326 
COMMENDED ESSAY, 1898. 
Part I.— 
Advantages. 
it was found that this idea was altogether erroneous and the War 
Minister asked for a vote, not to provide quick-firing guns for the Field 
Artillery, but to pay for guns, many of which had been provided and 
were ready for issue to batteries. 
With Germany thus armed it is safe to prophecy that the other Great 
Powers will soon feel themselves compelled to follow suit, and it would 
seem to be a most suitable time for us to consider what we should hope 
to gain by the introduction of the new weapon, and what would be the 
most probable drawbacks. 
Before,however,attempting to discuss the main question,let us be quite 
sure that we thoroughly understand what a Q.F. field gun is likely to be. 
It must of necessity vary considerably from the Q.F. gun mounted in a 
work or on board ship, but, as the target will also be very different, it 
is easy to imagine that the Q.F. field gun may be as efficient in the field 
as the Q.F. garrison or ship gun is on its more permanent mounting. 
At first sight the following extract from the School of Gunnery Report 
for 1897, appears fatal to any Q.F. field gun, it reads, “ The 3-pr. Q.F.’s 
were severely handicapped by being on travelling carriages, a mounting 
which is quite unsuited for a Q.F. gun with a fast target ; ” but it is 
quite evident that the “ fast target ” is the difficulty, and there is no 
reason to suppose, because a gun on a certain mounting cannot success¬ 
fully engage a torpedo boat travelling at 20 knots, that it cannot do 
excellent work against a target moving at less than half that pace and 
often stationary. 
The chief difference between the Q.F. in the field and those which 
we are accustomed to see on permanent mountings must arise from the 
difficulty of getting rid of the jump of the gun. Recoil can be overcome 
comparatively easily by various combinations of brakes, buffers, and 
some form of trail anchorage ; but to overcome jump is a far harder 
matter, because the more the recoil is checked the greater is the ten¬ 
dency for the gun to revolve round the point at which the recoil is 
checked. That it has been found possible to eliminate this jump with 
the ordinary field gun has been proved by our 15-pr. on the Mark II. 
carriage, but if the recoil is to be still further checked by anchoring the 
trail, on the principle of the Canet gun, it would seem that jump must 
re-appear. 
The very permanency of the ship or fort mounting almost entirely 
prevents this, and the recoil can be checked to any extent consistent 
with the strength of the materials used. 
Assuming that all difficulties of manufacture have been surmounted, 
it will be necessary now to consider what are likely to be the advantages 
and disadvantages consequent on an adoption of Q.F. guns for Artillery 
in the field. 
PART I. 
Advantages to be gained by the introduction of 
Q.F. Field Guns. 
We may discuss these under the following headings :— 
1. Increased rapidity of fire. 
2. Absence of recoil. 
3. Mechanical firing. 
4. A possible reduction in the strength of detachments. 
