COMMENDED ESSAY, 1898. 
347 
Lastly as to there being' greater waste of ammunition with a Q.F. 
Field Artillery. If independent firing of individual guns, or of sections, 
be adopted, I cordially agree. If not, I can see no reason whatever to 
suppose that, because there is the power to fire rapidly it will be 
wantonly abused by Artillery Commanders, by their permitting rapid 
fire to be carried out without satisfying themselves that it is effective, 
and proportioned in quantity to the end in view. 
As regards waste due to incorrect laying, setting of fuzes and 
generally to the service of the gun, there is every reason to believe that 
it will be less, for progress has not ceased. 
I have now, I hope, made it clear that only Avith opportunities 
for coming into action in future, at least double those in the past, need 
it be anticipated that any increase in expenditure of ammunition must 
occur. Can it be confidently predicted that the Q.F. system will give 
not merely this immense increase in opportunity, but so much more as 
to necessitate a larger supply of ammunition vehicles ? I very much 
doubt it. 
The actual average expenditure of the German Artillery in 1870-1 in 9 
battles was 45 rounds per gun, the greatest recorded expenditure was 245 
rounds per gun. # Converted to modern shrapnel these numbers become 
23 and 123 respectively. Our existing equipments for Horse and Field 
Artillery carry in the first line 142 and 150, in the Divisional and Corps 
Ammunition Columns 75 and 78, in the Park 150 and 76 rounds per 
gun respectively. In the case of Horse Artillery acting with a Cavalry 
Division or Brigade there is provision of 96 and 100 rounds per gun in 
the Ammunition Columns in the two cases. 
It is unfortunate that no modern published results exist of comparative 
trials of the relative efficiency of shrapnel and the best forms of ring or 
common shell, which can absolutely decide the truth or otherwise of 
my method of dealing with this question. 
If my contention as to the value of shrapnel shell be incorrect and I 
have over-estimated it, then it appears to me we are living in a fool’s 
paradise, and the advisability of reverting to the use of ring or common 
shell should be seriously considered. The latter are incomparably more 
easy to use and therefore far more likely to give, in the field, the best 
results of the practice ground.! 
A further minor disadvantage which has been attributed to the Q.F. 
system deserves a passing notice here. It is to the effect that owing to 
the heavy labour involved there will be difficulty in keeping up the 
supply of ammunition from the limbers or wagons to the guns. I think 
this objection is based on an exaggerated idea of the amount of rapid 
firing which will be carried out at one time. Moreover, there should 
be no difficulty in occasionally changing the numbers who perform this 
undoubtedly arduous duty. I quote in this connection some remarks 
on the most interesting practice (the only one of its kind of which I 
am aware) carried out by the 13th Field Battery, in June, 1893, when 
979 rounds were fired.J 
* Pratt, “ Field Artillery,” 1896, page 39. 
f Yon Schell, in Tactics of Field Artillery ” (previously referred to), at page 152, 
especially recommends the use of common shell in the actions of Horse Artillery in 
conjunction with Cavalry, on account of its simplicity of manipulation and the moral 
effect of its burst. It must however be remembered that he wrote in 1877, when 
shrapnel was not so well understood as now. At the same time it must be borne in 
mind that we are the only nation which has dropped common shell altogether. Other 
nations carry a number either of ring or common shell. 
t Annual Report of School of Gunnery Horse and Field Artillery, 1893. 
