COMMENDED ESSAY, 1898. 
351 
discipline ” * * * § which will be as nearly as possible perfect as the class of 
men trained will permit,f becomes intensified. 
The Attack gives the well known advantages, moral J and tactical, 
of the initiative, though if the defender has chosen his position well 
the latter must be limited. 
I cannot see that rapidity of fire, which will be presumably shared 
by both attacker and defender, can be said to materially alter existing 
conditions. If the attacker is able to bring a much larger number of 
guns into action than the defender, or if the latter has chosen his posi¬ 
tion so badly that the fire he receives is vastly more effective than that 
he gives, a decision will be arrived at sooner perhaps, but the conditions 
will not be otherwise changed and there will be, as far as I can see, no 
alteration in the sequence of events in the Artillery fight. As men¬ 
tioned hereafter however, the advantages of indirect laying would seem 
to be increased. 
The Defence. —On the other hand the defender should gain greatly 
by being able to employ rapidity of fire to the utmost. 
In the first place there is no reason why with proper arrangements 
(assuming he accepts battle in a position of his own choosing) he 
should never be hampered with the cares of ammunition supply, and 
therefore should ever hesitate to employ rapid fire whenever there is a 
reasonable § prospect of its being effective. This is a most important 
advantage even under existing conditions, and will be increased in the 
future. 
In the second, the defender should have ascertained the range 
of every important position likely to be occupied by the enemy, as is 
inculcated by every authority and regulation, and will therefore have 
the opportunity of pouring in a rapid fire not merely, possibly, when 
the enemy is advancing and unlimbering, but also when unlimbered he 
is endeavouring to range, assuming he employs direct laying. I cannot 
but think that this undoubted advantage which the defence, if not 
enormously outnumbered, will possess with a threefold accelerated fire, 
must make us reconsider our ideas as to indirect laying. The arguments 
against habitually employing this method, and the absolute certainty 
that it cannot be used when Artillery is called on to support the 
Infantry attack, or fire on a moving target, do not alter the fact 
that Artillery, ranging from a position where it c$n be seen fairly easily 
by a skilful and as yet unshaken opposing Artillery, which is already 
in possession of the range (or sufficiently so to verify it rapidly) must 
run a tremendous risk ;|| and the question naturally arises whether the 
moral advantages of a bold disregard of cover coupled with the 
* As defined in “Field Artillery Drill,” page 97. 
t The immense advantage of conscription in that it gets good intellects as well as 
good bone and muscle into the ranks, is one of the strongest arguments in its favour. 
X “ There is a great moral power in the offensive ; the assailants are moving—doing 
something behind a mysterious curtain that the defenders know nothing of ; there is 
something peculiarly demoralizing to men in waiting anxiously, with nerves at a high 
state of tension, for something, they know not what, to begin somewhere. In these 
respects improved arms have not increased the power of defence.” Home, “ Precis of 
Modern Tactics,” 1882, page 105. 
§ Rapid fire on the mere chance of success, even if there be ammunition to spare for 
it, is very undesirable. It will generally be ineffective and have the bad effect of giving 
confidence to the enemy. 
|| See “ Artillery in the Field.” by Brig.-Henl. Spragge, R.A., in R.A.I. Proceedings 
of January, 1898, pages 22 and 23, also excellent articles by Major Keir, R.A., and Capt. 
Headlam R.A., in R.A.I. Proceedings of May and July, 1897, respectively. 
