OUR COASTAL FORTS.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 502, 8 May 1909, Page 6

OUR COASTAL FORTS.

THE AUCKLAND VERSION AGAIN. - • (BI T*LIGBAPH—3FZCIAL COQBESrONDBNTO Auckland, May 7. , Tub DojnmON'B criticisms of statements mado in tho course of a series v of ■ .articles published in tho "Now Zealand Herald'' under' tbo of Neriv Zealander'B ifiomo,"::are...tKus ! 'repliy,','ta. by tho writer, of the articled in question:—''The critic'entirely -ignores :tho point which: 'was . .made,, m.',-' that ..'owing ' 1 to; tho - obsoloto guns with 'whioh i ,the' -forts. .are armed/, an ; armoured cruiser of a modern, type oould'anchor alongside Fort Takapunai and the Bastion and withstand any shell"fire- which': might be directed," without, sustaining . any , material damage to: her armour. Nothing was said about raking .tho deck with fire. That ' tho decks of:' the attacking cruiser must suffer to' a oertain extent is obvious to everyone, but it must ibe pointed:out that, tho deck is wrt: a -rital part of. a .man-of-wair. Far: from itj It is tho, armour whioh is the vital part, and,; with guns in our • forts such as .could.'hot. ponotrate cemented steel, an attacking cruiser oould, as: said before, steam up right \iQongsido tbo forts 'named with impunity,' 'and bombard them , at' 1 close rango. . The ivessel might , lose a ' few men and sustain a .- littlo damage. to. her decks, but that would bo aD. ; As regards tho oanniiig tower, tho shells from the forts named could not penetrate . the armour even there, and tho only chanoo ofour defenders of getting a shell in would bo a very. difficult task indeed, especially when they themselves were under a heavier fire from the superior guns on the cruiser. 1 "It is.admitted that it is hardly likely any sane admiral would; think of taking his' battleships , and cruisers right up under foTtsl well equipped - witli; modern guns, but the trouble'.'js';.'that'; forts'-are not equipped with modern guns as they ought to bo. Th<w : aro only equipped with a few 8 and 6-inch guns which are some twenty years old, and woro only made .with, tho object of dealing with wrought, iron, whereas modern warships are clad cemeirted: steel. " The. critic argues that, as it was stated that the ammunition at present in Auckland oould be blown off , in a week, our forts, could bold out for a woek, which is 'utterly ridiculous with guns such as we have at present. Tho forts could not even hold out for a day, as a warship with its longer range and,. more powerful guns could Bunply blow them to pieces. "Then the critic concludes by saying that it is not by, erecting, half a dozen ,forts that an invasion 6ould .be prevented. Of course, forts could do ho such thing, but : they' could protect a seaport from bombardment and its docks and shipping ' from being destroyed ._ The fact .that the Government has established some sort pf forts, hero is an admission , that they "are' required, but it has beon shown that the armament provided is' of the most inadequate' description,'such as no citizen, who has his own welfare and that' of others at heart, can tolerate. The only gpns here which arb of any use are twq new six-inch mark vii.,' which are" Ibeing ■ mounted'at Fort Cautlery.: The words 'being mounted' are quoted because they have , beetn lying: in store for five yeara, and it ; will take at least twelve months before they can be used, cs the foundations must have time to settle. But oven wh<® they are ready far uso they would be of; littlo avail against a foreign cruisor at'present'in.-the Tacific, whioh is armed with twelvo sis-inch guns, four eight inch, and twenty-two fifteen-pounder quickall of which aTe 'of the latest' pattern It. is interesting to note that the Wollingtoh critio ..does not question the'armaments of the; forts ,os .given in the .'Herald,' or: tho powers of penetration pf tho guns." .1