113 
APPENDIX A 
OF 
PROPOSED LIMBER SYSTEM FOR FIELD ARTILLERY. 
by 
MAJOR W. B. E. ELLIS, B.A. 
Should it ever come to pass that, by the adoption of a thoroughly 
efficient organisation, the transport train should no longer be the 
“ drag ” on all military movement, it is most desirable that modern 
light artillery be not then saddled with the name of impedimenta; 
and as some objections have been made against the experimental 
limber on account of the extra number of rounds it would carry, it Modiflca- 
may be that this limber would be improved were each box to contain gSpro-" 
3 complete rounds less than has been proposed. This would still give posa1, 
24 rounds per box, or 48 rounds per limber, or 12 more per gun than 
at present. The total number of rounds in a subdivision, with a gun 
limber and two other similar limbers (including the 4 rounds in the 
axletree boxes) would then be 148, or the same number of rounds as 
are now carried in a subdivision of the 9-pr. service equipment. By 
such a modification of the limber proposal it is believed that a saving 
of about J cwt. could be made in the total weight of the experimental 
limber, packed complete, owing to the elimination of the 6 rounds of 
ammunition, and the consequent smaller size of the 2 limber boxes, 
which could then be made much shallower. These boxes having been 
made in 1876, great improvements could naturally now be made, both 
as to their construction and in the materials used. The experimental 
limbers would then weigh only about 1J cwt. more than the service 
limbers when completely packed, but they would have 12 more rounds 
with them. Two experimental limbers would weigh 5^ cwt. less than 
a service wagon, while conveying 12 rounds less. The total number 
of rounds, however, in a subdivision would be the same on either plan, 
while the superior mobility and perfect interchangeability of the limber 
system will be patent to everyone. For active service in Afghanistan 
or in Central Asia the limbers would be found very handy. A limber Limber 
system would, in fact, give us a light artillery possessed of much vantag'ebM 
mobility, besides other advantages, not the least of which would be f^diStlnT 
the very much smaller number of horses that would be necessary as and sterile 
compared to the requirements of horse artillery. Not only would this coun nes ’ 
be a direct saving, which might be applied to putting more guns in the 
field, but in operations in sterile or barren countries, or beyond sea, 
and far from our base, the strain on the commissariat and transport 
departments would be very considerably diminished. 
