The Washington times., 1925-02-26
j. s. SAFE FROM
AIR At TACK
lcontInued from FIrst Page.)

Continued from First Page.)
destroy a battleship?" asked Con.
gresham Prall DEM of New York.
IF it were not an armor piercing
shell think its effect would be
local." replied Jones. "It might dc
some destruction to exposed per
sonnet, and might have q serioue
effect on local fire control installa.
ton. But ! do not think It would
have q serious effect on the motive
rover, the turrets. or the personnel
IN enclosed places"
II the bombs were dropped
alongside, within ten feet Of the
ship. "the effect probably would be
very serious" Jones said.
Were air bombs dropped during
the recent tests on the battleship
Washington" inquired Prall.
Just Testing Armor.
yes" answered Jones, two non.
explosive l,400.pound armor-piercins
bombs. Only one hit the deck and
it did not so through. The object
was to test the resistive qualities
OF the deck protection. It was not
t. give aircraft q chance to destroy
a battleship."
Then there can be no criticism
OF aircraft during that test?"
mo, not at ALL" Jones snapped.
Mitchell previously had told the
committee that the Washington ties:
was worthless because only sand,
filled bombs were used.
Don't you think you might have
derived some benefit by sinking the
Washington with bombs from tho
air." asked Congressman Perkins
Rep) of New Jersey.
Il don't think so. We learned al
about bombing from the tests on
the German ships in 1891 Jones
replied.
Resents ImputationS.
Let me say here that certain
people have repeatedly in the press
impugned the honor OF the navy Of
ficers who conducted the tests on
the German ship. This has been
done time and time again and II ID
unfair. Why, heavens, II anyone
knows whether aircraft can put a
battieship out Of commission, the
navy would want to know, for OUT
very existence would depend upon
1t. We are OF the opinion that tbs
battleship is dominant"
Although not mentioning names
Jones apparently referred to
Mltcheii, who repeatedly has
charged that an airplane could
blow out OF the water any Rattle,
ship afloat.
I'm sorry I was drawn into
this" added Jones.
OEI0EEy much diA e. ~~-~.I.LI
recommend for aviation this year"'
asked Prall.
Cut by Budget Bureau.
Nineteen millions Of dollars, bat
the Budget Bureau only allowed
100000" Jones replied.
DO you think the navy could
get along on $50, 200, 900 for ava,
ttop?' asked Perkins.
"Of course, and / think we can
get along with aviation very well
as we are now"
Was the boards air recon.
mendation cut down In the Navy
Department before it got to the
budget? Who was responsible, the
Navy Department or the Budget
Bureau?" asked Prall.
L don't knew what recommenda.
ton was sent over by the navy
to the budget
Pressed closely for more
definite reply, Jones, after consult
ing with aides. declared the boards
accommodation was sent to the
puget practically as it came from
the board"
Twice Revises Figures.
After further consultation. Ionea
later corrected his previous figures
and declared that the original es.
innate FOR aviation was $32, 600, 900,
which was cut by the budget bu,
reau of the navy department to
SIS, 100000, which was allowed by
the budget director.
1t was then developed that the
OOO, 900. 49, TE''
THAT means, then" interjected
Prall. that aviation was cut one
third or the whole estimate. And
this action seems to show to me that
the navy doesn't think much of avia-
ton. In the first place, aviation
was allowed only one-tenth Of the
whole estimate"
II don't think So" interposed
Jones. II am quite sure that in
event or an emergency the navy
could turn out a quantity produc-
ton OF first-class fighting airplanes."
Lets go back to the appropria-
ton" said Prall. Wasn't the naVy's
budget estimate for aviation cut by
100000 more after it left the Navy
Department? Didn't the President
cut off $4,000, 000?"
Cruiser Estimate Cut.
Jones suggested that the naVy's
budget officer be called to explain
the appropriation figures.
Was anything esIe cut in the
same proportion as aViation"
pressed Prall.
Yes" replied Jones; "our esti-
mates for cruisers were practically
wiped out"
"Well, 1t still seems to me that
to take one-third from aviation,
which was allowed only one-tenth
of the navy's total, WAS abnormal"
said Prall. WAS 1t possible that
too much was asked for aviation
In the first place."
we didn't think So" returned
Jones. I'VE studied the question
and thought the navy aviation