AIRCRAFT AND DEFENCE

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 224, 18 June 1929, Page 13

AIRCRAFT AND DEFENCE

Sir, —Your correspondent, Mr. H. S. Montgomerie, quite erroneously credits me'with having (served in the Roy* l } Navy; but if th e manipulation of red herrings 1 ' is any evidence of seafaring experience, there would appear to be far greater grounds for this supposition as applied to nis case rather than to my own. My original letter —which drew him. into the arena-—was » mild protest ÜBajnst the “air first, the rest also ran attitude towards the services- of a sub-editorial which appeared in your'paper; and in that letter, as in my second, I indicated that while the air has an undoubted role in war, it is in extension of and not m substitution for those- of the other two impersonal nature of the discussion, Mf. Montgomerie s gibe at my adoption of a nom de plume is rather beside' the point. The essence of the matter appears to be not so much as to yrhat my fiame may be; tut rather as to whether the statements J haye made are correct or not. I have been careful throughout to confine myself to the statement of dembustrable facts as against the mere expression of personal opinion, if Mr. Montgomerie is unable tp assimilate them, I regret that I am upabje to supply him with the necessary mental digestive apparatus, nor have I any further intention of trying to do so. He has been kind enough to credit me with 0 working knowledge of naval matters, although as J have already stated, I have never had any conpectjon whatever with the Navy. Might I ask him to accept my, assurance that I kppw a little more about the air than I do about the sea. Asa matter of fact, Mr. Moptgomene gives his case away completely when lie refers to his personal experience of antiaircraft gunnery, presumably as a target. That was at least ten years ago; and a lot has happened during that ten years of which he is perhaps pardonably ignorant. ' I do not propose to trespass ugain on your space, although I confess I would like? to deal with the obvious “reef herrings” flaunted by Mr. Montgomerie, even although such artifices smilck of the wiles of the controversialist rather than of the convictions of a man with a genuine case to advpuce. In taking leave of Mr. Montgomerie I would present him with one final fact. Weapons change but principles remain constant. Hannibal used elephants; the arquebus outscot and supplanted the long bow; the Germans concentrated on gas and machine-guns; we replied with tanks; hut the deciding factor in the last as in every war since the dawn qf time was the man on the spot with a rifle and bayonet or its equivalent. _ The day when the infantry soldier, however he may be armoured or transported into battle, will be supplanted by an aerial chauffeur with a machine-gun is not yet; nor is it ever likely to be. At any rate, this is the doctrine on which every nation in the world bases the handling of its armed forces-in this the year of our Lord 1929. Thanking you once again for the courtesy of your Welling ton, June 12,