NAVAL PARITY

Hokitika Guardian, 3 January 1930, Page 7

NAVAL PARITY

BE IT AIN AND AMERICA

[United Press Association—By Electric

Telegraph.—Copyright.}

LONODN, December 31

The naval contributor of the “Daily Telegraph” has reason to anticipate that the United States will demand at least twenty-nine 10,000-ton cruisers that ■ number being three more than Mr MacDonald suggested to General Dawes. It is understod that the Washington Navy Department wanted twent-three, but was over-ruled. The oompartive position of 10,000 ton cruisers mounting eight-inch guns would lie: Cruisers. Guns. United States ... 21 191 British Umpire 15 116 Tne l British figure includes two cruisers of 8,100. The American fleet would therefore have an advantage of seventy-five eight-inch guns. On the other hand, Britain would 'be granted a surplus of small cruisers, displacing about 5500 tons, and carrying six-incli guns.. It is pointed out that the arrangements gives the United States cruiser superiority. Naval circles are unable to understand why, as the British Empire possesses fifteen eight-inch gun cruisers, built or building, and the -nited States has thirteen, the parity problem cannot be solved by America building two additional cruisers and then, like Britain, confined her building activities to small cruisers mounting six-inch guns.

EXPERTS 'SHOULD JUDGE,

NAVY LEAGUE! VIEW;.

LONDON, December 31

“The Emden and Karlsruhe incidents during tire Great War, illustrate most clearly the indisputable fact that the cruiser requirements of the British Empire cannot lie measured by the naval strengh of other nations,” says Lord Linlithgow, President of the Navy League, in his New Year messags. “'l'lie length and importance of oilitrade routes,” lie adds, “and the immense difficulties of b inging action against hostile commerce raiders must necessarily govern our cruiser requirements Naval experts alone : .aro capable of translating the terms of British policy into the nee is for fighting ships for vital security.”