From the Kearney Files
Sydney 28th June 1922.
BRIDGE V. TUBE.
Comments in reply to Anon from another Sydney resident.
In his comments advocating a tube (or three tubes) to connect North and South Sydney instead of a bridge, "Anon"t uses the hackneyed expression of "safety first," as though a tube would be invunerable in time of war, and states that a bridge could be wiped by hostile aeroplanes in a short space of time.
Having spent over a year within bombing range of the line I saw many thousands of bombs dropped by our own aeroplanes, and know for a fact that not one bridge was even damaged, let alone destroyed by a bomb during that period. The military damage may have amounted to the killing of a few dozen soldiers, but it was at a very heavy cost to our air forces in men and machines lost. "Anon" can rest assured that anti - aircraft long range guns will keep a flyer very uncomfortable at upwards of 12,000feet, and at closer range searchlights and machine guns can absolutely prevent him from hovering round.
We were bombed on every fine night and as frequently as ten times daily whilst at Courtrai, and almost daily at other centres, and I can assure the Australian public, from actual experience, there is nothing to fear from aeroplane bombardments so far as our cities are concerned. Long range guns from enemy ships may find their objective (they are wonderfully accurate), and if enemy ships cannot be kept out of range or sunk by the British fleet (or our submarines), then it would not matter if the bridge had existed or otherwise.
We might have to destroy it ourselves, together with all other bridges, while we beat a hasty retreat inland to Oonadatta or some more obscure region.
Has "Anon" read the Railway Commissioners many solid reasons why a bridge is the only sound investment for the State? If not, he should do so. The levels for the whole of our railway and tram systems would have to be altered to suit the drop into and out of the tube, and long tunnels would be necessary on both sides of the harbour to meet the circumstances. And what of time wasted by the public ascending and descending in lifts in and out of the tubes? The Germans would have given millions for a few more bridges over the Rhine and it's tributaries during the war, and if tubes were of any value to them, seeing that they can be built in such a short time, would they not have used them?
Sydney 28th June 1922.
BRIDGE V. TUBE.
Comments in reply to Anon from another Sydney resident.
In his comments advocating a tube (or three tubes) to connect North and South Sydney instead of a bridge, "Anon"t uses the hackneyed expression of "safety first," as though a tube would be invunerable in time of war, and states that a bridge could be wiped by hostile aeroplanes in a short space of time.
Having spent over a year within bombing range of the line I saw many thousands of bombs dropped by our own aeroplanes, and know for a fact that not one bridge was even damaged, let alone destroyed by a bomb during that period. The military damage may have amounted to the killing of a few dozen soldiers, but it was at a very heavy cost to our air forces in men and machines lost. "Anon" can rest assured that anti - aircraft long range guns will keep a flyer very uncomfortable at upwards of 12,000feet, and at closer range searchlights and machine guns can absolutely prevent him from hovering round.
We were bombed on every fine night and as frequently as ten times daily whilst at Courtrai, and almost daily at other centres, and I can assure the Australian public, from actual experience, there is nothing to fear from aeroplane bombardments so far as our cities are concerned. Long range guns from enemy ships may find their objective (they are wonderfully accurate), and if enemy ships cannot be kept out of range or sunk by the British fleet (or our submarines), then it would not matter if the bridge had existed or otherwise.
We might have to destroy it ourselves, together with all other bridges, while we beat a hasty retreat inland to Oonadatta or some more obscure region.
Has "Anon" read the Railway Commissioners many solid reasons why a bridge is the only sound investment for the State? If not, he should do so. The levels for the whole of our railway and tram systems would have to be altered to suit the drop into and out of the tube, and long tunnels would be necessary on both sides of the harbour to meet the circumstances. And what of time wasted by the public ascending and descending in lifts in and out of the tubes? The Germans would have given millions for a few more bridges over the Rhine and it's tributaries during the war, and if tubes were of any value to them, seeing that they can be built in such a short time, would they not have used them?
Comments
Post a Comment