450 
Q.F. GUNS FOE FIELD ARTILLERY. 
duction from what we saw was that it practically tended to show that 
quick firing guns are an advantage only when fired from fixed mount¬ 
ings. That was the one point in which I could not agree with him, 
and I recorded my dissent in the report. 
At the present moment what we have to consider is :— 
1. What can reasonably be expected of a quick firing equip¬ 
ment, and 
2. How far the requirements can be fulfilled without in any degree 
injuring the mobility or other quality which the artillery now possess. 
With regard to the first point, there are two extremely important con¬ 
siderations. There is no doubt whatever that it will increase the 
speed of fire and I think it is perfectly clear that we cannot pit one 
artillery with a given rate of fire against another with a double rate 
obtained with less fatigue to the gun detachments. The saving of 
fatigue to the detachment using a quick firing equipment is to my 
mind one of the most important points, and this can undoubtedly be 
effected. 
As regards shrapnel, I think that the Royal Artillery were ahead 
of the rest of Europe in first perceiving that shrapnel was the pro¬ 
jectile par excellence for field artillery—I think they have studied it 
more than any other artillery, and I think they are quite as well, if 
not better, able to use it than any other artillery force in Europe. I 
was fortunate enough to go over the field of Slivnitza with Colonel 
(TCallaghan, R.A., shortly after the battle. We there saw the ground 
where two Bulgarian guns firing shrapnel with time fuzes were said 
to have put out of action two Servian field batteries, using common 
shell with percussion fuze. We could not verify the fact but we 
examined the ground, and there was certainly evidence that the 
Servian batteries had been severely mauled, while some scoops in the 
ground near the position occupied by the Bulgarian guns and the 
skeleton of a horse, stated to be the only casualty, were the only signs 
of fire effect on the other side. 
I do not think any of the essayists allude to the rather curious fact 
that the first power to use quick firing guns in the field was Abyssinia, 
which used three-pounder Hotchkiss guns against the Italians. I am 
informed by a friend who went over the battle field with Abyssinian 
guides that, at the battle of Adowa, the Italian mountain guns could 
not live under the rapid fire of small shells that the Abyssinians 
delivered. The Hotchkiss guns like those employed in South Africa, 
used fixed ammunition ; but I agree with Captain Barlow that fixed 
ammunition is unnecessary and undesirable—I believe that, using 
bare charges, we can get four aimed rounds per minute out of 
field guns and possibly five. 
Waste of ammunition seems to me capable of being erected into a 
bugbear. I think high rates of fire will be necessary only for short 
decisive periods and that there will be no necessity to quicken the fire 
under ordinary circumstances. Then there is the matter of fire dis¬ 
cipline. With a highly disciplined force I think this can be guaran¬ 
teed. It is much easier to control the fire of a battery of artillery 
than that of infantry when they are in scattered order. The objection 
