DEFENCE PROBLEMS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 59, 10 March 1936, Page 6

DEFENCE PROBLEMS.

I t COMMERCE AND ITS RAIDERS. (To the Editor.) Strange that Mr. Xisbet should consider that cruisers at Gibraltar and Capetown can safely be included as part of this country's defences. Stranger still that only the day previously you should have published an article by Mr. Bywater, the English naval expert, in which he expresses exactly the opposite view, and draws attention to the need of a Pacific pact. As regards this country, the defence of its trade is quite a distinct problem to the defence of the country itself against hostile raids or occupation. The first can probably only be ensured by a Pacific naval pact, but as regards the second, inasmuch as the country is fortunately selfsufficient and can produce all tlm necessities of life, except petrol, ill abundance, and could subsist quite comfortably for a year or two on its own resources, even if all its trade were cut off, all that is necessary, apart from large reserves of petrol, is to make its shores too dangerous for. hostile craft to approach, and for that purpose bombing aeroplanes would certainly appear to be much the cheapest and most effective solution. HUGH M. CLOSE.

Some of us who have been officers in the ' Navy will believe our Admiralty is up to date : when it designs commerce protectors capable • of dealing with raiders with 38 or 40 knots speed, say, two 9in guns, no armour and pro--1 tected with an adequate number of aeroplanes and anti-aircraft guns. Such a raider would be capable of destroying the whole lot of our so-called commerce protectors carrying Gin guns. Many of us have the suspicion that the Admiralty is mainly interested in providing a great Navy so as to have as many officers in employment as possible. The type of ship is not always considered, except from* a peace point of view. Admiral Keyes has just informed us we did not light up the Channel to prevent submarines going down Channel because we were afraid German destroyers would destroy our trawlers. When the Channel was lit up the sinkings stopped immediately. Did our Navy value the trawlers as more important than the cargo carriers and troop ships? Why did not the Germans light the Channel? If the trawlers could not°be attacked in the dark, then the trawlers could not attack the submarines which went down Channel every night in the shipping route past Dover, and the trawlers were useless as patrol against submarines. It would follow that German destroyers were safe at night and could have attacked the transports going across Channel, as we would not have been able to see them, and so on, ad infinitum. The Admiralty /gave the excuse in regard to Jutland and the Dogger that we had failed to a certain extent through not being able to see flag signals. Was it because the Navy is so conservative that it preferred the flag signals of Nelson's dav to modern search" lights and Aldis lamps? We lost the Formidable because the admiral in charge, who was supposed to be a most up-to-date admiral, forgot he was at war, and ordered his fleet, the fleet punishment of "dead slow, line ahead." No wonder some of us are uneasy about the next war. EX-NAVAL OFFICER.