THE ROYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
171 
Attelees,” Paris, 1864, it is laid down that galloping is to be regarded as an 
exceptional pace, and the “ trot” and “grand trot” are to be the standard paces. 
In our own service, it would appear, one branch takes the maximum, while 
the other is given the minimum pace as their standard. 
The following table shews that, as far as the weight behind the teams is 
concerned, there is no reason why our field batteries should not move as 
rapidly as those of other armies 
Number 
Nature of gun. 
Weight, 
gun and 
of men 
carried 
Weight of 
men and 
carriage 
on gun 
two kits. 
complete. 
and 
limber. 
Prussian 6-pr.... 
/; 4-pr. 
French 4-pr. .. 
Austrian 4-pr... 
English 12-pr. B.L.R... 
cwt. qrs. lbs. 
35 2 15 
30 2 0 
25 3 0 
2 14 
23 
37 0 0 
Indian 9-pr. M.L.B. ...| 33 2 0 
cwt. qrs. lbs, 
9 3 0 
3 
1 
0 
2 
1 
0 
3 
2 
1 
0 
3 
9 
Total weight 
behind 
te'ams. 
cwt. qrs. lbs. 
Remarks, 
Weight of each 
man taken at 14 
stone. 
Weight of kit, &c. 
taken at 56 lbs. 
Only two kits are 
allowed. 
But it is urged, if greater mobility is required to be given to field batteries, 
it would be far better to increase the horse artillery than have recourse to 
a make-shift and inefficient plan for carrying gun detachments. This is 
unanswerable; and it is much to be regretted that no considerable increase 
has yet been made to this arm of tire service. It is, however, manifest that 
the proportion of field artillery to other arms of the service will in future be 
so large, that a considerable portion of it must, under the most favourable 
circumstances, remain field batteries. It seems absolutely necessary, there¬ 
fore, that some plan should be adopted and recognised by which they could 
attain a certain degree of mobility. 
It is again urged, if field batteries are put on this proposed footing, they 
may be required to act as horse artillery, and a rivalry would be engendered 
between the two branches detrimental to the service. The mobility of the 
two differs so widely, both in degree and character, that it is difficult to 
understand the grounds on which such a result is expected. 
Moreover, it is considered by the best authorities the field batteries will 
in future be armed with a still heavier gun. This increased weight, together 
with the make-shift plan of carrying their detachments, would quite preclude 
the possibility of their attaining mobility by which they could at all simulate 
the present rapid manoeuvring of horse artillery. 
If, therefore, their special requirements are impartially considered and 
defined with more modernised views than hitherto, their mobility might be 
increased without risk of interfering with the distinctions that exist between 
the two branches of field artillery. 
The well-established superiority of the horse artillery over that of other 
powers is indisputable; but many changes are needed to place the field 
batteries even on an equality with those of continental armies. 
