Britain the Moving Force

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 80, 25 June 1927, Page 9

Britain the Moving Force

NAVAL LIMITATION CONFERENCE CONVERSATIONS ASSIST PROGRESS (.British Official Wireless.) Received 11.3 a.m. GENEVA, Friday. rE delegates to the Geneva Conference to-day requested Mr. W. C. Bridgeman, First Sea Lord, to be chairman of the executive committee, and also decided to form groups, consisting of naval experts, to study from a technical viewpoint the limitation of cruisers, destroyers and submarines. Informal conversations have taken place between the principal delegates, and these have contributed to a better understanding of the proposals, and are believed to have materially assisted progress.

JT is emphasised in British quarters that material results from this conference are particularly desirable, as a means of assisting the task of the League of Nations Disarmament Conference, the preparatory committee of which meets again in November.

In particular it is urged, in regard to capital ships, that while the Powers at Washington undertook for a stated period not to exceed a certain tonnage, there is nothing to prevent acceptance of the British proposals to reduce those figures. The delegates to the Three-Powers Naval Arms Limitation Conference devoted yesterday to an exchange of views.

Mr. Hugh Gibson (United States) had a lengthy interview with Mr. W. C. Bridgeman (Britain) concerning the main points in the British and American schemes and the planning of the work of the conference. There Is a note of optimism in all three camps. In British official circles it is intimated that a plenary session is expected to be held early next week. In an interview Mr. Gibson said: “There is no cause for pessimism. We are trying to find a common denominator. There are still many ‘dumplings’ to swallow, but I am sure we will arrive at an agreement about auxiliary ships.” JAPANESE EXPERTS QUERULOUS On the naval experts’ committee the Japanese delegates are persistent questioners. British experts, in answering their inquiries about the proposed lengthening of the lives of warships, said their experience had shown that a cruiser’s hull remained in good condition much longer than the present replacement periods. With two overhauls and new sets of boilers they would last nearly a quarter of a century. The British experts said this would be one of the most effective ways of reducing the burden of the taxpayer. The same thing applied to the lengthening of the periods of service for destroyers and submarines. Vice-Admiral Sir Frederick Field and Admiral Sir George Egerton vigorously championed the British suggestion for further reductions in the size and gun-power of cruisers. They contended that every Power had built up to the maximum cruiser limit allowed by the Washington agreement. The balance would not be changed because the Washington ratios would be retained although the maximum size and power of cruisers would be reduced. AMERICA AND THE ORDER PAPER

The American experts, in answer to the Japanese inquiries, admitted they were proposing to exempt the follow'ing from the purview of the present conference:

(1) Surface naval vessels of less than 600 tons.

(2) Surface combatant vessels of between 600 and 3,000 tons and with a speed of less than 17 knots. (3) All vessels not built as fighting ships, provided they do not mount guns of more than 5£ inches. This last was clearly aimed at the wartime practice of Britain of mounting 6in guns on liners. The object of considering the cruiser and destroyer tonnage totals together was to prevent scrapping comparatively good ships of one class and replacing them with others of a different class. Mr. Bridgeman gave a dinner to the American delegation to enable the members to meet the Dominion delegates, who are working in the closest association with the Admiralty experts.—A. and N.Z. PRAISE FOR BRITAIN JAPANESE VIEWPOINT By Cable.—Press Association. —Copyright TOKIO, Thursday. A high Japanese naval officer frankly gave the Japanese naval view of the Geneva proposals. He described the British plan as a noble one, but he did not conceal the dislike of the Japanese for many of itsprovisions. The chief objection is the age limit of ships. Japan considers a cruiser 24 years old is of little fighting value. She does not object to a reduction in the size of capital ships, but sees no reason for reducing their gun calibre. The officer said Japan could not accept the 55 —3 ratio in 10,000-ton cruisers, and a limitation of other cruiser armaments to six-inch guns. Japan does not question Britain’s right to build the Singapore naval base, and certainly does not expect war with Britain. Nevertheless the Singapore base would bring a third battle fleet into the Western Paoific and greatly increase the mobility of the British Navy. “These factors cannot be excluded in calculating naval strength,” said the officer. “Japan will not make Singapore an issue, but it is impossible to ignore it in the discussions.” —Times.

SUBMARINE PROBLEM

By Cable. —Press Association.—Copyright LONDON, Friday. The Geneva correspondent of the •Morning Post” says the experts at the Naval Conference searched for a common ground from which to begin building up an agreement. They followed the line of least resistance by tackling submarines. An agreement is likely to be reached on this subject by the end of the week on a basis of decreeing two types. This compromise is the result of the tact and skill of the British experts. The next step will be in relation to destroyers.—A. and N.Z.-Sun.