The Washington times., 1929-07-30
j. S. SHIPS ROT
IS ENGLAND
BUILDS
By GEORGE r. HOLMES

How many rusty destroyers ana
submarines equal one first-class
modern crulser7
Upon q satisfactory answer to
that naval equation m&y rest the
success or failure OF the negotiations
now in progress in London for a
British. American naval agreement.
which agreement Is intended to
serve as the foundation stone for
another international disarmament
conference this winter.
Reduced to its simplest terms,
Great Britain has about three tiineE
aa many modern cruisers az the
United States, built during and
since the war, stil1 in commission.
and good for years OF service yet.
The United States Navy has about
twice as many destroyers as the
British. and about twice as many
submarines. Most OF them are. laid
up and rusting at out-of.the-way
docks because an economical Con
gress doesn't want to pay for man
ming and operating them.
Built During war
The reason for this 1opsided
American preponderance in destroy
ers and submarines dates back to-
the war when Germany's submarines
were creating havoc with British
shipping. The German submarines
almost won the war. Hard-pressed
Britain appealed to the United States
to build destroyers and more de-
stroyers as the most effective
weapon against the German sub
marine menace. Britain herself
built destroyers, but she also built
more cruisers. That accounts for
the British preponderance In
cruisers.
How to reconcile this difference
in naval strength on the principle
Of parity between the American and,
British navies is the knotty problem
that now confronts Ambassador
Dawes and Premier. Ramsay Mac.
Donald and their experts in the
London conferences.
Called Worthless
Some American naval authorities
contend that there can be no such
reconciliation-that the old war-con-
structed destroyers and suhma-
rines. now rusting at their docks
for nearly ten years, represent virtu.
ally zero in naval strength, either
extensively or defensively. They
contend It Ii poppycock to try to
measure them against Britain's mod.
ern cruisers. other contend dif.
ferentIy.
irrespective or the differences
between these rival schools OF
thought among the experts, the
theoretical equation Is figuring In
the Dawes -MacDonal conferences
in London, and 1t Is more or less
significant that Substantial prog
ress" was reported last night after
yesterdays session.
Presumably, the conversations are
proceeding with consideration being
given the fact that in another 10
years two-score of Britain's war
built cruisers win have passed the
20-year retirement mark. Thus, II
there Is not ship.for-ship replace.
ments, time will gradually bring
the two navies nearly parity in
cruiser strength.
xafaStlck Badly Needed
There is general agreement that
"yandstick" for measuring, the
relative strength as between
Britain's cruiser superiority and
Americas destroyer-submarine su.
periority must be found il future
building Is to be curtailed.
The American deficiency in cruis-
ers is so pronounced that unless the
five-year, 15-cruiser program, which
President Hoover has now sus-
pended, ultimately liz carried out
the American Navy will be sadly
inferior in cruisers for many years
to come.
Offset Value Eyed
Whether the American superiority
in rusty destroyers and decrepit
submarines can offset that inferis
ority is question for the states.
men and the experts to determine.
Substantial progress" is being
made, according to the communique1
jointly issued by Ambassador Dawes
and Premier Macdonald. There was
a good deal of curiosity manifest
in naval quarters here today as to
f1aa 49,