39 
'A SHORT SUMMARY OF THE 
QUESTION. 
BY 
MAJOR J, L. KEIR, R.H.A. 
TO arrive afc a satisfactory decision with regard to a practical 
subject, by means of mere argument, is not possible and I do not 
therefore consider that any useful end would be gained were I, even if 
permitted, to fill the “ Proceedings ” with what threatens to assume 
the form of a personal controversy. My object in writing my original 
article, was to draw forth from the other officers of my regiment, who 
might be interested in the questions of cover and indirect fire, an 
expression of their views on these subjects; and in this I am inclined 
to think I have been partially successful. I had, however, no wish to 
injure the feelings of anyone, or to question the soundness of our drill- 
book. At a lecture given by Captain Pilcher, Captain Headlam, in his 
reply, advanced certain reasons, moral and technical, why he con¬ 
sidered indirect fire should not be employed. As I had not before seen 
these drawbacks to its use placed in so clear and concise a form, in 
dealing with the disadvantages of indirect fire, I endeavoured to point 
out what I considered, and still consider, some of the weaker points, 
taking them in Captain Headlamps order and verbatim. In reply to 
these comments, he has, in the July number, made some more or less 
severe criticisms, my rejoinders to which I forward, although for the 
reasons above stated, I do not feel I have any right to ask for their 
publication. 
The question of the importance of cover for Field Artillery in the 
present day, appears to have produced two distinct divisions. 
In the first, which we will call its opponents, some, remembering the 
glorious traditions of the past, and the gallant deeds performed by 
gunners without its aid, almost shudder at the very word. Others, 
more or less trained in what we may call the Asiatic school of tactics 
(many of whose records show great services rendered to the State and 
much war experience) are also averse to its encouragement. While 
there also exists a third section, who, acknowledging its importance 
when opposed to a perfectly trained European artillery, regard its 
study of no importance in our army, for the reason that “ we are never 
likely to fight again on the continent of Europe.” 
I voi. xxv. 
COYER 
