SILVER MEDAL PRIZE ESSAY, 1898. 
299 
We have seen in Section II. that a practical abolition of recoil is a 
sine qua non if any of the advantages of rapid fire are to be obtained 
by artillery. It is not reasonable to suppose that by mechanical means 
alone we shall be able to entirely absorb the violent recoil of our present 
guns, and, even if we could, the necessary arrangements would 
undoubtedly add to their already high weight. The problem must be 
attacked from another side. 
The energy of recoil of the system (gun and carriage), which is what 
we have to absorb, can be varied as we all know, either by increasing 
the weight, thus absorbing a larger amount of the shock before motion 
is established, or diminishing the shock by reducing either the weight 
of projectile fired, or the muzzle velocity given to it, or both. 
It is quite evident that weights can in no case be increased. It will 
therefore be necessary in all probability to reduce either the weight, or 
muzzle velocity, of the projectile, or both. Though some shell power 
be lost by reducing the weight of projectile, yet the general lightening 
of load of all the wagons will be no small advantage, as a set off. 
Let us try to find out exactly what this loss of shell power will 
amount to. What combination of weight of gun and carriage, weight 
of projectile and muzzle velocity, will give a manageable amount of 
recoil ? 
And here we are confronted with a difficulty which can only be 
solved by experiment. Supposing for the sake of comparison that the 
energy of recoil be measured in foot tons, how much is permissible ? 
Tables E and F of the appendix give the recoils of our service guns, 
and those due to other imaginary combinations of the various data. 
All are worked out by the ordinary text book formula, and serve for 
comparison. 
Table E deals with data and recoils familiar to us all, and affords 
some sort of standard by which to realize the figures of Table F. 
Doubtless by the employment of the methods largely used on the 
Continent, such as a broad spade at the end of the trail and very power¬ 
ful springs to take the first shock, the recoils of our service guns could 
be considerably absorbed and thus shortened. At the same time no 
one can doubt that in both guns the amount of recoil is too much for 
complete absorption. 
In Table F only round numbers and wide margins are given, the 
comparisons being in pairs, lettered A, B, &c., respectively. A com¬ 
parison with Table E shows that there are many useful combinations 
giving smaller recoils than the present service guns. 
It is impossible without actual experiment to say exactly what 
nominal energy can be successfully absorbed. Probably, by the use of 
proper means, a recoil of 0*8 to 0*9 ft. tons would be found quite con¬ 
trollable. 
Calibre .—Before proceeding further it is well to consider whether 
the calibre should be reduced. The Infantry have thus solved all their 
ammunition difficulties, but in their case a small bullet is as efficient 
as a large one. But though in the case of Artillery the shells of smaller 
calibre pack closer, and though the breech block and other parts of the 
gun may be made smaller and therefore lighter, yet the great loss of 
bullet-carrying capacity in small calibre shells makes these very inad¬ 
visable for Artillery. We find in our own service that all the following 
guns have the same calibre, three inches, viz. :—15-pr. B.L., 12-pr. B.L., 
7 cwt. ; 12-pr. B.L, 6 cwt.; 13-pr. R.M.L., 9-pr. R.M.L., 8 cwt. ; 9-pr. 
