448 
Q.F. GUNS FOR FIELD ARTILLERY. 
statements in the House of Commons. Feelings of anxiety as to the 
state of our preparation have thus undoubtedly been aroused, and it 
would be well if such misgivings coaid be allayed if not removed. In 
fact what is urgently required and what it would be well to emphasise 
to-day, is the necessity for immediately arriving at some decision as to 
the nature of equipment to be adopted. Although the superiority of the 
quick firer over any other weapon that can be produced has been 
generally acknowledged, comparisons between it and its possible rival, 
the heavy shell, have been brought forward if not commended. A 
heavy shell has undoubtedly its characteristics and special advantages, 
but its capabilities for decisive action can scarcely be compared to 
those of the Q.F., whilst against a moving target it has no features of 
special importance to commend it. Comparisons are however some¬ 
what unnecessary, as they are presumably based upon the assumption 
that the projectile of a quick firing weapon must be a light one, which 
is a supposition which is neither supported by the opinions of manu¬ 
facturers nor by the practical experience of experimental tests, so that 
consequently as no loss of shell power need necessarily be entailed by 
the introduction of a Q.F. gun no similes need be indulged in. The 
next point of importance which appears to commend itself to our 
attention is the possibility of effecting a reduction in the number of 
guns attached to an army corps. With quick firing artillery it will of 
course be possible at times to obtain a much greater intensity of fire 
from a similar number of pieces than has ever hitherto been the case, 
consequently for nations who possess more guns than they will perhaps 
ever find space to employ, the question of a decrease of strength be¬ 
comes possible if not practicable; but for a nation like ourselves who 
have few batteries and fewer horses, it seems a somewhat unnecessary 
point to discuss. Four gun batteries may prove to be better than six, 
they would probably be easier to handle and more suited to the re¬ 
quirements of the ordinary artillery position, but when the majority 
of our batteries already in reality consist of little more than four guns 
and when we have no practical experiences to guide us, is it not un¬ 
wise to make such suggestions ! As regards the expenditure of am¬ 
munition, a variety of opinions appear to exist, the extremes have been 
fully represented and we glide with comparative ease from a heavy 
and incessant storm of shell to a mild and intermittent shower of 
shrapnel. The constant employment of a rapid rate of fire appears to 
be neither possible nor desirable and the probability of its use at any 
except short or medium ranges seems hardly to be worth considering. 
Consequently the use of a rapid fire will probably not ouly be limited 
to critical and decisive moments but also to comparatively short dis¬ 
tances at which observation can be carried out with some prospect of 
success. The expenditure of ammunition will thus be restricted, and 
—what is often forgotten—a limit will be imposed upon the extent 
to which even the most economical of governments can reduce their 
artillery, as when they eannot fire rapidly quick firers will possess no 
more power than our present weapons. Some doubt still appears to 
exist in regard to the rate at which fuzes can be set, to remove the 
