January 30, 1915. 
LAND AND WATER 
at present exist, and tliis war will be over long before any 
fiuch vessel could exist, even supposing tlio idea to bo feasible. 
,We have to fight this war with existing material. 
" One Who Knows."— It is obviously impossible to dis- 
cuss tho efficiency of any subordinate admiral. I have read 
your letter with much interest. I am not personally acquainted 
with the officer mentioned, but I was a frequent visitor on 
board his flagship in a previous command, and I am bound to 
say that views expressed about him in tho wardroom in no 
way coincided with yours. He may havo "gone oS " since; 
but I am afraid that I should require more evidence than the 
statements of an anonymous correspondent before 1 would 
suggest any such thing in these columns. It is obvious that 
vou liave inside knowledge of tho naval service, but— so have 1 1 
Other matters apart, don't you think that I'd be what the 
Amenoans call "some cad" to attack a naval officer on 
evidence sent anonymously, even granting that all you alleo-e 
were quite true? ° 
E. H. (Hatch End), and various others.- 1 appreciate 
your sentiments, but I think you are quite wrong. I have 
dealt with the subject in the body of my article this week, as 
I think it is certainly one of supreme importance. If my 
arguments do not satisfy you, I shall be extremely obliged if 
you -will write again to the editor for publication, because I 
for one am firmly convinced that this question ol the 
Admiralty and the public is a matter of far greater moment 
tlian the submarining of a battleship or two. As I have said. 
I think critics of the Admiralty are incorrect; but there exists 
the old story of the danger of sitting on the safety-valve, 
and I trust that you will understand that, absolutely 'unsJ^a- 
pathetio though I am to your arguments, I do realise that tho 
underlying motives of your criticisms are entirely patriotic, 
and on that account worthy of appreciation and commenda- 
tion, on which you will, I hope, forgive me if I suggest the 
possibility that I know more about the inside and unwritten 
history of the naval war than you do I From tho King to the 
errand boy, we are all of us engaged in a struggle for national 
existence. This being so, views naturally vary widely; but 
no one outsido a lunatic asylum would seek to grind an axe. 
Did I think that the Admii'alty was wrong I should assuredly 
assert it in no uncertain words. 
M. H. S. (Reading). — I do not believe in the German 
" super-submarines." intended to attack British commerce 
on the high seas. They have also been heard of as intended 
to transport an invailing army to our shores. The reason 
for my scepticism is, that if they had such craft tlie Germans 
would have been careful to observe absolute secrecy about 
them. 
L. M. M. (Edinburgh). — Thank you for your letter, 
■which I am answering privately. The contents are better not 
published. 
A. C. (Hamilton). — You will see that I have already dealt 
this week with one of the questions raised by you The rest 
I will — so far as possible — refer to in my next week's notes. 
THE ACTION OFF THE FALKLANDS. 
AS DESCRIBED BY AN OFFICER ON THE "INVINCIBLE." 
NOTE.— Thli Article h«t btta lobmitted to tb« Preii Burean, which doei not object to the publication ai centored, and takei no 
respoatibility for tho torrectaeit of the (tatementi. 
<"■ ■ -t. 
.1* 
/ 
■^<'t>&fs"'' 
Xi' 
^t 
•^' 
QLascjow^ (sIm'uiciSle 
() riif{exiI)Le 
V. Stanley 
I EXPECT by now you have heard all the news about th* 
sinking of the Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Leipzig and 
Niirnherg. Anyhow, as all censorship is removed I 
will tell you as much as possible of the action and 
events leading up to it. The situation "was more or 
less as follows : — 
On Monday, December 7th, we arrived at Port Stanley in 
the Fjjllvland Islands and prepared for coaling. The Canopns 
battleship was installed there as guard ship. The ships, there- 
fore, in Port Stanley on Docember 7th were Invincible, In- 
flexible, Carnarvon, Cornwall, Kent, Glasgow, and Bristol and 
Macedonia. . . . 
At 7.30 a.m. on December 8th we started coaling, we 
being anchored in Port Stanley ("we" being us and In- 
'ftexiile). Kent nnd Cormiall and Bristol had finished, Glasgow 
-WAS doing repairs. At about 8 a.m. signal station reported 
4 four-funnelled warship in sight, and then shortly afterwards 
a light cruiser. These wore recognised as either the Scharn- 
horst or Gneisenau and the Nurnberg. We immediately gave 
orders' to the fleet to raise steam for full speed. The Kent, 
Cornwall and Glasgow proceeded out almost at once, and 
signi-illed the movements of the enemy to us fro.n the entrance. 
The Canopus opened fire with her 12-inoh guns from her moor- 
ings. 
Th« enemy were then reported to be retiring, but were 
later reported to bo waiting further off, having been joined by 
three ships. We then knew that tho whole squadron, consist- 
ing of Sclwrnhorst, Gneisenau, Leipzig, Nurnberg and Dret- 
den were there. We, of course, could hardly believe our luck, 
as this was the very squadron that we had come out to destroy, 
and they had come to find us instead of we them (of course, 
it was obvious that they did not know that the Invincible and 
Inflexible were with the fleet), and their reason for coming 
was to destroy our coal and wireless station. 
At about 10 a.m. we left harbour, having got steam for 
full speed. Directly the enemy saw us tliey turned round and 
went away at full speed — they were then about 14 miles away. 
The disposition was then as in Plan 2. 
The Kent, Glasgow, and Carnarvon were going under 24 
knots, and therefore we had to reduce speed to keep them 
with us; we were, however, slowly overtaking the enemy. 
The enemy altered course, and we were nearly right astern 
chasing them, as in Plan 3. 
'GuelsenatL & 
1)resdeit \ 
.$chartiiorst\^ 
I 
. / 
I2mUes 
H Glasgow I hflexihti 
i Cornwall 
J Carnarvoti 
_2 
