322 
SILVER MEDAL PRIZE ESSAY, 1898. 
attack prove successful the quick firer is well adapted to pursue with 
its fire the retreating enemy. If, on the other hand, the hostile 
Cavalry gains the advantage the Horse Artillery will have before it 
the exceedingly difficult but most important task of covering the 
retreat of the Cavalry. In this episode of the fight every moment 
will be of value. Unassisted, the Artillery will be called upon to check 
the advance of a victorious enemy. Only a very short space of time 
will be available, and in that limited period a very great deal will have 
to be done. Close ranges and an easy target will be in favour of the 
Artillery, but in order to fully profit by the situation it must be able 
to develope an exceedingly rapid fire. There can be no doubt that 
for this purpose no gun that has yet been invented can compare with 
the quick firer. 
III.— Conclusion. 
We have now to summarise the advantages and disadvantages of 
Q.F. guns when employed in the field, and to decide whether 
their adoption will, on the whole, be productive of any advantage or 
not. 
From a tactical point of view the object sought for is, increased fire 
effect on the battle field. If the Q.F. is the best means to this end, 
then its adoption is desirable. Undoubtedly it supplies this want to a 
certain extent, but so also does the more powerful field gun, advocated 
by opponents of the Q.F. system. At present the Q.F. labours under 
the great disadvantage of being unable to fire a shell as powerful as 
could be desired. This seems to be its most serious drawback, while 
the gain in rapidity of fire and saving in labour to the detachments 
due to the absence of recoil, constitute its chief recommendation. 
Thus, in a great measure, power has to be weighed in the balance 
against rapidity. It has to be considered how far the former can be 
sacrificed in order to obtain the latter. 
The problem thus becomes a question of degree, depending upon the 
amount of power lost and the extent to which that loss is compensated 
for by the increased rapidity of fire obtained. Also the frequency with 
which rapid fire can be employed must be considered. 
We have seen that the more powerful gun confers advantages 
at every stage of the battle; whenever ordinary rates of fire are 
employed. On the other hand, the quick firer, enables a far greater 
effect to be produced, whenever the full power of the gun can be 
developed , but not at other times. It has also been shown that in the 
earlier phases of a battle the Q.F. possesses little or no advantage, 
save that due to the absence of recoil, and that it is not till later, that 
its superiority asserts itself. Thus rapid fire will be most effective at 
those critical periods when success or failure hangs in the balance, but 
then again, to arrive at these decisive moments the Artillery must 
previously have been able to hold its own, and until a more powerful 
field Q.F. than at present exists can be adopted, it seems very doubtful 
whether it will be able to do so. The inference therefore is, that the 
quick firer confers no material advantage when employed in civilised 
warfare, unless its shrapnel approximates in weight to that of the field 
