Page 230
Page 230
Page 230
ງ
3
Standard of Defences.
11. Owing to the remoteness of Prince Rupert from foreign naval bases and from the main theatres of naval wars, it is improbable that hostile warships would be found operating in the neighbourhood of that port in time of war, and consequently the chances of attack even by raiding cruisers are extremely small. however, in view of the probable development of the port in the near future, that It is suggested, fixed defences on the moderate scale required to deter attack by unarmoured cruisers should be provided at Prince Rupert.
12. In the absence of plans showing in detail the topographical and hydro- graphical features of Prince Rupert, and the position of docks and other vulnerable objectives, existing or projected, the Committee do not feel qualified to make detailed recommendations regarding the fixed defences. attention to the Colonial Defence Committee's Memorandum No. 376 M., dated the They desire, however, to draw 2nd January, 1907, on the general principles governing the standard of fixed defences at Colonial ports, in paragraph 11 of which the nature of armament required to meet the attack of unarmoured cruisers is discussed. The opinion expressed therein that the 6-inch gun is the most suitable weapon to deal with this form of attack is adhered to.
13. In expressing the above opinions as to the defences of Prince Rupert, the Committee have not taken into consideration the possibility of that port being developed as a naval base for Canadian warships stationed on the Pacific Coast. They have not sufficient information as to the future naval policy of the Canadian Government to enable them usefully to make any suggestions to meet possible future naval developments, but they would observe that should Prince Rupert or another port on the Pacific Coast ultimately be developed as a naval base, the inducements to a hostile naval commander to attack such a port will thereby be materially increased, and consequently the scale of probable attack and the scale of defences required to meet it would have to be reconsidered.
2, Whitehall Gardens, S.W.,
April 24, 1911,
[797]
C
Page 230
Page 230Page 231