New-York tribune., 1917-07-20
Officials Deny That
100000 Tons Are
Sunk Each Month
rFrom The Tribune Buresul


Washington, July 1s.-The move
ment for a naval offensive takes force
from a realization that the shipping
situation is serious. No one in Official
circles, whether British or American,
denies that it is serious, but Just no"
serious is difficult to learn, for those
who have the actual figures OF destruc-
tion by submarines are few, and those
few are reticent. II is doubtful whether
even American government depart
ments directly concerned have official
figures Of tonnage destroyed. IL was
said at the Navy Department that the
navy had no submarine statistics ex-
cept those which appear weekly in the
American papers.
The figures given in the London dis
patches from Charles II. Grasty pub
Iished in "The New York Times" this
morning 100000 tons destruction a
month-met with general disbelief
here. Certain officials who held to the
theory that the British were minimiz-
ing their losses were of the opinion
that the loss Of worlds shipping aver
aged 100000 tons a month, the de-
struction being somewhat less than
hat for the last three weeks. On the
other hand, an official OF the Shipping
Board was sponsor for what he said
IL az, o,al tph
the losses of the British at only 100000
sons a month. This did not include
neutral and other allied losses, which
might bring the total up to a little
over 100000 tons a month. This was
the most optimistic estimate in any
American quarter, and it was the only
one that was said to be official. One
American officer whose duties had TO
do with maritime affairs and whose
sources of information should be ex-
ceptionally good explained that the
"Times" dispatch was probably an
error in cable transmission and should
have read 100000 instead of 100000
tons. His figures showed the losses
for four months averaged 100000 tons
British representatives here pos
sessed the facts, but were unwilling to
give them out. Their attitude was mos'
completely expressed by one repre-
sentative. who said that "The Times
figures, 100000 tons, probably. re-
ferred TO dead weight" tons, which
reduced to gross" tons, generally
used in speaking of shipping, would
be about 100000 tons. This, he SAID
was in excess of the real losses, but
not so much in excess as TO call for OF.
fetal denial. He was speaking OF
average losses. The losses for the last
three weeks had been somewhat less;
Another British representative said
unhesitatingly of the reported loss OF
1900, 900 tons of shipping: at is abb
solutely false. The real losses are
about half that" A third British Of
fetal adopted the dead weight ton
theory, and calculated that the gross
tonnage. represented by 100000 dead
weight" tons, to be about 100000
tons, which, he said, was in excess OF
the actual sinkings. On the whole
the British officials left the impression
that the average losses were close 70
the 10000 00-ton-a-month mark, al
though present losses were running
somewhat less.
With regard to publishing the
tonnage of destruction the British
position seems 10 be this: The varia-
ton in the figures means very little
Even the total tonnage destroyed mas
not much significance. The amount Is
admitted TO be grave. II 100000 tons
month is destroyed a very dangerous
situation is created. 1t is not espe-
cially more dangerous if the destruc-
tion reaches 1000 tons a month.
With regard 10 the effects of the
submarine campaign on the war the
Allied representatives express and feel
the utmost confidence. They think IT
will be perfectly possible for this coun-
try to get considerable army TO
France. Shipping the men over does
not, in their opinion, present insu-