SHIPS’ DEFENSIVE ARMS

Greymouth Evening Star, 16 January 1941, Page 3

SHIPS’ DEFENSIVE ARMS

INCREASE NOT ADVISABLE, i An informative statement on the! arming of merchant ships has been' issued by the Navy Office, in reply, to a critic who suggested that these ships [ were not carrying arms heavy enough; to resist enemy raiders. The Navy’. Office points out that heavier arma- : ' ment would convert merchant ships, into armed merchant cruisers and thus|’ make them liable to attack without! warning. . , As soon as war broke out, British'; merchant ships were fitted with one - or two guns, the Navy Office states, i These were mounted aft in the ships. : This arming is permitted by interna- ; tional law and does not affect thep ship’s status as a peaceful merchant- h man. The ship so armed is known as j; a “defensively-equipped merchant . ship” (d.e.m.s.). The practice of de- ’< fensively equipping . merchantmen arose during the last war as a result ; of the submarine attacks. It was fully realised then, as now, that a mer- ; chantman with one or two guns was quite incapable of fighting a battle with either a warship or even an armed merchant cruiser; but when the Germans commenced their ruthless submarine campaign it was quite possible for a submarine to come to the surface and attack a merchant ship with every prospect of success and with safety to itself because the merchantman could not reply. In. order to give a merchant ship a chance to escape it was fitted with guns for defensive purposes only. This policy, as is well known, was 'remarkably successful and it fully justified itself. ARMED MERCHANT CRUISERS. But if more guns are mounted on a merchant vessel, as suggested, then it ceases to be a “defensively armed merchant ship,” and becomes an armed merchant cruiser. ■ Even supposing this policy could be put into practice, the consequences of this action have carefully to be considered. One consequence of the fitting of war guns to merchant ships would be that the raider, being fitted more completely both with armament and the necessary apparatus for controlling her gunfire, would not have the least difficulty in sinking the merchant ship, and would also be fully entitled to open fire, without any warning whatsoever. The raider would also have theo- , retical justification in leavingthe crew

and passengers of the merchant ship to perish. Thus the plight of the unfortunate ship and her crew would be infinitely worse than under present I conditions. Furthermore, in accordance with ! the rules of warfare, the enemy would ;be fully justified in attacking and sinking without warning any merchant ship he saw. It should be pointjed out that the enemy raiders have ’not so far opened fire on merchant ships without warning, but they have iopened fire when the ship, being attacked, has made a distress message l or other’ signal by radio. Before doing so,' however, they have invariably made a signal warning the ship that they would open fire if the radio was used. It is true that this is not strictly in accordance with international law, but the raider claims justification for this action because it must do all it can to stop its victim from reporting it. Although we have not yet got full accounts of the shelling of the ships recently captured in New Zealand waters, it appears that such shelling has not been more than was necessary for the destruction of the merchant ships’ wireless equipment. Even if it were possible for the-nav-al authorities to accede to the wishes expressed it should be clearly understood that this action would merely condemn every merchant ship and all her sailors to far more ruthless treatment and to far greater damage and loss of life than they have incurred up to the present time.