The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1907. THE BRITISH NAVY.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2068, 20 December 1907, Page 2

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1907. THE BRITISH NAVY.

The Hon. 11 . B. Haldane’s warning that Britain cannot, expect to maintain her “two-power” standard in naval construction for any very lengthy period is precisely what might have been expected by any who havo gif veil this matter serious consideration'. Tlio British navy has a glorious record which is rightly one of the proudest heritages of tho Britisher in every Hand, and it is eminently satisfactory to feel that our supremacy at sea is still incontestable. The inhabitants of tho “tight little isles” whom Napoleon contemptuously described as a nation of shopkeepers are still more dependent today than then upon their foreign commerce, and in order to protect their stupendous array of mercantile marine it has been laid down as an axiom that Britain must have at all times a navy capable of defeating the combined navies of any two world powers. To conform to this exacting standard the taxpayers of England have willingly submitted to almost unbearable taxation, for they have always been taught to regard the supremacy of tho navy as a necessary insurance of their trade and of their existence. In the nature of tilings, however, the two-power standard cannot be maintained indefinitely-. After all, naval and military efficiency is limited by the wealth of the nations concerned, and, as Mr. Haldane evidently realises, it is absurd to expect the people of England with a population of 44,000,000 and scarcely room for them, to provide as inti.li money for naval purposes a’s the combined peoples of Germany and the United States with their respective populations of 60,000,000 and 90,600,000. As a matter of fact it is exceedingly questionable whether GreatBritain is actually maintaining the two-power standard at tho present time. Taking the mere, number of battleships, cruisers, torpedo boats, torpedo boat destroyers and submarines, Great Britain’s navy had in May of last year 467 as against 220 for Germany, 293 Russia, 134 United States and 168 Japan. Obviously mcro numbers of all classes, however, cannot bo taken to indicato accurately the -relative strength of the various navies, but if only first-class battleships and cruisers are selected from tho list the Old Country’s position is still reassuring. Still even these figures cannot be accepted as proving much,for a good deal depends upon the ago of the- vessels and tlieir guu power. 11l this latter -respect a writer in the “AVorld’s AYork” quotes some facts which certainly give Britain no claim to holding a two-power standard at the present time. The following is an extract from, tlio article in question: Gun-power and protection aro therefore left as tho sole indisputable moans of comparison, and since there aro no records of ships being much hurt from their armour being penotrated (it has very rarely, indeed, been penetrated at all), guns remain the chief criterion. Gun comparisons are very easily made by any one, because penetrations aro known factors, and though the actual penetrativepower means but little, everything that really matters is still implied. For example, the 35 calibre 12-in. can, firing capped A.P., penetrate on the proving round 11,} in. of K.C. at •3000 yards: the 40-calibre 16 in v the 45-calibre 171 in-' or more. Their relative accuracies aro in something like this ratio at 6000 vard.s; outside that tho shorter guns drop off a great deal more, and tile man who makes excellent long-range shooting from tho Dreadnought would drop liis shots all round tho target from the ’Majestic, simply because of liis inferior weapon. Hence the theory of a Dreadnought steaming round a fleet of Majesties at- extreme range and destroying them one by one. So far as fleets are concerned, this is rather theory than fact, because such pretty adjustments cannot be made with fleets. For that matter, they can rarely he made on a war-game table. Damage to a single unit may slow the fastest Heet and comparatively close quarters he reached, as at Tsushima. But—nnd the point lies here —the fleet with the longest ranging and most accurate guns at long range will certainly get in first- blow, and that is certainly half the victory—if not more. In ships carrying modern guns, able nominally to jjenetrate at least 16-in. K.C. at 5000 yards, the total numbers of ships ready at the end of this year, and ready b.y the end of 1910, are as follows: 1907 1910 British 24 33 United* States of America 19 24 French 9 13 Japanese 8 16 Italian 4 6 Russian 3 7 German 0 6 Tiro {Powers 28 37 Germany's very low position is due to the low-powered guns she has till now fitted. -Ten of her ships have an 11- 40-calibre gun, but it- is little, if at all, superior to the 35-calibre 12- in our Majestic and Canopus classes, which would not be handicapped against it. Nothing would he easier than the wiping out of the existing German fleet by our best-ships if long range could be maintained.

I The most startling figures—starti ling because they are altogether miJ realise!I —aro, ’however, those"t’mrbcojicern' the -really modern gun, equal or superior to the pieces ol tho Dreadnought. , , . , . The number ol completed ships moulding such guns United States of America 7 12 Japanese 3 12 French 3 0 British 1 19 German 0 6 Two Powers 10 24 Tho only consoling foaturo of the above comparisons are that they are made by an American, who may lie inclined to exaggerate the strength- of Uncle Sam’s navy with consequent disparagement to others. Allowing, however, for tlio difficulty in making effective comparisons tho fact remains that while Britain is spending 33 million pounds annually on naval construction and maintenance —tin enormous sum lor her population-—the United iStates is spending 24 million and Germany 18 million. Hence it is only a question of a few years when at tho present rate of expenditure —and it is difficult to see hew Britain can substantially increase hers —the two-power standard will be a dream of the past. What may be I tho ultimate result of this condition | it is of course, impossible to indicate, ! but it certainly seems to have been I a wise move on the part of British statesmen to have abandoned in lccent years tho old position of “splendid isolation” and to havo arranged alliances and agreements with other powers whero these can, possibly be brought about. It also appears to bo a particularly opportune move on the part of the Commonwealth to sot about tho construction of an Australian navy so that when the day comes that the Mother country may bo hard put to it to protect her own shores tho Britishers at this corner of tho globe may bo able to do somef.liimr in llieir own defence.