AN INTERVIEW

Auckland Star, Volume L, Issue 197, 20 August 1919, Page 7

AN INTERVIEW

CO-ORDINATION WITH NEW ZEALAND. Duricg the course of an interview in Sydney, Admiral Jellicoe, touching on the question of Dominion navies, said ihsub there must be unity of control ami iniformity of training. The ships must ivork in peace time together with those reside which they axe intended, tp fight in war. And New Zealand? Did that mean that Australia and New Zealand should nairstaiii warships in common? The idmiral replied by quoting t?he plans irawn up in pre-war daye, by which Australian and New Zealand chips, and also the China squadron, were -to ge* their training together under oik command. Again, as to the types of ships required for a Dominion navy, he recalled the advice furnished by Admiral Henderson, along the lines ot which the existing naval echemo hae been worked out. The war, he said, had made no difference as regards that advice. It still held good. Next, as to possible future wars. Wliat were the chances of another great naval war? That all depended, eaid the admiral, on the League of Peace. He smiled at that. He expressed no opinion whatever about the practical effectiveness of a League of Peace, but 'he left * very definite impression of what his opinion would be, if lie did express it. NAVAL WARS AND THE LEAGUE. "At any rate, you would not think it 6afe to disarm, on the chances of there being no more wars! "Well, I should not disarm," the Admiral said, with the same smile. On the part that submarines were likely to play in the next great naval war, supposing there was one, he was cautious again, though not quite bo overwhelmingly so. In the first place the part played by the submarine would depend, of" course, said he, on wihebher the laid down any restrictions on their use—and also (that anile again) on how far tie League was able to make such restrictions effective. Apart from bhM,, there were the submarine "antidotes" which had been discovered and worked out by the Allies. To what exteoit they were likely to be effective would depend, naturally, upon the nature of the campaign, and also upon Ohe extent of development of the submarine and of anti-submarine inventions and devices during the period between t7he present itime and the breaking out of any new naval war. SUBMARINE AND "ANTIDOTE." But, in the Great War, how far had our ultimate euccese against the U-boats depended upon superiority in the moral and training of British officers and crews? Would our "antidoes" have been as successful, in German hands, against British submarines? "The British," said the Admiral, "would never use the submarine as the Germans used it. But the 'antidotes' we discovered would be effective against any submarines." Finally came the question whether the circumstances of the wa-r constituted, any evidence against the battleship as & weapon of practical naval value. •".Certainly not," eaid Admiral Jellicoe definitely. "Without battleships ■Oie seas could not be kept clear of the enemy." It wee true that cruisers end battle-cruisers played a great part in fchat. But ithere was no lhard cad fast distinction between types. "The baittlecruiser is only a faeter and lightter armed battleship. The German ships had speed and armour too." The war had not, indeed, put any important type of warship out of reckoning.