NAVAL STRENGTH

Wairarapa Times-Age, 18 March 1939, Page 7

NAVAL STRENGTH

DEBATE ON THE BRITISH ESTIMATES DEFENCE OF TRADE AT SEA LIMITS SET TO SUBMARINE MENACE. PROVISION AGAINST ATTACK BY AIR. (British Official Wireless.) RUGBY, March 16. During the debate on the Navy Estimates, Mr G. H. Shakespeare, Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, dealt with measures lor meeting the special threats of submarine and aerial attack. As to submarines, he argued that the danger had been exaggerated through neglect to observe that, of some 16,500 vessels sunk by enemy submarine action in the last war, only 102 were sunk while in a convoy. As a result of two years’ close cooperation between the Admiralty and the leaders of the shipping industry, he could state that they would be in a position to institute a convoy organisation soon after the outbreak of war on any route where it was considered necessary. They already had in stock sufficient anti-submarine guns to meet all expected requirements.

Mr Shakespeare then turned to the immense progress made since the last war in scientific aids to anti-submarine warfare. He said: “I cannot, of course, reveal the nature or the extent of our progress in this respect, but I believe that our methods of detecting, hunting and killing ’submarines are more advanced than those of any other nation in the world.”

He described a hunt for submerged submarines whose position was un-known-in which he himself had taken part, and as a result of which experience he felt he was able to accept the claim of the experts that, in favourable circumstances, in nine cases out of ten the exact position of the submarine could be detected without any doubt. Finally he drew attention to the success of the Nyon patrol in the Mediterranean as proof that those in control of submarines did not themselves underestimate the capacity of British ships to carry out the threat to sink any submarine found submerged in certain areas.

Regarding attack from the air, Mr Shakespeare said that the Admiralty s policy had been to concentrate in warships the most modern anti-aircraft guns possible —there had been an increase in the number of such guns of 75 per ' cent —and an attack on such a ship bristling with anti-aircraft guns would be a very different matter from attacks on defenceless merchant shipping, of which they had had recent examples in Spanish waters.

AIRCRAFT & CONVOYS. Moreover, this did not take into account the presence of aircraft of the fleet air arm or of the co-operating Royal Air Force squadrons. In the case of convoys of defensively armed merchant ships there would be the closest co-operation with the Royal Air Force as they came into the narrow seas and approached the home coasts. Generally the Board of Admiralty believed that the British Fleet was so strong today that it could confidently accept a direct challenge in battle by any combination of foes. Other matters touched upon by the Parliamentary Secretary were recruiting and the progress of the fleet ah arm which is now in the process of transfer from the control of the R.A.F. to the Navy. They had. justhad a record year for recruiting—--18,000 officers and men having entered the Navy in 1938. Contracts for aircraft for the six new aircraft-carriers which would come into commission from 1940 onward had been placed and production was in full swing. Several new types would start bulk delivery during the year The total personnel of the fleet air arm had been increased from 3000 in 1937 to 6000 today and would reach 10,000 in 1942.

QUALIFIED SATISFACTION. Mr A V. Alexander (Labour) expressed qualified satisfaction with the progress revealed in Mr Shakespeare sspeech. The Admiralty, he said, had taken measures for the development of the country’s naval power which would have-been excellent in ordinary circumstances, but his criticism was that the National Government s foreign nolicy had led Britain into a position in which the Navy had to face a series of strategical facts and strategical dangers, which it ought never have had to face and which might mean that, even with the enormous expenditure which the House was being asked to approve, its strength might not be sufficient to give the country the naval security so vital to it. Mr A Duff Cooper (Conservative) said he doubted the advantage of the Anglo-German naval agreement now that a thrice-perjured ti-aitor and breaker of oaths is at the head of the German State. I consider that any agreement he signs is not worth the paper on which it is written. No member of the House can hold a different opinion. Our naval margin is small, “specially as we no longer have the friendship of Japan. A fate even more awful than that which befell Czechoslovakia will befall Britain if we lose our naval superiority even for the shortest period.” Lieutenant-Commander Fletchei (Labour) stressed the difficulty of covering two hemispheres with 21 capital ships “British interests in the Far. East,” he said, “have gone up in smoke because pressure at Home forbade us to send out ships. If we had to fight in two hemispheres it would be necessary to let events rip in the Far East. That will mean good-bye to the Dutch East Indies.”

FLEET AT SINGAPORE? He asked what prospect there was of the United Kingdom’s stationing a fleet at. Singapore in an emergency sufficient to safeguard British interests in the eastern hemisphere. ~ The Civil Lord of the Admiralty, Colonel J. J. Llewellyn, replying to the debate for the Government, said it was still true, as Sir Samuel Hoare had said two years ago, that we were building a fleet which it was hoped would, in conjunction with the navies of the Dominions, be sufficient to protect British interests in both hemis-' pheres. _____