The Victory At Sea

APPENDIX IV

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.

From: Commander U.S. Naval Forces operating in European Waters.
To: Secretary of the Navy (Operations).
Subject: General report concerning military situation.

1. I feel that there is little to add to my recent cable despatches which, in view of the importance of the time element, have been made full and detailed.

2. To sum up my despatches briefly, I would repeat that I consider that the military situation is very grave indeed on account of the success of the enemy submarine campaign.

If the shipping losses continue as they have during the past four months, it is submitted that the Allies will be forced to dire straits indeed, if they will not actually be forced into an unsatisfactory peace.

The present rate of destruction is very much greater than the rate of building, and the shortage of tonnage is already so great that the efficiency of the naval forces is already reduced by lack of oil. Orders have just been given to use three-fifths speed, except in cases of emergency. This simply means that the enemy is winning the war.

3. My reasons for being so insistent in my cable despatches have been because of my conviction that measures of co-operation which we may take will be inefficient if they are not put into operation immediately, that is, within a month.

There is every reason to believe that the maximum enemy submarine effort will occur between now and the first of November, reaching its height probably during the latter part of July, if not earlier.

4. There is certainly no sovereign solution for the submarine menace except through well-established methods of warfare based upon fundamental military principles.

5. It is submitted that the cardinal military principle of concentration of effort is at present being pursued by the enemy and not by the Allies.

6. We are dispersing our forces while the enemy is concentrating his. The enemy's submarine mission is and must continue to be the destruction of merchant shipping. The limitations of submarines and the distances over which they must operate prevent them from attacking our naval forces, that is, anti-submarine craft. They cannot afford to engage anti-submarine craft with guns; they must use torpedoes. If they should do so to any considerable extent their limited supply would greatly reduce their period of operation away from base, and the number of merchantmen they could destroy. Their object is to avoid contact with anti-submarine craft. This they can almost always do, as the submarine can see the surface craft at many times the distance the surface craft can see a periscope, particularly one less than two inches in diameter.

Moreover, the submarine greatly fears the anti-submarine craft because of the great danger of the depth charges. Our tactics should therefore be such as to force the submarine to incur this danger in order to get within range of merchantmen.

7. It therefore seems to go without question that the only course for us to pursue is to revert to the ancient practice of convoy. This will be purely an offensive measure, because if we concentrate our shipping into convoys and protect it with our naval forces we will thereby force the enemy, in order to carry out his mission, to encounter naval forces which are not embarrassed with valuable cargoes, and which are a great danger to the submarine. At present our naval forces are wearing down their personnel and material in an attempted combination of escorting single ships, when they can be picked up, and also of attempting to seek and offensively engage an enemy whose object is to avoid such encounters. With the convoy system the conditions will be reversed. Although the enemy may easily know when our convoys sail, he can never know the course they will pursue or the route of approach to their destinations. Our escorting forces will thus be able to work on a deliberate prearranged plan, preserving their oil supplies and energy, while the enemy will be forced to disperse his forces and seek us. In a word, the handicap we now labour under will be shifted to the enemy; we will have adopted the essential principal of concentration while the enemy will lose it.

8. The most careful and thorough study of the convoy system made by the British Admiralty shows clearly that while we may have some losses under this system, owing to lack of adequate number of anti-submarine craft, they nevertheless will not be critical as they are at present.

9. I again submit that if the Allied campaign is to be viewed as a whole, there is no necessity for any high sea protection on our own coast. The submarine as a type of war vessel possesses no unusual characteristics different from those of other naval craft, with the single exception of its ability to submerge for a limited time. The difficulty of maintaining distant bases is the same for the submarine as it is for other craft. As long as we maintain control of the sea as far as surface craft are concerned, there can be no fear of the enemy establishing submarine bases in the Western Hemisphere.

10. To take an extreme illustration, if the enemy could be led or forced into diverting part of his submarine effort to the United States coast, or to any other area distant from the critical area surrounding the coast of France and the United Kingdom, the anti-submarine campaign would at once be won. The enemy labours under severe difficulties in carrying out his campaign, even in this restricted area, owing to the material limitations and the distances they must operate from their bases, through extremely dangerous localities. The extent of the United States coastline and the distances between its principal commercial ports preclude the possibility of any submarine effort in that part of the world except limited operations of diversion designed to affect public opinion, and thereby hold our forces from the vital field of action.

11. The difficulties confronting the convoy system are, of course, considerable. They are primarily involved in the widely dispersed ports of origin of merchant shipping; the difficulty of communication by cable; the time involved by communications by mail; and the difficulties of obtaining a co-operation and co-ordination between Allied Governments.

As reported by cable despatch, the British Government has definitely reached the decision to put the convoy system into operation as far as its ability goes. Convoys from Hampton Roads, Canada, Mediterranean, and Scandinavian countries are already in operation. Convoys from New York will be put in operation as soon as ships are available. The British navy is already strained beyond its capacity, and I therefore urgently recommend that we co-operate, at least to the extent of handling convoys from New York.

12. The dangers to convoys from high sea raiders is remote, but, of course, must be provided against, and hence the necessity for escorting cruisers or reserve battleships. The necessity is even greater, however, for anti-submarine craft in the submarine war zone.

13. As stated in my despatches, the arming of merchantmen is not a solution of the submarine menace, it serves the single purpose of forcing the submarine to use torpedoes instead of guns and bombs. The facts that men-of-war cannot proceed safely at sea without escort, and that in the Queenstown avenue of approach alone in the past six weeks there have been thirty armed merchantmen sunk, without having seen the submarine at all before the attack, seem to be conclusive evidence. A great mass of other evidence and war experience could be collected in support of the above.

14. The week ending June 19th has been one of great submarine activity. Evidence indicates that fifteen to nineteen of the largest and latest submarines have been operating, of which ten to thirteen were operating in the critical area to the west and south-west of the British Isles. The above numbers are exclusive of the smaller and earlier type of submarines, and submarines carrying mines alone. Two submarines are working to the westward of the Straits of Gibraltar. A feature of the week was the sinking of ships as far west as nineteen degrees. Three merchant ship convoys are en route from Hampton Roads, the last one, consisting of eighteen ships, having sailed on the 19th of June. One hundred and sixteen moored mines have been swept up during the week.

Twenty-two reports of encounters with enemy submarines in waters surrounding the United Kingdom have been reported during the week—three by destroyers, two by cruisers, two by mystery ships, one by French gunboat, three by submarines, nine by auxiliary patrol vessels, one by seaplane, and one by merchant vessel.

There is attached copy of report of operations by anti-submarine craft based on Queenstown.

(Signed) Wm. S. Sims.

APPENDIX VI

THE NAVY DEPARTMENT'S POLICY

From: Secretary of Navy.
To: Vice-Admiral Sims, U.S.S. Melville.
Received: July 10, 1917.

The following letter from the Secretary to the Secretary of State is quoted for your information and guidance as an index of the policy of the Department in relation to the co-operation of our naval forces with those of our Allies. Quote: After careful consideration of the present naval situation taken in connection with possible future situations which might arise, the Department is preparing to announce as its policy, in so far as it relates to the Allies. First, the most hearty co-operation with the Allies to meet the present submarine situation in European or other waters compatible with an adequate defence of our own home waters. Second, the most hearty co-operation with the Allies to meet any future situation arising during the present war period. Third, the realization that while a successful termination of the present war must always be the first Allied aim, and will probably result in diminished tension throughout the world, the future position of the United States must in no way be jeopardized by any disintegration of our main fighting fleet. Fourth, the conception that the present main military rôle of the United States naval force lies in its safeguarding the line of communications of the Allies. In pursuing this aim there will be generally speaking two classes of vessels engaged: minor craft and major craft, and two rôles of action, first, offensive and, second, defensive. Fifth, in pursuing the rôle set forth in paragraph four, the Department cannot too strongly insist on its opinion that the offensive must always be the dominant note in any general plans of strategy prepared. But as the primary rôle in all offensive preparations must perforce belong to the Allied powers, the Navy Department announces as its policy that in general it is willing to accept any joint plan of action of the Allies deemed necessary to meet immediate need. Sixth, pursuant to the above general policy, the Navy Department announces as its general plan of action the following: One, its willingness to send its minor fighting forces, composed of destroyers, cruisers, submarine chasers, auxiliaries in any number not incompatible with home needs, and to any field of action deemed expedient by the joint Allied Admiralties which would not involve a violation of our present state policy. Two, its unwillingness as a matter of policy to separate any division from the main fleet for service abroad, although it is willing to send the entire battleship fleet abroad to act as a united but co-operating unit when, after joint consultations of all Admiralties concerned, the emergency is deemed to warrant it and the extra tension imposed upon the line of communications due to the increase of fighting ships in European waters will stand the strain imposed upon it. Three, its willingness to discuss more fully plans for joint operations. End of Quote 11009.

(Sd) Josephus Daniels.

APPENDIX VII

COMMENTS UPON NAVY DEPARTMENT'S POLICY

Office Vice-Admiral, Commanding
U.S. Destroyer Forces
European Waters.
London,
July 16, 1917.

From: Vice-Admiral Sims.
To: Secretary of the Navy.
Subject: Concerning Policy of U.S. Naval co-operation in war, and allied subjects.

1. The Department's cablegram of July 10, 1917, quoting a letter which had been addressed to the Secretary of State concerning naval policy in relation to the present war, was received on July 10th.

In view of the nature of certain parts of the policy set forth therein, I wish to indicate the general policy which has heretofore governed my recommendation.

2. I have assumed that our mission was to promote the maximum co-operation with the Allies in defeating a common enemy.

All of my despatches and recommendations have been based on the firm conviction that the above mission could and would be accomplished, and that hence such questions as the possibility of post war situations, or of all or part of the Allies being defeated and America being left alone, were not given consideration—in fact, I cannot see how we could enter into this war whole-heartedly if such considerations were allowed to diminish in any way the chances of Allied success.

3. The first course open to us which naturally occurs to mind is that we should look upon our service as part of the combined Allied service, of which the British Grand Fleet is the main body, and all other Allied naval forces disposed throughout the world, as necessary branches thereof.

This conception views our battleship fleet as a support or reserve of the Allied main body (the British Grand Fleet) and would lead to utilizing our other forces to fill in weak spots and to strengthen Allied lines, both offensively and defensively, wherever necessary.

Such a course might be considered as a disintegration of our fleet, and it is only natural, therefore, that hesitation and caution should be felt in its adoption.

4. I have felt, however, that it was possible to accomplish our mission without in any way involving the so-called disintegration of our fleet as a whole.

In the first instance I have assumed that our aim would be to project, or prepare to project, our maximum force against the enemy offensively.

5. An estimate of the situation shows clearly that the enemy is depending for success upon breaking down the Allies' lines of communications by virtue of the submarine campaign.

A necessary part of such a plan is to divert strength from the main fleet and from anti-submarine operations by such means as coastal raids, threats of landing operations, air raids, and attacks on hospital ships, which last necessitates destroyer escort for such vessels.

The submarine campaign itself, while it is of necessity concentrated primarily on the most vital lines of communications, is nevertheless carried out in such a manner as to lead the Allies to disperse, and not concentrate, their inadequate anti-submarine Forces.

The Allies are, of course, forced to contemplate at all times, and hence provide against, the possibility of another main fleet action.

6. A study of the submarine situation, the number of submarines available to the enemy, and the necessary lines of the Allies' communications, for both Army and Navy as well as civil needs, shows clearly that the enemy must direct his main effort in certain restricted areas.

These areas, as has repeatedly been reported, are included approximately in a circle drawn from about Ushant to the north of Scotland. The most effective field for enemy activity is, of course, close into the Irish Sea and Channel approaches, where all lines must focus.

But, as stated above, the enemy also attacks occasionally well out to sea and in other dispersed areas with a view of scattering the limited anti-submarine forces available.

It therefore seems manifest that the war not only is, but must remain, in European waters, in so far as success or failure is concerned.

7. Speaking generally, but disregarding for the moment the question of logistics, our course of action, in order to throw our main strength against the enemy, would be to move all our forces, including the battleship fleet, into the war area.

8. In view of the nature of the present sea warfare as effected by the submarine, such a movement by the battleships would necessitate a large force of light craft—much larger than our peace establishment provided. In addition to all destroyers, adequate protection of the fleet would require all other available light craft in the service, or which could be commandeered and put into service—that is, submarines, armed tugs, trawlers, yachts, torpedo boats, revenue cutters, mine-layers and mine-sweepers, and in fact any type of small craft which could be used as protective or offensive screens.

9. In view of the shipping situation, as affected by the submarine campaign, it has been impossible to date to see in what way our battleships could be supplied in case they were sent into the war area. This refers particularly to oil-burning vessels. It would therefore seem unwise to recommend such a movement until we could see clearly far enough ahead to ensure the safety of the lines of communication which such a force would require.

10. It is to be observed, however, that even in case the decision were made to move the battleships into the war area, it would unavoidably be greatly delayed both in getting together the necessary screening forces and also in getting such craft across the Atlantic.

In the meantime, and while awaiting a decision as to the movements of the battleship fleet, the submarine campaign has become so intensive, and the available anti-submarine craft have been so inadequate to meet it, that the necessity for increasing the anti-submarine forces in the war area to the maximum possible extent has become imperative.

11. As long, therefore, as the enemy fleet is contained by the stronger British fleet in a position of readiness, it would not seem a disintegration of our fleet to advance into the war area all the light craft of every description which would necessarily have to accompany the fleet in case it should be needed in this area.

Such movements of the light craft would not in any way separate them strategically from the battleships, as they would be operating between the enemy and our own main body and based in a position to fall back as the main body approached, or to meet it at an appointed place. This advance of light forces, strategically, would mean no delay whatever to our heavy forces, should the time come for their entry into the active war zone.

12. Another very important consideration is the fact that, pending the movement of the battleships themselves, all of the light forces would be gaining valuable war experience and would be the better prepared for operations of any nature in the future, either in connection with the fleet itself or independently.

It is also considered that it would not constitute a disintegration of our fleet to advance into the war zone, in co-operation with the British Grand Fleet or for other duty, certain units of our battleship fleet. These would merely constitute units advanced for purpose of enemy defeat, and which would always be in a position to fall back on the main part of our Fleet, or to join it as it approached the war zone.

It is for this reason that I recommended, on July 7, 1917, that all coal-burning dreadnoughts be kept in readiness for distant service in case their juncture with the Grand Fleet might be deemed advisable in connection with unexpected enemy developments.

It would, of course, be preferable to advance the entire fleet providing adequate lines of communications could be established to ensure their efficient operation. At the present time there is a sufficient coal supply in England to supply our coal-burning dreadnoughts, but the oil would be a very difficult problem as it must be brought in through the submarine zone.

When notified that the Chester, Birmingham, and Salem were available for duty in the war area, I recommended, after consultation with the Admiralty, that they join the British Light Cruiser Squadrons in the North Sea, where there is always a constant demand for more ships, especially to oppose enemy raiding and other operations aimed at dispersing the Allied sea forces.

In view of the Department's reference to the Gibraltar situation, and also in consideration of the sea-keeping qualities of the seven gunboats of the Sacramento class, it was recommended that they be based on Gibraltar for duty in assisting to escort convoys clear of the Straits, and particularly as this would release some British destroyers which are urgently needed in critical areas to the northward.

13. The Department's policy, as contained in its letter to the Secretary of State, refers in the first statement to an adequate defence of our own home waters. It would seem to be sound reasoning that the most effective defence which can be afforded to our home waters is an offensive campaign against the enemy which threatens those waters. Or in other words, that the place for protection of home waters is the place in which protection is necessary—that is, where the enemy is operating and must continue to operate in force.

As has been stated in numerous despatches, it is considered that home waters are threatened solely in the submarine zone—in fact are being attacked solely in that zone, and must continue to be attacked therein if the enemy is to succeed against us as well as against the European Entente.

The number of available enemy submarines is not unlimited, and the difficulties of obtaining and maintaining bases are fully as difficult for submarine as for surface craft.

The difficulties experienced by enemy submarines en route and in operating as far from their bases as they now do are prodigious.

Operations on our coast without a base are impracticable, except by very limited numbers for brief periods, purely as diversions.

In view of our distance from enemy home bases, the extent of our coastline, and the distances between our principal ports, it is a safe assumption that if we could induce the enemy to shift the submarine war area to our coasts his defeat would be assured, and his present success would be diminished more than in proportion to the number of submarines he diverted from the more accessible area where commerce necessarily focuses.

14. The Department's policy refers to willingness to extend hearty co-operation to the Allies, and to discuss plans for joint operations, and also to its readiness to consider any plans which may be submitted by the joint Allied Admiralties.

15. I submit that it is impossible to carry out this co-operation, to discuss plans with the various Admiralties, except in one way—and that is, to establish what might be termed an advance headquarters in the war zone composed of Department representatives upon whose recommendations the Department can depend.

I refer to exactly the same procedure as is now carried out in the army—that is, the General Headquarters in the field being the advance headquarters of the War Department at home, and the advance headquarters must of necessity be left a certain area of discretion and freedom of action as concerns the details of the measures necessitated by the military situations as they arise.

16. The time element is one of the most vital of all elements which enter into military warfare, and hence delays in communications by written reports, together with the necessity for secrecy, render it very difficult to discuss plans at long range. The enemy secret service has proved itself to be of extraordinary efficiency.

Moreover, I believe it to be very unsafe to depend upon discussion of military plans by cable, as well as by letter. The necessary inadequacy of written or cable communications needs no discussion. The opportunities for misunderstandings are great. It is difficult to be sure that one has expressed clearly one's meaning in writing, and hence phrases in a letter are very liable to misinterpretation. They cannot explain themselves.

17. One of the greatest military difficulties of this war, and perhaps of all Allied wars, has been the difficulty of co-ordination and co-operation in military effort. I am aware of a great mass of information in this connection which it is practically impossible to impart except by personal discussion.

It is unquestionable that efficiency would be greatly improved if any one of the Allies—Italy, France, England, or the United States—were selected to direct all operations, the others merely keeping the one selected fully informed of their resources available, and submitting to complete control and direction in regard to the utilization of these resources.

18. If the above considerations are granted, it then becomes necessary to decide as to the best location in which to establish such advanced headquarters, or what might be called an advance branch war council at the front—that is, an advanced branch upon whose advice and decisions the War Council itself largely depends.

I fully realize the pressure and the influences which must have been brought to bear upon the Department from all of the Allies, and from various and perhaps conflicting sources.

I also realize that my position here in England renders me open to suspicion that I may be unduly influenced by the British viewpoint of the war. It should be unnecessary to state that I have done everything within my ability to maintain a broad viewpoint with the above stated mission constantly in mind.

19. From the naval point of view it would seem evident that London is the best and most central location in the war area for what I have termed above the Advance Branch of our Naval War Council.

The British navy, on account of its size alone, is bearing the brunt of the naval war, and hence all naval information concerning the war therefore reaches and centres in London.

It will be quite possible for all of our advanced headquarters staff, or parts or divisions thereof, to visit Paris and other Allied Admiralties at any time.

I wish to make it quite clear that up to date it has been wholly impossible for me, with one military Aide, to perform all of the functions of such an advanced branch of the Department.

As stated in my despatches, it has been evident for some time that I have been approaching a state in which it would be physically impossible to handle the work without an increase of staff.

The present state of affairs is such that it is quite within range of possibility for serious errors to occur which may involve disaster to our ships, due to the physical impossibility of handling the administrative and other work with the thoroughness which is essential to safety.

20. I consider that a very minimum staff which would be required is approximately as follows. More officers could be well employed with resulting increase of efficiency:

(Signed) Wm. S. Sims.

APPENDIX VIII

MONTHLY LOSSES SINCE FEBRUARY, 1917, FROM ENEMY ACTION

During the twenty-one months of unrestricted submarine warfare from February, 1917, to October, 1918, inclusive, 3,843 merchant vessels (British fishing vessels included) of a total gross tonnage of 8,478,947 have been sunk by enemy action, a monthly average of 183 vessels totalling 403,760 gross tons. The October tonnage losses show a decrease from this average of 291,333 gross tons, or 72 per cent.

The following gives the tonnage losses by months from February, 1917, to October, 1918, inclusive:

APPENDIX IX

TONNAGE CONSTRUCTED BY ALLIED AND NEUTRAL NATIONS SINCE AUGUST, 1914

Construction of merchant shipping is shown in the following table, which gives tonnage completed since the beginning of the war for the United Kingdom, United States, and for other Allied and Neutral Nations.