LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
[Correspondents are requested to keep their letters as brief as is reasonably possible. The most suitable length is that of one of our "News of the Week" paragraphs. Signed letters are given a preference over those bearing a pseudonym, and the latter must-.be accompanied by the name and address of the author, which will be treated as confidential.—Ed. THE SPECTATOR.]
IS GIBRALTAR SAFE?
[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.] SIR,—Speaking in the House of Commons about guns near Algeciras, Sir Thomas Inskip said that "in the case both of the larger calibre and secondary guns, they are outpowered by guns at Gibraltar." On the same subject, Viscount Cranborne said that "the only guns which commanded the fortress were inferior to those which could be trained on them, and therefore constituted no present menace to it." This statement was greeted with "hear, hear." It is evidently, therefore, believed that as long as guns on the Rock are more powerful than guns near Algeciras Gibraltar Harbour is safe.
This is a complete fallacy. It is quite erroneous to imagine that there will be a duel between the guns on the Rock and those near Algeciras, in which the more powerful guns will win. There will be no duel. The latter will not waste a single round trying to hit a gun on the Rock. Their target would be the shipping, moles, yards, workshops, oil tanks and, if they like, the barracks and crowded parts of the Rock. A pretty good target this. Any old heavy piece that can lob a shell the required distance would be more than a nuisance.
The Rock guns, on the other hand, would have as their target single guns, sited some distance apart, concealed and with alternative positions. Only a direct hit would knock out such a gun, and to get this the range and direction must first be accurately found. This requires observation from an aeroplane, the observer of which would presumably be under fire. He would first of all have to locate the position of the gun and then observe accurately each round in relation to the gun and report it to the battery. However, let us suppose this is successfully done. It might excusably now be thought that that particular gun is doomed. But this by no means follows. At long ranges a shell from a gun does not fall in the same place every round, but at varying and considerable distances over and short, right and left, and a big expenditure of ammunition might be required before a direct hit was obtained.
Moreover, the detachment serving the gun would cease fire and retire to safety as soon as they realised it was the object of attention, so that the cessation of fire from the gun would not necessarily mean it was knocked out. It might reopen fire the next day, either from the same place or an alternative position, and even from the same place the whole process of ranging would have to be carried out again, as although the distance would be the same the range varies according to the wind, density of the atmosphere and other factors.
If, therefore, a dozen guns were skilfully sited some way apart, it is evident how difficult, if not impossible, it would be for the guns on the Rock to silence them effectually. Moreover, they could be replaced. How then can Gibraltar Harbour be regarded as safe if the land round Algeciras is in hostile hands in wartime ?
—Yours faithfully, A. C. MYERS,
Silver Birches, Bovingdon, Lieut.-Col. (late R.A.) Hemel Hempstead, Herts.
Previous page
