THE ROYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
23 
The heads under which I invite discussion are the following:— 
(1) Protection from vertical fire. 
(2) Protection from direct fire. 
(3) Lateral range. 
(4) Economy in construction of works. 
(5) Economy of life. 
(6) Mark offered to an enemy, and power of being masked. 
I believe the first, viz. protection from vertical fire is considered to be 
the weak point of my system, but it is only at a disadvantage in this respect 
when compared with turrets and casemates, which of course are very expensive; 
and there is this to be said for it, that the space occupied by the platform is 
smaller than that occupied by those of the present construction; the 
distance for instance between the traverses on each side of the gun and 
between the interior slope and rear of the platform need not exceed 21ft. 
for a 12-ton gun; further,.this space can be reduced by contracting the top 
of the parapet and traverses. Vertical fire, moreover, is least to be considered, 
on account of its inaccuracy, and also (as those who have experienced it 
know) because a few traverses generally enable the men to avoid it. 
Second. Protection from direct fire. 
I take the liberty of quoting Captain Schaw, E.E., Professor of Artillery 
and Eortification, Staff College, on the question of Fortification :*■— 
" The great difficulty in all fortification, at the present, is how to protect the 
guns and gunners, and yet to give the fullest scope to their fire. In field fortifica¬ 
tion, barbettes and embrasures each have their advocates, and some even recommend 
blinded batteries. The last-named clearly are inadmissible for the same reasons 
that have been urged against timber blockhouses. Barbettes have been found, in 
the experience of the late American campaigns, and in our own experience in the 
Russian war, to be useless when the enemy’s riflemen can converge an effective fire 
upon the gunners; they are too much exposed when crowded round the gun to 
serve it under such circumstances. Embrasures restrict the lateral range of the 
gun, weaken the parapet, are open doors to let the enemy’s shot into the work, and 
targets for him to fire at, and are soon destroyed and choked up by the combined 
effect of the enemy’s fire and the explosion of the guns fired in them ; moreover, 
they give but little real protection to the men serving the gun from the enemy’s 
artillery; but when supplemented by mantelets they do protect the gunners from 
rifled small-arms, and are, therefore, a necessary evil at present.” 
Also from a paper of mine,f June 3, 1867 :— 
“The protection which my system affords is of a character that has not as yet 
been given to artillery. In working guns, two conditions which usually conflict 
with one another have to be obtained; the one is to make the gun formidable to 
an enemy, and the other is to have at the same time both it, and the men working 
it, as little liable to injury as possible. 
“ The first condition is obtained by having appliances that expedite aiming and 
loading, and also those which enable each gun to traverse as large an angle as may 
be required. The second condition has until lately received very few improvements 
beyond the old and well-known method of the embrasure, &c. However, improved 
casemates, the contraction of ports by the use of armour-plating, cupolas, and 
* Transactions of the Royal United Service Institution, Yol X. p. 446. 
f Ibid., Yol. XI. p 251. 
