First things first, I'm really disappointed with the quality of the photos taken for this report - think my camera was having a moment. But it would seem that Hoo Fort is unreported on here, so might as well carry on.
One of two Palmerston Forts in this part of the Medway estuary. The other being the identical Fort Darnet (which has been reported before in here). To reach either fort requires some form of boat and knowledge of the tides and powerful currents in this area.
HISTORY
The forts on Hoo and Darnet Islands in the Medway estuary were built on the recommendations of a Royal Commission in 1859. The Commission was appointed because of the political situation in Europe in the late 1850s.
France had been using the latest designs in powerful new rifle-barrelled artillery (RMLs) and had equipped her navy with modern ‘iron-clad’ warships. At this time France was the only country other than Britain, engaged in expanding her territories. The recently opened Suez Canal opened up the possibilities of France expanding her colonies much more easily in the Far East. Fears were voiced over France’s expected ability to blockade the Mediterranean whereby any Franco-British conflict in the east, particularly India, would leave Britain having to supply her garrisons via the Cape Route, thus seriously affecting the possible outcome. The situation became tenser when Austrian forces, inexplicably attacked French forces supporting the Piedmontese in Italy. Rumours in Britain at this time spoke of the whole of Europe at war and an invasion of Britain imminent.
The British government decided to act and set up a Royal Commission to “consider the defences of the United Kingdom”. The Commission acted quickly and reported back the following year, 1860, with comprehensive suggestions for the improvement of the country’s defences. Among these suggestions were plans to improve the defences of the Medway area.
The commission covered all aspects of defence for the area and among their proposals was a suggestion for the placing of two identical forts on the Medway Islands of Burntwick and Oakham Ness. The forts were to be placed on either side of the main Medway channel, the idea being to control the channel with a boom between the two islands, whilst defending the approaches by means of two powerful batteries of guns. The forts were to be circular in design with two tiers of guns with a third, lower tier for the magazines.
Surveyors were to find both sites unsuitable for such heavy structures - the ground being too soft to bear the enormous weights of the forts and their guns (a seven-inch gun weighed nearly nine tons); alternative sites had to be found. A new survey was commissioned to assess the only other comparable sites, the islands of Hoo and Darnet.
In October 1861 an experimental pile was driven at Darnet to a depth of 50 feet. It was noted that little resistance was met by the pile whilst at Hoo several blows were sometimes needed to drive the pile only a single inch. However it was decided that if the depth of foundations at Hoo were altered from eight to ten feet and at Darnet from eight to fifteen feet, the sites would be able to bear the weight of the new forts.
In 1867 a revised plan for the forts was approved. Instead of the planned three-tiered buildings, the forts were to be limited to two tiers. Each fort was to have eleven guns, whereas the original design had planned for twenty-five. The new armament was to be eleven 9-inch rifled-muzzle loading (RML) guns at Hoo with eight 9-inch RMLs and three 7-inch RMLs at Darnet, yet the fire-power in terms of accuracy, rate of fire and weight of shot was superior. The forts were commissioned in 1871.
The structures can be divided into three main parts: the lower floor housing the accommodation casemates; the upper floor carrying the guns, the third part in the centre of the fort being a structure shaped like a drum. This drum carried a stairway from ground level to the gun floor, the space between the drum and the guns being spanned by narrow bridges. This part of the building was also used as the parade ground. Entry to the fort is through a gateway over a drawbridge covering a pit between two sets of gates. This area is also covered by two musket loopholes on either side. At Hoo a geared winding device with counterweights was employed to lift the drawbridge.
The accommodation casemates seem to have been quite spacious, for although the forts were designed for a garrison of 100 men each, there seems little likelihood that there would have been more than 25 to 30 men in peace-time. The accommodation casemates all have fireplaces with a grille set high in the wall for heat to be convected from around the fire. The latrines are still well preserved, being served with rainwater, collected from the roof via ducts and gutters leading to two large water tanks in the central drum of the building, the material used in the making of the latrines was thick slate - there is still a well-preserved slate bath in position at Hoo.
The ammunition was divided and stored in two different sets of rooms. Guns number 2-8 had one room each for shells and one room each for cartridges; whilst guns 9 and 10 shared facilities, as did guns 1 and 11 - though these store rooms were for the landward-facing guns. The cartridges and shells were brought together in a small room opposite the magazines and these were pulled up by means of a hoist to the gun floor. To protect the gunners, a shield was placed over each embrasure; the gun firing through an aperture - a direct imitation on land of a battleship’s armour. The shields were made up of ‘alternate layers of five-inch wrought-iron plates and five inches of wood. The usual thickness was made up of three layers of iron with two intermediate layers of wood.
These alternate layers of wood and iron resisted penetration much better than a single thickness of ten or fifteen inches of iron - the wood also lessened the effects of shock on the mountings, thus enabling the shields to remain in position even after a direct hit. The gunners were further protected by a curtain of woven rope called a mantlet, this stopped splinters from the shield injuring the gun crew should it receive a hit. The shields were set into arches in the outer granite wall - these arches are known as ‘casemate arches’. Those shields facing the main channel are much thicker than those which face landward.
The total cost of both forts was £171,936, far exceeding the original budget of £100,000. The increase was largely due to the difficulties in preparing adequate foundations and the extra expense (£30,900) of providing the shields. In trying to assess the capabilities of the forts, one must realise that when they were built, Europe was in a state of turmoil and any addition to Britain’s defences would have been beneficial. Britain’s ability to survive the period from 1859 to 1914 without an invasion attempt was due partly to the inaction of the French and partly to the deterrent value of the fortifications.
The forts were disarmed and abandoned before the First World War, The Royal Artillery Corps Care and Maintenance Unit looked after the sites until about 1920. In 1930 experiments were carried out at Hoo Fort, and to a lesser extent at Darnet Fort, to ascertain the likely damage to underground magazines caused by accidental explosion of stored cordite.
In the two World Wars the forts were used as observation posts, and platforms were built on top in the form of brick pillboxes which are still in existence but at Hoo there is no longer any access to the top of the fort. Hoo island remained in MOD hands for many years but is now owned by Medway Ports.
REPORT
To get to the island I paddled out at high tide from Hoo St. Werburgh - note there is no public slipway here but fortunately a public footpath runs the length of the coastline here.
It would seem that the Victorian Army lacked bins and were prolific litter louts. Hoo island is excellent for beach-combing. This is what I found in just 10 minutes at high tide!
The logo says "Keeling and Co Ltd" - an earthenware and blue printed ware manufacturer at the Dale Hall Works, Burselm, in Stoke-on-Trent that manufactured from 1886 to 1936/7. The lack of the word "England" on the potter's mark indicate that this piece is most probably from before 1891.
Numerous rusting hulks were beached on the island
The two-tiered fort
Entrance door
Entrance from inside
One of two store rooms at the entrance
View to the central drum on the ground magazine floor. The drum contained a staircase leading up to the gun floor as well as the latrines
A dark passageway circumnavigated all around the magazine floor
The upper gun floor. This shows the top of the drum, used as the parade ground, in the centre of the fort. Small bridges led to the gun casemates
And the gun casemates
Detail of the shielding
Detail of the hoist besides each gun casement, magazines were hoisted up from below
Behind each casement was a fireplace
And then I had to quickly retreat as I did not want to be stranded on the island at low tide when paddling back would had been impossible. I did the marooned-on-an-island-experience only the day before - see my UB-122 submarine report.
Thank for reading and apologises once again for the camera fails. Definitely need to return if just stay on the island at low tide and really comb the shoreline.
One of two Palmerston Forts in this part of the Medway estuary. The other being the identical Fort Darnet (which has been reported before in here). To reach either fort requires some form of boat and knowledge of the tides and powerful currents in this area.
HISTORY
The forts on Hoo and Darnet Islands in the Medway estuary were built on the recommendations of a Royal Commission in 1859. The Commission was appointed because of the political situation in Europe in the late 1850s.
France had been using the latest designs in powerful new rifle-barrelled artillery (RMLs) and had equipped her navy with modern ‘iron-clad’ warships. At this time France was the only country other than Britain, engaged in expanding her territories. The recently opened Suez Canal opened up the possibilities of France expanding her colonies much more easily in the Far East. Fears were voiced over France’s expected ability to blockade the Mediterranean whereby any Franco-British conflict in the east, particularly India, would leave Britain having to supply her garrisons via the Cape Route, thus seriously affecting the possible outcome. The situation became tenser when Austrian forces, inexplicably attacked French forces supporting the Piedmontese in Italy. Rumours in Britain at this time spoke of the whole of Europe at war and an invasion of Britain imminent.
The British government decided to act and set up a Royal Commission to “consider the defences of the United Kingdom”. The Commission acted quickly and reported back the following year, 1860, with comprehensive suggestions for the improvement of the country’s defences. Among these suggestions were plans to improve the defences of the Medway area.
The commission covered all aspects of defence for the area and among their proposals was a suggestion for the placing of two identical forts on the Medway Islands of Burntwick and Oakham Ness. The forts were to be placed on either side of the main Medway channel, the idea being to control the channel with a boom between the two islands, whilst defending the approaches by means of two powerful batteries of guns. The forts were to be circular in design with two tiers of guns with a third, lower tier for the magazines.
Surveyors were to find both sites unsuitable for such heavy structures - the ground being too soft to bear the enormous weights of the forts and their guns (a seven-inch gun weighed nearly nine tons); alternative sites had to be found. A new survey was commissioned to assess the only other comparable sites, the islands of Hoo and Darnet.
In October 1861 an experimental pile was driven at Darnet to a depth of 50 feet. It was noted that little resistance was met by the pile whilst at Hoo several blows were sometimes needed to drive the pile only a single inch. However it was decided that if the depth of foundations at Hoo were altered from eight to ten feet and at Darnet from eight to fifteen feet, the sites would be able to bear the weight of the new forts.
In 1867 a revised plan for the forts was approved. Instead of the planned three-tiered buildings, the forts were to be limited to two tiers. Each fort was to have eleven guns, whereas the original design had planned for twenty-five. The new armament was to be eleven 9-inch rifled-muzzle loading (RML) guns at Hoo with eight 9-inch RMLs and three 7-inch RMLs at Darnet, yet the fire-power in terms of accuracy, rate of fire and weight of shot was superior. The forts were commissioned in 1871.
The structures can be divided into three main parts: the lower floor housing the accommodation casemates; the upper floor carrying the guns, the third part in the centre of the fort being a structure shaped like a drum. This drum carried a stairway from ground level to the gun floor, the space between the drum and the guns being spanned by narrow bridges. This part of the building was also used as the parade ground. Entry to the fort is through a gateway over a drawbridge covering a pit between two sets of gates. This area is also covered by two musket loopholes on either side. At Hoo a geared winding device with counterweights was employed to lift the drawbridge.
The accommodation casemates seem to have been quite spacious, for although the forts were designed for a garrison of 100 men each, there seems little likelihood that there would have been more than 25 to 30 men in peace-time. The accommodation casemates all have fireplaces with a grille set high in the wall for heat to be convected from around the fire. The latrines are still well preserved, being served with rainwater, collected from the roof via ducts and gutters leading to two large water tanks in the central drum of the building, the material used in the making of the latrines was thick slate - there is still a well-preserved slate bath in position at Hoo.
The ammunition was divided and stored in two different sets of rooms. Guns number 2-8 had one room each for shells and one room each for cartridges; whilst guns 9 and 10 shared facilities, as did guns 1 and 11 - though these store rooms were for the landward-facing guns. The cartridges and shells were brought together in a small room opposite the magazines and these were pulled up by means of a hoist to the gun floor. To protect the gunners, a shield was placed over each embrasure; the gun firing through an aperture - a direct imitation on land of a battleship’s armour. The shields were made up of ‘alternate layers of five-inch wrought-iron plates and five inches of wood. The usual thickness was made up of three layers of iron with two intermediate layers of wood.
These alternate layers of wood and iron resisted penetration much better than a single thickness of ten or fifteen inches of iron - the wood also lessened the effects of shock on the mountings, thus enabling the shields to remain in position even after a direct hit. The gunners were further protected by a curtain of woven rope called a mantlet, this stopped splinters from the shield injuring the gun crew should it receive a hit. The shields were set into arches in the outer granite wall - these arches are known as ‘casemate arches’. Those shields facing the main channel are much thicker than those which face landward.
The total cost of both forts was £171,936, far exceeding the original budget of £100,000. The increase was largely due to the difficulties in preparing adequate foundations and the extra expense (£30,900) of providing the shields. In trying to assess the capabilities of the forts, one must realise that when they were built, Europe was in a state of turmoil and any addition to Britain’s defences would have been beneficial. Britain’s ability to survive the period from 1859 to 1914 without an invasion attempt was due partly to the inaction of the French and partly to the deterrent value of the fortifications.
The forts were disarmed and abandoned before the First World War, The Royal Artillery Corps Care and Maintenance Unit looked after the sites until about 1920. In 1930 experiments were carried out at Hoo Fort, and to a lesser extent at Darnet Fort, to ascertain the likely damage to underground magazines caused by accidental explosion of stored cordite.
In the two World Wars the forts were used as observation posts, and platforms were built on top in the form of brick pillboxes which are still in existence but at Hoo there is no longer any access to the top of the fort. Hoo island remained in MOD hands for many years but is now owned by Medway Ports.
REPORT
To get to the island I paddled out at high tide from Hoo St. Werburgh - note there is no public slipway here but fortunately a public footpath runs the length of the coastline here.
It would seem that the Victorian Army lacked bins and were prolific litter louts. Hoo island is excellent for beach-combing. This is what I found in just 10 minutes at high tide!
The logo says "Keeling and Co Ltd" - an earthenware and blue printed ware manufacturer at the Dale Hall Works, Burselm, in Stoke-on-Trent that manufactured from 1886 to 1936/7. The lack of the word "England" on the potter's mark indicate that this piece is most probably from before 1891.
Numerous rusting hulks were beached on the island
The two-tiered fort
Entrance door
Entrance from inside
One of two store rooms at the entrance
View to the central drum on the ground magazine floor. The drum contained a staircase leading up to the gun floor as well as the latrines
A dark passageway circumnavigated all around the magazine floor
The upper gun floor. This shows the top of the drum, used as the parade ground, in the centre of the fort. Small bridges led to the gun casemates
And the gun casemates
Detail of the shielding
Detail of the hoist besides each gun casement, magazines were hoisted up from below
Behind each casement was a fireplace
And then I had to quickly retreat as I did not want to be stranded on the island at low tide when paddling back would had been impossible. I did the marooned-on-an-island-experience only the day before - see my UB-122 submarine report.
Thank for reading and apologises once again for the camera fails. Definitely need to return if just stay on the island at low tide and really comb the shoreline.
Last edited:
