Page 217
The discrepancy between this result and that arrived at in the Scheme cannot be accounted for with certainty in the absence of Manning Tables in the Scheme, but is doubtless in part due to detachments for one 7-in, and two 64-pr. R.M.L. guns, which are mounted, having rightly been included. It having now been decided to dismount these guns, their detachments will be saved.
The Committee consider that the approved artillery garrison fully meets the present requirements of Mauritius.
The Committee would suggest, for the consideration of the War Office, the advisability of substituting 6 303-in. machine-guns for the 6-3 pr. Q.F. guns, which are mounted on field carriages, and therefore are quick-firing only in name; they have also no shrapnel shell. The machine-guns would be more effective, and would be manned by Infantry instead of by Royal Artillery.
12. Page 18, paragraph 5, and page 26, paragraph 2.-The Defence Scheme lays down that "on mobilization the Inspector of Warlike Stores and the Inspector of Ordnance Machinery who are on the establishment of the Army Ordnance Depart- ment . . . . will join the staff of the O.C.R.A. commanding No. I Section, with head- quarters at Fort George."
Under the new organization of the Army Ordnance Department there is no Inspector of Warlike Stores, but one of the officers of the Department, posted for general duties, also performs in addition all inspection duties. In the case of Mauritius this officer is the Chief Ordnance Officer, and therefore he cannot be considered available for other than Ordnance Department duties.
He should not, therefore, be transferred to the staff of the O.C.R.A.
The Inspector of Ordnance Machinery might be attached to the Staff of the O.C.R.A., as his primary duty will be to see that any necessary repairs to armament are effected without delay.
13. Page 21, paragraph 44.-The words "without instructions from the Senior Naval Officer on the station" in the fourth line of this paragraph should be omitted.
14. Page 21, paragraph 45.-The weak points in the defence referred to under (a) and (b) of this paragraph have disappeared to a great extent since the material increase in the garrison, and this increase will also lessen the likelihood of a successful land attack on Albert and Victoria Batteries from the rear (c). It is understood that both batteries are provided with unclimbable fences, and it is presumed they would be further strengthened in war by the judicious use of wire entanglements round them, though this is not specifically referred to under the heading of "Works" on pp. 51 and 52 of the Scheme. The alleged insufficiency of Staff Officers (d) appears to the Committee to require consideration from the War Office.
The War Office letter 266/Mauritius/10, dated 2/5/98, directing the General Officer Commanding to arrange for British soldiers to be detailed to take over the signal stations as they are vacated by the creoles disposes of the former weakness (e) in the defence arising from those stations being in untrustworthy hands.
Chapter II.
15. Page 26, paragraph 5.—The reference to “Note (b), Table, Armament" is not understood.
16. Pages 29-32, paragraph 7.-The distribution of the Royal Engineers shown in the "Totals" Column under this heading does not, through an oversight, correspond i with the details given in the lines "Head-quarter Staff" and "No. II Section."
17. Page 34, paragraph 9.—The Committee understand that the battalion of Native Infantry, which has arrived in Mauritius since the preparation of the Defence Scheme, is armed with Martini-Henry rifles, and therefore requires ammunition of a different calibre to that used by the other troops at the station, and shown in the Table on this page.
The Committee are very strongly of opinion that it is most unadvisable that there should be two patterns of ammunition in the island, and they would draw the special
Page 217
Page 217
--