CAB38-23 — Page 176

Page 176

Page 176

Swansea, Barry, Cardiff, and Penarth, they ask that the question of its establishment at these ports may be considered by the Home Ports Defence Committee.

Swansea.

7. In Report XIII, dated 2nd November, 1894, the Joint Naval and Military Committee on Defence recommended that an Examination Service should be established at Swansea in time of war, and the arrangements for giving effect to this recom- mendation remained in force until 1908. In the latter year the whole question of the Examination Service at Defended Ports in Time of War was reconsidered by a Joint Naval and Military Conference, which deemed an Examination Service at Swansea unnecessary, the reasons given in support of their recommendation being that the only dangers to be guarded against were from---

(a.) Hostile ships of war and torpedo-craft, with which, under the Conference's proposals, the Examination Service would have nothing to do; and

(b.) Attempts to damage dock and lock gates, which can be guarded against by

military defences on shore.

Thus it will be seen that the danger of vessels being used to block the channel, which the Admiralty now regard as important, did not enter into the Conference's calculations.

8. It is necessary to point out that at the present time Swansea is not defended against attempts to block the port. When the Admiralty in 1905 laid down the scale of defence of ports in the United Kingdom for General Sir John Owen's Committee on Armaments, they did not include attack by blockships among the forms of attack to be provided against in the particular case of Swansea.

9. The Home Ports Defence Committee are of opinion that in order to safeguard the port against this form of attack, an additional battery on the east side of Swansea Bay would have to be provided, as the existing battery at Mumbles, which is armed with two 4.7-inch Q.F. guns, is not sufficiently powerful, or sufficiently well sited to deal effectively with blocking vessels. Without this battery the proposed Examination Service would provide little if any security against attempts to block the port.

10. The cost of an additional battery, armed with two 6-inch B.L. Mark VII guns, and provided with electric lights, is estimated approximately at 27,5801. capital expenditure, with an annual charge for personnel of 4,500l. to 5,000/. (Appendix III).

11. In considering the question whether the advantages to be gained by providing these works is commensurate with the risk involved, the attention of the Committee was drawn to the correspondence between the Admiralty and the War Office printed in Appendix IV. From this it will be seen that in a letter M-029, dated 9th March, 1911, the Admiralty expressed the opinion that an attack on Swansea is not probable in view of the action of His Majesty's cruisers, and of the geographical and naviga- tional conditions of the Bay of Swansea, and that the existing armament of 2—4·7-inch guns may be regarded as sufficient deterrent against unarmoured cruiser attack. Hence, if additional armament is provided, it will be on the understanding that it is required for preventing attempts to block the harbour, and not to deter unarmoured cruiser attack.

12. The Committee understand, from the first paragraph of the Admiralty letter quoted above and from statements made by the representatives of the Admiralty and Board of Trade on the Committee, that, although Swansea is included among the ports in South Wales from which the supply of coal for the Navy or for export is drawn, its importance in this respect is considerably inferior to that of Barry, Cardiff, and Penarth.

Conclusion.

13. The Home Ports Defence Committee are of opinion that the provision of an Examination Service at Swansea would contribute but little to the security of the ports against attempts to block the entrance without the construction of an additional battery on the eastern side of Swansea Bay. Having regard to the recent expression of opinion

Page 176

Page 176