3
Page 203
May 1893, the Colonial Defence Committee pointed out that the four guard- boats provided in the Defence Scheme of January 1893 for patrolling in advance of the mine-field to prevent attempts at counter-mining were a superfluous precaution, as, under present conditions, no foreign war-vessels either have the means for, or are in the habit of practising counter-mining, and that, moreover, these boats would merely serve to embarrass the defence. With the submarine mine defence, concentrated as herein proposed, they would become, if it were possible, even more distinctly useless.
If regarded as inshore patrol-boats at night to give warning of the approach of a hostile craft, it can be confidently asserted that there are few defended harbours at which they would be of less use in this respect than at Halifax, where there are great natural facilities for look-out stations on shore. Judging from the experience of the navy, such boats in dark nights or in thick weather can rarely, if ever, give even short notice of an enemy's approach, and in clear weather a much more extensive area of water can be overlooked from even moderate heights on shore. Moreover, no satisfactory system of recognition signals has yet been devised for these boats, and their employment would naturally end in either their firing on each other, or their being fired on by the shore batteries. It is also essential that the shore batteries should not be embarrassed by complicated instructions; their orders should be simple and precise to fire without hesitation on any craft even remotely resembling a torpedo-boat seen approaching the defences, unless they receive distinct orders to the contrary.
Thus, no friendly boats should be allowed to act outside the defences at night, the examination-vessel alone excepted. This vessel would be well known and easily recognizable by the batteries.
10. In the traffic Regulations in the Defence Scheme considerable dependence appears to be placed on these so-called guard-boats for communi- cation between the examination-vessel and the shore batteries and mine-fields. This requires correction; all communication should be carried out by a definite system of signalling.
Such signalling arrangements as are given require to be worked out in somewhat greater detail. For instance, it is understood that all the forts and mine-field are in telegraphic or telephonic communication with each other, but it requires to be considered whether the control of the harbour defences should be at Fort Ogilvie or at York Redoubt,* and to which of these two points the examination-vessel or a British war-ship entering should signal. Under the altered scheme herein proposed, York Redoubt would seem to be the most suitable. At present, it is difficult to follow out the entry of a ship through all its stages.
11. In the Defence Scheme, mention is made of there being no dormant mines in the friendly channel of the present outer mine-field. A possible inference is, that there are some mines of this nature in the friendly channel of the inner mine-field. If so, they should be done away with, as their use is contrary to late rulings on this subject.
April 20, 1894.
(Signed)
W. PEACOCKE, Secretary,
Colonial Defence Committee.
* In the 1894 Defence Scheme, since received, this point has been correctly appreciated, and York Redoubt made the head-quarters of No. II, or Harbour Defence Section.-SEC. C. D. C.
Page 203
PRINTED AT THE FOREIGN OFFICE BY T. HARRISON.—24/4/94.
Page 203
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.