Evening star., 1949-08-27
Letters to The Star
Differs With Mr.. Lawrence
On Importance of Carriers

ANIIN1 y ~
Differs With Mr. Lawrence
On Importance of Carriers
To the Editor Of The Star:
David Lawrence's article in the August
% Star, beating his drum again for naval
super -carrier-or rather for whole swarm
of them now, since that was inevitable:
several big carrier task forces"-does no
credit TO his long established and we'll
earned reputation as an analyst nor to the
profession he follows, which presumes
high degree of naturalization in its prac-
titioners.
His argument appears to be that Cd our
big bomber bases in Labrador and Alaska
could be put out of commission temporarily
in surprise Pearl Harbor attack by in
vincible Russian long-range bombers. while
simultaneously others of these invincible
bombers destroyed our cities without fear
of retaliation; 90 that since these bases
could be supplied only by sea, their supply
lines easily would be disrupted and de-
stroyed by the new invincible Russian sub
marines, rendering them continually USE
less; therefore 90 the only national saliva
ton lies in building a super-carrier. or
several big carrier task forces" which
would keep continually at sea and out OF
range of Russian aircraft presumably in
the Antipodes) during peace. until the
Pearl Harbor attack on our land bases and
cities. whereupon they Instantly" would lie
off the Scandinavian or Siberian coasts
launching an offensive to destroy all ofen-
sives.
The average man no doubt has bit OF
the armchair admiral or general IN him.
like Mr.. Lawrence. But the average man,
happily for our democracy, also has some
modicum of common sense. His common
I~;,,a +l,ot ha
range bombers, which aren't even claimed
by Mr.. Lawrence as being equal to the B-36,
are so potentially devastating, we ourselves
had better rely on our own weapons OF that
type. flying from great land-felds as the
Russians themselves would fly, instead OF on
half-sized bombing planes flying uncertainty
from land never landing again on) rolling
decks of super carriers off the Scandinavian
or Siberian coasts-decks which, even II we
spent billion dollars. and had 1t to spend.
never would equal the dimensions OF Labra-
dor, nor indeed of one small Aleutian island
The average mans common sense also tells
him that if the Russian submarines could
destroy our water-borne supply lines to
Labrador and Alaska, though protected by
land based aircraft all the way. they also
could destroy much more easily and enec-
lively any Super-carrier Steaming on the
coast of Scandinavia; or any $4,000 900
accumulation of task forces OF such craft
Carriers Not Unsinkable.
Incidentally, Mr.. Lawrence grants that
"some carriers might be put out OF commits
sion temporarily" But carriers aren't put
out of commission temporarily. They're
sunk. And so would be the nation that had
relied on them.
The dilemma of the navy is difficult. So
was that of the cavalry when tanks and
1ol dol a fighting
Genghis Khan had conquered continent IN
lightning war with his light horse; and so
the bow-legged mustached boys on hoss-
back of every army wanted to cling to what
had been the greatest weapon OF conquest
600 years ago. If they had had their way.
no doubt they would have insisted that all
aircraft be winged horses. and all tanks
Trojan ones.
So the navy Nelson's line Of wooden
ships won Trafalgar. And there was the
Bible by Mahan. The last admiral only
lately has died who fought the introduction
of steam and iron-they still teach wooden
ships and sail at Annapolis, don't they;
which would be equivalent to teaching arch
ery at West Point. Yet in the First World
War England. with her mightiest navy. was
almost starved out by submarines. It was
our own submarines IN the late war which
cut Japan's throat. and not all our battle
ships. Still to the last the admirals con-
tinued to build them-ships as antiquated
as the dodo. which never will ire gun.
Enemy's Submarines the Target.
The naval problem Of the next war will
be to kill the enemys submarines ana 70
kill his sea-borne traffic with our own. II
that is not such q theatric and grand sort
of action as Trafalgar or Actium or Le-
panto or Santiago. which in one vast boom
yuin q a
world or Cleopatra. and If 1t gives no
ouarterdecks for the gold-braided boys to
pace on while they utter immortal words.
still it will be the necessary work; and the
diminution of glory of the navy can only
be set down as part Of grayer and less
glamorous world. It's nice to have giorl-
Gus navy. But it's nicer to do the thing
that has to be done, and not to lose war.
The carrier. of any size, obviously Is a
temporary sort Of ship. When aircraft hao
a range Of only 100 miles. it took carrier
to bring them near enough to their goal.
But at some point when the range Of air.
craft of all types has been sufficiently in
creased-whether or not that point now
has been reached, or will be reached next
year, or in 1952-the use OF a carrier 10
carry planes for days, over distances wnlcn
they could cover under their own power IN
hours Cor, propelled. in minutes) will
be as ridiculous as to have autos dragged
by oxen to within certain speclned ols-
tance from their goal. Even IT the oxen were
big and shining, and had gilded horns, and
cost $500 900 900, they would serve no pur-
pose at all.
JOEL ToWNSLEY ROGERS.
Inferior "Superiors" Blamed
Far Veterans' Administration Faults
To the Editor Of The Star:
Having been an employe of the Veterans
Administration perhaps can answer the