THE ROYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
149 
teries; but those who advocate the abolition of horse artillery on the detach¬ 
ment system have to meet this difficulty : whatever system of carrying the 
gunners is adopted—limbers, axle-tree seats, trail, off horses—the weight of the 
gunners must be added, i.e. 7 or 8 cwt. Can it be maintained that this is a 
trifle? We know and see every day the difference that 5 cwt. makes to the 
horse artillery with the present gun. Whatever mobility may be attained 
without the mounted detachments, the detachments have always got the 7 or 
8 cwt. in hand, and it can be put on a more powerful gun, and an increased 
number of rounds in the limber. The extra weight, in fact, gives a margin 
within which the machine may be perfected, irrespective of any question of 
sufficient rapidity of movement; and although horse artillery on the detach¬ 
ment system is unnecessary and too costly for universal use, it cannot be 
dispensed with for certain most important purposes of war. 
The more the power of artillery is increased, the more it becomes necessary 
to give the arm a wider development on the field of battle. The particular gun 
which combines best the somewhat conflicting requisites of power, accurate 
shooting, capacity of shell, number of rounds carried, and lightness, must 
always be a difficult question, but whatever gun is selected, mounted detach¬ 
ments separate from the gun must always give a power of moving further and 
faster. 
I contend for the greatest freedom of movement, and the utmost rapidity 
possible over long distances; but the actual moving under fire, and into posi¬ 
tion, should be done with deliberation, in order that there should be the least 
possible exposure of men and horses. Every fold and dip of the ground 
must be taken advantage of—not of course pedantically, and to the sacrifice 
of valuable time, but with an eye to the easiest and most sheltered line of ad¬ 
vance. Positions should be well reconnoitred beforehand, and the very best 
spot for each gun carefully chosen, that there may be no further movement 
afterwards. A few minutes given to the choice of a position may save a battery 
from annihilation. 
What are the best positions for guns, and how is the greatest effect of fire 
to be obtained ? It is a popular notion that guns should always be on the 
tops of hills, and never far removed from the other arms. Thus we see, over 
and over again, at field days, guns placed on steep contracted knolls, with no 
single advantage, six guns placed where there is properly not room for two, 
limbers and horses jammed up together, so that a single shell would create 
a panic. We see also unseemly contests for room between artillery and 
infantry. A little consideration will show that rifled guns have given 
artillery a new zone, so to speak, behind and on the flanks of the other 
arms, in which it is entirely unhampered and free to select any ground. 
Assuming infantry fire to be effective at 900 yds., artillery has a zone nearly 
a mile wide, in which it has nothing to interfere with it, and it must not be 
forgotten that, even when exposed to attack, it may be defended by the 
flanking fire of other guns and of infantry at considerable ranges, and may be 
as safely placed as in actual contact with the infantry. To illustrate what I 
mean, 1 will cite a recent field day :—A supposed enemy, coming from the 
north, had driven the division from Miles Hill, and the south bank of the 
canal. A new position was taken up, and a brigade of infantry and several 
batteries occupied Long ITill. Surely the slopes immediately below Csesar's 
Camp would have afforded an admirable and safe position for some guns. 
