home | history | location | getting there | maps & plans | armaments | photos | links

Our story begins in early 1927 when Lieutenant General Sir Webb Gillman(1870-1933) together with two engineering officers was sent by the War Office to Singapore to review the scale of defences there proposed by the Committee of Imperial Defence (CID). The main thinking behind the CID's defence proposals was the assumption of full scale attack by enemy warships to capture Singapore.
Once there Gillman and members of his Commission came to the conclusion that the current and planned defences for Singapore island itself was already more than adequate and might even be over the top!

As for Pengerang they noted that Calder passage between Pulau Tekong and Pengerang was thought to be too shallow for large vessels to navigate and that only coastal motor boats could pass through. The Admiralty also had plans to block the passage with a anti motor boat boom. So it was with this Gillman and members of his Commission found that there was no need for the proposed battery at Pengerang.

In November 1927 in light of Gillmans initial report a Sub-Committee of high ranking officers chaired by Gillman himself was setup. This sub-Committee went on to endorse the initial findings of the Gillman Commission that a battery at Pengerang was not needed. The submitted report stated, "now that the Admiralty are proposing to block the Calder passage, we agree that it is unnecessary to have any 6" guns and lights at Pengerang".

On April 2nd 1928 the Chiefs of Staff accepted the recommendations of the Sub-Committee and plans for a battery at Pengerang was scrapped.

However after 1930 the perspective on this subject started to change.
The anti motor boat boom that was proposed to block Calder Passage had never even been installed. It was now even accepted that Calder passage was in fact deep enough to allow enemy destroyers to "creep" up the passage. A boom in this case would be totally useless to stop a vessel of this size.

In March 1936 the newly appointed GOC (General-Officer-Commanding) William Dobbie pointed out to the war office that the defences of the eastern channel was dangerously weak, "I think it is imperative to put an additional battery on Pengerang, this will greatly strengthen position generally and in addition would provide direct defence of channel through Calder harbour". Dobbie's perspective on the issue was that the whole point to Fortress Singapore was the Naval base, it was in his own words the "raison d'entre of the fortress".

Dobbie also recommended that the existing searchlight battery at Pengelih point be upgraded with one more searchlight. Two searchlights would then be used as fighting lights while the other as a sentry beam.

There was also concern that with the new proposed 6" battery might be a drain on troops. Dobbie however suggested that in war it would be necessary to hold Pengerang with infantry irrespective of a battery being there or not, not forgetting that Pengerang was a key observation post in the first instance. Additional troops would then not be required.

With Dobbies support for Pengerang everyone else naturally fell into line. The accepted advantages of having a battery at Pengerang were then put forth. It would provide additional depth to the defences of the main channel leading to naval base in addition to covering Calder harbour.
Pengerang provides a broadside shoot as opposed to an end-on shoot from Tekong and that the main arc or fire is at right angles to that of existing defences on Tekong. Therefore it will be difficult to blind the whole British defences with an enemy smoke screen.
The only disadvantage with Pengerang is that it is so isolated, supplies in this case would need to be obtained locally.

The exact date of construction of the Pengerang's battery is still a mystery to me but from a report I do know it was completed before January 1939.

home | history | location | getting there | maps & plans | armaments | photos | links