BATTLESHIPS AND BOMBS
[To the Editor of TIDE SPECTATOR.]
Sui,—May I reply briefly to Mr. Bentley's letter in your issue of January 31st? Mr. Bentley certainly has strange ideas about blisters. How is a bomb going to burst inside the blister ? If it bursts outside why should it put the ship out of action, when the blister is there precisely to prevent that particular possibility ? That, however, is a technical point. Mr. Bentley still evades the main point which is that conditions of warfare are entirely different in different areas. There are areas where aircraft can do much and areas where they can do little or nothing. As trade must pass through oceanic areas where it will be at the mercy of surface craft, it is necessary to have surface craft to defend it.
It would appear that these surface craft must be as powerful as those they may have to meet. Otherwise they will meet the fate of the ' Good Hope ' against the Gneisenau ' and of the Gneisenau ' against the Invincible.' if an enemy has 35,000-ton ships, it may mean that humanity is foolish, but it also inctuis that you will be foolish not to have them. The fact that they cost £6,000,000 means that strife and defence are costly. It does not mean that aircraft can do the work of surface craft in longitude 40 degrees west. The tank is a potent weapon but it hasn't made infantry obsolete.—Yours faithfully, YOUR NAVAL CORRESPONDENT.
Previous page
