238 
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF 
scale—* a fortiori, it would be unsuitable for our comparatively small 
army, with the constant obligation of being prepared for war on a small 
scale under the most variable circumstances. To inflict upon our army 
such an artillery organisation, would produce the same results, probably, 
as would ensue from arming a dwarf with the club of a Hercules, 
forgetting the lesson learned by us in the nursery that dwarfs can only 
cope successfully with giants by superior ingenuity and skilfulness. 
I propose that the men, horses, and materiel should be divided into 
three groups or divisions, with the head-quarters of each stationed 
permanently in England. The specialite of field artillery seems to call 
for a further sub-organisation. That the present brigades of artillery 
are unsuited to active service, seems to be admitted by authority; as in a 
foot note to page 13 “Artillery Equipment Kegulations,” we read “Eor 
administrative purposes, the entire regiment is divided into brigades, 
containing seven or eight batteries each. Acomplete brigade would never 
be sent into the field, unless it happened to contain the right proportion of 
men for the ordnance employed.” Now, from the wording of this, the 
brigade organisation does not take its stand as being purely and simply 
administrative, or purely and simply tactical; that unfortunate word 
“ unless ” seems to deprive it of any definite standing ground. The 
present brigade is therefore evidently not of much value as a unit of 
any kind. We may gather from Captain May's criticism of the Prussian 
artillery tactics of 1866, and their performances since, that, setting all 
due value upon the independence lately conceded to single batteries in 
our service, the battery is too small a tactical unit wherewith to ensure 
concentration of artillery fire—which I take to be as absolute a necessity 
as concentration of musketry fire. At the same time, we must beware 
of an organisation which would bind more batteries together than would 
be suitable to the daily requirements of the English army ; (I say English, 
for the reasons stated at the beginning of my lecture). I therefore pro¬ 
pose as a tactical unit for field artillery, the complement laid down by 
regulation for a division of the army—viz. 2 batteries; and to form them 
into a permanent brigade under a lieutenant-colonel. I do not think 
that this will by any means be detrimental to the greatest freedom of a 
battery acting independently when occasion requires it. In nearly any 
country you could ensure concentrating within reasonable distance two 
batteries of six guns ; for although you will doubtless acquit me of such 
a confusion of ideas as to consider concentration of fire and concentration 
of guns to be identical, yet, in order to direct a concentration of fire 
amidst the turmoil of a battle-field, there is a natural limit beyond which 
extension would be inconvenient. The corps or reserve artillery, under 
the command of a colonel, would be made up of so many of these brigades 
as might be proportionate to the strength of the corps d?armee and the 
physical character of the theatre of operations; and it would doubtless 
prove easier for the colonel to gather up his guns for a grand coup 
formed into these brigades than by single batteries unaccustomed to work 
together. The artillery of a corjps d?armee would thus be organised :— 
One brigade of artillery for each division, under a lieut.-colonel, whose 
* And it is corroborated bj the concluding words in the passage which I quoted from Col. Ouvry’s 
translation. 
