NAVAL CONFERENCE

Gisborne Times, Volume LXX, Issue 11124, 6 February 1930, Page 5

NAVAL CONFERENCE

BRITAIN’S TONNAGE LIMITATION COMPROMISE.

CONDITIONAL TRANSFERS IN 810 SHIP CATEGORIES.

ABOLITION OF SUBMARINES STILL SUPPORTED.

(British Official Wireless.) RUGBY', Feb. -1

At a meeting of the iii'st committee. of the Five-Potver Naval Conference the hirst Lord of the Admiralty, -Mr. A. V. Alexander, represented Great. Britain and put forward his Government’s proposals regarding the compromise plan for co-ordinating the category and global theories for tonnage limitation. These proposals are framed so gs to facilitate discussion and to elicit the views of the different delegations. V 'lUie British suggestions differ in certain respects from th'e transactional proposals of the French memorandum published last- week. Tho French scheme permitted the limited transference of tonnage through all categories.. The British proposals do not permit of a transfer in the categories of battleships and aircraft carriers, and visualise only a limited transfer of tonnage downwards from the large cruiser class—that is those with guns of Gin or smaller calibre, ami of destroyers, a transfer however, would allow the nations to .meet their individual requirements by devoting, :f they so desired, the whole of the tonnage allotted to them for light cruisers and destroyers to .the building -/it light cruisers only or of destroyers only.

There is im mention of a transfer to or from the submarine class, but officially tlie British delegation still supports the abolition of submarines. It has in fact made something of a gesture by cancelling tlrree submarines in tins year’s construction programme and has suspended work on others until after the end of the iinancial year. Incidentally, the case of the submarine is a clear indication of the weakness of the theory, since the tonnage in submarines and tlio tonnage in, say, cruisers are obviously not; interchangeable units.

The British Iproposfals were circulated to the delegations yeste” day to facilitate the preliminary examination of other problems before the conference, and are now being taken up in private- and informal conversations, this method of exploration having been found at great I assistance in preparing the path to the more formal discussions. RIVAL NAVIES. BRITAIN AND AMERICA. Unit ml Press Assn, by El. Tel. Copyriebt LONDON, Feb. -1. Beyond 'referring . the inquiries to the Bluo Book published lain, month the Admiralty is not disposed to give comparative liguros of the British and United States Heels since tlio British suspensions of building were announced last week. Tlio. following table, however, gives tho latest comparisons: Battleships, British 10, United States 18. Battle cruisers, British 1, United States nil. Cruisers (units and tonnages respectively), British 51—527,151, United States 1-i—3(1,001. Building, British -1—39,810, l nited States 18—180,000. Projected, British in 1 . U S-—5. 50,000. Thus Britain has built cruisers 231,130 tous in excess if U.o l lilted States, whilst the latter is building /113.200, tons in excess. Britain also lias 50,000 tons m excess projected. Thus the cruiser tonnage totals are: Britain, built, building, and projected, 303,231 tons; United States, 320,001 tens.

The British grand lota! excludes tlie four recent suspensions, which the Admiralty suites p-obably equal 37,000 tons. Tlie following are built or building: Destroyers, British 152, United States 309; submarines, British 63, United States 173.