COMMENDED ESSAY, 1898. 
361 
From these considerations it would appear that in the “ Artillery 
duel ” an Artillery armed with Q.F. guns would, other things being 
equal, get the better of an opposing Artillery not so provided. Though 
the ranging could not be hurried, and would take as long with one kind 
of gun as with the other (the fire discipline of both sides being, like the 
rest, equal), the effective fire of the Q.F. guns with range and fuze 
found could, and would, be made more intense than that of the 
“ simple ” guns : concentration of fire on successive portions of the 
hostile line of guns could thus be rendered less necessary, as the crush¬ 
ing effect of the distributed fire of the Q.F. guns might of itself almost 
suffice to take its place. With equal numbers of guns on either side 
the Q.F. guns, instead of being obliged to leave some of the opposing 
guns unmolested, might thus keep them all continuously under a fire 
whose effect might equal that of a concentrated fire of 44 simple ” guns. 
It follows that an Artillery armed with Q.F. guns might successfully 
cope with one much its superior in point of numbers, but using “simple” 
guns. For this reason it behoves us more especially, whose numbers 
are so small compared with those of Continental Armies, to consider 
very carefully not only before we decide to adopt some form of Q.F. 
gun but to do so even more carefully before we decide not to adopt 
them. 
A few words may here be said as to shooting with these guns at 
moving targets. It will be shown later, among their disadvantages, 
that at rapid fire with them there can be no control by section com¬ 
manders—“ rapid fire ” being by individual guns as parts of the whole 
battery, and so quite different from our present “ section fire,” or rapid 
fire by sections, controlled by the section commanders—and it would 
therefore seem that in the case of fire at a moving target the Battery 
Commander might use one gun as a “ ranging gun,” instead of employ¬ 
ing a “ranging section,” and thus have five guns instead of four 
available for the effective fire of time shrapnel (or three guns instead of 
two in a 4-gun battery) : one Q.F. gun being fully equal to the task 
imposed upon the two “ simple ” guns of the “ ranging section.” The 
procedure would be in other respects the same as at present, except that 
the Battery Commander could give ranges and fuzes for, say, two series 
of “ rapid fire ”—perhaps three rounds in each series—instead of for 
two rounds of time shrapnel as now. Putting aside for the moment the 
question of loss of fire-control, we here see well exemplified the chief 
advantage of an equipment capable when necessary of a very rapid fire. 
The question whether the introduction of Q.F. field guns will render 
the reduction of the number of guns in a battery from 6 to 4 possible or 
advantageous is one that has been much discussed, and we may here 
briefly recapitulate the arguments brought forward on the subject. It 
is certain that a battery of 4 Q.F. guns could, as far as the powers of 
the guns themselves are concerned, keep up an uninterrupted fire from 
flank to flank as easily as can one of 6 “ simple ” guns, so that so far the 
change would be quite possible. Those who favour the change urge 
that a 4-gun battery (while being as powerful as a 6-gun battery of 
“ simple ” guns) is easier to command than one of 6 guns—an important 
consideration in view of the increased difficulty of fire-discipline to be 
noted later ; and takes up less room on the field, another important 
consideration in these days when masses of Artillery are pushed to the 
front at once, and when often room cannot afterwards be found for 
more batteries, as they come up, to come into action. Some would keep 
Effect of Q.F. 
guns on the 
“Artillery duel. 
Their import¬ 
ance to an 
Artillery small 
in numbers. 
Firing at mov¬ 
ing targets with 
Q.F. guns. 
Six guns or four 
guns in a Q.F. 
battery? 
