BATTLESHIP V. SUBMARINE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVI, Issue 97, 19 September 1914, Page 8

BATTLESHIP V. SUBMARINE.

A HINT TO CANADA. Admiral Sir Percy Scott, in the Times, replica seriatim to the criticisms of his recent article foreshadowing the supremacy of submarines and seaplanes over other types of naval craft. He maintains that his critics have not given a satisfactory explanation of what our battleships in war—namely, the support a war with a nation well equipped with submarines, which lave introduced a now method of att&ek against our most vulnerable point—eur food and oil supply. To the argument that he does not provide for important duties devolving upon batleships in war —namely, the support of cruisers protecting our food and raw material supply, as well as of squadrons blockading the ports of the enemy—he says that*lf batleships attempt a blockade of ports of an enemy possessing submarines, battleships will probably go to the bottom. He has, he says, never suggested scrapping Dreadnoughts, but would road with pleasure that Canada was going to give us eight millions' worth of submarines and aireraft instead of three Dreadnoughts.

lORD SYDENHAM'S REPLY. Lord Sydenham, in a letter to the Times answering' Sir Percy Scott's presentation of his case for the supremacy of under-water naval craft over big capital ships in future warfare, expresses the opinion that it would be most dangerous to act upon the theories of Sir Percy Scott. There is at present no valid reason to suppose that the surface Bhip, especially the battleship, is doomed to disappear. Our true policy must be as in the case of the advent of the torpedo boat, to endeavous by all possible means to increase our powers of attacking the newcomer, the submarine. It is the essential weakness of the submarine in its present form that it seeks to operate by evasion, and such methods, whether on sea or land, have never obtained more than local or partial successes, lie firmly believes that any naval administration which acted upon the discredited doctrine now revived would court disaster, and that any naval Commander-in-Chief who locked lip his battle fleet in port could securely count upon defeat.