PROPOSED RUSSIAN PIELD GUN. 
391 
gun; the calibre of the latter, however, is much less. But the horse, 
artillery is armed with a lighter gun than that of any other .artillery.* * * § 
The weight of the new heavy gun introduced into the artillery is in¬ 
termediate between that of the light 4-pr. and that of the 9-pr. With 
this weight, despite the fact that the initial velocity of the projectile 
of the heavy 4-pr. exceeds that of any foreign gun, the strain on the 
carriage is sufficiently moderate; while in some artilleries-—the Prussian, 
for example—the gun being light in proportion to the projectile, the 
strain on the carriage is very severe, as has appeared from experiment. 
To judge of the burst of the projectiles, in the absence of the direct 
result of experiment, let us compare the weights of the projectiles, the. 
number of fragments of the exploded shell, and the bursting charges. 
This comparison leads to the conclusion that the Russian 4-pr. is not 
inferior to the guns of small calibre of foreign /artilleries.f The 9-pr. 
gun carries a common shell with a large bursting charge, and the frag¬ 
ments of it are heavy. Its explosive effect is greater than that of any 
foreign field gun. 
With regard to accuracy of fire, comparing the data of the third 
table, we find it proved that with the proposed armament the Russian 
field artillery will hftve a gun not inferior J in accuracy to the field guns 
of the best construction of foreign nations. Its gun will have great 
tension of trajectory—equal to that which other nations have attained 
at the sacrifice of severe strain on the carriage. 
Finally, the breech-loading system we have adopted gives ample 
guarantee that the guns will maintain their ballistic power for a long 
time; while other artilleries which have adhered to the muzzle-loaders, 
though they may attain great precision of fire by a very careful manu¬ 
facture in their guns and projectiles, they can only do so for a limited 
number of rounds. § 
Petersburgh, 
June 1875. 
* It should be remembered that the Italians hare no horse artillery.— ling. Tr. 
f It would have been better had the author given the manner and data upon which he has gone 
in making this comparison, inasmuch as the conclusion to which he arrives is one which certainly 
cannot be admitted without demonstration.— Ed. “ Giornale, fyc.” 
J In the above table giving the results of practice, in default of the direct results of experiment, 
the accuracy of the new gun is taken as equal to that of the Austrian 8'7 C gun. The conclusion 
come to in the text by mere induction requires the confirmation of experiment.— Ed. “ Giornale, Sfc” 
§ These tables are of great interest, as an unbiassed judgment of the merits of the guns can be 
come to by the reader from a different point of view from the writer. But they require one im¬ 
portant addition—viz., the number of hits per round of shrapnel on a target of stated dimensions. 
This seems in most such comparisons a common defect. It is a vital one, too, inasmuch as the 
chief use of field artillery is for firing at troops, not at Avails, houses, guns, or the like—that being 
only their secondary use. As the science of artillery advances, the larger becomes the proportion 
of shrapnel shells as compared to other projectiles in the gun equipment, since that shell is exclu¬ 
sively used for manslaughter; and yet the result of firing w ; ith' this projectile is not taken as the 
real and practical ground of comparison, as it logically should be. Similarly, Ave never see the 
initial velocity of a shrapnel, always of a common shell, given in tables descriptive of gun practice. 
The author's eulogium of the light 4-pr. seems so little warranted, that it may be safely pre¬ 
dicted that it Avill soon be superseded by a harder hitting gun. 
His opinion of the endurance of muzzle-loading steel field guns must have been formed 
upon some scarcely defined wish, which gradually engendered an impression, that Avhat he Avas 
stating had crystallised into a fact. That opinion can hardly bo based upon anything moro 
substantial,— Eng. Tr. 
51 
