THE ROYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
31 
(3) The gun is always more or less exposed to injury from direct fire. 
(4) No revetment has yet been found for the cheeks of embrasures, which is 
not readily destroyed, either by the fire of their own guns or those of the enemy, 
thus shutting the guns up and necessitating repairs, which are among the most 
dangerous duties of the soldier. 
Various means have been proposed for palliating these evils, such as fixing iron 
shields, revolving cupolas or towers, and many other schemes which lessen the 
efficiency of batteries, by restricting their lateral range, and, all of which that I 
have ever seen, are exceedingly costly, and after all are only a very partial cure for 
the evils complained of. 
It appears to me that the system of loading guns below the parapet, which may 
be of earth of any thickness, and therefore very difficult to destroy, and only 
bringing them up to an exposed position at the moment of firing, gets rid of all 
these difficulties. 
Of course any system which may be proposed for this purpose must have 
objections of its own; but I confess that your scheme is more free from objection 
than any I have seen; and having given it my best attention, I see no reason why 
it should not succeed with guns of any weight, however great, that are ever likely 
to be introduced into the service. If successful, it will save an enormous outlay 
to the country in its fortifications, which, in these economical days, is almost more 
thought of by those who control expenditure, than efficiency,—at the same time that 
it will add enormously to their practical value when submitted to their true test by 
an enemy’s fire. ^ 
Your scheme appears to me to present no mechanical difficulties but what might 
easily be overcome, and it gets riel of one great mechanical difficulty which has not 
yet, I believe, been solved with guns as now mounted on the most approved 
pattern of carriage and traversing platform. I allude to the horizontal strain 
brought by the recoil upon the various parts of the carriage, platforms, racers, and 
traversing bolts. This action is a very serious difficulty with guns on traversing 
platforms, whereas, according to your system, there will be little or no tendency to 
force the turn table or traversing platform back. 
You may expect objections to be taken to the weight and bulkiness of your 
counterpoise; but I don’t think they need disturb you, as, when once the gun is 
mounted, this counterpoise actually diminishes the labour of working the gun, 
forming as it were a reservoir of power to run it up ; and with regard to its bulk, 
you may reduce that considerably by the employment of lead, cast in ingots, so as 
to pack very closely, and still be manageable on the rare occasions when it may be 
necessary to dismount the guns. 
I see no difficulty whatever in constructing a proper turn-table, for, after all, the 
weights to be dealt with are not greater than are to be seen daily on turn-tables on 
railways, and absolutely nothing compared to what may be seen in operation on 
board ship with cupolas and revolving towers. 
One great objection which may be raised to any system of this nature is, that it 
is not compatible with the protection of the guns from vertical fire. The question 
between guns protected in this way and others in casemates is therefore one of the 
relative danger of horizontal fire at embrasures and vertical fire. For my own part, 
I should not hesitate to choose in favour of the system as worked out by you, the 
gun being protected on its flanks and rear by traverses, which would reduce the 
danger to a minimum. 
