Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1920-05-15
DANIELS SAYS SIMS ROBBED lE:STR0yER
 CREWS OF CREDIT
Permitted British Admiralty to Investigate Sub
 COmbatS
BRITISH EASY ON
 OWN; HARD ON 'GOBS'
Secretary of Navy Criticizes Sims for Failure Properly to Pr0- tect American in-
 tereStS

tect American in-
 tereSts
 Washington, May 14.-Rear Adm- ral Sims robbed American destroyer crews of credit due them by leaving the investigation of combats with submarines to the British admirality, Secretary Daniels today told the sen ate naval investigating committee. Had he know that American officers were not reviewing the circumstances of battles between American vessels and U boats, he would have ordered the admiral to adopt that course, the secretary said.
 Admiralty reports and awards of credit to the Americans were accept ed by Admiral Sims, MT. Daniels said, although the British demanded abso- lutetly conclusive proof before giving credit for the sinking of a submarine in the case of an American vessel, while using less rigorous standard in the case of British ships.
 Out of 256 attacks on submarines by American vessels the British gave the United States forces credit for but PA successful attacks, most of which were listed as possibly slightly dam aged, said Secretary Daniels. In only one case was full credit for the sink ing of a U boat given an Amreicar ship, this being the destroyer Tanning which sunk the U-5S and captured the crew.
 In explaining why so few credits were given for known sinkings, the summary compiled by Admiral Sims states that unless prisoners or unmis- takable wreckage were obtained fol- lowing an attack, it was practically impossible to definitely determine the results," said MT. Daniels "That pris- oners or wreckage were not absolute ly required before vessel was cred lted With sinking submarine is shown be the reports from the Brit ish admirality records of cases claim ed as known sunk"
 l The secretary then read records of encountetrs between British ships and submarines, in which credit was giv- en for sinking the submarine, al- though neither prisoners nor wreck age was obtained.
 Neglect U. s.
 q do not blame the British" said MT. Daniels. "They were looking out for themselves properly, but I do blame Admiral Sims for not protect | ing American interests. The United States navy is not accustomed to hav- ing others decide what credits shall be awarded to it's men and vessels, and l know of no instance in which any other navy has allowed this" | Admiral Sims own reports refuted the charge made in his letter of Jan uary z, that destroyers were crushed 1 through brief and inadequate prepara- tion before being sent abroad" the secretary said. He read extracts from Admiral Sims reports as follows: "Our ships made no demands upon the navy yard facilities after arriv- ing, in spite of the length of their passage under severe conditions.
 Contrary to expectations, they were found to be we'll equipped for their prospective duty with the ex- ception of depth charges.
 "The equipment and construction of our ships has proved adequate and sufficient"
 Turning to Admiral Sims criticism that the navy was unprepared for war in April, 1917, MT. Daniels said that Admiral Jellicoe's book on the battle of Jutland showed that "not even the British navy" expecting every minute a decisive battle, could be kept 100 per cent perfect.
 "The charge of the prolongation of the war was a definite and serious one." said the secretary. "It was made with reckless disregard of the facts and the reasoning and statistics adduced in it's support are those which one might expect to find in the fantastic tales of Baron Munchau- sen."
 1 Ad miral Sims based his estimate of an unnecessary loss of 500,000 lives or an average loss for the allies of three good men a day, MT. Daniels said.
 "The loss of 5000 men a day for four months falls short of half mill lion, but of course half million sounds more imperative than the fig ure which would have been arrived at by correct arithmetic" the secre- tarv declared.
 The admiral based the charge on assumption that had there been a million American soldiers in France by March, 1918, the war would have ended four months sooner. MT. Dan- iels said. and completed the reason ing bv assuming the tonnage losses of 1917 prevented carrying that num- Der of troops overseas by that date and that failure of the American navy to cooperate heartily in the first months of the war resulted in the heavy tonnage losses.
 Figures Contradict.
 "It is not necessary to wander far into the realms of statistics or tech nical questions to show the absolute fallacv of Admiral Sims claim," Mir Daniels said "He informed the com- mittee that the tonnape available for the Allies May 1, 1917. was 27.0O0,- 900 tons. IL is a matter of common knowledge that on May 1. 1918. the tonnage was less than on May 1, 1917 Testimony given by Admiral Sims would indicate that the net loss dur ing the wear was about two million tons. This is rrobablv sufficiently close estimate for practical purposes Now then. owing to the tonnape of 1917 and the early mart of 1918 the net tonnage available to the allies had been reduced from 27 100000 on May 1, 1917, to 25,o0o,000 on May | --~~~-~--~~--->-->-e >~------>------->-s-~.