CAB11-57-1 — Page 63

Page 63

Page 63

4

in the Colonial Office despatch of the 12th April, 1897, at the instance of the Secretary of State for War, and since adopted by the Colony as the establishments of the forces. According, however, to a despatch of the Governor, dated the 2nd July, 1897, though the strength of the mountain battery had then reached its establishment, that of the machine-gun sections was only one officer and forty-six men. The actual strengths should be given in the Defence Scheme both on p. 11 and in Table (B) on pp. 17 to 20, where the numbers now given differ considerably from those on p. 11, and are not understood.

10. Page 14 (A), Divisions of Command.--The sectional organization of the fortress given in the Table under this heading is rendered imperfect by the grouping for engineer purposes in two cases of two sections under one District R.E. Officer, who would thus come under two Section Commanders. The necessity for this inconvenient arrangement is not very obvious.

The Commanding Royal Engineer as Staff Officer to the Fortress Commander will exercise control over the engineer duties of the fortress generally, and the remaining available R.E. officers should be placed in charge of sections directly responsible each to one Section Commander only. If the number of Fortress Engineer officers is not sufficient for this purpose, there would seem to be no objection in placing a non- commissioned officer in engineer charge of a section in a case such as No. VI Section, where only very few engineers are to be employed, or possibly an officer of the S. M. M. Company might be placed in charge of the section in which his submarine- mining work lies, with a reliable non-commissioned officer under him to superintend the execution of the fortress work. In any event, the engineer organization should correspond in war to that of the other branches of the service.

11. Pages 14 to 16. Distribution of Troops and Armament.-The information given on these pages is practically a description of the organization and distribution, as submitted by the General Officer Commanding in his letter of the 28th January, 1896, and dealt with in the Colonial Defence Committee's Remarks (No. 138 R), dated the 2nd April of that year. There seems little reason to include this in its present form in the Defence Scheme, as the information is, or should be, entirely and more conveniently given in other parts of Chapter II and in Chapter III. Thus the division of the command into sections with their head-quarters is already given in the Table at the top of p. 14, and further indicated on the map. It would, however, be an improvement if the limits of sections, as well as their general position, were shown on the latter.

The distribution of troops appears to be sufficiently indicated in Tables (B) to (B) (vii), and of movable armament in Tables (B) and (B) (i); the few further details and arrangements for mutual support contained on pp. 14 to 16 would better fit in under the heading (D), "Modes of meeting Various Attacks." The notes on these

pages with regard to communications should be embodied under the heading (C), Communications," now on p. 28, and this part of the Scheme might advantageously be subdivided into-

(1.) Lines of communication; and

(2.) Communication of orders and intelligence.

The notes as to supplies and stores on p. 16 belong really to that part of the "Action by D.A.A.G. (B)," given on p. 36 of the Scheme, and the question of engineer supervision should be dealt with under "Action by C.R.E." on p. 37.

12. Pages 14 and 15. No. III Section, Movable Armament.-In paragraph 3 of their Remarks (No. 138 R), dated the 2nd April, 1896, the Colonial Defence Committee pointed out that "

a high site is not essential to secure the full effect of fire from Howitzers, and their security from an enemy's fire will be better provided by placing them on a reverse slope, or in some position where they will not be visible from the front."

This principle does not appear to have been borne in mind in selecting sites for Howitzers on Mounts Kellet and Cameron. In the case of Mount Kellet, a position just behind the knoll at the summit would appear to be more suitable than that selected for the Howitzers, as it would be possible for them there to search all the slopes and concealed ground within their range.

In connection with these Howitzers, it is observed from Table (B) (i), pp. 21 to 24, that no officer is told off to those at Mount Kellet and Quarry Bay, and only a native

Page 63

Page 63

Page 63