AIR AS FIRST LINE

Evening Post, Volume CXXI, Issue 78, 1 April 1936, Page 12

AIR AS FIRST LINE

COASTAL DEFENCE

MOBILITY AND RELIABILITY

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—A few days ago the "Air as First Line" discussion was enlivened by a contribution by "Great Guns," who attempted to refute the case in favour of aerial defence by displaying the merits of the classical forms of defence. Most of his "strong points" were demolished by "A.A.H." in the article appended to his letter. But in the course of it, "Great Guns" referred to a sentence in. an earlier letter of mine, to the effect that guns were unreliable as coastal defences. I would like to make it clear that I did not mean that guns are unreliable as shooting machines. I meant, not that they cannot hit what they aim at, but that an invader can ensure that they will have nothing to aim at, by avoiding the places where they are. The unreliability of coastal defences as a means of repelling invaders is due to the fact that, except by the will of the enemy, they cannot possibly get at him. He has the initiative; he can choose his landing place away, from fortifications. If we are to presuppose any attack upon the Dominion, we must expect it to be big enough to be worth while. A mere gesture of hostility would be of no value. We cannot hope to protect our extensive shores, and our many ports, and our most important shipping channels with mounted guns, or a mobilised territorial army; and all these must be guarded. The only arm that is mobile enough and capable of being strong enough for the limited financial resources of New Zealand is an Air Force. This means not a few squadrons of machines so ■ lacking in equipment that they are no better than scouts, but a powerful force capable of striking heavy and frequent blows; fast, long-range bombers. There is plenty of evidence, despite those who say that the air-war theory is all theory, to prove that ships are terribly vulnerable under aerial bombardment. And there is as yet no evidence whatever that they can ward it off.

It will of course be contended that, if aerial attack is really worth while, an enemy will use aircraft; and that experience has shown that attacking aircraft cannot be prevented from reaching their objectives. This is true. But while both points make the outlook extraordinarily ugly in regard to Continental warfare, they support the case for aerial defence of New Zealand. This country can possess far more aircraft than an enemy can bring against it. But even if it could net, it is a vital consideration that an attacking force is a restricted target. It may do great damage to a part or parts of New Zealand; but the defending air force will simultaneously damage the whole enemy organisation. Our eggs will be in several baskets, the enemy's in one. Our baskets, moreover, will at least be on dry land. His will sink. I am, etc.,

MOBILITY FIRST.