Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

SHIPS AND PLANES

Up to the time when the British capital ships the Prince of Wales and the Repulse were attacked and sunk by a cloud of Japanese aeroplanes in the Gulf of Siam, the controversy, battleship v. aeroplane, on past experience in the present war seemed to have been decided, on the whole in favour of the former. There had been numerous air attacks on warships, and lighter craft—cruisers and destroyers—had been sunk, but battleships, though hit, had lived to fight again. The aircraft carrier Ark Royal had many narrow escapes, but was finally sunk by submarine, meeting the same fate as the Courageous in the early days of the war. The Illustrious came through a hurricane of bombs in the Sicilian Channel, and, though damaged, was able to make Malta under her own steam. The loss of the Prince of Wales and the Repulse swung the argument again in favour of the aeroplane at first sight, but the circumstances there were unusual, almost unique, the only parallel being the ordeal of the Mediterranean Fleet in the operations off Crete. In both cases the Navy had little or no support from the air. Rear-Admiral Rawlings, of the Mediterranean Fleet, has now, in a frank Press interview at Alexandria, put the position correctly in the dictum that should stand: "With good fighter plane protection the day of warships is not done." He gave instances where fighter aircraft had broken up numerically superior attacks and laid it down that "fighter screens" were "absolutely necessary to warships" and would take part in future development plans. Thus, experience at sea confirms that of land warfare, that ships like troops must be protected from air attack by air attack. The answer to the dive-bomber is the fighter. This lesson the American navy, as Colonel Knox, the United States Navy Secretary, implies in his talk at Washington, reported today, has learned also. Under present war conditions he said a full-scale naval engagement was not likely in the Pacific. The American navy had a more urgent duty just now. When the time comes the American Pacific fleet will no doubt apply the lessons learned to the best effect.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/EP19420113.2.14

Bibliographic details

Evening Post, Volume CXXXIII, Issue 10, 13 January 1942, Page 4

Word Count
362

SHIPS AND PLANES Evening Post, Volume CXXXIII, Issue 10, 13 January 1942, Page 4

SHIPS AND PLANES Evening Post, Volume CXXXIII, Issue 10, 13 January 1942, Page 4

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert