FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154  
155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   >>   >|  
was to use a combination of the last three alternatives_ provided that _a satisfactory type of mine_ could be produced in sufficient numbers and a sufficient supply of small craft provided by ourselves and the United States. Full details were given to Admiral Mayo of the proposed North Sea Barrage on a line totalling 230 miles in length, which was divided into three parts, Areas A, B and C, of which Area A only would be dangerous to surface vessels. It was estimated that Area A would require 36,300 mines, and it was proposed that this area should be mined by the United States forces with United States mines. It was proposed that the British should mine Area B, the requirements being 67,500 mines, and that the United States should mine Area C, for which 18,000 United States mines would be required. The reasons governing the selection of the mine barrage area were fully given, and the advantages arising from the use of the United States pattern of mine instead of the British mine for Areas A and C were stated. Admiral Mayo was also informed of our intention to establish a mine barrage in the Channel, on the Folkestone-Grisnez line, as soon as mines were available, with a strong force of patrol vessels stationed there, whose duty it would be to compel enemy submarines to dive into the minefield. He was further made acquainted with our intended policy of still closer minelaying in the Heligoland Bight. Although Admiral Mayo was not actually informed of the details of the future policy which it was hoped to adopt in the Adriatic for the improvement of the Otranto Barrage, various schemes were at the time being worked out between the British, French and Italian Admiralties, having as their object the prevention or obstruction of the exit of enemy submarines from the Adriatic, in the same way as it was hoped to obstruct German submarines from making their exit from the North Sea without incurring heavy losses. The great depth of water in the southern part of the Adriatic constituted the main difficulty facing us in the solution of this problem. In August, 1917, it was, however, definitely decided to establish a barrage of nets and mines across the Straits of Otranto, and the work was put in hand. This became effective during 1918. The paper on Naval Air Policy showed the aim of the Admiralty to be: To provide in sufficient numbers a type of airship which would be able to scout with the Grand Fleet, and, in th
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154  
155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
States
 

United

 

proposed

 
British
 

Adriatic

 

barrage

 

Admiral

 

submarines

 

sufficient

 

policy


vessels

 
numbers
 

informed

 
establish
 
provided
 

Barrage

 

Otranto

 

details

 

making

 

obstruct


German

 

losses

 

improvement

 

incurring

 

Admiralties

 
southern
 

worked

 

Italian

 

French

 

object


obstruction

 

schemes

 
prevention
 

August

 

Policy

 

showed

 

effective

 

Admiralty

 

provide

 

airship


solution
 
problem
 

facing

 

constituted

 

difficulty

 
supply
 

Straits

 
decided
 
acquainted
 

requirements