|
Cronstadt Perim?
Following the reoccupation of Perim in January 1857, by
the end of that year the many ‘experts’ were in more or
less unanimous agreement as to the best site for the
lighthouse, but the actual building of it was a long way
off. There were to be at least as many different and
conflicting points of view as to how it and Perim should
be defended as there had been possible sites. The site
was confirmed early in March 1858 but the chief engineer
in Aden said he could not get on with preparing a
detailed plan of the site and estimating the cost of
building a redoubt until the strength of the garrison
had been decided and what armament was to be provided
for.
At one end of the scale was the major fortification of
the island, to make it into a ‘Cronstadt’; next was a
not necessarily large but a strong redoubt to protect
the lighthouse from single-ship attack, the lighthouse
itself possibly being made of iron. Brigadier General
Coghlan, the Resident in Aden, and Major General
Waddington, Chief Engineer in Bombay, supported
variations of this option, which also included a second
redoubt covering the harbour. At the other end of the
scale was a lighthouse with no formal fortifications, on
the basis that it would be against the rules of war to
destroy such a building. This was the option put forward
by the new naval Commander-in-Chief on the India
Station, Commodore Wellesly, who had recently passed
through the Small Strait on his way out to India.
However it would need to meet the requirement to be able
to defend the lighthouse
against attack by local tribesmen from either continent.
A variation of this option would include a redoubt
somewhere in the harbour.
Cronstadt, or Kronshtadt in modern spelling, is a small
island covering the approaches to St Petersburg and some
32 miles from that city. It was taken by the Russians
from the Swedes in 1703, when Peter the Great wasted no
time in turning it into a fortress with docks. Cronstadt
is several miles longer than Perim but only a quarter of
a mile wide. During the Crimean War, following the fall
of Sebastopol in September 1855, Palmerston planned a
new campaign which would have involved an attack on
Cronstadt, but the French were not keen so the proposal
was dropped. Although redoubts and ‘Cronstadts’ were
very much in fashion in the years following the Crimean
War, the absence of a natural source of water on Perim
was the deciding factor in an early decision not to turn
the island into a Cronstadt.
It was not long before the ‘Wellesly option’ of a local
defence fort for the lighthouse was also agreed upon.
This left the matter of the defence of the harbour.
Coghlan was in favour of a circular fort, to be built on
the bluff above Lang Point, the idea being that if the
fort had six guns, three could be brought to bear on any
target.
|
He considered heavy cannon were required to
thoroughly command the harbour and his first
choice of weapon would be the 56 pounder which
fired what he termed a ‘Red Hot shot’. If these
were not available his next choice would be for
the old 32 pounder, some of which can be seen in
this photograph of the Citadel in Plymouth, UK. |
 |
The garrison engineer in Aden expected that the approved
plan would be that of a fort with a low relief,
providing accommodation for its garrison underneath the
rampart. Waddington sent his deputy from India to make
the final decision, but this officer’s report never
seems to have arrived in Aden. Nothing was done for some
years and in the meantime the local defence fort at the
lighthouse was built.
The reel is now run fast-forward to the time of the
Franco-Prussian war when France was deemed to again be a
threat, especially to British ports, which resulted in
the building of the ‘Palmerston follies’, to defend key
naval bases such as Plymouth and Portsmouth. These were
considered necessary to counter the building of
ironclads and the considerable advances being made in
the design and capabilities of guns and their munitions.
The engineer officer who laid out these defences was
Jervois. Having designed the forts in the UK, Jervois
was sent off round the Empire to report on what defences
were needed to defend harbours around the world. On his
way to India in around 1875 he reported on Perim and
Aden. The writer of this article has not yet found a
copy of Jervois’s report on Perim but fortunately
Lieutenant King gives a critique of Jervois’s
recommendations in his booklet on Perim. King had been
OC Outpost and on his return to India he
transferred to the General Staff Corps. In this capacity
he perhaps felt it was safe for him, in his booklet, to
question the judgment of a much more senior officer as
to how Perim might be defended. This is what King
thought of Jervois’s ideas:
Colonel Sir William Jervois, Royal Engineers, in his
memorandum respecting the defence of the harbour of
Perim recommends the construction of a small circular
casemated fort, with iron shields at the embrasures for
10 inch MLR guns, on the spit. Such a work he says could
be manned by 150 men.
‘... It would bring a fire to bear on an enemy either
outside the harbour or attempting to enter it, whilst if
he got inside there would be no part of the anchorage
which would not be under the fire of its guns. There is
no other position on the island so favourable for a work
to fulfil the required conditions as that to the
westward of the entrance to the harbour.’
As a general rule, in fortification, any work has its
defects as well as its advantages and the scheme
proposed by Sir W Jervois is no exception to the rule.
The advantages are stated above in his own words but the
defects would be as follows: first, as there would be no
room for the garrison to live in so small a fort,
barracks would have to be built for them, either at a
considerable distance from the fort or in a very exposed
position near it. A glance at the map will show that the
work would be practically isolated from the rest of the
island, the only land approach to it being via a very
circuitous route round the harbour where there is at
present no road. The hill on which the present
lighthouse stands must always be the chief military post
on the island as this is the position from which the
best command of observation is obtainable and from which
one can most easily communicate by signals with passing
steamers. Two separate detachments would therefore be
required to be kept up, ...etc.
King also commented that any enemy ship coming from the
South East could perhaps anchor at the entrance to False
Bay, and as it would be covered by Lee Point, the enemy
might succeed in placing guns on the high ground
opposite the spit, which would make the position there
untenable. But from what one can find elsewhere about
False Bay and the difficulties of landing there,
especially during the South East monsoon, this was more
of a hypothetical threat. None the less the promontory
above Lee Point at 120 feet above sea level is 90 feet
higher than the small knoll at the end of the spit. In
King’s opinion:
A better position for a battery to defend the harbour
would be either on Murray Point or on the headland on
which the ruins of the old fort now stand. These would
have none of the defects which I have pointed out in the
spit position and would command the whole of the
anchorage as well as the entrance to the harbour equally
well. To command the approach from the shore and to
prevent the access of an enemy to the harbour Sir W
Jervois recommends the erection of four towers on the
higher points, each tower being constructed for about
three guns mounted on Moncrieff carriages. He gives no
further details as to the position or construction of
these towers, but I think if there were good roads made
all over the island, some light field pieces, which
could easily be moved, or readily moved from place to
place, protected if necessary by gunpits, would, with
the assistance of infantry be equally effective in
preventing a landing by boats and would have the
advantage of being very much less expensive. The
approaches to the island can only be defended by turret
ships and torpedoes.
 |
The photograph is of a gun on a Moncrieff
carriage, which was taken at Crownhill, one of
the Palmerston forts to defend Plymouth. The
purpose of the carriage is to be able to conceal
and protect the gun from direct fire below the
rampart until it is raised immediately prior to
firing. The pressure of recoil lowered the gun
automatically for reloading, whilst at the same
time providing (and storing) the power for
raising the gun again when required.
No fort was ever built on Perim. Expense was a
factor, besides which why build one there when
there was a perfectly adequate defended harbour
at Aden, 100 miles away? |
|
