FDS Mullet KeyThe Fort De Soto Archive
Archive/The Military Post/The Harbor Defenses of Tampa Bay
The Military Post · The System

The Harbor Defenses of Tampa Bay

Fort De Soto was one piece of an engineered weapon whose real teeth were a minefield, not the famous mortars

The four great mortars at Fort De Soto are the most-photographed military objects in Pinellas County, and they give a misleading picture of what the fort actually was. Fort De Soto was never a lone strong point; it was one half of an engineered system called the Coast Defenses of Tampa Bay, designed by Army engineers as a single machine to deny the bay's mouth to a hostile fleet. Understanding that system, what its weapons were really for, and how quickly it was abandoned, is the difference between seeing a scenic ruin and seeing what stood here.

One machine, two forts

The plan that took shape after 1898 used the geography of the bay's mouth. Two forts would cover the deep ship channel between them in interlocking fire: Fort De Soto on Mullet Key to the south, and Fort Dade on Egmont Key to the north. Each carried a graded mix of weapons. The specialist record compiled by the Coast Defense Study Group from the Army's own completed-works reports lays out the armament precisely. Fort De Soto mounted just two batteries: Battery Laidley, the famous eight 12-inch breech-loading mortars, in service from 1902 to 1921, and Battery Bigelow, a much smaller work of only two 3-inch rapid-fire guns, from 1904 to 1920. Across the channel, Fort Dade was actually the larger gun post, carrying Battery McIntosh's two 8-inch disappearing rifles, the two 6-inch disappearing guns of Battery Howard, the two 6-inch pedestal guns of Battery Burchsted, and the lighter 3-inch guns of Batteries Mellon and Page.

What the weapons were for

The mix was not random; each weapon had a job in a single tactical idea. The huge 12-inch mortars of Battery Laidley were not meant to fire flat at a ship's armored side. They lobbed their shells high and dropped them nearly vertically onto a warship's thinly armored deck, the most vulnerable surface of a battleship of that era. But the true heart of the defense was not a gun at all. It was a controlled submarine minefield, a field of electrically detonated mines laid across the ship channel and fired from a mine casemate ashore, which the Coast Defense Study Group's records place at Fort Dade on Egmont Key. An enemy fleet would be channeled into the mined water and held there under the plunging fire of the mortars. The small 3-inch rapid-fire guns of Battery Bigelow and Fort Dade's lighter batteries existed largely to protect that minefield, to sink the small enemy minesweepers that would try to clear a path through it. Tying it all together was a network of fire-control stations, concrete observing posts that triangulated a moving target's position and telephoned firing data to the batteries, and electric searchlights to hold ships in their beams at night. The fort was a system of eyes, lights, mines, and guns, and the mortars were only its loudest part.

Obsolete, eroded, and abandoned

The system aged with startling speed. The technology of naval guns outran it within a decade, and the defenses were steadily stripped. Four of Battery Laidley's eight mortars were pulled out in 1917 and shipped west for the First World War effort; the service dates in the engineering record, mostly ending between 1919 and 1923, show how fast the guns came out. Fort Dade's batteries had an additional enemy: the Gulf itself, which chewed into Egmont Key and undermined the emplacements, so that many of its guns were, in the blunt phrase of the records, “broken up in the gulf.” By 1928 the whole command was finished. Tampa Bay was one of only about eight United States harbor-defense commands shut down completely by the end of the 1920s, judged not worth the cost of keeping armed, though the controlled minefield was the kind of cheap defense often kept on paper in reserve. The forts passed into caretaker silence.

The guns that are not what they seem

One precise correction falls out of the primary record, the kind of thing aggregator histories get wrong. The two 6-inch guns displayed at Fort De Soto today, often assumed to be part of its original armament, never defended Mullet Key at all. They are the guns of Battery Burchsted, and they came from Fort Dade, across the channel on Egmont Key. They were moved to Fort De Soto in 1980 for preservation and display, after Egmont's erosion and isolation had made them impossible to keep in place. Fort De Soto's own batteries were the eight mortars of Laidley and the two small 3-inch guns of Bigelow, nothing else. The six-inch guns are real and historic, but they are visitors from the sister fort.

The brief second life

When a real enemy finally reached the bay's mouth in the Second World War, the old forts had no part in meeting him. Mullet Key had become a bombing range, and the Endicott guns were long gone. The Army instead threw up a temporary harbor defense of Tampa: a battery of four mobile 155 mm guns on concrete “Panama mount” platforms, emplaced not at Fort De Soto but up the barrier-island chain at Pass-a-Grille Beach from 1942 to 1944, with other mobile guns scattered elsewhere along the Gulf. The defense of Tampa Bay had moved on, off Mullet Key entirely. The fort that had been built to seal this channel sat out the only war in which the channel was ever truly threatened, a system already two generations obsolete, its mortars a monument to a way of defending a coast that the airplane and the submarine had quietly made extinct.

The Harbor Defenses
The command
The Coast Defenses, later Harbor Defenses, of Tampa Bay
Two forts
De Soto on Mullet Key and Dade on Egmont Key
Fort De Soto
Battery Laidley, eight 12-inch mortars; Battery Bigelow, two 3-inch guns
Fort Dade
8-inch, 6-inch, and 3-inch gun batteries across the channel
Real primary weapon
A controlled submarine minefield across the ship channel
Disarmed
Among eight U.S. harbor-defense commands shut down by 1928
Revived in WWII
As mobile 155 mm guns at Pass-a-Grille Beach, not at the forts

Sources & Citations

  1. Bruce E. McCall, “Coastal Defense of Tampa Bay,” Coast Defense Study Group Journal 10, no. 3 (August 1996): 52; and the CDSG fort-and-battery record for the Harbor Defenses of Tampa Bay (from Army Reports of Completed Works).
  2. William C. Gaines, “The World War II Temporary Harbor Defenses of Tampa, 1942-1944,” CDSG Journal 17, no. 1 (February 2003): 74.
  3. Mark A. Berhow, ed., American Seacoast Defenses: A Reference Guide (CDSG Press); Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army (Endicott era).