810 
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF 
The second class of operations, namely those where no cover exists, would 
at first sight appear to demand almost exclusively the employment of shrapnel 
shell, on account of the wide area covered by the bullets of this projectile 
during their descent. It may however without prejudice be discussed, in 
view of the increased ranges at which artillery engages, and the high degree 
of precision which its fire has attained, whether in the case of troops in rapid 
motion and in close formations, the use of common shell might not sometimes 
be preferred. 
It cannot but be admitted, that it is essential to the maintenance of good 
practice, that the effect of each round should be correctly ascertained. This 
at long and fluctuating ranges when firing shrapnel shell, is attended with 
much difficulty. In such cases it might not be ill-judged to prefer the 
direct impact of the common shell, since the effect can be more readily 
ascertained, and the range estimated with greater accuracy from the absence 
of error due more or less to the action of a time fuze. 
As the distance between two opposing armies diminishes, or the enemy's 
dispositions become more extended, the advantages of shrapnel will come more 
decidedly into play. A shortening range brings a flattening trajectory, and 
an increasing velocity at the moment of bursting. These circumstances not 
only greatly increase the effect of a shrapnel shell bursting truly, but also 
largely increase the limits of error in favour of doubtful shells, while at the 
same time the facility of judging of the effect upon the enemy’s ranks, and 
of the accuracy of the practice is much greater. 
In order therefore to confine the matter within narrower limits, these 
operations where no cover exists, may be subdivided into operations of 
artillery against troops in motion, and those against troops drawn up in 
stationary formations. Tor the latter of these sub-classes, shrapnel shell 
would perhaps be exclusively preferred, unless the range were so great as to 
leave a velocity in the shell at bursting, of so low a degree, that no useful 
effect could be expected from the bullets on dispersion. Tor the former 
sub-class, the choice of the projectile which would afford the best result, 
may be influenced as well by the range, as by the nature of the enemy's 
formations, the rapidity of his motion, and the direction of his march. 
Tor the attack of artillery, although exposed and stationary, the superiority 
of the shrapnel shell may not be so readily granted. The object in this case 
is to silence the enemy's fire, and this is more effectually done by disabling 
the carriages and dismounting the guns, than by thinning the detachments. 
The shell employed should therefore be that which is best suited for the 
destruction of materiel, and the common shell appears to be the one best 
adapted to that end. 
It may be urged in objection to the foregoing, that the work here antici¬ 
pated for field artillery in general, would be more satisfactorily performed by 
howitzer batteries, that is to say, by batteries of rifled pieces of increased 
calibre, comparatively lighter in metal, but throwing a shell of weight and 
capacity for bursting charge greater than those of the shell furnished to 
field guns. As regards the size and nature of the projectile this would 
undoubtedly be the case, but the conditions of howitzer fire are perhaps not 
so favourable. The small firing charge employed to project the shell entails 
a sacrifice of velocity, and consequently a heightened trajectory. These 
