COMMENDED ESSAY, 1898. 
331 
detachments, having regard to the increased labour in bringing up 
ammunition, and the heavy work of shifting an anchored trail in order 
to change on to a fresh objective, is doubtful, but there would certainly 
be this advantage that, when casualties occurred, the quick firer could be 
more efficiently served with reduced numbers than can the field gun. 
The above would appear to be the principal advantages to be hoped 
for from the introduction of a Q.F. field gun ; but “ there is no rose 
without a thorn,” and it is necessary now to consider the disadvantages 
which must be expected and as far as possible counteracted, should the 
change take place. 
PART II. 
The Disadvantages of Q.F. Guns for Artillery in the Field. 
No radical change of any description, military or other, can be 
suggested without there being found many, if not at first a majority, 
who think that the advantages of the proposed change are more than 
counterbalanced by the unavoidable accompanying disadvantages. 
It is not, then, surprising to find that there are serious disadvantages 
which present themselves as soon as the altered conditions of Field 
Artillery armed with a quick-firing gun are considered ; but, if these 
disadvantages can be smoothed away by changes of organization, with¬ 
out either unduly hampering the other arms or detracting from the 
advantages claimed for the gun, then, if these advantages are worth 
having, it would appear that the question of its adoption depends upon 
a consideration of pounds, shillings and pence, altogether outside the 
military problem. 
What then are these disadvantages ? 
They may be said to be roughly those of Cause and Effect; the former 
due to necessary alterations in the mechanism and construction of the 
gun and carriage, and the latter resulting from the increased rate of fire 
which it will be possible to obtain from the gun under its altered con¬ 
ditions. 
These disadvantages may be discussed under the three headings :— 
1. The gun and carriage will be more complicated, more likely to get 
out of order, and probably shorter lived. 
2. The difficulties of ammunition supply will be greatly increased. 
3. The ammunition will be heavier (for the same shell power), more 
expensive, and more difficult to make up. 
1. The gun and carriage will be more complicated, more likely to get 
out of order, and shorter lived.—In selecting a field gun there are two 
main points to be kept in view ; first, the total weight of the equipment 
must be kept within the recognized limits of what six horses can draw 
at the necessary manoeuvring pace, and secondly, the gun must be 
capable of firing as heavy a projectile as possible. 
When first the question of introducing a quick firer for Artillery in 
the field was raised, it was feared that, in order to get rid of all recoil, 
it would be necessary to sacrifice either the power of the gun, by making 
it fire a lighter projectile, or else its mobility ; but recent inventions on 
the Continent have shown that these misgivings were groundless. To 
obtain the necessary results, however, there must be very powerful 
additions to the already existing methods for checking recoil, and con¬ 
sequently, if the total weight of the equipment is not to be increased, 
the carriage itself must be made of lighter construction. 
Part II.—The 
Disadvantages. 
i. Greater 
complication of 
gun and carriage 
