The Dominion WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1917. SUBMARINES AND SHIPPING

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 7, 3 October 1917, Page 4

The Dominion WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1917. SUBMARINES AND SHIPPING

A somewhat extraordinary stateme j-a. on 6 shipping position was credited a day or two ago to tho P ntash Ministry of Munitions. It i>s markedly inconsistent with reCent utterances by , Mr. Lloyd George on the same subject, and is distinctly open to criticism on tho ground that as it stands, without elaboration, it is decidedly misleading. It is perhaps an example of the eccentric methods to which Mr. Winston Chuhchill at times ■ resorts. At all events, the known facts of tho submarine campaign and the shipping situation warrant a more hopeful tone than is taken in this pronouncement by tho Ministry br Minister, of Munitions. Though the figures upon which the statement is based are not available, it may be true that shipping losses since February 1 roughly equal the total losses of the war period before that date, but tho fact is much more alarming, thus baldly stated, than when certain essential details aro taken* into account. According to French official figures, Allied and neutral shipping losses in 1915 and 1916 amounted to 3,283,000 tons. By February 1, 1917, the total may have been increased to 3,700,000 tons, or rather more. Complete returns of 'tonnage losses in 1917 are not available, but the French Minister of Marine stated in the Chamber of Deputies in May that Allied and neutral losses for tho first four months of the year might be put at 2,500,000 tons. It is therefore possible that losses from February 1 to September roughly equal those of the preceding war period. Assuming so much, however, there are a number of factors which very greatly modify tho outlook. In the first place, destruction by- submarine and mine reached a height in April last from whioh it has since made a pronounced, though fluctuating, descent. Evidence on this point appears both in the periodical returns showing tho number of British ships sunk and in tonnage figures supplied by the British .Prime Minister some weeks ago. The Admiralty returns show that there has been a marked decline in losses of British ships in recent months as compared with April. Tho average losses per week in April and during the last three months are shown in the following table:— Over Under 1600 1600 tons. tone. ■ April (4 weeks) 28.5 9.75 July (5 weeks) 16.4 3.C Anf. 5 weeks 17.6 3 Sept. (3 weeks) 11 0.3 The only marked departure from tho general decline appears in tho heavy losses of small ships in. the first two weeks of the present month, and these losses will not greatly affect the ■ tonnage balance. Mr. Lloyd George threw further light on tho matter when he stated that in April British ships aggregating 560,000 tons were sunk, while in July the losses fell to 320,000 tons. Hβ added that the net losses—presumably the balance to the bad after setting ships built or piirohased against tonnage sunk—since the commencement of Germany s unrestricted warfare were under 250,000 tons a month. Finally, Mr. Lloyd George observed that Germany, as matters then stood, was not even able to hold her own, and thaVwith the co-operation of America thero would bo sufficient tonnage for 1918, and, if necessary, for 1919. Although tonnage had decreased during tho preceding year, more goods had been carried from overseas. Apart from what the Allies arc doing to augment their mercantile fleets, it is a fact to bo emphasised that plain proof has been afforded this year of the increasing effect ot the naval counter-measures taken acainst the submarines. The underwater oampaign has been developed since February on an unoxampled scale, and the time of the year most favourable to tho operations of the submarines is now drawing to an end. Yet in this period the amount of destruction effected by tho Unoats has been very heavily reduced Wo must count upon a continued construction of submarines, but the Allies, drawing upon more

ample, resources, will also develop their counter-measures. In this matter, as well as in the construction of now tonnage, the co-operation of tho United States is of very great importance. There is every reason to believe that tho naval counteroffensive will prove increasingly effective as time goes on. Other material factors are tho more economical use of tonnage, by cutting out. unnecessary imports, by utilising the available vessels where they will be of the greatest service, and in other ways, and a- material reduction in the demands on tonnage by tho home production of food iu Great Britain. All that is being done ill the way of turning out nuw ships is supplementary to the cr.ntinued development of naval coun-ter-measures and to systematic measures of economy and organisation. But in themselves known fads relating to tho present and prospective output of new tonnage, particularly in Great Britain and the United States, are of decidedly hopeful import. This year Britain plans to add close on two million tons of new shipping to her mercantile fleet, most of it built in her own yards. Next year, according to a statement made by Mit. Lloyd Geokge at a recent Allied Conference, somo four million tons of niorchant shipping will leave _ British slips. Equal enterprise is being shown in America. Some time u.qo the principal experts at first appointed to control shipping construction in. the United States resigned after a dispute'ovar the respective merits (in view of thj swar emergency) of steel and wooden Ahips. Steel construction is now given chief place in a programme which is rapidly expanding under new control. Reviewing the outlook, the New York Evening Post ieniarkcd recently:

The' programme of General Goethals seemed huge in providing for a new merchant marine, including commandeered vessels, of not less than six million tons. That of which the Shipping Board speaks provides for hardly less than ten million tons. Objections may develop on fiscal and other grounds to parts of this programme, , and it is not one that can bo executed in the space of months. The ships built for foreign account which we arc commandeering ought in- equity to be returned to foreign account when the war ends. But we may feel sure that, so far as the vision and ambition of the Shipping Board can go to give us a great merchant marine, we shall have it. Precisely what amount of tonnage America will turn out in time to affect the trend of tho war next year it is impossible to say at the moment, but the amount will certainly be large. As the Economist observed not long ago, America- produced only 230i000 tons of steel ships in 1915. But in 1916 she built 531,000 tons, and this year confidently reckons on 1,400,000 tons. During the two years 1917 and 1918 America expects to produce over four million tons of new shipping, and it is not unlikely that this amount will be exceeded. It has to be* remembered also that approximately a million tons of enemy shipping has been- seized in North and South America. In one way and another tremendous forces are working to defeat the submarine campaign. The winter perioJ, in which ■ the operations of the submarines will be hampered, will no doubt be one of maximum activity in transporting troops and maforial from the United States to Europe. It will be a time also; of conoentrated industrial activity, and whon good weather ana long days return, the submarines, if they are still at work, will be faced by a much increased task and by a formidable extension of the ' mea-. sures organised for their destruction. A certain margin of possibilityis, of course, open, but visible facts certainly do not warrant tho alarmist tone of the statement to which we referred in opening this article. ■