Viewing page 45 of 236

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

Certain proponents of air operations advocate dispensing with fixed coast defenses and relying upon aircraft to perform their function. Some naval authorities believe coast defense should be entrusted to the Navy. However, the fire superiority of fixed guns over naval guns, their superiority to aircraft in being able to secure the protection of bomb-proofs and camouflage, and their reliable performance under long sustained, intensive operation, all recommend their retention.

In combat with naval vessels fixed defenses are not subjected to antiaircraft gun fire, while such fire constitutes a serious menace to aircraft combating warships. On the other hand, aircraft need not sustain the fire of heavy naval guns or gas attack, as must the fixed defenses.

The solution of this problem of harbor defense seems to be to employ the three agencies - harbor defenses, aircraft and naval defense forces, to oppose the muti-form attack modern naval power can send against important harbors.

Coast Artillery, being the arm now charged with the principal defense of harbors, is the agency to take the lead in perfecting this tripartite harbor defense. This is not a case where the one thing which surely comes to him who waits is more time in which to wait! When war comes there may be no time to organize and disaster will come upon the unprepared.

A consideration of the proper course to take presents the question - What is the character of the attack against which a harbor must be defended?

-2-