THE CONVOY SYSTEM

Evening Star, Issue 23368, 11 September 1939, Page 8

THE CONVOY SYSTEM

BRITAIN'S ANTI-SUBMARINE TACTICS NEW METHODS OF DETECTION The recent announcement by Mr Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty, that it was proposed immediately. to institute the convoy system to safeguard merchant ships from the submarine menace lends interest to the statement on this subject and on anti-submarine defence generally made by Mr Shakespeare, Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, when the Navy Kstimates were being considered by the House of Commons on March 16 When lie assured the House that as a result of over two years’ close cooperation between the Admiralty and the leaders of the shipping industry they would be ready to institute a system of convoys soon after the outbreak of war on any route where it was considered necessary, he was simply stating a fact which the Merchant Service knew, said Mr Shakespeare. The methods of convoy, all the arrangements and equipments, and the training of the personnel had been examined and preparations were well advanced. . . There were now in stock sufficient anti-submarine guns to meet all expected requirements. Over 2,000 could be made immediately available for the Merchant Service, and the organisation for maintaining them was complete. Though the stiffening of the deck of a merchant ship to curry guns was not a lengthy operation, they had not been content to wait till the emergency arose. The process of stiffening one deck to take defensive armament was started in 1937, and by the end of the year it is expected that about 1,000 would have been so stiffened. This effect required the close co-op-eration of shipowners, as the stiffening could only be carried out when the ships were made available for a sufficient time. Over 9,000 officers of the Merchant Navy had already attended courses in convoy protection or gunnery, and courses were being continued thus year for seamen. At the outbreak of war a large number of ships were directly taken over for anti-submarine work by the Navy. These vessels had been earmarked and the appropriate armament and equipment for all these vessels was already in stock. If science had stood still, if there had been no new developments in antisubmarine warfare, the adoption of a system of convoy on the outbreak of war would by itself enable ns to deal with the menace of the submarine. But science had not stood still. He could not reveal the nature of the advance, but he could say that he believed our methods of detecting, hunting, and killing submarines were more advanced than any others in the world. •He (Mr Shakespeare) had taken part in a hunt for submerged submarines whose position was unknown, and he had imposed conditions which satisfied him as to the bona fides of the test, in case the scientists were taking advantage of the gullibility of the layman. In nine cases out of 10, without any doubt, the exact position of the submarine was detected. The right hon. member for Epping, who had satisfied himself in a similar way of the progress made in this development, would contradict if he thought that was exaggerated. Mr Churchill: No, I agree. Mr Shakespeare, continuing, said that the Admiralty did not claim that this method was infallible under all conditions. Under certain conditions, particularly with inexperienced crews, failures would occur. But he claimed that the proved success of convoys and the development of scientific methods of detection put them in a better position to deal with the menace of the submarine. That did not mean that they would not need to continue their efforts to create a largo pool of anti-subraatine vessels for these purposes.