HAS HUN 17-INCH NAVAL GUN.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 5, Issue 165, 14 April 1916, Page 4 (Supplement)

HAS HUN 17-INCH NAVAL GUN.

WHAT EXPERT THINKS (>J> SENSATIONAL wIEORY.

VEIL OVER GERMAN NAVY

Something of a sensation and most lively discussion lias been provoked by the publication of an article by Mr. James Douglas in the "Daily News suggesting that

Germany has a 17-in. gun. which she nas already used to shell Dunkirk, and that monitors armed with such guns might lie used convoy and cover enemy transports coming to our shores.

If there was substance in this theory it would b.) a very unpleasant surprise packet indeed. But no amount oi excellent imaginative writing can add an inch or two to the calibre of a gun. it is reassuring, therefore, to leave Mr Douglas, who Iris no pretensions to being an expert, and hear what somebody has to say who understands guns and gunmetil. Take, for example, Mr. A. H. Pollen, part inventor of the A.C. System of Naval Fire Control, and a naval authority whose distinguished and well-informed writings on naval topics have made his na:..e known throughout Europe and America. Discussing Mr. Douglas' article, he said : I tako the following statements in Mr. Douglas' article for criticism. " 'The basis of our naval superiority ever the German at the outbreak of war was the 15-inch gun.' "At the outbreak of war we had not a single ship with a single 10-inch gui in commission. Again " 'lf 17-inch guns had been put into Von Spee's flagship it would have suiik the Invincible.' "If 17-inch guns had been put into Von Spee's flagship it would have turned quietly over on its side and sunk to the bottom of the sea. Besides, 17-inch guns c.*on't sink Invincibles or any other ships unless they hit. You cannot assume that because a gun is bigger, therefore naval superiority is attained by it. But let us assume that it would be a great advantage to have 17-inch guns. SCARE POOH-POOHED. " 'Can the German Navy be re-armed with these weapons?' "Nothing is absolutely impossible, but it prolwihly would be cheaper and quicker to build new ships to carry 17inch guns than to re-arm the old ones. None of the 11-inch gun ships, for instance, could be re-armed without tearing everything out of the ship except the engines, even if it were possible to retain these. The ships would have to carry much heavier guns—a grave disadvantage. Mr. Douglas admits that his whole article is a piece of speculation. He says there is legitimate ground for anxiety on this subject, because 17inch shells have fallen 011 DunkirK, showing that the Germans have 17-inch guns, and those not howitzers, but naval guns. This is what he calls his first fact. It may be a fact, but it is tlv; first I have "heard of it. It has commonly been supposed that the shells which were dropped in Dunkirk were from 15-inc'n guns, and it has long been known that the German Navy has been preparing to construct guns of this calibre. Mr. Douglas' first two facts, then—that the guns is 17-inch and a naval gun—do not seem true, according to my information. His third fact is that "because 17-inch howitzers wee made at Skoda, in Austria, it obviously follows that the Germans must have done something to keep up. What more certain than that they must have built 17-inch naval guns? This is Mr. Douglas' thin'.' fact. It is a process of prool which is, I confess, novel, and not altopother convincing to me." TWENTY-MILE RANGE. Until we built the Queen Elizabeth under the 1912 programme the Germans (says the naval correspondent of the "Daily News") put their faith in the smaller gun firing more rapidly than the heavier weapon, but the appearance of the 10-inch gun in British ships, brought them suddenly to tl.eir senses, with the result that they designed then 1913 battleships to carry the same size of gun. It is quite possible, as Mr. Douglas suggests, that he lias put hi* faith in the 17-inch gun, but it still remains a question as to the extent to which a weapon of that calibre could influence the command of the sea. Mi. Douglas evidently attaches some importance to the fact that "the Gorman nowitzer of lOoinni. (that is, 4.1-in) has ail angle of descent of 35 degrees, ' but a 17m. naval gun firing from an alleged range of 20 miles would have a far greater angle ol descent. Here are some facts which may help towards the appreciation ol tins statement. German Extreme Angle ot guns. , range. i.cseent 12in 27,500vds 47deg. 11 in 25,900vds 4Sdog. 8.2,11 22,000 yd) 50dcg. Tr* land warfare, the angle of a pro jectile's fall is rather a boon than .1 handicap, slice a shell that falls from the skies 011 to the target is far more effective than one which merely ' cutthe daisies''; but in sea warfare tilings are altogether different. On land a fixed gun with a 20-niilo range is useful because the target is fixed and can be aimed at by compass, with or without the assistance of teroplanes. On sea 20-mile range is useless, because the enemy is out of sight. Rear-.ulmiriT Joseph Strauss, chief of the I nitcd States llureau of Ordnance, lias just p 1 edged bis faith in the 14-inch giM (which fireß a projectile of the same weight as our 13.5 gun), although lie knows that there is a 16-inch naval gun readv to hanc. 1 if he wants it, and knows also that the 15-inch gun has been adopted by at least England, Italy, and Germany. It is quite possible that the Germans, disconcerted by the lessons of the Mar, are putting 1 ■ - inch guns in their new ships, and pe> haps re-arming thc : r old vessel* with guns of the same calibre. If so it will not matter greatly. If Mr. Dougla-. thinks it does matter, lie is mistaken, and as to why he is mistaken that must remain a query.

Tf farmers will adapt themselves to the employment of women. and if tlio women of England and Wales will realise flip immense opportunity ot pntrotic endeavour op.mi to them on tli'"* land, agriculture will come triumphantly out of the crisis in which it is place'! at present- Karl of Selhorne. I believe that if wo had hud i.mnitions and men we should have won through to Constantinople. C.ne a' Sir lian Hamilton.