LAND AND ffiATER. 
March 6, 1915. 
BiontTi or »o. (5) I am afraid that tbe storiea of the sinking 
of the Uertha and the Eaiser Wilhelm der Grossr are versions 
of one and tli6 sama thing, due to vague descriptioui, and 
both of them also mar be incorrect stories of the loss of the 
Triedrich Karl, which is the only German akip officially 
announced to Lave been lost in the Baltio since the Mat/de- 
hurg was destroyed. (4) Siifjgestion noted. (5) It is im- 
possible to disintegrate items like those you have quoted from 
the Mar.churian Xewi, It is pleasing to hear that they regard 
it as official that the Von der Tann and Karlsruhe are sunk, 
but disquieting that they credit the French Navy with having 
lost the Jean Bart and Cuurhet. This was officially denied 
by the French Admiralty and officially stated as correct by 
the Austrians. Possibly the Manckurian yens was quoting, 
and not giving any official Russian statement. (6) " F'ight- 
ing Ships " will be published about May or June as usual. 
F. T. (Midhurst). — A pleasant feature of the presenk 
.■war is the way in which everybody seized with an idea spreads 
it about in the hope of its being useful. You may, however, 
tike it that our destroyers know nil there is to know in the 
matter of hunting submarines. Did you ever see a man with 
• gun making his first effort to shoot snipe? Our destroyers 
are (or were) in that position against hostile submarines. The 
principal danger from submarines is the fact that they are a 
tioie! weapon. It is only the non-uautical Germans who 
imagine that in the submarine they have discovered somethiug 
which sets all the laws of Nature at defiance. We shall evolve 
■u antidote in due course. 
H. It. B. (Checkeuham). — All that you suggest has been 
done for a long time. 
R. 0. (Bristol). — To foul the propellers of a submarine is 
excellent in theory, but in practice, unfortunately, it is rather 
on all fours with catching a bird by putting salt on its tail I 
The bigness of the sea is the cause of the trouble. Imagine a 
gr.isshopper in a ten-acre field seeking to locate and make 
a meal off some particular insect and you get a not very 
exaggerated analogy I 
S. O'D. (Bramhall). — You may depend upon It that the 
Kaval Air Service has long since utilised aeroplanes for every 
purpose to which they can be put. 
H. M. (Kingstown) and W. D. S. B. S. (Bournemouth). 
•—You have both hit on the same idea independently. It 
is all right in theory, but in practice would be too slow to be 
of value, to say nothing of the fact that a torpedo in motion 
is always a good way ahead of its betraying bubbles. More- 
over, the chances of any one particular merchant ship beiug 
attacked are very small. The best defence is that adopted by 
jtha Admiralty. "' 
T. H. M. (Crosshaven).— Time fuse shell are used against 
•eroplanes, as well as shrapnel; but any land fire is neces- 
•anly haphazard. The correct reply to the aeroplane is the 
aeroplane. Anti-aircraft guns wiU no doubt improve : they 
may very possibly improve so that dirigibles become entirely 
.worthless; but they are never very likely to prove a eatia- 
factory defence against aeroplanes. 
F. J. R. (London, E.G.).— (1) Modern submarines have 
two periscopes, and there is no probability of their beiu<» 
caught from behind. (2) Aircraft have proved of little or no 
value against submarines. The idea of " harpooning " them 
was suggested some time ago by Lord Charles Beresfcd The 
trouble is to find the submarine. As remarked some while 
■go m this column, it is easy to harpoon a whale, because it 
lacks intelhgence enough to make itself scarce when danger 
threatens The submarine, on the other hand, is a very 
Intelligent whale. •' 
F. S. (Guernsey).— Many thanks for your enclosure 
Least said soonest mended. Your enclosure is^onclus ve and 
unpleasant evidence that the German official report of tbe 
ffang. affair was not the bluff that I assumed it to have be a! 
'Ail the same, we shaU presently have Tanga. 
A. W. (Bideford).-The German was probably Larmier 
or you would not have encountered him in the way you d' d' 
!A favourite method with the Germ- ^ - 
^^0-3 was to Dut a ilarm1a»<i 
Eni" '"'"' *''"""'"' ^"^'^ '"^^ "^^ ^P7 Sorked unin 
H. S. (No address).— I have forwarded the matter to tlm 
S^?'";'"- . ''';°^*"^ '^"^ "« unaware of wl is unde 
»eath the sheep's clothing at the place you refer to. Fortu- 
pper:;it:;iLi!:^^::t-:^^ '"^^-"- ^" ^- - 
lion 
H. B J. (Golder's Grecn).-Your.pIan for the destru 
of .ubmarines u ingenious, but I am afraid that the 
C. P. M. (Maida Vale, W.). — Your theory ts correcS, 
but you may reckon that our gubmarine expert* thought of 
it long ago. 
R. B. (Birkenhead),— No, I do not consider yon "• 
blithering idiot," but I am afraid that you are amongst the 
multitude which fails to realise the intrinsic difficulty of 
getting into touch with a submarine. Once in touch, auit- 
able methods of destruction are simple and plentiful; the real 
problem is how to find the needle in the bundle of hay. 
J. T. H. J. (Cymmer). — There is nothing intriasicallj 
wrong in your idea for combating submarines except that 
the submarine blockade danger is hardly important enough to 
warrant such extensive precautions. It is necessary to 
remember that submarines, like aircraft, are novel weapon* 
of warfare, and consequently get headlines out ot all pro- 
portion to their actual fighting value. 
N. B. M. (London, S.W.). — I am quite ready to concede 
that German-Americans have their rights, and no doubt from 
their point of view " Deutschland iiber alles " interests them 
more than " The Star Spangled Banner." But as the busi- 
ness of Mr. Winston Churchill is to look after the interests of 
t/iu country I am afraid that I cannot follow your theory 
that anything he or the Admiralty may do against Germany 
is " a low-minded policy." I take it that you are a German- 
American and honestly entitled to sympathise as you will, but 
you cannot expect us to sympathise with you. The Germans, 
of course, are delightful people, but it happens to be the 
business of this country to kill the enemy, and I am afraid 
that even if you called Mr. Winston Churchill a d d 
nasty brute you would not induce a eingle British sailor to 
be unduly softhearted thereby. 
" Retaliation." — Your scheme of a trap for German sub- 
marines is absolutely perfect in theory. It would certainly 
work, but do you realise that the chances of any one particular 
merchant ship being pirated are about one in a thousand, 
while the cost of what you suggest would be something like 
one in a hundred — i.e., we should bo paying through the nose 
against imaginary dangers J But when all is said and done 
there is no certainty in any scheme, and no scheme can safely 
bo based on the theory that the hostile submarine is not very 
wide awake. I do not believe that there is any such thing as 
passive defence against Germany's submarine " blockade." 
Safety only lies in an offensive-defensive by the British Navy. 
H. M. (Hampstead, N.W.).— Ideas more or less like 
your suggestion, though not always so carefully worked out, 
come to mo continually from correspondents. In so far ae 
the scheme is practicable it has long been in operation. 
A. W. Y. (Glasgow).— As you say, your idea is not novel, 
but your proposed application of it most certainly is, and I 
suggest that you communicate with the Admiralty direct, 
being careful to explain to them exactly how it worlu La 
every way. 
W. C. (Wincanton).— (1) At 17,000 yards « shell would 
have drop enough to fetch up against the protective deck. 
1 he curious thing is that it has never been absolutely settled 
whether a proiectile fired at long rango with a considerable 
elevation reaches the target point downward, or point 
upward as It left the gun. (2; High angle fire to the full 
extent of 45deg. or more is not possible from warships. 
becau.se no provision for such extreme elevation is made It 
could, of course, be secured by inclining the ship sufficiently. 
(5) lour idea of training seagulls to detect periscopes by 
feeding them from periscopes k on the face of it ludicrous 
But in actual practice it might very well work in inshore 
waiters Como to think of it, the idea that the jumping h J 
o a boiling kettle could revolutionise motive power must 
also have struck many past sages as ludicrous. By the war 
If you looK up back uumbers of the Strand Magazine of about 
ten_ years or so ago, you will find th.it one An-us Sherlock 
writing about Naval War Game, detailed a sdisme b"J; 
ulilising porpoises for naval purposes. So far as I recolleck 
he Umpire allowed the claii;. S'he French once seriouly 
considered training eagles to attack aviators, and at 
present time I believe that parrots are utilised to giv, 
ing of approaching aeroplanes. One v,.ay and another 
fore, your idea about seagulls cannot be 
»r« too elusive te be destroyed on the lines 
c 
they 
the 
e warn- 
another, there- 
d.,pit. tu. uct ih.t ti..r-„;Vp.7,7;.pr«a"b™."' af £ 
E. D. F. (London, S.W.).— Your 
Interesting, but I am rather doubtful 
balloon would stay there, also as to whethe;"iV wolld "rellir 
BOO vary much. As I have so frequently suggested tS 
ine 13 a very wily fisli. 
12* 
scheme is very 
whether the captive 
you .uggeat. columns, the submarine 
