DD-6 Hopkins

The Spanish-American War introduced the United States Navy to the torpedo boat destroyer. Several of these innovative ships attempted to breach the battle line at the Battle of Santiago in July 1898. That same year, Congress authorized two destroyers, similar to the Bainbridge (DD-1) class, but with higher funnels, to be built by Harlin & Hollingsworth Co, Wilmington DE. Both commissioned in 1903.

As naval ordnance improved, quick-firing and machine guns became so effective that the spar torpedo went into the discard. In its place came the auotmobile torpedo, an invention of an Austrian naval officer, Capt. Luppis. Its early development was given into the hands of an able engineer named Mr. Robert Whitehead, and the well-known Whitehead torpedo was the result of his efforts. This torpedo during the period of the Spanish War was supposed to automatically maintain a set depth and steer a course while making a run of about 400 yards at a 20-knot speed. Its early performances were, however, erratic. Other types of torpedoes began to make their appearance, notably among them the Howett, the invention of Eear Admiral John Adams Howell, United States Navy. With the advent of the automobile torpedo came also the first really successful attempts at submarine building, each having the same basic principles of design, and the development of one materially assisting the progress of both.

The two Hopkins (DD-6) class destroyers were oil fueled as opposed to the coal fueled Bainbridge (DD-1) class -- 115 tons of oil was carried. This cut the displacement of this class by almost 25 tons. Oil-fueled ships were cleaner, faster, more easily refueled and maintained, and had superior endurance. Since 1909 the destroyers were fitted for burning fuel oil instead of coal. The latest dreadnaughts were also being equipped with this installation. In putting fuel aboard, all a destroyer needed is a hose and a pump. Likewise, when burning fuel, all that was needed is a pipe line and a pump. With coal it is different. On coal-burning ships, the faster a vessel steamed the greater the manual labor in supplying coal to the furnaces. On an oil-burning ship it takes no more manual labor to steam at full power than at any other speed.

The many advantages in using oil fuel, especially the superior design of the warships possible by virtue of its use being well known, it was well to consider the only disadvantage it possesses - the cost of oil burning relative to coal. This was introduced to show that the advantages are costly, unless some step be taken to secure cheaper prices. In a lecture before the postgraduate department of the Naval Academy, Rear Admiral John Edwards United States Navy. stated:

"Some very reliable and valuable data concerning the actual relative cost of coal and oil for naval fuel purposes has been obtained by comparing the continuous, steady-steaming performances of 5 coal-burning turbine destroyers with 14 oil-burning destroyers, all operating along the Atlantic const, during the fiscal year of 1912. These 5 coal-burning destroyers, during that period, steamed 45,870 miles under steady-steaming condition, and expended 8,000.9 tons of coal, an average consumption of 420.3 pounds of coal per mile. The oil-burning destroyers, during the same period, steamed 150,870 miles and expended 5,901,435 gallons of oil - an average of 38.4 gallons of oil per mile. The cost of coal per pound averaged $0.00127; that of the crude oil, $0.045 per gallon. These relative prices are based upon the lowest cost of oil at any point on the Atlantic coast, as compared with the cost of coal at Norfolk, Va., and therefore favor coal rather than oil. It will thus be observed that the average actual cost of fuel per knot for the coal-burning destroyers was $0.43, while that of the oil destroyers was about $1.72. The actual cost of operating on the Atlantic coast on oil destroyer, from the fuel-cost standpoint, was therefore about four times as great as operating a coal burning destroyer. It should be stated that the machinery of oil destroyers was a later and more efficient turbine design than the machinery of the coal destroyers. The economy of the oil-burning destroyers ought, therefore, to have exceeded the coal destroyers, as far as machinery installation is concerned."

It will thus he seen that oil burning will impose a severe financial tax upon the Government ; and, if any scheme can be evolved that will reduce this burden to the naval establishment, our Government would adopt it.

By 1914 the US Navy had 41 oil-burning destroyers built or building, to be followed by others, 8 ships of the dreadnaught type using oil as an auxiliary fuel, and in 1915 the two first all-oil-fuel battleships would be added to the fleet, to be followed by others. To supply this oil-burning fleet with fuel the Navy possessed the Arethusa, an old tank ship of 3,629 tons capacity and not more than 10 knots speed, and seven fleet colliers fitted to carry some fuel oil in addition. The total oil capacity was 23,728 tons, 3,629 tons of which - that in the Arethusa - could not accompany the fleet; so that the available 011 supply that could accompany the fleet was 20,109 tons. Logistic studies showed that to maintain this oil-burning fleet in active service across the ocean required the delivery of about 23,000 tons of fuel oil per month. To maintain this supply the Navy had in 1914 seven colliers capable of delivering an average of about 10,000 tons per month. This situation would be very much aggravated on the addition to the fleet of the two oil-burning battleships, Oklahoma and Nevada, and the other destroyers then under construction. Nor can commercial oil carriers be relied upon to remedy this deficiency, since ocean tankage both at home and abroad was not yet adequate to meet the demands of commerce and industry.

The armament was identical to that of the Bainbridge class. Serving in torpedo flotillas in the 1900s, both were relegated to reserve duties by 1912 though were reactivated for service during World War I for patrol duty in the Panama Canal Zone. Both were decommissioned in the summer of 1919 and sold for scrap 1920-21.