New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-11-05
Ships Ships Ships
Problems Developed by the War Will Only Be
Solved by Americas Turning Out
Ships and Then More Ships
By Theodore M, Knappen


NJ
WASHINGTON, Nov. 3.-Wash-
ircton finds no encouragement in
Sir Eric Goddess rather optimistic
presentation Of the damage done to
tbe worlds shipping by the sub
marine warfare. Experts here find
Il hard TO believe that the net loss Of
British shipping since the beginning
of the war has been only 100000
TONS Of vessels Of more than 1900
tens gross register. Even if those
figures be accepted the situation is
serious enough, for it is the present
rate Of destruction that gives the
greatest cause for concern.
Sir Eric's omission of any state
ment Of losses Of vessels under 1000
tons greatly impairs the value of any
conclusions that can be drawn from
his figures. as the loss of such YES
sels earlier in the war was huge.
Moreover Sir Eric refrains from
giving the total losses, net or other
wise. Of Allied and neutral shipping.
The enthusiastically inclined, taking
the First Lords figures Of 100000
tons and adding another million for
smaller vessels, would conclude that
if Britain has had a net loss Of only
S.50O,0O0 gross tons since the begin
ming of the war. is now building at
the rate of 100000 tons a year and
that the United States is coming TO
the rescue with 100000 tons, the
shipping problem is solved.
According to the figures kept here
the worlds gross loss of shipping
from February to September, inclu-
sive, through the activity Of the Ger
man submarines, was about 3,400,000
gross tons, or about $4,000 in
lightweight tonnage.
Gross / Onnage ana
Deadweight Tonnage
Il is pointed out that a grave con-
fusion arises from the fact that the
figures Of destroyed tonnage are
given in gross tonnage, whereas the
United States Shipping Board deals
with lightweight tonnage, which is
about one-and-a-haf times as great
as gross tonnage. Therefore, the
Shipping Board would figure the
British net loss, based on Sir Eric's
figures. as 5,250O00 tons, and would
put the Allied and neutral worlds
ret loss at about 100000 tons.
On the other hand, when the Ship
ping Board says that it will build
6.000,00Otons Of shipping during 1913
il means only 100000 gross ton
mage. It is obvious that in all dis
oussions Of production Of ships as
against destruction the figures must
be reduced to a common denomina,
tor. To figure destruction in gross
tonnage and construction in dead
weight tonnage is 20 make figures
grossly deceptive.
For practical purposes lightweight
tonnage is preferable to gross ton
mage, for it gives an idea Of the
actual freight carrying capacity Of a
ship. and that is what is Of interest
in this war. The Vaterland, for in
stance, with a registered tonnage Of
$4,000, probably could carry as much
freight as a 5,000-ton lightweight
boat. Deadweight tonnage means the
actual freight carrying capacity Of
a ship, inclusive Of coal and supplies.
Sinkings VIII
Equal Construction
Take Sir Eric's figures for August
and September, which may reason
ably be Interpreted 70 mean that the
total shipping loss Of all nations
from submarines during that period
was 10000 gross tons. That means
100000 lightweight. As against
that figure the United States IS not
building al the rate Of 100000 in two
months, and viii probably not do bet
ter than a million tons every two
months during 1913.
In other words, if the submarines
continue 20 be only as successful as