THE ROYAL NAVY

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 19, 23 January 1926, Page 10

THE ROYAL NAVY

SUPERIOR PERSONNEL

ADMIRAL LAMBERT'S STRIC

TURES

THE INDECISION OF JUTLAND,

It will come as a blow to every person of British blood to learn from Vice-Admiral Sir Cecil Lambert, who was Fourth Sea Lord during the Great War, that "ship for ship, gun for gun, and engine for engine, there was a higher standard of efficiency in the German fleet than any that the British Fleet could claim to have.'' But it will impart a glow of pride to hear from the same authority that the British personnel was "incomparable"—that is to say, incomparably superior to that of the Germans, writes John Sandes in the "Sydney Morning Herald." People of British stock have ono solid consolation, at any rate. The superior ships, guns, and engines of the German fleet were surrendered to tho "incomparable personnel" of the British Fleet, arid were surreptitiously sunk beneath the waters of Scapa Flow by their own officers, so that they should not remain as visible trophies of the victory of Britain.

Who had the better of it at Jutland? It is hard to say. British naval officers are not fond of discussing that battle, probably because the mere fact that discussion is possible removes it from the category of decisive victories. The fact remains that Yon Seheer, after pounding Eeatty's advance guard of battlecruisers, took to flight soon after the arrival of the main strength of the British Fleet, and escaped back to his fortified base, from which he never again emerged. The British Fleet at Scapa put the stranglehold of an effective blockade on Germany. The German submarines could not break it, and it was the blockade that Bapped the strength of Germany and destroyed the resistance of her sailors, as well as of her soldiors. British naval officers who met the Germans more than onca at sea have told,this present writer that the gunnery of the Germans was excellent and superior to that of the Eritish — at the first onset. But it rapidly deteriorated under punishment. The British • gunlayers maintained their standard of shooting, no matter how hard their ship was being hit. It was the quality Of the man behind the gun that decided the issue. The Germans frequently found the > target first. The British stayed on it longest. That is the evidence of so many independent witnesses that it must carry weight. Not that it can console the nation for the disclosure that British ships, guns, and engines were inferior to those of the enemy. But it can make the people proud of the men who fought the ships, while it must make them indignant with those who built them. SHOCK TO BRITISH PRIDE. If Admiral Sir Cecil Lambert's revelation gives the British people everywhere a shock, let them remember that it is by no means the first time that Britain has won a naval war with ships inferior to those of the enemy. Bead what the old chroniclers have to say about Queen Elizabeth's Navy that defeated the Spanish Armada. Her captains had to supplicate their Sovereign for round shot for their guns and bread for their seamen. Yet they scattered their huge antagonists when the battle closed. Dryden painted the oldtime British seaman in one vivid line: "And adds his heart to every gun he fires." Hear some of the things that happened at Jutland from men who were there, and judge whether the same spirit does not live still. A young snb-lieutenant, who was on the battle-cruiser Lion at Jutland, related to me this incident. He said that a German shell pierced the ship, and penetrated into the ammunition magazine. There were several men working in the magazine. The young officer on duty had one second, or perhaps two, to come to a decision. Ho •*avc the. order, to flood the magazine The doors were closed. The water rushed in. The men who were in the magazine were drowned at their posts, and the ship was saved. If the German shell had burst it would have exploded all the ammunition in the magazine, and the ship and all on board would have been blown to fragments. Of such stern mettle were the men who fought at Jutland. Admiral Sir Cecil Lambert's strictures with regard to the ships, guns, and engines of the British Navy durin" the war proclaimed to the world something that British naval officers have often discussed privately. /Moreover, they were ready to admit that German methods of finding the target quickly and of arranging by signals lor the concentration of whole salvoes from a number of their ships simultaneously upon one ship of their enemy were highly effective. It wa3 thus that the Queen Mary was sunk by a hurricane of shells striking her together from a number of German ships. The lessons taught at Jutland have not been lost. In ship construction in the provision of "bulges' against torpedoes, and armoured decks against bombing aircraft, and also in now methods of fire control and concentration, the present-day Navy is, or should be, as far ahead of the ships that fought at Jutland as those ships were ahead of the preDreadnoughts. CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES. The vast change that has come over the naval situation since the end of the war, and the ratification of the Washington Treaties of 1922, may be gathered from the fact that in battleship strength the British Fleet now based on Malta is stronger than all the other navies of Europe put together. That battleship fleet is pivoted on Malta, which is strategically at the centre of the Empire. It is ready to steam eastward through _ Suez or westward through the Straits of Gibraltar. But for Britain cruisers to prutect the ocean-borne commerce are not less essential than battleships to meet the main fleet of an enemy. The ex-Sea Lord's statement that "the Admiralty can at present send to sea only five efficient cruisers after an expenditure of £500,000,000 since the Armtistice" is inexplicable as it stands. ■ The latest issue of the "Navy List" enumerates fifty-two cruisers, among which are included the R.A.N. ships Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney, and Brisbane. In addition to these the British Admiralty laid down five 10,000-tonners —the limit permissible by the Washington Tro-ty—during the last financial year, and two nioro cruisers of the sanio class ore under ooustruoUpa for the Australian Navy.

Tour months ago four additional 10,000-tonners were authorised, and tho Admiralty announced that work was to be begun on two more in November. One of tho two was ti be built at the naval dockyard at Portsmouth and the other at Devonport. The remaining two are to be begun in February in contractors' yards on the Clyde and Tyne. Consequently eleven 10,000-tonners are now building or projected, and those that were laid down earliest must be approaching completion. Apparently the ex-Sea Lord refuses to regard more than five of the fifty-two cruisers shown in the "Navy List" as "efficient." If that be so he is setting the standard high—perhaps unduly high.

Sir Cecil Lambert's statement in regard to cruisers may well alarm the nation. Great Britain has an increasing population, and an ever-decreas-ing acreage under cultivation. Consequently in order to feed her people she is obliged to import more and more food from abroad every year. That food can only reach her by sea, and the ships that carry it must be protected in time of war by cruisers. If those ships be prevented by enemy action from reaching British ports the people of Britain would starve. They came within measurable distance of starvation from that cause during the war owing to the success of the German submarines.

The extent to which Britain was to rely upon imported, rood is to be gathered from figures quoted recently by Sir W. Beach Thomas. That well-known writer states that the British people "are spending nearly £400,000,000 a year on imported foods." He adds that "the financiers say we cannot pay the bill out of earnings, out of income." The bill increases every year because home production of food decreases—more acres go out of cultivation and less food is grown on the acres that are said to be cultivated—while the number of consumers grows steadily.

With an ever-increasing amount of foodstuffs having to be brought by sea to' Britain every year, cruisers to protect the sea routes must also be increased. Yet the people of the Empire are told that "the Admiralty can at present send to sea only five efficient cruisers." It is a startling and even alarming announcement, not only for the British, but also for the people of Australia, who grow an increasing proportion of the food for Britain, and also of the raw material necessary for the operations of the British manufacturers. It is reasonable to assnme, however, that Sir Cecil Lambert has overstated "his case—he has certainly done so according to the official figures—in order to draw attention arrestingly to a very real danger.