Air Defence

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 110, 3 February 1931, Page 7

Air Defence

Sir,—At a reception to Mr. Guy Menzies, the lone flyer of the Tasman, the Hon. Minister of Defence stated that he intended to ask Cabinet if the amount allocated for air defence could be increased. Probably this was intended merely as a gesture of goodwill toward aviation generally, and if so can be relegated to that limbo of airy nothings which must by now be fairly well packed with the polite expressions of- politicians. As an up-to-date Minister of Defence Mr. Cobbe is of course aware that as a means of “defence” the aeroplane is a complete “washout.” The British experts have perfected an anti-aircraft gun which has an extreme elevation of 80 degrees and a range of 27,000 feet, and no plane yet built, or likely to be'. built, can get past that sort -of defence. If Mr. Cobbe has in view the defence of say, 'Wellington, then all that is required is a small number of up-to-date anti-aircraft guns. Any plane that did get past these guns would have to ff.v so high that its bomb dropping would be harmless. The principal reason why the aeroplane is useless as a means of defending a port such as Wellington is the fact that it takes a plane from 20 to 30 minutes to come into action, and by the time it has left the aerodrome and attained sufficient height to be of any use. the attack is a thing of the past, and the enemy has retreated whence he came. Ou the other hand, the gun is ready for action, if properly manned, at a moment’s notice, and this being so practically ensures immunity from attack. No.*the real use for the aeroplane in war time is as an auxiliary to the artillery and infantry, and as such it is of very great value —that is assuming that in.the next war New Zealand sends an expeditionary force abroad. For the “home defence” of an isolated country like New Zealand the plane is but a useless and costly toy.—l am. etc., COMMON SENSE. Christchurch. January 24.