THE EOYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
281 
“ Wagons have to go where guns go ; they get the worst drivers, the worst horses, 
and are allowed a smaller number of them, and yet their weights are in each case 
Jrd more. It will be objected that this is including the men (mounted) ; so it is, 
but removing the men’s weight throughout, we still find that the horse artillery 
wagon exceeds the weight of gun by ith of the gun’s weight. 
“ The battery wagon exceeds the weight of its gun by ^th the gun’s weight. 
“ At present the gunners in a field battery must be carried on the wagon, when 
moving at any pace exceeding a walk from one position to another; and 9 cwt. per 
horse is more than we find they can manage. In China the wagons of Armstrong 
batteries stuck in the mud, and the wagon bodies had to be detached from the 
limbers, and left till next day; fortunately the limbers carried all the ammunition 
that was required at “Sinho;” but this was a terrible mess for a field battery to 
be in, and we should have heard more of it, if enterprising Uhlans or Cossacks 
had been hovering on our wake. I think the weight of the wagons, either in horse 
artillery or field batteries should not exceed the weight of the gun (in neither case 
including the weight of men.)” 
The weights behind gun team given by Major Stirling for the 9-pr. 
and 12-pr. Armstrong include the weight of two men mounted and 
their kits : but in Table III. which I have prepared from various sources 
(principally from the Report of the Indian Gun Committee, and Captain 
Majendie’s Report on his official visit to Belgium), the weights behind 
gun team in no case include the weight of the men. The table shows 
at a glance, the nature and weights of guns used by various continental 
powers in comparison with our own. 
Thus, the weight of the 9-pr. muzzle-loading gun for the R.H.A. 
behind team is 35 cwt., i.e., nearly 3J cwt. heavier than the 9-pr. 
Armstrong and 4J cwt. heavier than the Prussian horse artillery gun; 
and the gun itself (8 cwt.) more nearly coincides in weight with the 
present 12-pr. breech-loader and with the Prussian 15-pr. (canon de 
6 raye) ; so that it is nearly the same in weight as the heaviest field 
battery gun in the Prussian service, and therefore more adapted, so 
far as weight is concerned, for field batteries than for horse artillery 
generally. 
And here I would notice briefly that the capabilities of different guns 
should be measured by their weights, or rather by the weights of the 
gun and carriage, than by the weight of the projectile they throw. It 
is all the same, so far a£ the weight of the gun is concerned, whether a 
heavy projectile is fired with a low charge, or a light projectile with a 
heavy charge. It is no great wonder for an 8 cwt. gun to shoot better 
than a 6J cwt. gun; therefore it is not fair to compare the 9-pr. muzzle- 
loader with the 9-pr. breech-loader, but it should be compared with 
the 8 cwt. 12-pr. breech-loader, which has been done by a Special 
Committee on Muzzle-loading and Breech-loading Field Guns who 
repgrted on the 25th of last November “ that judging from the results 
of practice in the hands of the troops at Aldershot, the 9-pr. muzzle¬ 
loading and the 12-pr. breech-loading guns appear in respect to shooting 
to be much on a par. In conclusion the Committee cannot refrain 
from expressing their opinion that the present 9-pr. breech-loading gun 
of 6 cwt. is not an efficient weapon for horse artillery/'’ 
Now it is a question I believe with officers whether the present weight 
