302 headlam: developments in artillery 



art, without which his science is half wasted. In artillery, more 

 than in any arm of the service, tactical and technical considera- 

 tions are most intimately connected. I shall try to show how 

 the changes in taotics affect technical matters and how the de- 

 mands of the soldier may upset the plans of the scientist, and I 

 hope that I shall be able to make you understand that the entry 

 of science into war has in no way taken away the glamour of 

 romance however much it may have increased its horror. 



I shall not trouble you wdth any reference to organization. 

 You must accept it from me that every operation in this war has 

 confirmed the necessity for a carefully elaborated scheme for 

 the employment of concentrations of artillery, involving a method- 

 ical allotment of tasks from the outset, and largely depending for 

 its successful execution on an effective chain of artillery command. 



Field artillery material. It will, I think, be advisable to com- 

 mence with some brief reference to the various types of artillery 

 employed in the field, without attempting to go into detail re- 

 garding any particular nature. Taking field artillery first, we 

 stand practically where we were. At one time an idea got 

 abroad that the days of field artillery were numbered, that it 

 had been supplanted by the ''heavies." This was a very dan- 

 gerous heresy, but it is dead. The field artillery is as firmly es- 

 tablished in its position as it ever was, the proportion of guns to 

 bayonets has altered little, and the material has changed least of 

 all. The Germans still have their old field gun, made as a breech 

 loader in 1896 and converted into a quick firer in 1906. Our 

 own 18-pounder, which was brought into the service at the be- 

 ginning of this century, immediately after the South African War, 

 is still in our belief admirably suited for its work. It is no secret 

 that the American artillery has adopted a field gun designed and 

 made by those admirable gunners, the French, in the nineties of 

 the last century. 



Shrapnel versus high explosive. But there are two points in 

 connection with field artillery material on which a real differ- 

 ence in opinion and practice exists. 



The first is the relative values of shrapnel and high explosive 

 shell, On this the French and ourselves are the great protago- 



