AIR DANGER

Southland Times, Issue 18965, 12 June 1923, Page 11

AIR DANGER

VULNERABILITY OF LONDON. DISTURBING POSSIBILITIES. The alarming possibilities of air warfare in the future were discussed by Lord Montagu of Beaulieu in a recent article in the London Observer. “I am sure,” he wrote, “that the public, though alarmed at our present weakness in the air, does not realise what a menace frotn the air forces of an enemy means compared with a menace by land and sea forces. “Even with the comparatively imperfect aircraft of 1915-18 London suffered very heavily from aircraft attacks during the war. Here is a list of raid statistics, so far as the metropolis was concerned:— Zeppelin and aeroplane raids ... 130 Incendiary bombs dropped .. .. 355 Explosive bombs dropped .. .. 567 Number of fires 224 Persons killed .. .. .. •• • • 524 Persons injured .. .. .. .< 1264 Buildings destroyed .. 174 Buildings seriously damaged .. 619 Estimate of monetary loss, £2,500,000 In fact, London was more damaged than Paris was from the giant Bertha, the long-range gun which fired into Paris from a distance of about 80 miles away, and the air raids as well. Who can doubt that what was possible in those three years of war would not only be possible again, but that the damage done then would be insignificant compared with what might happen ? “First of all, since then the use of heavier bombs with explosives of greater power has become possible, and there is hardly a pas-senger-carrying aeroplane to-day which could not be fitted within a few days for such work. The reliability of aeroplanes has also improved, their radius of action has been extended, and the use of directional wireless is becoming better understood. All these things mean that the attacks of enemy aeroplanes would certainly be more frequent and more serious. WITHIN RANGE OF RUSSIA “And while we are considering this, I want to draw attention not to the nations which might attack us, but to the districts on the map from which such attacks might take place. We will assume that up to a distance of 300 miles- at least aeroplanes, and not airships, would be used. A radius even of 250 miles from London covers places from west to east like St. Malo, Le Mans, of course Paris, Rheims, Liege, and Ansterdam, and a flight of 500 miles is easy enough for any of the bigger planes with a full load of bombs. A radius of 500 miles, when airships would probably be used, takes us from Bayonne, in France, near the Spanish frontier, on the Western Pyrenees, through the neighbourhood of Avignon, to Zurich, the greater part df Switzerland, almost to Munich, through Leipsig, to within 30 miles of Berlin, and to the eastern end of the Kiel Canal. Rugen, on the shores of the Baltic, is about 600 miles, and much Russian and Latvian territory facing the Baltic is within a thousand miles from London. “Attacks by aeroplanes from distances over 300 miles away would not be very profitable, but with airships they would be easy enough. Airships have already remained well over 100 hours in the air, and for that period, even at an average of 45 miles per hour, a journey of 4500 miles out and home is quite possible. It may be said, therefore, that all the western territory of Russia is an area from which this country might be attacked, and airships could be escorted by aeroplanes which would be prepared to sacrifice themselves after the bombs had been dropped on London. The countries, therefore, from which attack oy aeroplane or airship would be possible now are Spain, France, Italy, Switzerland, Austria,, Czecho-Slovakia, Germany, Hol'.and, Belgium, the Baltic States, Russia, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. “Now, as to the actual methods and manler of attack by bombs. Let us reflect for i moment what this may mean in the near ’uture. In the last war incendiary and explosive bombs were practically the only types used, the first designed to set on fire buildings through which they dropped, being filled with thermite, and sometimes a small quantity of petrol. The explosive bombs of high power used toward the end of the war were designed to blow to pieces private houses, Government buildings, munition factories, and to wreck railway bridges and important thoroughfares. But it is no good hiding our heads in the sand and pretending that these will be the only types iof bomb which will be used in future. Air warfare will be much more dreadful than this. Just conceive what a bomb containing a large amount of highly-compressed gas deadly to human life would mean Imagine these bombs exploded in the centre of a big city like London at night, with the gas filling the streets and leaking through every crevice in windows and doors, asphyxiating people in their beds and rendering whole areas impassable till the morning wind or some other agent had driven it away. Think of such a bomb dropped through the roof of a munition factory or busy railway station. The death roll would be far greater than anything that could be achieved by explosives or incendiary bombs. “What is the country to do? We must ’ncrease gradually the efficiency and power of our air forces. That is the only true insurance against th'e terrible risks of the future. Peace and immunity from air attacks can be purchased at a price. That price is the undoubted and known power of defending ourselves in the air. There ■s no other way.’’