Identifier: historyofmanufac00amer (find matches)
Title: History of the manufacture of armor plate for the United States navy
Year: 1899 (1890s)
Authors: American Iron and Steel Association, comp
Subjects: United States. Navy Armor-plate
Publisher: Philadelphia, American Iron and Steel Association
Contributing Library: The Library of Congress
Digitizing Sponsor: The Library of Congress

View Book Page: Book Viewer
About This Book: Catalog Entry
View All Images: All Images From Book
Click here to view book online to see this illustration in context in a browseable online version of this book.

Text Appearing Before Image:
al fea-tures of the process of manufacturing, beginning withthe raw materials, and who supply them to the Govern-ment rough machined and fully treated, after which theyare simply machined to finished dimensions, assembled, andso completed. These considerations have evidently beenoverlooked by the advocates of a Government armor plant. A Government armor plate factory which would be.comparable with the two Government plants above men-tioned would require the purchase of the armor platesall completed except finished machining; and, since thearmor plates must be practically otherwise finished beforebeing hardened, it will be seen that no comparison canbe made between the manufacture of guns and the man-ufacture of armor plate, the processes being entirely dif-ferent, and that no convincing argument in favor of aGovernment armor plate factory can be deduced from thefact that the Government completes the manufacture ofguns from the rough machined forgings furnished byprivate manufacturers.
Text Appearing After Image:
ARMOR PLATE FOR THE NAVY. 15 FAILURE OF RUSSIAS ARMOR PLANT. Another claim frequently made in Congress in supportof a Government armor factory is that various Europe-an governments have successfully established armor worksand supply their own requirements cheaper than wouldbe possible by purchase. This claim is refuted by thefollowing facts. Every naval power of Europe has, at different periodssince the advent of the armor-clad ship, contemplated thestep the United States has been urged to take, only tofind that armor could not be manufactured successfullyunder State administration, or that the cost in the eventof successful production would be much higher than theprice at which it could be purchased from private manu-facturers. Great Britain, which has bought, and maycontinue to buy, more armor than any other three navalpowers in the world, determined this question negativelylong ago as the result of an investigation by an Admiral-ty Commission. As a result the naval powers of Europe

Note About Images