THE ROYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
85 
“ The 9-pi\, as regards practice, is in no way inferior to the 15-pr.; 
but it is obvious that an individual 15-pr. projectile must do greater 
damage on any fixed object which it may strike—such as a house, a 
wall, &c.—than the 9-pr. For this reason, to cannonade such an object 
the 15-pr. would be preferable; whilst against troops, generally speak¬ 
ing, the one calibre has no advantage over the other. The sole 
advantage of the 15-pr. is the greater moral effect it has under certain 
circumstances. The advantages the 9-pr. has over the 15-pr. consist 
chiefly in the larger supply of ammunition, whereby the former is more 
independent of its wagons; another advantage lies in the fact that its 
pace is faster, and can be longer kept up.”* 
Recent accounts from India seem to indicate the want of mobility 
of our 9-pr. M.L. for horse artillery—corresponding, so far as weight 
is concerned, with the Prussian 15-pr. The “ Times” military cor¬ 
respondent states, with regard to the manoeuvres at Murowlie, that 
“ General Tombs had given his men a very long day's march—near 
thirteen hours—with disastrous results to Sir William Hamilton's 
battery of horse artillery, of which four horses died of exhaustion 
within the next forty-eight hours. This battery had just been equipped 
with the new 9-pr. muzzle-loading bronze gun; and it is certainly an 
extremely unsatisfactory commencement to its working in this country, 
that on the very first occasion of its being subjected to a really hard 
trial, the horses should suffer so much.” 
This may or may not be exaggerated, but I think we should all 
agree with the maxim of Marshal Marmont, mentioned by Lieut. 
H. W. L. Hime, R.A., in his recent valuable papers on the “ Mobility 
of Field Artillery :”—“ Le premier merite de 1'artillerie apres la bra- 
vourie des canoniers et la justesse du tir, c'est la mobilite.” 
At the conclusion of the reading— 
Major-General Sir E. C. Warde invited the audience generally to discuss the 
several questions in connection with the subject of flat trajectories which had been 
dealt with during the lecture. 
Captain Maitland, R.A., said the lecturer had spoken of the bursting charge 
of the 3’3-in. shell as being -foz. more than that of the 3’6-in. It appeared to 
him that the weight of the bursting charge must depend in a great measure on 
the thickness of the walls of the shell. 
Captain Sladen said be had spoken of the bursting charge of a 3’3-in. shell as 
it had been .measured by the Committee. He had referred to the statement of the 
Committee when they recommended the trial of the 3 3-in. gun; but an improve¬ 
ment had since been made in the capacity of the 3’6-in. shell, so that it now con¬ 
tained a slightly greater bursting charge than the 3’3-in. shell, both having the 
same thickness of wall. 
Major-General Sir E. C. Warde, having paused to ascertain if there was any 
* Vide “Field Gun for India,” by Colonel Maxwell, R.A., “Proceedings, R.A. Institution,” 
Vol. VI. p. 488. 
