NAVAL POWER.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 160, 8 July 1932, Page 7

NAVAL POWER.

BIG "CUT" PROPOSED. Smaller Ships and Guns With Submarines Abolished. BRITAIN'S CRUISER NEEDS. (British Oflicinl Wireless.) (Received 1 p.m.) HUGBY, July 7. Dealing with naval proposals in his disarmament policy speech, Mr. Baldwin said it was essential that proposals intended to be adopted by general agreement should make due provision for varying , circumstances, having regard to the widely-scattered responsibilities of the British Navy. It was not practicable for Britain to cut down the number of units beyond a certain point. Occasions might arise calling for the presence of nhips simultaneously in parts of the world far removed from one another, and it was essential to bear in mind the very large reduction in the number of ships of all categories already effected. If a comparison was made with the year before the war, it would be found that capital ships have been reduced from OS) to 15, cruisers from 108 to 52, destroyers from 283 to 147, and submarines from 74 to 52. Numerical reduction of the British Navy, therefore, had already been ■applied on a very large scale, and indeed the cruiser numbers would require special consideration hereafter, but though there was, a limit to numerical reduction, it was perfectly possible and in the highest degree desirable, to secure by other means a large diminution of naval armaments. Gun Calibre too High. The present treaty permits of size and gun calibre were far too high, and the British Government considered that very large reductions, amounting to about one-third, both in the case of capital ships and cruisers, could be made in the future construction. As regards capital ships, the American proposal would leave the size of these enormously expensive vessels, and the calibre of the guns, untouched in any constructed in the future, and every figure involved in these huge dimensions, in initial cost, upkeep, personnel, ammunition, stores and docks would be maintained at the highest level. The United Kingdom proposal, while securing no less reduction in the total tonnage, evaded these consequences by reducing the size of the guns and ships. If the calibre of a gun was reduced to 12 inches, the maximum size of the ship could bo reduced from 35,000 to 25,000 tons, nnd an immense saving effected under both heads, both initially and consequentially. The British Government was ready to apply the same principles to cruisers, to reduce the maximum size and the gun calibre by international agreement from the present figure of 10,000 tons and 8-inch guns to 7000 tons and 6.1inch guns. Reduced Size of Capital Ships. It would then be possible to reduce tho size of capital ships still further, and to fix the maximum at 22,000 tons with llin guns. This would nearly halve the initial cost of any future capital ship, nnd greatly reduce the cost of maintenance. Time tho whole scale would come down together and there would bo a definite return to smaller dimensions. On this basis the United Kingdom proposal would effect an ultimate reduction in capital ship tonnage alone of 195,000 tons, comparable with the figure under the United States proposal, which would be about 175,000. As regards aircraft carriers, the Government was in substantial agreement with the Hoover proposals, and suggests a reduction in size from 27,000 to-22,000 tons, with a consequent reduction in the total tonnage of from 135,000 to 110,000 tons. Britain favoured the abolition of submarines, which would also make possible a reduction of the destroyer tonnage by about one-third. If submarines could not be sonipletely abolished, their surface displacement should be fixed at 250 tons, with a strict limitation of total tonnage and the number of units.