CAB38-23 — Page 14

Page 14

Page 14

!

:

5

MR. CHURCHILL said that he agreed entirely in the case of defended ports at home, but elsewhere the conditions were different. At Malta, for instance, calm clear days were numerous.

THE PRIME MINISTER said that he had himself been much struck when at Malta at the extent to which the 9'2-inch guns were outranged by those now mounted in ships.

SIR JOHN FRENCH said that the General Staff understood that the view held by the Admiralty was that no ship would deplete her magazines by bombarding at long range.

SIR ARTHUR WILSON said that the amount of space in a dockyard where a bursting shell would do no harm was much larger than that where it would do serious damage. The effect of long range bombardment was seldom worth the ammunition expended,

THE PRIME MINISTER said that the conclusion arrived at by the joint Home Ports and Oversea Defence Committees in 1909 was :-

་

“48. As regards long range bombardment of a naval dockyard the conditions are somewhat different. The target offered by a naval dockyard is so large that even at extreme ranges a ship in motion would have a reasonable chance of placing a proportion of the shots fired within its area. The target offered by a ship at extreme ranges, on the other hand, is so small and the difficulties of observing fire effect are so great, that, however accurate and long ranging the gun may be, the chances of a fort obtaining many hits upon a ship in motion at extreme ranges are small. In these circumstances, the Committee are of opinion that it will seldom be necessary to provide specially long ranging guns to deal with ships attempting bombardment of a naval dockyard at In exceptional cases, however, where effective bombardment by ships occupying positions beyond the range of the 9-2-inch gun, Mark X, is considered to be a reasonably probable contingency, it may be necessary to mount a more powerful gun. But at ports where the resources are sufficiently valuable and vulnerable to invite this form of attack, a local naval defence flotilla will usually be available; and ships attempting bombardment at extreme ranges can be dealt with more effectually by this form of defence than by guns, however powerful, mounted on shore."

extreme ranges.

LORD HALDANE thought that the conditions at Malta were different.

MR CHURCHILL said that the propriety or otherwise of a war-ship depleting her magazines depended largely on the imminence of a sea-fight and her nearness to her base. Both factors might favour an Austrian or Italian vessel in the event of Malta being isolated. The attack would probably come unexpectedly. Submarines could not be always cruising about. It was an arduous service, and they required a great deal of rest. They moved comparatively slowly, too, so that from the opening of the bombardment a ship could reckon pretty well on having a clear hour before she would be at all likely to be interfered with. He did not feel at all confident that these big shells falling into a dockyard might not do a great deal of damage. Where we were in a position to fight, of course, no such action on the part of the enemy was at all likely. That was the case at home, but in the Mediterrancan it was a

different matter.

PRINCE LOUIS OF BATTENBERG pointed out that in the case of Malta the siting of these bigger guns was an important matter. The dockyard there was exposed to a possible bombardment from positions on the other side of the island where the guns as now mounted could not bear.

SIR JOHN FRENCH said that the loss of range to the ship which this entailed would enable the smaller gun to reply effectively.

PRINCE LOUIS OF BATTENBERG said that what was best suited to the conditions at Malta was a powerful movable armament and a flotilla of submarines.

COLONEL SEELY enquired whether the existing movable armament could not deal with any attack of the nature suggested?

MR. MCKENNA said that if Malta was provided with a flotilla of submarines the enemy could not possibly know whether these were cruising or resting, and he thought it inconceivable that he would risk the loss of a valuable ship on the chance of doing damage by hombarding a dockyard at extreme range.

Page 14

#.

[179]

C

Page 14

Page 14