The navy is again threatened with the periodical upheaval in signals, this time in the shape of a well-defined proposition to abolish everything we have and embark on an experimental code of 44 characters; with a green light added to our four-lamp electric night system; with a white star interjected into the red and green Very pistol code; with a winker light and a flashing search-light for long distances by night; a semaphore by day; and, finally, a flag code of 53 flags using an alphabet instead of a numeral code.
This is a poor time to be upsetting things, even if our signal needs should happen to be pressing—which they are not. We come very nearly having at this moment the best signal system in the world, and I shall later show how we can still further simplify it and make it nearly perfect. To make it almost perfect we may need the wireless telegraph, but perfection may be attained, in the minds of many, by adding the hand and masthead semaphore, such as used in the British navy. On this semaphore question I have my doubts, but I have not the shadow of a doubt as to the proposed system of signals, for it very ingeniously violates every principle of signaling, and wanders directly away from the paths which experience teaches us as the only safe ones to travel.
In 1858 the Myer code was adopted in the army and its inventor, Surgeon A. J. Myer, U. S. Army, was, in 1860, appointed chief signal officer, and went West on Indian campaign duty. Many of the officers and men whom he then instructed and organized into a signal corps went South on the breaking out of the Civil War, and the Myer code was used on both sides. It was adopted in the navy also, but even in such important operations as those in Mobile Bay, we had army signalmen on board our ships to receive and transmit messages. When Brigadier-General Hazen became chief signal officer, he was instrumental in changing to the Continental Morse code (April 3, 1886), and Brigadier-General Greeley, in Jan., 1890, succeeded in changing to the American Morse code. We followed the army in these changes, but the last one was impracticable, and, after a spirited campaign, the records of which are in the Proceedings of the Naval Institute, the navy, in 1893-94, took up the Myer code again, but so modified as to use only thirty characters for all purposes of signaling. The army later followed us back to the modified Myer and now the code is known as the Army and Navy code. If there is any virtue in both branches of the service having the same code it would seem that the proposed new code might merit consideration by army experts, so that, if we change, the army should also change. This step will however hardly be necessary, because no good reason can be shown for such change.
There is no connection necessarily between a naval battle code of signals and the everyday signal book and signal system, because, while battle signals should be as few and as simple as possible, the methods of transmitting them should be as numerous as practicable. The ordinary signal book and signal codes are simply means of communicating in times of peace, or in time of war up to the opening of fire in a fleet engagement. Battle signals and methods of transmission are a problem in themselves.
In ordinary signaling the hardest problem is in a fog, when the external relations of a ship towards others is most in doubt, but all nations find themselves on a common level in a fog and honors are easy. The fog whistle and gun-fire represent the assets in methods of communication in a fog, and I have always held that the Myer code was peculiarly adapted to this emergency. With a dot-dash code it is necessary to convert it into a 1, 2 code in order to transmit it by gun-fire. On the fog whistle a 1, 2 code is safer than a dot-dash code, because steam not always reliable in transmitting dashes, and a distinction as to the length of a dot, dash, and interval respectively) is not so sure as an impulse code (one impulse or two impulses where duration does not enter).
At night the relations of ships to each other are more distinct than in a fog, but we must make sure that our methods are accurate and rapid. The dictum in all signaling is, that method is best which is most reliable and which is as simple and rapid as is consistent with absolute reliability. We have for night signaling in squadron:
1. A masthead winker light, visible all around the horizon for the transmission of the Army and Navy code of 30 characters. It is slow because each element in a letter must be made successively. It is not so reliable, because there is usually no repeating back. To do so is to make it very slow. The winker light is practically the sole reliance of the British navy in night signaling for all purposes. We pay far too little attention to it, and have never developed a satisfactory shutter*
2. A four-lamp night-electric system. By this all the elements of a character are displayed simultaneously, giving rapidity of signaling, and hence, at night, we can signal as rapidly as the British can in the daytime when they use their semaphore. By repeating back at each display, we can get absolute reliability. The signals can be seen almost around the horizon. This almost is where the defect of the system comes in. With an apparatus forward on one bow and another aft on the opposite quarter, much of the difficulty can be eliminated, but it will be noted that in important signals, such as tactical, the repeating of one ship gives chances of seeing to others at the moment screened from the flagship's lights. A step in the improvement of the telephotis is the use of the tape recorder for all signals sent or received. The four-lamp system transmits the Army and Navy code of 30 characters with rapidity and reliability. There is no method superior to it, and no more rapid method of communication at sea.
3. The search-light. The Army and Navy code may be transmitted by the wigwag (moving the beam to the right for 1, to the left for 2, and to the "front" for 3) or by flashing it. By actual experiment it has been found that the wigwag gives longer range and greater distinctness than by flashing it. Where the light is thrown on the underside of a cloud there is very little choice as to wigwag or flashing. By direct signaling with the wigwag, messages have been transmitted 21 miles at sea at night.
4. The Very's code. With the later type of long-barrel pistol and hermetically sealed brass cases, the range of visibility of the Very's code is about 13 miles. It is slow, but reliable in principle. No other nation has perfected its pyrotechnic signals as we have. I will later suggest a correction of a certain defect which will make the method ideal for its purpose.
I feel justified in claiming that the methods furnished our service of transmitting by night this one code of 30 characters is far and away superior in reliability, in methods, in rapidity, and, above all, in simplicity to those in use in any other navy.
Before taking up the question of day signals, I want to admit that improvement is desirable, but that the proposed substitutes for what we have are the very opposite of what is needed.
The distinction made between squadron and distant signaling is one of distance, depending upon the state of the atmosphere. Squadron distance is from three to four miles. "Distant" is beyond the limits of squadron signal methods. We have never developed balloons for either day or night signaling. Shapes are pretty much in the air experimentally in all navies. Wireless telegraphy, using the modified Myer code (Army and Navy), is only a question now of months, or as to which apparatus is the best.
In methods of day signaling we have in our service:
- A flag code of 30 flags (or 31, counting the Church pennant).
- The hand wigwag flag system.
- The four-arm semaphore, which under the new Fiske improvements is about to be installed on our ships, having undergone successful experiment and test in the North Atlantic Squadron.
On the question of flag hoists for signaling, it would seem that wireless telegraphy might decrease their use, but they will never be displaced. Of this I feel sure. Flags possess the great advantage that in one hoist three or four elements can be displayed at once, and for general signal purposes thousands of permutations and combinations can be made. The objections to the use of flags are that in a calm they hang limp; in an unfavorable breeze they fly edge on; in haze and smoke the colors cannot be distinguished; the colors get dull and soiled through various causes; and finally, in action, halliards are very likely to get shot away. The greater the number of flags in a hoist the greater the chance of making a mistake in reading the signal; also the longer it takes to bend on and hoist a signal. The simpler or fewer the colors in a flag the less liability to make a mistake in reading it. The smaller the flags the quicker they can be handled, but the more limited the range of visibility. Mathematically the more flags you have in a code the greater the chance of error in reading a given signal.
My proposition is to reduce the number of flags we have, but the proposed scheme is to increase the number to 53. We can best understand both propositions by a brief glance at foreign methods.
The British navy uses 58 flags, and they have five flag hoists (four repeaters) and two separate signal books. It will always be noted that British ships, while using the day semaphore with dazzling rapidity, are much given to enormous displays of bunting in flag hoist signaling, and that too quite often in conjunction with semaphore messages.
The French navy uses 51 flags, and has three numeral codes. The shape of the uppermost flag indicates which code is used.
The German navy uses 43 flags, principally letters of the international code but with different significations. As their night code is a numeral one their signal book is indexed both for letters and for numerals.
We come next in that we use 31 flags, which I suggest we reduce to 29 or 28.
The Italian navy uses 26 flags of the international code, but with special significations, and their signal book is alphabetical.
The Austrian navy uses 24 flags which have both a numeral and alphabetical signification. They use a very clever trick whereby, limiting to four flags in a hoist, they increase indefinitely their number of four-flag hoists. It is this system that I shall propose we adopt, and thus simplify and renovate our entire system of signaling.
The Danish navy uses 22 flags. They have 22 sets of halyards, and they hoist each flag separately, but in the right (relative) position.
An analysis of our signal book and flags will show, that, with a numeral code we are limited to 9999 signals, using a four-flag hoist as a limit, or using the o in first place we can add another thousand (0999) so that we can just about touch the 11000 mark (io,999)
In the general signals we utilize only 5856 numbers. In the telegraphic dictionary we use 10,999, or, in other words, the full allowance, and more could be used if available. The Geographical list uses 7280, and we could use several thousand numbers for a "Navy list" of officers.
The avowed object of the proposed code of 53 flags is to give us an alphabetical instead of a numeral code, thereby giving us fewer flags in a hoist and increasing the number of signals possible. According to the scheme, tactical signals are to be two flag hoists, other general signals are to be three flags, and telegraphic and geographical, four flags. One fallacy in this is that with 10 numerals and 3 repeaters or 13 flags in all, it saves no more time to pick 3 flags out of 13 or 4 out of 13, than it does to pick a 3- or 4-flag hoist out of 26 flags—and the chances of mistake in reading are mathematically greater. As stated, we use only 5858 signal numbers in our general signals, and yet we might use 10,999, and we would use more than 10,999 in our telegraphic dictionary if they were available.
We have ten numerals and three repeaters. That makes thirteen. We have five flags with more than one meaning, viz., cornet, answering pennant, numeral pennant, despatch flag, and convoy flag. That makes eighteen. We have thirteen flags with only one signification, viz., guard, position, general recall, church pennant, danger, annulling, negative, affirmative, preparatory, interrogatory, quarantine, compass, and telegraph. That makes thirty-one in all. Using the Austrian trick of four flag: hoists, let us take the general recall flag. Hoisted alone it has only one meaning. Let us use it in the first place in a hoist to represent twelve thousand; in second place to represent thirteen thousand; in third place to represent fourteen thousand; and the bottom flag in the hoist to represent fifteen thousand. Thus: General Recall 987=12,987, or 9 General Recall 87 = 13,987, or 98 General Recall 7 = 14,987 and 987 General Recall = 15,987. Similarly, without danger of confusion, we could use the convoy flag for sixteen, seventeen, eighteen and nineteen thousand; the despatch flag for twenty, twenty-one, twenty-two and twenty-three thousand and the church pennant for twenty-four, twenty-five, twenty-six and twenty-seven thousand. The position pennant could be used as a substitute for any of the above or else to carry the numbers up to 31,999, or practically 32,000. We actually use 24,137 numbers now, or adding the navy list we would have a total of about 26,000 now demanded.
The great advantages of the above method are: 1st. It would do away with the double stars in the telegraphic, geographic, and navy list calls of the Very code and remove a great drawback which the code has by its use of the old bracket. 2d. It would enable us to start our signal book at o or 1 and run up indefinitely without the use of a code call. All signals would thus be general. 3d. We could do away with the telegraph flag and the compass flag. Compass signals would simply be in degrees from 1 to 3600 from north around to north again by way of east, south, and west. The signal book should give the conversion of degrees into nearest quarter points for each of the 360 degrees.
There is another reform which I would propose in our flag code while we are about it, but it is not important enough to insist on. In the modified Myer (Army and Navy code) for all purposes of signaling we have p = affirmative, k = negative, q — interrogatory, and w = annul. Just for consistency I would like to see the corresponding (letter) flags of the international code used in place of the affirmative, negative, interrogatory and annulling pennants now used. It would enable us to use the quarantine flag (international q) for interrogatory, thus reducing our total flags to 28. I do not insist on my hobby of the modified Myer being dragged into the flag business—but simplicity would be served thereby—and the modified Myer is the best signal code in the world.
In the light of the immense relief it would give to our code to simplify it by getting rid of the telegraphic, geographical, and navy list troubles, it is appalling to think of deliberately hanging a millstone around our necks by adopting a 53-flag code, not even considering the violence done to the Very code by the use of a third colored star, and to the electric lamp system by the addition of a green one.
It is indefensible to use a green transmitted light for signal purposes. A green light is always, or nearly always, white at long ranges (as is also a chemical green star) and the net result of the addition of either the new white star or green lamp would be to reduce the range of certain visibility or reliability of two of our splendid night codes.
The new proposed code uses groups of 1, 2 and 3 and thus succeeds in getting more than 30 permutations and combinations. Each flag of 44 out of the total 53 has a group of characters using one, two or three dots to represent it by flashes of light, or toots on the fog whistle, etc. Thus on the fog whistle the "recall" would be…or 12 toots. With the Army and Navy code the maximum is the letter z = … or 8 toots. It is difficult to patiently point out the one after another indefensible departures of the proposed system from the virtues of our present methods using the Army and Navy code.
To flash a message by search-light is not so distinct nor so visible at long distances as to wigwag the beam, yet we must give up the latter because the new code is to be a three-element code that cannot be wigwagged.
This system or proposed code which I have been criticizing in this article is now under consideration at the War College but is not in one sense a product of that institution. As the scheme is soon to be submitted to the Navy Department, I hope to get a hearing officially and to point out that it is exactly in every particular just what the navy neither wants nor needs.
Many people in our navy favor the hand flag semaphore; and even the masthead semaphore for rapid day signaling. Naturally it is quicker than the wigwag because it displays each character instantaneously, while the wigwag must make the elements successively, just as at night our four-lamp system shows the entire character in one display while the winker light must display the elements successively. My only objection to the semaphore is that it adds another code to our burdens. We have now simply a flag code, and the modified Myer. The latter we transmit by wigwag flag, lantern, torch, or search-light beam, by winker light, by gun-fire, fog whistle, or Very's pistol, or by semaphore arms or red and white lanterns. W is always the annulling, x is numerals, p is affirmative, k is negative, and q is interrogatory no matter what method we use.
The Department has at last yielded to the wish for a hand semaphore and asked for a trial and report in the various squadrons. It is unfortunate that there are only 28 characters in the British code, or in any two-arm code. For in our code we need thirty. Therefore, to use the British two-arm code (to assimilate it to the Myer code) it becomes necessary to use U for the interval and to give to P the signification of numeral 3, in addition to meaning "affirmative." In other words, if we could invent two additional positions of two arms other than used by the British we could make the semaphore code correspond letter for letter with our use of the Myer, and thus in a measure assimilate it.
For my part, as we have the four-arm semaphore mounted on many of our ships, and have a satisfactory mechanical method of working it, I prefer in the light of the promised developments in wireless telegraphy not to add the British semaphore to our burdens. I have seen the wigwag flag used like lightning. We really don't need the British semaphore. There is now too much fruitless signaling of wigwag messages that were better if not sent, and better sent by flag hoist for drill purposes, if of importance.
Anybody can send signals. The success of a system is tested at the receiving end. We admire the British smartness. With one of their flagships carrying some thirty-five in the signal staff, the test of efficiency is the poor harassed auxiliary or destroyer trying to catch a lot of smartly delivered signals. The annual British maneuvers show this. Our methods are much safer. We refuse to rate people for signal expertness. We demand that every line officer and every enlisted man in the deck force shall absorb all the signaling he is capable of. Experts develop naturally, but the dullest person, if he can read and spell, can make some headway, but it obliges us to keep our system as simple as possible. When I hear officers compare our signaling unfavorably with foreign ships I sometimes think our ships vary in efficiency as the commanding and other officers vary. Every nation has its problems. With our intelligent personnel I would rather follow our simple methods than to be restlessly wanting to adopt foreign methods merely because we don't use what we have. Practice can alone make perfect. We are on safe ground in signaling, I feel convinced. Let us stay there. I am only led to propose the changes in our flag code because of my liking for the Very pistol code which Lieutenant-Commander R. T. Mulligan did so much to develop and perfect. I would like to see the bracket stars for code calls in the Very done away with, and the solution is simplicity itself.
What is everybody's business is nobody's business. Signaling sort of shifts for itself, but while I live I shall never cease to raise my voice and wield my pen against this running after false gods in signaling. I am sort of sponsor for the modified Myer code. You can do anything with it. If we are to have a hand semaphore system its alphabet should be given the same signification as in this code. If wireless telegraphy is coming in it must use this code. It is planned to use a dot-dash code, but if that is essential to its transmission then we can call our 1 a dot and our 2 a dash, but we will not take back the Continental Morse code. Any system which can be adapted to the Army and Navy code and insists on can get short shrift. Simplicity, reliability, and as great rapidity as is consistent therewith. Let us tie down to this. It is astonishing what a little practice in signaling will do for ships. More of them ought to try it, and we would hear less about foreign signal systems, which are based on expertness in spite of methods inferior to our own. We have the best code in the world and let us realize it and live up to it.