COMMENDED ESSAY, 1898. 
365 
We next come to the question of ammunition. Many of the patterns Disadvantages 
of Q.F. field equipment that have so far been produced depend for ammunftfon. lth 
their high rates of fire on the use of fixed ammunition : and this, if Fixed 
adopted, would be decidedly disadvantageous in the field. First and ammunition, 
foremost is the objection that a metal cartridge case is so much extra dead 
weight, every pound of which will tell on horses that are making long 
and rough marches daily, perhaps on very short rations ; which will 
tell not only on the battery horses, but on those of the ammunition 
columns toiling forward from the parks to the front, and also from the 
base up to the parks ; dead weight which will thus make itself felt 
right through the system of operations, and which in many equipments 
is nearly one-sixth of the total weight of ammunition to be carried. 
If transported with shell and cartridge-case together forming one 
body, it is extremely likely that, after the equipment has had the 
knocking about it would get on service, the shells would be found to 
have been shaken or otherwise unfixed from the cartridge cases, and 
great delay would ensue both in getting the ammunition out of the 
boxes and in fixing shells and cases together again. If the metal 
cartridge-case must be used it should therefore be transported separate 
from the shell, and the gun so made that the shell could be rammed 
home by putting the cartridge-case into the chamber, as in heavy Q.F. 
guns. 
Another disadvantage connected with guns made to use the metal 
cartridge-cases is that a “ bare ” charge could not be used in case of 
necessity, as the obturation is effected by the case. The advantage of 
doing away with an obturator cannot be great, seeing how compact, 
effectual and practical our service obturator is. 
Finally, metallic cartridge cases would be disadvantageous even after 
they had been fired. On extraction they would fall about the breech 
of the gun, and after a number of rounds would form no mean obstacle 
to the movements of the detachment, for in rapid fire there would not 
be time to remove them : they form rollers under the men's feet and 
so would cause falls, and moreover their sharp edges cut the men’s 
boots. 
There are thus many objections to the use of a metallic cartridge-case : 
so many that it would be surely preferable to avoid them altogether by 
using ordinary “ bare ” charges, even at the expense of a slight loss in 
rapidity of service. It takes but a very slightly longer time to put in 
shell and charge, and it is somewhat easier to set a fuze when holding 
the shell by itself than when it is part of a lengthy body like a cartridge- 
case and shell together. Further, exactly the same ammunition could 
then be used for both Q.F. guns and “ simple ” field guns, if both were 
serving with an army in the field, thus avoiding confusion in ammuni¬ 
tion supply. 
We now come to the important question of how the use of Q.F. field Fire discipline 
guns would affect fire discipline. Here again it would seem that the gunl Q,F ‘ field 
advantage does not lie with them, but rather with our present equip¬ 
ments. 
Q.F. guns from their very nature demand a personnel of exceptionally 
high capabilities and training, if the full power of the guns is to be 
obtained ; and I fear that such men are not always available, and that 
complete facilities for such training—particularly in the form of actual 
practice, which is so peculiarly essential with these guns—are not 
readily obtainable. The training it is believed may be given by special 
