First quarter ... 10 Third quarter ... 20Second quarter ... 12 Fourth quarter ... 24
During 1918, according to Admiral Scheer ("Germany's High Sea Fleet In the World War," page 335), 74 submarines were added to the fleet in the period January to October. The losses during this year up to the date of the Armistice totalled 70, excluding those destroyed by the Germans on the evacuation of Bruges and those blown up by them at Pola and Cattaro. Taken quarterly the losses were:
First quarter ... 18 Third quarter ... 21Second quarter ... 26 Fourth quarter (todate of Armistice) ... 6
It will be seen from the foregoing figures for 1917 and 1918 that the full result of the anti-submarine measures inaugurated in 1917 and previous years was being felt in the last quarter of 1917, the results for 1918 being very little in advance of those for the previous half-year.
According to our information, as shown by the figures given above, the Germans had completed by October, 1918, a total of 326 submarines of all classes, exclusive of those destroyed by them in November at Bruges, Pola and Cattaro.
Admiral von Capelle informed the Reichstag Committee that a total of 810 was ordered before and during the war. It follows from that statement that over 400 must have been under construction or contemplated at the time of the Armistice.
It is understood that the number of submarines actually building at the end of 1918 was, however, only about 200, which perhaps was the total capacity of the German shipyards at one time.
At the risk of repetition it is as well to repeat here the figures giving the quarterly losses of merchant ships during 1917 and 1918, as they indicate in another and effective way the influence of the anti-submarine measures.
These figures are:
1917British. Foreign. Total.1st quarter 911,840 707,533 1,519,3732nd quarter 1,361,870 875,064 2,236,9343rd quarter 952,938 541,535 1,494,4734th quarter 782,887 489,954 1,272,843
1918British. Foreign. Total.1st quarter 697,668 445,668 1,143,3362nd quarter 630,862 331,145 962,0073rd quarter 512,030 403,483 915,5134th quarter 83,952 93,582 177,534
Figures for 4th quarter are for Month of October only.
The decline of the losses of British shipping was progressive from the second quarter of 1917; in the third quarter of 1918 the reduction in the tonnage sunk became very marked, and suggested definitely the approaching end of the submarine menace.
The fact that during the second quarter of 1918 the world's output of tonnage overtook the world's losses was another satisfactory feature. The output for 1917 and 1918 is shown in the following table:
United Dominions,Kingdom Allied and Total forOutput. Neutral World.Countries.19171st quarter 246,239 340,807 587,0462nd quarter 249,331 435,717 685,0483rd quarter 248,283 426,778 675,0614th quarter 419,621 571,010 990,631
19181st quarter 320,280 550,037 870,3172nd quarter 442,966 800,308 1,243,2743rd quarter 411,395 972,735 1,384,1304th quarter, Oct. only 136,100 375,000 511,100
It will be noticed that by the last quarter of 1918 the output of shipping in the United Kingdom alone had overtaken the losses of British shipping.
It is not possible to give exact information as to the particular means by which the various German submarines were disposed of, but it is believed that of the 186 vessels mentioned as having been lost by the Germans at least thirty-five fell victims to the depth charge, large orders for which had been placed by the Admiralty in 1917, and it is probably safe to credit mines, of which there was a large and rapidly increasing output throughout 1917, with the same number—thirty-five—a small proportion of these losses being due to the mines in the North Sea Barrage. Our own submarines accounted for some nineteen.
Our destroyers and patrol craft of all natures sank at least twenty by means of gunfire or the ram, and some four or five more by the use of towed sweeps of various natures. Our decoy ships sank about twelve; four German submarines are known to have been sunk by being rammed by men-of-war other than destroyers, four by merchant ships, and about ten by means of our nets. It is fairly certain that at least seven were accounted for by aerial attack. Six were interned, some as the result of injury after action with our vessels.
The total thus accounted for is 156. It was always difficult to obtain exact information of the fate of submarines, particularly in such cases as mine attack, and the figures, therefore, do not cover the whole of the German losses which we estimated at 185.
"PRODUCTION" AT THE ADMIRALTY DURING 1917
"PRODUCTION" AT THE ADMIRALTY DURING 1917
The anti-submarine measures initiated during the year 1917 and continued throughout the year 1918, as well as those in force in the earlier years of the war, depended very much for their success on the work carried out by the Admiralty Departments responsible for design and production, and apart from this these departments, during the year 1917, carried out a great deal of most valuable work in the direction of improving the efficiency of the material with which the vessels of the Grand Fleet and other warships were equipped.
Early in 1917 certain changes were made in the Naval Ordnance Department. When Captain Dreyer took up the post of Director of Naval Ordnance in succession to Rear-Admiral Morgan Singer on March 1, the opportunity was seized of removing the Torpedo Department, which had hitherto been a branch of the Naval Ordnance Department, from the control of the Director of Naval Ordnance, and Rear-Admiral Fitzherbert was appointed as Director of Torpedoes and Mines, with two assistant Directors under him, one for torpedoes and the other for mines. It had for some time been apparent to me that the torpedo and mining work of the Fleet required a larger and more independent organization, and the intention to adopt a very extensive mining policy accentuated the necessity of appointing a larger staff and according it greater independence. The change also relieved the D.N.O. of some work and gave him more liberty to concentrate on purely ordnance matters.
Captain Dreyer, from his experience as Flag Captain in theIron Duke, was well aware of the directions in which improvement in armament efficiency was necessary, and a variety of questions were taken up by him with great energy.
Some of the more important items of the valuable work achieved by the Naval Ordnance Department during the year 1917, in addition to the provision of various anti-submarine measures mentioned inChapter III, were:
(1) The introduction of a new armour-piercing shell of far greater efficiency than that previously in use; the initial designs for these shells were produced in the drawing office of the Department of the Director of Naval Ordnance.
(2) The introduction of star shell.
(3) The improvement of the arrangements made, after our experience in the Jutland action, for preventing the flash of exploding shell from being communicated to the magazines.
Taking these in order, theNew Armour-piercing Shellwould have produced a very marked effect had a Fleet action been fought in 1918. Twelve thousand of these new pattern shell had been ordered by November, 1917, after a long series of experiments, and a considerable number were in an advanced stage of construction by the end of the year. With our older pattern of shell, as used by the Fleet at Jutland and in earlier actions, there was no chance of the burst of the shell, when fired at battle range, taking place inboard, after penetrating the side armour of modern German capital ships, in such a position that the fragments might be expected to reach and explode the magazines. A large proportion of the shell burst on the face of the armour, the remainder while passing through it. In the case of the new shell, which was certainly twice as efficient and which would penetrate the armour without breaking up, the fragments would have a very good chance of reaching the magazines of even the latest German ships.
The greatest credit was due to the Ordnance Department and to our enterprising manufacturers for the feat which they achieved. We had pressed for a shell of this nature as the result of our experience during the Jutland action, and it was badly wanted.
We had experienced the need for an efficientStar Shellboth in the Grand Fleet and in southern waters, and after the Jutland action the attention of the Admiralty had been drawn by me to the efficiency of the German shell of this type. In the early part of 1917, during one of the short night bombardments of the south coast by German destroyers, some German star shell, unexploded, reached the shore. Directions were at once given to copy these shell and not to waste time by trying to improve upon them, a procedure dear to technical minds but fatal when time is of the first importance. Success was soon attained, and star shell were issued during 1917 to all our ships, the vessels of the Dover and Harwich patrol force and the shore battery at the North Foreland being the first supplied.
Important experiments were carried out in 1917 on board H.M.S.Vengeanceto test theAnti-flasharrangements with which the Fleet had been equipped as the result of certain of our ships being blown up in the Jutland action. Valuable information was obtained from these experiments and the arrangements were improved accordingly.
The work of the Torpedo and Mining Department was also of great value during 1917. The principal task lay in perfecting the new pattern mine and arranging for its production in great numbers, in overcoming the difficulties experienced with the older pattern mines, and in arranging for a greatly increased production of explosives for use in mines, depth charges, etc.
These projects were in hand when the new organization involving the appointment of an Admiralty Controller was adopted.
The circumstances in which this great and far-reaching change in organization was brought about were as follows. In the spring of 1917 proposals were made to the Admiralty by the then Prime Minister that some of the work carried out at that time by the Third Sea Lord should be transferred to a civilian. At first it was understood by us that the idea was to re-institute the office of additional Civil Lord, which office was at the time held by Sir Francis Hopwood (now Lord Southborough), whose services, however, were being utilized by the Foreign Office, and who had for this reason but little time to devote to Admiralty work. To this proposal no objection was raised.
At a later stage, however, it became evident that the proposal was more far reaching and that the underlying idea was to place a civilian in charge of naval material generally and of all shipbuilding, both naval and mercantile. Up to the spring of 1916 mercantile shipbuilding had been carried out under the supervision of the Board of Trade, but when the office of Shipping Controller was instituted this work had been placed under that Minister, who was assisted by a committee of shipbuilders termed the "Shipbuilding Advisory Committee." Statistics show that good results as regards mercantile ship production were not obtained under either the Board of Trade or the Shipping Controller, one reason being that the supply of labour and material, which were very important factors, was a matter of competition between the claims of the Navy and those of the Mercantile Marine, and another the fact that many men had been withdrawn from the shipyards for service in the Army. There was especial difficulty in providing labour for the manufacture of machinery, and at one time the Admiralty went so far as to lend artificers to assist in the production of engines. The idea of placing the production of ships for both services under one head appealed to and was supported by the Admiralty. The next step was a proposal to the Admiralty that Sir Eric Geddes, at that time the head of the military railway organization in France with the honorary rank of Major-General, should become Admiralty Controller. This would place him in charge of all shipbuilding for both services as well as that portion of the work of the Third Sea Lord which related to armament production. I was requested to see Sir Eric whilst attending a conference in Paris with a view to his being asked to take up the post of Admiralty Controller. This I did after discussing the matter with some of the heads of the War Office Administration and members of General Headquarters in France.
I learned from Sir Eric Geddes that he felt capable of undertaking the work on the understanding that he was assured of my personal support; he said that experience in his railway work in France had shown the difficulty of taking over duties hitherto performed by officers, and stated that it could not have been carried through without the strong support of the Commander-in-Chief; for this reason he considered he must be assured of my support at the Admiralty. In view of the importance attached to combining under one administration the work of both naval and mercantile shipbuilding for the reasons already stated, and influenced in some degree by the high opinion held of Sir Eric Geddes by the Prime Minister, I came to the conclusion that his appointment would be of benefit to Admiralty work, and therefore gave him the assurance and said that I would do my best to smooth over any difficulties with the existing Admiralty officials, whether naval or technical.
In these circumstances Sir Eric Geddes was offered the post of Admiralty Controller by Sir Edward Carson, then First Lord, and accepted it. It was arranged that a naval officer should continue to hold the post of Third Sea Lord and that he should be jointly responsible, so far as the Navy was concerned, for alldesignwork on its technical side, whether for ships, ordnance material, mines, torpedoes, etc., etc., whilst the Controller became entirely responsible forproduction. It was obvious that goodwill and tact would be required to start this new organization, which was decidedly complicated, and that the post of Third Sea Lord would be difficult to fill. At the request of Sir Eric Geddes Rear-Admiral Lionel Halsey, C.B., who at that time was Fourth Sea Lord, was asked if he would become Third Sea Lord in the new organization. He consented and was appointed. When the detailed organization, drawn up to meet the views of Sir E. Geddes, was examined by the naval officers responsible for armament work, strong objections were raised to that part of the organization which affected their responsibility for the control and approval of designs and of inspection.
Sir Eric held the view that inspection should come under the officials in charge of production and that the designing staff should also be under him, the designs being drawn up to meet the views of the naval officers and finally approved by them. Personally I saw nodangerin the proposals regarding design, because the responsibility of the naval officer for final approval was recognized; but there was a certain possibility of delay if the naval technical officer lost control over the designing staff. I fully agreed with the criticisms on the subject of inspection, the argument being that only naval officers accustomed tousethe ordnance material could know the dangers that might arise from faulty inspection, and that the producer had temptations in his path, especially under war conditions, to make inspection subservient to rapidity of production. Sir Eric Geddes finally waived his objections. He informed me that he based his arguments largely on his experience at the Ministry of Munitions, with which he had been associated earlier in the war. The contention of the naval officers at the Admiralty was that even if the organization proposed was found to be workable for the Army, it would not be satisfactory for the Navy, as in our case it was essential that the responsibility for approval of design and for inspection should be independent of the producer, whether the producer was a Government official or a contractor. Apart from questions of general principle in this matter, accidents to ordnance material in the Navy, or the production of inferior ammunition, may involve, and have involved, the most serious results, even the complete loss of battleships with their crews, as the result of a magazine explosion or the bursting of a heavy gun. I could not find that the organization at the Ministry of Munitions had, even in its early days, placed design, inspection and production under one head; inspection and design had each its own head and were separate from production. In any case in 1918 the Ministry of Munitions reverted to the Admiralty system of placing the responsibility for design and inspection under an artillery expert who was neither a manufacturer nor responsible for production.
The matters referred to above may appear unimportant to the civilian reader, but any question relating to the efficiency of its material is of such paramount importance to the fighting efficiency of the Navy that it is necessary to mention it with a view to the avoidance of future mistakes.
The new organization resulted in the creation of a very large administrative staff for the purpose of accelerating the production of ships, ordnance material, mines, etc. Indeed, the increase in numbers was so great that it became necessary to find additional housing room, and the offices of the Board of Education were taken over for the purpose. It was felt that the increase in staff, though it involved, of course, very heavy expenditure, would be justified if it resulted in increased rapidity of production. It will be readily understood that such an immense change in organization, one which I had promised to see through personally, and which was naturally much disliked by all the Admiralty departments, threw a vast volume of extra work on my shoulders, work which had no connexion with the operations of war, and this too at a period when the enemy's submarine campaign was at its height. I should not have undertaken it but for the hope that the change would result in greatly increased production, particularly of warships and merchant ships.
The success of this new organization can only be measured by the results obtained, and by this standard, if it were possible to eliminate some of the varying and incalculable factors, we should be able to judge the extent to which the change was justified. It was a change for which, under pressure, I bore a large share of responsibility, and it involved replacing, in the middle of a great war, an organization built up by experts well acquainted with naval needs by one in which a considerable proportion of the personnel had no previous experience of the work. The change was, of course, an experiment; the danger lay in the fact that, until technical and Admiralty experience has been gained, even men of the greatest ability in other walks of life may find it difficult to produce satisfactory results even if there are no limits imposed on the size of the Staff which assists them.
The question of production is best examined under various headings and the results under the old Admiralty organization compared with those under the new, although comparison is admittedly difficult owing to changing conditions.
WARSHIP PRODUCTION
WARSHIP PRODUCTION
Under the Admiralty organization existing up to May, 1917, the Third Sea Lord—as the Controller was termed when changes were introduced by Mr. Churchill in 1912—was head of the Departments of the Director of Naval Construction and Engineer in Chief, and of that part of the work of the Director of Naval Ordnance which dealt with the design and production of guns and gun mountings. Under the new organization a civilian Controller became responsible for production, the Third Sea Lord being associated with him on technical matters of design.
A special department for warship production and repairs was set up under a Deputy Controller, the Third Sea Lord having no authority over this department except by his association with the Controller.
Under the old organization it had been the custom during the war for the Third Sea Lord to give to the Board and to the Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet a personal forecast of the anticipated dates of completion of all warships under construction. My experience whilst in command of the Grand Fleet had been that this personal forecast was generally fairly accurate for six months ahead.
As an example it may be stated that in the first four months of 1917 the delivery of destroyerswas within one of the forecastmade in October, 1916, four vessels of the class being slightly behind and three ahead of the forecast. Of thirteen "E" class submarines forecasted in October, 1916, for delivery by March, 1917, all except two were delivered by April; of twelve "K" class submarines forecasted for delivery in the same period, all except three were delivered by April, 1917. It should be stated that these "K" class submarines were vessels of a new type, involving new problems of some difficulty.
On the other hand there was considerable delay in the completion of a number of the thirty "P" boats forecasted in October, 1916, for delivery during the first seven months of 1917, and the April forecast showed that only twenty out of the thirty would be delivered during that period. There was also some delay in the delivery of twin screw minesweepers, twenty of which were shown in the forecast of October, 1916, as due for delivery in the first six months of 1917. The April, 1917, forecast showed that six had been delivered or would complete in April, ten more would complete within the estimated period, and the four remaining would be overdue and would not be delivered until July or August.
These figures show the degree of reliance which could be placed on the personal forecasts of the Third Sea Lord under the old organization. It is, of course, a fact that accurate forecasts do notnecessarilymean that the rate of production is satisfactory, but only that the forecast is to be depended on. We were never at all satisfied with the rate of production, either under the old or the new organization. Accuracy of forecast was, however, of great use from the Staff point of view in allotting new ships to the various commands and in planning operations.
To turn now to the figures given by the Admiralty Controller under the new organization. The table below shows the forecasts ("F") given in June, 1917, and the deliveries ("D") of different classes of warships month by month during the period of July to November of that year:
--------------------------------------------------------------------Class of | July. | Aug. | Sept. | Oct. | Nov. | Deficit inVessel. | F | D | F | D | F | D | F | D | F | D | 5 months--------------------------------------------------------------------Flotilla | | | | | | | | | | |Leaders | | | | | | | | | | |and T.B.D's.| 5 | 2 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 4Submarines | 2 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 11Sloops | 3 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 5"P." Boats | 6 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3------------------------------------------------------------------
Amongst vessels which were classed as auxiliaries the figures were:
Class of | July. | Aug. | Sept. | Oct. | Nov. | Deficit inVessel. | F | D | F | D | F | D | F | D | F | D | 5 months--------------------------------------------------------------------Minesweepers | 5 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 7Trawlers |25 |18 |23 |14 |30 |13 |27 |28 |33 |24 | 41--------------------------------------------------------------------
It will be seen from these figures that the forecast of June was inaccurate even for the three succeeding months and that the total deficit in the five months was considerable, except in the case of T.B.D.'s and "P" boats.
The most disappointing figures were those relating to submarines, trawlers and minesweepers. The case of the submarines may be put in another way, thus:
In the June forecast twenty-six submarines were forecasted for delivery during the period July to the end of December, the dates of three, however, being somewhat uncertain; of this total of twenty-six,only nine were actually delivered. Of the remainder, seven were shown in a November forecast as delayed for four months, two for five months, and one for nine months.
The attention of the Production Departments was continually directed to the very serious effect which the delay was producing on our anti-submarine measures, and the First Lord, Sir Eric Geddes, was informed of the difficult position which was arising. In the early part of December I pointed out to the Third Sea Lord and the Admiralty Controller, Sir Allan Anderson, that it was obviously impossible for the Naval Staff to frame future policy unless some dependence could be placed on the forecast of deliveries. The Controller in reply stated that accurate forecasts were most difficult, and proposed a discussion with the Third Sea Lord and myself, but I had left the Admiralty before the discussion took place.
The delays, as will be seen from the tables given, were most serious in the case of vessels classed as auxiliaries. Sir Thomas Bell, who possessed great experience of shipbuilding in a private capacity, was at the head of the Department of the Deputy Controller for Dockyards and Shipbuilding, and the Director of Warship Production was a distinguished Naval constructor. The Deputy Controller of Auxiliary Shipbuilding was an officer lent from the War Office, whose previous experience had lain, I believe, largely in the railway world; some of his assistants and staff were, however, men with experience of shipbuilding.
When I became First Sea Lord at the end of 1916 the new building programme, which had received the sanction of the Cabinet, was as follows:
8 Flotilla leaders. 500 Trawlers.65 T.B.D.'s. 60 Submarines.34 Sloops. 4 Seaplane carriers.48 Screw minesweepers. 60 Boom defence vessels.16 Paddle "
During the early part of 1917 it was decided to substitute 56 screw minesweepers and 8 paddle sweepers for the approved programme of this class of vessel and to add another 50 screw minesweepers to meet the growing mine menace, as well as to substitute 115 drifters for 50 of the trawlers, and to request the Canadian Government to build 36 trawlers and 100 drifters mainly for use in Canadian waters. It was also decided to lay down 36 mercantile decoy ships and 12 tugs, and to build 56 motor skimmers on the lines of the coastal motor boats, which were then showing their value off the Belgian coast. The programme therefore, in May, 1917, was as follows:
Flotilla leaders 8T.B.D.'s 65Patrol boats 6Sloops 34Minesweepers (screw) 56" (paddle) 8Additional twin-screw minesweepers 50Submarines 60Trawlers 450Drifters 115Canadian trawlers 36" drifters 100Boom defence vessels 60Mercantile decoy ships 36Seaplane carriers 4Tugs 12Motor skimmers 56
Meanwhile intelligence had been received which indicated that Germany was building such a considerable number of light cruisers as to jeopardize our supremacy in this class of vessel, and it was decided by the Board that we ought to build eight more light cruisers even at the cost of appropriating the steel intended for the construction of six merchant ships.
Further, the German submarine programme was developing with great rapidity, and our own submarines of the "L" class were taking a very long time to build. It was therefore proposed to substitute eighteen additional "H" class submarines for four of the "L" class, as the vessels of the "H" class were capable of more rapid construction, thus making the total number of submarines on order 74. Approval was also sought for the addition of 24 destroyers and four "P" boats to the programme, bringing the number of destroyers on order up to a total of 89.
The programme was approved, a slight change being made in the matter of the seaplane carriers by fitting out one of the "Raleigh" class of cruisers as a seaplane vessel in order to obtain an increased number of vessels of this type more rapidly than by building. Later in the year the cruiserFuriouswas also converted into a seaplane carrier, and she carried out much useful work in 1918.
MERCANTILE SHIPBUILDING
MERCANTILE SHIPBUILDING
A greatly increased output of merchant ships had been anticipated under the new organization, which placed mercantile construction under the Admiralty Controller instead of under the Ministry of Shipping. It was expected that the difficulties due, under the previous arrangement, to competing claims for steel and labour would vanish with very beneficial results.
It was, as previously stated, mainly with this object that the Admiralty had agreed to the change. The start was promising enough. After a review of the situation hopes were held out that during the second half of 1917 an addition of about 1,000,000 tons of shipping from the shipyards within the United Kingdom would be effected. This figure, indeed, was given to the House of Commons by the Prime Minister on August 16, 1917.
On comparing this figure with that of the first half of the year (a total of about 484,000 tons) there was distinct cause for gratification; it is right to state that Admiralty officials who had previously been watching mercantile shipbuilding regarded the estimate as very optimistic. Further, it was anticipated by the then Admiralty Controller, Sir Eric Geddes, that during the year 1918, with some addition to the labour strength, a total output of nearly two million tons was possible, provided steel was forthcoming, whilst with considerably greater additions to the labour strength and to the supply of steel, and with the help of the National Shipyards proposed by the Controller, the total output might even reach three million tons.
The actual results fell very short of these forecasts, the total output for the second half of the year was only 620,000 tons, the monthly totals in gross tonnage for the whole year being:
January 46,929 July 81,188February 78,436 August 100,900March 115,654 September 60,685April 67,536 October 145,844May 68,083 November 158,826June 108,397 December 112,486
In January, 1918, the total dropped to 58,568 tons, and in February was only 100,038 tons. In March it was announced that Lord Pirie would take the position of Controller General of Merchant Shipbuilding. The subsequent results in the direction of output of merchant ships do not properly come within the scope of this book, which is intended to deal only with work during the year 1917, but it may be of interest to give here the output month by month. It was as follows:
January 58,568 July 141,948February 100,038 August 124,675March 161,674 September 144,772April 111,533 October 136,000May 197,274 November 105,093June 134,159 December 118,276Total for the year 1,534,110
It will be seen that the results for 1918 were an improvement on those for 1917, the exact figure for that year being 1,163,474 tons; these results, however, fell very short of the optimistic estimates given in July, 1917.
MERCANTILE REPAIR WORK
MERCANTILE REPAIR WORK
The Controller's Department undoubtedly succeeded in the work of improving the arrangements for the repair of merchant ships. This is shown by an analysis of the total number of vessels thatcompletedrepairs during various months.
In August, 1917, the number was 382, with a tonnage of 1,183,000. In November the figure became 542 ships, with a tonnage of 1,509,000. There remained under repair at the end of August 326 ships, and at the end of November 350 ships, these figures indicating that the greater number of completions was not due to the smaller number of vessels being damaged or the damages being less in extent.
Considerable credit is due to the Department for this successful acceleration of repair work which naturally had a great influence on the shipping situation.
ARMAMENT PRODUCTION
ARMAMENT PRODUCTION
It was not, I think, realized either by the Government or by the civilians brought into the Admiralty during the year 1917 that there was a very great difference between the Admiralty and the War Office organizations in the matter of production of material, nor was it recognized that naval officers are by their training and experience better fitted to deal with such matters on a large scale than are military officers, except perhaps officers in the Artillery and Royal Engineers. Whatever may be the case in the future, the Navy in pre-war days was so much more dependent on material than the Army as to make questions relating to naval material of far greater importance that was the case with military material. This fact is apt to be forgotten by those writers on naval affairs who think that an intimate knowledge of questions relating to naval materialand its useis of little importance. I trust that this belief will never become general in the service, for the naval officer who is not familiar with the design and production of material is handicapped when he comes to use it.
Ignorance of the great experience of the Admiralty in handling problems of production and of the past success of Admiralty methods in this respect gave rise to a good deal of misconception. The fact that it had been necessary to form a separate Ministry (that of Munitions) to deal with the production of war material for the Army probably fostered the idea that matters at the Admiralty should be altered in a similar direction.
The post of Deputy Controller of Armament Production was created under the new organization, and all matters concerning the production of guns, gun-mountings, projectiles, cordite, torpedoes, mines, paravanes and all other war material was placed under him. I have dealt earlier in this chapter with the questions of design and inspection over which some disagreement arose.
I was not conscious that the new organization succeeded in speeding up armament production during 1917, and during the latter part of the year I was much concerned with the delays in ordnance production as revealed during 1917 and as exposed by the forecasts for 1918.
It is very possible, on the other hand, that in the case of mines the results were good. The old Admiralty organization had not been equipped to deal with such an immense number of mines as were on order, and although a large organization for their production was started by Sir Lionel Halsey, when Fourth Sea Lord, with the assistance of Admiral Fitzherbert and Captain Litchfield-Speer, it had not been sufficiently long at work for an opinion to be given as to whether the results in production would have been as good as under the D.C.A.P.
In considering the whole question of production during the year 1917 it should be borne in mind that very extensive orders were placed in the early part of that year for guns, gun-mountings, mines, warships of the smaller class and patrol craft, and that if we compare only the actual output for 1917 with that of previous years without taking the above fact into account, we might form an incorrect impression as to the success of the organization for production. For instance, in the last quarter of 1917, 1,515 guns of all calibres were delivered, as against 1,101 in the first quarter; in the month of November 1,335 mines of all natures and 2,078 depth charges were filled, as compared with 625 mines and 542 depth charges in July. These figures were the result of the large orders placed early in the year, and it was not until 1918 that the full fruits of the orders placed in 1917 became apparent. The figures for that year, however, are not at my disposal.
One great advantage which resulted from the new organization, viz., the creation of a Directorate of Materials and Priority, must be mentioned. This Directorate controlled the distribution of all steel for all services and produced a very beneficial effect on the issue of supplies of steel to shipbuilders. The immense increase in staff which resulted from the institution of the office of Admiralty Controller is exhibited in the lists of staff in 1918 as compared with the staff in the early part of 1917.
NAVAL WORK
NAVAL WORK
The main effort of the Navy during the year 1917 was directed towards the defeat of the enemy's submarines, since the Central Powers confined their naval effort almost entirely to this form of warfare, but many other problems occupied our attention at the Admiralty, and some of these may be mentioned.
Considerable discussion took place in the early part of the year on the subject of the policy to be pursued in the Eastern theatre of war, and naval opinion on the possibility of effecting a landing in force at different points was invited and given. It need only be said here that the matter was brought forward more than once, and that the situation from the naval point of view was always clear. The feasible landing places so far as we were concerned were unsuited to the military strategy at that period; the time required to collect or build the great number of lighters, horse boats, etc., for the strong force required was not available, and it was a sheer impossibility to provide in a short period all the small craft needed for an operation of magnitude, whilst the provision of the necessary anti-submarine defences would have taxed our resources to the utmost and have prevented essential work of this nature in other theatres.
The work of the Navy, therefore,off the coast of Palestinewas confined to protecting the left flank of the advancing army and assisting its operations, and to establishing, as the troops advanced, bases on the coast at which stores, etc., could be landed. This task was effectively carried out.
The anchorages on this coast are all entirely open to the sea, and become untenable at very short notice, so that the work of the Navy was always carried out under considerable difficulty. Nor could the ships working on the flank be adequately guarded against submarine attack, and some losses were experienced, the most important being the sinking of Monitor M15 and the destroyerStaunchby a submarine attack off Deir el Belah (nine miles south of Gaza) in November.
The Navy continued its co-operation with the Army in theSalonika theatre of war, assisted by the Royal Naval Air Service, and bombardments were continually carried out on military objectives. Similarlyin the Adriaticour monitors and machines of the R.N.A.S. assisted the military forces of the Allies; particularly was this the case at the time of the Austrian advance to the Piave, where our monitors did much useful work in checking enemy attempts to cross that river.
Off the Gallipoli Peninsulathe Naval watch on the mouth of the Dardanelles was continued; extensive new minefields were laid during the year, and were effective in sinking theBreslauand severely damaging theGoebenwhen those vessels attempted a sortie on January 20, 1918. The R.N.A.S. during the year carried out many long distance reconnaissance and bombing operations over Constantinople and the vicinity.
In the Red SeaNaval operations were carried out in conjunction with friendly Arabs, and the Arabian coast cleared of Turkish forces.
In the White Seaduring the latter part of 1917 the whole of the Naval work fell upon British Naval forces when the Russian ships, which had co-operated hitherto, had come under the influence of the political situation. Our force in these waters consisted largely of trawlers engaged in minesweeping and escort work. The latter duty imposed a very heavy strain on officers and men, involving as it did the safe conduct during the year of no fewer than one thousand ships carrying stores and munitions for the Russian military forces.
In the Balticthe situation became very difficult owing first to the Russian revolution and, finally, to the Russian debacle. Our force in these waters consisted of seven submarines. It became evident at the beginning of October, 1917, that the Germans were intending to carry out some operations in the Baltic against Russia, and the question of affording assistance was at once considered by the Naval Staff. It was surmised that but little dependence could be placed on the Russian Baltic Fleet (events showed this surmise to be accurate), and in order to keep our control over the North Sea and ensure the safety of our communications with France it was obvious that for any action we might decide to take we should be obliged to divide the Grand Fleet, sending such portion of that Command into the Baltic as could successfully engage the High Sea Fleet if encountered, as well as to secure the return passage via the Great Belt, and retaining a sufficient force to deal with such German vessels as might attempt operations in the North Sea or Channel during our raid into the Baltic.
There were many ways in which the Germans might seriously hamper, if not entirely prevent, the return of our fleet from the Baltic unless we secured the exits. The Great Belt could easily be closed by block-ships at its narrowest points, and extensive minefields could be laid. It was obvious, therefore, that to secure the exit a strong force would be required, and that it would necessarily occupy a position where it would be open to serious attack.
The initial operation of gaining access to the Baltic via the Great Belt, though not impossible, was difficult, involving as it did sweeping passages through very extensive minefields, and even when our ships were in the Baltic fairly constant sweeping would be necessary.
Finally, the whole operation would be complicated by the question of fuel supply, especially to the destroyers and other small craft with a limited radius of action, since we could not depend upon Russian sources of supply. These were amongst the considerations which made it clear that the operation was not one that I could recommend. The Russian naval view is given in the following statement which appeared in the Russian Press in October:
The Naval General Staff categorically denies the rumours circulated in Petrograd on the 8th and 9th instant, to the effect that the British or French Fleet had broken through to the Baltic Sea.
At the same time it is pointed out that it would be a physical impossibility for the Allies' Fleet to come in from the western entrance, because it would be necessary to pass through the Sound or through one of the two Belts.
Entry to the Sound through Danish or Swedish waters could not also be affected owing to the fact that these waters in part are only 18 feet deep, while large-sized vessels would require at least 30 feet of water.
As regards the entry to the Belts, this would be an extremely hazardous undertaking as parts of the routes are under control of the Germans who have constructed their own defences consisting of mines and batteries.
In these circumstances, according to the opinion of our naval experts, an entrance into the Baltic by the Allies' Fleets could only be undertaken after gaining possession of these waters and the adjacent coast; and then only with the co-operation of land forces.
The Germans had an easy task in the Baltic, as the Russian resistance was not of a serious nature; our submarines attacked on every possible occasion, and scored some successes against German vessels. Towards the end of the year it became necessary to consider the action to be taken in regard to our submarines, as the German control of the Baltic became effective, and the demobilization of the Russian fleet became more and more pronounced. Many schemes for securing their escape from these waters were discussed, but the chances of success were so small, and the submarines themselves possessed so little fighting value owing to their age, that eventually instructions were sent to the senior officer to destroy the submarines before they could fall into German hands.