PROGRESS OF THE WAR

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 275, 9 August 1918, Page 4

PROGRESS OF THE WAR

New light is cast upon the long, grim struggle between the Allied naval forces and the U-boats 'in the announcement attributed to Me.' LloyD;George that tho total number of German submarines sunk is one hundred and fifty, and that of this number half were sunk during tho last twelve months. Authoritative Admiralty statements had already established the fact that submarines aro being destroyed faster than tho enemy is able to replace, them. In a speech delivered late in May, Mr. Lloyd George quoted-an Admiralty report to the effect that the Naval Staff was satisfied that since the beginning of the year the Allied navies had sunk more submarines than had been built. The British Prime Minister mentioned on tho saino occasion that moro U-boats were sunk in April last than iu any previous month. More recently, in July, Loud Jellicoe said that submarines were being destroyed faster than they .were .being built; and only a few days ago Mr. Bokar Law told the House of Commons that the Navy was sinking U-boats faster than over.

With the fact thus clearly established that U-boats arc being destroyed faster than they can be replaced, the figures given by Mr. Lloyd George appear in their, full value and significance. Many people no doubt will be surprised that the total of submarines 'destroyed is not larger, but the explanation evidently is that exaggerated accounts have been given of the output of new' submarines in Germany. Wide currency was given somc'tinie ago to a report that three submarines were being completed in German yards every week. Building at this rate, Germany would have turned .out in one year more submarines than are now shown to have beon destroyed in the whole course of the war. It. is now evident that her actual rate of construction has been much slower. The* point should bo-noted that the figures supplied by Mr. Lloyd George do not cover Germany's total losses of submarines from all causes. In the first place, as he is reported, he speaks' only of submarines sunk, and says nothing of the number captured. _ This number is certainly appreciable, _ and may be considerable. But it is much more important that in addition to the U-boats accounted for by Allied naval forces many are assuredly lost throuizh striking mines and from causes coming under the general head of misadventure. An appreciable percentage of the comparatively small number of submarines ' put into commission before tho war succumbed to various accidents. Under existing conditions the seas through which the Üboats ply aro sown with mines. Tho boats themselves aro often of hasty construction, manned by inexperienced or partly-trained crews, and commanded by officers who have had limited opportunities of mastering the art of underwater navigation. The conclusion is therefore fully warranted tha<> Germany loses many submarines other than those that are engaged and sunk by Allied patrols. In the statement which appears to-day Mr. Lloyd George no doubt adhered exactly, or very closely, to an Admiralty record of U-boats definitely known to have been sunk. But while his figures cannot be regarded as completely covering the enemy's losses, they make- it fairly certain that the rate at, which Germany is capable of •constructing and manning new submarines has been greatly exaggerated.

Mr. Lloyd George's statement is above all impressive and cheering in the plain evidence it affords of tho tremendously increased effectiveness of Allied anti-submarine measures during tho last twelve months as compared with the preceding course of the war, which included the worst period of the enemy's intensive campaign. Tho magnitudo of the achievement is best realised by 'comparing losses of Allied and neutral merchant . shipping, and losses of submarines in those two periods. Presumably, Mr. Lloyd George took as the dividing line the end of tho June quarter of 1917. In the first of these periods, covering thirty-two months, from tho outbreak of war to the end of June, 1917, Allied and neutral nations lost 0,061,250 tons of shipping.by enemy action and marine risks, and in the same period 75 submarines were sunk by Allied forces. In the Eccoml period of twelve, months to the end of _ June last, .Allied and neutral whipping losses totalled d,8:57,<]04 tons, and in "the past twelve months," which closely approximates to this period, 75 TJboats wero sunk by the Allies. Tho comparison is affected to some extent by tho fact that in each caso .losses by. Marino risk as well ae by b

enemy action arc included, and by the inclusion in the earlier total of ships interned in enemy ports or sunk by surface raiders, but making full allowance for these factors _ it strikingly illustrates and emphasises the defeat of tho submarine.

Twelve months ago, according to a recent statement by the First Lord„of the Admiralty, enemy sub- v marines were not being destroyed as fast as they were being built. It follo-ffs that at the beginning of that period the U-boat flotillas were at their maximum strength. Used unsparingly, these flotillas have destroyed an enormous amount of shipping, but in the process as many submarines were destroyed as while nearly twice the tonnage of Allied and neutral shipping was being destroyed in tho previous course of the war. Tho position now reached is that while Allied and neutral shipping losses' are diminishing, Üboats aro being destroyed at an increasing rate, and tho strength of the enemy flotillas has declined from the maximum, and is still declining. On top of this the construction of new shipping in Allied and neutral countries already exceeds losses from all causes, including enemy action, to the extent of as nearly as possible 100,000 tons per- month. .* * * K

There is no reason to doubt that the defeat of the U-boats will be intensified steadily, if not rapidly, as time goes on. Britain is still adding heavily to her enormously increased naval forces employed in protecting sea routes _ and in hunting down submarines, and America is turning out destroyers and other mobile craft at a rate probably never before approached in the history of naval construction. The particulars of British and American merchant ship construction which appear to-day also, in their aggregate effect, afford substantial grounds for confidence. British construction, it is true, has to an extent disappointed expectations. Particulars' supplied to-day show that in the twelve months which ended on July 31, tho now merchant- shipping constructed in British yards amounted to 1,490,025 tons, rather more than 400,000 tons short of tho output in the record pre-war year. From the purely British point of view, the position has its serious aspects, hut the Allies as a group have passed the danger point where shipping is concerned. It has all along been recognised that much would depend upon the American effort in this department, and there is no doubt_ that herc,_ as in other things, America is making good. The figures of American construction for July mark a great achievement. The British Shipping Controller, Sir Joseph Maclav, is not given to enthusiastic optimism, and he laid it dowtj some timo ago that in order to meet requirements the United States must produce six million tons of new merchant shipping per annum. He is credited to-day with the statement that the American tonnage figures afford a further guarantee of the defeat of the submarine,' and a.n absolute* assurance that America's military effort, vast as it is, will not be hampered for lack of tonnage.

M. Rutin's prediction that the Germans, will open an early offensive against the British armies - on the West front commends itself on some grounds as reasonable. The adventure would not bs undertaken with hopeful prospects, but in the eyes of the German High Command even the most desperate gamble may seem preferable to the abandonment of the ambitious plan with which it opened_ this year s campaign. Gor many is in a position meantime to turn from the Western offensive to an attack on Italy or the Allied forces in Macedonia. A defensive policy in the West would no doubt enable her also to extend her exploitation of Russia. But she could hardly hope in any of these enterprises to gain such advantages' as would simplify the increasingly serious problems by which she is faced in the Western theatre. A,i attack on the British front is not a hopeful way of escape from her growing difficulties, but it may command acceptance as the only way which offers a possibility of escape. If Germany sees any hope of effectively supporting, her land'forces by risking, or even sacrificing, her fleet, she will no doubt do so without hesitation. Meantime .her .intentions arc purely 'a matter of conjecture, but it is fairly certain that the Allies would welcome such ah attack as M. 7lutin predicts.