WE SHALL WIN

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume 52, Issue 3264, 17 May 1943, Page 7

WE SHALL WIN

BATTLE OF WOLF PACKS THREAT IN THE ATLANTIC COMBATING THE SUBMARINES Rear-Admiral E. S. Land describes the three ways in which the Allies are meeting the submarine threat. We shall win, he predicts. Admiral Land is chairman of the U.S. Maritime Commission and Administrator, War Shipping Administration. The greatest threat confronting the Axis is the steady translation of American resources and industrial might into fighting power. Germany, Italy and Japan know that the strength of this nation, added to the already fully mobilised forces of our Allies, will eventually .crush them unless by some means they can prevent complete utilisation of that power in the grand strategy of the United Nations. * This is the reason for Germany’s intensive submarine campaign in the Atlantic. If the Nazis are to avert the full impact of American productive power on the battlefront, they must neutralise that power before it can be hurled against them. Since they have not destroyed our cities, shipyards and factories, they must concentrate on attempting to send our ships to the bottom. i One Phase of Challenge The “Battle of the Atlantic” is but one phase of our efforts to meet the challenge. It has been a spectacular phase, and one in which the naval forces, the air forces and the merchant marine of* the United States -and Great Britain have distinguished themselves. But other phases of the war of production and transportation have been carried on with eqtial intensity and are having their effect in gradually wearing down the power of Germany’s under-sea “wolf packs.”

The submarine threat to the maintenance of our Transatlantic lifelines is being met in three ways: (1) By striking at enemy submarine construction, repair and servicing bases, (2) by accepting the challenge at sea through convoy and patrol operations and (3) by building new merchant ships to replace our losses and to increase our available tonnage. Information about the first two items is restricted, for reasons of military censorship and security. Concerning the third item, one may express some very definite views. Speed of Shipbuilding The question most frequently asked of those administering the merchant ship-building programme is: “Are we building ships at a rate faster than the rate of sinkings?” The implication is that the United States has set out to solve the sinking problem by sending out more ships than the Nazis can sink. The question seems imply the placing of an unfair buiden of responsibility upon the shipbuilder when, in fact, the answer to the problem is only part in his hands. The fortunes of war are subject to much more rapid change on the battlefront than on the production front. The rate of sinkings can rise or fall more quickly than the rate of shipbuilding. Moreover, as I have frequently emphasised, you can sink a ship far faster than you can build one —even in these times when we are turning out Liberty Ships in an average time of 55 days.

Whether submarine activity will' grow worse in the future is something one cannot predict. It is a fact, however, that this type of naval thrust at our shipping is more active in the winter months, when nights are longer and conditions at sea are less favourable to surface craft and more favourable to submarine operations. With the coming of spring and summer it is possible that we may see some slackening off in the activity of German U-boats. But that will be governed by the exigencies of war. The Nazis, we may be sure, will send their submarines wherever they are most useful as the United Nations press onward with the offensive begun in the closing weeks of 1942. Submarines go where “the fishing is besl.” . • Another factor we must consider in dealing with the submarine problem is that Germany has greatly increased the number, range and striking power of her undersea craft in this war. Submarines able to cruise from 60 to 90 days in a 12,000 to 15,000-mile radius are hunting down our cargo vessels. Indications are that they fire torpedoes with greater explosive power than we have know heretofore. Apparently the objective is to make sure a ship sinks and that as many of, i s crew as possible are killed. Thus c?n the enemy prevent the salvaging and repair of vessels and the return of the crews to ship out again in new berths. Ouv and ma.K.ng contact with thv-a su .

have found them to be tougher customers than the older types. The new Nazi U-boats can stand heavy depth charges at fairly close range without suffering sufficient damage to prevent their getting away. The fact that we have moved so many men and so much material across the Atlantic in the short space of a few months is a distinct credit to the United States and British navies. It is a credit also to the men of the merchant marine who have been “taking- it on the chin” on the front line ever since the war began. There have been many sinkings of merchant vessels, but there have been sinkings of submarines, too. The records of the Maritime Commission and War Shipping Administration contain the stories of many acts of heroism on the part of merchant seamen who have stood up to everything the enemy could offer in the form of shell and torpedo fire. Navy’s Protection The Navy has been giving our merchant ships protection, both in providing convoy vessels and in furnishing armed guards aboard the ships. The Army Air Forces have rendered valuable assistance. The Navy gun crews have been effective in fightingoff submarine and airplane attacks and they have given the merchant ship some real chance of fighting back.

The patrol operations and air attacks on German submarine bases and construction plants have had a favourable effect on the situation. It is apparent that the Germans are now building and repairing submarines under huge protective domes • of.'concrete —an indication of the effectiveness of Allied air attacks. Prime Minister Churchill recently announced that in 11 months in 1942 the submarine yards at Hamburg had been attacked 93 times, at Wilhelmshaven 69 times and at Kiel 70' times. In the same period submarine bases were attacked 41 times at St. Nazaire, 97 times at*Le Havre, 56 times at Lorient, 76 times at Cherbourg and 113 times at Brest.

Now we come to another phase of the Atlantic battle—our effort to replace vessels and to increase tonnage. The amazing progress of shipbuilding in the United .States during the last year is an indication of the ingenuity and enterprise of the 'American people and our determination to win this war. Fortunately, a fair had been made on the Maritime Commission’s long-range programme when the call for sudden expansion; of facilities and steppingup of the programme came with the outbreak of war in Europe in 1939. At that time the commission was working on its schedule of building 50 ships a year for 10 years, and some of these vessels had already been turned out. The start was slow, but the progress has been rapid and gratifying if not startling. To speed production and utilise the type of engine that could be produced in large numbers, the commission settled on a standardised design in the Liberty Ship of 10,500 deadweight tons. It took an average of 235 days to build the first two of these vessels, which were delivered- in December, 1941. In December, 1942, when 82 Liberties were delivered, the average building time was reduced to 55 days, performance like this, combined with an increase of more than 600' per cent, in shipbuilding facilities, made it possible to turn out 746 ships, totalling 8,090,800 deadweight tons,, in 1942. Roosevelt’s Request The commission’s directive from President Roosevelt was to build 8,000,000' tons of ships last year. Our directive for 1943 is for at least 16,000,000 tons, which will give us a total of about 2300' vessels, totalling 24,000,000 tons, in the two years, I am confident that we will fulfill the President’s directive this year. Our annual shipbuilding capacity in the United States is 20,000,000 tons right now. We are at present actually building ships at the rate of 14,000,000 tons a year ; If we can obtain the materials necessary as allocated by the War Production Board, and provided our labour supply can be maintained, I see no reason why we cannot build at least the 16,000,000 tons asked by the President. AUer ail, that would be using only 80 per cent, of the capacity available to us. Much less known that the shipbuilding yards are the ship repair yards, which are rendering highly important service in keeping down ship losses due to enemy action. As indicated earlier in this article, some of the ships shelled, or even torpedoed on the high seas are salvaged and placed back in service after repairs have been made. Many a ship given up for lost has later been recovered, towed into port and repaired. Some of these wrecks loox pretty hopeless, but the jobs done on them by expert workmen are as amazing as some of the neat repairs made on damaged au.omobiles in body shops. Tankers cut in two by torpedoes have been brought in and the halves welded together I zgam. Sunken sh.ps have been raised,

cleaned out and reconditioned. The repair crews also have the job of installing defensive equipment aboard merchant vessels, including the antisubmarine and anti-aircraft guns manned by the Navy. Serviced in America During- 1942 more than 15,000 vessels owned by America and the United Nations were serviced in American repair yards. Many vessels were converted from one type of use to another more urgently needed in the war programme. Some ships of enemy countries confiscated by the United States in our ports were put in condition after attempts at sabotage by their crews. The American shipbuilding programme is a mighty factor in the “Battle of the Atlantic.” It gives us the means by which to continue operations despite the losses that are suffered. It provides the -vessels with which to keep a stream of munitions and supplies moving across the lifelines between the production front at home and the battlefronts in all parts of the world. We hope and believe that the present rate of production of four ships a day (which is expected

to be increased to five a day by May) has put us ahead in the sinking score.

But the trouble is that does not prevent the sinking of American ships, the loss of American lives and the destruction of valuable cargoes of materials built and paid for with American dollars for the purpose of winning the war. Building more ships is not the real answer to the submarine problem. Placing more merchant ships in the water will,not alone win the war for us. Ther<> must be complete co-ordination of ship-build-ing, merchant marine operationi naval and air protection and patrol forces to wipe out the menace to transport across the sea lanes of the Atlantic. Are we winning the Battle of the Atlantic? We haven’t won it yet! Nevertheless, knowing how well the American people and our Allies are putting their hearts, minds and muscle into the grim struggle, I believe we are winning. I am confident that. eventually we -will win. Even so, it is my best judgment that as long as this war lasts there nevei- will be enough ships. Our slogan is “ships for Victory.’/ tf|[ '*•