LIMITATIONS OF SUBMARINES.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 1503, 29 January 1916, Page 4

LIMITATIONS OF SUBMARINES.

It is a fair conclusion to draw from the experience of tbe war that the submarine has not replaced the ship of the line as the principal factor in the conflict by sea, says the naval correspondent of the London Times. No nation for the present will think of entrusting the defence of its maritime interests entirely to vessels the sole qualification of which is the attribute of submersion, In some respects, Sir Percy Scott was right, for he said that if the country with which we went to war was within striking distance of submarines, that country would lock up its Dreadnoughts in harbour, and their submarines would come over and destroy anything and everything that they could get at. But he'also said that “a Power which sends out ships to look for and destroy submarines will be courting disaster. The submarine, when iu the water, must be kept away from, not looked for.” British seamen have proved that this is not the way in which they deal with the submarine menace. As a naval wrote in the discussion which followed the publication of Sir Percy Scott’s letter ; ‘‘The obsession of safety is really not the seaman’s chief preoccupation, His business is to find and destroy the enemy, and we have not been brought up to think that lying securely in harbour is a recognised state in this highly necessary proceedings.” The destruction of isolated men-of-war or merchantmen does not lead to naval supremacy. Furtive raids will neither dose the seas to an adversary nor open them to one’s own commerce. Only sea-going and sea-keeping ships of the most powerful types can exercise the command of the seas and overcome any resistance which may be brought against them.