168 
MINUTES of proceedings of 
This table shows that even at 1700 yds. it would be quite useless to fire 
at a column 45 yds. deep, unless the range were known to within 100 
yds., as only 1^ per cent, of the projectiles would act if the error were so great 
as this. 
Eleven per cent, of the projectiles will tell up to 2800 yds., provided the 
distance be known to within 50 yds. At 3300 yds., to produce the same effect, 
the distance must be known to within 30 yds. 
French guns of position produce much better results than their field-pieces, 
when firing against lines of troops, if the range be moderately well known; 
worse (actually, not comparatively) when there is a considerable error 
(100 yds.) in the range. 
Reducing the error of the tangent scale 
from 100 yds. to 50 yds., and losing 
1 minute in so doing. 
1 
If the battery 
is 2 minutes 
in action. 
If the battery 
is 5 minutes 
in action. 
If the battery 
is 10 minutes 
in action. 
Firing at a Company. 900 
Is of no use. 
Is useful. 
Increases des. 
effect 50 per 
cent. 
,, // 1100 
Is of no use. 
Is veryuseful. 
Doubles des. 
effect. 
a n 1300 
Is veryuseful. 
Doubles des. 
effect. 
Quadruples 
des. effect. 
„ « 1700 
Columns 45 yds. deep .1700 
Doubles des. 
effect. 
Quadruples 
des. effect. 
Increases five¬ 
fold des.effect. 
Increases 
seven-fold 
des. effect. 
Six-fold. 
At 1700 yds. range, three French guns of position, firing at a company in 
line, with errors of 0, 50, and 100 yds. respectively, would produce results in 
the proportions of 80, 25, and 1. 
The above reasoning is based upon data supplied by the French field guns. 
It may be asked, How would the use of other and more precise pieces modify 
the above conclusions? 
In point of accuracy, I believe the French guns to stand at the bottom of 
the scale, then follows the Austrian muzzle-loader, then the new muzzle-loading 
9-pr., then the 12-pr. Armstrong breech-loading gun, and at the top, the 
Prussian or Russian Krupp^s breech-loader. 
The question arises, Which requires a range-finder the more, an accurate 
or an inaccurate gun? I think a good deal might be said on both sides. 
The latter, owing to its greater distribution of fire, will actually hit the target 
oftener than the former, when there is a certain relation between the average 
variation in the range of the gun and the error made in estimating the range; 
while, on the other hand, the more accurate the gun, the easier is it for 
an observer to correct the range by trial shots. 
Now comes the question of how nearly the range can be found by trial 
shots; and upon this point there still lies considerable room for investigation. 
