Wednesday, june 20,1906. the naval supre3siacy of BRITAIN.

Evening Post, Volume LXXI, Issue 145, 20 June 1906, Page 6

Wednesday, june 20, 1906. the naval supre3siacy of BRITAIN.

From time to time alarmist statements find currency as to the growing power of foreign navies as compared with that of Britain, and imaginative writers have represented the country as practically helpless in face of invasion from Europe. As a matter of fact, from whatever point of view it is regarded, Ihe British Navy still maintains its supremacy as compared with the combined fleets of France and Germany, and is, certainly equal, if not superior, to that of any other Power as regards efficiency. The issue of the late naval manoeuvres, which has been looked foiward to with no little interest, was reported yesterday, and should prove reassuring to those who eeem to think it would be a comparatively simple matter for an enemy to take our naval defenders by surprise. In a recent number of the Contemporary Review, the Right Hon. G. Shaw-Lefevre, under the head of "Rival Navies," makes some instructive com pariaons between the strength of the British fleet and those ' of neighbouring Powers. As a former Civil Lord and Secretary to tae Admiralty, he con speak with knowledge and some degree of authority. bince the decisive battle of Tsushima, Russia need not be taken into consideration, and the only two that bear any comparison with Britain are those of France and Germany. The shipbuilding programme of the latter Power, extending over twelve years, has, he points out, caused some alarm in France — and, he might have added, in ceitain quarters in England also; but the figures he brings forward do not wan-ant much apprehension. Ho shows that the GermaD programme was immediately pre- J ceded by a somewhat similar scheme on tho part of France, and against France — a much more likely adversary than Britain — he believes these preparations to be more particularly directed. A receni official memorandum by the late British Board of Admiralty as to Britain's requirements tor tho next few years affords a useful basis of comparison for any_ forecast as to the future. The flret thing that strikes the reader is the liLrgt? proportion of ships in each fleet thr.t arc already practically valueless in Mar. These include all the second-class battleships, and tho&e built over twentyfive years ago; all coast defence battleships ; and, though of comparatively recent construction, all 'the co-called protected cruisers, and still more so the unprotected cruisers. Face to face with the modern types they are of no value, but a source of embarrassment and danger, while the cruisers "could neither fight nor run away." The late Prime Minister struck off from the lUt 160 vessels of war as useless, and Mr. Shaw-^efevre would make) even a cleaner sweep still. "The only vessels now existing of real power and value for war purposes," he says, "are those of the modern type of battleships, of great tonnage, armed with twelve-inch guns; armoured cruisers of great speed, also heavily armed ; and torpedo destroyers." The ideal battleship of to-day, is of about eighteen thousand tona, carrying ten or twelve twelveinch guns. A lighter style is in favour with the American authorities, who have come to the conclusion that their battleships should not exceed sixteen thousand tons. Eliminating all the "scrap-heap" vessels which encumber tho various lists, the respective numbers of efficient battle* ships and cruisers stand: — Britain, 80; Franco, 36; Germany, 26. To these muet be added the torpedo destroyers — Britain, 162; France, 43; Germany, 49. But numbers alone give an inadequate idea of tho real comparative strength, the British ships being far superior in size, strength, speed, and armament. The battleships average 13,700 tons, compared with Franco 11,800, and Germany 1J.,600; the armoured cruisers 11,600, as against 9500 and 9100. Tlib total tonnage is— Britain 1,049,400, France 397,600, Germany 285,000. "The superiority of England over both France and Germany combined is enormous, and over these Powers singly overwhelming and incontestable. She might put into line against the German Navy battleship for battleship and armoured cruiser against armoured cruiser, and still have remaining over more than twice as many battleships and twice as many armoured cruiser* of infinitely greater power and strength, against which Germany has absolutely nothing to^ehow." Britain's effective strength, too, is well concentrated. "Except in tho case of the Mediterranean, there are no battleships on any foreign station, and only three armoured cruisers. AH the rest are at home or within easy reach," Satisfactory as this arrangement is from a strategic point of view, it is anything but reassuring in this part of tho world, for it implies that , J3u, Pacific in jirptfiottsd by obsolete »bin»

which the writer candidly describes as "useless em'uubrances," condemned to the scrap-h. ap. In fact the Powerful, the fiagshiji of the Australian Squadron, is mentioned by name as one of the obsolete protected cruisers "that no Board of Adn.iralty will ever venture to*send to sea in time of war with eight hundred men oi i board." Perhaps it is held by the Admil alty that on the basis of their proportionate contribution , to the upkeep of the Navy the Australasian colonies receive their just equivalent. Excluding useless types, the German navy is found tio be decidedly inferior in strength to that of France, which probably accounts for the feverish demand in German official circles for increased naval expenditure. Comparing tho respective programmes of the two, Powers it is difficult! if not impossible to forecast which will be the stronger twelve years hence, especially when it is borne in mind that a single invention may at any time reduce the finest of- present types tio the value of old iron. Roughly speaking, each of these Powers will complete two ships_,of modern type per annum, while Britain will build and equip four. The estimated cost to TJritain annually on new ships will be, including all incidental items, about £6,400,000. Large as this outlay is, it compares' favomably with £9,4b1,000 for the current /ear and £11,264,000 for lasti year. It must be remembered, too, that the present Administration has revised the programme i made substantial reductions with little if any loss of real' efficiency Nevertheless, this enormouc outlay, unprofitable and unproductive, must lie as a very heavy burden on the people of the United Kingdom. With the right hon. gentleman's concluding reflections most thoughtful readers will cordially agree. "Is it not a most lamentable waste of resources that these threo Powers should pile up their naval armaments at) such a pace? The experience of the protected and unprotected cruisers, and the prodigious watte of money which, it is now admitted was caused by the policy of building such scores of them, shows what may well happen in the course of a few years to the more powerful vessels which are being constructed. We are not at the end of invention, We are more likely to be at the beginning of it. Some new discovery will again be made which will render worthless, and even dangerous, all previous construction. . . Would it not be possible to devise some international arrangement under which a limit should be imposed on the armaments of tShe three Powers?"