"Famagousta may be made a good harbour; but how can it be defended? The
ships will not be, as in Malta, defended by batteries projecting far
beyond the anchorage; Famagousta will require ships of war to defend it,
or batteries constructed on the breakwater--a most costly undertaking.
As a coaling-station it is not wanted, because colliers accompanying the
fleet are much more convenient. If, in short, we are supreme at sea,
Cyprus is not wanted; if we are not supreme, Cyprus will be an
incumbrance."
I acknowledge the force of a portion of the argument, and no one can
more highly respect the distinguished authority I have quoted, who, as
an ex-First Lord of the Admiralty of practical experience, must carry
the great weight of his ability and position; but I would suggest that
Famagousta is underrated. I have already described that powerful
fortress, and in its present condition, if mounted with forty-ton guns
upon the sea-face, I doubt the possibility of an attack from seaward.
The natural reefs which form the sea-wall afford the greatest facilities
for batteries a-fleur-d'eau, as their solid foundations require the
simple levelling of cement, and a facing of steel plates would complete
an impregnable line of casemates that would render the approach by sea
impossible.
The advantages of attendant colliers is great as a continuous
coal-supply to a fleet, especially during the blockade of an enemy's
port; but for a cruising fleet, or for independent vessels, the speed of
the colliers would be insufficient, and a line of coaling-stations, at
intervals of five days' steaming is in my opinion highly important, in
addition to the necessity of docks where ironclad vessels could obtain
the necessary repairs after a naval engagement.
Pages:
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537