CAB7-4 — Page 259

Page 259

Page 259

132

231

most judicious manner, and that recommendations should take the form of additional armament, which addition worked out, under the proposals of my Report, to seventeen 12-ton guns (see paragraph 96).

(c.) That additional expenditure should take the form of development of defence, and additions to works which had met with the approval of the War Office authorities, rather than in alterations and modifications other than those necessitated by a redistribution of armament, and that such alterations should be reduced to a minimum.

By basing my recommendations on these three points, I considered that I could propound a feasible scheme acceptable to the War Office authorities, who, naturally anxious that past expenditure should be turned to account, would only cut down more elaborate schemes worked out without reference to existing conditions.

Appendix No. 4.

SINGAPORE.

9. I would put it to the Committee whether such conditions should not be a starting point for our Extreme wide latera recommendations, and I would then ask whether, looking to the fact that any lateral range over about ranges unadvisable. 90 degrees (other than for a flank gun) requires the provision of a segmental emplacement; that such segmental emplacements must, from their necessary saliency, interfere with the fire of the collateral emplacements; and that the distinguishing feature of the existing works is a straight parapet with thick concrete core- -whether, I ask, the papers under review do not ask each particular gun to perform too much, and do not require an amount of modification and alteration to the existing gun emplace- ments that entails reconstruction throughout, every single emplacement requiring renovation of some sort. The lateral range afforded by barbette mounting is an advantage which the command of our works enables us to reap, but for all that we should not fall into the opposite extreme, and give our guns a ubiquitous zone of fire. Certain emplacements will admit of a wide lateral range, but, as a rule, guns firing en barbette should have their specific object to fulfil, as if they were firing through wide splayed embrasures, and it is only a mistake to endeavour to make them do too much, especially when they can be taken in oblique or enfilade fire, and when they will feel the necessity of substantial inter- vening traverses. Personally, therefore, I cannot but consider that the total change of guns and emplacements proposed in these papers is impolitic and uneconomical,* and I should feel glad if the authors could modify views with which, in their present shape, I would not feel myself justified in concurring.

This being the case, therefore, I will, in the remaining brief remarks, consider the nature of the proposed armaments of each battery rather than the arcs of fire which it is proposed the guns shall sweep.

Battery Passir Panjang.

10. I see no objection why Battery Passir Panjang should not be a position of the strength suggested by Major Hannen, R.A., the 64-pounder which it is proposed to withdraw from Mount Siloso, being available for the other flank. I would point out that I did not propose in my Report to put the 64-pounder on the left of the two heavy guns, but between those guns on a raised mamelon barbette, It would not have such as Major Hannen may remember in the Lumps Battery type at Portsmouth.

fought over the other guns, which would not be manned when the gun would be required to aid in the land defence in the opposite direction to the seaward face, and when from its superior command it could fire over the gorge of the work. I recommend that both 64-pounders be mounted in this way.

Battery Mount Siloso,

11. I cannot agree with paragraph 4 of the Report on this battery, for every emplacement would require extensive alterations to carry out the intentions expressed (vide paragraph 9 ante). I much prefer that the lower 7-inch gun portions should be left as they are, and that the two 12-ton guns should be mounted, as recommended by me, in new segmental emplacements at a preferable elevation on the tongue towards the point, as I consider the larger number of guns are required to make certain of beating off an attack on this side.

12. As to an armour-piercing gun at the site of No. 5 gun, I deem it of little use putting such a gun at so high an elevation as 170 feet (vide paragraph 50 of my Report), for in the direction in which its fire should be of most use-viz., towards the Blakang Mati South dead angle--the angle of descent at such a range (3,000 yards) would be so great that its efficiency would be very uncertain. The same remark applies to No. 4 gun, but, as regards the general defence seaward, I consider the proposal to interchange the positions of the 64-pounder and gorge 7-inch a good one. I also think it a good step to remove No. 3 gun, which is of little use, and I quite support this recommendation.

13. Having removed this gun, however, I would only restrict the right training of No. 4 gun towards Belayer Beacon by a line passing in front of the salient flank 12-ton guns.

Considering the difference of height (40 feet) the distance away, and the nature of the inter-

Name of Work.

New Emplacements and Alterations to Emplacements proposed in my Report of January 17, 1880.

New Emplacements and Alterations to Emplacements

proposed in these Papers.

5

Mount Siloso Blakang Mati East

Mount Palmer

Total

New Battery, Blakang Mati South

:::

:::

4

5

2

on to t

6

11

20

4

15

2:18

20

Page 259

Page 259

Page 259