STANDARDISED WEAPONS

Rotorua Morning Post, Issue 5320, 5 February 1947, Page 4

STANDARDISED WEAPONS

I JJURING the war, the lack of : standardisation of British . and American equipment was an : often-demonstrated military liability. On innumerable occasions 1 a gun, tank, or' truck of one army broke down near a supply dump of the other, but the spare parts there in abundance would not fit. . So when one army served temporarily with another, it meant a separate supply system. The advantages that would accrue .from standardisation of weapons and other material, should the armies ever be serving together again, were evident on all sides. This idea was not new; it was discussed during the first world war, but since the British and United States Staffs apparently had not ruled out the 'possibelity that some day the nations might be ranged on opposite sides, nothing was done about it. In spite of the fact that Mr. B. Baruch has told a United States Senate committee that he is "deeply disturbed" by the leakage of atomic secrets, has inferred that Russia is obtaining information from Canada, and has referred to a report that •Canada is now producing plutonium, which is more . powerful than uranium, the general attitude of the people of the United States and the British Coramonwealth towards one another is one of unreserved confidence, as has been demonstrated in numerous ways not associated with secnrity reasons. Therefore. since the reasonable assumption is that they would stand together in any world crisis, it would be a matter of officiency and economy to have intorchangeable equipment. A report gained wide circulation uome time ago that this move had actually been decided upon but most recent advice 011 the subjeet is that while talks have been c-arried on at the level of the combined General Staffs, the only thing that resulted was agreement that it would be a good idea if it could be done. In getting it done, both countries would be faced with most difficult obstacles. One of the two countries would either have to go out of the arms manufacturing business or completely retool its industry. Since substantial businesses are in the arms trade on both sides of the Atlantic, this would not be easy, politically or industrially. Furthermore, the motor industries of the two countries would have to be standardised in peacetime if their products were to be interchangeable in time of war. 'This would not be conceivable for all the - manufacturers of either State, let alone of both. Standardisation, it is now said, might be worked out in some minor respects and new weapons may be mac^e to one pattern to some extent and that is the limit to which it could be taken under present industrial exigencies. The only possible means of establishing absolute 1 unif ormity would be for "the I complete State. control of ^.11 means of making way and that, ■ while highly desirable militarily, ' is not practical in the other ' direci^ons indicated. M ~ I