CAB9-1_PT1 — Page 264

2

Page 264

would be the best, but in the face of the strict rules that have been laid down to govern the free gift of armament to Colonies the Colonial Defence Committee feel that it is useless to recommend that the Imperial Government should meet the wishes of the Local Committee in this respect. If the Colony feel indisposed at present to provide the two Maxims, it is suggested that they should accept the two 16-pr. R.M.L. field guns offered by the Imperial Government until such time as they can see their way to replace them with machine-guns.

As regards the distribution of the armament the Colonial Defence Committee concur that, all circumstances considered, the two guns will be best placed in Fort William Frederick as proposed by the Local Committee. An examination of the chart serves to show that outside the one-fathom line there is little or no reason why a light-draught gun-boat should closely follow the recognized ship channel, and, moreover, it is a moot point whether, with the accuracy of direction possible with either the above B.L. or Q.F. guns, a vessel would not offer a better virtual target when end-on than when broad- side-on. Thus one of the advantages claimed for the Kitty site becomes debatable, while it is undeniable that sited in Fort William Frederick the guns will afford a better defence to the mouth of the river in the case of a close attack by boats; also, as magazines must be provided in any case, a saving will result from being able to utilize the existing magazine in the fort.

W. PEACOCKE, Secretary,

Colonial Defence Committee.

(Signed)

November 13, 1894.

J

ان

APPENDIX.

Memorandum by the Assistant Director of Artillery.

I beg to offer the following remarks upon the recommendations of the British Guiana Defence Committee :-

1. I concur that the 64-pr. R.M.L. guns are not necessary.

2. The substitution of two Maxim guns for the two 16-pr. R.M.L. offered by the Imperial Government could not at present be arranged without an expenditure we are not prepared to make.

3. The British Guiana Defence Committee recommend the supply of two 5-inch B.L. guns on travelling carriages, and Colonel McInnes proposes to mount them on a double-decked platform.

The Committee have not, I think, realized that this arrangement, which was designed for use in the Siege Train, is quite unsuited for coast defence, since it is not well adapted for practice against a moving target.

If 5-inch guns be selected, they must, unless their efficiency be diminished, be mounted in such a manner as will admit of easy and rapid traversing, and for this purpose the naval Vavasseur mounting will be the best.

Since, however, this mounting fires over a 2-ft. sill, it must be raised on a con- crete dru

I shour recommend that, in place of the above 5-inch guns, which fire a 50-lb. shell, two 4.7-inch Q.F. guns, firing 45-lb. shells, should be substituted.

The latter guns are capable of keeping up a far more rapid fire than the 5-inch, they are handier, and have a more convenient mounting, while they do not require so large a detachment, and, since a greater proportion of the recoil is taken up by the cradle, do not need so strong a holdfast. They also, however, must be supplied with a concrete drum.

The only drawback to their selection is the larger cost of the ammunition, due to the use of metal cartridge-cases.

The cost of the several guns and equipments would be as follows:-

5-inch B.L.

4.7-inch Q.F.

£

Two guns and mountings..

3,070

3,170

Steel pivots

300

Nil.

Cost of mounting

100

100

Freight (say)

50

50

·

100 rounds of ammunition for each gun

460

700

3,980

4,020

Page 264

Page 264