The New York herald., 1921-12-04
Existing Strength Based on
Keels Actually Laid Down
as of November 4.
RELATIVITIES + U L y ID
Common Factor Established
to Estimate Tonnage OF
Capital Ship.

to-day 10 present SoihS u SAo S
figures involved in the exchanges be-
tween the American and Japanese ex-
perts over the 5-5-3 ratio proposal and
the Japanese counter claim for 1o-l0-7
status.
In submitting their original question
naire to the American experts asking
explanation of the Hughes proposal on
seven specific points tho Japanese Off
GERS included this questions:
Explain the relation between the re-
placement ratio of '5o-5o-3o and the ex-
isting ratio Of '60-50-30' respectively of
Great Britain, the United States and
Japan" This was supplemented by the
inquiry:
Explain means by which the existing
strength of the British navy has been
calculated as 100000 tons"
In answer the American experts said:
although Great Britain has not laid
the keels of her four new Hoods and
the Japanese have not laid the keels of
the Takao and the Atago. they have
spent money on all. In order to be en-
tirely fair, therefore, these ships were
included in the lists of the respective
nations, with the consequent Increase In
their relative strengths. When this was
done the tonnage measure OF naval
strength between the United States and
Japan was as follows: United States.
1,11S.65O; Japan. 5SS,S00; ratio. United
States. 100 per cent; Japan, 50 per cent"
n,.ft
AS to the "60-5O-30" existing strength
ratio calculation. the American answer
explained:
1.-THE war conditions caused Great
Britain to suspend her building pro-
gramme. In consequence her ships are
relatively older in type than those of
the United States and Japan. This fact
was considered in allotting her 604,0oO
tons for the present, but the standard
allotted her on requirements was 10000
TONS"
In explaining, as asked by the Japan
ese, the method of calculation of exist
ing strength. the American experts said
that the basis taken was keels actually
laid down as of November II. the date
Of the opening OF the conference.
The Japanese experts also required a
specific list of the ships of the United
States and Japan on which the cal
culation of existing strength was based,
the degree of completion allowed for
each ship building and asked whether
differences in methods of figuring ton
naged used by the three nations were
allowed for In these calculations. This
information was supplied in the Amer
lean reply. with the assurance that the
tonnage figures of each foreign ship
had been recalculated on the American
"a n "a n fufr ,r-fG
Naval ReIativitics,
on the basis of these figures and also
using Japanese estimates of japanese
and American strength. as furnished by
the Japanese experts in memoranda, the
American experts then set out the naval
''relativitles" of the two Powers in ta-
bles, as follows:
First-American estimate OF American
strength and American estimate OF Jap
anese strength:
United states. Japan.
Ships building. ..... 346.374 1os,3s2
Ships built. ........ 5OO.65O 299. 700
Totals ............ $1,000 i09,092
Ratio (per cent?. 100 40
Sccond-American estimate of Amer
lean strength and japanese estimate of
Japanese strength;
United States. Japan.
Ships building. ..... 346,314 S3,330
Ships built. ........ 500.650 S34, 700
Totals ............ S47,02i 4;s.030
Ratio (per cent?. 100 s9
Third-Japanese estimate OF Ameri-
can and Japanese strength:
United States. Japan.
Ships building. ..... 1S4,735 s3,330
Ships built -....... 500.650 33$,700
Totals 6s5.3s5 4IS.03O
Ratio (per cent?. 100 so
The following note was attached to
these tables:
I'm the tables as given under two
and three, the Mutsu is included as of
the Japanese tables as being completed
and the Japanese tonnage OF incom-
pleted capital ships as given in their
memorandum is raised to conform TO
the American standards OF measure
ment in tonnage"
In connection with the different
methods of calculating tonnage, the
American answer said:
''Thc different methods of estimating
tonnage values were carefully consid-
cred by our bureau of construction and
repair. Each ship was carefully gone
over and made TO reconcile with the
American list so that ships of all three
navies. United States, Great Britain
and Japan, were on the same basis for
estimating capital ships tonnage"