SCIENCE & WAR

Wairarapa Times-Age, 19 July 1941, Page 6

SCIENCE & WAR

STRUGGLE OF LABORATORIES SOME IMPORTANT BRITISH DISCOVERIES. MANY STARTLING RESULTS. Eight years ago, a modest, unassuming Scottish physicist became Superintendent of the Radio Department of the National Physical Laboratory, writes the military correspondent of the “Sydney Morning Herald.” He had already been working on meteorological and radio research for 16 years; but from then onwards his researches were more directly connected with defence, so- much so that in 1938 he became Director of Communications Development at the War Ministry itself. The results of the work of Robert Watson Watt were recently described to the world and were heralded by Air Chief Marshal Joubert and by Lord Beaverbrook as marking one of the turning-points of the war. From whichever angle this matter is approached, the results are profoundly interesting, whether we look at It in relation to British scientific progress, or whether we interpret its immediate importance to the war, or whether we peer into the future and try to assess its place in the post-war world. From the widest point of view, the discovery emphasises the vital role played by science in warfare. The scientist is now a front-line fighter, and victory may well go to the side with the most productive laboratories. In the past, Britain has not always recognised the immediate importance of scientific research in war, and it was not until the end of 1916 that a beginning was made to establish a Department of Scientific and Industrial Research in England. There was a prevalent myth about Gorman superiority in the scientific field, and Germany undeniably had a great lead in organised research. But the inexorable pressure of necessity compelled the British to advance at a rate which normally would never have been attained. The last years of the war amply proved that Germany had no monopoly of scientific inventiveness in the military field. BRITISH INVENTIVENESS, To quote a few instances, the tank was entirely a British invention; Britain took the lead in gas-warfare, especially in evolving gas-shells and in developing the Livens projector, which secured a high concentration of gas; dazzle-painting and many other forms of camouflage originated with British scientists; while sea-camouflage was by common consent a conspicuous British success. One of the shrewdest and most useful discoveries was how to counteract the German use of colourscreens in submarine periscopes. If one delves into the fields of ordnance and munitions, the gains were legion. The result of these cumulative inventions was that it could be confidently stated that Britain would not have won the last war without hci scientists. In this war, the British laboratories started off with fewer disadvantages, the organisation of applied science and research had been immensely strengthened in the post-war years, and even Army tories realised that the fighting services of today . needed something more than 1 chemical-war-fare personnel,” as gas experts were termed. Moreover, Germany had lost much of her lead by the admitted decline in scientific fertility under the Nazi repression before the war. Germany was weakened every time she allowed, the application of the Nuremberg racial laws to deprive her of the services of Jewish scientists, and, in general, there was a grave neglect of thu principles without which practical applications were impossible. In one respect, however, Germany still led. As part of her general “Wehrmacht” preparations since 1933, German scientists were more directly organised in State-»ervice than was the case in other nations. SCIENCE AND TOTAL WAR When it became clear that „ this struggle was to be “a total war,' in which whole communities were directly involved, and in which the military aspect could no longer be isolated from the complete national effort, the work of the scientist inevitably became far more important. Both Germany and Britain were compelled to proceed as far as possible in the direction of self-sufficiency; and thus the invention of substitute wool or rubber or new ways of strengthening bread by the addition of Vitamin B became just as important as the improvement of aeroplane design or making battleships torpedo-proof. The man who made possible the cultivation of the oleoginous soya-bean in Central Europe was contributing as much as the scientist who developed the Messerschmitt or new Focke-Wulfs. Clamant war needs covered the whole gamut of industry and primary production, and -the scientists responded to the demands by producing new forms of plastics, new cellulose derivatives, cloth made from field nettles, new methods of handling and hardening low-grade steel, and new drugs. New types of gases, shells, and explosives were produced, even when, as in the case of explosives, the practicable theoretical limit was already thought to have been attained. Conspicuous British advances were in the balloon barrage, the poweroperated turret in warplanes, the Asdig device for detecting enemy submarines, thp de-Gaussing girdle to cope with magnetic mines, and the “incendiary leaf.” A wealth of scientific research was behind the Spitfire's achievement of firing 120 shots a second; while Germany’s greatest contributions were probably aeroplane engines without carburettors and the development of industrial substitutes. Although much still remains' to be •dlone, Britain has made good progress in developing from the “flash painting” of the last war to the effective camouflage of today. When soldiers scoffingly call Woolwich arsenal “the bloody greenhouse,” they arc really paying testimony to British scientists, ancl in time such outstanding problems as the blacking-out of steel mills and of sheets of water will doubtless be satisfactorily solved. FIELD OF INFINITE ABSTRACTION But it is in connection with aerial warfare that the scientist has produced his most effective, and at times startling, results. No greater compliment could be paid to scientific, as to industrial, progress than to contrast the latest Douglas DB-17 with a prewar bomber, or the Typhoon and Tornado with the fighter of 1939, or the Focke-Wulf Kurier 'with the reconnaissance machine of two years ago.

Nevertheless, these improvements in aerial munitions still remained “grounded in the finite,” whereas the adaptation of radio research, to the laymind at least, reaches out into the field of infinite abstraction. To quote Sir Philip Joubert, a scientific trick or toy becomes a deadly instrument, of actual warfare. That was how he described Watt’s latest device of radiolocation. In broad outline, this is an extension to aerial warfare of the principle known in the naval struggle as Asdig, tho word coined from the initial loiters of anti-submarine directional indication gear. After striking initial successes, this was partly countered by the Germans, who are believed to have gained the secret from France last June; but Britain is believed to have improved it to a new form. It is now revealed that “radiolocation” was developed to detect aeroplanes and ships, as well as submarines, and that this device, which was extensively used in last September’s air battles, now surrounds Britain by a safety belt under incessant scientific surveillance. The present publicity is afforded tho project because the general scientific principle is the secret of no single country, and Britain’s leadership lies in its effective practical application; In the last few months, in America as in Britain, much work has been done on this problem, and American military experts stress the revolutionary aspects of what they call R.D.S., or the radio detection system. This extended the range of detection from the eight or nine miles of the older listening apparatus to between 50 and 75 miles, and, with bombers approaching at a third the speed of sound, it will be realised what this extra gain in time meant. ACCURATE RESULTS. The principle is that a beam of very high frequency radio waves is sent out, and, crudely put, if the waves strike a solid object, they come bouncing back along the same path ’ on which they were emitted. The position of the object can be measured automatically by measuring the time and the direction; and it is claimed that the position of an aeroplane can be detected to within a few hundred feet, even if it is up to 75 miles away. This gives ample warning of attack, it allows the course of oncoming aeroplanes to be chartered, it shows the strength of the enemy squadrons, it is an- invaluable aid to anti-aircraft guns, and it allows interceptors to “ride the beam” to their quarry. When fully developed, this system — and it may be assumed that the Watt device is of much the same nature—takes away the element of surprise in aerial attack and dispenses with old-fash-ioned sound-locating apparatus, searchlights, and even patrol squadrons. In a word, it could transmute aerial warfare, if it lives up to its claims. It works by night as by day, and, when combined with progress already made, affords ground for hoping that the terrible menace of the nightbomber will be countered. Indeed, the progressive improvement in the last few months may be largely due to its increasing employment. Thus, Germany lost 15 night raiders over Britain in January, 15 in February, 47 in March, 87 in April, and 90 in the first nine nights of May. It is now estimated that between 8 per cent and 12 per cent of the night-bombers are being brought down, and that a destruction rate of this magnitude, if maintained over a period, would cut so deeply into Nazi reserves of aero-* planes, engines, and trained night crews that Germany would have to curtail her night bombing. It is too early to be dogmatic on this point, but there has certainly been a marked improvement. The latest dramatic revelation of “radio-location” thus demonstrates how Britain is keeping to the fore in the ceaseless battle of scientific wits. She has exploited the wireless and gyroscopic principles in a most piactical fashion, and she is pointing afresh the moral that “the war is being won or lost in the laboratory,” by those little-known scientists and designers whom Lord Beaverbrook fondly describes as his “backroom men.