NAVAL CONSTRUCTION

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 192, 10 May 1921, Page 5

NAVAL CONSTRUCTION

LESSONS OF THE WAR

“BRITAIN LEADS THE WAY”

The “big ship” controversy was touched upon in a most interesting paper read by Sir Eustace T. D’Eyncourt to the members of the Institution of Naval Architects, whose spring meetings commenced at the Royal United Service Institution. London, on March 16 (reports the “Daily Telegraph”).

Dealing with “Some Features of German Warship Construction,” Sir Eustace said that since the war there had been an opportunity of examining some of the recent productions of the German constructors, and the view previously held had been confirmed tliat during the war Great Britain led tho way, not only in the personnel, but also in the naval material. There were a few points, no doubt, in which the Germans excelled. They had got ahead of us in developing Diesel engines, especially as adapted to submarines, and had produced engines with cylinders developing 300 horseagainst our standard engines which'only developed 100 h.p. In finite, however, of this handicap, we had submarines which excelled those of. the Germans both in speed and in armament. But the outstanding impression conveyed by a comparison of British and German battle-cruiser designs is that the former were built for attack, as they are superior in calibre of heavy guns, in speed, and ahead fire, while the latter were built for defence and a retiring action, ns relatively more weight has been given to protection than armament, and up to the Derfflinger the heavy guns developed a maximum fire aft. It is interesting to record this, as it shows that the naval .strategists of both nations correctly foresaw the part which these ships were likely to play. Jinking a comparison of the battleship designs, it is shown in the particulars of the German ships that they generally followed in our wake. In the arrangement of the armament they also generally followed our lead, and in the main features it is difficult to discover any, point of superiority in the German designs. Immunity from Torpedo Attack. IVith the exception, perhaps, of the Lutzow, which was first disabled by gunfire, no modern capital ship of either side of date later than Dreadnought was sunk in tho whole war by torpedo—a fact which should be kept in mind by those who talk about the vulnerability of modern capital ships to under-water attack. As regards torpedo craft, a careful investigation shows that tho Germans generally followed the British practice in size, increased speed, and heavier armament. They paid great attention to reductions of weight, but there is no question that their boats had not the seakeeping qualities of the British contemporary craft. Coming to the question of submarines, Sir Eustace brought out the interesting fact that the Germans never produced a boat of the speed of our K boats, nor did they adopt steam for the surface speed as we were obliged to do in our K vessels to get tho high power required. During the last ten mouths of the war the numbers of submarines completed by the Germans only slightly exceeded the number lost, 80; in fact, the rate of their destruction was steadily and rapidly increasing compared to the r.ate of production. This fact should be considered carefully by those who advocate the adoption of submarines io the exclusion of other types of warships. “To sum up,” he concluded, “it is quite evident that in all their later designs the primary object held in view in the design of the German submarines was the attacking of commerce, and not so much the use of the submarines against warships in fact, the longer the war wont on the more it became eyidon tliat the submarine, whilst admirably adapted for the destruction of more or less defenceless merchant ships, became, as anti-submarine measures progressed, less and less effective against naval ships, and more and more liable to destrucIn the discussion which followed Admiral Tudor (Board of Admiralty) observed that our torpedo boats had always been in advance of the Germans, and he thought we had reached the limit of useful submarines. About twenty years advance in peace construction was made in three years of the war, and the country was to be congratulated on having Sir Eustace d’Eyncourt at the head of construction. ~ ~ . Admiral Sir Alfred Chatfield said this post-mortem examination enabled them to come to the conclusion that in the designs of our ships we had little to learn from our late foe.

Unfulfilled Trade Hopes. The Duke of Northumberland, who was elected president of the institution, said when they compared the position to-day as regarded ship-building with what' it was a year ago it would be idle to deny that the hopes of reconstruction and revival of trade which then existed had not been fulfilled. “We are faced to-dav,” he continued, "with one of those' periodical phases of depression which ship-building, like every other industry. has encountered. That ve should be confronted after a war of unparalleled magnitude with such a period was, I suppose, foreseen by everybody; but 1 believe that even the most experienced and far-sighted business man never anticipated that it would come so early and so suddenly. Tins result has, doubt been hastened and rendered more acute by a. host of factors which are not directly connected with the war. Among the results which are, of course, duo to the latter cause are the condition of Central Europe, the state of the foreign exchanges, the genei al d location of trade and industry, and ti e overwhelming burden of taxation in all the belligerent countries; but we have Been and are to-day, suffering fromi a T en ’ <• to the ranks of Labour which i3™allv not due to the war at all, and which is the most pressing of all proble Referring to the future policy of naval construction, the Duke said there had heen a somewhat heated controversy recentli the Press on the subject, in which the whole future of „Fl ir . nolicv at sea was at stake. We m this Muntrv ” added the speaker, “may pride pelves on the fact that we have succeeded in solving similar problems in the past If we have not always been first whicT’consists in tho adaptation of weans io an end, which sees the good clearlv before it, and with a due sense of proportion avoiding all extreme courses of action, utilises every invention ot science for tho attainment and ance of that object which- is the end and Mm of all our efforts— Britain s supremacy at sea. In that; task this institution may he .relied *° P ln i ns glorious a role in the future ns has always done in the past.