COMMENDED ESSAY, 1898. 
353 
rapidity of fire, enable the force of Field Artillery which it is now 
deemed expedient to keep up, to be considerably reduced, and that 
great economy will ensue thereby. 
No one has, as far as I am aware, exactly laid down the amount of 
reduction feasible, but I have seen batteries of four guns advocated, for 
the sake of economy and also to secure rapidity of fire when firing by 
rotation (this latter proposal has been previously discussed at page 343), 
and this suggestion will serve as well as another for purposes of dis¬ 
cussion. 0 
Now although this proposal can only be moderately logical on two 
assumptions, viz. : that the requisite fire power of the Field Artillery 
with an Army is a constant quantity which it is no advantage to in¬ 
crease, and that all nations will be content to take advantage of the new 
system merely to gain economy rather than increased efficiency—neither 
of which is in my opinion tenable—it is well worthy of consideration 
since it is obviously based on the idea that fire 'power varies directly as 
rapidity of fire, and as such is opposed to the principles on which we 
may legitimately claim advantage for the Q.F. system in the field. 
I will address myself to the plea of economy first since it is always a 
powerful one. 
It is apparently forgotten by those who counsel reduction of guns 
that the four-gun battery can only be equal in effect to an existing one 
of six by the expenditure of about the same quantity of ammunition, 
and consequently must have the same means of ammunitiom transport 
as the latter. This means that the four-gun battery must have about 
the same number of drivers, draught horses, limbers and Avagons as an 
existing six-gun battery, the only reduction possible being that of one 
lieutenant and the N.C. Officers and detachments (and in the case of 
Horse Artillery the riding horses of the detachments) of two guns. 
I do not think there could be any diminution in this case of battery 
staff, artificers, artificers’ and baggage vehicles ; though possibly such 
might be effected were three Q.F. guns assumed equivalent to six 
existing guns, and a six-gun Q.F. battery provided with the same 
ammunition transport as two existing batteries adopted. 
Noav I take it that the only way to test the real economy effected by 
a change is to compare the saving and the loss of the article on which 
the saving is made. The value of fire poAver cannot, I am aware, be 
accurately appraised in money, but it is the only comparison possible 
in this instance and so I make it. 
With the four Q.F. guns instead of six in a battery, the potential fire 
power lost is undoubtedly that of two guns or 33 per cent., and the 
savings effected 16’2 per cent, in the case of a Horse Artillery and 13 6* 
per cent, in that of a field battery, both on the existing higher estab¬ 
lishment. 
With one battery of six Q.F. guns as described above, instead of tAvo 
of existing type, the potential fire power lost is 50 per cent., and the 
savings 30 98 per cent, and 29’5* percent. Avith Horse and Field Artillery 
respectively. 
In both cases the savings and loss of fire power balance so badly that 
I cannot regard the changes proposed as economical in any sense, 
especially if I be correct in my previous arguments that the existing 
ammunition transport Avill suffice Avhether the Q.F. gun be adopted or 
not (see pages 345, 346 and 347). 
* For details of calculation see appendix. 
