U-BOAT MENACE

Wairarapa Times-Age, 21 January 1943, Page 3

U-BOAT MENACE

STILL A MAJOR FACTOR DISCUSSION IN BRITAIN. SOME SHARP DIFFERENCES OF OPINION. (Special P.A. Correspondent.) LONDON, January 19. “The shipping losses of flic United Nations are alarming.” “The full seriousness of the U-boat menace is still not widely realised.” “The U-boat attack in the Atlantic has become a major factor in winning or losing the war.” These are some of the comments from recent discussions of U-boat warfare. It is a many-sided question and there are widely differing views. For instance, should faster merchantmen be built? Should bombers be used for bombing submarine production points in Germany or should more Coastal Command and Fleet Air Arm aircraft be built? Would it not be better to have an anti-U-boat com mittee comprising whole-time members instead of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Aircraft Production and the Chiefs of Staff who are already the busiest men in the Kingdom? Admiral Sir Hugh Tweedie raised the question of whether the merchant ships now being built are sufficiently fast, but the First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr Alexander, replied that more skilled labour would be required to build faster ships while, if all the slow ships were replaced by fast, the loss of importing capacity would amount to 18 per cent. CRITICISED. Mr Alexander added a comment which Mr Shinwell, M.P., described as “one of the most amazing statements produced by the war situation, which has been prolific in queer, unsound Ministerial declarations.” Mr Alexander’s comment was: . “The losses in fast and slow ships are about the same. If we had only fast ships we would still have to face an expanding number of U-boats and would probably get a higher percentage of losses.” Mr Shinwell is among those advocating faster ships. Pointing out that the Americans are building them and the Japanese have already done so, he adds: “Hitler has something like 700 submarines available. With anything upward of 400 foundries throughout Europe, he is able to draw up a programme of inland construction which is making it possible for U-boats to be replaced at a greater rate than they are being destroyed. His great hope of victory lies in being able to smash up the sea communications of the Allied Nations.” There are apparently differences of opinion as to whether heavy bombers should be used to bomb production points and one air view is that bombers should operate against factories and assembly points as well as against U-boats at sea. ATTACK & PROTECTION. One opposing naval view is that bombing Germany is prodigal of skilled airmen and the national energy and that unless and until the needs of the sea-going trade protection forces — sea and air—have been fully met, the bombing of production points in Germany is “an injudicious and extravagant diversion of strength from the decisive point—the vicinity of convoys.” It is stated that there is a mid-At-lantic “gap” over which land-based aircraft cannot extend from Britain or America, which naval escorts go some way toward bridging, but in which most of the sinkings occur. The opinion is expressed that many more small, auxiliary carriers are required for that purpose. In view of the seriousness of the U-boat menace, these controversial viewpoints .are not unexpected, but if they indicate some uneasiness, they also show a determination to improve the position. MENACING SCALE OF SUBMARINE ATTACKS. PEAK PROBABLY NOT YET REACHED. LONDON, January 19. •In the House of Lords, the Lord Privy Seal, Viscount Cranborne, said that the scale of the U-boat attacks was increasing, and it was probable that the peak had not yet been reached. Recent counter-measures had been very successful, but Germany saw in this campaign her only chance of escaping defeat, and the attacks could be expected to continue unabated till the very last hour of the war. A United States naval spokesman made some frank statements today about the battle with the U-boats. He said that everything possible was being done to reduce shipping losses, but that the only sure defence was convoy, and this took more ships than we could muster. Even the convoy was vulnerable. American shipping lines were long and many cargo ships were still being knocked out of convoys. Anti-subma-rine defence on the Atlantic seaboard had forced the Germans to move south to the Caribbean and South American waters. That was where they were doing most damage. “If we can stymie them down there as effectively as we have from Canada to Trinidad then we will start winning the battle of transportation,” he said.