524 
Q.F. FIELD ARTILLERY FIRE. 
fuze to have been correctly found, six would appear to be an average 
estimate, and there would be very little difference in the time taken 
to fire those six rounds from Q.F. guns or the present guns. Fire at 
shorter intervals than ten seconds after that would only result in 
waste of ammunition. 
Let us look at the other side of the picture; supposing our own 
battery is being rather severely handled, there would be an almost 
irresistible inclination to loose off rounds as quickly as possible re¬ 
gardless of whether they were effective or not. The fewer Officers 
and N.C.O/s there were left the less control there would be over the 
fire and consequently the greater would be the waste of ammunition. 
Take the case of a cavalry charge, a rare occurrence, but one in 
which the utmost rapidity of fire would seem to be desirable. Is it 
not generally allowed that cavalry would have but a poor chance 
against the present gun ? and if so why fire more rounds than can 
be fired from the present gun ; it would agaiu appear to be a waste of 
ammunition. 
The rate of fire at a moving target at medium and long ranges 
depends mostly on the setting of fuzes and the time taken to supply 
ammunition from the limber to the gun. 
There is no doubt that a Q.F. gun would be an advantage to Horse 
Artillery when acting with cavalry if the target was not further off 
than 1,000 yards. But it must not be forgotten that in a very short 
time it is possible for a battery to be left with empty limbers, a serious 
matter in this case, and what is more important the carriage for the 
Horse Artillery gun must be of the simplest construction if it is to 
stand a campaign. 
Another advantage of the Q.F. gun is that only three men are re¬ 
quired to work it instead of four as at present. This is of course an 
advantage, but as far as the efficient fire of a battery is concerned it 
will be casualties amongst the Officers and N.C.O/s that will make 
the difference, not casualties amongst the extra men. 
The scheme of having two Q.F. guns only per battery, and four 
wagons substituted for the remaining four guns of the present equip¬ 
ment does not commend itself; one efficient shrapnel would put half 
the battery out of action. 
It is obvious that an increased rate of fire is being aimed at, would 
it not be possible to gain a lot in that direction without unduly im¬ 
proving the carriage ? The present rate of fire depends mainly on 
fuze setting, and the method of setting fuzes with a key seems a 
clumsy one, it would not be hard to find a quicker and simpler way. 
Without introducing metal cases the operation of loading will have 
to remain as it is at present. Metal cases would be an abomination 
in the field ; they would work loose and would get dented. A charge 
containing its own means of ignition would be dangerous. 
A tangent sight was tried at Okehampton this year and reported 
on not unfavourably. This sight did not require removal from the 
gun either when setting or when the gun was fired. The sight re¬ 
mained serviceable over the same ground that wrecked one gun and 
