quantity and assuming peace negotiations with Spain would go nowhere, Secretary Long directed Chief Naval Constructor Hichborn and Engineer-in-Chief Melville to report the number, displacement and cost of TBDs and TBs that should be built. Their report, provided to the President, recommended a $7M construction program; [29]
● 30 TBDs of 325-350 tons, capable of 30 knots and to be completed in four- five months.
● 70 TBs of about 100 tons, capable of 20-22 knots and to be completed in 90 days.
The final $13.65M Naval Appropriation approved May 4, 1898, included three first-class battleships, four coast defense monitors, sixteen TBDs, twelve TBs and a small gunboat for the Great Lakes. The bill provided for work on the monitors, TBDs and TBs to be expedited to have some completed in time for the present war if it should be prolonged. [30] The appropriation contained very specific requirements that were included and reinforced in the Navy contracts sent out for bid. The contracts allowed for both Type 1- build to Bureau detail plans, and Type 2 -build to contractor detail plans. [31] [32]
● TBDs (1-16)
○ About 400 tons.
○ Cost not to average more than $295K in any bid.
○ No bids considered with delivery more than 18 months.
○ No bids considered with guaranteed speed less than 28 kts.
○ Special consideration to guarantees of completion below the limit 18 months & to guaranteed speed more than 28 kts.
● TBs (24-35)
○ About 150 tons.
○ Cost not to average more than $170K in any bid.
○ No bids considered with delivery more than 12 months.
○ No bids considered with guaranteed speed less than 26 kts.
○ Special consideration to guarantees of completion below the limit 12 months & to guaranteed speed more than 26 kts.
EXPERIENCE TBs AT WAR[33]
It is not our purpose to review the service experience of the Herreshoff torpedo boats. But it is worth considering the comments of Engineer-in -Chief RADM Melville (Chief BuSteam). Noting the war was the first in which “modern steam vessels had a thorough trial”, he assessed the wartime machinery performance of US Navy TBs.[34]
“A remarkable absence of casualties in the fleet, but TBs could not show the same excellent record. Nearly everyone has had some accidents. At the close of war machinery condition can only be described as horrible - boilers were burned, cylinder covers broken, pistons and valves stuck and everything in bad shape.
Two causes- absence of trained engineering supervision and use of boats for duty for which they were not adapted- it did not require much experience to prove that TBs cannot be safely used as dispatch boats and as tenders of blockading ships far from bases of supply and facilities for efficient repairs. Primarily they are intended for high-speed spurts where success or failure in the use of their special weapon system should be quickly demonstrated. For this they are especially built, and for this they should be solely kept.”
1898 COMPETITION FOR EXPANDED TB & TBD CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
Concern: Disastrous Experience Previous TB/TBD Contracts Will Limit Number of Bidders[35]
There was concern there would be few bidders as there were limited inquiries for plans and specifications. This was attributed to “the disastrous experience of the firms that have secured similar contracts led by the government for this class of work is not calculated to increase the number of bidders on the new program.”- i.e. firms lost money. Because of the delicate work demanded and strict requirements insisted upon by the Navy, few if any, of the firms made any money and in most cases the contracts proved an actual loss to the builders. Also, nearly all, had to pay forfeits for failure to complete their contracts in the time specified by law.
Iowa Iron Works lost a large sum of money building ERICSSON (TB-2). Wolff and Zwicker, Portland OR and Moran brothers of Seattle were both losing money on their torpedo boats. Only Herreshoff was known to “come out so far with some profit on their side.”
We do not have HMCo. records to confirm financial performance on torpedo boat contracts. We do have Capt. Nat’s compensation records from 1881 through completion of TB work in 1898. See Figure 13. These records, show no evidence of financial distress at HMCo. except possibly for 1892, during a period with no TB contracts. It is reasonable to conclude they did not lose money on their TB contracts.
Figure 13 - Capt. Nat’s Compensation from HMCo. 1881-1898
Notes
1. Does not include bonuses from America’s Cup Syndicates, misc. checks from JBH & payment for other services.
2. Source “Curator Herreshoff Marine Museum Memo Feb. 5, 2012, Extraction of NGH Financial Data from Cash Accounts in NGH Personal Diaries, 1881-1915.” Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection. Herreshoff Marine Museum
Bids and Contract Awards 1898
“BIDS FOR TORPEDO CRAFT- CRAMPS & HERRESHOFF OUT”, so read the New York Times Aug. 24, 1898, headlines following the opening of bids two days earlier. Herreshoff had failed to submit a bid before the formal opening of proposals because of delays caused by two railroad accidents enroute, one in Massachusetts and one in Maryland. [36] The Navy anxious to have Herreshoff, “one of the best in the country for constructing small classes of fleet vessels”, in the competition, subsequently accepted their bid after determining the delay had not created an unfair advantage. [37]
Despite the earlier fears of insufficient bidders, the Secretary described the bidding for TBs and TBDs as “very satisfactory”. Nine firms, including Herreshoff, submitted TB bids, some submitting multiple bids.[38] Since Herreshoff did not submit a TBD bid we will proceed no further discussing that design.
Following the same procedures as in 1896, the bids were evaluated by a Board of Bureau, Chiefs. Their report was expected about the 10th of September, to include at least one TB award to Herreshoff. [39] There then occurred a delay when it was found-[40]
● “…in a number of cases, the shipbuilders had eliminated certain machinery fittings from the plans, prepared by the department, and submitted the curtailed or revised plans as their own, at lower figures than those made on the unchanged plans of the department.”
● “After considering the matter the Board … recommended to Acting Secretary Allen that contracts be awarded … provided those bidders would agree to make changes in their plans suggested by the board. Nearly all … agreed … The Herreshoffs of Bristol RI, declined, however, to modify their plans, and as a consequence the Board on Construction today, recommended that the contracts for two boats which were to be given to the Herreshoffs should be awarded other bidders.”
Acting Secretary of the Navy, Allen approved the decision and the Bristol Phoenix reported-[41]
“The Herreshoffs got none of the awards, because they would not change their specifications to suit the department.”
This ended Herreshoff bidding on TB contracts.
1898 TB Designs
(See Figure 14 for comparison of the three designs)
Figure 14 - Tabular Comparison of the 1898 Torpedo Boat Designs for (TBs 24-35)
14A TBs - General Characteristics as Bid -Where as delivered is different, as in case of BIW, it is shown in red
Figure 14B TBs- Machinery Arrangement
Figure 14C TBs- Machinery Comparison
[A] Navy Dept. Design - “Designs of the New Vessels for the U.S. Navy”, by Chief Constructor, Philip Hichborn, USN, Vice Pres SNAME, presented meeting New York, November 10, 11 1898. Transactions SNAME 1898. Pgs. 115- 120. Appendix III, Pgs. 128-29.
[B] HMCo Design- “Notes of design for 165-ton disp. Torpedo boats for USN with bids of Aug. 1898.” Capt. Nat’s Naval Architecture & Engineering Notes, Book 3 of 5; Feb. 1895-Nov. 1899. Pg. 62. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection. Herreshoff Marine Museum. HMCo Drawing 24-14 “Torpedo Boats Nos 24-35. Speed 28.5 knots, Displacement About 168 Tons, HMCo 1898”
[C] “Designs of the New Vessels for the U.S. Navy”, by Chief Constructor, Philip Hichborn, USN, Vice Pres SNAME, presented meeting New York, November 10, 11 1898. Transactions SNAME 1898. Pg. 120 & “Plate 85; 157 Ton Torpedo Boat- Bidder’s Design”. Note- BIW (TB 24-26) as designed had trial displacement of 157 tons; as delivered was 167 tons. “Table of Vessels Torpedo Boats & Torpedo Boat Destroyers ” Secretary of the Navy Annual Report 1900. Pgs. 786-91.Data on (TBs-24-26).
[D] Price data Navy Dept. (Bureau) designs taken from “Table of Vessels Torpedo Boats & Torpedo Boat Destroyers ” Secretary of the Navy Annual Report 1900. Pgs. 786-91. For BIW and HMCo designs price data taken from “Statement of Proposals for the construction of torpedo boats Nos. 24-35, received under Dept advertisement dated July 17, 1898.” Secretary of the Navy Annual Report 1898. Pg. 82. HMCo design was derived from MORRIS (TB-14). It is interesting that Capt. Nat calculated MORRIS (TB-14) cost at $975/ton. Therefore a 168-ton version of MORRIS would cost $163,800. See Herreshoff, N.G., Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MRDE03_04220. Folder [no #]. No date (ca 1896), containing cost estimates for torpedo boats.
[E] Contractors-building to Bureau plans- Lawley & Son, Lewis Nixon, William R. Trigg Co., Columbian Iron Works, Gas Engine and Power Co.
[F] Speed on trials of TB 24-26, in order, 29.15, 29.04, 28.54 Kts.
Navy Department Design (Used to build TBs 27-35)
(See Figure 15)
Larger (175 ft., 165-ton), faster 26-knot TB developed from 24-knot WINSLOW (TB-5) design with 10% increased length, 17% greater displacement, and 50% greater horsepower achieved by installing three versus two boilers.
Figure 15 - Bureau Design TBs 27-35 (Source Plate 82 & 83, Chief Constructor Philip Hichborn USN, VPres. SNAME, “Designs for New Vessels for the U.S. Navy” Annual Meeting SNAME Nov. 10 & 11, 1898.)
HMCo. Design (Proposed for TBs 24-35)
(See Figures 16)
170 ft., 168-ton displacement hull on the lines of MORRIS (TB-14), but enlarged by factor 1.125, with some increase to sheer line height. Into which is integrated the three boilers and triple expansion engines of TBs 6 & 7 to achieve 28.5 kts.
Figure 16 - HMCo Arrangement (TBs 24-35) Design Speed 28.5 Kts. About 168 tons. In acceptance trials HMCo TBs usually beat design speed by
more than 1 kt. HMCo Drawing HH.5.01708, 024-014 (Source Haffenreffer-Herreshoff Collection, MIT Museum).
Bath Iron Works Design (Used to build TBs 24-26)
(See Figure 17)
157 ft., 167-ton displacement hull, with two large boilers. Developed from smaller (147 ft., 146-ton) English designed 30-kt TBs 9 & 10. Design as bid 157 tons trials displacement with design speed of 29.5 kts. As delivered trial displacement was 10 tons greater, 167 tons, and trial speeds ranged from 28.54 to 29.15 kts.
If HMCo. had been awarded a contract, and based upon past performance, trial speed should have equaled or slightly exceeded that of the BIW designed boats.
Figure 17 - Arrangement BIW TBs 24, 25 & 26. (Source “Designs of the New Vessels for the U.S. Navy”, by Chief Constructor, Philip Hichborn, USN, Vice Pres SNAME, presented meeting New York, November 10, 11 1898. Transactions SNAME 1898. Pg. 120 & “Plate 85; 157 Ton Torpedo Boat- Bidder’s Design”.)
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
Processes and Capabilities
(See Figure 18)
The steam and torpedo boat work, prepared Capt. Nat and the HMCo. for what was to come by developing the processes, capabilities and details of components and structure necessary for success with the America’s Cup and large schooners. Per L. Francis Herreshoff;
● “I must mention that the design of a yacht like "Now Then," including her boiler and engine, required much more brain work than the design of a yacht like “Gloriana," and in my opinion the practice and training Captain Nat got in designing high-speed steamers put him head and shoulders above other designers of the time, particularly in regard to construction and most particularly in the design of metal parts.” [42]
● In discussion of Capt. Nat’s designs of the 1890s- “The design of vessels of this kind (USS Porter and DuPont) calls for more work if not more skill than a cup defender, and in this case almost every part of these vessels – boilers, engines and all – had to be designed special so Captain Nat was extremely busy even too busy to take time off for his usual Saturday and Sunday sails in the summer of 1896, but he certainly did turn out some remarkable designs in this time.” [43]
Figure 18 - (Source Sandy Lee HMCo Steam Presentations) Starts with Capt. Nat’s MIT mechanical engineering background and then decade at Corliss Engine Company. Shows the development of steam business, advancement of boiler & engine design, movement of product lines through the steam period including torpedo boats, and emergence of sail as disruptive technologies (gasoline engines & steam turbine) could not be overcome.
Herreshoff Brothers and the Customer
The Herreshoff brothers founded their company on the belief that they could invariably beat the competition on performance provided the customer allowed them the freedom to develop a design free of restrictions. Also believing in their design superiority it followed that they refused to sell their designs to anyone.
● Tell us what you want it to do: performance
● Do not tell us how to do it: design details and process
● We will by contract design, build and guarantee performance: results
The 1876 LIGHTNING, using their latest safety coil boiler technology, was designed to beat a performance objective, 19 knots, which it did. The specification was a direction to “build us your design”. Herreshoff followed with the 1885 speed record setting 25 knot yacht STILETTO. She was designed with ample hull volume to accommodate a heavy torpedo outfit and as (WTB-1) still beat the Navy’s 18 knot speed requirement by one knot.
The steel hulled 1888 CUSHING (TB-1) US Navy’s first sea-going torpedo boat was again a Herreshoff design, built to a US Navy Circular of Requirements specifying 22 knots. But for the first time Herreshoff is challenged by customer “how to” restrictions. The Navy unsuccessfully attempted to require Herreshoff to either team with another designer (Burgess), or sell the design to the Navy, to then be provided to all bidders in a build-to-print competition.
Herreshoff refuses, wins the competition and beats the specification by half a knot.
With the following TB-2 competition came a new “how to” restriction that we can label “capability”. The Navy required 24 knots and again specified construction to bidder plans and specifications. There were only two bidders. Herreshoff was the low bidder. Capt. Nat writes in his diary, “Bids opened in Washington for torpedo boat No. 2. Awarded to HMCo.” But there was no award. The Navy cancelled the competition and initiated a new bidding process to build to Department plans and specifications. Herreshoff did not bid- they would not build to plans other than their own. The Navy was now not only seeking performance, but capability. The Bureaus were no longer a customer; they were a competitor.
● To design in-house: increasing the percent of naval vessels built to Bureau plans becomes an annual capability reported to Congress.
● Increasing the number of shipyards capable of building naval vessels by offering build-to-print contracts.
Performance-wise TB-2 is a disaster on all accounts; delivered late, at large financial loss, and it never completed a successful acceptance trial.
Other capability restrictions followed: the requirement to build a more robust naval construction capability by distributing construction across the three coasts, Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf of Mexico, and the inland rivers.
Underlying the work was a trusting relationship with the customer and the customer’s local representative. With the America’s Cup it was C. Oliver Iselin, Charlie Barr and W. B. Duncan. Torpedo boats were no different. The relationship started with the Chief BuOrd, George Converse and the Torpedo Corps based in Newport. But as the business evolved the Navy Bureaus became a competitor. Since his designs were invariably better than those of the Bureaus, Capt. Nat did not respect them. They felt that attitude and responded with acrimony.
[1] Albert P. Niblack (1859-1949) USNA class of 1880, retired as a vice admiral in 1923. Experienced in torpedo boats early in his naval career, Niblack completed the torpedo warfare course at the Newport Torpedo Station in summer 1888, including training in STILETTO; became a Newport Torpedo Station instructor in 1894; served as naval attaché in Berlin, Rome & Vienna from 1896 to the start of the Spanish-American War, when he assumed command of USS WINSLOW (TB-5). He was well-versed in European and US torpedo boat technology. Respected for his command at sea, he was also a renowned scientist and writer of naval subjects. Source- “A. P. Niblack Biography”, Naval History & Heritage Command. Annual Report of the Secretary of the Navy, 1888 pg. 206, 1894 pg. 212, & 1898 pgs. 357-8.
[2] Andrew K. Blackley, “Laying the Groundwork for Sims: Alfred P. Niblack as the First USN Inspector of Target Practice and the Gunnery Revolution of the US Navy”, Naval War College Review , Autumn 2023, Vol 76, No. 5. Pg. 131.
[3] Benjamin Buckingham (Assistant to the Secretary) 1896 correspondence with George Converse, discussed in Part XI. This letter contains the commitment the Secretary of the Navy wanted Herreshoff to build as much as the law allows.
[4] Sources.
1) Benjamin Buckingham letter to George Converse dated March 24, 1896 concerning pursuing Herreshoff 65-foot second & third class TBs as discussed in prior Converse letter. George Albert Converse Papers and Photographs, 1861-1897, MSS 0068, Box 1, Folder 3. DeGolyer Library, Southern Methodist Univ.
2) NGH NA&E Notes Book 3 of 5. “Preliminary Design Vidette or 65- ft. Torpedo Boat” Feb. 11 & 22, 1896. Halsey Herreshoff Collection. Herreshoff Marine Museum.
3) NGH NA&E Notes Book 3 of 5. ‘Preliminary Design 100-ft. , 20-knot Torpedo Boat to carry Whitehead torpedo & one RFG “ Feb. 26, 1896. Halsey Herreshoff Collection. Herreshoff Marine Museum.
4) As early as 1895 there are reports of HMCo. offering to build 20-knot torpedo boats for export. London American Register- May 11, 1895, p 7 “London Times Philadelphia May 7th- Messrs. Herreshoff, the Rhode Island yacht builders, are sending a bid to the Spanish Government for the building of six torpedo-boats of 18 to 21 knots speed, for use as patrol boats on the coast of Cuba.”
[5] As discussed in Part XI, Benjamin Buckingham is staff Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy and George Converse is OIC Torpedo Station Newport, assigned additional duty as the “General Inspector” of the torpedo boats building at HMCo..
[6] It is possible the Navy considered the designs favorably, to be implemented quickly in the time of a threat.
[7] Preliminary Calculations for a 100 ft, 20 kt Torpedo Boat. (Source Capt. Nat’s Naval Architecture & Engineering Notes Book 3 of 5; Feb. 1895-Nov. 1899. Entry Feb. 26, 1896. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection. Herreshoff Marine Museum.)
[8] The Synopsis summarizes material from earlier Parts of the Series, please refer to those Parts for sources .
[9] “Theodore Roosevelt personal letter to CDR Davis, Commandant New York Navy Yard dated June 28, 1897”. Library of Congress. Images 706 & 707 of Theodore Roosevelt Papers: Series 2: Letterpress Copybooks, 1897-1916; Vol. 1,1897, Apr. 9- July 12.
[10] Idem
[11] “ASN Theodore Roosevelt letter to Secretary of the Navy Long dated June 22, 1897”. Library of Congress. Image 663 of Theodore Roosevelt Papers: Series 2: Letterpress Copybooks, 1897-1916; Vol. 1,1897, Apr. 9- July 12. The ASN follows this up with June 16, 1897, letter to Capt. Nat referring to a “long talk with the Secretary” and that the Secretary has a “plan on hand by which he thinks further trouble can be averted.”. Have found nothing further on this “plan”. Library of Congress. Image 578 of Theodore Roosevelt Papers: Series 2: Letterpress Copybooks, 1897-1916; Vol. 1,1897, Apr. 9- July 12.
[12] There are other issues between the Bureaus and the Herreshoff’s. In a June 16, 1897 letter to Secretary Long, the ASN reports, “The bureaus seem to be in a condition of unwonted harmony, though there are signs of a storm brewing because Lieutenant Gleaves has reported that the CUSHING’S boilers were not properly attended to at Norfolk, and that the engineers are inclined to regard this as somehow another unholy move on part of the Herreshoffs.” Library of Congress. Images 633 & 634 of Theodore Roosevelt Papers: Series 2: Letterpress Copybooks, 1897-1916; Vol. 1,1897, Apr. 9- July 12.
[13] Additional ASN Theodore Roosevelt correspondence in the Library of Congress includes letters about scheduling of the DUPONT (TB-7) acceptance trials. Because of the Bureaus negative report on the PORTER (TB-6) trials Capt. Nat requested the ASN see for himself by riding the DUPONT trials. Scheduling conflicts resulting from a weather delay of DUPONT trials precluded the ASN’s attendance. See Library of Congress. Images 619, 686, & 725 of Theodore Roosevelt Papers: Series 2: Letterpress Copybooks, 1897-1916; Vol. 1,1897, Apr. 9- July 12.
[14] “TORPEDO BOATS FOR THE NAVY”, Army Navy Journal, Vol. 34, Oct. 3, 1896, pg. 77 & Oct. 10, 1896, pg. 93.
[15] L. Francis Herreshoff, Captain Nat Herreshoff: The Wizard of Bristol, (Sheridan House, New York, NY 1953.) Pg. 191.
[16] Journal ASNE Vol 10, 1898. The member listing shows two ASNE Associates; Edwards, Chas B. Assoc Draftsman and Nelson, J. A. Assoc Naval Architect as being employed by HMCo.. Pgs. 322 & 324.
[17] Asst. Naval Constr. H. G. Gillmor, detached from New York. and ordered as Superintendent of Construction for Torpedo Boats 14, 15 and 16, Herreshoff Manufacturing Co. Army and Navy Journal, Vol 34 Oct. 31, 1896. Pg. 146.
M. A. Anderson Passed Assistant Engineer, ASNE member and inspector HMCo.. Journal ASNE Vol IX, 1897. Pg. 223.
[18] Gillmor appointed a Naval Cadet, 5 Sept. 1887 & an Assistant Naval Constructor, 1 July, 1893. “Navy Officers: 1798-1900” . Naval History and Heritage Command, www.history.navy.mil. M.A. Anderson was more experienced, having been a commissioned engineer since 1883.
[19] “The United States Torpedo Boats TALBOT & GWIN” Passe Assist. Engr. M. A. Anderson & Assist. Naval Constructor H. G. Gillmor, Journal ASNE Vol 10, 1898. Pgs. 493-501. “The United States Torpedo Boat MORRIS” Passed Assist. Engr. M. A. Anderson & Assist. Naval Constructor H. G. Gillmor. Journal ASNE Vol 10, 1898. Pgs. 502-508.
[20] “The US Torpedo Boats TALBOT & GWIN”, Journal ASNE Vol 10, 1898. Pg. 493.
[21] “The US Torpedo Boats TALBOT & GWIN”, Journal ASNE Vol 10, 1898. Pg. 494, 497, 500. “The US TB MORRIS” . Journal ASNE Vol 10, 1898. Pg. 507. “Propeller” HMCo. Dwg 006-049, Jan. 20,1898 and “Steering Arrgt. Details” HMCo. Dwg 068-026, June 22, 1897. (Source Haffenreffer-Herreshoff Collection, MIT Museum).
[22] “The War”, Annual Report of the Secretary of the Navy for the Year 1898. Nov. 15, 1898. Pgs. 3-24.
[23] David F. Trask, The War with Spain in 1898, University of Nebraska Press (Originally published by Simon & Schuster New York, NY)1981. Pgs. 80-94 (Naval preparations).
[24] “Assistant Secretary of the Navy letter to Secretary Long, dated Jan. 22, 1898 “, Theodore Roosevelt Digital Library, Collection of the Massachusetts Historical Society. https://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.org/Research/Digital-Library/Record?libID=o293728
[25] "Concerning the New Torpedo Boats." Bristol Phoenix, Jan. 11, 1898, p. 2. “New Torpedo Boats Tried”, New York Times, Mar. 4, 1898, pg 1. “THE GWIN And TALBOT”. Bristol Phoenix, Mar. 4, 1898, p.1. “News and Notes of Local Interest”, Bristol Phoenix, Mar. 11, 1898, pg.2. “Hurrying Torpedo Boats”, New York Times, Mar. 16, 1898. “ORDERED TO RUSH THE MORRIS”, Boston Daily Globe. Mar. 16, 1898. “Rushing Night And Day. Work on the Morris. The Third of the Small Torpedo Boats”, Boston Globe, Mar. 31, 1898, pg.2 “Rushing Work On The Morris”, Boston Globe, Apr. 7, 1898, pg. 4. “Torpedo Boast Morris a Flyer”, New York Times, Apr. 18, 1898, pg. 3. “WORK ON NEW VESSELS- The Present Stages of Construction of Some of the Warships Building”, New York Times, Apr. 19, 1898. “Official Trial Of the Morris. Uncle Sam’s Newest Torpedo Boat Made 24.05 Knots Yesterday With Ease”, Bristol Phoenix, Apr. 19, 1898, pg.1. “The Morris Makes Fast Time. Torpedo Boat Makes a Record of 24.02 Knots an Hour in Narragansett Bay”. New York Times, Apr. 19, 1898, pg. 4
[26] Dates from “Principal Data of the Trial Trips of Torpedo Boats”, Journal American Society of Naval Engineers, Vol XI 1899 pgs. 508 & 892. “Report of BuC&R”, Sept. 24, 1898, contained in Secretary of the Navy Annual Report 1898. Pg. 517. “Table of Vessels Torpedo Boats & Torpedo Boat Destroyers ” Secretary of the Navy Annual Report 1900. Pgs. 786-91.
[27] Torpedo Boats 14, 15, 16”, Army Navy Journal Vol. 35 May 21, 1898. p 749. The reports proved to be false.
[28] “John B. Herreshoff Expected to Sign a Contract for 32-1/2 Knot Vessels”. New York Times, Mar. 20, 1898. “Herreshoff”, Army Navy Journal Vol. 35. Mar. 26, 1898.P. 573. “HERRESHOFF AND BOATS- Returned from Washington Yesterday, Went Back Last Night- Will Build a Torpedo Boat Destroyer to Beat the World”, Boston Sunday Globe, Mar. 20, 1898. “FASTEST IN THE WORLD. The Herreshoffs Want to Build Ten Torpedo Boat Destroyers”, Indianapolis Journal, Apr. 2, 1898. Pg 2. “Ten Destroyers”, El Paso Daily Herald, Apr. 11, 1898.
[29] “FIFTY MILLIONS APPROPRIATED”, Army and Navy Journal, Vol 35, Mar. 12, 1898. Pg 514. “Responsivity for Sinking of Maine is Clear”, Army and Navy Journal, Vol 35, Apr. 2, 1898. Pg 578.
[30] “Conference Reports on the Naval Appropriation bill”, Army and Navy Journal, Vol 35, Apr. 30, 1898. Pg 675.
[31] “NAVAL CONTRACTS TO BE LET. Sixteen Torpedo Boat Destroyers and Twelve Torpedo Boats Will Be Ordered by the Government”. New York Times, July 22, 1898.
[32] Chief Constructor Philip Hichborn, USN, VPres. SNAME “Designs of New Vessels for the US Navy” Transactions SNAME, 1898. Pgs. 115-138 and Plates 69-95.
[33] For a summary of TB performance during the Spanish-American War see Lieut. R. H. Jackson, “Torpedo Craft: Types and Equipment”, US Naval Institute Proceedings, Vol 26/1/93. Jan. 1900.
[34] “HOW OUR FLEETS FARED - Engineer in Chief G.W. Melville Files His Report on the Service of the Warships”, New York Times, Oct. 21, 1898.
[35] “NAVAL CONTRACTS TO BE LET. Sixteen Torpedo Boat Destroyers and Twelve Torpedo Boats Will Be Ordered by the Government” New York Times, July 22, 1898.
[36] “BIDS FOR TORPEDO CRAFT”, New York Times, Aug. 24, 1898. Usually, John Brown Herreshoff made the trip to Wash, DC to personally submit each bid and Capt. Nat would note the trip in his diary. In this case we have no record of JBH making the trip and the news articles state the delays were experienced by “an agent”.
[37] “HERRESHOFF BIDS TO LATE”, New York Sun, Aug. 25, 1898. “TIME IS ENOUGH”, Boston Daily Globe, Sept. 9, 1898.
[38] “Torpedo boats and torpedo boat destroyers” Secretary of the Navy Annual Report 1898. Pgs. 36, 37 & 82.
[39] “THE NEW NAVAL VESSELS”, New York Times, Sept. 9, 1898.
[40] “THE NEW TORPEDO BOATS”, New York Times, Sept. 24, 1898.
[41] “No Torpedo Boats for Bristol”. Bristol Phoenix Sept. 27, 1898.
[42] L. Francis Herreshoff, Capt. Nat Herreshoff: The Wizard of Bristol. Sheridan House, New York 1953. Pgs. 107-8.
[43] Ibid. Pg. 191.