THE QUESTION OF ARMING MERCHANT SHIPS
To: Secretary of the Navy.
Through Admiralty. From Queenstown.
Sent: June 28, 1917.
Admiralty for Secretary Navy Washington, providing it meets Admiralty's full approval.
From Admiral Sims.
Referring to Department's opinion, reported in last two cables, to the effect that adequate armament and trained crews constitute one of the most effective defensive anti-submarine measures, I again submit with all possible stress the following based on extended [Allied] war experience. The measures demanded, if enemy defeat in time is to be assured, are not defensive but offensive defensive. The merchantman's inherent weakness is lack of speed and protection. Guns are no defence against torpedo attack without warning, which is necessarily the enemy method of attack against armed ships. In this area alone during the last six weeks thirty armed ships were sunk by torpedoes without submarine being seen, although three of these were escorted each by a single destroyer. The result would of course have been the same no matter how many guns these ships carried or what their calibre. Three mystery ships, heavily manned by expert naval crews with much previous experience with submarine attack, have recently been torpedoed without warning. Another case within the month of mystery ship engaging submarine with gunfire at six thousand yards but submarine submerged and approached unseen and torpedoed ship at close range. The ineffectiveness of heaviest batteries against submarine attack is conclusively shown by Admiralty's practice always sending destroyers to escort their men-of-war. The comparative immunity of the relatively small number American ships, especially liners, is believed here to be due to the enemy's hopes that the pacifist movement will succeed. Cases are on record of submarines making successful gun attacks from advantageous sun position against armed ships without ship being able to see submarine. I submit that if submarine campaign is to be defeated it must be by offensive measures. The enemy submarine mission must be destruction of shipping and avoidance of anti-submarine craft. Enemy submarines are now using for their final approach an auxiliary periscope less than two inches in diameter. This information just acquired. All of the experience in this submarine campaign to date demonstrates that it would be a seriously dangerous misapprehension to base our action on the assumption that any armament on merchantmen is any protection against submarines which are willing to use their torpedoes. The British have now definitely decided the adoption, to the maximum practicable extent, convoys from sixteen to twenty ships. This is an offensive measure against submarines, as the latter will be subject to the attack of our anti-submarine craft whenever they come within torpedoing distance of convoyed merchantmen. Moreover it permits of concentrated attack by our forces and obliges the enemy to disperse his forces to cover the various routes of approach.
Concerning Department's reference to a scheme for protection of merchant shipping which will not interfere with present escort duties, I submit that the time element alone prevents utilization of any new anti-submarine invention. The campaign may easily be lost before any such schemes can come into effective operation. The enemy is certainly counting on maximum effort being exerted before long nights and bad weather of autumn, that is, in next three months. Heaviest effort may be anticipated in July and August. I again submit that protection of our coastlines and of Allied shipping must necessarily be carried out in field of enemy activity if it is to be effective. The mission of the Allies must be to force submarines to give battle. Hence no operations in home waters should take precedence over, or be allowed to diminish, the maximum effort we can exert in area in which enemy is operating, and must continue to operate in order to succeed.
Sims.
APPENDIX V
THE ADVANTAGES OF THE CONVOY SYSTEM
London,
June 29, 1917.