The Dominion. TUESDAY, MAY 14, 1918. THE FAILURE OF THE U-BOAT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 201, 14 May 1918, Page 4

The Dominion. TUESDAY, MAY 14, 1918. THE FAILURE OF THE U-BOAT

Admir'at, von Gapelle's statement on the submarine campaign which is reported to-day can only be regarded as an attempt to temporarily bolster up tho confidence of the German nation and its vassals by deliberately denying or distorting plainly established facts. The German Naval Minister has accepted a humiliating role. He is reduced to substituting for a truthful review of tho underwater campaign a series of falsehoods which lie knows will bo exposed to the whole world in that character before many months havo passed. Even now all who have examined the evidence- made public during recent months in Britain and Allied countries will perceive that his latest attempt at deception is in every way worthy of the man who was primarily responsible for the bold flight of exaggerating Allied and neutral shipping losses last year by 3,500,000 tons, or 68 per cent, of the tonnage actually sunk. A slight examination of his statement in the light of known facts will suffice to show how far it deviates from the truth. Li the first placehis observation that tho increase in the number of U-boats exceeded the losses and that "it was more and more a struggle between submarine action and tho construction of ships" is an obvious attempt to ignore the principal factor making for tho defeat and extirpation of the raiding submarines, aiid one that is controverted by definite evidence. It is perfectly true that the Allies havo the strongest incentive to expand the construction of merchant shipping. But it is equally true that the incentive arises only in part from the sf.ill serious destruction effected by submarines and would remain in full force for some time to come even if the last German U-boat had been destroyed. It is still more to the point that the factor which makes, most definitely for the defeat, of the submarines is not the output. of new merchant tonnage, important though that is, but tho development of naval coun-ter-measures which bear fruit in an ever increasing destruction of tho underwater craft. That Von Gαi'Elle should attempt to pass over tho mighty development of tho forces organised for the destruction of tho tf-boats is in itself a striking proof that tho German authorities are no longer able to face the facts of the war at sea. Against his explicit assertion that the increase in tho number of U-boats exceeded the losses thero is to be set a statement made by SiH Eiuc Geddes as long ago as March 5. The First Lord of the Admiralty said on that occasion that "for some months now we believe that wo and tho American forces in home waters have been sinking submarines as fast as they have been built." In view of the extreme caution observed by th« Admiralty in compiling its returns and its practice of demanding conclusive evidence of the destruction of a U-boat before reckoning it as lost there is no doubt that tho , First Lord's statement erred on the side of moderation.. This iiparL, it 1 ).■;:■: been pointed out by expert commentators that apart from tbo eubmar-j

ines destroyed by the Allied naval forces many are unquestionably lost through accidental causes. To the fact, that in the , early part of this year submarines were being destroyed as fast as they were built it is to be added that the Allies arc rapidly expanding their naval counter-measures with results which of h.'cc have been signally demonstrated. The daring and conspicuously successful attacks on Ostend and Zeebruggc may fairly be described as blows struck at the heart of the enemy submarine organisation, and the great mine barrage lately completed at the northern end of the North Sea is in itself a tremendously important contribution to the defeat of the piratical raiders. Von Capeixe may soothe the Reichstag and cheer the German people with smooth professions, but tho officers and men who man the German submarines know that their chances of returning alive from a cruise arc dropping day by day. British merchant seamen and those of Allied nations have faced unflinchingly all the horrors of- the submarine campaign, but it is notorious that the moral of the enemy submarine crews has-declin-ed in a degree which reflects the deadly and increasing effect of the Allied counter-offensive. While it is above all on account of the expanding power, scope, and effect of the forces organised for the" destruction of the submarines that the Allies are able to look forward confidently to the future developments of the struggle at sea, the shipping situation, even at the narrowest view, bears no such comforting aspect for Germany as Von CαI'Elle attempts to put upon it. Whilo the German Naval Minister relics almost exclusively on generalities, the Allies have published the facts. The position at the end of last year is clearly shown in the following tables compiled by the Economist ™, n figures supplied in a British White Paacr issued in March:

Losses in Gross Tons. I'oroign , , U.K. countries. World. 'OH* 468,728 212.G35 681,363 l'»I5 1,103,373 021,311 1,721,720 1!»6 1,197,8(8 1,300,018 2,707,866 1017 1>000.537 2,614,086 6,623,628 Total ... 7,079,11)2 4,7-IS,OSO 11,827,562 Building, in Gross Tons. 19 I-γ 675,610 337,310 1,012 9"l) 1015 650,919 551,081 1,202,000 1916 511,552 1,11G,11S 1,658,f100 1017 1,103,17-1 1,5119,881 2,703,355 Total .... 3,031,555 3,574,720 6,60G,275 Enemy Vessels Captured, in Gross Tons. 1814* 753,500 -153,000 1,211,500 10)5 11,500 7,500 19,000 1916 3,500 236,500 300,000 1917 11,500 1,017,000 1,058,500 Total .... 780,000 1,809,000 2.559.000 'August-December. An epitome- of the stato of. British, Allied, and neutral shipping from the outbreak of war to wie end of 1917 is given as follows: — United Kingdom. Gross tons. Losses 7,079,192 - Gains 3,811,555 Net loss 3,267,937 l-'oreign. Gains 5,383,720 Losses -1,(48,000 Net gain 635,(140 World. I/issM J 1,827,572 Gains 9,195,275 Net loss 2,6:12,897 The combined effect of the enemy submarine campaign and ordinary casualties of the- sea during more than three years of war was thus to reduce the shipping available to tho Allies and neutrals by 2,633,000 tons, or eight per cent of the prewar total. ""Against this reduction, however, there is to be set the fact that the methodical organisation of shipping and its concentration on essential services have made it possible to turn a given tonnage to much better account than in pre-

war days. For instance, a Government statement lately issued showed that last year, in spite of an estimated fall of twenty per cent, in the available tonnage, the. volume of imports into the United Kingdom in British ships fsil by only two per cent. The later developments of tho campaign arc not of a nature to encourage the enemy to hope for better results as time , goes on. The rate of loss is British and foreign merchant ships whan the campaign was at its height last year has been reduced by one-half. In view of the rapid expansion and development of the naval counteroffensive there is every reason to believe that the rate will continue to fall, and that the destruction of submarines will simultaneously be increased, from this time forward. At the same time the outlook in the matter _ of shipping construction is promising. Von Capellb seeks comfort in the fact that tho output from tho British yards dropped by 50,000 tons in April as compared with March, but the actual explanation of_ tho drop is that in April the shipyards concentrated on repair work as distinct from new construction. As soon as the rate for March becomes normal, Britain will be turning out merchant ships as fast as in any pre-war year. But there is no thought of stopping at such an output. Sin Euio Geddes has declared that it is'within the present capacity of _ British shipyards to reach an ultimate capacity of 3,000,000 tons per annum. The German Naval Minister is on still weaker ground in depreciating the American production of merchant shipping. It may be some time before America achieves her object of producing 6,000,000 tons of shipping per annum, but the latest available figures of her output—lCG,7OO' tons in March—indicate that sho is already turning out ships at a faster rate than has ever been reached in Great Britain. Tho position was epitomised by Admiral Sims a few days ago when he stated that the curve of new construction would this week pass the curve of destruction by submarines. The efforts of the submarines are already neutralised, and there is every prospect of a rapid expansion in the output of new tonnage and simultaneously of a rapid reduction in the number of enemy submarines and in the efficiency of those that, for the time, survive. These are the facts which Von Capellb is endeavouring to withhold from the German public,