Page 57
10
2
Local Defence Committee, and that the details of the arrangements he proposes to make with regard to the above-mentioned services should be further elaborated and entered in the Scheme.
4. Page 3, paragraph 2.--A reference should here be made to the possi- bility of attack by the minor class of torpedo-boats or launches referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Remarks of the Colonial Defence Committee, dated the 20th April, 1894, on the Report of the Local Joint Naval and Military Committee of December 1893.
5. Page 7 (A), 2.—The proposed distribution of staff duties in war is not very clear from the list given of officers on the Staff of the Commandant Durban Defences. There are apparently two Staff Officers at Durban in peace who are to remain there in war, viz., the Staff Officer of Volunteers and the District Adjutant at Durban. The list also states that a Supply Officer and a Transport Officer are to be detailed by the Commandant. In view of the fact that the duties of both these officers are only to make arrangements with the Mayor of Durban, with whom all executive action is to rest (vide pp. 19 and 20), it is thought that one Staff Officer acting as D.A.A.G. for B duties would suffice. Possibly this officer might be the District Adjutant at Durban, the Staff Officer of Volunteers acting as D.A.A.G. for A duties and as Chief Staff Officer, as is apparently contemplated in the Scheme.
6. Page 8.-The Sectional organization of the defence, as given on this page and subsequently in the Scheme, though in accordance with the general instructions contained in the Colonial Defence Committee's Memorandum No. 46, requires modification. As a rule, such an organiza- tion is only applicable to a large fortress, where the garrison is too numerous and spread over too wide an area to be controlled by one officer. In the case of Durban it would be advisable to treat the station as one section, all under the direct command of the Commandant Durban Defences. Such troops as it may be necessary to station at the mouth of the Umgeni River and other points would then be treated as detatchments from or outposts of the main body, which should be posted so as to be able to rapidly reinforce any threatened point. This arrangement avoids the tendency, induced by that adopted in the Scheme, to split up the small force available into detach- ments without sufficient cohesion or power of concentrated action.
The various units scattered over the Colony, which it is not proposed to send to Durban on outbreak of war, should be styled "Reserve of Colony " instead of being treated as Section V of the defence of Durban. It is possible to conceive conditions under which, even were Durban attacked, it would not be possible to utilize them for its defence.
7. Pages 9-12, Table B (i).-The guns to be worked by the Naval Volunteers should be included under the headings which apply to them in this Table.
8. Page 14, Table B (iii).—As the 6-inch B.L. guns are included in this Table, the word “movable" should be taken out of the heading.
The 7-pr. guns referred to here and in page 15 (D), paragraphis 1 and 2, are understood to be 2.5-inch R.M.L. guns, and should be given this nomenclature.
The proposal to mount guns on tugs, embodied in the note to Table B (iii), has already three times been dealt with by the Colonial Defence Committee in their Remarks dated the 20th April, 1894, the 23rd March, 1895, and the 14th October, 1895. In these Remarks they gave their reasons for not recommending this nature of defence. In those of the 14th October, 1895, they suggested the provision of alternative cone- mountings for the available 3-pr. Q.-F. guns being fixed at the end of the breakwater. They consider that such provision, the desirability of which should be brought to the notice of the Colonial Government, will meet the requirements of the case without it being necessary to purchase additional Q.-F. guns, as suggested by the Local Committee.
!
Page 57
Page 57