EMPHASIS ON AIR STRENGTH

Dominion, Volume 33, Issue 192, 10 May 1940, Page 8

EMPHASIS ON AIR STRENGTH

All arresting feature of the House of Commons debate was the emphasis laid by Mr. Winston Churchill on air strength as a factor governing Allied war tactics. Answering the question as to why Britain and France had not so far wrested the initiative from Germany, he referred to the past years in which aircraft construction had been numerically inadequate, and added that until the position weie lectifiea we would be “condemned to a great deal of suffering and danger. After stating that a direct attack on Trondheim had not been attempted because the enemy’s local air superiority made the risk disproportionate, he disclosed that for the same reason it has been considered advisable to employ submarines, and not surface ships, for the blockade of the Skagerrak. This was very plain, frank speaking. Assuming that Mr. Churchill was stating the case without regard for any consideration other than the need for the country to face facts, it calls for a complete abandonment of complacency. Recent comment on air strength combines with the speeches ot both Mr. Churchill and the Air Minister, Sir Samuel Hoare, to provide a fairly clear picture of the position. In setting out to overtake Germany’s numerical lead in aircraft construction Biitain and France have concentrated primarily on fighters, so as to ensure the adequacy of home defence and gain air superiority on the Western Front. In this direction gratifying progress and success have been achieved. Already neutral estimates credit the Allies with parity if not numerical superiority in fighter, craft, and the skirmishes of the past eight months have shown beyond doubt that, machine for machine and man for man, our fighter force can cope with the enemy s bombeis as well as his fighters. Thus may be explained Hitler’s reluctance to strike direct at Britain or France in the air. If he strikes anywhere within reach of our short-range fighter fleet his force can be dealt with. . . In bombers and general-purpose machines of long range the Allies, apparently, are still comparatively deficient. Such machines arc weapons of offense, and in this sphere, as Mr. Churchill has said, we are “at a serious disadvantage—one which cannot be speedily removed.” Not only are our offensive air operations limited in scope (as has been demonstrated in Norway) but our naval strength cannot be' used to the best effect in distant harbour waters because of the lack of aerial cover for fleet operations. Germany s success in bombing attacks on warships has been meagre, but the events in Norway suggest that this type of attack on naval vessels can in certain circumstances be dangerous enough to necessitate restrictive caution. Though Mr. Churchill has made it clear that the disparity in offensive aircraft cannot be removed overnight, the outlook -in the long view—is heartening. Britain’s factories, according to Sii Samuei Hoare, last month created a new output record. Ihe Government is able to purchase—and has ordered—large numbers of the latest American bombers, and is also building bombers in Canada. France is also supporting her own building with extensive purchases in the United States. In addition, the Empire training scheme is steadily developing. But complacency and leisurely methods must be banished. What is called for is a vigorous speeding-up of the programme, including the fullest possible contribution of air trainees and equipment from every part of the Empire.