Standardisation of Arms
After more than two years of discussion between Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States, it has been agreed that the armed forces of these three nations will exchange observers whose aim will be " the gradual development of common designs and standards in arms, equipment and training methods." If this appears to be an excessively cautious statement, it can be replied that all experience shows that the first step of getting the respective services to agree to discuss common standards at all is so difficult that it is a considerable achievement to have reached the present point. As to provision that future progress shall be gradual, it is dictated as much by the facts as by the wishes of the parties. None of the countries concerned is so rich that it can afford to scrap weapons (whose one genuine common characteristic is that they are very expensive to produce), together with the training methods which are to a great extent dictated by those weapons, irt the pursuit of a standardised force which may have gone out J. date before it goes into action. The main point is that nothing should be done to perpetuate equipment and methods which impede the common aim of co-operation, that when new material must be procured the specifications shall have been approved by the experts on common action, and that plans and capacity shall be ready for a change-over to new arms and new methods as soon as the old ones wear out_ Wastage rates, both for arms and for training schemes, are highest in time of war, but it is also in time of war that the conditions are least propitious for a smooth and economical
change-over. It is therefore essential that the plans for any change shall be carefully laid, thoroughly scrutinised, and kept in a state of readiness. Monday's statement provides for the first two of these requirements. The third—readiness--should be there all the time.
