348 COMMENDED ESSAY, If 98. 
In his report on the practice, the Camp Commandant, Okehampton, 
states :— 
“ Each detachment consisted of nine numbers, the number which 
would be carried on st rvice with the battery. At the conclusion of 
over four and a half hours of actual firing it could not be said that the 
detachment showed any signs of fatigue ; indeed the rate of fire attained 
at the last series was the highest achieved. A few men complained of 
gun headache.” 
Advantages. 
It is convenient to divide these into three classes :— 
1. Those which accrue to the personnel. 
2. Those which may be obtained in attack and defence against the 
three Arms, in a war against a civilized enemy. 
3. Those which may be expected in war against an uncivilized or 
semi-civilized foe. 
1. Advantages to Personnel. —In the first category, and due to 
the abolition of the necessity under ordinary circumstances to run up 
after every round, and thereby not only of one duty but also heavy 
manual labour for every number at the gun, and to the concentration 
of the duties of laying in one instead of two men’s hands, we find the 
following, viz. :— 
(1.) Ease of service. 
(2.) Simplicity of service, and as a consequence, 
(3.) Facility for working with reduced numbers. 
I am of opinion that the gain of these three advantages, especially 
the first two, would alone justify the adoption of the Q.F. system even 
were the rapidity of fire no greater than hitherto ; for I am very sure 
that they will conduce to an accuracy of fire far superior to that hitherto 
attained, while their value to men jaded by the inevitable hardships 
and privation of active service can hardly be over-estimated, more par¬ 
ticularly in the case of British Artillery so frequently performing its 
duties in tropical heat. 
The third advantage speaks for itself. It is quite unnecessary to 
quote instances when guns have had to work undermanned in the past, 
in order to emphasize the certainty of their frequently having to do so 
in the future. 
2. Advantages in action against civilized enemy.—Artillery 
V. Cavalry.—I assume that Artillery acts on the defeusive, since cases 
when Artillery can be said to act on the offensive against Cavalry will 
probably be in the purely Cavalry actions in which Horse Artillery 
take part. 
I believe it is admitted by all that Cavalry which makes a frontal 
attack only on well posted and well trained Artillery of the present 
day, rides to certain destruction ; and therefore we need only consider a 
flank attack.* 
Always supposing that the Q.F. Field Gun can extricate itself from its 
anchorage (see page 340) reasonably rapidly so that a number of guns 
proportionate to the magnitude of the attack can come into action in the 
required direction, and that the Commander of Artillery with an 
exposed flank takes the common precaution of patrolling sufficiently far 
* lb does not follow however that such attacks may not be mace for some very 
important object, as for instance the charge of six German Squadrons at Mars-la-Tour 
on August 16th, 1870, which served its purpose, though the losses were some 75 per cent. 
