10 
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF 
be found in case-fire. The erroneous impression formed by the ineffective 
results of case-fire with rifled guns, led at that time to their total rejection. 
Here, the impossibility of the use of case, in view of the long range of rifled 
small-arms, was entirely ignored. These long ranges have compelled uncon¬ 
ditionally the adoption in tactics of long-range fighting, which cannot be 
neglected. The conditions requiring, therefore, that the decision of the 
fight should be brought about at longer distances than formerly, have 
excluded case-fire being employed in it, and dethroned the case projectile 
from its former pinnacle, for offensive purposes. No efforts can again raise 
it to what it was when opposed to smooth-bore small-arms. 
In the “Discussion on the general Yalue of Bifled Field Guns,” the author 
gives a review of the works and writings on this subject published between 
1866 and 1870. With regard to Arkolay's pamphlet, “Modern Tactics,” 
Major Muller says, among other things:—“This unheard-of abuse of men 
who have devoted a great portion of the working powers of a lifetime to the 
solution of a single task, with honest convictions and decided success, is a 
sign of the immeasurable and diseased self-love of those modern, much- 
knowing, but little-capable individuals who have sprung up so numerously 
in all spheres of life and science, and who find only too many admirers among 
the wavering semi-wise. The success of Arkolay's writings displays a 
striking illustration of this, in the matter of the military world.” After this, 
unfortunately, too justifiable outburst, the author cites the works of those men 
who possessed the talent and courage to bring back to the right path the 
erroneously impressioned public opinion, and more especially puts forward 
the book of Lieut. Maresch, of the Austrian artillery, as a very sound work. 
Besides the above-mentioned writings, the war of 1870 gave, in a practical 
manner, the most annihilating refutation to this subject, at all events in the 
matter of the Prussian breech-loaders. 
Particular attention is devoted also, in this part, to the horse artillery, and 
the question of unity of calibre. With regard to the first, the author is of 
opinion that the war of 1870 cut away all ground for debate on its suitability 
or superfluity, by proving its peculiar advantages, and the resulting necessity 
for its existence. He cannot, however, refrain, in speaking of the Austrian horse 
batteries, from quoting a passage from the “ Allgemeine Militar Zeitung,” 
which says :■—“That which distinguishes the Austrian artillery above all others, 
is that it has never acknowledged the necessity for introducing f riding ’ 
artillery. Formerly, the latter possessed advantages; now, it is an over-rated 
institution, costly and unsuitable. The Austrian artillery is equal in rapidity 
of movement and endurance to the best horse artillery in the world.” 
The question of unity of calibre has uninterruptedly accompanied the 
development of field artillery, and undoubtedly the realisation of the idea 
would not fail to carry with it great advantages. Even Napoleon I. pointed 
out that the endeavour to attain this should be the aim of field artillery; and 
since then, many experiments have been made with a view to realise the idea. 
After 1866, military literature occupied itself with the question with 
particular energy, but failed to arrive at a tangible result. The war of 
1870-1 cleared up many points connected with it; but the experience gained 
led to the ultimate conviction that two calibres for field guns were necessary. 
In the two last chapters of this part, which bear on the- organisation and 
tactics of artillery, the author examines in detail the many writings published 
