STRONG CRUISERS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 22956, 7 February 1938, Page 9

STRONG CRUISERS

BUILDING SUSPECTED EXCEEDING OLD LIMITS CONCERN AT WASHINGTON By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright (Received February 0, 6.45 p.m.) NEW YORK, Feb. 5 The Washington correspondent of the New York Times says officials there are convinced that Japan is building or planning to build one or two 43,000-ton battleships largely for show purposes, and an unknown number of fast, heavily armed pocket battleships in the form of cruisers similar to Germany's. The capital ships and cruisers alike would exceed the old limits of 35,000 and 1000 tons respectively in the two categories. American naval experts are inclined to view Japan's presumed cruiser programme with greater concern than oversize battleships. The essential ability of American battleships to pass easily and safely through the Panama Canal places n top limit of 38.000 to 40,000 tons on the size of capital ships that would be of strategic value to the American Navv Problem of the Pacific Plans for ships of this size, it is understood, would utilise most of the extra tonnage for increased enginepower, thus providing greater speed. Little, if any, would bo used to mount heavier guns. In its present capital ships the American Navy has sacrificed speed for armour and armament with the result that the capital ships slow up the entiro fleet. This situation will be remedied first in any revised building plans. With American strategists the problem consists almost entirely of tho possible situation in. the Pacific. Tliev realise the Japanese intention of being able to block off the China Sea and envisage that their own task will bo one of providing protection for American lives and property in China America May Build Monster Ship

The Washington correspondent of tho Australian Associated Press says the Navy has already drafted plans for bigger battleships. It has designs for 18-inch guns but a monster of 43,000 tons with 12 16-inch guns, able to negotiate the Canal, is the very probabln answer to Japan. Construction is too far advanced on the 35,000-ton battleships in North Carolina and Washington :o add over 1000 tons to their bulk.

"If Japan is going to bnild battleships over 35,000 tons we will be compelled to do tho same," commented a member of Congress. Twenty members met unofficially and appointed a committee of nine pledged to obtain all possible information as to: (1) America's foreign policy; (2) what sizpd Navy is adequate to implement that foreign policy. The New York Herald Tribune says the Navy does not expect Japan to conform to the limitation. Her Navy's model basin has tested model hulls for dreadnoughts up to 46,000"t0n5. The Note was. cabled to the United States Ambassador at Tokio, Mr. J. C. Grew. France and Britain are presenting similar Notes. These actions are explained by officials as simultaneous and parallel, not joint. This method was necessary because all the parties to the 1936 treaty would be jointly menaced by any Power's violation of it.

SIMILAR NOTES

BRITAIN AND FRANCE VIRTUAL ULTIMATUM (Received February (!, p.m.) LONDON. Feb. 5 Tile text of the British Note to Tokio intimates that unless Japan discloses her naval building intentions Britain will invoke the London 1936 Treaty and the escalator clause and build capital ships beyond 30,000 tons and cruisers beyond 10,000 tons.

The Note is virtually an ultimatum and gives a time limit for reply. French and American Notes are couched in similar terms.

JAPAN'S POLICY

NO REASON TO CHANGE (Recoived February 6, 5.5 p.m.) TOKIO, Feb. 5 Referring to the British and American naval Notes an official of the Japanese Admiralty said: "1 see no reason why Japan should change her fundamental naval policy. Any suggestion that Japan is willing to comply with the request for an assurance that shp is not and does not intend building battleships exceeding 35,000 tons would merely be a step back toward the yoke of the ratio system, which I believw to be impossible."