POST-WAR NAVIES

Greymouth Evening Star, 14 January 1933, Page 5

POST-WAR NAVIES

; AMERICAN LEGEND & THE FACTS Hector C. Bywater, “Daily Telegraph” Naval Correspondent writes: — Having regard both to the tendency at Washington to link War Debts with disarmament and to the discussions on the latter subject now proceeding at Geneva, it is desirable to draw attention to certain facts of which public opinion abroad, and notably in the United States, is obviously unaware. In the American Press, and also in Congress, it is customary to saddle Great Britain with the main responsibility for the post-war development of naval armaments. Senator Borah appears to take this view, which is frequently expressed in less measured terms by Senator Hale and Representative Britten, the respective chairmen of the House Naval Committees. Both these gentlemen apparently regard Great Britain as the chief obstacle to disarmament at sea. A brief investigation suffices to explode this legend, for such it is. Immediately after the war Great Britain voluntarily entered upon a naval holiday which lasted nearly three years. The United States, on the other hand, was engaged the entire time on a huge.building programme. During those three years, November 1918, to November, 1921, only four capital ships and one submarine were laid down for the British Navy. In the same period the United States began sixteen capital ships, ten cruisers, seventy-seven destroyers and thirty submarines. A survey of British and American naval construction in the last fourteen years, embracing ships laid down or authorised to date, yields the following result: — British Empire. United States.

Within the same period the United States has spent £25,000,000 on modernising its battleships. This compares with a maximum outlay of £12,000,000 by this country for the like purpose. Further, the American fleet air arm has grown to an establishment of 1,000 first-line aircraft, or Live times the number of machines possessed by the British Navy. The personnel of the two navies now stands as follows: British, 01,410. United States, 107,000.

From the foregoing comparisons it is evident that ever since 1918 the United States has kept ahead of Great Britain in the development of naval armaments. Clearly, therefore, American advocates of disarmament at sea have been sending their protests to the wrong address.

WEAKEST FOR 150 YEARS The figures I have quoted do not by any means reveal the full extent to which Great Britain has sacrificed her naval power partly, no doubt, from motives of economy, but undoubtedly still more in the hope of promoting universal disarmament.

Counting only post-war ships, since no others can now be deemed fully efficient, the British Navy to-day ranks second in cruiser strength, lift.h in destroyers, and fifth in submarines. My article in The Daily Telegraph of November 14 exposed the dangerous weakness of our destroyer lorce, which has declined to tilth place. Last Wednesday the Pirsl Lord of the Admiralty showed that in submarines also we are now' outnumbered by the United States, France, Japan ami Italy. At no time in the last hundred and fifty years has the British Navy been so weak, relatively, as it is today. The facts and figures here given all of which are derived from official data, appear to merit the fullest publicity at the present juncture of world affairs.

Heavy cruisers (Sin. guns) 15 1G Light cruisers (6in. guns) 10 10 Destroyers 50 88 Submarines 32 40 No. of ships 107 154 Total tonnage 32 0,000 378,000