346 
COMMENDED ESSAY, 1898. 
I am well aware that perhaps the greatest authority on modern Field 
Artillery has given it as his opinion that owing to coming into action 
earlier and at longer ranges, and remaining in action longer than 
formerly, “ it must be that in future Artillery will expend a larger 
amount of ammunition than it did in the last war (1870-1),” * but with 
all deference I maintain that when making this assertion he does not 
take into consideration the immense superiority of modern shrapnel or 
sufficiently appreciate what ivas accomplished by the German Artillery 
in 1870-1. It is beyond dispute that owing to its overwhelming superi¬ 
ority to that of the French, the German Artillery was able to come into 
action anywhere and everywhere and generally to act in a manner 
which should have caused it to suffer almost prohibitive loss had it been 
more efficiently opposed.! Therefore, even allowing for the employ¬ 
ment of Artillery at longer ranges than formerly, a proceeding which 
should be the exception rather than the rule, the case for increased 
expenditure of ammunition by Field Artillery of existing type in the 
wars of the future appears to me to remain “ not proven.” 
Turning now to the alleged increased requirements of ammunition 
for a Q.F. Field Artillery, I maintain that on one ground only can this 
plea be maintained. 
If by its rapidity of service Q.F. Field Artillery can obtain its ranges 
so quickly that it can take advantage of every favourable opportunity, 
however brief, to catch the enemy in disadvantageous positions and so 
inflict heavy loss on him ; it will, and must, expend more ammunition 
than has been the case hitherto, when, with a slower service, ranging 
has hardly been completed and effective fire brought to bear before the 
enemy, who doubtless will not stand on the order of his going, will 
have extricated himself and the golden opportunity be gone. 
In other cases, to attain a given object, Q.F. field artillery should not 
employ a single round more than existing Artillery. Indeed, in a 
number of instances, it should employ less ; for it will be able by its 
superiority in rapidity to get in its rounds at the moments when the 
enemy offers the best target. Moreover the moral effect of effective fire 
when rapid is acknowledged to be much greater than when slow. 
I quote here, in my text, as I regard them as far too important to be 
relegated to a footnote, the remarks of the Camp Commandant, Oke- 
hampton, on this subject in the Annual Report of the School of 
Gunnery, Horse and Field Artillery, for 1892, pages 37 and 38. Though 
written nearly six years ago they are forcible arguments in favour of 
a Q.F. Artillery, and against the notion that rapid fire necessarily implies 
increased expenditure of ammunition. 
“ Rate of Fire. 
“ This is a subject worthy of the most earnest attention, for it is certain 
“that other things being equal the Artillery which fire rapidly and 
“ correctly must crush an enemy whose fire, however correct, is slower. 
“ Nor need rapidity of fire mean expenditure of ammunition" (I think 
there can be no doubt that extra expenditure is meant), “ for a rapid 
“ rate of fire may do in a short time ivhat a slower fire may never accom- 
“ plish at all." (The italics are mine.) 
* Prince Kraft’s “ Letters on Artillery,” Col. Walford’s translation of 1888, page 285. 
See also Home’s “ Precis of Modern Tactics,” 1882, page 126, on which the same opinion 
is expressed in almost the same words. 
f Yon Schell, “ Tactics of Field Artillery,” official translation, page 9 ; and Pratt, 
“Field Artillery,” 1896, page 89. 
