THE WAR

Evening Post, Volume XCV, Issue 41, 16 February 1918, Page 6

THE WAR

Some interesting information on the subject of the shipping war is available fa. newly-arrived English files, On 13th December Sir Eric Geddes made'an important statement on the shipbuilding output. This was very briefly (referred to by cable at the time in a message which mentioned' only the' total amount of' tonnage built in 1917. The First Lord, however, put this in the second place, and gave prior attention, as being for the time most important as a development, to ship repairing. It was not till fast June, he explained, that the" work of repairing torpedoed ships was put under centralised control; and in that month ten vessels damaged by enemy action were undergoing permanent repair, equivalent to 27 per cent, of the total salved tonnage onhand. At the date of the speech, fiftysix vessels, equal to 80 per cent, of the total salved tonnage, were being repaired. By the lßt November the duty of dry docks had been so developed that they were occupied 90 per cent, of the time— a record far beyond peace experience ; and during November this "factor of dock efficiency" had increased to 94 per cent. The effect of the salvage and repair organisation since August had been to increase the output of repaired ships from dry dock by 48 per cent, and of repairs afloat by 45 per cent.,

Leaving the First Lord's. December statement, we may refer to a reply given in the House of Commons to. a question on the subject of ships torpedoed but beached. This matter was referred to in these notes recently with the suggestion that if such vessels were total losses they might be an important element in^diminishlng the total tonnage. ' But Dr. Macnamara informed the House that such vessels when they were total losses were reported as sinking^ They were included in the figures for the week in which they were reported as total losses, i.e., as being incapable of salvage. He also stated that while merchant vessels used as auxiliary cruisers or patrol vessels when iost were not reported in the weekly lists, b-eing' regarded as, naval losses, those carrying oil, coal, oi> other cargoes owned by the Crown were reported. This statement makes it clear that the '-Weekly reports cover all tho British merchantmen definitely lost by enemy action.

To revert to S& Eric Geddes's speech. The First Lord, in explaining the progress, in the building of new ships, was evidently chary of giving exact figures for the output of merchant tonnage. His statistics dealt with the combined output of merchant vessels a.nd warships, taken in the gross, and counting one ton of warship ac equal to two tons of merchant ship. On that basis, he declared that, taking the December 'output ac equal to that of November, the year's production would be equal to that of 1913, the biggest shipbuilding year Britain had evex- had. •The output in. October and November was at a rate 18 per cent, higher than that of 1913. By the end of the year the actual output of merchant tonnage would be approximately equal to that of 1913, that is,about 1,920,000 tons. The plans laid down provided, said Sir Eric Geddes, for a great advance upon this rate of building, and wherever ships of wood, concrete, or steel could be built etepe were'being taken by Britain and the Allies to develop the industry and increase the output. In Britain a big experiment was being ma.de -with concrete barges of about 1000 tone capacity. The speaker went on to explain the necessity for pressing on the production, of fighting ships as w_ell as merchantmen, since it was the special fighting vessel which alone could pjreyent the industry of the shipyards. from being merely sent out in a form' to be destroyed by an ever-in-creasing fleet of enemy submarines.

To-day's cables contain a statement by Mr. Bonar, Law that in 1917 the British yards turned out 1,163,474 tons of shipping, and 170,000 tons were acquired abroad. These figures, compared with Sir Eric Geddes's, show a remarkable discrepancy. If Mr. Bonar Law's figures have been correctly cabled, it is difficult to understand how a difference of over three-quarters of a million tons is to be accounted for. The progress reports during 1917 certainly led to the expectation of a total' British shipyard output approaching- two million tons of merchantmen. It can only bo hoped that the figures cabled to-day contain a-mis-print.

The First Lord,/in his ■ December ..speech', explained tho inauguration of three new' national shipyards upon the Severn, at a total cost, in addition to the provision of thirty-foul- shipbuilding: berths, of £3,887,000, .arid intended to 'be supplementary to the'private yards'. The sites on the Severn, he said, had £been-chosen..Jjecauea they- -iftoxd. -good.

facilities for launching and fitting out ships; because they lie in a district from which steel can be readily obtained, and because the sites available for the housing of the workmen are healthier and better than can be secured in almost any; other part of- the country. These national shipyards are going to be used for tha construction, of a more highly standardised ship' than has yet been undertaken. A great deal of the work can be done in bridge yards, and it is proposed to 'manufacture in bridge yards portions of the sliips to the largest dimensions which the railways can carry without impeding other traffic. In. this way advantage can be taken of machinery already in existence at constructional yards, and thus save the time and expenditure involved in setting up new machinery. There are three national shipyards, and in only one of .them is it proposed to put any 'large amount of manufacturing plant. The other two will be erecting yard's only. They are well under way, and it is anticipated! that it will be possible to commence laying the keel of the first vessel in the national yards in the early, part of this year.

Then, with respect to the progress of the enemy's -campaign at saa, Sir Eric said :—"The demands on our merchant shipping are greater ihan they have ever been ; The submarine menace is, in my opinion, held, but not yet mastered. Our shipbuilding is not yet replacing our losses, but amongst all the factors which go to the solution of this position I deprecate the drawing of deductions from the experience of any one week or month, bS it good or bod. (Hear, hear.) It is the general curve in each of the factors which we must watch, and upon which we must base our policy and our .opinion a3 to ultimate results. I do not suggest that those who are charged with the daily responsibility, either of fighting the enemy submarines or of repairing and producing merchant ships in order to maintain ourselves and our Allies, should disregard detail. It is upon a proper review of detail that they must devote and adopt counter-measures, and put them into force, ■ but; it is upon the general curve of all the factors that we must base conclusions as to whether things are going well or badly. I have studied the general curve as it has con^ tinued ■ since November, when I made my last statement, and the downward trend of mercantile marine losses, both of ourselves and our Allies, has continued satisfactorily. (Cheers.) The upward curve of the destruction of the enemy submarines has continued equally satisfactorily, and I have no reason to doubt that these curves will continue gradually.to improve. (Hear, hear.) I would, however, reiterate that a good or bad month of sinkings either of merchant ships or of enemy submarines ought not to ber taken by itself. A period might conceivably be brought about by circumstances which, taken by themselves, would appear to justify gratifying conclusions, but which in the end might lead to increased losses. The casualties in merchant ships will inevitably fluctuate, just aT"the casualties in man-power fluctuate in land war, and it is only by taking the general trend of success and loss that a true picture can be obtained."