340 
COMMENDED ESSAY, 1898. 
field equipment, if anything approaching the rate of fire of the fortress 
Q.F. gun is to be obtained, viz. :— 
1. A means for reducing recoil to a minimum so that running up 
shall be unnecessary. This is accomplished by projections from the 
trail, axletree, or wheels which “ take ” into the ground on recoil, 
coupled usually with a short independent recoil of the gun in the 
carriage (as in the 15-pounder on Mark II. carriage) to reduce jar and 
jump.* 
2. Gear to enable the gun to be traversed independently of the 
carriage. This is an obvious necessity if the trail becomes fixed after 
the first recoil. (The amount of this traverse is limited by the jar and 
chance of overturning of the carriage when the line of recoil differs 
much from the centre line of the trail ; about 6° appears feasible). 
3. Provision for the anchoring arrangements above mentioned to be 
rapidly put out of action and the existing system of brakes employed 
in the event of the ground being unsuitable, or a larger traverse being 
necessary than the independent traversing gear will allow. 
4. Arrangement of the position of the elevating and traversing gears 
which will enable the gun layer to lay for both elevation and direction 
with ease , while loading is proceeding. 
5. A tangent sight which can be left up when firing without any risk 
of becoming bent. 
The above five special features are all that I consider need be added 
to equipments very similar to those now existing in order to produce a 
thoroughly efficient field Q.F. system,! and I believe that there will be 
no extraordinary difficulty in so providing them that they meet every 
requirement of active service. Indeed all of them have in one form or 
another been already separately tested and found perfectly serviceable. 
Alleged Essentials. 
Two other features are usually set down as essentials of the Q.F. 
system, viz. : the rapid motion breech mechanism, and the metallic 
cartridge case carrying its own means of ignition. 
The “ single motion ” or other very rapid breech mechanism, combined 
possibly with an ejector for the fired tube, I regard in the light of 
a luxury, not a necessity, and only to be adopted if full experience and 
test prove its durability in a field gun. 
But the metallic cartridge case carrying its own means of ignition I 
regard in a very different light, and I shall discuss it at some length, as 
I believe its use is not merely unnecessary, but eminently undesirable 
for the following reasons :— 
1. It is really quite unnecessary. The extraction and insertion 
of the tube take place concurrently with laying and loading ; J there- 
* I am somewhat surprised that, as far as I am aware, no attempt has been made to 
utilize the system patented by Maxim in 1887, by which the waste gases of explosion 
impinge on a plate in front of the muzzle (through a hole in which the projectile 
passes) which is attached to the gun or carriage aud so check recoil by actually pulling 
the gun or carriage forward. Doubtless, however, the enterprising inventor has further 
tried the system and found it wanting or we should have heard more of it. (For full 
particulars see Captain (now Major) Stone’s Silver Medal Essay on “ The Relative 
Importance of Mobility and Shell Power in Field Artillery,” R.A.I. Proceedings, 
July, 1888.) 
f See “Engineering ” December 4th, 1896, for some interesting remarks on Q.F. Field 
Guns. They must however be read with caution as they are written with a view to 
extolling Canet's system of telescopic trail and hydro-pneumatic buffer, 
f See Handbooks for 12 and 15 pounder guns, 
