Fleets Compared

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 889, 5 February 1930, Page 9

Fleets Compared

AMERICAN AND BRITISH PLANS

Unequal Cruiser Strength

NAVAL DELEGATES’ PROBLEMS

/COMPARISONS made between tlxe fleets of Britain and tlie v United States of America reveal that while Britain has omit cruisers 231,130 tons in excess of the United States, America is building 143,200 tons in excess of Britain and also projects 50,000 tons in excess of Britain’s future plan. Delegates to the naval conference are discussing the French fleet proposals and Britain’s naval compromise.

United P.A.—By Telegraph Copyright Heed. 10.30 a.m. LONDON, Tuesday. Beyond referring inquirers to the Blue Book, which was published last month, the Admiralty is not disposed to give comparative figures of the British and United States fleets since the British suspensions of building was announced last week.

The following table, however, gives the latest comparisons:— Battleships: Britain 16, United States 18. Battlecruisers: Britain 4, United States 0.

Cruisers: Britain 54, built with a tonnage of 327,131; United States, 14, built with a tonnage of 36,001. Cruisers building: Britain 4, with a tonnage of 36,800 tons; United States, 18, with a tonnage of 180,000 tons.

Cruisers projected: Britain 0, United States 5, with a tonnage of 50,000 tons.

Thus Britain has built of 231,130 tons in excess of the United States, while the latter is building 143,200 tons in excess of Britain and also 50,000 tons in excess of Britain’s projected plan.. Thus the cruiser tonnage totals are: — Britainr Built, building and pro jected, 363,931 tons; United States. 326,001 tons. The British grand total excludes the four recent suspensions, which, the Admiralty informs the Australian Press Association, probably amount to 37,000 tons. The following are the ships built or building: Destroyers: Britain, 152; United States, 309. Submariifs: Britain, 63; United States, 127. TONNAGE DIFFICULTIES FRENCH AND BRITISH VIEWS SUBMARINES INVOLVED British Official Wireless Reed. Noon. RUGBY, Tuesday. At the First Committee meeting of the conference, the First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr. A. H. Alexander, represented Great Britain, and put forward his Government’s proposals regarding a compromise plan for coordinating the category and global theories for tonnage limitation. These proposals are framed so as to facilitate a discussion, and to elicit the views of the different delegations. The British suggestions differ in certain respects from the “transactional proposals” of the French memorandum published last week.

The French scheme permitted a limited transference of tonnage through all categories, but the British proposals do not permit of a transfer in categories of battleships and aircraft carriers, and visualise only a limited transfer of tonnage downwards from the large cruiser class, that is those with Bin guns and over.

In the categories of small cruisers, namely, those with guns of Gin or smaller calibre, and of destroyers, the transfer would, however, be possible up to 100 per cent. Complete freedom of transfer in these categories would therefore allow nations to meet their individual requirements by devoting, if they so desired, the whole of the tonnage allotted to them for light cruisers and. destroyers to the building of light cruisers only, BRITAIN’S CANCELLATIONS

There is no mention of transfer to or from the submarine class, but officially the British delegation still supports the abolition of submarines. They have, in fact, made something of a gesture by cancelling

three submarines in this year’s construction programme, and have suspended work on others until after the end of the financial year. Incidentally the case of the submarine is a clear indication of the weakness of the unmitigated global theory, since a ton in submarines and a. ton in, say, cruisers, are obviously not interchangeable units. The British proposals were circulated to the delegations yesterday to facilitate preliminary examination. AMICABLE DISCUSSIONS

Other problems before the conference are now being taken up in private and informal conversations, this method of exploration having been found of great assistance in preparing the path to more formal discussions.

The heads of delegations met later this morning. The meeting of the First Committee of the conference was still proceeding when the heads of the delegations met at Saint James’s Palace to discuss the further procedure of conference.

A communique states: "There was a general agreement that the conversations between the delegations, which are giving good results in preparing the way for agreements, must continue. The heads of the delegations will meet again tomorrow to continue their discussion in the light of the work of the First Committee.

PROBLEM FOR EXPERTS FRENCH TONNAGE PROJECT DIFFICULTY OF DISCUSSION Reed, li a.m. LONDON, Tuesday. It is understood that this morning tho discussions on the Naval Conference Committee centred round an attempt to approximate the obstruct French proposals to the more concrete British plan lor the transfer of categories.

It is suggested it may be quicker if the two sets of experts pronounce an agreed formula. It is becoming more evident that the French tactics are increasingly tending to convert the conference into a continuation of the Geneva Preparatory Commission, but officially this is passing unnoticed, because the present negotiations are being conducted in a healthier atmosphere. Nobody seems to care about the method so long as results are achieved. The French modifications are not serious departures from the plans previously announced. The reference to reservations indicates that Italy is again not ready to commit herself till a stage of greater detail is reached. She is really voicing the case of the smaller Powers. For example, if a Power possessed three 10,000-ton cruisers, it would he quite useless to tell it that it is at liberty to transfer 10 per cent, to another category. OPTIMISTIC SPIRIT This is only one illustration of the physical difliculties now being encountered, but optimism prevails that all will be overcome. A communique states that the First Committee met in the morning, and in addition to the statements made at the previous meeting, delegates had before them for consideration the French transactional proposal, a series of draft resolutions outlined under five heads, and also the British compromise. The discussion opened on the basis of the French transactional proposal, on which the Italian, Signor Sirianni, the Japanese, M. Nagai Takarabe, Mr. Hugh Gibson, United States, Mr. A. V. Alexander, Great Britain, gave their viewpoints on the principal points. After that the proposals were discussed clause by clause.