THE ROYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
291 
fore lie regarded 120 rounds as the very lowest provision that could prudently 
be allowed for each gun; even that would only give them' enough for five 
hours' engagement on one day and leave but 20 for the operations of the 
next. Some batteries in a division might fire more rounds, and some less, 
than others, in which case they could replace one another as they had oppor¬ 
tunity; but he thought 120 rounds per gun was the very lowest supply 
which would give the artillery sufficient fighting power. If the question at 
issue was a choice between a 12-pr. (muzzle-loading) and the new 16-pr., 
supposing they had equal initial velocities, he should say that the 12-pr. was 
quite effective enough against such obstacles as are met with in ordinary 
field engagements. For his own part, he would rather go through a cam¬ 
paign with the 12-pr. and 124 rounds per gun than with the 16-pr. and 
any less number per gun. (Applause.) 
Lieut.-Colonel R. Biddtjlpij, R.A., observed that in discussing the number 
of rounds to be carried with a gun, the number in the limber should be 
borne in mind instead of in the wagons, for it was just as easy to bring up 
two wagons as one when a gun required more ammunition. Colonel Miller 
had referred to the fact that at Balaclava “ I " Troop of Royal Horse 
Artillery fired oidy 48 rounds. That was true, but the explanation was that 
the guns had to cease firing for want of ammunition, having expended all 
that they carried in the limber boxes. It was the only case of the kind with 
which he was acquainted, and arose from the horse artillery having been im¬ 
properly retained in action when the field batteries should have been engaged. 
He saw from the figures in the table before them that our horse artillery 
was, with respect to the number of rounds per gun, in a worse position 
than any on the continent, and he hoped that they might at least adopt 
some plan of carrying more rounds in the limbers; horse artillery being 
much more liable to get separated from its wagons than field batteries. 
Our old 9-pr. used to carry 32 rounds in the limber and 96 in the wagons, 
making 128 in all—oidy 2 rounds worse than the present 12-pr. For field 
batteries he thought 32 rounds in the limber would be sufficient. (Applause.) 
Major-General Leeroy said that Colonel Miller, in his enquiry as to the 
number of rounds liable to be expended in a single engagement, had, he 
thought, overlooked one source of information—the Report of the Committee 
of Revision in 1819, which in calculating the ammunition “ required to 
sustain an action of some duration," reckoned 166 rounds for the 9-pr. gun, 
144 rounds for the 24-pr. howitzer, and a great deal more for the Royal 
Horse Artillery—namely, 223 per 6-pr. gun and 236 per 12-pr. howitzer, 
ile wished also to point out what he considered a slight error in Colonel 
Miller's figures; for in taking the average expenditure of ammunition in 
certain cases, he appeared simply to have divided the total consumption per 
battery by six, the number of guns; whereas it should be remembered that 
the guns usually expended considerably more than the howitzers. Thus at 
Inkermann the expenditure of gun ammunition of “E" Battery was 369 
rounds, or 92 per gun, and of howitzer ammunition 183 rounds, or only 
67 per howitzer, and these quantities were not exceeded in any of the engage¬ 
ments of the Crimean war. The distinction of guns and howitzers no longer 
exists, and all future provision must be on the higher scale for guns. 
Lieut.-Colonel Miller said he had a table in his hand which furnished 
the exact figures he had quoted, showing the total in the last column. 
