[?] SHIPS

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 1, Issue 22, 18 September 1931, Page 4

[?] SHIPS

ADMIRAL'S PLEA BRING DOWN BURDEN OF HEAVY ARMAMENTS . . IN WAR ANSWER TO "BIG-SHIP" SCHOOL A plea for smaller ancl cheaper warships all round has been put forward many tirnes b-y various people since the Washington Conference of a decade ago fixed the maximum size of a battleship at 35,000 tons and cruisers at 10,000 tons; the guns respectively to have maximrum bores of 16 and 8 inehes. None of the critics, however, expert or otherwise, has gone the length of Admiral Sir Herbert Richmond, late Commandant of the Imperial Defence College, who suggests in his latest hook that the maritime nations of the world should agree j on a capital ship with a tonnage not ; to exceed 6,500, armed and engined ! in any way desired within the capacity thus provided. Admiral Richmond has for long been a thorn in the side of the "bigship" men who have held the fort at the Admiralty since the Battle of Jutland and even earlier. His plan, as he points ont, is simplicity itself, a great advantage in matters between nations, and is hardly open to criticism, or at least lay criticism, in theory. If every nation fights with ships of the same size, whether they be of 35,000 or 6,500 tons, or even less, what difference can it make to their chances of victory? While the saving in cost of the lower tonnage to the taxpayers of the world would undoubtedly run into many millions. A ship of the size recommended could go anywhere in the world, and is ir\,deed the size of the ideal six-inch gun cruiser suited to the British Empire. First Doubts And it is just here that tlie first doubts as to the practicability of Sir Herbert's scheme, excellent as it may be on paper, creep into the mind of the reader, and probably to an even greater extent into the mind of the foreign naval ofiicer. The British sailor with a handwoiked gun has always been in his element in action, and the six-inch is the heaviest hand-worked gun. It need not be stressed that foreign experts are aware of this. In the last war the power-worked guns of the Germans certainly had fewer inherent defects than the British, and the Latin nations, with their genius for mechanism, would also probably prefer to fight with a heavy than a lig-ht gun. Armetl Merchantmen But this is not all. In a ehapter forestalling criticism, or answering objections already put forward by the big-ship school, Sir Herbert agrees that the chief danger to such a small warship might come from the armed merchant ship; a cargo vessel or liner with a number of six-inch guns or even in a few cases larger guns mounted in her "for the duration." Such a ship would, of course, be far more vulnerable than a war-

ship of similar gun power, but the theory is held in many quarters that she should be dealt with by something ! mounting heavier guns. Replying to this, the Admiral remarks that he cannot imagine an officer in a six-inch gun ship objeeting that it was tdo heavy or dangerous a task to attack a similar vessel, oi* to eseort trade through an area where such a ship was known to be cruising. "Certainly such an idea never entered into the heads of our predecessors." But will the whole world see the force of his argument? Would Ruritania agree that light cruisers would be ample safeguard to her coasts and convoys, and that her officers would gladly and easily sai: in and sink, say, the Mauretania or even Q-sliips manned by competent crews of one of the major powers? On this point it is difficult to acquit the Admiral of special pleading, and

unless every nation in the world agrees to his plan it must fah through. j Excellent Case The point has been dwelt on be canse it seems to be the only ont j upon which it is possible to join issuc with Admiral Richmond. Submarine and aerial dangers, he points out, arc no greater and are usually less for the small ship than the leviathan, and the fear that Russia might stand out of the agreement would not deter him, since Russia's maritime record down the centuries is not likely to strike terror into the heart of a foe. The author has, in fact, made out an excellent case for some international agreement to restrict the tonnage of ships of war; if not as low as he would like, at least to within reasonable limits, if only on the seore of economy. There are, as we all know, people who would go even further, for the sake not of economy but of peace. But even these should welcome Admiral Richmond's proposals if only as a half-way house to their ideal of complete disarmament. 'Everyone interested in the problem of shaking off the heavy burden of armaments without risking national disaster should read this hook, for the subject touches not Britain alone but every nation in the world that depends for its safety on sea communications.