MEETING U-BOAT THREAT

Dominion, Volume 36, Issue 99, 21 January 1943, Page 5

MEETING U-BOAT THREAT

Seriousness Realized DIVERGENT VIEWS IN BRITAIN

(By Telegraph.—Press Jssn.—Copyright.) (Special Correspondent.) (Received January 20, 9.30 p.m.) LONDON, January 19. “Tlie shipping losses of the United Nations are alarming.” “The full seriousness of tlie U-boat menace is still not widely realized.” "The U-boat attack in the Atlantic has become a ■major factor in winning or losing tlie war.” ’These are some of Ihe comments from recent discussions of U-boat warfare. It is a many-sided question and there- are widely differing views. For instance, should faster merchantmen be built? Should bombers be used fur bombing submarine production in Germany or should more Coastal Com muml and Fleet Air Arm aircraft be built? Would it not be better to hate an anti-U-boat committee comprising whole-time members instead of the 1 rune Minister, tlie Minister of Aircraft i induction and the Chiefs of Staff who arc already the busiest men in I lie Kingdom. Admiral Sir ugh Tweedie raised me question of whether the merchant shipping now being built is sufficiently fust, lint the First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr. Alexander, replied that more skilled labour would lie required to build luster ships while, if all the slow ships were replaced by fast, the loss of importing capacity would amount to IS per cent. Minister Assailed. Mr. Alexander added a comment which Mr. Shinwell, M.P., described as “one ot the most amazing statements produced by the war situation, which has been prolific in queer, unsound Ministerial <leclarations.” Mr. Alexander s comment war: “The losses in fast and slow ships are about the same. If we had only fast ships we would still have to face au expanding number of U-boats and wou.d probably get a higher percentage oi losses.” , , Mr. Shinwell is among those advocating faster ships. Pointing out that the Americans are building them and the Japanese have already done so, he adds: “Hitler has something like 700 submarines available.- With anything upward of 400 foundries throughout Europe, he is able to draw up a programme of inland construction which is making it possible for U-boats to be replaced at a greater rate than they are being destroyed. His great hope of victory lies in being able to smash up the sea communications of the Allied Nations.” , There are apparently differences ot opinion as to whether heavy bombers should be used to bomb production points and one air view is that bombers should operate against factories and assembly points as well as against U-boats at sea. Drain on Skilled Airmen. One opposing naval view is that bombing Germany is prodigal of skilled airmen and the national energy and that unless and until the needs of the seagoing trade protection forces —sea ami air-— have been fully met, the bombing of production points in Germany is “an injudicious ami extravagant diversion of strength from the decisive point—the vicinity of convoys.” It is stated that there is a mid-Atlun-tie “gap” over which land-based aircraft cannot extend from Britain or America, which naval escorts go some way toward bridging, but in which most of the sinkings occur. The opinion is expressed that many more small, auxiliary carries are required for that purpose. Ju view of the seriousness -of Üboat menace, these controversial viewpoints are not unexpected, but if they indicate some uneasiness, they also show a determination to improve the position.