298 
SILVER MEDAL PRIZE ESSAY, 1898. 
which cannot be dealt with specifically until we have before 
us an actual gun and carriage. But speaking generally we all hate and 
fear complication. 
There can be no doubt that simplicity, and extreme simplicity, should 
always be kept in view, but it must not be allowed to over-ride all other 
considerations. 
We must not forget that the introduction of breech-loading guns was 
viewed with immense disfavour, and actually deferred for some years 
on this very ground. They are doubtless much more complex than the 
muzzle-loaders they succeeded, and yet how little noticeable is this 
now that they are thoroughly known. 
Again, the undoubtedly complicated Maxim Gun was looked at 
askance, until tried by private enterprise in S. Africa and found a 
success in the field. Here again the misgivings proved unfounded. 
An apparently striking instance of the disadvantages of complexity 
is afforded by the introduction in its original form of what is known 
as the Mark II. carriage, designed as an improvement on the Mark I. 
pattern, but which experience showed to be full of defects, many of 
them serious. This will doubtless be remembered and quoted in 
support of the above objection. 
But it is only right to remember that this pattern showed no practical 
advantage to set off against its added complexity and weight. Had it 
for example been a non-recoiling carriage, requiring no running up 
after firing, it might possibly have been forgiven its cumbrous and 
unwieldly tyre brake gear. Had a markedly superior rapidity of laying 
been obtainable from its traversing gear, this too might have been 
viewed with less disfavour ; but seeing that there were no tangible 
advantages to compensate for the extra complexity and weight, it is not 
surprising that it was disliked, and has since been stripped of most of 
its complexities. 
It is probable that with the wider knowledge now available, 
especially in this matter of very powerful springs, new designs 
of carriages, while possessing immense practical advantages, would 
not necessarily be very complex, while the guns themselves may 
very likely be even simpler than our present ones. 
One thing is quite clear, that to avoid complexity, both gun and 
carriage must be designed together as one system, not as two separate 
items. 
5. The possible sacrifice of mobility owing not only to the greater 
amount of ammunition to be transported, but to the possibly greater 
weight of gun and carriage :—It has already been shown that the 
transport of the extra ammunition should make no difference to 
the mobility of the batteries themselves. With reference to the 
weight of gun and carriage, as this is greatly mixed up with the size 
of gun and projectile likely to be adopted, it is convenient to discuss 
at the same time the next disadvantage, viz. :— 
6. The possible loss of shell power, due to modifications ivhich may be 
found necessary in calibre of gun, iveight of projectile and muzzle velocity .— 
It is as well to be quite clear on one point; If the adoption of a Q.F. 
equipment be found to necessitate any real and serious loss of mobility, 
of the batteries, it cannot be thought of. 
The key to the whole of the vast subject opened up by these two 
objections lies in one word, viz. : Recoil. 
