FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1933
1933 - 1086.PDF
FLIGHT, NOVEMBER 30, 1933 to take reprisals if that should unfortunately be neces sary. We do firmly believe that sensible rules of war will generally be observed by belligerents, and history supports us in this view. For instance, during the great war no combatant used dum-dum bullets, and prisoners of war were generally treated in accordance with international rules on the subject. No deliberate attacks were made on civil popula tions on either side by air raids, and poison gas was not dropped on the residential suburbs of London. There is therefore every reason to believe that if Geneva emphatically forbids air attacks of that nature, the rules will be respected. The one danger is from a " mad dog " nation which, possibly from despair, possibly from arrogance and belief in the policy of " fright- fulness," maj/ throw honour to the winds and do what it has solemnly promised not to do. Such a nation can only be restrained by fear of reprisals, and Great Britain must be in a position to inflict such reprisals if she should suffer from a breach of rules. If any enemy nation should attempt to destroy the civil population of London one night, it must know that an even more terrible fate will befall its own capital on the next night. Such a prospect is likely to make even a " mad dog ' nation reflect that honesty is the best policy. Of course, it is not to be inferred from that example that it would be an easy matter, or even a possibility, to wreak widespread destruction on London or any other part of Great Britain. We must have our air defence force, and it must be a great deal stronger in numbers than it is at present. We have made it quite clear that we are not going to disband that force unless and until it has been made quite certain that in no circumstances can civil aeroplanes be used to bomb us. As such an assurance cannot be made, we shall continue to take measures for our own protection. But we must have more squadrons, par ticularly squadrons of fighters. Following on the questions in the House of Commons, to which we have alluded, Capt. Balfour asked the Under-Secre tary for Air whether, if other nations do not come down to our suggested level in aircraft, we shall level up? Sir Philip Sassoon would not commit him self, and asked for notice of that question. He must. of course, speak in accordance with the general policy of the Government, but it is very doubtful whether it would not be best for Great Britain to make a frank declaration of her intentions. It is a national failing to be loath to speak about prospects which at a given moment are considered unpleasant, and an increase of fighting forces now comes under that heading. Many good authorities hold that if in 1914 we had boldly declared that if France were attacked and Belgium invaded we should go to war with Germany, there would have been no war. So, probably, the greatest service which we could do now to forward the cause of peace in Europe would be a frank declaration that we intended to be in a position to defend ourselves. At present the idea has certainly got about that if other nations just keep on talking, Great Britain will go on disarming, and pro claiming her virtue in doing .so, until she ceases to carry any weight at all. We must level up our Air Force. We must, at least, have those extra 10 squadrons which were thought necessary for Air Defence of Great Britain in 1923, and then we must consider what else is necessary in 1934. If the pacts signed at Geneva to 11 regulate warfare are not to be regarded as binding unless they are backed by threats of reprisals, so pacts forbidding war will not be of much use unless the attacker knows that the defence will be stalwart. Pie' who would bomb Great Britain must know that he will plunge his hand into a veritable hornets' (now called " Furies ") nest. •*• «J» •*• •*• Australia also is realising the need to strengthen her defences, and particularly her air defences. It is stated by the Melbourne Herald that £438,000 is to be spent in the near future on new landplanes and "Down seaplanes (some of the latter will prob- Under" ably be amphibians) for the Royal Likewise Australian Air Force. The details are not yet published, but there will certainly be con siderable re-equipment and there may be a totally new squadron. The paper states that £62,000 is available for landplanes and £376,000 for seaplanes and equipment. The above is very satisfactory, but when we also learn that the Australian Government also proposes to spend large sums on coast-defence guns and on a new naval sloop, we are inclined to wonder whether even more should not have been set aside for air craft. Of course, Australia must have some sea forces and some land forces, and we cannot forget how very valuable her land forces were to the Empire in the Great WTar. At the same time, we cannot help feeling that the R.A.A.F. will give the Commonwealth the best value for any money spent on defence. With her enormous coast line and her small population, it seems to us that almost the first requisite in her defence forces is mobility, and no force is so mobile as an air force. We write subject to correction by greater authorities, but it does appear to us that, owing to the special geographical circumstances of Australia, big guns for coast-defence work are about the most useless form of defence in which she could indulge. No enemy would choose to attack just at the spot where those guns could fire at him, when there was an infinite choice of other spots at which to land and so take the fortresses in the rear. Australia's most sure defence will lie in the British naval base at Singapore, but if for any reason she were to be attacked and could not count on help from Singapore, surely her next best form of defence would be by the aircraft of the R.A.A.F. It is obvious that any attack must come from overseas, and must have long sea lines of communication. Such lines of communication, would be very vulner able, very tempting objects for air attack, and the only defence possible for the invaders would be by means of aircraft carriers. The issues of such a combat would depend on the strength of the two air forces engaged, but if that issue were even doubtful, the invaders would feel themselves in a verv parlous position. The days are past when a William of Normandy can land in a foreign coun try and then dismiss his base and his lines of com munication from his thoughts. He had no wish to return. The invaded country was to become the home of himself and his army. A modern invader must have lines of communication or he must be overwhelmed. Even without the help of Singapore, a really strong Australian Air Force could so threaten the communications of any invader that an invasion must become a very remote possibility.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
