COMMENDED ESSAY, 1898. 
339 
1. The great ease in laying a ship or fortress" Q.F. gun, which is 
handled by the gun captain very much as a rifle, with the advantage 
over the latter of an absolutely stable rest. 
2. The fact that owing to the gun recoiling axially in a cradle 
(in which are the sights) and the pivot being central, the gun captain 
not only can stand up to the shoulder piece when the gun fires and 
continue to keep the gun on the objective, but the gun is hardly thrown 
off the objective when fired. 
3. The gun captain firing immediately he has layed the gun and the 
gun is ready, without waiting for further order. 
4. The metallic case containing the cartridge carrying its own means 
of ignition and therefore no tube having to be inserted or extracted.! 
5. The time necessary to open and close the breech being reduced to 
a minimum. 
6. Loading and laying being carried on simultaneously without con¬ 
fusion or difficulty. 
7. The general compactness of the mounting, and the ease with which 
all duties can be carried out. 
To the above seven causes must be added, as already stated, when we 
have to consider a possible acceleration of “battery” fire, the follow¬ 
ing, viz. :— 
8. There being no necessity to run up. 
Of the first seven of the above causes of rapidity, by far the most 
important are the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th and 7th (the 8th is of course a sine 
qua non for any Q.F. equipment, and does not head the list because, in 
the comparison made, running up can be often omitted when using 
magazine fire). 
The question therefore now arises as to how far we may expect to 
successfully introduce the above features, making for rapidity, into 
field Artillery equipments. 
(II.) The essentials of a Q.F. field equipment. 
In addition to the essentials which go to make up the serviceability 
of any field equipment, J and are, in my opinion, very well met in our 
existing equipments § (except those of an effective case shot and fric¬ 
tion tube ||), there are the following special requirements for a Q.F. 
* The mountings of Ship and Fortress Gluns are practically identical. 
f With percussion firing the rate is not so rapid, but this difference, due to the 
percussion tube, will doubtless be overcome. 
| For full particulars of the essentials, see Chapter II. of “ Field Artillery,” mentioned 
overleaf. 
§ Some critics object to the weight of our horse and field equipments. They weigh 
as follows (taken from the handbooks) :—12-pr. of 6 cwt. : gun and limber packed— 
31 cwt. 0 qrs. 2 lbs. ; wagon and limber packed—31 cwt. 0 qrs. 22 lbs. 15-pr.: gun and 
limber packed, and including the weight of men carried (Mark I.)—41 cwt. 2 qrs. 0 lbs.; 
(Mark II.)—41 cwt. 3 qrs. 4 lbs. ; wagon and limber packed, and including the weight 
of men carried (Mark I.)—42 cwt. 3 qrs. 0 lbs. ; (Mark II.)—42 cwt. 3 qrs. 16 lbs. In 
a recently published w r ork, “ Stray Military Papers ”—papers as admirably written as 
they are full of extraordinary research—Colonel Hime (late R.A.), on page 182, lays 
down 30 cwt. for horse Artillery and 39| cwt. for field Artillery as “ the greatest 
weights that can be put behind the respective teams ’’ (of six horses ) l! without the risk 
of foundering the horses in a long series of marches,” and, as all who know his methods 
will expect, gives ample reasons for his opinion. In “ Field Artillery,” by Lieut.-Col. 
Pratt (late R.A.), 1896 edition, page 23, the weights found suitable from “ recent inves¬ 
tigations,” are stated to be 327 cwt. for horse Artillery and 397 cwt. for field Artillery 
for teams of six horses. 
|| It is believed that the difficulties with both case shot and tube have been overcome. 
