COMMENDED ESSAY, 1898. 
341 
fore, as long as the duties in connection with the tube are performed as 
quickly as the other two duties, no delay can occur. I think that this 
will always be the case, even though laying, which at present takes the 
longest time, be accelerated by the improved facilities with a field Q.F. 
gun. 
With the fortress or ship Q.F. guns of the smaller natures, # loading 
and laying are so extraordinarily rapid that separate duties in connec¬ 
tion with the tube would cause delay. Hence the necessity in these 
instances of a cartridge carrying its own means of ignition. 
2. Its weight, which could not be reduced below 2 lbs. at the lowest 
computation, aluminium not having proved a success, and would there¬ 
fore add 13% with the 15-pr. and 16% with the 12-pr. to that of the 
ammunition now carried, additions which I believe it would be 
extremely hard to meet. 
3. Its cost, which would involve an addition of not less than 3s. 6d. 
per round (with a brass case), an increase on the cost of the existing 
cordite cartridges of some 100%. 
4. Serviceability.—Though no trouble has been experienced with 
these cases when they are kept in stable magazines and supplied under 
a rigid inspection, there is every reason to believe that jolting in limbers 
(than which there is no severer test) would be extremely likely to 
deform them, and cause trouble both in insertion and extraction ; while 
if manufactured in the hurry and pressure which invariably occur in 
war, much more serious trouble might arise owing to defective cases. 
The case being the obturator there is no need to enlarge on the necessity 
of its perfection. 
It will doubtless be noted that no mention is made here as to extra 
vehicles for ammunition (see pages 345, 346 and 347). 
(III.) Maximum possible rate of Fire. 
Although the introduction of a Q.F. system such as I have described 
must materially accelerate the service of the field gun, I cannot for the 
reasons which follow accept the very high rates of fire confidently pre¬ 
dicted as obtainable from it. 
In the first place unless a radical, and I think undesirable, change be 
made in that part of the existing drills which prescribe the sequence of 
events in connection with making ready and firing after the gun is 
loaded and layed (see 3 on page 339), we shall still have two more phases 
of service with the Q.F. field gun than with the fortress Q.F. gun. 
Granted these two phases are very short, they still take an appreciable 
time, probably not less than three seconds, even if immediately con¬ 
secutive (and it must be remembered, when we come to consider 
“ battery ” fire, that every delay must be multiplied by six). 
Next as to the quality of service which has to be rendered. As 
pointed out previously on page 339 the fortress Q.F. gun is not thrown 
appreciably off the objective when fired, and the layer stands up to the 
shoulder piece and continues to lay the gun. This can never be the 
case with a Q.F. field gun. Some recoil, though probably very little, 
* In recent government trials with a 6-inch Q.F. gnu, with a charge of 25 lbs. of 
cordite and a projectile weighing 100 lbs., ordinary De Bange obturation, and a tube 
separately inserted each round, 20 rounds were fired in 4 mins. 17 secs., including the 
time taken to cool the obturator. There was ejector mechanism for the tube.— Times, 
15th December, 1897, 
