COMMENDED ESSAY, 1898. 
335 
And, lastly, that with this gun the increased rate of fire would be 
obtained with less actual labour to the men, and that there would be a 
possibility of carrying it on effectively, if necessary, with weaker 
detachments. 
On the other hand it has been pointed out that, although it would be 
by no means even probable that the ordinary rate of fire with the quick- 
firing battery will be greatly in excess of that of a well-drilled field 
battery, still, should the occasion for rapid fire arise the extra rapidity 
of the quick firer would be so great that the present supplies of ammu¬ 
nition would be quite inadequate, and arrangements would have to be 
made for either increasing the battery ammunition or providing so that 
the ammunition column could supply sooner and also carry more ; 
thereby increasing the lengths of columns and blocking the roads. 
And, lastly, that the quick-firing gun and its carriage will be more 
complicated and likely to get out of order, and that the ammunition 
will probably be heavier for the same shell power. 
From the above, the advantages to be gained appear so important and 
the disadvantages so comparatively slight and easily overcome, that it 
is little wonder that France and Germany are re-arming, and the other 
great Powers experimenting with a view to following their example. 
Critics hostile to the introduction of a quick-firing field gun will no 
doubt lay great stress on the possible increased expenditure of ammu¬ 
nition and the difficulties in the way of keeping up the supply ; but 
good drill and discipline will minimise waste, and every extra effective 
round that can be fired at the proper moment must help forward the 
cause. 
Any who call to mind the months immediately preceding the out¬ 
break of the great war of 1870 will remember the feverish excitement 
and secrecy which attended the manufacture and trials of the 
Mitrailleuse in France ; with these new weapons the French believed 
they would make up for any deficiencies there might be elsewhere in 
their numbers and armaments, and the subsequent employment of 
machine guns has shown that they had a very powerful weapon, if only 
they had understood where and how to use it ; here they were at fault, 
with the result that the new invention did nothing for them, and was 
a positive disadvantage on certain occasions when the ground taken up 
by Mitrailleuses might have been far more usefully occupied by field 
guns. 
So with the quick firer ; it will be all powerful if properly used, but 
if merely regarded as a means for firing more rapidly, irrespective of 
the tactical necessities of the moment, it will more than efface any good 
it might have done, and at the critical moment will be unable to fill its 
true role of “ The friend in need.” 
