THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF Q.F. GUNS 
FOR ARTILLERY IN THE FIELD. 
BY 
MAJOR N. B. INGLEFIELD, Royal Artillery. 
u NE PAS AVANCER, c’eST RECULER.” 
3 
$ 
j 
SILVER MEDAL PRIZE ESSAY, 1 8 9 8. 
At a time when all Europe is considering the re-armament of its Horse 
and Field Artillery, the subject selected for this essay must be one of 
especial interest. All nations recognise that the army which in time 
of battle can bring forward the most efficient Artillery, will un¬ 
doubtedly establish a superiority over its adversary of the greatest 
value. Considerable diversity of opinion, however, exists as to how 
this superiority can best be achieved. Doubts are entertained as to 
whether Q.F. guns can be adapted to the requirements of Field 
Service, and if so, whether their adoption will confer any decided 
advantage over the rapid loading and excellent Field Artillery now 
possessed by ourselves, and by all Continental Nations. It is the 
consideration of this question that we have now to deal with. Before 
any conclusion can be arrived at, it will be necessary to compare the 
relative merits of quick-firing and service field guns—in a measure— 
as regards their equipment, but chiefly in respect of their tactical 
employment under the various conditions in which they may be called 
upon to act. 
It will be convenient to divide the analysis of this subject under the 
following headings— 
I. 
Changes in material, ammunition supply, etc.—necessitated by the 
introduction of Q.F. guns—considered, so far only, as the employment 
of Q.F. Artillery in the field, is affected thereby. 
II. 
Tactical employment of Q.F. guns— 
I. General considerations. 
II. In the attack and defence. 
III. For Horse Artillery. 
III. 
Conclusions. 
7. VOL. XXV. 
