Russian Naval Development
It is an interesting coincidence, if nothing more, that the Admiralty announcement about the developing naval strength of the Soviet Union should have been followed within twenty- four hours by the report of a powerful Soviet squadron exercising in the North Sea. This force, probably consisting of the single Sverdlov and the two Chapacv-clffss cruisers known to be in northern waters, with a screen of twelve destroyers, is the most workmanlike assembly of Russian warships to have been seen since the Revolution, and its appearance on the high seas has added to the force of the Admiralty statement. Some of the implications of this dexelopment were discussed in an authoritative article in last week's Spectator, and Moscow's sharp reaction to the ' war- mongers ' who have published this information can probably be interpreted as the Russian equivalent of touché. These Russian surface forces present no great problem if they are so foolish as to remain concentrated in war. The NATO powers have at their disposal carrier task-forces which are well capable of dealing with them. It is on British cruiser strength, however, supplemented by light fleet carriers, that the protection of many thousands of miles of vulnerable sea- communications against individual raiders ultimately depends. We have no post-war cruisers yet in service, and a decision to proceed with the completion of the three Tigers,' armed with thd Royal Navy's new 6 inch gun, would be widely welcomed as a token that the calculated risk is not being extended beyond the bounds of normal prudence. As regards the new Soviet ocean-patrol submarines it is interesting to recall that in 1939 the Admiralty was faced with the problem presented by 57 German, 105 Italian and 60 Japanese potentially hostile submarines, operating in the Atlantic, the Mediterranean and the Pacific respectively. In 1957 a rather larger number of Soviet submarines may be expected, divided between three comparable areas. The - difference as seen from our point of view is, of course, that the 1939 system of national alliances has been succeeded by the much stronger North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, supple- mented in the Far East by ANZUS. In particular, Denmark and Turkey, both members of NATO, hold.the exits from the Baltic and Black Seas. So far, so good. But the tragic lessons of 1940 will not be readily forgotten.
Previous page
