CAB38-23 — Page 185

Page 185

Page 185

13

the best protection by night would be obtained by extinguishing certain leading lighte They wish the Home Ports Defence Committee to consider whether it would be desirable to place one or more 6-inch guns on Walney Point to prevent the blocking of the channel by day.

2. The port of Barrow, in addition to its commercial importance, possenses considerable strategical value, owing to the existence there of the shipbuilding works of Messrs Vickers, Son, and Maxim, who have usually a battleship under construction for the Admiralty. The extensive repairing facilities at this port might also be of considerable value to the Navy in time of war.

3. The Home Ports Defence Committee note the view of the Admiralty that the long narrow entrance channel lends itself peculiarly to blocking.

They are informed that the site selected for the 26-inch B.L. Mark VII guns approved for Barrow, which are intended primarily for the defence of the harbour and shipbuilding works against bombardment, is too fur to the northward to enable these guns to deal with "blockers" before they reach Walney Island.

4. It does not appear probable, however, that an obstruction of the channel would be allowed to remain in place for any considerable length of time. The immense resources of Messrs. Vickers, Son, and Maxim would be at hand to effect a clearance, and these could be supplemented by Government aid if naval interests were compromised. The utmost risk in case of the channel being blocked is that the departure of a battleship, the building or repair of which had just been completed, might be delayed pending the removal of the obstruction.

5. The Home Ports Defence Committee are of opinion that this risk is not of sufficient gravity to justify the provision of additional fixed defences.

In the absence of fixed defences the blocking of the harbour could best be carried out by day. An enemy would therefore be unlikely to attempt such an operation by night when his chances of success would be diminished. The Committee do not consider, therefore, that they would be justified in recommending in the case of BarrOW a departure from the established principle that no light, buoy, or other aid to navigation is to be removed during war.

M. P. A. HANKEY,

December 22, 1909.

(Signed)

Secretary.

[Appendix.].

(Confidential.) Sir,

Admiralty, December 13, 1909.

I AM commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to acquaint you that the Army Council have drawn attention to the question of the feasibility of blocking the channel leading to Barrow, and have enquired whether their Lordships consider that any measures are necessary to guard the port against this form of attack.

The long narrow entrance channel lends itself peculiarly to blocking. It is nearly 7 miles long, and has been dredged to a depth of 9 to 11 feet. This gives a depth of 23 feet at half tide, 30 feet at high water, and 37 feet at high water springs. In addition to its commercial importance the port contains the shipbuilding works of Messrs. Vickers, Son, and Maxun, which generally have a battleship under construction for the Admiralty. This fact, apart from the repairing facilities which the port offers, would provide ample reason for an attempt to block the port.

In order to prevent the channel being permanently blocked, the blocking vessel must be sunk before she reaches Walney Island, as the narrowness of the channel there and above would enable the ship to effect her object. To seaward of this point there would probably be depth enough at high water to allow a ship to get round the sunken vessel.

At night it is considered that no reasonable gun defence would prevent a blocking vessel reaching the narrow part of the channel. It appears, therefore, that the best

Page 185

Page 185

Page 185Page 186